I am ready to spread the word!

Attending the panel discussion on barriers to employment for people with felonies, at the University of Redlands, was one of my first experiences since getting out of prison where I truly felt a part of something. The fact that it involved my personal experiences and the ones I left behind made it easy for me to engage in discussions that I have knowledge and passion about. I was able to identify with the questions and give honest feedback that I feel will contribute to change in policies that create barriers to people with past felony convictions. This experience not only  gave me visuals of all the things that are at my fingertips that can benefit me and my struggles, but it was one of the most exciting moments I have had since getting out of prison. It was empowering to know that the community I live in actually wanted to receive the information I had to give without judgment; their understanding made me feel appreciated.

There are lot of programs and resources in prison, but due to our limited contact with the free world, we are unaware of paths that are being paved for our benefit on the outside, so it was really refreshing to discuss AB 218, also known as Ban the Box, and Proposition  47. I felt honored that I was invited to this event. It showed me that my wants and needs are being recognized and understood. To meet new people, hear what they have to say about such a passionate issue of mine, was so touching to my heart. I was able to show my feelings of appreciation with those around me by giving some insight of the employment struggle that I am going through and how Prop 47 will affect my everyday living with those around me.

Overall, I felt very involved being a part of a group of people that are trying to help people like me who want to make a change for themselves. Knowing my position as a citizen in the community and what I can do for myself and for my community has empowered me to spread the word using the information that was given to me in my present situation and the future. I am ready!

                                                                                                                                        LeSaundra Jenkins 

Conservatives are still trouncing liberals on prison reform

States don’t get any bluer than California, so last November’s vote adopting Proposition 47 – reducing six felonies to misdemeanors – could easily be taken as evidence that liberals and Democrats are leading the nationwide de-incarceration movement..

And that stands to reason. In image, at least, conservatives carry the tough-on-crime banner while liberals favor lenience and prefer rehabilitation to incarceration. The Obama administration won federal sentencing reforms. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that in 2014 the federal inmate population dropped – the first net reduction since 1980. Liberal officials, liberal policies, right?

So the American Conservative’s Feb. 3 Q. and A. with Mark Earley, a Republican Virginia lawmaker and attorney general and now a criminal defense lawyer, was a useful reminder that much of the real thinking and action on criminal justice reform has come from the right. Interviewer Chase Madar nailed the essential dichotomy in conservative politics by noting that conservatives “tend to value order and authority but also limited government.” There’s an obvious tension there – but it’s nothing new. Conservatives who once lined up behind the law-and-order part of their creed have begun questioning what mass incarceration means to the concept of limited government.

"I saw that in the ’80s and ’90s, criminal-justice policies were driven more by what constituents wanted, what worked in the short term," Earley said in the American Conservative. "But if you do that long enough, then all your constituents wind up having family members in jail."

The Times has noted with approval the reform-minded approach from conservatives on prisons and criminal justice reform.

“Many of the progressive innovations in criminal justice are coming not from supposedly liberal states and officials, but from conservatives who are determined to focus on cost and outcomes while keeping justice in the forefront,” the Times wrote in a 2011 editorial, just after criminal justice realignment took effect in California.

“The group Right on Crime is setting the pace in states such as Texas. At the same time, leaders on the left, in California and elsewhere, have been conspicuously quiet about making realignment work.”

Three years later, a few elected Democrats – but only a few – felt comfortable endorsing Proposition 47. Meanwhile, the Times ran an op-ed co-authored by Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one of the founders of Right on Crime, urging passage and pointing out reforms made in conservative states like Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi.

“If so many red states can see the importance of refocusing their criminal justice systems, California can do the same,” Gingrich wrote.

Relatively few of California’s elected Republicans have chosen the red state path of seeing criminal justice reform as central to their limited-government creed. For the most part, the law-and-order approach prevails among Republican lawmakers in this most liberal of states.

So one of the most important aspects of the sweeping approval of Prop. 47 at the polls on Nov. 4 may be the signal it sends to California lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike: Update your view of the electorate. This is not 1990 or 2000. It’s OK to do thoughtful criminal justice and prison reform. You won’t automatically be punished at the polls for saying “no” to a new prison or a new get-tough-on-crime measure. There are good reasons, rooted in conservative as well as liberal politics, to focus on restorative justice and rehabilitation rather than simply retribution.

A breakdown of the governor's budget

Here's a breakdown of Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1:

K-12, COMMUNITY COLLEGES: Would get $7.4 billion more this fiscal year and next. For next year, Brown proposes a 7.9 percent increase in school spending. K-12 per-pupil spending would grow by $306, to $9,667. Much of the infusion will pay off what the state already owes schools, part of the "wall of debt" that Brown pledged to dismantle.

UC AND CSU: The two state university systems would each receive a 4 percent increase -- $120 million each -- as long as they don't raise tuition.

SOCIAL SERVICES: The state will spend an extra $800 million on Medi-Cal because of a 2.1 percent increase in enrollment. Brown would also spend $483 million to eliminate a 7 percent cut to the hours of care In-Home Supportive Services recipients receive each month.

COURTS: Would receive about a $180 million boost, the second consecutive year the judiciary got a dose of good news after years of cutbacks in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The bulk of the increase is headed to the state's 58 trial courts, which will receive about $2.7 billion of the judiciary's $3.47 billion budget.

PRISONS: Spending on the California prison system would increase by 1.7 percent, raising the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to $10.1 billion. Prison reform groups expressed disappointment in the governor's decision to increase spending on incarceration.

TRANSPORTATION: The state Transportation Agency would get $15.8 billion. Brown has said he wants to fix California's crumbling roads, highways and bridges, but his budget proposal includes no plan for covering the $66 billion cost of those repairs.

PARKS AND ENVIRONMENT: Brown proposed spending $532 million on new water projects, funded by the Proposition 1 water bond approved by voters in November. Projects include recycled water, conservation and watershed improvement. The governor also proposed $20 million in new money for deferred maintenance at state parks; $1 billion from prior bonds to fund new flood-control projects; and $1 billion from the state's cap-and-trade program to fund high-speed rail, urban transit, building efficiency and other programs to reduce greenhouse gases.

via: http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_27292946/breakdown-governors-budget

AM Alert: Should California reduce penalties for nonviolent crimes?

In November, voters will be asked to weigh in on Proposition 47, which would reduce some petty crimes – such as shoplifting less than $950 worth of merchandise and possession of cocaine or heroin – from felonies to misdemeanors.

The goal of the initiative is to cut the state prison population, saving potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise be spent incarcerating criminals. An estimated 40,000 offenders would be affected by Proposition 47 annually, instead serving time in county jails or facing no significant time behind bars. The savings would be used for truancy and dropout prevention programs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.

Law enforcement groups oppose the measure, arguing it could hurt public safety, but have raised little for their effort. Meanwhile, big money is pouring into the yes campaign, including six-figure contributions from Public Storage executive B. Wayne Hughes, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, and Sean Parker of Napster and Facebook fame.

The state Senate and Assembly public safety committees will hold a joint informational hearing on Proposition 47, starting at noon in Room 4203 of the Capitol. After an overview from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, supporters including San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, and opponents such as Harriet Salarno, chair of Crime Victims United, will provide testimony on the measure.

via: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/02/6753371/am-alert-should-california-reduce.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/02/6753371/am-alert-should-california-reduce.html#storylink=cpy

San Quentin plans psychiatric hospital for death row inmates

Under court pressure to improve psychiatric care for deeply disturbed death row inmates, state officials are moving quickly to open a 40-bed hospital at San Quentin prison to house them.

The court-appointed monitor of mental health care in California's prison system reported to judges Tuesday that about three dozen men on death row are so mentally ill that they require inpatient care, with 24-hour nursing.

For now, they are being treated in their cells, but the state plans to have a hospital setting ready for them by November, according to documents filed Tuesday in federal court.

The plan calls for taking over and retrofitting most of a new medical unit recently built at the prison. A spokeswoman for the court's prison medical office said San Quentin officials plan to use medical facilities at other prisons if a shortage of beds arises as a result.

The urgency of psychiatric treatment for the mentally ill prisoners demands swift action, the court's monitor, Matthew Lopes, said in court papers. He said an agreement to provide the psychiatric wing at San Quentin was made possible by collaborative effort among the state, courts and prisoners' lawyers.

In December, after weeks of courtroom testimony on the treatment of about 10 unidentified death row prisoners, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ordered the state to provide condemned inmates access to inpatient psychiatric care. The court files show negotiations and planning began almost immediately.

Karlton also ordered mental health screenings of all 720 condemned men at San Quentin. Those evaluations concluded in late May with the identification of 37 condemned men for admission to the psychiatric unit. Lopes' report notes that San Quentin is bound to need room for additional patients.

Twenty female prisoners who are sentenced to die and housed elsewhere are not covered by Karlton's order.

Some analysts see irony in providing for the long-term mental health of those sentenced to die.

"This is the only place on Earth where you'd be talking about building a psychiatric hospital for condemned prisoners," said Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, who has written about the U.S. capital punishment system. "It is a measure of American greatness and American silliness at the same time."

Federal courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute people who are not aware of what is happening to them. "We are curing them to make them executable," Zimring said.

But San Francisco prisoners' rights lawyer Michael Bien, who argued the San Quentin case in court last fall, regards adequate psychiatric care as a fundamental right.

"The reality is these guys are going to live in this place for a long time, and you need to see they get the care they need," Bien said.

California, with the nation's largest death row, has not killed a prisoner since 2006. Later that year, state executions were stayed when condemned inmate Michael Morales challenged the lethal injection procedures.

The state attempted to adopt new protocols involving different drugs in 2010, but they remain under legal challenge.




In the interim, 44 inmates have died of age, disease, drug overdose or suicide, with the latter raising concerns about psychiatric care on death row. One of those who committed suicide was Justin Helzer, who helped his brother kill five people and dump their dismembered bodies into a Sacramento river in 2000.

According to last year's testimony, Helzer was found by San Quentin doctors to be delusional and schizophrenic and often refused medication. In 2010, he blinded himself by jabbing pens through the sockets of his eyes. In 2013, he made a noose out of his bed sheet and hanged himself in his cell.

Corrections officials had testified that psychiatric care for death row inmates was limited. Those sent to a psychiatric hospital within another state prison were quarantined from the rest of the population, limiting therapy.

San Quentin had set up unlicensed beds, providing the equivalent of outpatient treatment within a corner of its medical building. Karlton found both provisions inadequate.

Unlike other psychiatric hospitals within men's prisons, the one at San Quentin will be run by the corrections department and not the Department of State Hospitals.

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration has not sought legislative approval for the San Quentin project. Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer said the state plans to use savings in prison mental health services elsewhere in the state to run the unit.

State begins early releases of nonviolent prisoners

SACRAMENTO — The state is releasing some low-level, nonviolent prisoners early as Gov. Jerry Brown complies with a federal court order to reduce crowding in its lockups — a turning point in the governor's efforts to resolve the issue.

Inmates serving time for certain nonviolent crimes are being discharged days or weeks before they were scheduled to go free, a move that Brown had long resisted but proposed in January and was subsequently ordered by judges to carry out.

Eventually, such prisoners, who are earning time off their sentences with good behavior or rehabilitation efforts, will be able to leave months or even years earlier.

Prison workers, inmates' lawyers and county probation officials said the releases began two weeks ago. Since then, San Bernardino County probation officers said, the number of felons arriving from prison has increased more than two dozen a week, or 30%.

L.A. County Deputy Probation Chief Reaver Bingham said he did not know how many prisoners had been released early to his jurisdiction.

Corrections officials confirmed that some inmates are being released "slightly earlier" but would not say how many or discuss the criteria used to determine who is eligible.

Officials are still working on the terms of other planned steps to reduce crowding, including making more inmates eligible for medical parole and a new release program for those older than 60.

In addition, some second-time offenders who have served half their sentences under the state's three-strikes law could be eligible to leave.

Brown's administration has estimated that 780 inmates could be released under those programs.

Sentence reductions were among the changes Brown offered to make as he sought two more years to reduce prison crowding to a level the judges deem safe. He wants to meet the jurists' targets mostly by placing more felons in privately owned prisons and other facilities.

In February, the judges granted Brown's request and ordered him to "immediately implement" the early releases and add parole options for prisoners who are frail, elderly or serving extended sentences for specific kinds of nonviolent crimes.

Analysts in Brown's administration initially estimated that about 1,400 prisoners would be freed early over two years by being allowed to shave off as much as a third of their sentences with good behavior.

From prison, they follow the normal path to either state parole or county supervision, depending on the crimes they committed.

"Our first 'Whew!' moment was when we realized it was not anybody we wouldn't [be getting] already," said Karen Pank, a lobbyist for California's 58 county probation departments.

More than 17,000 prisoners overall are potentially eligible for reduced sentences, according to the administration's analysis.

Pank said the administration was negotiating with counties over whether to pay them additional money to supervise those who are sent to probation early.

Eligibility rules for the court-ordered parole programs have not been made public. A Board of Parole Hearings meeting on the matter was held last week behind closed doors, according to an agenda posted online by the board.

Ordinarily, such major changes to the state's criminal justice system would be debated before the Legislature, but the federal judges have set aside those requirements.

"We don't have many options to weigh in on the consequences of what is being put in place," Pank said.

If California misses any of the court's interim deadlines for easing crowding, a court-appointed officer has authority to order additional releases.

State lawyers said in an April 15 court filing that officials have already met the court's June 30 benchmark, its first since the judges gave Brown extra time.

The judges set a limit on the inmate population of 143% of the prisons' capacity; the state's attorneys said the latest population was 141%.

Lawyers for prisoners argued in a court motion last week that the state was counting empty beds in a medical prison in calculating its capacity to house inmates, permitting other prisons to remain crowded. The corrections department contends the medical space should be included.

The latest prison population reports from the government show a women's prison in Chowchilla is at 183% of its capacity. Corrections officials have confirmed an inmate lawyer's report that as many as eight women at a time share dorm rooms that have a single toilet, sink and shower.

"There is one person on top of another.... It is a pressure cooker simmering," said attorney Rebekah Evenson of the Prison Law Office, which represents inmates in class-action litigation over prison conditions.

Corrections spokeswoman Krissi Khokhobashvili said crowding in women's prisons will ease when a private lockup in McFarland opens to take 520 female inmates.

In a conference call Tuesday with financial analysts, executives of the company that owns the McFarland facility said it would not be ready to take the first 260 women until the fall.

They said state officials had not yet requested the remaining 260 beds.

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ff-prison-release-20140430,0,122976.story#ixzz30UUQewyl

Meet The Companies That Just Promised To Pull 60 Million Dollars From Private Prisons

Three investment groups announced this week that they will divest from the two major private prison corporations that constitute a massive share of America’s prison-industrial complex.

Scopia Capital, DSM, and Amica Mutual Insurance have all pledged to remove their collective investments of about $60,000,000 from the Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group — the two prison companies that own 75 percent of the nation’s private prisons. The decision to divest comes on the heels of pressure from Color Of Change, a racial and economic justice advocacy group that ran a campaign asking a total 150 companies to stop investing in the private prison industry.

“In accordance with the principles of the UN Global Compact, with respect to the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights, the pension fund has divested from the for-profit prison industry,” DSM President Hugh Welsh said in a Color of Change statement. “Investment in private prisons and support for the industry is financially unsound, and divestment was the right thing to do for our clients, shareholders, and the country as a whole. DSM is committed to good corporate citizenship and operating in a way that contributes to a better world.”

Sixty million dollars is actually a drop in the bucket for GEO and CCA. The groups together earn over three billion dollars annually on private prisons, and even more on immigrant detention centers. But the move signals a growing distrust in the ballooning private prisons industry, which grew by “approximately 1600% between 1990 and 2009,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Other groups have previously reportedly divested, as well, but this may be the largest single successful divestment campaign.

“It’s an important first step,” said Carl Takei, the private prison expert in the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “To the extent that investment firms are committing themselves publicly to divestment, that is a very important step. To the extent that investment firms are deciding that private prisons are a bad investment, that’s even more important.”

CCA lost four of its prison contracts with states last year — and that combined with slowly falling imprisonment rates may actually make private prisons not just morally questionable but financially unstable, Takei pointed out.

“We’ve started to turn the corner on mass incarceration and if that’s something that makes private prisons a bad investment, that’s important,” Takei added. He said that if investment firms chose to divest for ethical reasons, it is “an important first step,” but that “the financial reasons justification would be huge.”

Studies have found that private prisons spend millions on lobbying to send more people to jail for longer periods of time. The facilities are often rife with abuse and neglect, too; accusations against the companies range from wrongful death to bad sanitation and even forcing a woman to give birth in a toilet. They do no favors for states that support them, either; Idaho was one of the places that ended its contract with CCA after the company handed over a $1 million settlement for falsifying staff hours and leaving mandatory monitoring spots unattended.

Judges appoint prison population oversight chief

A panel of three federal judges on Wednesday appointed Elwood Lui, a former associate justice of the California Court of Appeal, as the “compliance officer” empowered to begin releasing state prison inmates if California fails to meet court ordered deadlines to reduce its prisoner population.

Lui was one of two candidates for the position suggested by lawyers representing the state. He has agreed to serve without compensation but to have reasonable expenses reimbursed, according to the order from the panel issued Wednesday afternoon.

The compliance officer position was created through a Feb. 10 order by the court, which comprises 9th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the San Francisco-based Northern District of California and Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the Sacramento-based Eastern District of California.

The judges originally ordered California in 2009 to cut its inmate population to 137.5 percent of capacity, but appeals delayed that and resulted in the Feb. 10 order giving the state two more years to comply.

The February order also gave the compliance officer authority to release the necessary number of inmates to ensure that California meets the court-ordered deadlines.

The compliance officer now has the authority to release inmates if the prison population is not cut to 143 percent of capacity by June 30 (or 116,651 inmates); to 141.5 percent by Feb. 28, 2015 (115,427 inmates); and to 137.5 percent a year after that (112,164 inmates).

Last month, the state told the court that its prison population is about 502 inmates above the June 30 benchmark. The state indicated that it expected to get below the 143 percent mark before the deadline by using some contract prison cells.

Attorneys for the state and the inmates met and tried to agree on who should be appointed to the position, but their talks failed and both sides filed documents with the three-judge court on March 12 suggesting candidates for the position.

The state recommended two candidates: Lui and Curtis J. Hill, a former San Benito County sheriff.

Attorneys for the inmates recommended the appointment of Wendy Still, a Roseville resident who is the chief adult probation officer for the city and county of San Francisco, or Starr Babcock, the former general counsel for the State Bar of California.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/09/6311041/judges-appoint-prison-population.html#storylink=cpy

Analyst says Jerry Brown's prison plan is short-term fix

Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to reduce prison overcrowding may satisfy a looming federal deadline but it does not represent a durable long-term solution, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

In a victory for the Brown administration, the federal panel adjudicating the struggle over California's prison overcrowding recently gave the state two more years to reduce its population to constitutional levels.

While the LAO concludes that California is on pace to slip under the federal cap, the nonpartisan analyst faulted Brown's plan for relying too much on the use of county jails and private prisons. Brown's budget would spend $481 million to place just under 17,000 inmates in so-called contract beds .

A strategy combining contract beds with other changes, such as increasing good time credits and expanding parole for the elderly, inmates with serious medical conditions and second-strikers, will likely get California under a federally-mandated cap by the new 2016 deadline, the LAO found.

But the state's prison population is projected to climb again in subsequent years. Relying on contract beds will also place a costly burden on the state, the LAO argues, to the tune of about $500 million annually.

"The plan contains relatively few measures that would help the state maintain long-term compliance other than relying indefinitely on costly contract beds," the report concludes.

Given those risks, the LAO urged the Legislature to craft some longer-term policy solutions. 

Its recommendations include reducing certain sentences and converting some crimes to "wobblers" that can be charged either as misdemeanors or felonies -- an approach Brown vetoed last year - allowing inmates to earn more early release credits for good behavior, and expanding programs that allow adult men to serve part of their sentences outside of state prison.

The two-year extension, granted earlier this month, came after the governor secured legislative approval last year of his package allocating $315 million to house excess inmates.

But because California received the two-year extension, Brown's budget proposes taking some of the money approved last year to house more inmates and depositing it instead into a Recidivism Reduction Fund.

Specifically, Brown's budget also proposes channeling just under $50 million from the recidivism fund into re-entry hubs and around $30 million on substance abuse, rehabilitation and mental illness programs.

That infusion might help for the coming budget year, but it will quickly exhaust the recidivism fund, the LAO said. To sustain the types of programs Brown proposes funding, the Legislature would need to continue dipping into the General Fund on an annual basis.

"The Governor's budget proposals create or expand programs that would require ongoing funding to effectively reduce the prison population," the LAO report estimates.

The LAO also rejected both the governor's plan to fund re-entry hubs, which use education and treatment to prepare inmates nearing the end of their terms to reintegrate into society. 

The report cast doubt on whether re-entry hubs effectively reduce recidivism.
Similarly, the report urged the governor to discard his plan to spend $11.3 million on integrated drug treatment, calling the program unproven and overly costly.

Instead, the LAO recommends diverting the $60 million set aside for those two programs towards an initiative rewarding counties that keep paroled felons from returning to state prisons.


PHOTO: Inmates inside the jail cells in the old Stanislaus County downtown main jail in Modesto on Wednesday June 19, 2013.The Sacramento Bee/Manny Crisostomo.

Attend the Justice Reinvestment Hearing in LA

Dear Supporter,

“The Select Committee on Justice Reinvestment’s goal will be real data-based, long-term solutions that will help us stop spending excessive money on prisons and allow us to focus more on investments that grow our economy and provide opportunity.”  Speaker Pérez said.

Attend the next hearing in Los Angeles Hearing on Friday, February 28th.

Bring your stories and experiences; this is a rare chance for Committee members to hear from people who are not law enforcement or government officials. 

I served 45 years in prison, starting on Death Row. Almost two years ago I was paroled, I attempted to obtain employment within the city to no avail.  Like many former prisoners hunger and economic issues led down to a despairing path of homelessness.

Fortunately, I discovered a community based organization, they gave me what everyone needs: a fair chance!

We know how to reduce spending on incarceration and invest that money to expand alternatives like the Fair Chance Program that better serve communities all across the state!

My skills are being utilized in a meaningful way; I am properly housed, fed and very grateful. We need the Committee on Justice Reinvestment to hear our stories.

See you there,

Ernest Shepard III

Fair Chance Project a member of Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Brown again asks judges for more time to reduce prison crowding

By Paige St. John

January 23, 2014, 9:48 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown has again asked federal judges for more time to reduce crowding in California's prisons and, in an about-face, proposed to free inmates early if he misses an extended deadline.

California is under orders to remove thousands of inmates from state lockups by April 18, a deadline already delayed more than a year.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court on Thursday, Brown asked for an additional two years. That is "the minimum length of time needed to allow new reform measures to responsibly draw down the prison population while avoiding the early release of inmates," the documents say.

Brown has declared repeatedly that releasing prisoners early would jeopardize public safety. But to assure the court of his good intentions, the governor now proposes that the court appoint a monitor with the power to release prisoners if the state fails to meet a 2016 deadline or a series of smaller benchmarks before then.

The monitor — not Brown's administration — would decide whom to set free, according to the proposal.

Lawyers for inmates made their own filing to the judges Thursday, calling for the appointment of a federal compliance officer to monitor inmate numbers. They called the shift in the governor's position a positive step but said releases should begin now.

"It delays what should have been done years ago," said Don Specter, lead attorney in one of two class-action cases that caused the judges to impose crowding limits four years ago.

The judges, who have been hearing lawsuits over inadequate care of inmates, have suggested they might accept a further delay in return for immediate improvements in that care. But state officials recently conceded that the prison population is growing, not shrinking: As of Wednesday, officials reported that the prisons were at 144% of their designed capacity, with 117,500 inmates.

Brown contends that even so, he can meet the court-ordered crowding limits by making more inmates eligible for parole. In the budget plan he recently released, the governor said he would increase parole options for medically frail and elderly inmates and allow some repeat offenders to shorten their sentences with good behavior.

In Thursday's filing, Brown said he was also willing to consider paroling some repeat felons, sentenced under California's "three strikes" law, if they have served at least half of their sentences. The offer would be restricted to those convicted of a second strike — which comes with a doubled sentence — if that crime was not violent.

Brown also proposes immediately releasing murderers and other inmates serving life sentences who already have been deemed suitable for parole but were given future release dates.

Christine Ward, director of the Sacramento-based Crime Victims Action Alliance, was upset by the state's proposal. "We are in just a horrible, horrible, horrible position right now, with the courts forcing the state to come up with ridiculous plans of action," she said. "If the wrong people are let out, somebody could be killed."

The governor agreed to set aside $81 million for rehabilitation programs if the court agrees to the two-year delay. He also expressed an intention to open pre-release centers at 13 prisons within the year to help inmates prepare for freedom.

California has more than 12,000 prisoners in private prisons and county-run facilities, according to reports by the corrections department. The court filing states that a two-year delay would avoid "sending thousands more inmates to private prisons in other states."

In a proposed order included in the filing, the administration admits that even if granted more time, the state intends to lease more cells in private prisons, county jails and community-owned corrections centers.

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ff-prisons-20140123,0,1442682.story#ixzz2rMCl5nSl

Governor Brown, put money into California's communities and stop warehousing humans!

My name is Nicole and I am living in a homeless shelter provided by Time For Change Foundation.  This was the only option available to me when I left prison December 3^rd after serving 17 years, with $200 in my pocket and the clothes on my back. 

Although I had employment skills prior to my incarceration and gained more during over the years in prison, I do not qualify for monetary assistance.  If it weren’t for programs like Time For Change Foundation, I would be living on the street, which would violate my parole and I would become a statistic of recidivism. 

Without a job, I am living at the poverty level.  I am here to raise my voice to call on Governor Brown to build a road out of poverty in California for myself and the 8.7 million Californian’s.

Until very recently I was part of the overcrowding in the California prison system.  I felt firsthand the impact of Governor Brown’s efforts to reduce the prison population and his repeated failures to follow the letter and the intent of the numerous federal court orders to reduce the prison population.  

Time and again Governor Brown has suggested the solution of building more prisons, spending more money outsourcing inmates and attempting to warehouse human beings instead of looking at the cost effectiveness, both financially and on a human level, of spending that money on rehabilitation instead.

California does not need more prisons.  California does not need to ship its prisoners out to other states.  California needs to provide avenues not only for reintegration following incarceration but for survival to avoid incarceration in the first place.  

Putting the money he seeks to allocate to building more prisons, back into the California communities, will ultimately save the State money and improve the lives of Californians.  Reallocating funds to restorations to Medi-Cal, childcare, CalWORKs, SSI and IHSS will accomplish these goals.

It is my sincere hope that Governor Brown will look at the whole picture, the long range goals, the potential in many people who are currently living below the poverty level and make some sweeping changes to the proposed budget to really invest in the people of California and their unlimited capacity to thrive if given just a little assistance.

Nicole La FontaineTime for Change Foundation

Prison secretary seeks delay in inmate court order

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California will have no choice but to move 4,000 more inmates to private prisons in other states if federal judges refuse to postpone a court-ordered population cap, state Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard said Wednesday.

The state faces an April 18 deadline to reduce overcrowding in its 33 adult prisons. The judges have found reducing overcrowding to be the key step in improving inmate medical and mental health care, but Gov. Jerry Brown is seeking a three-year delay.

Brown's budget proposal, prematurely leaked Wednesday, assumes that the court grants a two-year extension to meet the cap. Like Beard, the budget says that if the extension is not granted the state will have to spend more money on short-term capacity increases while likely cutting spending on rehabilitation programs in order to avoid releasing inmates early.

Beard said such a delay would give the state time to build cells for nearly 3,500 additional inmates. That would bring the state close to meeting the federal population cap while avoiding the need to send more inmates elsewhere.

It also would give time for rehabilitation programs to work, he said. Those programs are designed to reduce the number of convicts who commit new crimes after their release and then get sent back to prison. Brown's budget projects $81 million would be available for rehabilitation programs in the fiscal year that begins July 1 if the two-year extension is granted, but the money will be eaten up by incarceration costs if it is denied, according to a copy of the budget posted online by The Sacramento Bee.

"We really don't want to do more out-of-state either, so we're hopeful we get our extension," Beard said in an interview. "But if we don't get that, then our only alternative will be to increase the out-of-state (transfers)."

A panel of three federal judges has set a Friday deadline for an end to negotiations between Brown's administration and attorneys representing inmates.

The judges already postponed by nearly 10 months their original June 30, 2013, deadline for the state to reduce its inmate population to about 110,000 inmates. Beard said that gave the state crucial time to begin operating what used to be a private prison in the Mojave Desert, open a medical hospital in Stockton and send additional inmates to five community correctional facilities within California.

Without those moves, the state would be looking at sending up to 7,000 inmates out of state instead of 4,000, he said.

California already houses roughly 8,900 inmates in Corrections Corporation of America prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma. The Department of Finance estimates it costs the state $29,500 a year for each inmate housed out of state, although that amount is less than the average per-inmate cost within California because mostly younger and healthier prisoners are selected for the transfers.

The judges last year ordered the state not to move more inmates out of state, but Beard said he expects the judges would lift that ban when negotiations end this week.

An additional delay would give the state time to open an expansion of the Stockton medical facility this spring to house about 1,100 mentally ill inmates. The state last week also detailed plans to build three medium-security housing units over the next 2 1/2 years at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego and Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, 40 miles southeast of Sacramento, to hold a combined 2,376 inmates. The combined cost of all the new housing is $700 million.

Beard would not say if the budget Brown will propose Friday calls for building additional prison cells.

California already has reduced its prison population by about 25,000 inmates during the last two years, mainly through the governor's criminal justice realignment plan that is sending lower-level offenders to county jails instead of state prisons. 

Yet the inmate population keeps climbing, said Don Specter, director of the nonprofit Prison Law Office and one of the attorneys representing inmates in the long-running federal case.
"It's continuing to increase, so any building would be spending billions of dollars for only a temporary fix," he said. "It also shows that realignment was only a temporary fix, as well."

Brown and lawmakers of both political parties have been fighting previous court rulings that say the state can safely release more than 4,000 inmates by increasing good-behavior credits. The judges have previously said the state also could release elderly and medically incapacitated inmates without endangering the public.

"Other states and jurisdictions use lots of other methods other than increasing capacity, and there's no reason California can't do the same thing," Specter said.

The budget also includes nearly $65 million for the Department of State Hospitals to help the agency deal with a more violent mentally ill population that increasingly comes from the criminal justice system. A federal judge last year blamed the department for part of the problems in treating mentally ill prison inmates.



via: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24871805/prison-secretary-seeks-delay-inmate-court-order

California gets extra time to reduce prison crowding: another month

SACRAMENTO — Federal judges on Monday gave Gov.Jerry Brown an additional 28 days to meet their order to reduce prison crowding.

Brown, whose administration has been in court-ordered talks with inmates' lawyers in search of a long-term solution to overcrowding, now has until Feb. 24 to remove about 9,600 prisoners from state lockups.

The three-judge panel also said Monday that the negotiations must continue. State appellate judge Peter J. Siggins has been mediating those confidential talks, and on Monday he was told to provide another update in mid-November.

The judicial trio did not describe the state of the discussions in their order, and Siggins' report was confidential.

Last month, Brown filed a plan to expand rehabilitation services in hopes of eventually reducing new offenses by inmates who return to society, and he asked for three years to lower prisoner numbers that way. The judges gave him an extra month instead, moving their deadline to Jan. 27 from Dec. 31 and ordering the talks.

Corrections spokeswoman Deborah Hoffman said Monday the agency was pleased by the judges' extension of their deadline and would work with local government and law enforcement groups to "build upon California's landmark reforms to our criminal justice system."

Inmate advocates and civil rights groups want the state to take a different path from the one Brown has outlined in court filings. The groups want reductions in criminal penalties, expanded parole programs for the sick and old, and a backlog cleared for thousands of prisoners eligible to have their cases reheard.

California is halfway toward meeting the judges' inmate population cap through contracts for 3,180 beds in privately owned facilities and an increase in the number of prisoners sent to firefighting camps around the state.

The latest contract, announced Monday, is an $11-million, five-year deal with the private prison company Geo Group. California already has 8,300 prisoners in private prisons in other states, but the federal judges have temporarily blocked further such transfers.

In 2009, federal judges ordered California's prison population reduced, declaring that overcrowding was the root of unconstitutionally poor inmate care. Despite construction of a new medical prison and a court-run healthcare system, lawyers for prisoners say that care remains substandard and that mentally ill prisoners are mistreated.

California's corrections department "has never taken its obligation to provide basic healthcare seriously," said Don Specter, lead attorney for the Prison Law Office, testifying Monday at a legislative hearing on the state's prison problems.

The hearing was mostly a basic briefing, and no corrections officials testified. Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) said the next hearing, Nov. 13, will focus on alternative programs and sentencing.

Brown has taken the position since January that California's prison conditions are vastly improved. But court experts have continued to report poor medical services at some prison hospitals. A federal court has refused to relinquish control over mental health services, and the U.S. Supreme Court has rebuffed Brown's attempts to appeal capacity limits that he argues are arbitrary.

A report last week from the corrections department shows California's prison population up by more than 500 from a year ago, to more than 133,860 inmates.

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

chris.megerian@latimes.com

via http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ff-prisons-20131022,0,1115000.story#axzz2j3QS5Rql

Supreme Court refuses to hear Brown's appeal on prison crowding

SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear Gov. Jerry Brown's appeal of an order to reduce prison crowding, further narrowing the governor's options in his quest to end what he characterizes as an arbitrary cap on the inmate population.

The cap was ordered by three federal judges in California, and Brown had asked the high court to remove it. Having lost that bid, he will continue to pursue a request to the lower court for more time to comply, according to a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokeswoman.

The Supreme Court justices said they found no grounds to take up the population limit, dispatching the governor's request in a single sentence: "The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

Brown had no immediate response to the decision. A spokeswoman in his corrections department, Deborah Hoffman, issued a statement saying that the administration was "disappointed."

While awaiting the Supreme Court's decision, the governor recently asked the three-judge panel to give him three years to lower inmate numbers for the long term by, for example, expanding rehabilitation programs that could help keep offenders from returning to prison once they leave.

The court gave the state an extra month instead, until Jan. 27, and ordered officials to conduct settlement talks with lawyers for the inmates whose lawsuits led to the population cap. A report on those mediation efforts is due next week.

Brown and lawmakers approved funding in September for the rehabilitation programs, and the governor has touted "historic reforms" that have already been made — such as a new law requiring reconsideration of some sentences — that need time to work.

"California will continue to build on these landmark reforms with our law enforcement and local government partners," Hoffman said Tuesday.

If the settlement talks do not yield a result that is acceptable to the court, Brown could be left with more difficult options: Spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rent privately owned prison beds or concede to major changes in whom California incarcerates.

The governor so far has fought proposals to shorten the sentences of inmates who are considered at low risk to re-offend, saying that would threaten public safety. He has vowed to keep prisoners locked up, sending them to private facilities across the country if necessary.

But the judges have temporarily barred him from moving more prisoners out of state.

"I'm among those who think there are no easy solutions," said Michael Romano, director of the Three Strikes Project at Stanford University.

Romano said thousands of inmates could leave the system relatively quickly if local courts speed up reviews of sentences in about 2,000 pending three-strikes cases. Californians voted last year to ease the state's three-strikes law and apply its new standards retroactively.

The judges ordered that the mediation discussions include three-strikes prisoners, although Brown's administration has said the backlog of unheard cases is not its responsibility.

The state's prisons have long been beset by problems in the delivery of medical care and psychiatric services, inmate suicides and lawsuits over other conditions. The three judges ruled that the problems were due to overcrowding and in 2009 ordered the state to remove about 43,000 inmates.

The state moved some prisoners to private facilities, built a new medical prison and kept more than 20,000 prisoners and parole violators in county jails rather than send them to state prisons. Officials have also signed agreements with private prison operators for almost 3,800 beds at three facilities.

The latest of those is an $86-million, three-year contract announced Tuesday to take over a California City prison that houses federal immigration detainees.

But a corrections department spokeswoman said Tuesday that the state still has 4,400 more prisoners than the cap permits.

As part of its contract, Corrections Corp. of America will make the first $10 million in upgrades that might be needed to house California's higher-security inmates. After that, the bill falls to California taxpayers.

If Brown doesn't want to give up yet on his effort to be free of the inmate cap, one expert said, he might still be able to find ways to contest the cap before a lower court.

There is no "federal order that is not appealable," said Kent Scheidegger, an official of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "It is a matter of finding" the right procedure, he said.

Scheidegger's Sacramento-based group submitted a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of four former California governors, siding with Brown by arguing that the cap is unreasonable in light of the improvements California has made.

In the meantime, prisoners' lawyers are pressing for even greater court intervention, seeking new orders on treatment of inmates.

"Prisoners are still suffering from terrible healthcare," said Don Specter of the Prison Law Office, which represents inmates in the federal court cases.

"Reports from the court experts still show that prisoners are at great risk of injury or death from the lack of adequate medical care," he said.

paige.stjohn@latimes.com