Take Action California

ACLU SoCal Files Lawsuit Challenging Efforts to Shutter Transitional Housing in Hesperia

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Sun, 08 May 2016 15:00:00 +0000

RIVERSIDE, CA – A charitable organization dedicated to reducing homelessness and several of its clients filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the city of Hesperia’s attempts to unlawfully restrict housing and support services for individuals with criminal records.

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Victor Valley Family Resource Center (VVFRC), a nonprofit in Hesperia that connects individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to transitional supportive housing. The suit argues that efforts by Hesperia to shut down three transitional homes are intended to banish residents released on probation.

“The city’s efforts to shutter these homes is little more than an attempt to banish individuals with criminal records from their community,” said Adrienna Wong, a staff attorney with ACLU SoCal. “That’s unacceptable and violates the California Constitution and the 1st & 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

Currently, the San Bernardino County Probation Department refers individuals released from incarceration who have no place else to go to VVFRC, which provides transitional housing for up to one year, as well as meals, case management services and permanent housing placement.

The lawsuit, filed against the city of Hesperia, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon and other city and sheriff’s officials, argues that several Hesperia municipal codes which were used to target VVFRC violate both the California and U.S. Constitutions. In some cases, Hesperia enforced a code prohibiting residential structures that house more than one individual on probation who are not related by blood or marriage, violating the individual plaintiffs’ right to association. One of VVFRC’s transitional homes was forced to close as a result, and the remaining homes may face the same fate.

The city also violated privacy rights by enacting an ordinance requiring landlords to provide their tenants’ personal information to police in Hesperia for purposes of a background check and registration of tenants in a database administered by the police. Under the same ordinance, the city requires landlords to evict tenants if the chief of police sends a “notice of criminal activity” – even if the tenants are never convicted, charged, or even arrested for any crime.

Hesperia’s efforts to shut down or severely limit the operations of VVFRC are a direct challenge to the state Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109), the sweeping reform package enacted to ease severe overcrowding in California’s jails and prisons. AB 109 redirects state resources from building more prisons to investing in community-based programs that provide services such as transitional housing, addiction treatment, mental health counseling, job placement and more.

Also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are six VVFRC clients who are on probation and have benefitted from these and other services. Without VVFRC, these and other clients would be vulnerable to homelessness, which increases the risk of re-incarceration.

“The city’s stance is not only unlawful but it also undermines public safety by eliminating the kind of re-entry and sober living group homes that provide crucial services to individuals who have no other recourse,” said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU SoCal general counsel and director of its Dignity for All Project. “Without a safe and supportive environment, they are at great risk of falling into homelessness and returning to criminal activity. Efforts by the city of Hesperia to eliminate this critical resource are ill-considered, unconstitutional and detrimental to public safety.”

Read the complaint

Contact:
Sandra Hernandez 213.977.5247, shernandez@aclusocal.org
Tony Marcano 213.977.5242, tmarcano@aclusocal.org

Via: https://www.aclusocal.org/pr-vvfrc-v-hesperia/

FREE Help with Felony Removal

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Mon, 02 May 2016 15:00:00 +0000

#CHAMP47 Removes Barriers

Is a felony preventing you from moving forward in your life?

Increasingly, a proportion of people in the United States, especially from lower income communities and people of color, has been increasingly marginalized in civic and political life. For most people with felony convictions, civil rights and privileges are unimaginably obtainable. Studies have shown that gaining employment and promotions continue to become more challenging. In addition, to limited resources, access to benefits, the right to vote and adequate housing are only a few socio-economical and disenfranchised consequences you may be faced with.

CHAMP 47 (Creating Healthy Alternatives Mobilizing Prop. 47), an initiative of Time For Change Foundation created to implement Proposition 47 gives hope to our community that you can live a sustaining and prosperous life after incarceration. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which was approved by voters in November 2014 and CHAMP 47 campaign will help to improve our communities’ quality of life and restore our families.

U.S. Sen. and 2016 Presidential Candidate Rand Paul (R) praised "PROP 47 does have the potential to help tens of thousands of Californians gain their freedom and work towards rebuilding their lives. The sooner individuals with qualifying convictions take action to reduce their sentences, the greater the impact of this law will be."

Reduce low-level crimes ($950 or less) shoplifting, simple drug possession, forgery/fraud, petty theft/grand theft, writing a bad check, receiving stolen property

For more info:

Contact Porscha

(909) 886-2994

info@TimeForChangeFoundation.org

JOIN US!

DATE: Saturday May 7, 2016

TIME: 10:00 am-2:00 pm

LOCATION: Cal State Reentry In/Parole Bldg

14040 Park Ave. Victorville, CA 92392

Items to bring with you

Rap Sheet, CA ID or Drivers License
Court documents, Case Numbers,
Live Scan result

Extend Prop 47 Bill!

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:55:00 +0000

Are you aware that Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) has a time limitation? Also, are you aware that there are at least 1 million Californians that may be eligible under Proposition 47 to change their felony convictions?

Well, just in case the awareness is not there, Proposition 47 can do a numerous amount of good for non-violent criminals, only if it is allowed to do so.

Furthermore, Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) will be coming to a complete halt in November 2017, if AB 2765 (Weber) does not get amended to extend the bill, or eliminate the Proposition 47 deadline to petition for a sentence reduction.

Most important, AB 2765 (Weber) was introduced on February 19, 2016, to extend the Proposition 47 bill time limitation for petitioning, and is required to have 2/3 votes of the Legislature to amend the act.

In fact, since then, the bill has passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a vote of 5 to 2, on April 19, 2016, and will now proceed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Congratulations, AB 2765 (Weber)!!!!!

Altogether, let's make sure that we support this bill, and provide the pertinent information to the population of people that this bill can truly have an impact on.

We have to band together for this!

By:

Porscha N. Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

Shame the Prosecuting Attorneys!

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:13:00 +0000

Do prosecuting attorneys really withhold evidence? Some actually do! This thought is not too far-fetched for it not to be a reality; especially if the prosecuting attorney is in dire need of a conviction.

As stated by Lopez, "Prosecutorial misconduct is an epidemic in our nation. Bad-acting prosecutors tarnish the image of otherwise hard-working, justice seeking, and law-abiding prosecutors. However, this small group of bad-acting prosecutors have a destructive impact on our criminal justice system. Not only do these bad-acting prosecutors put their conviction rate ahead of seeking justice, these bad actors often send innocent people to prison for a very long time. These bad actions forces the public to lose confidence in the system while costing the systems millions of dollars in costly appeals."

Thankfully, AB 1909 (Lopez) wants to make it a felony for a prosecuting attorney who intentionally withholds exculpatory evidence with a 16 month, 2, or 3-year county jail imprisonment term. What a way to teach those prosecutors!

But, will it really change their ideology and approach to convictions? Will the corrupt prosecuting attorneys be held accountable for their actions? Really?!? Those are the burning questions for us all.

To summarize, criminal charges are the best recipe and remedy for the destructive, thoughtless prosecuting attorneys; because something has to occur for the prosecuting attorneys to be held liable for their devastating and despicable behavior. The "withholding evidence chain" has to eventually be broken, specifically for criminal justice reform to occur.

By: Porscha Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

References:

AB 1909 (Lopez) – As Amended March 28, 2016. As Proposed to be Amended in Committee.

SECRETS of misconduct to become PUBLIC!

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:43:00 +0000

Were you aware that California has the most "secretive" laws when it pertains to law enforcement and police records in the nation? Well, SB 1286 (Leno) wants to expose the shadiness of peace officers to end their sneaky ways of destroying, tampering, and deleting evidence, and make it a felony conviction for the particular peace officer who practices this detrimental approach to getting convictions.

Given these points, it will be a great feat if police misconduct is publicized for the public to view, because peace officers have their own bill of rights to hide this admissible information. In any event, the public should be allotted the right to review the necessary records that provide insight about the misconduct, and be shown documentation of the process and elimination of a deceitful, monstrous peace officer.

In conclusion, fraud, deception, and trickery from peace officers has to come to a complete halt, AND peace officers have to be held responsible for their heinous acts of misconduct with an arrest and a felony conviction.

Porscha N. Dillard
Special Project Coordinator
Time For Change Foundation

A Bill on the RISE!

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:45:00 +0000

Have you heard!?! Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) introduced SB 966, the Repeal Ineffective Sentencing Enhancement Act (The RISE Act) for prior drug convictions. The RISE Act will abolish expensive and fruitless sentencing improvement, emulating the Legislature’s and voters’ unity to essentially dismantle from mass incarceration; in order to invest back into the vast need of public services for the communities.

The objective of SB 966 is to:

Save California taxpayers money to reinvest back into the needed community-based programs
Reduce the racial disproportion within the criminal justice complex
Address the severe sentencing
Re-establish balance back in the judicial proceedings
Abstain the ruthless punishment towards individuals that endure substance abuse disorder

Not to mention, SB 966 wants to show that the deteriorated pursuit has demonstrated and become immensely expensive; by defrauding state and local appropriations that should be disbursed to social and health providers, schools, and channels that veritably diminishes drug use.

Altogether, incarceration can progress to a higher amount of crime by damaging family and community dynamics. For the many individuals who re-enter back into society from incarceration, are challenged with overwhelming barriers in seeking employment, housing, and education.

In the long run, elongated sentences do not reduce recidivism, nor does it impede on the distribution, use, and recovery of drugs.

By:

Porscha Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

A Great Act - Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:13:00 +0000

Great news! An incredible act called the Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (PSRA) is trying to improve public safety, and save California taxpayers money by reducing frivolous spending on our correctional system. One pivotal point of this act, is to transfer the power back to the judge and away from the District Attorney, to decide whether a minor of 14 years of age or older should be tried as an adult. Key factors have to be considered when making this decision such as: the minor's family and school life. It has to be a clear process to decide the outcome of the minor’s life.

Next, for those who are incarcerated with non-violent offenses, Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act of 2016 will add funds for rehabilitation, and will give credit for completion of educational programs with an early release. Ultimately, it is the next step to improve Prop 47.

Altogether, 1 million signatures need to be collected in order for this act to make it on the ballot in November. Governor Brown supports and is willing to sign this act, but requested 100,000 signatures by the end of April 2016 be gathered.

Equally important, collaborative help is needed for the collection of the mandatory signatures from all that are in support of this act. Let’s be overt, prison reform is needed in the state of California, and this is a productive step towards obtaining that goal.

For more information or to support the (PSRA) contact Vanessa Rhodes at vanessarhodes@gmail.com or visit SafetyandRehabilitation.com.

By:

Porscha N. Dillard

Special Project Coordinator

Time For Change Foundation

Analyst estimates $100 million more in Prop. 47 savings than Brown

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:48:00 +0000

The Legislature’s non-partisan fiscal analyst believes Gov. Jerry Brown is underestimating the amount of savings from Proposition 47, the controversial ballot initiative that reduced some nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

The initiative required the savings be used for mental health, drug treatment, truancy and victim services. In a report issued Friday, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that the first deposit should be about $100 million more than what the state Department of Finance has accounted for.

In his January budget proposal, Brown set aside $29.3 million for the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund – $62.7 million in savings from inmate and caseload reduction, minus $33.4 million for resentencing and increased parole capacity.

The vast gap is mainly due to different methods for calculating prison costs. Thousands of inmates have been resentenced and released from state facilities under Proposition 47, pushing California’s overcrowded corrections system just under a court-mandated capacity.

Brown’s budget estimates that the average daily inmate population is about 4,700 fewer this year because of the law. But the Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that, to stay below capacity levels, most of those potential prisoners would have had to be contracted out to beds in other states, which would have set the state back an additional $83 million.

The LAO also said the governor is likely underestimate the savings from fewer felony cases being filed and overestimating the cost of reclassifying the records of former offenders who already served out their felony terms.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article60119951.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article60119951.html#storylink=cpy

Old Brown tries to fix a young Brown's mistake

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 22:14:00 +0000

— Hang around long enough and you might see things turn full circle. People included.

Like a comet, they come back around.

Gov. Jerry Brown is a comet. He dominated the Capitol cosmos two generations ago, floated off and circled back.

Now one of the major public policy issues of 40 years ago also has returned, meteor-like. It concerns criminal sentencing.

Like too many things involving government, however, the jargon is wonky: "determinate" and "indeterminate."

Put simply, it's about whether a judge determines how long a felon will be locked up, or left undetermined, with parole boards having the flexibility to retain or release an inmate based on behavior and perceived rehabilitation.

In 1976, young Gov. Brown was a reformer who signed legislation changing sentencing from indeterminate to determinate.

Last week, he proposed a new reform: Scrap that 1970s reform and return to basically the way things had been for six decades before.

Times change. Situations change. Ideas? Not so much.

I asked Brown why he and the Legislature had changed the system in the first place four decades ago.

Back then, he'd been thinking about it for a long time, he recalled, even when his father, Pat Brown, was governor in the 1960s.

"People were lingering in prisons and didn't know when they were going to get out," he said. "Racial minorities might be in longer."

Prisoners, the governor continued, were compelled "to mouth certain words" to demonstrate their readiness for freedom. White parole boards seemed to be "trying to get the prisoners to have a certain mentality, messing with their heads. It didn't seem right to me.

"It came to me that if they did the crime, they should do the time. And then get out."

That became many legislators' attitude: The whole system was arbitrary and unfair — sometimes political and racial.

What else could you expect from sentences so broad? For example, one to 14 years or five to life.

Republican Sen. John Negedly, a former Contra Costa County district attorney, had sponsored the bill that switched sentences from flexible to more fixed.

"Punishment should be swift, certain and definite," Brown said after signing the measure. But soon he began having second thoughts, mentioning "ambiguities" in the new law.

There was bipartisan criticism.

Then-LAPD Chief Ed Davis, a conservative Republican, planning to run against Brown, complained that prisoners no longer would "have to pay much attention" to guards. Brown "is going to blow these prisons up before I can take over as governor."

State Sen. Alan Sieroty, a liberal Democrat from Los Angeles, feared that fixed sentencing would lead to longer terms. That would only "further brutalize the individual and make his reentry into society less possible."

Both were right.

"Liberals thought the Legislature would jack up the sentences, which it did," Brown told me. "And it never stopped. I never imagined there'd be thousands of [increased sentencing] laws and enhancements."

State government embarked on a prison-building, lock-em-up binge. There was a political stampede in the 1990s after the L.A. riots and the gripping kidnap-murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Voters and the Legislature passed "three strikes and you're out" — meaning you're "in" for life.

When Brown was governor the first time, there were 21,000 inmates in state custody. By the time he returned in 2011, the number had ballooned to 170,000 — packed like sardines into bunks and sleeping on cots in gymnasiums. At one point, taxpayers were spending more on prisoners than on college kids.

Prisoners-rights groups sued. A federal judicial panel ordered the state to knock it off. Voters and the governor got the message.

The California electorate softened three-strikes and other sentencing laws. Brown, through what he calls "realignment," began shifting control of low-level felons to the counties.

The state prison population is now down to 127,000.

Brown has wanted to eliminate determinate sentencing for years — calling it an "abysmal failure" in 2003 — but said he first needed to achieve realignment and form a political coalition.

"If I'd done it right out of the box, I might have made mistakes," he told me.

Brown added that he'd also been pretty busy.

"No one has done more than I have," he said, listing such things as pension reform, water programs and fighting climate change. "I haven't been sitting on my ass."

The governor's sentencing proposal is targeted for the November ballot as an initiative. It would affect only inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes. Murderers and rapists, forget it.

A nonviolent felon would need to complete his time for the basic crime. But he could earn credits for good behavior and rehab. And before serving added time for an enhancement — such as gang activity — he could seek parole for being a model prisoner

An "unintended consequence" of the law he signed 40 years ago, Brown told reporters, "was the removal of incentives for inmates to improve themselves, refrain from gang activity, using narcotics, otherwise misbehaving. Because they had a certain [release] date and there was nothing in their control that would give them a reward for turning their lives around."

Why the ballot and not the Legislature? It would require a two-thirds legislative vote, and that's a hassle. And he has $24 million in leftover campaign money begging to be spent.

This reform seems to make sense. The old one did, too — at the time. But this is another time.

The lingo also should change. Junk "determinate" and call it "fixed" or "flexible."

Via: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-cap-20160201-column.html

CA Rally and Press Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 22:30:00 +0000

Join Us

Friday, January 8. 2016

11:00 AM

3737 Main Street

Riverside, CA 92501

Stand with us as we call on the governor and the Legislature to produce a state budget that lifts Californians out of poverty and invests in the future of our communities.

New California laws 2016: What to expect in the new year

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:03:00 +0000

Like bubbles ascending a champagne flute, a bevy of recently passed California policies will float to the surface and take effect this Jan. 1. Here’s a review of some of the major items.

Vaccines
One of 2015’s fiercest fights was over SB 277, which was introduced in the wake of a measles outbreak at Disneyland and requires full vaccination for most children to enroll in school. Schools will begin vetting students to ensure they have their shots in July, before the 2016-2017 school year begins.

Search warrants

Arguing our privacy laws lag behind our technology, lawmakers passed SB 178 to require search warrants before law enforcement can obtain your emails, text messages, Internet search history and other digital data.

Ballot fees
Thinking of filing a ballot initiative? You’ll need more cash. AB 1100 hikes the cost of submitting a proposal from $200 to $2,000, which supporters called a needed screen to discourage frivolous or potentially unconstitutional proposals.

Grocery jobs
When grocery stores get new owners, AB 359 requires the stores to retain employees for at least 90 days and consider keeping them on after that period ends. While workers can still be dismissed in that window for performance-related reasons, the labor-backed bill seeks to protect workers from losing their jobs to buyouts or mergers.

Reproductive services
AB 775 requires any licensed facility offering pregnancy-related services to post a sign advertising the availability of public family planning programs, including abortions. It is aimed at so-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” which pro-abortion rights critics assail for pressuring women into carrying their pregnancies to term.

Cheerleaders
Cheerleaders who root on professional athletes will be treated as employees under California law, with the accompanying wage and hour protections, under AB 202. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, who carried the bill, was a Stanford cheerleader.

Testing
High school seniors will no longer need to take a long-standing exit exam to graduate, thanks to SB 172. The bill lifts the requirement through the 2017-2018 school year and also applies retroactively to 2004, meaning students who have completed all the other graduation requirements since then can apply for diplomas.

Guns on campus
Concealed firearms are barred from college campuses and K-12 school grounds under SB 707, which the California College and University Police Chiefs Association sponsored as a public safety corrective.

Equal pay
SB 358 seeks to close the stubborn gap between men and women’s wages by saying they must be paid the same for “substantially similar work,” an upgrade over the current standard, and allowing women to talk about their own pay and inquire about the pay of others without facing discipline. While California already requires equal pay for equal work, women still consistently make less.

Sex ed
Student participation in sexual education courses is currently voluntary. AB 329 would make the courses mandatory unless parents specifically seek an opt-out and would update curricula to include, for example, more information about HIV and the spectrum of gender identity.
Yes means yes

As long as their school districts require health classes to graduate, SB 695 will ensure high school students learn about the “yes means yes” standard of consent to sexual acts. In other words, students will learn they should be getting explicit approval from partners.

Toy guns
Realistic-looking airsoft guns will need to have more features that distinguish them as toys, like a fluorescent trigger guards, thanks to SB 199. Advocates said it would help law enforcement avoid tragic mistakes when making split-second decisions, pointing to the 2013 case of a Santa Rosa boy fatally shot by Sonoma County deputies who mistook his toy gun for the real thing.

Gun restraining orders
Passed last year in response to a troubled young man shooting and killing multiple people in Isla Vista, AB 1014 allows family members to obtain a restraining order temporarily barring gun ownership for a relative they believe to be at risk of committing an act of violence.

Rape kits
AB 1517 prods law enforcement to more quickly process so-called “rape kits,” the forensic evidence collected from sexual assault crime scenes. While the bill doesn’t mandate anything, it encourages law enforcement agencies to send evidence to crime labs sooner and urges crime labs to analyze the data and upload it into a DNA database in a shorter time frame.

Brew bikes
People rolling around midtown Sacramento on beer bikes could get a little tipsier under SB 530. The measure allows alcohol to be consumed on board the multi-person vehicles, which currently travel between different bars but don’t allow imbibing in between, as long as the city authorizes it. The city of Sacramento is working on updating its pedicab ordinance to reflect the new law.

Charity raffles
Professional sports fans could bring home big prizes thanks to SB 549, which authorizes in-game charity raffles allowing the winner to take home 50 percent of ticket sales. That’s a change from the current system, which permits charity raffles only if 90 percent of the proceeds go to the cause.

Pedestrian costs
AB 40 ensures pedestrians and cyclists won’t have to pay tolls on Bay Area bridges like the Golden Gate. While no such tolls yet exist, lawmakers were responding to a proposal to raise money with a Golden Gate Bridge fee.

Back wages
If an employee doesn’t get paid what they are owed, SB 588 allows the California Labor Commissioner to slap a lien on the boss’s property to try and recoup the value of the unpaid wages. This was a slimmed-down version of a prior, unsuccessful bill that was pushed by organized labor but repudiated by business interests – the key difference being that the commissioner, not workers, files the liens.

Franchises
Another bill whose earlier labor-backed, business-opposed version was softened in the name of compromise, AB 525 modifies the relationships between individual franchise business owners and the larger parent company by changing the rules for when the parent company can terminate or refuse to renew a franchise agreement and how the franchise owner can sell or transfer the store.

Transportation companies
The steady drip of new regulations on companies like Uber and Lyft continued with AB 1422, which requires such businesses to give the California Department of Motor Vehicles access to driver records by participating in the agency’s pull notice program.

Air regulations
After a sweeping climate bill spurred objections from lawmakers about the clout of the unelected California Air Resources Board, AB 1288 offered a concession by creating two new spots on the regulator’s board, to be appointed by the Legislature.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article51702105.html#storylink=cpy

California's ballot could be a blockbuster next November

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 01:17:00 +0000

Call it a dream for California political consultants, a nightmare for voters or an electoral extravaganza: The November 2016 ballot could feature a bigger crop of statewide propositions than at any time in the past decade.

"The voters pamphlet is going to look like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica," said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic campaign strategist.

The list of measures is very much a work in progress. Most campaigns are still gathering voter signatures or waiting for their proposals to be vetted by state officials.

But political strategists have identified at least 15 -- perhaps as many as 19 --measures that all have a shot at going before voters next fall.

The last time California’s ballot was that long was in November 2004, when there were 16 propositions. The March 2000 ballot had 20.

A number of political forces help explain why so many are lined up now. For starters, there’s the 2011 law that moved everything but measures written by the Legislature to the general election ballot. As a result, June primary ballots are now almost barren of contentious campaigns.

There is also a lingering hangover from the state's record-low voter turnout in 2014: a new and extremely low number of voter signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

"There’s no real obstacle this time," said Beth Miller, a Republican campaign consultant.

State law sets the signature threshold at a percentage of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. That has lowered the bar to a level not seen since 1975, opening the door of direct democracy more widely for activists with smaller wallets.

“It’s made it cheaper to qualify an initiative,” said Gale Kaufman, a longtime Democratic campaign consultant who is leading the charge on initiatives to legalize marijuana and prolong a temporary tax increase approved by voters in 2012.

Which of the likely propositions might become a centerpiece campaign next year remains unclear; only five have qualified for the ballot. But perhaps a dozen more are close to securing a spot or have substantial funding behind their signature-gathering efforts.

The effort to legalize recreational use of marijuana, boosted recently by former Facebook and Napster executive Sean Parker, will undoubtedly make national headlines. So, too, might the effort spearheaded by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to ban the possession and sale of large ammunition clips for guns and require background checks on those who buy ammunition.

Tax measures also typically have high profiles. Last week, an alliance of teachers, state and local employees, hospitals and doctors announced a new push to extend the 2012 tax hike. Healthcare groups are backing a proposal to raise California’s cigarette tax by $2 a pack.

Other proposals form a political potpourri of ideas and issues. School groups have qualified a $9-billion school construction and renovation bond measure; organized labor and several Democratic officeholders are backing a proposed increase in the state minimum wage; and two efforts would impose new rules of public disclosure on the legislative process and campaign contributions.

There is a also a closely watched effort to lower the cost of taxpayer-subsidized prescription drugs, with the pharmaceutical industry promising a well-funded campaign to defeat it.

Wild cards that could dramatically affect the state’s electoral landscape include a much-discussed move to substantially shrink the pensions of public employees.

All of this may be the equivalent of a full employment act for political professionals, but a lengthy and dense ballot can turn off voters.

"What ends up happening is voter fatigue," Kaufman said.

Political scientists say voters simply give up on trying to follow so many disparate propositions and skip many of them -- or simply vote no.

A plethora of ballot measures also could raise the costs of television and online advertising to record levels, leaving initiative backers scrambling to raise cash.

"There’s only so many places you can tap the well," said Fiona Hutton, a public affairs strategist in Los Angeles. "And if there are multiple measures, how far does that donor base get stretched?"

And more campaigns will be competing for a limited amount of television and radio ad time.

"Some campaigns are never going to get enough oxygen to be able to inform voters," said Rob Stutzman, a GOP consultant working on the school bond effort.

Perhaps the biggest unknown is whether a 2014 law designed to offer a release valve for the pressure of initiative campaigns will have any effect. It allows backers of an initiative to withdraw their measure if they strike a deal on similar legislation at the state Capitol.

"Are there things that there’s an appetite for the Legislature to deal with?" said strategist Miller. "It's a new wrinkle, and it’s not one that anyone’s ever dealt with before.

By John Myers, Los Angeles Times
Via http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-measures-2016-20151108-story.html

California Jolt: State Upends How It Funds and Runs Education

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:00:00 +0000

It's hard to find stories of "upheaval" in the way states structure the machinery of public schooling. Wrangling interests tend to allow only a little tinkering under the hood. But California right now is rewriting that script. And the sweeping changes occurring in the state's education system are so politically stunning that those inured to paralysis in Sacramento stand slack-jawed.

Not only is the nation's biggest state calmly implementing the Common Core State Standards that have roiled the waters in a number of other states. But to bolster the success of those higher academic expectations, the Golden State is revamping its entire education architecture, from how dollars flow to schools to how teachers and principals are supported and held accountable.

The changes take dead aim at reversing a longstanding lag in student achievement and, especially, narrowing the socio-economic achievement gap in a state whose schools were once the envy of the nation. The animating force is the new Local Control Funding Formula, the linchpin of 2013's authorizing legislation. Phased in over eight years, the LCFF obliterates the state's old finance system long denigrated as ineffective, dizzyingly complex and, above all, inequitable. In its place is a weighted approach that provides a basic level of funding for every student then targets additional funding to districts with large numbers of students who are more expensive to educate--those from poor families, English learners, and foster children.

While many state funding formulas use a weighted approach to try to account for the higher costs of educating different groups of students, California is taking an extra step. In a profound turnaround, and in keeping with Governor Jerry Brown's principle of "subsidiarity," decision-making responsibility for how to spend the money has been handed to local school districts.

This flips the norm established more than 35 years ago with Proposition 13, the landmark property tax limit, when the state became the school funding distributor as well as decider, largely dictating how locals could use the dollars. Over time, highly regulated "categorical" or specific-purpose programs proliferated.

The one-size-fits-all approach became increasingly counterproductive as the state's diversity exploded in the 1980s. And now, decades later, local educators are being given back the reins. Instead of compliance, their new mandate is to go forth and be creative. Innovate. Make the money matter. Work with your communities to dig into evidence about which kids are struggling with what, and why. Agree on top improvement goals and map out a plan that ties your budget to the actions you're going to take--actions that will help teachers and administrators know and continually get better at using the most effective practices.

Reaction in the state's 1,000 school districts is a stew of excitement, energy, and concern. You'd be hard pressed to find educators who don't applaud the aspiration to level the playing field for the least advantaged kids; more than half the state's six million public school students are low income. Beyond that is the new law's philosophic underpinning:

It's an implicit vote of confidence in California's educators, the opposite of the test-and-punish mode that prevailed nationally under the federal No Child Left Behind act.

At the same time, there's a near-audible gulp. Local school leaders who have complained for years about being hamstrung by Sacramento's restrictions now face, for starters, mindset change. But even exuberant local visionaries know that navigating conflicting parental and community interests can be daunting without the lever of "the state requires it" to push things forward.

The state, of course, still must hold schools accountable. Doing so will now occur by way of each district's annually updated plan that spells out its needs, priorities, and goals within eight statewide priority areas. The priorities start with student achievement but also include less tangibly documentable factors as school climate, student engagement, and parent involvement.

The local planning process has begun, even though details such as progress measures and a promised new system of improvement assistance are not yet fully in place. Watching intently are vocal advocacy groups who worry that too much local flexibility or insufficient transparency, especially for reporting on spending, may translate to diminished services for the very students the LCFF aims to accelerate.

Despite much optimism, no one sees this as a panacea in post-Proposition 13 California where investment in education has, for decades, languished below the national average and sank even lower during the recession. The new law's passage was made possible in part by good government victories--i.e., voter approved changes in legislative and election rules that finally broke legislative gridlock. But a pivotal other factor was the ballot success of Governor Brown's big 2012 gamble: Proposition 30, a temporary tax increase that averted further draconian cuts in recession-decimated school districts.

Since then, California's budget has massively rebounded. But even if activists manage to extend Proposition 30, which fully expires in 2018, and if projections of a long stretch of black ink are correct, it will take years to restore many school districts to pre-recession levels, nevermind to raise base funding from a level that's widely seen as inadequate.

The position of Brown and the state board of education is that the kids can't wait. By clearing away resource-sucking regulations and accreted categorical programs, instead unfettering education dollars to be directed to actual school and student needs, they're betting the state can turn the page on achievement mire.

Are their ambitions quixotic? Not according to years of research findings, notably from an unprecedented set of California school finance and governance studies prompted by the student outcome urgency. Anchored at Stanford and undertaken by national experts--including current State Board of Education president Mike Kirst--the studies culled from experiments in the U.S. and abroad. Findings explicitly called for replacing the "fundamentally flawed" status quo with a system that would "improve the alignment between the accountability system and the decision-making responsibilities, increasing flexibility at the local level."

Guided by these studies, the state is buttressing the LCFF with a pre-emptive system of educator support to be orchestrated by a new state agency, the California Collaborative for Education Excellence. With 10,000 schools and nearly 300,000 teachers, there is intense focus on the problem of uneven local capacity--for aligning classroom practices with the Common Core; for ensuring skilled principal leadership; for revamping district management and budgeting strategies. One favored capacity building approach is to support cross-district partnerships to fast-forward the spread of best practices, using a model pioneered in the state by a group of mostly big districts.

As implementation unfolds, developmental glitches are inevitable. With criticisms simmering among advocates of tighter control, there may not be much leeway for missteps. But the governor is adamant that the state should remain hands off, giving local flexibility time to find its footing before making dramatic adjustments. So far, with momentum stoked by the political miracle of getting this far, the odds for success appear to be on his--and the kids'--side.

Via Joan McRobbie, Huffington Post 12/18/2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-mcrobbie/california-jolt-state-upe_b_8833242.html

The California Endowment Divests from Private Prisons

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:40:00 +0000

Should any foundation concerned about community well-being be investing in huge corporations whose job it is to ensure as many Americans as possible are kept incarcerated?

The California Endowment evidently does not think so. Yesterday, it announced that that it is divesting from companies “that derive significant annual revenue from the operation of private prisons, jails, detention centers and correctional facilities.”

Rick Cohen wrote about a campaign to divest from private prisons in 2014 and particularly about the campaign’s efforts to try to get the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to divest. At that time, he wrote:

The Gates Foundation responded to a protest led by the Latino advocacy group Presente.org in support of prisoners engaged in a hunger strike at the GEO-operated Northwest Detention Center by saying that the positive value of its grantmaking far outweighs its investments in operators of private prisons. The foundation also contends that it somehow doesn’t actually control its own investments, which are directed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Asset Trust, which operates separately from the foundation.

The campaign to divest from private prisons is asking both public and private entities to dump their holdings in Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group, “America’s largest private prison corporations which have profited from billions in taxpayer money.” Both are publicly traded companies who spend millions on lobbying for policies that will keep our prisons full.

“Public resistance to privatization of correctional, detention, mental health and residential facilities could result in our inability to obtain new contracts or the loss of existing contracts, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.”—GEO Group, 2013 SEC Annual Report, “Risk Factors”

In announcing its divestment, the Endowment released a short statement.

“The California Endowment strongly supports community safety and stands with communities that experience serious disparities in incarceration rates for non-violent offenses that could be handled through drug treatment and other programs that help prevent non-violent crime,” said Robert K. Ross, MD, president and CEO of The California Endowment. “It is essential our investment strategies take into account the potential impacts they could have on the communities we serve.”

In June, Columbia University became the first university to divest, followed by Hampshire College in Massachusetts.

As Cohen wrote in 2014, “Divestment need not be an anti-corporate strategy at all. It is a pro-values strategy. But it demands that the institutions of our society that purport to be mission- and value-driven, such as private foundations, cannot stand on the sidelines with their billions in tax exempt assets and assume that their five percent devoted to philanthropic output automatically outweighs and camouflages the impacts of the investment of their 95 percent.”

By RUTH MCCAMBRIDGE

via https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/08/the-california-endowment-divests-from-private-prisons/

California adds just 5,500 jobs in November; unemployment rate declines to 5.7%

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:02:00 +0000

California employers added just 5,500 jobs in November, according to federal data — a significant slowdown from more robust monthly gains earlier in the year.

But the state unemployment rate continued its five-year-long decline, dropping to 5.7% in November, the lowest in eight years. The U.S. unemployment rate is 5%.

November's tepid job increases were the lowest one-month jump in more than four years, and far less than the 40,600 job gains the state posted in October.

See the most-read stories this hour >>

But economists cautioned against reading too much into monthly swings in the employment data, which often are subject to revisions. September's numbers, for example, were revised upward from 8,200 positions to 21,100 jobs.

“We're reading the economy on the fly,” said Robert Kleinhenz, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. “That's just the nature of these economic statistics.”

Despite the lackluster November, California's payroll employment grew 2.6% over last year, faster than all but six other states and better than the national rate of 1.9%.

Construction continued to be the leading growth sector, as the industry continues to rebound from the housing crash. The high-paying professional and technical services industry — including lawyers, accountants, architects and engineers — also recorded some of the fastest job growth in the state.

The only industries to post losses were mining and logging, along with manufacturing and financial services.

The state unemployment rate is down significantly from a year ago, when it stood at 7.2%. The jobless rate is often criticized as an incomplete economic indicator because it doesn't count discouraged job seekers who have dropped out of the labor force.

Some of those who stopped seeking employment may be returning to the labor force, which has expanded over the last year even as unemployment fell. That suggests newly returned job seekers may be finding success.

Join the conversation on Facebook >>

Economists say job growth tends to taper off as an economic expansion progresses. The U.S. is technically in the seventh year of expansion.

Although California's economic growth has outperformed the nation, there are still reasons for many people to believe their fortunes have not improved.

The gap between high and low earners is more pronounced in California because wages for middle-income earners have fallen.

Since 2006, median wages have declined 6.2% in California, compared with 1.9% for the U.S. overall, according to the California Budget & Policy Center.

And while the share of part-time workers has declined since the depths of the Great Recession, that segment of the workforce is still larger than in the mid-2000s. About 5.9% of workers in California are considered part-time for economic reasons — meaning that they are unable to find full-time work.

That's down from 9.6% of the workforce in 2010, but still higher than when the economy last peaked in 2006.

“We don't want to miss the point that we are in one of the better times, employment-wise, in the last 40 years in California,” said Michael Bernick, a former director of the California Employment Development Department. “But at the same time, these numbers don't represent a lot of the instability: the part-time, contingent nature of the evolving labor market.”

Via Chris Kirkham, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs-20151218-story.html

Poverty Hitting One in Six Californians

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:00:00 +0000

The economic recovery in California has not reached a sizable percentage of the population, with more than 16% of Californians living in poverty, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the California Budget and Policy Center.

In most California counties, the poverty rate increased from 2007 to 2014. Of the 40 California counties with available data, 32 had higher poverty rates last year than they did in 2007 before the state's recession began, the study said.

The California Budget and Policy Center is a not-for-profit that conducts independent, nonpartisan budget analysis.

"Millions of Californians continue to struggle to meet their basic needs, even after several years of steady job gains," the study said. "Poverty remained widespread even though the state's unemployment rate declined from a high of 12.2% in 2010 to 7.5% in 2014."

The federal poverty line is about $19,000 for a family of three. The overall rate fell slightly between 2012 and 2014 -- by 0.6% -- but the 2014 level of 16.4% is a full 4 percentage points higher than it was in 2007.

The study highlighted the differences between counties:

Not only was the poverty rate higher in 32 of the 40 counties with available data from 2007 to 2014, but there was no statistically significant difference in poverty rates in the other 8 counties;
In Lake County, the poverty rate rose to 25.9% of the population. In Kings County, 26.6% live in poverty;
In Lake, Kings and San Bernardino counties, the poverty rate jumped by more than 8 percentage points from 2007 to 2014; and
In 15 other counties, poverty rates in 2014 were 4 to 8 percentage points higher than in 2007. Most of those counties are in the Central Valley and in the Sacramento region.

"Many factors could contribute to the uneven recovery across California's counties," fact sheet author Alissa Anderson wrote. "These include differences in the availability of well-paying jobs and/or of sufficient work hours, as well as changes in county demographics, such as whether large numbers of people who struggle to get by move into a county."

By David Gorn
Via http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2015/12/poverty-hitting-one-in-six-californians

California Voters May Get to Choose Between Two Different Death Penalty Related Ballot Propositions

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:00:00 +0000

Faster Executions or None at All? Californians May Get to Choose

If there’s one thing supporters and opponents of the death penalty can agree on, it’s this: The system is broken. Since California reinstated capital punishment in 1977, 117 death row inmates have died. But only 15 of them have been executed. The vast majority have died of natural causes or suicide.

When he was chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George caused a stir when he said “the leading cause of death on death row in California is old age.” The system, he said, is dysfunctional — and few would disagree.

Even before a federal judge blocked executions in 2006, the pace of implemented death sentences was slow. It wasn’t unusual for condemned inmates to spend two decades on death row, as their legal appeals slowly wound through the courts. But to death penalty opponents, the seemingly endless delays prove that capital punishment is unworkable and should be scrapped altogether.To death penalty supporters, that delay is a travesty of justice and disrespectful to crime victims and their families who, they say, deserve to see the ultimate sentence implemented.

Come November, California voters could have two completely different options for fixing the system. Two groups are preparing to collect signatures for ballot measures that would present stark choices.

One, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, would limit inmate appeals, which can drag on for decades, and expedite executions. It would also give the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation more latitude in housing condemned inmates and require them to work, with 70 percent of their wages going to crime victims.

The other proposal, which ballot measure proponent Mike Farrell calls “The Justice That Works Act of 2016,” would ban executions altogether and convert all existing death sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016 is current being reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office. A similar measure was proposed last year and endorsed by three former California governors. It never made it to the ballot.

An attorney advising proponents of the current death penalty reform measure told me that first effort was “controlled by crime victim families,” suggesting it didn’t have the kind of professional political consultants needed to make it to the ballot.

This time around, he said, Sacramento-based strategist Aaron McLear and his firm, Redwood Pacific, will guide the effort.

This week the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office released its fiscal review of that measure. While acknowledging the measure would affect various costs, “the magnitude of these effects would depend on how certain provisions in the measure are interpreted and implemented,” the LAO wrote.

In conclusion, it wrote:

Increased state costs that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually for several years related to direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, with the fiscal impact on such costs being unknown in the longer run.
Potential state correctional savings that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
Proponents of the measure to ban capital punishment must be more pleased with the LAO analysis of their measure. The LAO estimates a “net reduction in state and local government costs of potentially around $150 million annually within a few years due to the elimination of the death penalty.” You can be sure that will end up in a TV commercial for the measure.
Proponents of both measures have yet to collect a single signature. Assuming they get a green light from the attorney general and the secretary of state, they’ll have 180 days to collect the necessary signatures to put it before voters.
If both succeed, they’ll likely join a November 2016 ballot with measures related to legalizing pot, raising the minimum wage and strengthening gun control. All that, plus a presidential election and the race to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
In other words, a political junkie’s dream come true.

By Scott Shafer

Via http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/14/faster-executions-or-none-at-all-california-voters-may-choose

California Expands Substance Abuse Treatment For Low-Income Residents

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:16:00 +0000

After years fighting a heroin addiction, Danny Montgomery, 33, is receiving inpatient treatment that is being paid for by Los Angeles County.

California is overhauling its substance abuse treatment system for low-income people, embarking on a massive experiment to create a smoother path for addicts from detox through recovery.

The state is the first to receive federal permission to revamp drug and alcohol treatment for beneficiaries of Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California. Through what's known as a drug waiver, state officials will have new spending flexibility as they try to help people get sober and reduce social and financial costs of people with substance abuse disorders.

Under the waiver, the state plans to expand treatment services, including inpatient care, case management, recovery services and added medication. Beginning next year, drug treatment centers will be able to get reimbursed for providing this much wider range of options to people on Medi-Cal.

Only a small fraction of low-income Californians with substance abuse disorders receive treatment, largely because of restrictions on what Medicaid will pay for.

"This was a long time coming," said Keith Lewis, executive director of Horizon Services, which provides treatment in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties. "It's a win/win for people with substance use issues and their families ... and for the people providing those services."

The changes, which will be phased in starting next year, stem in part from the Affordable Care Act, which required that substance abuse treatment be covered for people newly insured through Medicaid or insurance exchanges. The health law allowed states to expand Medicaid to cover millions more people.

Drug rehabilitation providers say the changes will give addicts a better chance at getting — and staying — clean. But they fear the state won't raise the traditionally low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for treatment, making it harder to provide services and produce the outcomes California is hoping for.

Lewis, of Horizon Services, said that under the waiver he expects drug treatment services to be higher quality and the workforce better trained. But he said that "Medi-Cal rates, which have always been too low, have to go up."

California's Medi-Cal drug treatment program currently costs about $180 million annually, paid through a combination of state and federal funds. There aren't any estimates for costs under the new approach. But the idea is that the changes will help health care expenses overall by enabling more people to get sober and healthier so they stop rotating through treatment centers, jails and hospitals.

Nearly 14 percent of Medicaid recipients are believed to have a substance abuse disorder, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The five-year pilot project in California was approved by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in August. Under the waiver, counties will approve treatment for Medi-Cal patients based on medical necessity and criteria established by the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

The Tarzana Treatment Centers in Los Angeles County provide outpatient and inpatient care for substance use disorders.

Anna Gorman/KHN

Current federal rules limit drug treatment centers' ability to get reimbursed under Medicaid for residential care. Clinics with more than 16 beds essentially cannot get paid, except for treating pregnant and postpartum women. That restriction will be dropped for California under the waiver.

As a result, Medi-Cal beneficiaries will be able to access up to two 90-day residential stays each year, with the possibility of one 30-day extension if providers determine that it is medically necessary. Certain populations, including those in the criminal justice system, can get approval for longer stays.

The waiver is also designed to provide better coordination between physical, mental health and substance abuse services," according to John Connolly, deputy director of substance abuse prevention and control for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. That along with more access could result in fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, he said.

That's potentially good news for people like Caitlin Knoles, a resident of Orange County who says she gets turned down for treatment of her methamphetamine addiction every time she tells residential centers she's on Medi-Cal. She has ended up in the hospital more than once because of her addiction.

"It's hard," Knoles said. "I can't get help."

The only way she can reliably get clean now is in jail, she says.

"It'd be nice to have a job and have my family back and just be normal," said Knoles, 24, as she sat outside a liquor store in Laguna Hills.

For the first time, substance abuse disorders will be treated like a disease rather than a short-term illness, said Marlies Perez, chief of the substance use disorder compliance division for the state Department of Health Care Services. "Even though we know it's a chronic condition, we have treated it acutely," she said.

Much depends, however, on reimbursement rates, which are still being negotiated. Clinic officials say they need higher rates to expand services and handle the anticipated influx of clients, many of whom will be seeking rehab for the first time.

"There is a cost to raising the bar on treatment," said Albert Senella, president of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives. "If the rates aren't adequate ... we are not going to be able to effectively meet the [new requirements] and the needs of the population."

Senella, who is also CEO of Tarzana Treatment Centers in Tarzana, Calif., said many clinics across the state don't have money to prepare for the overhaul, which will require improving technology and adding and training staff. For now, no plans are in place to provide counties or clinics with startup funds.

Eli Veitzer, interim CEO of Prototypes, which provides treatment services in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties, said the waiver provides an "incredible opportunity" to transform care.

But in addition to fears about rates, Veitzer said he is also worried that 90 days of residential treatment won't be enough for many people. Someone may be able to stem their addiction in three months but will still need more time in a treatment facility to prepare for life outside.

"If their ability to function independently in the community is not addressed, they are likely to relapse," he said.

Danny Montgomery, a 33-year-old patient at Tarzana Treatment Centers, said he needed more than a few months to get clean after nearly a decade on heroin. The addiction, which he estimated cost him up to $100 a day, caused him to lose his job and nearly lose his family.

"The whole thing is a process," said Montgomery, who lives in the San Fernando Valley. "You get the substance removed from your body, but you have to retrain your mind." Montgomery said he tried to get a bed in a residential treatment center but couldn't find one that would take Medi-Cal.

He tried to get clean on his own but it never lasted. Months after beginning his search, Montgomery was finally able to get a spot at Tarzana. He said Los Angeles County is paying for his stay, which began in May.

As worried as they are about reimbursements, clinic operators said a big advantage of the new approach is that it could help stabilize their funding. Providers now depend largely on counties to pay for residential treatment for low-income residents.

"You always suffered the vagaries of the budget cycle," said Vitka Eisen, CEO of HealthRIGHT 360, which provides drug treatment in the Bay Area.

The waiver also means increased oversight of treatment centers.

Last year, a state audit found widespread fraud and questionable billing among Medi-Cal drug treatment providers. The audit followed reports by the Center for Investigative Reporting that clinics were billing for fake clients.

The new system will include more levels of accountability, Perez says, including more stringent requirements for clinics and more local control over contracting.

Knoles, who is addicted to methamphetamine, said she hopes that more people like her will be able to get treatment.

"I've had a lot of friends die from addiction," she said. "Imagine if they'd gotten the help they wanted and needed. Things would have been different."

Anna Gorman is a reporter with Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit news organization covering health care policy and politics.

Via: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/11/459226074/california-expands-substance-abuse-treatment-for-low-income-residents

California Corrections Spending Still High Despite Reforms

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:00:00 +0000

In recent years, California has made significant progress in reducing the number of people involved with the state correctional system. These declines resulted from criminal justice reforms adopted by state policymakers and the voters following a 2009 federal court order requiring California to reduce overcrowding in state prisons.

This Issue Brief examines changes in corrections spending from the 2007-08 fiscal year — when the numbers of incarcerated adults and parolees peaked — to 2015-16, which began this past July. While total corrections spending as a share of the state budget is down slightly since 2007-08, spending for adults under state jurisdiction — which comprises more than 80 percent of total corrections expenditures and includes security and operations as well as health care — remains stubbornly high.

Significantly — and permanently — reducing corrections spending will require the state to take additional steps. These could include further reforming California’s sentencing laws, particularly with an eye toward cutting the length of prison sentences. This would reduce the number of incarcerated adults, which would allow the state to close one or more prisons and could help to lower prison health care spending.

Read the Issue Brief.

Via the California Budget & Policy Center, November 2015 report

http://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/corrections-spending-through-the-state-budget-since-2007-08-still-high-despite-recent-reforms/

Education reform bill provides increased support for early childhood education

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 09:00:00 +0000

The revision of the No Child Left Behind law now before Congress has an increased level of support for early childhood education that advocates are calling “historic.”

The bill makes permanent a grant program for early education and has a number of new provisions aimed at ensuring the effective use of resources among federal, state and local governments.

The bill, which has passed the House and is expected to be passed by the Senate this week, has “historic support for early childhood education,” said Charles Joughin, communications director with the First Five Years Fund, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C.

For the first time since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — currently referred to as NCLB — was implemented in 1965, the bill recognizes that early childhood education is important in federal and state efforts to close achievement gaps between low-income students and their peers, said Erin Gabel, deputy director of First 5 California. Gabel also applauds the bill for a new emphasis on coordination and collaboration between early education programs and K-12 schools.

There have been numerous attempts to revise NCLB since the law was enacted in 2002, but this is the first time it has found such strong bipartisan support. In a 359-64 vote last week, the House approved the bill, dubbed the Every Student Succeeds Act.

A number of early education advocates in California, including First 5, have signed a letter to California Congress members, urging them to vote for the bill and provide adequate funding.

“While California legislators have slowly begun to rebuild the state’s early learning system, which was so devastated in the Great Recession, it continues to have an enormous unmet need,” the letter said. “If passed, this new and increased federal funding can support California to fulfill its preschool promise – to ensure all 4-year-olds have access to pre-K.”

The bill makes permanent in law the existing competitive grant program, Preschool Development Grants. These grants can be used not only to support coordination and alignment of states’ early learning systems, as in the past, but also to expand access to preschool.

But, advocates say, the true test of the bill’s impact will come when Congress determines a budget for next year. An amendment to the bill to raise cigarette taxes to provide $30 million for early education programs was defeated.

“The big question mark behind the promise is how much funding will be allocated,” Gabel said, and whether California will be able to secure a grant.

California’s application for the current preschool grants was turned down. But the state’s prospects may be better because of California’s recent commitments to early education, she said.

“We’ve had two big years of state preschool investments back to back,” Gabel said.

In a compromise with Republicans who did not want to expand education spending, the grants will be considered part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers Head Start. But the grants will be jointly administered by the health department and the U.S. Department of Education.

The bill also:

Requires states to align their academic standards with relevant early learning guidelines.
Formally states in the law that districts can use Title I funds for low-income children in early education programs if those programs meet Head Start performance standards.
Encourages combining preschool and elementary school staff in professional development and planning activities that address kindergarten readiness.
Recommends that preschool teachers be included in trainings about how to develop instructional programs for English learners.
Requires that states use at least 15 percent of their funds under the Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants for state and local programs aimed at children from birth through entry into kindergarten.

Via http://edsource.org/2015/education-reform-bill-provides-historic-support-for-early-childhood-education/91533
Susan Frey, December 6th, 2015

California will have one of the toughest equal pay laws in the country in 2016

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 20:38:00 +0000

California took a major step this year toward closing the lingering wage gap between men and women, as Gov. Jerry Brown signed one of the toughest pay equity laws in the nation.

Women in California who work full time are paid substantially less — a median 84 cents for every dollar — than men, according to a U.S Census Bureau report this year.

“The inequities that have plagued our state and have burdened women forever are slowly being resolved with this kind of bill,” Brown said at a ceremony at Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

The governor called the measure, which will give employees more grounds for challenging perceived discrimination, “a very important milestone.”

It is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and most state Republican lawmakers. National women’s rights leaders said the legislation was a model for other states and for Congress, where similar efforts have been stalled by Republican opposition.

Businesses said they expected more lawsuits once the new rules take effect Jan. 1.

The sponsor of the bill was California State Senator Beth Jackson

Courts have interpreted current law to mean that male and female workers must hold exactly the same jobs to require equal pay, said state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), author of the legislation.

“Now they're going to have to value the work equally,” she said.

California and the federal government already have laws banning employers from paying women less than men for the same jobs. The new California Fair Pay Act broadens that prohibition by saying bosses cannot pay employees less than those of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work,” even if their titles are different or they work at different sites.

A female housekeeper who cleans hotel rooms, for example, may challenge higher wages paid to a male janitor who cleans the lobby and banquet halls, said Jackson. Similarly, a female grocery clerk could challenge a male clerk's higher wages at a store owned by the same employer but located a few miles away.

The new law also prohibits retaliation against employees who ask about or discuss wages paid to co-workers, and it clarifies their ability to claim retaliation.

On the employer side, those sued by workers would have to show that wage differences are due to factors other than sex, such as merit or seniority; that they are job-related and reasonable; and that they are not due to discrimination.

Workers who believe they have been discriminated against said Tuesday that the new law would help bolster future cases. Employers will now be “accountable to pay women fairly,” said Aileen Rizo, a math consultant for the Fresno County Office of Education who is suing the agency.

Rizo alleges in her federal lawsuit that a male colleague was paid $12,000 more a year for the same work, even though he was hired four years after she was and had less experience, education and seniority.

The new law will mean more employees taking more bosses to court, said J. Al Latham Jr., a labor law attorney and lecturer at the USC Gould School of Law.

“It is going to lead to lots more litigation, which further weakens the business climate in California,” he said.

Geoff DeBoskey, another labor lawyer, agreed, saying it was significant to change from requiring equal pay for equal work to mandating equal pay for substantially similar work, and that would drive some businesses out of California.

Employers will “move operations and grow elsewhere,” said DeBoskey, whose clients include Fortune 500 companies. “If an employer is going to build a new call center, they are just not going to build that in California.”

The new law is the strongest in the country, according to the National Partnership for Women & Families, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group for workplace fairness.

Actress Patricia Arquette, whose call for equal pay in her acceptance speech at February’s Academy Awards helped spur Jackson's legislation, hailed the new law as “a critical step toward ensuring that women in California are seen and valued as equals.”

Jennifer Reisch, legal director of the San Francisco group Equal Rights Advocates, said women, especially those of color and mothers, “continue to lose precious income to a pervasive, gender-based wage gap.”

Brown's signature on Jackson's bill “will make California’s equal pay law clearer, stronger and more effective,” she said.

Via Los Angeles Times, Chris Megerian and Patrick McGreevy

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-equal-pay-bill-20151006-story.html

L.A. County Board of Supervisors Form Prop. 47 Task Force

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 22:05:00 +0000

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to form a task force to help non-violent ex-cons update their records under Proposition 47 and to link them to jobs and services.

Proposition 47 — dubbed by supporters the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act — was approved by 59.6 percent of California voters in 2014. It reduced some non-violent drug and property crimes — such as shoplifting, receiving stolen property and writing bad checks of less than $950 — from felonies to misdemeanors.

Supervisors Hilda Solis and Mark Ridley-Thomas proposed the task force and Solis said it would bolster public safety.

“The primary purpose of the motion today is to reduce crime,” Solis said. “Jail and prison have become a revolving door.”

The task force will focus on connecting individuals coming out of jail and prison with jobs, housing, health care and mental health and substance abuse treatment and finding funding for those services.

“For the last 40 years, our broken criminal justice system has drained communities like South Los Angeles,” said Karren Lane of the Community Coalition of policies that doled out harsh punishments for drug and other non-violent offenses.

Solis highlighted the barriers faced by ex-offenders.

“Having a felony conviction makes it difficult to get work, to get housing, to get services and to put your life back together,” Solis told her colleagues.

Public Defender Ronald L. Brown said individuals in prison and jail suffer disproportionately from mental illness and substance abuse and told the board that treatment is critical to success outside of jail.

“Prisons don’t encourage inmates to address their drug problems,” Brown said.

Proponents say the proposition provides a more just penalty for low-level offenders. Anticipated savings from the law are intended to be spent on mental health and substance abuse treatment, truancy and dropout prevention and victim services.

“I think what we’re talking about is a hand up, not a hammer down,” said Bruce Brodie of the county’s office of Alternate Public Defender.

Other backers point to how Prop 47 has alleviated prison overcrowding and allowed more serious offenders to serve a greater proportion of their sentence.

However, opponents say Prop 47 puts dangerous criminals who should be behind bars out on the streets.

Supervisor Michael Antonovich pointed to criminals who are released only to commit new crimes, citing the example of one man who had been arrested 22 times after his initial release.

“Violent crime is up 4.2 percent,” Antonovich said.

Supervisor Sheila Kuehl challenged the idea that the proposition was linked to higher crime rates.

“There has been a lot of rhetoric about Prop 47 and a rise in crime rates and it’s just that, rhetoric. There is no data,” Kuehl said.

Kuehl said San Diego County hasn’t seen a rise in crime since Prop 47 became effective.

There are roughly 695,000 Los Angeles County residents who are eligible to apply to change their criminal records under Prop 47, according to Brown, who told the board that his office is overwhelmed by the need to help ex-offenders “become employed, tax-paying citizens of this county.”

One community advocate said many of those eligible were unaware of the potential to change their lives.

“Two out of three people who qualify for Prop 47 are not even aware” it exists, said Amber Rose Howard of All of Us or None.

The task force was also charged with trying to extend the deadline to apply for a criminal record change, currently set for Nov. 3, 2017.

The board directed staffers from the Office of Diversion and Re-Entry to work with the city of Los Angeles’ Office of Reentry to push for the region’s share of state funding from Prop 47 savings. A report back is expected in six months.

The board also asked the Auditor-Controller to audit the county’s savings as a result of Prop 47.

Senate votes down gun curbs in wake of Calif. attacks

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 23:16:00 +0000

WASHINGTON In a pair of symbolic votes that underscored the partisan divide over guns, a polarized Senate voted down rival proposals Thursday that could make it harder for people the government suspects of being terrorists from purchasing firearms. The roll calls came a day after the country’s latest mass shooting.

The votes demonstrated that political gridlock over curbing guns remains strong, despite the recent rash of mass shootings in the U.S. and growing attention to potential threats from terrorist groups like the Islamic State.

By 54-45, senators voted down a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would let the government bar sales to people it suspects of being terrorists. Though she initially introduced the proposal early this year, it received attention after last month’s terror attacks in Paris.

Minutes earlier, the Senate killed a rival plan by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would let the government delay firearms sales to suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours. Under that proposal, the transaction could be halted permanently during that waiting period if federal officials could persuade a judge to do so.

Senators voted 55-44 for Cornyn’s proposal, but it needed 60 votes to pass.

Both votes were mostly party-line. They came a day after a shooting in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and wounded 21 others.

Even had the provisions passed, the proposals were going nowhere because they were amendments to a bill eliminating most of President Barack Obama’s health care law, which he is certain to veto.

Democrats said Cornyn’s proposal was a sham because it would be easy for a lawyer to force enough delays to last 72 hours and let gun purchases proceed.

Republicans said the government’s terror watch lists include people who are included erroneously and should not be used to deny people their right to own firearms.

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article47813025.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article47813025.html#storylink=cpy

Here’s how jail-based health treatment failed my family: Guest commentary

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:15:00 +0000

As the child of a formerly incarcerated person, I’ve lived with the consequences of a failed law-enforcement system that believes jails can be places for rehabilitative treatment and care. This illusion eventually cost my dad his life.

My dad was a poor man of color raised in the smallest city in Los Angeles County. He served long sentences for drug-related crimes and parole violations. Being locked up exacerbated his existing physical and mental health issues. There were no services to greet him at the gate when he was released, and so imprisonment became law enforcement’s version of treatment. When he tried to find a job and a home, he was rejected at every turn because of his felony record.

At a meeting in Sacramento earlier this month, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), a small board dominated by law-enforcement officials, appointed the chairs of the committee who will recommend where to spend the millions of dollars of savings generated through Proposition 47, the law passed one year ago that reclassifies certain low-level crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Sixty five percent of this money must be allocated to diversion, mental health, and substance use treatment programs, giving California an opportunity to improve health outcomes for thousands of families.

But at that same meeting, despite testimonials from dozens of community members like myself whose lives have been harmed by incarceration, the BSCC voted to allocate $500 million in jail construction funds to counties across the state. Given that many of these new jail projects are being promoted as mental health treatment centers, sheriffs may soon be lining up to make the case for needing Prop. 47 funds to run these facilities. Awarding funds to expand jails makes no sense when national conversations have turned toward reducing jail populations.

The committee appointed by the BSCC to direct spending of Prop. 47 funds has the power to ensure that those savings go to treatment and care in the community, changing the culture surrounding substance use and mental health. This is the approach that finally worked for my dad.

When my dad was released for the last time in 2007, it was support from other formerly incarcerated people also grappling with substance-use and mental health conditions that helped him stay out of jail. He found his way to Homes for Life, a community-based organization in Southern California providing affordable housing and counseling for homeless and mentally-ill people. Living in a caring community empowered him to enroll in Long Beach City College’s Substance Abuse and Addiction Counseling degree program. It is bittersweet knowing that my dad didn’t find the resources he needed until he was 50 because society prioritizes punishment over healing.

Driving home to Southern California from Oakland this past spring, I prepared myself to see my dad for the first time in 20 years. It would also be the last time. I wept reflecting on 20 years of lost opportunities for our family because a poor brown man’s health conditions made him a criminal.

The real crime is the failure of law enforcement to know the difference between health care and incarceration. There is no happy ending to our story. My dad died without realizing his capacity to be a father and contribute to his community. I only find solace knowing he left this world trying to be the best person he could be.

My dad’s story is not exceptional. Families and neighborhoods continue to be torn apart by the same system that claims keeping communities safe means building more cages for people, when what they really need is comprehensive health care not administered by law enforcement.

Instead of accepting money for new jails, counties should reject the funding and give people with mental health and substance use conditions what my dad didn’t get: a fair chance at health, and a fair chance at life.

Angela Aguilar is a masters in public health candidate and a doctoral student in ethnic studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
Via: http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20151124/heres-how-jail-based-health-treatment-failed-my-family-guest-commentary

California Funds New Prisons Despite Prop 47 Passage to Reduce Inmates

noreply@blogger.com (Take Action California) — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:26:00 +0000

California officials voted on Thursday to divert US$500 million to open new jails, replacing jail beds with medical and mental health beds. Criminal justice and civil rights activists protested the decision, which counters the purpose of the popular Proposition 47, passed last year to re-classify low-level felonies to misdemeanors and redirect funds to reduce recidivism.

“Californians didn't vote for Prop 47 so that we could reduce prison populations just to begin building new jails,” said Kim Carter, executive director of Time for Change Foundation, in a press release from Californians United for a Responsible Budget. According to Carter, the Board of State and Community Corrections, responsible for the vote, “should take the money they want to spend on jails and build some affordable housing,” she said, adding that “Reducing recidivism and increasing public safety means people need access to housing and jobs, not jail beds."

Prop. 47 aims to reduce prison populations in a state with severe overcrowding, designating extra funds to programs like "school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health and drug abuse treatment." At the same meeting, the BSCC began forming a committee to decide the distribution of Prop. 47 funds. Activists against jail expansion submitted their 14 candidates, all formerly incarcerated experts on substance use treatments, reentry programming, housing and mental health treatment. Currently the BSCC is largely made up of opponents of Prop. 47.

Though the BSCC announced that it would fund the new jail projects with funds from another bill, its administrative powers were expanded last month by Governor Jerry Brown. Proponents of Prop. 47 worry that it would look to using their own funds, and community members of the cities in question, spread across 15 countries, fear less funds for local social services.

Other states that passed similar laws have seen crime rates decrease, but a year into passing Prop. 47, crime rates vary across the state, according to a report released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday. While some law enforcement authorities proposed innovative diversion programs, others escalated arrests to account for a perceived rise in petty crime. The report accounted for the differences in the priorities of officers and their departments.

The effects of Prop. 47 are too early to measure, but it is estimated to lower prison costs by US$150 million this fiscal year. The BSCC measure would eliminate 310 jail beds, but it would add 196 new ones, which some worry would not fulfill their definition of mental health treatment. This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:

Via TeleSur http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/California-Funds-New-Prisons-Despite-Law-to-Reduce-Prison-Population-20151112-0039.html