FCL NEWSLETTER -- April, 2003
Paying the Prison Piper: Cutting Costs, Promoting
Alternatives
California's fiscal crisis is prompting a close examination of the California
Department of Corrections (CDC) and its practices. Extreme budget limitations
mean that every dollar spent on incarceration means one less dollar available
for education and health care. The Senate Select Committee on the California
Correctional System has held the first of a series of oversight hearings. The
Senate and Assembly Budget Committees have also begun an examination of the
CDC's spending practices. FCL has always advocated on behalf of fair and humane
treatment for people who are incarcerated, and we welcome additional legislative
scrutiny and the growing awareness that incarceration without rehabilitation
is costly as well as inhumane.
California now incarcerates 159,000 prisoners at an annual cost of $5 billion
(nine percent of the general fund), compared to 23,600 prisoners in 1980. The
state has built 21 new prisons in the last 20 years and only one new public
university. Fifty-five percent of the prison population is serving time for
nonviolent offenses. Incarceration costs $27,000 per year per prisoner, roughly
twice the annual cost of an undergraduate education at the University of California.
The governor's budget proposes huge spending reductions for all state services
except the Department of Corrections, which would see its budget increase slightly.
Fees at California's Community Colleges are slated to rise from $11 to $24 per
unit, a grave increase for a profoundly democratic institution where people
from diverse backgrounds become stakeholders in society. Meanwhile, the governor
proposes to spend $220 million for a new death row at San Quentin, in addition
to the $595 million already slated for the construction of a new maximum security
prison at Delano - despite the fact that crime is down and the prison population
is
finally stabilizing.
A recent statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California shows
that 74 percent of Californians see the state's budget deficit as a serious
problem. Still, they want the state to spend more for education and health and
human services. In fact, corrections is the only program with significant public
support for spending reductions. Only 4 percent of those polled ranked crime
and gangs as their number one concern, well behind the economy and jobs, the
state's budget deficit, education and war and terrorism. So, while Californians
have rational priorities, many lawmakers and the governor have not yet gotten
the message.
Many critics of the governor's spending priorities fault the California Correctional
Peace Officers Association (CCPOA). CCPOA, California's prison guards' union,
wields huge political influence at the Capitol, as it continues to operate within
a political framework that unfolded with the public backlash against rising
crime rates in the 1980s. Both continuing concern for crime victims and tidy
sums of campaign cash have enabled the guards union to thrive and aggrandize
power, but the passage of Proposition 36 and the growing Restorative Justice
movement have poked some holes in that framework. Budget pressures will only
make these vulnerabilities more apparent. Below are some key areas where legislators
can make cuts in the Department of Corrections' budget and restore some humanity
to our penal system.
Exit the War on Drugs?
Incarceration should always be the last resort, never the first. The voters
stated this when passing Proposition 36 in 2000 by a margin of 61 to 39 percent.
In 1980, California sent 379 people to prison for simple drug possession. By
1999, that number had climbed to 12,749. Until recently, California was next
to last in education spending per pupil, while leading the nation in drug offender
incarceration with a rate of 115 convictions per 100,000 people.
As of March 2002, Proposition 36 has resulted in nearly 14,000 Californians
being referred to treatment, at an average cost of $4,500, far less than the
annual cost of incarceration. Proposition 36 has also helped stabilize the prison
population. It is estimated that there are 6000 to 10,000 "Proposition
36 look-alikes" in state prisons that would have been referred to treatment
had they been convicted after the new law took effect. Releasing them and referring
them to treatment would result in additional cost savings.
Pre-emptive Parole?
California leads the nation in recidivism: 70 percent of parolees return to
custody within three years. Of those, two-thirds are returned for violating
the terms of their parole and not for new convictions. By this measure, incarceration
and parole are serious failures, and at a time when all programs are required
to demonstrate their effectiveness to the Legislature, the state's unusually
high recidivism rate deserves serious attention.
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), ex-parolees who violated
terms of parole comprise an average of 16 percent of the daily prison population.
Professor Michael Jacobson of the City University of New York estimates that
the processing and housing of technical violators for the average stay of 4.5
months cost California $900 million per year. Few would argue that recycling
parole violators through revolving doors nets our state $900 million worth of
public safety. If California were to return technical violators at the same
rate as the national average, says Jacobson, it would save $500 million per
year.
In dealing with technical violations, parole agents usually have few options
because of a lack of available reentry services that help prisoners transition
back into society. Parole agents can either ignore violations or return violators
to custody. Many parole agents practice the "broken window theory,"
which holds that the parolee who breaks a window will most certainly commit
more serious crimes. Agents often see themselves as pre-empting the commission
of more serious crimes when returning technical violators to custody, and failure
becomes the expectation.
Other states provide parole agents with graduated sanctions that allow them
to order violators to take additional drug tests, attend substance abuse treatment
programs, perform community service or engage in similar remedies.
Returning technical violators to prison is the last resort, not the first resort.
The state of Washington forbids returning technical violators to prison. Funding
reentry services would pay for itself by reducing the recidivism that keeps
prisoners within the purview of the Department of Corrections. Lawmakers should
consider realigning the parole function with probation, which is administered
at the county level and is better connected to community services.
Aging Prison Population
As the prison population ages, Californians will be spending more and more
funds to incarcerate more and more prisoners who pose little risk to public
safety. Currently, there are 6,397 prisoners age 55 and older in California
prisons. The LAO projects their numbers will increase to 30,200 by 2022. While
the cost of incarcerating elderly prisoners is two to three times higher than
the cost for younger prisoners, people over the age of 50 account for only about
2.5 percent of all arrests. California's prisons are not equipped to deal with
the health needs of elderly prisoners. By releasing nonviolent, elderly prisoners,
the state could save $9 million in 2003/2004. As the prison population grays,
these savings would increase.
Early Release Programs
Current law allows prisoners convicted of nonviolent felonies to reduce their
sentences by up to one day for every day of participation in qualified educational
and work programs. Prisoners convicted of murder, of a serious violent offense
while incarcerated, or of the attempted murder of a police officer or firefighter
do not qualify for sentence reductions. Other convictions for violent felonies
qualify for a maximum 15 percent sentencing reduction. According to the LAO,
there are 16,000 prisoners (13,000 in reception centers) yet to be assigned
to programs that would earn them work
release credits. The governor's budget proposes to reduce funding for educational
and vocational programs inside the state prisons, which will result in more
prisoners serving longer sentences because there will be fewer slots available
in qualified programs.
In the special legislative session, the Legislature passed SB 15X, which provides
that those prisoners willing to participate in qualified early release programs,
but not assigned to full-time programs, would still receive credit toward their
sentences. Unfortunately, Governor Davis vetoed the measure, because prisoners
who are not participating in qualified full-time programs would receive the
same credits as those who are. The governor's veto message failed to note that
these are qualified prisoners who want to participate in qualified programs
and that his own budget proposal will further reduce participation by reducing
program funding.
Towards a Safe and Sane Future?
Once again, we are reminded of the fear and emotion that drives the politics
of criminal justice. In order to keep violent criminals off the streets, elected
officials have enacted laws that cast too wide a net and imprison many nonviolent
offenders. While our state's prison population has soared, funding for programs
that reduce recidivism have not kept pace, and now face reductions, thereby
assuring yet higher future incarceration costs.
The state budget is an expression of our collective values. Are we willing
to disinvest in public education and health care in order to incarcerate more
of those who pose lesser risks to public safety? Or will we follow the lead
of states like Ohio, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Massachusetts and Virginia
that are reducing corrections spending and closing and/or delaying the construction
of correctional facilities? We see the emergence of a time when cooler heads
will prevail.
Here is some of the key criminal justice reform legislation that FCL will be
following in the coming months:
- AB 112 (Jackie Goldberg, D., Los Angeles) recasts California's Three Strikes
Law so that sentencing enhancements apply only when the current conviction
is for a serious or violent felony. FCL SUPPORTS.
- AB 230 (Mark Leno, D., San Francisco) authorizes the parole authority to
order intermediate sanctions against
parole violators, such as community service, counseling, rehabilitation programs
including substance abuse treatment, and home detention, in lieu of revoking
parole. FCL SUPPORTS.
- AB 280 (Abel Maldonado, R., Santa Maria) provides that when the Board of
Prison Terms does not set a parole date during the initial parole review,
subsequent reviews will take place only every five years. FCL OPPOSES.
- SCA 8 (John Vasconcellos, D., Santa Clara) requires the Department of Corrections
to evaluate each prisoner within 90 days of incarceration, and to provide
a program that addresses prisoners' deficiencies in education, vocational
skills and psychosocial skills. FCL SUPPORTS.
What You Can Do
Write letters to your elected representatives and to the editor of your local
newspaper that link the governor's proposed disinvestments from public education
and health and human services to increased spending for corrections. Write letters
to your elected representatives and letters to the editors on the aforementioned
bills. Please send FCL copies of your letters, which will aid in our lobbying
efforts.
- Jim Lindburg
Corrections Resources
Cayley, David. The Expanding Prison, Pilgrim Press, 1998.
The author examines the huge expansion of incarceration and its alternatives.
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
1622 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 621-5661
http://www.cjcj.org/
Critical Resistance
1904 Franklin Street, Suite 504, Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-0484
http://www.criticalresistance.org
Families to Amend California's Three Strikes (FACTS)
(213) 746-4844 o http://www.facts1.com/
"Is the Budget Crisis Changing the Way We Look at Sentencing and Incarceration?"
Vera Institute of Justice, 2002.
Vera Institute of Justice
333 Broadway, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10279 o (212) 334-1300
http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/167_263.pdf
Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis. "California's Parole Experiment,"
The Urban Institute, 2002. Toll Free: (877) 847-8377. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/CA_parole_exp.pdf
Legislative Analyst's Office, Budget Analysis for 2003/2004
925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814 o (916) 445-4646
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2003analysis_2003_contents.html
Citizen Advocacy Focus of Lively Arcata Forum
On March 2, a diverse group of about 70 people attended a program on "The
Art and Power of Citizen Advocacy" at Humboldt State University. This event
was the result of a partnership between the Humboldt Friends Meeting (HFM),
FCL, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). The turnout and
response were encouraging, and the program was followed by activities addressing
specific national and state issues.
This program is the first of a promising series of organizing workshops that
emphasize the important contributions and skills of citizen advocates or lobbyists.
(see commentaries on citizen advocacy and lobbying in the March issue of the
Newsletter, continued in this issue).
A second program will be held April 13 in the Nevada City/Grass Valley area,
to be coordinated by FCL supporter Russ Jorgensen. Russ and his wife Mary attended
the program in Arcata.
The Arcata event grew out of discussions among FCL, FCNL and Humboldt Friends
in late 2002. FCL and FCNL want to find ways to link their efforts more closely
and support citizen involvement at the state and national levels. This is especially
critical during this period of heightened public concern and response to the
tragic events of September 2001, the war against Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act and
other measures unfriendly to civil liberties, and concurrent state issues such
as the immense budget deficit and the death penalty.
After being approached by FCL, HFM offered to help organize the initial forum
on citizen advocacy, and chose Humboldt State as the location in an effort to
increase community awareness of Friends' presence and work. Suellen Lowry coordinated
this effort. Outreach included publicity in local newspapers, on radio and TV,
contacts with receptive groups including congregations, notices by e-mail, sharing
information at community events, phoning, and the distribution and posting of
flyers. Other peace and justice organizations in the area were invited to participate
and display information to promote networking.
Many who attended indicated that they were not previously familiar with FCL,
FCNL, or Humboldt Friends Meeting. Three young people from Crescent City, a
more conservative area where the large Pelican Bay prison complex is the largest
employer, found guidance and support. Through contact with Carl Magruder of
the Friends Meeting they later joined a peace march and rally in Eureka.
Bob Alpern of FCNL addressed war with Iraq, the impact of public opposition
to the war, and the repression of civil liberties in the U.S. Ernest "Bick"
Bicknell spoke for FCL about the state budget, the death penalty and health
care legislation. This was a strongly intergenerational affair, from ninety-year-old
"Bick" and other elders to middle-aged activists, young adults, students,
and young children who colored posters and helped put up flyers.
Introductions, interaction with speakers, and small group discussions involved
participants throughout the three-hour program. Advocacy and lobbying advice
was shared. Participants took home yard signs against the war, new contacts
and information, and motivation to become more involved as advocates.
The local cable television channel produced and aired a video on the program.
Shortly after the forum, participants spoke at an Arcata City Council meeting
in support of a measure that instructs city employees not to cooperate with
the USA PATRIOT Act and provides legal defense for non-cooperation. A project
involving lobbying on public policy issues of concern to teens is also being
developed. Humboldt Friends Meeting has coordinated letter writing to federal
and local representatives, and plans to arrange meetings with their representatives.
A small group from the Meeting provided wonderful hospitality and support that
made this event possible and special. Suellen Lowry led a compressed organizing
effort with great dedication. HFM Clerk Andrea Armin-Hoiland says that she and
her husband Louis "have long been fans of FCL. The criminal justice work
that FCL has done is unique and critical work." FCL looks forward to a
strengthened connection with those from HFM and the Arcata area.
Where will we go from here? What we have learned from the Arcata event will
help in planning the event in Nevada City this month. Efforts beyond that depend
on commitments from Californians who want to further this kind of outreach and
the change it promises in their own communities. If you would like to be part
of such an event in your area, please let us know.
- Ira Saletan, Development & Outreach Coordinator
Citizen Advocacy: Advice and Commentary
In the Newsletter's March issue, we featured five commentaries written by those
who have engaged in different kinds of citizen advocacy or lobbying. In the
months ahead we will share additional testimonies by correspondents in California
and elsewhere, on topics ranging from environmental conservation at the local
and regional level to lobbying suggestions, reflections on the legislative process,
and developing and using a system that facilitates e-mail responses by concerned
citizens across the country. The first in this series appears below. We hope
you find the experience and perspectives of these writers to be helpful, and
welcome your comments or related contributions on the theme of citizen advocacy.
Building the Activist Community
by Suellen Lowry
We only have to look at our current government to see that we need to increase
the number of people who will take action as citizen advocates. Getting people
to act can be tough, and requires effective motivational tools. Face-to-face
outreach is key, and faith communities are promising places for such organizing
to occur.
Why is face-to-face outreach important? Experience and research confirm that
we are more likely to form deep commitments to issues and activism when we do
so through meaningful relationships. Rev. Dr. Carol Johnston has conducted research
about what motivates churches to be involved in social change. She has learned
that involvement is strongest where relationship-building is an integral part
of the social change effort.
It is not too difficult to put this principle into action. Determine where
people are gathering and go to them with a presentation. I am working with a
new group, the California Interfaith Partnership for Children's Health and the
Environment, that informs people about threats to children's health from environmental
contaminants and what they can do about it.
This work happens through contacts with faith community groups, a volunteer
speakers bureau, and a presentation that is fairly easy for volunteers to deliver
(i.e. short video and hand outs that prompt discussion).
The importance of face-to-face dialogue also applies to communication by citizen
advocates or lobbyists with policymakers and their representatives, whether
in Sacramento or Washington or at home in legislators' districts.
I would welcome dialogue with others who are interested in systems for face-to-face
organizing to build the progressive movement.
Suellen Lowry, Humboldt Friends Meeting, was lead organizer
of the Citizen Advocacy/Lobbying program last month in Arcata (see p. 4 ). She
is a former congressional staff member and lobbyist.
June 4 Annual Dinner at Temple to Celebrate FCL's Heritage
and Spirit
In a time of challenge and change, FCL is taking new steps while embracing
familiar faces and voices. The annual dinner will move this year from the Clarion
Hotel to Congregation B'Nai Israel ("Children of Israel"), the largest
Reform congregation in Sacramento.
B'Nai Israel, founded in 1852, was the first congregationally owned synagogue
west of the Mississippi River.
A century later, as FCL was born, B'Nai Israel moved to its current site. After
being one of three Sacramento area synagogues attacked by arsonists in 1999,
B'Nai Israel began to heal, rebuild its own campus, and strengthen movements
for understanding and unity in the larger community.
Our program will feature speakers Mary and Russ Jorgensen on "Carrying
on the Heritage and Spirit of FCL." The evening's theme will feature insights
from FCL's past, facing the present, and building for the future. The Jorgensens,
FCL co-founders and Friends from the Grass Valley Meeting have established a
legacy of creative action, stewardship, and involving others.
"We have been politically active for 60 years," say the Jorgensens,
"expressing our convictions in different ways to local, state, and federal
legislative authorities, often with the support of FCL and other organizations
dedicated to peace and justice. We came to California in 1941 to marry and to
organize youth hostels."
Russ worked 28 years for the American Friends Service Committee and also with
the Pacifica Foundation in its early years. Mary's love for the natural world
grew from her childhood farm life in Indiana. She was a schoolteacher of young
children for many years. Together, the Jorgensens helped found FCL in the 1950s.
Mary was instrumental in starting and sustaining John Woolman School (now Sierra
Friends Center). They have also led work camps around the world, and have been
jailed for civil disobedience in defense of civil rights and support of anti-war
movements.
In 1974, they moved to the Santa Rosa area and helped found the community of
Monan's Rill. They recently moved to Nevada City, near three of their four children.
Both continue to be very active, including Mary's dance and yoga practice, and
Russ with the new Peace and Justice Center, among other activities.
Come join us for a very special evening on Wednesday, June 4, that will include
wonderful company, excellent food, talk and listening that touch the spirit,
entertainment to enrich the occasion, and more. The evening will begin with
a social hour at 6 p.m.
We look forward to this opportunity for fellowship with Friends and friends,
those from the congregation and the Jewish community as a whole, and participants
from other faith and life perspectives. Assemblymember Darrell Steinberg of
Sacramento has agreed to sign a letter encouraging legislators and others at
the Capitol to join in this event.
Invitations should be mailed out by April 25. If you want to be sure you receive
an invitation, please let us know. Call the office at (916) 443-3734 or contact
us by e-mail at fcldevt@cwo.com. The registration deadline is May 21. Late registrations
will incur a higher ticket cost.
|
