NOT JUST IN FERGUSON

A recent Department of Justice report found that courts and law enforcement in Ferguson, Missouri, are systematically and purposefully taking money from the pockets of poor people—disproportionately from black people—to put into court coffers. The context may be different in California, but many of the practices are chillingly similar. As a result, over four million Californians do not have valid driver’s licenses because they cannot afford to pay traffic fines and fees. These suspensions make it harder for people to get and keep jobs, further impeding their ability to pay their debt. They harm credit ratings. They raise public safety concerns. Ultimately they keep people in long cycles of poverty that are difficult, if not impossible to overcome. This report highlights the growing trend of license suspensions, how the problem happens, the impact on families and communities, and what can and should be done about it. Click here to read the full report.

Via: http://www.anewwayoflife.org/category/blog/

California anti-profiling bill requires data on police stops

California lawmakers on Wednesday narrowly approved anti-racial profiling legislation ordering unprecedented data collection on police stops, as they grapple with reducing tensions between law enforcement and minority communities.

It was one of dozens of bills considered ahead of a Friday deadline to pass legislation out of one chamber of the Legislature. The Senate also approved an ambitious climate change package that would boost the use of renewable energy to 50 percent in 15 years and slash greenhouse gas emissions.

In the Assembly, AB953 barely advanced to require law enforcement agencies starting in 2018 to report a racial breakdown of whom they pull over or question. It is one of few surviving police reform bills introduced in the wake of nationwide protests over police killings of minority men.

AB953's author, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, said she believed police pulled her over because they thought she was out of place in her own neighborhood. Weber is black.

"When do we stop the cycle? When do we say enough is enough in this country?" the San Diego Democrat said.

Her bill calls for police departments, sheriff's offices and other agencies to write annual reports breaking out the number of stops, the outcomes (such as citations or arrests) and the age and race of those stopped. Law enforcement groups say such data tracking is unnecessary and would distract from keeping communities safe.

Supporters of the bill countered that data collection could end up showing that racial discrimination by police isn't as widespread as believed.

"It will help law enforcement, especially now when the public believes there is something dramatically wrong with their interactions with people of color," said Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat who leads the Legislative Black Caucus.

Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, R-Oceanside, was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, saying "labeling police officers as part of the problem isn't helpful."

The bill heads to the Senate after passing 41-23, the minimum needed to advance.

Other police reform legislation has struggled in California this year.

A fiscal panel last week shelved legislation requiring independent investigations of police shootings and an annual report about deaths in police custody. Another bill regulating the use of police body cameras, AB66 also by Weber, is at a standstill over whether officers should be able to review footage before submitting reports about shooting people.

Via: http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/06/03/52189/california-anti-profiling-bill-requires-data-on-po/

Ruthie's Experience

Last week I joined some of the ladies at Time for Change Foundation to speak to criminal justice students at the University of Redlands. I had a great time sharing my experience with the students. Not only was I able to provide them with useful information, but I was inspired and learned new and useful information. I was motivated to keep trying, to not give up. Searching for a job after incarceration has been really hard, and doing so with a felony seems impossible. My felony is looked at and judged, which leads to me never getting a call back, but with this experience I am encouraged and want to someday help others with helping themselves; what I am doing now for myself. 

I participated in a panel where we discussed and learned more about AB 218 Law, Banning the Box on employment applications and how to be sure that any employers are in compliance with the law. It ensures that public employers provides a chance to hire on individuals that qualify for the position and eliminates discrimination due to their past mistakes.

We also discussed Prop 47, which reclassifies 6 petty crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. As a group, we talked about the barriers of finding employment as a felon, or just having a criminal background in general.

I am thankful to be a part of something so important and I cannot wait for the next opportunity to share with others what it is like for us. I am learning how to use my voice and it feels so empowering!

Ruthie Roys

February 23, 2015   

Suit charges California prison program discriminates against men

A California prisons program meant to expedite the reunification of inmates with their families – but which excludes male prisoners – is being challenged in federal court as discriminatory and short-sighted.

Lawyers for inmates are seeking a preliminary injunction to force prison officials to include men in the program.

An inmate enrolled in the Alternative Custody Program receives a day off her sentence for each day she participates. The inmate is released from prison and allowed to live in a residential home, transitional care facility, or residential drug treatment program for the remainder of her sentence. She is regularly checked on by a parole agent and subject to electronic monitoring. Each inmate has an individualized treatment and rehabilitation plan. Serious or violent offenders are not eligible.

As originally enacted by the Legislature in 2010, the program was open to all female prisoners, but only to male prisoners who were “primary caregivers” of dependent children.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation offered the program only to females. Two years later, the Legislature amended the statute to expressly exclude men, and that became permanent on Feb. 25, 2013.

The exclusion violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the inmates’ lawyers claim in a lawsuit filed Thursday in Sacramento federal court. The clause requires that all persons in similar situations be treated alike.

“CDCR’s implementing regulations contain 16 mandatory and another six discretionary exclusionary criteria to insure that only low-risk, low-level offenders participate in the ACP,” the motion for a preliminary injunction says. “Each of these exclusionary criteria is sex-neutral and focused solely on the prisoner’s risk level.

“Nothing in the statute or implementing regulations purports to justify this blatant and illegal discrimination. Sex-based distinctions that hinge on assumptions about women’s roles as caregivers cannot stand.”

Corrections spokesman Jeffrey Callison said the only immediate comment from prison officials is, “We are currently reviewing this lawsuit.”

Prisoners’ lawyers also point out that the program has been promoted by prison officials and the last two governors as one that will help them reduce the inmate population in accord with a series of orders issued by a three-judge federal court. The judges found that crowded conditions in the state’s adult prisons are the primary cause of inmate health care so lacking that it is unconstitutional.

“Excluding men from the ACP is contrary to (court orders) because overcrowding would be further reduced if the program were offered to men as well,” the motion for a preliminary injunction states.

“CDCR nonetheless excludes a significant portion of eligible prisoners from ACP; the in-custody male prison population is approximately 120,659, whereas the female in-custody population is approximately 6,244 (roughly 1/20th the size).”

Callison pointed to a paragraph in a recent report from the corrections department to the three-judge court. It says:

“The state expects to bring an 82-bed facility in San Diego on line this month and is searching for additional sites for the Alternative Custody Program for females. CDCR is currently marketing the program to female inmates and is reviewing inmate applications to determine placement in the program.”

via: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html#storylink=cpy

“CDCR’s implementing regulations contain 16 mandatory and another six discretionary exclusionary criteria to insure that only low-risk, low-level offenders participate in the ACP,” the motion for a preliminary injunction says. “Each of these exclusionary criteria is sex-neutral and focused solely on the prisoner’s risk level.

“Nothing in the statute or implementing regulations purports to justify this blatant and illegal discrimination. Sex-based distinctions that hinge on assumptions about women’s roles as caregivers cannot stand.”

Corrections spokesman Jeffrey Callison said the only immediate comment from prison officials is, “We are currently reviewing this lawsuit.”

Prisoners’ lawyers also point out that the program has been promoted by prison officials and the last two governors as one that will help them reduce the inmate population in accord with a series of orders issued by a three-judge federal court. The judges found that crowded conditions in the state’s adult prisons are the primary cause of inmate health care so lacking that it is unconstitutional.

“Excluding men from the ACP is contrary to (court orders) because overcrowding would be further reduced if the program were offered to men as well,” the motion for a preliminary injunction states.

“CDCR nonetheless excludes a significant portion of eligible prisoners from ACP; the in-custody male prison population is approximately 120,659, whereas the female in-custody population is approximately 6,244 (roughly 1/20th the size).”

Callison pointed to a paragraph in a recent report from the corrections department to the three-judge court. It says:

“The state expects to bring an 82-bed facility in San Diego on line this month and is searching for additional sites for the Alternative Custody Program for females. CDCR is currently marketing the program to female inmates and is reviewing inmate applications to determine placement in the program.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564808/suit-charges-california-prison.html#storylink=cpy

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.

“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and gave very different accounts of whether racial minorities continue to face discrimination in voting.

President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling. “Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent,” he said.

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Changes in voting procedures that had required advance federal approval, including voter identification laws and restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

“With today’s decision,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’ attorney general, “the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. When the law was last renewed, in 2006, Congress relied on data from decades before to decide which states and localities were covered. The chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small, most analysts say.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive preclearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they make minor changes to voting procedures, like relocating a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.

The current coverage scheme, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no relationship to the present day.”

“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”

The decision did not strike down Section 5, which sets out the preclearance requirement. But without Section 4, which determines which states are covered, Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

It was hardly clear, in any event, that the court’s conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new coverage formula. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas called for striking down Section 5 immediately, saying the majority opinion had provided the reasons and merely left “the inevitable conclusion unstated.”

The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the preclearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.

Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement, and Chief Justice Roberts said its "strong medicine" was the right response to "entrenched racial discrimination." At the time it was first enacted, he said, black voter turnout in the South stood at 6.4 percent in Mississippi.

In the most recent election, by contrast, “African-American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.”

The chief justice recalled the Freedom Summer of 1964, when the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered near Philadelphia, Miss., while working to register black voters. He mentioned Bloody Sunday in 1965, when police officers beat marchers seeking the right to vote in Selma, Ala.

“Today,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors. Problems remain in these states and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our nation has made great strides.”

In summarizing her dissent from the bench, an unusual move and a sign of deep disagreement, Justice Ginsburg called on the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to make a different point.

“The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama,” she said. “'The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.”

“That commitment,” she said, “has been disserved by today’s decision.”

She said the focus of the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from “first-generation barriers to ballot access” to “second-generation barriers” like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. She said Section 5 had been effective in thwarting such efforts.

In any event, she said, Congress, which reauthorized the law by a large majority in the House and unanimously in the Senate, was the right body to decide whether the law was needed and where.

The Supreme Court had once before considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress, Chief Justice Roberts noted on Tuesday, did not respond.

Justice Ginsburg suggested in her dissent that an era had drawn to a close with the court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act, or V.R.A., in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96.

“Beyond question, the V.R.A. is no ordinary legislation,” she wrote. “It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment,” the Reconstruction Era amendment that barred racial discrimination in voting and authorized Congress to enforce it.

“The court errs egregiously,” she concluded, “by overriding Congress’s decision.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 25, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a civil rights worker murdered in 1964. He was Michael Schwerner, not Schwermer.

Via NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Female senators push to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) (Elaine Thompson - AP)
Keying up what could become the next chapter in a weeks-long fight over women’s rights, six Democratic women senators — and one of their Republican female colleagues — urged colleagues Thursday to quickly reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
The landmark 1994 measure is up for renewal this year and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he expects to hold a vote in the coming weeks. Democrats see the debate over the bill and potential amendments as an opening to continue accusing Republicans of “waging war” on women’s rights. In recent weeks, the

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has used the issue — and the 11 Democratic women running in Senate races this year — to raise money from supporters.

The bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee last month on a party-line vote after Republicans opposed new elements of the legislation that provide protections to immigrants and same-sex couples and raised concerns about accounting for the effectiveness of federal grants it authorizes.

Republicans hope to introduce amendments to the law and some of the seven women who spoke Thursday said they would welcome those proposals.

“This one shouldn’t be about politics. Protecting women against violence shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

But Democrats are making it a partisan issue, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) charged Thursday.

Responding to reports that Senate Democrats hoped to slow debate on a bipartisan jobs measure and capi­tal­ize on the reauthorization of the domestic violence measure, McConnell said Democrats were
“manufacturing fights — and 30-second television ads” instead of approving a jobs bill.

“If you’re looking for the reason Congress has a 9 percent approval rating, this is it,” McConnell said.

Indeed, Congress remains deeply unpopular, but women view it more favorably than men. A higher percentage of women approve of congressional Democrats, 39 percent, than Republicans, 26 percent, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. A separate survey by pollsters Peter Hart and Bill McInturff found recently that 51 percent of women favored Democratic control of Congress; only 36 percent wanted to see the Republicans in charge.

On Thursday the seven women urged their colleagues to join them in reauthorizing a law that expanded sentencing guidelines and provides billions of dollars in funding to law enforcement agencies, municipal agencies and nonprofit groups to help the victims of domestic violence.

During a series of speeches by the women, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) directly addressed the concerns regarding immigrants and same-sex couples: “If the victim is in a same-sex relationship, is the violence any less real? Is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I don’t think so. If a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, sorry, you’re illegal you don’t deserve any protection?”

Feinstein added: “When you call the police in America, they come, regardless of who you are.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — one of four GOP cosponsors, but the only one to speak about it publicly Thursday — said she believes the Senate should be primarily focused on economic issues but that she hopes for “an overwhelmingly bipartisan deal” to reauthorize the law.

“This is too important an issue for women and men and families that we not address it,” Murkowski said.

By Ed O'Keefe for Washington Post

Trio of Bills Take Aim at “Buy Here Pay Here” Car Dealerships

by Damien Newton

A trio of state legislators have introduced legislation aimed at “Buy Here Pay Here” dealerships in California.  These dealerships, where used cars are sold at a marked up price with loans that have abnormally high interest rates, are often used by people of lesser means as a last resort to get a car.   These dealerships not only sell cars, but provide their own financing, creating two ways to benefit from the overpriced sale of a used car.

Last year, Ken Bensinger at the Los Angeles Times wrote a three part series exposing some of the business practices of these dealerships that create extra hardship for disadvantaged car buyers.  This year, he has continued to follow-up on the issue as these bills were introduced and begin to move in the legislature.  Here is a brief explanation of each piece of legislation:

A.B. 1447, Introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-LA)

A.B. 1447 would actually change three parts of the business strategies of Buy Here Pay Here dealerships.  First, dealers would be required to post the selling cost of the vehicle on the body of the vehicle.  This would prevent dealers from setting prices at the negotiating table based on their estimate of what the seller could afford.  The legislation also prohibits Buy Here Pay Here dealers from harassing references for the buyer after the sale, requiring cash payments in person from drivers and disabling and tracking cars with GPS systems of payments are late.


“This industry preys on people who have no other options for getting a car,” said Feuer.  “In many parts of our state, auto travel is the only way for parents to get to work on time, or to pick their kids up from school.  Instead of helping Californians get back on their feet by providing needed transportation, these dealers are promoting an endless cycle of debt and joblessness.”


Critics of Feuer’s legislation either argue that instead of passing laws to regulate the entire industry the state should focus on supporting existing laws or that the law is written so broadly that it applies to legitimate car dealerships who include LoJack with their car sales.  Bensinger talked to several opponents in his piece for the Los Angeles Times on A.B. 1447.


S.B. 956, Introduced by Senator Ted Lieu (D-LA)


Senator Lieu’s legislation focuses on the lending practices of the dealerships instead of the car sales.  By handling financing in house but being licensed as a car dealer, Buy Here Pay Here dealerships were able to get around many state financing laws and consumer protections.  Lieu’s legislation would:

• Impose regulations on dealers offering Buy Here, Pay Here installment loans by requiring them to obtain a California Finance Lender’s license, which would provide consumers with an array of protections.
• Limit used-car installment loans to a maximum 17.25 percent interest, which would give California the strongest cap in the nation.
• Change the way Buy Here Pay Here used car dealers are able to repossess vehicles to include grace periods and make it easier for buyers to reinstate a repossessed car.

“Unscrupulous dealers are pushing these types of previously unregulated loans to sell cars for far beyond market value, at interest rates as high as 30 percent,” explains Lieu.  ”They need to either find a conscience or display a sign: Rip-offs R Us.”


Representatives of the industry are arguing that Lieu’s legislation will make it difficult for dealers to sell to people with bad credit.  To here their argument, read the bottom of Bensinger’s article on S.B. 956.


A.B. 1534, Introduced by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont)


Wieckowski’s legislation seeks to reduce the amount that dealers would mark-up their vehicles by arming buyers with information outlining the real value of the vehicle.  A.B. 1534 would require dealers list a value for the car based on a third-party valuation source, such as Kelley Blue Book or the NADA Guide.  The value would take into account the car’s model year, condition and mileage.  While it would provide knowledge to the buyer, it wouldn’t place any restrictions on what the car could be sold for.


This legislation is receiving the same argument from Buy Here Pay Here representatives, that any restrictions on their industry will reduce people of lesser-means’ ability to have access to a car.  It’s also receiving some more credible blowback from dealers worried that the wording of the law would require all dealers of used vehicles to be constantly updating stickers and signage to reflect the new prices.


The automobile industry is expected to weigh in on all three pieces of legislation, but all three bill authors remain optimistic that some legislation regulating this vampire industry will make it to the Governor’s desk.  That’s the value of having a paper with the reach of the Times shine the light on an industry that is doing more harm than good, no lobbying effort will ever be able to turn that light back off. 

by Damien Newton for latimes.com

Don't have a job? California bill would keep employers from screening you out

The message in some job advertisements these days is pretty blunt: Don't bother sending a resume if you're not bringing home a paycheck already.

The ads list current or recent employment as an eligibility requirement, a screen to narrow the pool of candidates in a rocky economy that often leads to dozens of applicants for a single job. 

A random search of online job listings last year by the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit advocacy group, found 150 ads nationwide that excluded applicants based on employment status. Most of them said "must be currently employed," the group reported.

"So many people are unemployed for such long periods of time that this kind of discrimination has a devastating impact," said Maurice Emsellem, NELP's policy co-director.

New Jersey has passed a law banning such advertisements, federal legislation is pending, and a newly proposed California bill, Assembly Bill 1450, would prohibit discriminating against the jobless in hiring.

"It's the same as excluding a particular religion or minority group – it's wrong," said Assemblyman Michael Allen, a Santa Rosa Democrat, who is the author of AB 1450.

College graduates, military personnel and women returning to the workforce are among groups of people affected by a blanket exclusion, Allen said.

Opponents of AB 1450 counter that lawmakers have no business interfering in companies' internal affairs and that Allen's measure could prompt a flood of frivolous complaints that would be costly to investigate and difficult to prosecute.

"The Legislature shouldn't be running their business for them," said Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee.

Opponents say AB 1450 is a one-size-fits-all solution, and that an applicant's current or recent employment can be critical in various high-tech or other jobs requiring technology, software or skill sets that change rapidly.

Roger Niello, president of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said barring businesses from disqualifying the jobless could tie a company's hands in the kinds of questions asked during job interviews.

When an applicant's résumé shows a gap in employment, it is natural to ask why, Niello said.

"If that law passed, you'd really be getting into risky territory any time you asked any question like that," he said.

Niello said he does not agree with jobless-need-not-apply advertising, but added, "I think it's absolutely inappropriate to say they can't."

Allen said his bill would not bar employers from requiring certain levels of experience, training or education – it simply would require decisions to be based on merit, not joblessness.

Allen's bill would not permit victims to sue. Violations would be subject to fines of $1,000 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for each one thereafter. Complaints about employers would be investigated by the state labor commissioner, while accusations about employment agencies would be handled by city attorneys or the state attorney general's office, Allen said.

Potential costs of AB 1450 have not been estimated.

Eric Steele, a 46-year-old Sacramentan who has been unemployed for three years, said the state's unemployment rate, currently more than 11 percent, would never fall if companies hired only people who hold jobs.

"It's us that don't have a job," Steele said. "We need a job."

Sonja Tyler, 41, said that joblessness does not signal incompetence. "I think it's unfair," she said. "Most people wouldn't be looking for a job if they had a job."

Several Republican lawmakers said they have not seen Allen's new bill, but conceptually, they don't like it.

Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, said that current employment can indicate that someone has the commitment and social skills needed to justify a company's investment. It's a valid issue to consider, he said.

"(Employers have told me) that 'we can teach skills to an employee, but we don't know if we can teach them respect for authority, the ability to work well with others, basic work habits, or the ability to show up on time and be reliable,' " Hagman said.

Allen said his bill will fill a vacuum in state law, which does not cite joblessness as a protected class against discrimination.

Even if AB 1450 gets derailed, some legal experts say companies should think twice about automatically disqualifying the unemployed.

Martha West, professor emerita at UC Davis School of Law, said lawsuits could allege discrimination against people of color, who have significantly higher unemployment rates than whites.

"It's a most peculiar kind of response to an economic crisis, to stop hiring people who don't have jobs," said attorney Mike Herald of the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

By Sacbee.com

Homelessness: It's About Race, Not Just Poverty

http://www.citylimits.org/conversations/159/homeless-the-role-of-race


By Ralph da Costa Nunez
via citylimits.org

When talking about homelessness, race is often the elephant in the room. But no matter how much we avoid it, the blunt reality is that black Americans are greatly overrepresented in homeless shelters across the United States. In 2010, one out of every 141 black family members sought refuge in a homeless shelter, a rate seven times higher than members of white families.

The Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness report “Intergenerational Disparities Experienced by Homeless Black Families,” released Thursday, sheds light on this grim circumstance, by highlighting disparities among black and white families in the United States.

The statistics are stark: Black persons in families make up 12.1 percent of the U.S. family population, but represented 38.8 percent of sheltered persons in families in 2010. In comparison, 65.8 percent of persons in families in the general population are white, while white family members only occupied 28.6 percent of family shelter beds in 2010.

This disparity exists in city after city throughout the country, For example, in New York City and St. Louis in 2009, the most recent data available, twice as many black families were found in shelters (55.9 percent and 95 percent, respectively) compared to their share of the general city population (25.2 percent versus 49.5 percent). The opposite held true for white families who were vastly underrepresented in local shelters (1.9 percent and 3 percent, respectively), given the percentages of white families in New York City and St. Louis overall (36.1 percent versus 44.7 percent).

The next question, of course, is why?

Homelessness is primarily a poverty issue. In 2010, nearly one-quarter (23.3 percent) of black families lived in poverty, three times the rate of white families (7.1 percent).

But there is more to it than that. Understanding why blacks are overrepresented in homeless shelters requires an examination of the longstanding and interrelated social and structural issues facing the black community. Throughout U.S. history, housing discrimination has been ever-present, both in the form of official government policies and societal attitudes. Federal policies that reduced the stock of affordable housing through urban renewal projects displaced a disproportionate number of poor blacks living concentrated in cities to other substandard urban neighborhoods.

Residential segregation, which affects black households to a greater extent than other minorities, perpetuates poverty patterns by isolating blacks in areas that lack employment opportunities and services, and experience higher crime and poverty rates. Blacks are also overrepresented in the criminal justice system, which increases the risk of homelessness and developmental delays among affected children.

Lower educational attainment among blacks, in particular black males, is a barrier to gaining any employment and especially to qualifying for jobs in well-compensated sectors. Black males earn bachelor’s degrees or higher at half the rate of white males (15.6 percent compared to 32 percent). Employment disparities rooted in subtle forms of discrimination persist even with educational advancement.

In 2010, blacks with an associate's degree experienced a higher unemployment rate than whites with a high-school diploma (10.8 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively). Furthermore, a male black employee with a bachelor’s degree or higher was paid one-quarter (25.4 percent) less on average in weekly full-time salary ($1,010) in 2010 compared to a male white worker ($1,354) with the same level of education.

This report raises the question of why family homelessness is a racial issue. This phenomenon is not new, but is rarely discussed. Although government-sanctioned racial discrimination may be a relic of the past, the finding that blacks are overrepresented in shelter when compared to whites demonstrates that blacks continue to face prejudice and substantial access barriers to decent employment, education, health care, and housing not experienced by whites.

It takes a community to end homelessness. Family shelters can—and do—function as part of the front-line, combating bias and providing opportunities for families who fall through the cracks. However it will take more than a few service providers to call attention to the elephant in the room. It will take all of us as a nation to voice our intolerance of policies that make it difficult for some to ever rise out of poverty.