Empowering Moms to Make Healthier Choices

By Mike Casey

When Dotty Hagmier began having children, her life changed of course—but not always for the better.

It seemed that somebody was always sick in their house. Her first child would catch a cold and spread it around. Her second child came down with respiratory problems, and her third child was constantly on antibiotics. “We were on a sick cycle,” Hagmier said.

Not only that by she noticed that her immune system was dangerously low and she was tired all the time. Finally, “I decided this had to stop."

Today, Hagmier is the founder and president of Moms in Charge, a non-profit organization in Aliso Viejo focused on empowering and educating moms on the facts about food, chemicals and environment, and implementing changes in the way moms think and are able to provide healthier choices for their children.

“Our main focus is empowering moms to raise healthy and vibrant kids,” said Hagmier, who launched the operation last September in an organic garden. “A lot of times we are so focused on our children, and that’s great, but a lot of time we don’t make time for our own health. I’m from the south. Our motto is ‘If mama ain’t healthy, nobody is healthy.’”

This Saturday, Moms in Charge will host its first-ever event, A Day for M.E. (mom empowerment), from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the Costa Mesa Hilton, Pacific Room, with an evening event from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Registration is available online by visiting www.adayformeconference.com, or on the day of the event, beginning at 8 a.m.
“I wanted to reach out to as many moms as possible so for an entire day they could let themselves have one single day to learn about things that could make them healthier, to boost health and wellness for themselves and their families, and just have fun and win a lot of prizes,” Hagmier said.

To that end, attendees will have a chance to win a Spa Day at the Montage Resort in Laguna Beach, an iPad and much more. 

A Day for M.E. features an impressive lineup of professional speakers including Dr. Christy Westen of Simply Vibrant, a leader in treating the body holistically for total wellness; Renata Wood of OC Body Talk, focusing on women’s health and confidence; and musician Mark Romero.

The keynote speaker will be Joe Cross, creator of the documentary Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead.

“After several years of eating the worst possible foods and bringing myself to near death, I decided it was time to stop and do something about my health,” said the film maker and producer. “Children learn life patterns from home, and Moms in Charge is equipping women to take control of their health and their homes.”

In addition, local raw and vegan/organic chefs Jenny Ross of 118 Degrees and Julia Corbett of Diviana Alchemy will be conducting food demos to help moms implement those principles into their daily lives.

Moms in Charge has about 50 monthly members, but the real impact of the organization will be felt through its new website, which will be launched this week, and through its events and teleconference calls so it can reach moms throughout and beyond Southern California.
Currently, Moms in Charge has nearly 1,300 Facebook followers.

“Our plan is to branch out all over the country so we can bring more awareness about what we are putting in our body, on our skin and in our environment on how we can control the toxins,” said Hagmier, who works as an RN and nutritionist.

“For our family it’s been a 180 degree transformation. My son is well and our kids (now age 3, 5 and 7) are never. Before I was trying to survive and figure out how to get my next nap and keep up with their energy. Now I’m running Moms in Charge and living a healthy, vibrant life. It has been amazing.”

But Dotty admits that because of our culture and our standard American diet, it’s oftentimes difficult to change our family's diet. She just wants moms to be better informed to make healthier choices.

“Just the little things can change our entire health,” she said. “We teach making one small step at a time, because our journey to health is just that, a journey.”

For more information on Moms in Charge, visit: www.momsincharge.org. To register for Saturday’s event go to www.adayformeconference.com.

Via: http://alisoviejo.patch.com/articles/empowering-moms-to-make-healthier-choices

New Report: California Non-Profit Hospitals Save Billions While Providing Little Charity Care in Return

Private, not-for-profit hospitals, which dominate the California hospital landscape, rack up tax exemption benefits of close to $2 billion a year beyond what they return to communities in charity care, according to a new report released today.

The report by the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, research arm of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United, was presented today in a Sacramento hearing of a special California Senate Select Committee on Charity Care and Nonprofit Hospitals chaired by State Sen. Ellen Corbett. CNA is calling on state officials to pass legislation to rein in the abuses.

Several of the state’s biggest and best known hospitals, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Stanford University Hospital, and Sutter Health’s California Pacific Medical Center and Alta Bates Medical Center, have the worst records, the report found, in providing charity care relative to the government subsidies they receive in favorable tax benefits.

Key findings of the report (available upon request) are:

* California private, not-for-profit hospitals reaped more than $1.8 billion in government subsidies and benefits from their tax exempt status beyond what they provided in charity care in 2010, the most recent year for which the data was publicly available.

* Kaiser Permanente and Sutter Health dwarfed the other large hospital chains in tax benefits compared to provision of charity care, together comprising over 45 percent of the total tax benefits for all California non-profits. Both were also near the bottom in percentage of charity care they provide relative to their profits.

* Economically struggling California counties and cities lose more than $1 billion as a result of the tax exemption of non-profit hospitals, and what the counties pay directly to hospitals in their geographic area to provide hospital care for the poor.

* Half of California non-profit hospitals provide 2.46 percent or less of their operating expenses on charity care, a figure well below what was once the federal standard under which hospitals would lose their tax-exempt status if falling below 5 percent of gross revenues spent on charity care.

* Three-fourths of California non-profit hospitals harvest tax benefits in excess of what they return to communities in charity care.

* Despite their image as not-for-profit institutions, the private, non-profit hospitals, especially the giant chains, are accumulating huge profits, some $4.5 billion in 2010 alone. Kaiser and Sutter alone accounted for nearly half that total.

* California non-profit hospitals are paying lavish salaries and pay packages to top executives. In 2010, 100 top executives at California non-profits received over $1 million in total compensation. Sutter, with 28 executives in the millionaire’s club, and Kaiser accounted for 45 of the 100. Kaiser CEO George Halvorson won the gold medal with a pay package of $7.7 million.

* While providing scant levels of charity care and amassing huge profits, many of the non-profit hospitals and systems have also engaged in controversial pricing practices as well as sharply cutting patient services they deem insufficiently profitable.

CNA Policy Director Michael Lighty, who presented the nurses report, said CNA is calling on the state to enact legislation that would:

* Establish a mandatory minimum level of charity care all hospitals must meet to maintain eligibility for tax-exempt status. CNA proposes a charity threshold of 8 percent of combined operating and non-operating (mostly non healthcare related investments) revenues, a percentage recommended by the Illinois Attorney General in 2006.

* Require hospitals to meet the charity threshold to qualify for tax-exempt bonds.

* Clearly define what constitutes charity care, which must be direct provision of care, not promotional activities or cost containment (interpreted by many hospitals as cutting services), as are currently within the guidelines of “community benefit.”

* Improve reporting requirements for greater public transparency in how hospitals are meeting their charity care obligation, with rigorous financial penalties for hospitals that fail to meet reporting requirements.

State Auditor: ‘It’s like the Wild West of What is Required’

The IHSP/CNA report follows the release last week of another report on non-profit hospitals by the California State Auditor. Speaking at the hearing, Grant Parks, Principal Auditor of the Auditor’s Office, noted that “state law does not require specific amounts of community benefit to justify (hospital’s) tax exempt status.” Further “state law is fairly permissive on what can be counted as community benefit…It’s like the Wild West of what is required,” said Parks.

State Board of Equalization member Betty Yee raised eyebrows across the room, which was filled with CNA members in red, when she noted that many non-profit hospitals actually provide “significantly less” charity care than do for-profit hospitals.

Ellen Shaffer, director of the EQUAL Health Network, a project of the Center for Policy Analysis, noted that, unlike California, 11 states can suspend tax exempt status, Texas and Alabama require specific thresholds for how much charity care a non-profit must provide, and Indiana, Maryland, and Texas levy civil penalties for late filings of reports – all of which are well beyond what California requires.

Lighty emphasized the disparity in what the non-profit hospitals provide, and cited an example from the Auditor’s report. The Auditor cited Sutter’s California Pacific Medical Center and found that the level of charity care as a percentage of profits was 17 percent for CPMC’s St. Luke’s Hospital, which serves a working class and low income community, compared to just 4 percent for CPMC other facilities that cater to wealthier neighborhoods.

Same city, San Francisco, same hospital system, great disparity, Lighty noted. If a level playing field is not established, those hospitals serving lower income communities and doing more to meet their obligation will be the ones most in danger of closing, just as Sutter/CPMC has been trying to do with St. Luke’s

In urging the state to enact legislation, CNA Co-President DeAnn McEwen, RN, said “the provision of uncompensated or ‘charity care’ is inherent in the social contract and the provision of charity care is an essential component of the community safety net.”

It is time, she said, “that private hospitals and multispecialty clinics operated by nonprofit corporations actually meet the social obligations for which they receive favorable tax treatment and patients receive the care they need.”

The IHSP report examined 196 California not-for-profit hospitals that are presently required to provide community benefit plans. IHSP arrived at the finding of $1.8 billion in excess by subtracting the total charity care profited for the 196 hospitals from the benefits they received in exemption from federal and state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and benefits from qualifying for tax-exempt bonds and charitable donations.

Data sources include IRS 990 filings, reports to the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), and other public sources.

via Beyond Chron 

New Report Shows Total State Budget Debt Exceeds $4 Trillion

 ALEXANDRIA, Va., Aug. 28, 2012 -- California Leads Nation In Debt

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Aug. 28, 2012 -- Today, State Budget Solutions (SBS), a nonprofit organization advocating for fundamental reform of state budgets, released its third annual state debt report revealing that aggregated debt across the 50 states exceeds $4.19 trillion. SBS's report, which takes into account all explicit state debt and future spending obligations, found that California had the largest debt with more than $617 billion and Vermont, North Dakota and South Dakota were among the states with the smallest debt.

"These budget numbers should serve as a wake up call for every state legislature around the country. Our states are in trouble and no amount of budget gimmicks, political posturing or hiding bills will fix the massive debt that they face," said Bob Williams, President of State Budget Solutions. "There is no option for status quo or incremental adjustments. Drastic reforms, innovations and political courage are needed to put our states back on the road to fiscal survival." 

SBS's report showed that total state debt fell slightly when compared to last year's report, from $4.24 trillion to $4.19 trillion. The decrease is attributable to reductions in unemployment trust fund loan and fiscal year budget gap totals. Market-valued unfunded public pension liabilities made up more than half of all state debt at $2.8 trillion. Regular outstanding debt and other post employment benefit liabilities each contribute around $600 billion to total debt.

The states with the five largest debts remained unchanged from last year's report, although New York and Texas moved up one and two spots, respectively. Overall, California leads the nation with largest total debt followed by New York ($300 billion), Texas ($286 billion), New Jersey ($282 billion), and Illinois ($271 billion), respectively. States with the lowest debt were Vermont ($5.8 billion), North Dakota ($6.1 billion), South Dakota ($6.5 billion), Wyoming ($6.9 billion) and Nebraska ($7.8 billion).

 State Budget Solutions calculated each state's debt amount using each state's regular debt, FY2013 budget gap, outstanding unemployment trust fund loans, unfunded other post employment benefit liabilities, and the state's unfunded pension liability.

"The time for action is now. State Budget Solutions urges state legislator to take responsibility for their own state's deficit and begin implementing real solutions to fixing this growing problem," said Williams.

To view the full report click here.

To read Bob Williams full bio click here.

About State Budget Solutions

The State Budget Solutions Project is non-partisan, positive, pro-reform, proactive and anchored in fundamental-systemic solutions. The goal is to successfully engage political journalists/bloggers, state officials and opinion leaders in a new way of thinking about state government and budgets, fundamental reforms, transparency and accountability. Sharing studies and articles, data sets, anecdotes, and compelling narrative about what is happening in state and local budgets, The State Budget Solutions Project presents and disseminates information about every aspect of coming fiscal and economic disasters and, more importantly, highlights fundamental reforms to avoid them.

Check out StateBudgetSolutions.org for more information.

SOURCE State Budget Solutions 

via Sac Bee

more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/28/4763826/new-report-shows-total-state-budget.html#storylink=cpy

L.A. County to focus funds on chronically homeless

By Alexandra Zavis, Los Angeles Times

 

August 15, 2012, 6:59 p.m.

Los Angeles County's most entrenched street dwellers make up just a quarter of its roughly 51,000 homeless people. But studies have found they account for a disproportionate share of public spending, including on hospital emergency rooms and jails.

On Thursday, public officials and private donors will announce that they are spending $105 million to move more than a thousand of the most chronic cases into permanent housing, part of a sweeping change in the way the county deals with homelessness.

"There's a momentum that has been building in Los Angeles to change the paradigm of how we address homelessness," said county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. "We are spending tens of millions of dollars a year ... but I think what is clear is that we haven't intelligently invested that money in the past. What we want to do is a more intelligent way to invest in the homeless, not to have temporary solutions."

The shift to target the chronically homeless means more resources will go to people who have lived on the streets for at least a year and suffer from a serious physical, mental or substance abuse problem.

But some emergency housing providers complain that there will be less money to assist families, youths and others who may need only temporary shelter.

"My concern is by focusing all the resources on the few, we are leaving the many out in the cold," said the Rev. Andy Bales, who heads the Union Rescue Mission on L.A.'s skid row.
Officials have been talking for years about a greater focus on the chronically homeless. But the $105 million — which combines public money already set aside to assist the homeless and low-income people with new donations from philanthropic and business groups — marks a major step in bringing it to fruition.

About $88 million will go toward rental subsidies for 587 people over 15 years. In addition to using existing housing, $8.6 million will be used to develop 218 new units. The rest will be used to provide for counseling, treatment and other services designed to keep people off the streets.

The marshaling of money is the most concrete product yet of an ambitious plan launched by business and philanthropic leaders nearly two years ago with the goal of ending long-term and veteran homelessness in the county by 2016.

The Home for Good plan, an initiative of United Way of Greater Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, proposed reallocating about $230 million in existing resources each year to pay for permanent supportive housing, which includes counseling and treatment to help keep people off the streets.

They hope additional money and resources will be dedicated to the effort in coming years.
The approach was pioneered locally by the county's much-talked about Project 50 experiment and similar initiatives around the region, which have been praised not only for ending homelessness for many participants but also for saving municipalities money.

A county study found that Project 50, which began in late 2007 with the goal of housing the 50 most vulnerable, long-term homeless people on skid row, more than paid for itself, yielding a net savings of $238,700 over two years by cutting shelter, medical and jail costs.
Proponents of the approach argue that it is all the more important to spend strategically at a time when the state and federal governments are scaling back spending on affordable housing.

Jerry Newman, who co-chairs the Home for Good initiative, said that by prioritizing the most hard-core homeless for housing, "you take out the most costly portion of the issue, which will free up greater resources in the future."

More than 100 community leaders and organizations — including the county Board of Supervisors, several cities and housing authorities — endorsed the Home for Good plan in its first year. In that period, more than 3,000 of the region's long-term homeless and homeless veterans were placed in supportive housing, according to a report released in February.

A collaborative of 24 public and private contributors was formed to make the process more efficient. Members of the business and philanthropic communities, including the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, committed $5 million to the effort, officials said. That money was then used to leverage $100 million in cash and services from the city and county of Los Angeles and from Pasadena.

In all, 30 nonprofits received awards ranging from $50,000 to $2.37 million to house the 1,018 people.

Maria Cabildo, president of East L.A. Community Corp., said her organization was able with a single application to secure a grant of $2.3 million from the Los Angeles Housing Department to help build homes for 32 chronically homeless veterans in Boyle Heights and more than $6 million in subsidies through the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles to help cover their rents in the coming years. 

With that support, the organization could break ground as soon as January, shaving at least a year off what can be a complicated and time-consuming process, Cabildo said.
alexandra.zavis@latimes.com

via LATIMES

YOUTH AND EDUCATION: State students score well on national test

More California students are taking and performing well on a national test that assesses college and career readiness ---- and scoring significantly higher than the national average, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson announced this week.

The ACT exam is a curriculum-based measure of college readiness of high school seniors in English, mathematics, reading and science. It also includes an optional writing test.

According to an annual report released by the organization that administers the  exam, 103,000 California students took the exam in 2012, up 4,000 from 2011, and 31,000 from 2008.

According to ACT, students reaching a minimum benchmark score ---- which varies by subject ---- have a 50 percent chance of obtaining a B grade or higher in the corresponding college course.

For 2012, California students' scores were significantly higher than the national averages in all four subject areas and about 31 percent of California high school graduates who took the ACT met all four of the benchmarks, compared to 25 percent nationally.
For national statistics, visit www.actstudent.org.

California's data by school will be posted on the California Department of Education's website when the data become available.

AB 109 Assitance, Fontana, CA

AB 109 has impacted every community in the State of California by transferring the burden of care for prison releases from the state to the local communities. In response to this, the Fontana Police Department has recently started an AB 109 Support Team which will focus on providing resources to the newly released inmates with the goal of rehabilitation and a reduction in recidivism.

AB 109 release individuals need access to several resources including, but not limited to:
Workforce/Job Development, agencies willing to work with convicted felons, temporary
housing, food, medical benefits, drug abuse/alcohol counseling, and many more. It is imperative that these individuals be given access to these types of resources early on because delayed access can result in new crimes being committed and the failure of their reintegration into society.

We are going to hold orientation meetings every 2nd and 4th Monday of every month, from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM, where vendors and community assistance program personnel can send representatives to meet with this at risk population and provide their much needed services. The first meeting is going to be September 10th at 16779 Spring St in the City of Fontana.

Thank you in advance for your participation and willingness to provide services to these men and women who do desperately need your assistance. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the Fontana Police Department’s AB 109 Support Team please call or email Officer Ferreira or Officer Weiske at:

Officer Ferreira                   Officer Weiske
909-350-7759                     909-356-7157
jferreira@fontana.org         nweiske@fontana.org

Proposition 37 in California: A high-stakes food fight

By Dana Hull

dhull@mercurynews.com

California's crowded November ballot includes white-hot measures to raise taxes, amend the state's Three Strikes Law and repeal the death penalty. But a once-obscure measure requiring labels on genetically engineered food is quickly emerging as one of the most expensive, high-stakes showdowns on the 11-measure ballot.

If Proposition 37 passes, California would become the first state in the nation to require new labels on a host of food products commonly found on grocery store shelves, from breakfast cereals to sodas to tofu.

Proponents, largely big natural food companies and consumers who are passionate about organic food, have raised $2.8 million as of Thursday, according to campaign finance records filed with the California Secretary of State's Office. Scores of individuals have made $100 donations, but most of the money is coming from organic businesses such as Lundberg Family Farms, Nature's Path Foods and Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps. A company owned by Joseph Mercola, a controversial holistic health activist from Illinois with more than 100,000 Twitter followers, has kicked in $800,000.

Opponents have raised more than nine times as much. Almost all of the nearly $25 million has come from a variety of chemical, seed and processed-food companies, including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestle, PepsiCo and DuPont Pioneer. St. Louis-based Monsanto, a leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, donated $4.2 million, the largest donation.


"This one snuck up on everyone," said Bob Stern, a California campaign finance expert. "No one was paying attention, and all of a sudden proponents turned in their signatures. It takes a lot of money to get something on the ballot, but once it's on the ballot it takes a lot of money to defeat it."


Stern noted that in 2008, California passed Proposition 2 -- which prohibits the close confinement of farm animals like chickens in crates -- with 63.5 percent of the vote. He sees similarities with Proposition 37, saying both are "feel-good" initiatives.

Spending on Proposition 2 was roughly equal. Supporters spent $10.6 million, opponents $8.9 million.
"Usually on controversial measures, if the no side outspends the yes side, the no side wins," Stern said. "But this one will be hard to defeat because there is so much support for the idea. People say: 'What's wrong with having more information about my food?' The opposition has to show why it's not necessary, and they will have to spend $20, $30, maybe $40 million."

Genetic engineering is the process of changing the DNA of living organisms; it is often used to improve a plant's resistance to pests. According to some estimates, 40 to 70 percent of food products sold in grocery stores in California contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The labeling initiative largely covers processed foods that contain such ingredients, but there are exemptions for alcohol and restaurant meals. Milk, cheese and other dairy products made from cows that are injected with the bovine growth hormone or eat genetically engineered feed like alfalfa would be exempt, but meat or dairy products from animals that are genetically engineered would be labeled.

Many other nations, including Japan, China and a host of European countries, already label genetically engineered food. In the United States, however, products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are generally not labeled. But many organic growers and food companies voluntarily label their products with a seal verifying that their foods do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

The federal Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for protecting public health by assuring the safety of the nation's food supply, takes the position that genetically engineered food doesn't present greater safety concerns than food that isn't. Still, some consumers remain unconvinced.

"I have a right to know what's in my food, and this is a good start," said Chico resident Pamm Larry, 56, a former organic farmer who led the effort to get Proposition 37 on the ballot. "We have more than 2,000 volunteers statewide, and 80 percent are women. This issue really resonates with people."

In 2000, 25 percent of the corn planted in the United States was genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By 2012, that figure had soared to 88 percent.

Most corn is grown for feeding animals; the sweet corn eaten by consumers is less likely to be genetically engineered. Still, Monsanto's genetically modified sweet corn will soon be available at Walmart.

"Genetic engineering is not new," said Henry Miller, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution who was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. "It is wildly popular with farmers."

Opponents say the labeling requirement implies that there is something inherently inferior or harmful about genetically engineered ingredients and will just confuse consumers. They also argue that it will raise food prices and harm the state's $38 billion agriculture industry.

"It will have a very wide impact on the economy, families, the agricultural community, grocery stores and food distributors," said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 37 coalition.

The group California Right to Know, which is leading the pro-labeling campaign, is counting on a vast social media network and volunteers to get its message out.

Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the yes campaign, said the campaign hopes to raise more money, but is prepared to be outspent. But she hopes that will work to the proponents' advantage.
"This," Malkan said, "is a people's movement against out-of-state corporations."


Via Mercury News

One Year In, Is California's Plan to Fix Its Prisons Working?

By californiareport.org

Governor Jerry Brown's plan to overhaul the state's criminal justice system, known as realignment, is redirecting thousands of low-level offenders from state prisons to county jails. Can this prison reform effort succeed where others have failed?

Governor Jerry Brown's plan to overhaul the state's criminal justice system, known as realignment, is redirecting thousands of low-level offenders from state prisons to county jails. This has partially eased prison overcrowding, but realignment has another goal: improving rehabilitation programs for the hardcore inmates who remain in state prisons. Currently 7 out of 10 ex-prisoners reoffend. Can this prison reform effort succeed where others have failed?

Images of California's prison overcrowding were iconic -- thousands of inmates living in bunk beds packed into gymnasiums and other improvised dorms. So its no surprise the mood was celebratory earlier this year when prisons chief Matthew Cate announced the removal of the last of these emergency beds at a prison near Tracy, calling it a great day for the California Department of Corrections.

Cate then showed off an empty gym. He declared California's embattled prison system was charting a new course. "I think it feels like the end of this era," Cates said, "where we felt comfortable just shoving inmates into the prison system and we didn't seem to care what happened after that. So I think it's the beginning of an era where we say we need to provide a program for those inmates who are going to join society one day."

That new era is detailed in a bold strategic plan that seeks to end federal court oversight and expand treatment programs. The problem is that previous efforts by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitaion, or CDDR, to reform the prison system have met obstacles or failed completely.

"CDCR has not had a history of being able to really marshal the kind of effort that this is going to take," said Joan Petersilia, a Stanford law professor and prominent criminologist.

During the Schwarzenegger administration, Petersilia helped design a model rehabilitation system to reverse decades of neglect in state prisons. The initiative was adopted by lawmakers and promoted by the corrections department in a 2008 video, highlighting expanded rehabilitation programs to improve public safety. But the plan never fully got off the ground amid the recession and budget cuts. Petersilia said the state's latest effort will have to overcome "monumental" challenges to be successful. "I'm not confident, but I'd like to be pleasantly surprised," said Petersilia.

Today, at Solano prison, 50 miles northeast of San Francisco, there are no signs of overcrowding on the main yards. But like 22 other state prisons, Solano is still operating above population limits set by federal courts. And the prison's education staff still hasn't recovered from state budget cuts. "We used to be a staff of 135, and now we're a staff of 32," said teacher Jenny Casner, "That was huge, big cuts."

Still, hundreds of inmates are busy in programs and prison jobs. There's a small facility where prisoners produce lenses for eyeglasses. And down the hill from the prison, dozens of inmates attend Solano's extensive substance abuse programs.

The men who lead the group are prisoners -- lifers. And that's not unusual. Since staff cutbacks, many programs are being run by inmates, like 47-year-old Cotton Jones. He said realignment has emboldened reformers inside the prison system to create more opportunities.

"Realignment is giving them not power but there's a mandate," said Jones, "and because there's a mandate now they get to say okay, because we know we have to let some people go, we have to do something to make them better. I've been in for two decades but at some point I'll be someone's neighbor."

Some inmates are pessimistic. 

Breaking the Addiction to Incarceration: Weekly Highlights

By Alex Stamm, ACLU Center for Justice at 1:39pm

Today, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. With over 2.3 million men and women living behind bars, our imprisonment rate is the highest it’s ever been in U.S. history. And yet, our criminal justice system has failed on every count: public safety, fairness and cost-effectiveness. Across the country, the criminal justice reform conversation is heating up. Each week, we feature our some of the most exciting and relevant news in overincarceration discourse that we’ve spotted from the previous week. Check back weekly for our top picks.

California High Court Rules that 110-year Sentence for Teenager is Unconstitutional
Rodrigo Caballero was 16 when he shot and wounded three rival gang members. He was convicted of three counts of attempted murder and sentenced to 110 years in prison. Caballero would not be eligible for parole for 100 years. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for nonhomicide offenses violates the Eighth Amendment; concluding that Caballero’s long sentence was effectively equivalent to life without parole, the California Supreme Court found Caballero’s sentence unconstitutional.
Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole Could Get Second Chance Under California Bill
The California Assembly passed a bill that would allow prisoners serving life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed as a juvenile to ask a court to reduce their sentences to 25 years to life, but only if they have already spent 15 years behind bars, have worked toward rehabilitation and can prove they are remorseful. If the court agrees, the prisoner could appeal to the state's parole board for release after serving 25 years. Supporters estimate that a minority of the 300 prisoners sentenced to life without parole as juveniles would be eligible for a new sentence under the bill.
California Unlikely to Sufficiently Reduce Overcrowding by Deadline
The Supreme Court gave California until June 2013 to reduce overcrowding in its prisons to no more than 137.5 percent of capacity. State officials now believe that they will not be unable to comply by the deadline, and indicated that they intend to ask for a new cap of 145 percent. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times issued a notable reply to the state’s announcement, calling on the state to employ smart strategies to reduce prison populations, including revising certain mandatory minimums and implementing earned-credit programs that would allow prisoners to reduce their sentences by participating in programs proven to reduce recidivism.
Texas' Prison Population Down 2,500 in Past Year
Despite a growing overall population, Texas’ prison population continues its trend downward, recently posting its lowest total since 2008. Credit for the trend is likely due to a combination of factors, including falling crime rates, an aging population, and a series of smart, bipartisan reforms. Texas still has a lot of work ahead: the state still holds the nation’s largest prison population and faces a lingering staffing shortage
Texas Parole Reforms are a Success Story, So Far
Parole releases are up and parole revocations are down in Texas, thanks to the use of revamped guidelines that allow the Parole Board to better assess the likelihood of a successful parole outcome.
Learn more about overincarceration: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

via ACLU

AB 2204 - Healthy Communities Act of 2012

Prop. 31 could be Californians' most important ballot decision

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger discusses the defeat
of his special election ballot measures.
(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / November 10, 2005)

By Robert Greene

 

August 21, 2012, 8:00 a.m.

So what's on the Nov. 6 ballot? California's marquee measures are two competing tax increases, three crime-and-punishment reforms (including eliminating the death penalty) and a controversial initiative to require labeling of genetically modified foods. In comparison, the already arid topic of state budget reform comes off as even drier and dustier. But Proposition 31 could, in the end, be Californians' most important ballot decision in years.

It's a head-scratcher, though. Should California have a two-year budget cycle instead of the current yearlong setup? Should we care? This is not one of those questions that gets the blood pumping or the fist shaking. Should conservatives like this? Should liberals? The only honest answer is a shrug of the shoulders, followed by a commitment to drive deep into the details and ferret out the policy implications. And let's be honest -- that sounds an awful lot like homework. Arguing for or against a tax increase is more fun. Or at least more interesting.

Proposition 31 would also allow cities, counties, school districts and other local governments to coordinate their services, and that could be good. And locals would be able to thumb their noses at state regulations if they could come up with their own regs that get the same job done. Intriguing. It would allow them to snub the state’s decisions on property tax allocation and let local governments to reallocate taxes among themselves. Very interesting. It would shift some state sales tax revenues from the state to local governments.

So, in essence, it would transfer a great deal of decision-making power from Sacramento back to the locals, ending a 35-year era of political centralization. That loss of power in city halls and school board auditoriums began after Proposition 13, when state lawmakers began inventing convoluted schemes to keep local governments and schools funded. When state government began doling out the dollars, it also took over much of the discretion on how those dollars are spent.

But Proposition 31 would also make the governor much more powerful by letting him or her unilaterally slash the state budget in case of a fiscal emergency. And it would force the Legislature to spend more time reviewing programs and less time passing bills.

If much of this sounds familiar, that's because many of the bits and pieces of Proposition 31 were batted about by Arnold Schwarzenegger (remember him?) and the good-government moderate reforming types at California Forward, the Think Long Committee for California and the Nicholas Berggruen Institute. Schwarzenegger floated the strong-governor portion in a 2005 ballot measure. It lost. The Times editorial page was not a fan.

So is this finally the levelheaded cavalry riding to the relief of self-immolating California? The wise centrists parting the spend-crazy Democrats and the tax-obsessed Republicans? Or perhaps just the wealthy and intellectual elite trying to tell us what’s best for us (read: what’s best for them)?

Geeky, wonky types like editorial writers live for this stuff. While we love homework, though, we're not above receiving some wise tutoring, so we invite insiders and outsiders, Californians and out-of-staters, voters, never-voters and everyone else to help us frame our questions for the proponents and opponents of Proposition 31, in advance of making our endorsement recommendation in the weeks before Nov. 6. Voters, especially, need to know what they're being asked to approve. We're looking for guidance -- on providing guidance.

Subject: Prosecutors’ Overreaching Goes Unchecked

Prosecutors’ Overreaching Goes Unchecked

Angela J. Davis is a professor of law at American University. She is a former director of the D.C. Public Defender Service and the author of "Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor."

AUGUST 19, 2012

Prosecutors are the most powerful officials in the criminal justice system. They decide whether criminal charges should be brought and what those charges should be, and they exercise almost boundless discretion in making those crucial decisions. Prosecutors alone decide whether to offer the defendant the option of pleading guilty to reduced charges. When one considers the fact that more than 95 percent of all criminal cases are resolved with guilty pleas, it is very clear that prosecutors control the criminal justice system through their charging and plea bargaining powers.

Unchecked power in the hands of prosecutors is as much a threat to our democracy as it is with any other government official, if not more.

Equally problematic is the fact that the charging and plea bargaining decisions are made behind closed doors, and prosecutors are not required to justify or explain these decisions to anyone. If a prosecutor treats two similarly situated defendants differently -- charging one but not the other or offering a better plea offer to one -- it is almost impossible to challenge such differential treatment. The lack of transparency in the prosecution function also leads to misconduct, like the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence -- a common occurrence made famous by the prosecutors in the Duke lacrosse and Senator Ted Stevens cases.

We live in a democracy in which we hold accountable those to whom we grant power, but we have fallen short when it comes to prosecutors. State and local prosecutors are presumably held accountable through the electoral process, but few voters know enough about the prosecution function to make a meaningful decision at the ballot box. When prosecutors run for office, they don't talk about their charging and plea bargaining policies (if such policies even exist). With a few notable exceptions, most prosecutors run on a "tough on crime" message, providing little, if any, information about anything else. There is even less accountability on the federal level where U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president.

The Supreme Court has consistently deferred to prosecutors in a series of cases, including claims of race-based selective prosecution and the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence. Bar counsel offices rarely bring charges against prosecutors who have violated ethical rules.

Unchecked power in the hands of prosecutors is as much a threat to our democracy as it is with any other government official, if not more. Prosecutorial decisions often result in a loss of liberty and even life. We must do a better job of holding prosecutors accountable -- at the ballot box and through bar counsel prosecutions, when appropriate.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/19/do-prosecutors-have-too-much-power/federal-proscutors-have-way-too-much-power

--
Lois Ahrens * The Real Cost of Prisons Project * www.realcostofprisons.org *

BREAKING: Legislature Sends SB 9 (Yee) to the Governor

A few minutes ago SB 9 (Yee), the bill to allow for a petition for re-sentencing for people sentenced to life without parole as juveniles after serving 15 years of their sentence, was just passed by the Legislature with a vote of 21-16.

This "concurrence" vote was the final obstacle the bill faced before heading to governor for signature. The "concurrence" vote is a vote in which the house of origin, in this case the Senate, approves the amendments that were taken in the other house, in this case the Assembly. SB 9 had been amended to prohibit people whose victim was a law enforcement official and would also prohibit people who tortured their victim from filing the re-sentencing petition.

Governor Jerry Brown has until September 30th to sign or veto legislation.

Poll: Support for health care law grows in California

David Siders

The Sacramento Bee

A majority of California voters support the national health care overhaul, with the proportion of voters strongly favoring the legislation growing over the previous year, according to a new Field Poll.

The overall level of support for the law – 54 percent to 37 percent – is greater than in nationwide polls. The difference reflects an electorate that is heavily Democratic and in which more than one-third of voters are currently uninsured or say a family member has gone without insurance in the past two years. In 2011, the overall level of support was 52 percent to 39 percent.

The poll, sponsored by the nonprofit California Wellness Foundation, follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June upholding the central parts of President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation.

The Supreme Court ruling appears to have strengthened support for the law among voters who previously were more reserved in their assessment, poll director Mark DiCamillo said. The percentage of voters who strongly support the legislation increased by seven percentage points over 2011, to 38 percent.

However, only 8 percent of voters say the law adequately addresses most of the changes they believe are needed to the nation's health care system. Fifty-three percent of voters said the law is the first of many changes that need to be made to the nation's health care system, while 33 percent of voters said the law is taking Americans in the wrong direction and needs to be reversed, according to the poll.

Despite believing the law will be good for California and the nation as a whole, a plurality of voters – 46 percent – don't think they or their families will be much affected by it.

Twenty-six percent of voters think they will be better off under the law, while 24 percent believe they will be worse off, according to the poll.

"The people who think it's going to benefit them are saying it for a good reason, because they are more likely to be the uninsured, or those who have recently gone without coverage," DiCamillo said.

Public opinion about the law is divided along partisan lines. More than three-quarters of Democrats support the law, according to the poll, while nearly as large a proportion of Republicans oppose it.

Fifty-one percent of California voters say Congress should stop efforts to repeal the law and allow it to take effect, and voters by a nearly 2-to-1 margin – 60 percent to 32 percent – disapprove of trying to cut funding as a way to stop its implementation, according to the poll.

Gov. Jerry Brown plans to call a special legislative session at the end of the year on the state's implementation of the health care law. The state is preparing for a major expansion of Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, and it is setting up a public health insurance exchange.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/20/3769991/poll-support-for-health-care-law.html#storylink=cpy

California parks department sought to spend extra money

SACRAMENTO -- The state Department of Parks and Recreation searched for ways to spend extra money every year despite facing the threat of park closures and forgoing upkeep at its 278 properties, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Newly released transcripts from an internal investigation show a department that wanted to keep secret a reserve of its own special funds to hedge against future financial problems, according to the Sacramento Bee (sacb.ee/PGQMFz). The department spent as much state general fund money each year as it could.

Brown's administration said last month that the parks department had long hidden $54 million without reporting it to the Department of Finance and state lawmakers, who have constitutional authority over spending in California.

An internal audit found the department carried out a secret vacation buyout program for some employees about the same time the agency planned to close 70 state parks due to budget cuts.
Finance officials and the state Department of Justice are investigating further. Longtime state parks director Ruth Coleman and other top officials resigned last month.

The state parks department is funded by fee revenues and taxpayer dollars. Former state parks budget director Cheryl Taylor suggested park officials kept a hidden surplus because they feared lawmakers would slash the share of department funds that comes from taxpayers, according to documents reviewed by the paper.


At least two officials have said the practice of quickly burning down budgeted funds each June was widespread in California government, the paper said.

"Well, I've been around the fiscal world long enough to know that you don't leave unexpended authority if you can avoid it," said Michael Harris, who testified as part of the internal investigation and has since been fired as acting parks chief deputy director. 

via mercurynews.com

AB 828: Support Nutrition Assistance for Families

Next week, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee will decide whether to advance AB 828, the bill to lift the lifetime ban on receiving CalFresh assistance for people with a prior non-violent drug conviction, and who verify their participation in recovery or treatment programs.

Thirty-seven other states and the District of Columbia have already taken this important step to fight hunger by removing the lifetime ban.

Take Action!

Join statewide call-ins to urge the Senate Appropriations Committee to make the right decision and support nutrition assistance for families in need.

See below for a list of target committee members and their numbers. If you are not in any of their districts, call Senator Kehoe, the committee chair.

Target Senate Appropriations Committee Members

    Chair: Sen. Christine Kehoe (San Diego), 916-651-4039
    Sen. Elaine Alquist (Santa Clara), 916-651-4013
    Sen. Curran D. Price, Jr. (Los Angeles), 916-651-4026
    Sen. Darrell Steinberg (Sacramento), 916-651-4006
    Sen. Ted Lieu (Los Angeles), 916-651-4028

Contact Tim Shadix with any questions at tim@cafoodbanks.org or (510) 350-9917.

What's Ahead for California's Prison Crisis?

Co-authored with Mark Ladov 

California is again at a crossroads in managing its over-bloated prison population. The decision in a case pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could affect whether California becomes a success story in reforming its criminal justice system.

The Brennan Center for Justice, the Sentencing Project, the ACLU of Northern California and other groups have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Valdivia v. Brown, arguing for the right to counsel in all instances where someone could be sent back to prison for a parole violation. But what's at stake is far more than just parole procedure: failure to provide right to counsel could directly contribute to a growth in California's prison system from increased parole revocations.

Last year, in Brown v. Plata, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state to reduce prison overcrowding to remedy constitutional violations of prisoners' rights. The state's legislature and Governor Brown have been busy trying to comply with that decision. To reduce the prison population without affecting public safety, the state enacted a "Realignment Plan" and considered several other measures, including making possession of drugs into a misdemeanor instead of a felony, reducing the state's use of pre-trial detention, and reforming the state's harsh "three-strikes-you're-out" law.

California's unnecessarily harsh parole revocation system is one huge contributor to the prison population explosion. In fact, the Court in Plata suggested that the state use alternatives to incarceration to respond to parole violations (instead of simply sending violators back to prison). A shocking 64 percent of California's new prison admissions are parolees returning to prison. That means a majority of people entering California prisons go there for parole violations -- not for new convictions. By contrast, in Texas -- a state hardly considered soft on law and order -- only 20 percent of new entrants to prison were for parole violations. Such violations can vary from missing a meeting, to failure to pay a fine, to testing positive on a drug test, to another arrest. Plata recognized that returning these individuals to prison when they pose no new threat to public safety provides us with little benefit at a great cost. It is no secret that our system of mass incarceration is breaking our nation's collective budget -- not just California's.

Even before the Supreme Court found California's overcrowded prisons unconstitutional in Plata, federal courts had already found the parole revocation system unconstitutional in 2002 in Valdivia. The Valdivia order required the state to give parolees an opportunity to hear the charges against them, and to defend themselves against allegations that could return them to prison. Critically, to ensure that these reforms worked effectively, California agreed to provide a lawyer to every parolee at risk of reincarceration. Among other things, the Valdivia order complied with a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that parolees have a Constitutional a right to counsel to present reasonable defenses and avoid unlawful and unnecessary reincarcerations.

Providing access to counsel is necessary to provide access to justice -- and it is far more cost-effective than the alternative. California actually conceded in the case that providing all parolees with a lawyer was far more efficient than determining who was entitled to counsel on a case-by-case basis. Giving everyone a lawyer also sped up the process, to everyone's benefit; some parolees were waiting in jail for as long as 200 days just for a hearing to determine whether or not they should be let free. Such delays are a huge waste of limited state resources, and an unnecessary barrier for parolees who instead need help reentering their communities.

Unfortunately, these improvements to California's parole system -- and any subsequently decrease in its prison population -- are at risk of being rolled back. In 2008, California voters enacted Proposition 9, which would severely abridge the provision of counsel to parolees and increase the risk that parolees are wrongly or unnecessarily returned to prison. A group of parolees, along with the Brennan Center and other organizations dedicated to ending unnecessary incarceration, are now fighting in federal court for the continued right to counsel in all revocation hearings per the original Valdivia order.

Providing parolees with counsel will allow them to properly defend themselves against the violation charges and to protect themselves -- and the state budget -- from unnecessary reincarceration. The average annual cost for housing an inmate in California is currently over $45,000 per year. California's total cost of returning parolees to prison is over $1 billion per year. Bringing California's parole revocation procedures in line with the rest of the country could save the cash-strapped state $500 million -- half of this cost.

Perhaps ironically, California's self-defeating effort to deny counsel to parolees at risk of reincarceration comes as we approach the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright. In that landmark 1963 decision, the Supreme Court recognized that every accused person in America should have a lawyer, to protect his or her rights and prevent unnecessary incarceration. Since Gideon our prison population has grown by over 600 percent.

In a nation that sends more people to prison than anywhere else in the world, the promise of Gideon is needed more than ever.

Mark Ladov is Counsel in the Justice Program and Inimai Chettiar is the Director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The Justice Program focuses on improving our system of justice by ending unnecessary incarceration, securing full legal representation for the poor, and ensuring equal access to the courts while eradicating racial disparities.

California Expected to Sell $10 Billion in Debt Despite Budget Woes

California shouldn't have any trouble selling $10 billion in short-term debt this week, market participants say, despite the state's well-known budget troubles. 

California's "revenue anticipation notes", which will mature in May and June of 2013, are expected to offer yields between 0.40% and 0.55%, which exceeds other short-term debt options that yield closer to zero. The state's notes also have top-tier short-term ratings from Moody's Investors Service, Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor's, making them an option for money market funds, which are limited in the types of securities they can buy, as well as ultra-short-duration muni funds. 

Despite California's budget woes, "these notes will pay, and the yield is better than zero," said Blake Miller, managing director at Neuberger Berman, which has more than $10 billion of muni assets under management. 

Mr. Miller also added that since California's note deal is so large, it will be very "liquid," or easily tradeable, making it attractive for bigger buyers. He declined to comment on whether his firm planned to purchase any debt from California's latest offering, which will be offered to individual investors Tuesday and Wednesday, followed by a final pricing for institutional buyers on Thursday. 

Revenue anticipation note, or RAN, deals are fairly common in municipal finance. Such notes typically mature within a year and are generally issued by states to raise cash ahead of incoming taxes or other revenues, smoothing out any seasonal mismatches between when money is received and spent. 

California last sold RANs in September, when it issued $5.4 billion of them. The state sold $10 billion of RANs in 2010. The notes are repayable through California's $93 billion general fund, after "priority payments," such as money for schools, the state's other debt service and retirement contributions, are made. 

Last year, the state's RANs yielded 0.38% for a May 2012 maturity and 0.40% for a June 2012 maturity, more than a full percentage point lower than where the state sold similar notes in November 2010. At that time, a May 2011 maturity yielded 1.50%, while a June 2011 maturity offered 1.75%. 

Steven Shachat, who manages about $2.2 billion in assets through the Alpine Municipal Money Market Fund and the Alpine Ultra-Short Tax Optimized Income Fund, said while he thinks the California note deal will likely be popular with other investors, he wasn't planning to participate. 

"Considering the size of the deal and everything that is happening in California, I would like to see more yield" than 0.40% to 0.55%, he said. Since the state is borrowing nearly twice as much as it did in RANs last year, California "is obviously not swimming in money ... and we've seen a few isolated bankruptcies there," he said, referring to recent Chapter 9 filings from three California cities: Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino. "I want to be compensated accordingly." 

Others, like Craig Mauermann, who manages the $850 million BMO Tax-Free Money Market Fund, said his participation depended on if yields on the deal were closer to 0.55%, the bigger end of the range where the state may price this week's notes. 

Mr. Mauermann said he thought it was encouraging that California passed its budget on time, and that its budget deficit, at roughly $16 billion, wasn't as big as it was a few years ago, when it exceeded $20 billion. Still, closing the state's budget gap relies in part on a tax increase that California voters will consider in November. If the measure fails, automatic cuts will be triggered. 

"We really think the state is in much better [financial] shape than a few years ago," Mr. Mauermann said. But if the tax increase doesn't pass, "you have to worry about headlines," which could hurt the price of the state's notes. A 0.40% yield "is not enough to be dealing with that possible [negative] headline," about California's budget, he said. 

-Write to Kelly Nolan at kelly.nolan@dowjones.com

Most California for-profit colleges lose state grants

By JUDY LIN, Associated Press

SACRAMENTO -- California's move to tighten eligibility requirements for its Cal Grant program will eliminate or reduce awards to 14,500 students, most of them enrolled in for-profit colleges such as the University of Phoenix, the California Student Aid Commission announced Tuesday.

The commission released a list of colleges that are no longer eligible to receive Cal Grants under tougher standards passed by the Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in June. The rules were adopted to save an estimated $55 million and address the state's budget deficit.

California's public universities and most nonprofit, private colleges met the new standards for graduation rates and student loan defaults.

Of the 170 for-profit schools that participate in the state financial aid program, 137, or 80 percent, could not meet them. They include the University of Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute, Kaplan College, Heald College and others.

More than a dozen private colleges, including Christian colleges, also could not meet the higher standards.

Overall, about 4 percent of the 354,500 students eligible for Cal Grants will be affected. According to the commission, the change will eliminate aid to 7,800 new students and reduce 20 percent of the awards to 6,700 returning students this fall.

California is the first state to set such high benchmarks, which are tougher than federal requirements, said Diana Fuentes-Michel, executive  director of the commission.

"In a tight budget situation, the Legislature was prudent in terms of looking at how we fund not only students but institutions," she said.

The state now requires a graduation rate of at least 30 percent and a federal student loan default rate of less than 15.5 percent for one year. By comparison, Fuentes-Michel said the federal government requires a higher education institution to have a student default rate of less than 30 percent for three years.

University of Phoenix spokesman Ryan Rauzon said the change disproportionately hurts working adults, many of whom attend for-profit schools because they better accommodate their work schedules. He said between 2,000 and 3,000 of the university's students will see their Cal Grants eliminated or cut.

"It's a really unfortunate policy choice," Rauzon said.

Brenda Bautsch, who tracks higher education policy at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said states are becoming more aware of where their limited financial aid dollars are going, particularly money that can be funneled to for-profit schools.

"States are now looking and saying, 'We don't want our students using their financial aid at institutions where they're going to end up not getting a quality degree and ending up in huge loan debt,'" Bautsch said.

Maryland and Oregon passed laws last year excluding for-profit schools from state financial aid, and Washington adopted a bill directing a council to tighten eligibility requirements, according to the state legislatures group.

The average eligible school in California had a 10 percent student default rate compared to 26 percent for the average ineligible school, according to the commission's data.

University of Phoenix had a 21 percent student default rate and a graduation rate of 18 percent. 

"There's no question that students at University of Phoenix and we as an institution need to do better to manage borrowing and to help students make good choices so they don't default on their loans," Rauzon said. "But to have that conversation in a vacuum without acknowledging what the economy has been doing to adult students who go back to college is unhelpful."

A message left with the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities wasn't immediately returned Tuesday.

California community colleges, California State University, the University of California and most nonprofit, private colleges such as Stanford and the University of Southern California met the tougher state requirements.

Nevertheless, all Cal Grant recipients will feel the pinch because of a 5 percent, across-the-board cut to financial aid this fall. The top Cal Grant award will be reduced from $9,708 to $9,223. 

The commission's announcement of ineligible schools comes on the heels of a report requested by Democrats in the U.S. Senate that criticizes for-profit colleges for putting revenue above education.

Starting in the 2013-14 academic year, students who attend eligible for-profit colleges will see their Cal Grants cut dramatically to $4,000. The move is expected to save the state $12 million. 

A full list of ineligible schools is posted on the commission's website, www.csac.ca.gov .

Via http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_21208286/most-california-profit-colleges-lose-state-grants