Progressive Lawyering Day 2009

Following up on this week’s posts on minors in California’s criminal justice system, this Saturday there will be a panel on the San Francisco police’s interrogation of immigrant youth, featuring Supervisor David Campos. The panel is part of Progressive Lawyering Day 2009, hosted by the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. The day also features a keynote lecture from civil rights attorney John Burris.

Here’s the full schedule for the event, 10a-6p Sat 10/3 at UC-Hastings, 198 McAllister St., SF:
10:00am Registration/Free Breakfast
10:30-12:00 2 Panels: Transgender Advocacy & SF Police Interrogation of Immigrant Youth feat. SF Supervisor David Campos
12:00-1:00 Free Lunch
1:00-2:30 2 Panels: Alien Tort Claims Act & Everything You Wanted to Know About Fellowships
3:00-4:30 Key Note Speaker John Burris (attorney for the family of Oscar Grant)
4:30-6:00 Reception with free food/drinks

Facebook invite here. Note that CLE credits are available for both afternoon panels.

Drug Dealing in The TL: A Presentation

Tonight the Tenderloin Station held a meeting at the Community Room at 301 Eddy St where guest speakers ADA Sharon Woo (head of narcotics unit) and Judge Ron Albers (Head of the Community Justice Center Court) had a chance to address about 50 members of the TL community regarding concerns about how drug dealing is dealt with in the TL.

An officer (I am a poor reporter) started the presentation stating that, although police chief Gascon could not make it, the recent sweeps of drug dealers in the TL (reported in other articles here on the blog) had been such a success that the Sheriff pods are too full and the police have been asked to back off from making so many arrests. However that moratorium on drug sweeps is likely to end as there are three major police operations scheduled for October 1st(!)

Sharon Woo then began her portion of the talk with a presentation of statistics that she had run regarding arrests made in the TL and the subsequent actions taken by the DA’s office. Woo stated that 81% of the cases that had come to the DA’s office for felony drug sales and possession had been charged by the DA and an additional 10% of cases resulted in probation violations, meaning that 91% of those types of cases had sort of action taken on them by the DA. Woo added that most of those offenders were kept in custody and if they were released on OR they were given stay away orders to stay away from the area where they were picked up. Woo also rebutted the presumption that most of the dealing that occurred in the TL was the result of people from outside the County by giving a statistic that 67% of those picked up for dealing in the TL were from SF County. Woo stated that she was very pleased with these numbers.
Judge Albers then gave a presentation regarding the CJC wherein he outlined the purposes of the CJC (to address the concerns of the community by looking at the root causes of the types of crime committed in the TL and address the behavioral issues of the persons committing those crimes) and how the CJC is designed to treat those individuals (increased emphasis on social services and addiction treatment programs, and uniquely tailored strategic plans for different types of offenders). Judge Albers placed emphasis on the fact that about 2/3 of the people that he sees in the CJC have addiction issues, about 50% have mental health issues, and overall about 80% have one or the other, or both. The emphasis in the presentation given by Judge Albers seemed to be on letting the community know exactly what the CJC was doing and that the concerns of the community about rampant drug dealing and use are being addressed
The members of the community present reflected many different points of view from “I have seen no difference whatsoever since the drug sweeps” to “the new enforcement scheme seems to be making a big difference.” Some people were frustrated with the inability to go into their homes without being harassed by drug dealers and users and seemed to be advocating for a more strict enforcement scheme. Others felt that the CJC was a good approach to dealing with drug problems: “You need to combat the demand, and when you get rid of the demand for drugs you will see the suppliers leave” one woman said, turning to Ms. Woo “Do you want some crack?” Though asking an Assistant DA if they want any crack seems rather odd, the point seemed to support the position of the CJC: If you treat the addiction you will get rid of the crime that goes along with it.

Is Incarcerating Minors an Even More Wasteful Crisis?

WireTap Magazine has a great interview with Liz Ryan of the Campaign for Youth Justice. CYFJ argues that incarcerating minors does not work (does not reduce recidivism, does not deter crime), is very unsafe, and is unfair.

According to the California Attorney General’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center, in 2005 the state of California incarcerated juveniles at a rate of 23.8 per 100,000 at-risk population, compared to 131.9 for adults. In particular, in 2005 California arrested juveniles for drugs at a rate of 486.9 per 100,000 at-risk population, versus 1173.5 adults.

Minors are arguably the most vulnerable members of our prison population. In a recent post, California Corrections Crisis points out that Zimbabwe has just decided to release all minors from all prisons to reduce overcrowding. Since California is having trouble finding 40,000 inmates to release, perhaps we should consider releasing all inmates under 18 years age.

The Community Justice Center Celebrates 100 Days of Existence

Taking a break for a moment from the budget woes, the San Francisco Community Justice Center reports on its first 100 days.

In the first 100 days since the CJC opened, the program has been able to reduce delay for misdemeanor citations from 45 days to 2 days for the first court appearance. The court has taken most “out of custody” misdemeanor cases, and is increasing its felony cases. The court has successfully engaged people in treatment plans under our diversion laws immediately upon program entry. Of the 160 clients who have engaged in services, 60 accessed care under a justice mandate, 60 defendants voluntarily engaged in services and 40 ‘walked-in’ or were referred from other agencies. There is already a cost-savings story to tell. An estimate of jail bed savings of only 5 CJC defendants totals $23,000. In tracking 2 clients identified as high users of multiple systems (repeated hospital visits, emergency psychiatric treatment, police and fire in a 6 month period), the CJC’s centralized services coupled with court accountability reduced these costs by 50 percent.

While enjoying strong support from the Mayor and District Attorney, and some publicity due to the personal appearance of the SF Public Defender, the CJC has also been criticized during its inception. Recently, the court has not been on the news; some of this may be due to the fact that one of its more vocal critics, Supervisor Chris Daly, is currently occupied with other matters.

Skimping on Corrections? How They Do It in Texas


Prompted by our posts about the current dilemmas we face regarding the $1.2 billion cuts, and particularly Matthew Cate‘s recommendations, there’s a thoughtful and interesting post this morning from our pals at Grits for Breakfast. Here’s what Texas has tried to do to reduce its inmate population, and how well it has worked:

Texas pursued some of these same strategies in recent years to reduce its prison growth rate, a result achieved primarily by reducing the number of probation revocations. That was done through greater use of “progressive sanctions” and intermediate penalties for those who violate terms of supervision instead of sending them straight to prison. Secretary Cate’s proposal would apply that tactic to both probation parole. Key to making it work, though, to judge by Texas’ experience, will be boosting supervision resources, either by spending more money to supervise offenders in the community or reducing the length of supervision so officers are watching fewer people. That tactic will surely save money compared to sending the same folks to prison, but as a practical matter it will require additional investments to strengthen community supervision.

Adjusting the property crime thresholds is a strategy Texas has not yet pursued but which is probably justified here as much as in the Golden State. In Texas, theft reaches felony thresholds when “the value of the property stolen is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000,” so the same tactic could be applied here and would also reduce the number of new prison entrants. The $1,500 level was set in 1993 when the “state jail felony” category was created (essentially a fourth degree felony), and it’s never been adjusted for inflation.

The Bottom Line: $1.2 Billion in Unallocated Savings


The California Budget Project provides a pretty helpful summary of the main cuts in the new budget, agreed upon after the marathon session in Sacramento.

With regard to corrections, their summary reads:

The budget agreement:
• Assumes $1.2 billion in unallocated savings from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
• Caps payments for contracted medical services for savings of $50 million.

The budget agreement has yet to be ratified by the Governor.

The next month promises to be extremely important, since discussions of the nature of the cuts are forthcoming. There is little disagreement about some potential measures, such as ratcheting up the requirements for several offenses, such as Grand Theft. There is also relatively little controversy about transferring old and infirm prisoners out of the prison system, or about handing undocumented immigrants to the Feds. Will there be actual inmate releases, beyond a mechanism of good credits? And to what extent will parole be diminished? Stay tuned.

Are you With Arnold or Against Arnold? GOP and Police Reactions to Budget Plan

(image courtesy the Sacramento Bee)

There has been some back-and-forth with police chiefs and GOP members over the last few days regarding their support of Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan for the correctional system. Trying to make some sense of it all, it appears that the idea is to vote on unallocated savings, then figure out the details. The Governor has been quoted as saying that the prison issue had caused “some misunderstandings, and we are ironing them out.” Basically, as the L.A. Times puts it, “[d]espite the delay, the budget deal will still include $1.2 billion in cuts to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, though it will not specify how they are to be made”.

The main point of contention, as we discussed here and here, is inmate release. The solution? Decide on the cuts, postpone discussion on what is to be cut. The inner dealings between Republicans and Democrats regarding this compromise, complete with political back-and-forth and emails titled “Budget Double Cross” (sic), are in the Sac Bee, for your reading pleasure (or agony).

Secretary Cate Proposes Alternatives to Inmate Release

(image courtesy CDCR)

Secretary Matthew Cate’s column on Flash Report makes a few suggestions for shrinking the correctional budget without releasing inmates.

While no one is happy to be in the position of discussing a $1.2 billion reduction in the corrections budget, the Administration has developed a proposal in coordination with local law enforcement that is smart on crime, cuts prison populations, and saves taxpayer dollars. It is our hope that this reasonable and measured package can allow us to achieve our budget cut targets, without the early release that the public has feared.

Cate’s proposal includes a reduction in the reincarceration of parole violations (a 5,300 reduction in prison population); using GPS monitoring as a prison alternative for low-risk offenders; adjusting property crime thresholds; moving undocumented immigrants to the hands of the Feds; providing good behavior credits for early release; and taking several administrative measures to save money. All in all, the proposal does not differ much from the Governor’s proposal; the magical words “inmate release” aren’t there, but there are a variety of release equivalents, packaged in a way that makes them easier to digest.