Time for Change Foundation Named CNN Hero

Congratulations to one of our own Take Action California agency members, Time for Change Foundation, who has been named a 2015 CNN Hero.

Time For Change is scheduled to be profiled on CNN Saturday, Aug. 29 at 10 a.m. 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. and Sunday, Aug. 30 at 4 p.m. The news network’s program honors everyday people for their selfless and creative ways to help others.

Founded in 2002, Time for Change helps homeless people recover from substance abuse, incarceration and mental health issues.

Their mission is to empower disenfranchised low income individuals and families by building leadership through evidence-based programs and housing to create self-sufficiency and thriving communities.

Watch CNN's video here: http://www.cnn.com/specials/cnn-heroes

For information about the organization, call 909-886-2994 or visitwww.Timeforchangefoundation.org.

Free Live Scans for Record Change Fair

Location:

Center for Living and Learning

14549 Archwood Street, #221

Van Nuys, CA 91405

Date:

August 29, 2015

Time:

1:00 pm - 4:00 pm

Free Live Scans for Record Change Fair

Location:

Fred Brown Recovery Services

270 W. 14th Street

San Pedro, CA 90731

Date:

August 27, 2015

Time:

3:00 pm - 6:00 pm

LSPC and All of Us or None Holding Prop 47 RAP Sheet Day and Record Clearance in Sacramento

RAP Sheet Day:

*Need to bring: RAP Sheet & Identification (i.e. Drivers License or State ID).

Date: (Saturday) September 12, 2015 Time: 1:00PM-6:00PMAddress of Event: 4343 Williamsbourgh Dr., Sacramento CA 

Record Clearance Clinic:

*Need to bring: RAP Sheet and court documents that are relevant to Prop 47.

Date: (Saturday) October 17, 2015 Time: 1:00PM-6:00PM 

Address of Event: 4343 Williamsbourgh Dr., Sacramento CA

If you have any questions contact Aaliyah Muhammad:

Email: aaliyah@prisonerswithchildren.org

Phone: (916) 501-9988

Jerry Brown Signs Job Protection for Grocery Workers Bill

Assembly Bill 359, by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, was backed by labor unions and opposed by business interests. The California Chamber of Commerce included it in its annual list of “job killer” bills.

“The author and sponsors have committed to clarify that the law would not apply to a grocery store that has ceased operations for six months or more,” Brown wrote. “I look forward to receiving that fix before the end of this legislative session.” 

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Monday requiring grocery store owners to retain employees for at least 90 days after a merger or buyout, handing a victory to labor unions in a closely watched bill.

In addition to preventing a grocery store owner from firing workers without cause during that 90-day period, the legislation requires the store’s new owner to consider offering those workers continued employment.

In a rare signing message, Brown, a Democrat, said it is not clear how the bill would apply to grocery stores that closed before being re-opened by a new owner.

SAVE THE DATE: Riverside Strong Communities Forum September 26th!

Save the Date!

The Riverside Strong Communities Forum is taking place on Saturday, September 26, 2015 from 9 am to 5 pm at the Hyatt Place in Downtown Riverside, California.

We are inviting organizations to share and receive the “best of the best” that community organizations, non-profits, colleges, and universities have to offer in the areas of re-entry, Prop 47 assistance, social services, employment opportunities, post conviction relief, civic engagement, social enterprises, alternatives to jails, and housing options for those who have been incarcerated and are now being released into the community.

We are featuring solutions that include 9 key areas of re-entry and more!

• HOUSING
• PUBLIC BENEFITS
• PAROLE & PROBATION
• EDUCATION
• UNDERSTANDING & CLEANING UP YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD
• BUILDING BLOCKS OF REENTRY: ID & VOTING
• FAMILY & CHILDREN
• COURT-ORDERED DEBT
• EMPLOYMENT

Looking forward to seeing you there!

Marie Smith

Community Organizer, Riverside All of Us or None

Jerry Brown signs bill banning grand juries in police use-of-force cases

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation prohibiting the use of grand juries in California in cases where police officers use lethal force, a response to distrust of the grand jury process following the deaths of unarmed black men in other states.

Proponents of Senate Bill 227 argued the grand jury process is too secretive and allowed prosecutors to avoid decision-making responsibility in politically charged cases.

“One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand why SB 227 makes sense,” the bill’s author, Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, said in a prepared statement after Brown announced signing the bill Tuesday. “The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system.”

Law enforcement groups representing district attorneys and police chiefs opposed the bill. The Democratic governor signed the measure without comment.

Brown also signed Senate Bill 411, clarifying that people can shoot video of police.

“Today, California makes it unequivocal – you have the right to record,” Sen. Ricardo Lara, the bill’s author, said in a prepared statement.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30736917.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30736917.html#storylink=cpy

For first time in 15 years, California likely to avoid short-term borrowing from Wall Street

California can handle all of its cash flow needs in-house, State Controller Betty Yee said Monday, the first time since before the dot-com bust that that the state will make it through a fiscal year without turning to Wall Street for short-term loans to smooth the ebb-and-flow of tax revenue.

The state has used “revenue anticipation notes,” known as RANs, in every year since the 2000-01 fiscal year. After that, Silicon Valley billions gave way to shortfalls, and the state suffered chronic budget problems for much of the next decade, including a low point during the recession that hit in 2008.

Monday, Yee’s office reported that the $5.7 billion in state revenue last month was virtually identical to what lawmakers predicted in the June budget package. In addition, the state has “unused borrowable resources” in various special funds totaling $26.1 billion, about 11 percent more than anyone expected.

That is more than enough money to cover the state’s short-term cash needs when general fund spending temporarily exceeds revenue, Yee’s office said, without any need for RANs – and the interest expense that comes with using them.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30659625.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30659625.html#storylink=cpy

California prison population drops under Proposition 47, but public safety impact still unclear

Citrus Heights police Officer Wesley Herman recently arrested a parolee carrying stolen jewelry and a deceased man’s identification card.

If the property was valued at more than $950, the case was a felony that would let him take the man into custody. If not, it was a misdemeanor and he’d get a citation.

The first words out of his mouth, Herman said, were, “Am I going to jail?”

It’s been nine months since California voters approved a ballot measure reducing charges for some nonviolent drug and property crimes, and Herman says repeat offenders are getting savvy about the new limits of the law.

“These guys know that if they are running around with less than $950 of stolen property on them, they’re not going to jail,” he said. “They’re always trying to stay a step ahead of us.”

Continuing the recent trend away from decades of tough-on-crime policy, nearly 60 percent of voters last November supported Proposition 47, which reduced from felonies to misdemeanors offenses including drug possession for personal use. Savings on correctional spending, estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars annually, is intended to go to mental health and drug treatment, anti-truancy efforts and victim services.

Only a spotty picture has emerged of the law’s early effects: Supporters celebrate that tens of thousands of current and former convicts have already had the felonies on their records changed to misdemeanors, opening up new opportunities for jobs, housing and public benefits. Police and prosecutors argue that it has made their jobs more difficult.

Communities across the state fret about the connection to spikes in crime, but those familiar with public safety statistics say it’s too soon to know whether anecdotes from the street are evidence that Proposition 47 is responsible.

“Law enforcement isn’t a place where change is readily embraced,” said Tom Hoffman, a longtime police officer and former director of California’s parole operations, who advised the Proposition 47 campaign. For this sentencing overhaul to succeed, it will take “a lot of time and a lot of patience and, quite candidly, a lot of courage.”

Proposition 47 has accomplished at least one of its objectives already.

As of this week, 4,347 inmates have been released from state prisons due to resentencing, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The releases helped push the overcrowded prison system below court-mandated capacity levels by February, a full year ahead of its deadline.

Many more individuals have successfully petitioned at the county level to have their records changed, including approximately 1,400 so far in Sacramento County. As some inmates are released from jail and cramped facilities clear out, more serious offenders are serving longer portions of their sentences.

“We want to be very careful about who we’re putting in a cage,” said Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, because incarceration can sometimes “work at cross-purposes” with those people turning their lives around.

Nearly 3,600 defendants in Santa Clara County have had their felonies reduced to misdemeanors since November. Rosen, one of only three district attorneys in California to endorse Proposition 47, said they are sending fewer people to prison for these crimes than before.

“The benefits to our society from locking up fewer nonviolent offenders will in the long run translate into safer communities, a better economy, and stronger services,” he said.

Increases in crime during the first half of the year, however, have raised early doubts in many communities.

Preliminary statistics for the city of Sacramento show a 25 percent rise in violent crime, including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, through June, compared with the same period in 2014. Property crimes, such as burglary and motor vehicle theft, are up about 5 percent, though larcenies have dropped slightly.

The Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office has seen a 9 percent increase in filings so far this year for cases it is pursuing – an 11 percent drop in felonies offset by a 27 percent jump in misdemeanors.

Magnus Lofstrom, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California who has studied the impacts of realignment, cautioned against drawing conclusions from the data.

Upticks in violent and property crime rates during the first year of realignment caused similar concerns, Lofstrom said. With the exception of a boost in auto thefts, however, the spike was in line with increases in states that did not undergo realignment, and crime rates have since dropped again.

With a surge of releases under Proposition 47, “it’s fair to say it puts an upward pressure on crime rates” for the types of low-level offenses those inmates committed, he added. But he said it’s very difficult to attribute a particular change in law to a change in crime rates. Cities and counties vary in their staffing levels, law enforcement priorities and reentry services for released offenders.

Law enforcement officials feel more certain of the connection, pointing to “unintended consequences” of the law.

Herman of the Citrus Heights Police Department said Proposition 47 has limited the ability of police to respond to drug-related crimes.

Previously, he said, he was able to take someone to jail for simple possession, where at least “he’s going to be clean a few days.”

“Now you have to show that this is a crime heinous enough to take them out of the community,” he said.

Instead of being arrested, the suspect might instead receive a citation to appear in court in 30 days. Herman said that allows addicts to keep using – and potentially commit thefts to support their habit.

“It’s been difficult for us to prevent as many crimes as we could have before,” he said. “Our hands do sometimes get tied.”

The changes have also had a detrimental effect on California drug courts, according to prosecutors.

Those programs provide offenders with the option of seeking treatment for substance abuse rather than facing prison time. But without the “hammer” of a felony now hanging over them, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said, those arrested for drug-related crimes have little incentive to choose rehabilitation over the lesser charges.

“Logically, many of those people who have the addiction problems that we want to address are not going to avail themselves of that because it’s too much work,” she said, adding that it creates a “revolving door” for petty criminals to return to the streets and reoffend. “If you don’t have accountability for criminal behavior, there’s no reason not to commit that criminal behavior.”

The number of cases in Sacramento County’s two drug courts has fallen to 587 from 970 since the passage of Proposition 47. In Fresno County, one drug court has halved to 280 cases, while another lost all 80 of its participants.

San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos said proponents of the measure went about their aims in the wrong way. Established diversion programs in his county are collapsing – drug court participation is down 60 percent – and there are not yet resources to create new ones.

While 65 percent of any savings on correctional spending from Proposition 47 is earmarked for mental health and drug treatment programs to keep at-risk individuals out of custody, counties won’t see any of that money until August 2016, after the next budget cycle.

“What are they going to do in the meantime?” Ramos said. “They should have had a plan in place.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30455739.html#storylink=cpy

California Amendment would give counties more supervisors

A proposed state constitutional amendment with the stated aim of making government more responsive and ethnically diverse would add two members to the Riverside and San Bernardino county boards of supervisors. 

The amendment offered by state Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, is scheduled be heard by a Senate committee Aug. 17. It would require counties with 2 million or more residents -- Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Los Angeles -- to have at least seven people on their supervisorial boards.

Riverside and San Bernardino each have five supervisors. If the amendment passes both houses of the Legislature by a 2/3 vote, it would go on the ballot for voters’ approval.

In a staff report on the amendment, Mendoza’s office wrote that expanding the boards of supervisors “will provide the opportunity for these bodies to be more responsive and reflective of the needs of the people they represent and serve.”

The amendment would add supervisors in counties with sizeable Latino populations. Roughly half of the Inland population is Latino, according to recently released census numbers.

Despite that, no Latinos serve on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. San Bernardino County has one Latino supervisor, Josie Gonzales.

For Luz Gallegos, community programs director at TODEC Legal Center, a grassroots organization serving Inland Empire migrant communities, the measures can help boost Latino representation, but in order for the community to reap the benefits, simply electing a Latino politician wouldn’t be enough.

It's about “making sure they have their heart and the community commitment,” she said.

Electing Latinos and other people of color is important, Gallegos said, because it will inspire youth to run for elected office.

“As a youth, I remember (Los Angeles City Councilman) Gil Cedillo,” she said. “He was out there marching with us and he was part of the unions and now he's in positions where we have youth saying, ‘If he can do it, I can do it.’”

“NOT HOMOGENOUS”

Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley said he didn’t think the amendment would make much of a difference when it comes to electing a Latino supervisor.

“Latinos are not a homogenous group,” Ashley said. “They look at the issues and if they see a candidate that’s backing the issues they like … they’ll vote for (that candidate).”

Ashley, who is not seeking re-election when his term ends in 2018, said it’s very likely a Latino will take his place. Ashley’s chief of staff, Jaime Hurtado, already is running to succeed his boss.

San Bernardino County supervisors oppose the amendment. In a letter to the state Senate, Supervisor James Ramos wrote that the amendment would “erode the ability of San Bernardino County voters to determine their form of government.”

“While we appreciate your goal to increase diversity among members of county boards of supervisors to better reflect the changes in the state’s demographics, we feel the composition of our Board achieves that goal, and no legislation is needed,” said Ramos, former chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. His county also has two female supervisors.

Via: http://www.pe.com/articles/supervisors-775582-amendment-san.html

Secretary of State Padilla drops efforts to prevent felons from voting

Today, with Secretary of State Padilla’s withdrawal of the challenge of his predecessor to the voting rights of people on mandatory supervision and post-release community supervision, formerly incarcerated people and their allies celebrate an important milestone in their ongoing struggle for voting rights. 

"We have always recognized that our voting rights are larger than the right to cast a vote - it's about the struggle for formerly and in some cases currently incarcerated people to be respected as citizens,” said Dorsey Nunn, Executive Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and a taxpayer plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Our votes belong not just to us, but to our communities and families." 

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of California, along with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, filed a lawsuit on behalf of three individuals who had lost their right to vote, as well as the League of Women Voters of California and All of Us or None, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of formerly and currently incarcerated people and their families. 

“Secretary of State Padilla is bucking a national trend in which voting rights are under attack,” said Lori Shellenberger, Director of the ACLU of California’s Voting Rights Project. “We are thrilled that this administration has effectively said ‘no’ to Jim Crow in California, and instead is fighting for the voting rights of California’s most vulnerable communities.” 

The lawsuit charged then-Secretary of State Debora Bowen with violating state law when she issued a directive to local elections officials in December 2011 stating that people are ineligible to vote if they are on post-release community supervision or mandatory supervision, two new local supervision programs for people sentenced for low-level, non-violent felonies. 

California law states that only people imprisoned or on parole for conviction of a felony are ineligible to vote. Thus, last spring, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that Bowen’s directive illegally stripped nearly 60,000 of people of their voting rights. In spite of the judge’s determination, Bowen appealed and continued the fight to disenfranchise the formerly incarcerated, a disproportionate number of whom are people of color. 

“Formerly incarcerated people should not be disenfranchised and have to fight for their voting rights. Restoration of these voting rights is long overdue and the League is pleased that California is leading the way to protect voting rights for all,” said Helen Hutchinson, President of the League of Women Voters of California. 

“While some may see this as a struggle simply for voting rights, formerly incarcerated activists see it as something much larger – a demand for the fundamental acknowledgement of our citizenship, said Dorsey Nunn. “In addition to voting, we also want the right to serve on juries, to have a jury of our peers when we are on trial, and to hold elected office. We want all the rights that are supposed to attach to citizenship.”

Via: http://www.prisonerswithchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Voting-Rights-Lawsuit-Victory_Aug-2015_AOUON.pdf