Community Justice Center Picks Up

We now take a break from the State's budget woes - though not entirely, as you'll see - to report on the news at the San Francisco Community Justice Center.

A quick bit of background: as some frequent readers may recall, the Community Justice Center was formed to address misdemeanors and non-violent felonies committed in the Tenderloin area. Its beginnings were difficult, with politically-charged budget struggles and a high percentage of non-appearances; it later received some publicity due to the personal appearance of the SF Public Defender, who was trying to make a point about budget difficulties.

Recently, the court has been getting some media attention. The Examiner reported on the Public Defender's Office's objections to the court, which included, as it turns out, the argument that many of the services it offers duplicate services available elsewhere.

“Other than being able to sign up for [social security insurance] and in some cases get shelter, the services at the CJC were essentially the same type of outcomes as at the Hall of Justice,” said Adachi, who has tried to pull his staff out of the center, which he views as a waste of scant public resources. “This court was set up to provide different outcomes than what would happen at the Hall of Justice.”

A study commissioned by Adachi’s office found that 90 percent of justice center clients — the percentage served by a public defender — were found to be eligible for drug court and several other drug diversion programs already in place.

Much of the study, which was prepared by UC Berkeley Ph.D. candidate Melissa Sills using public defender data from March to June of this year, is disputed by the justice center. Measuring duplication of services requires further analysis, said the center’s coordinator, Tomiquia Moss.

Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom, also disagreed with Adachi.

“He’s wrong,” Ballard said. “A similar program transformed Midtown Manhattan in the 1990s and we need to give it a chance to succeed here in San Francisco.”

Statistics from both the CJC and the Public Defender’s Office show that about 55 percent of cases handled by the justice center are dismissed. But supporters say that even in those cases, people are referred to critically needed services. About 55 percent of offenders showed up to court in the first four months, compared to 25 percent at the Hall of Justice, according to CJC data.

That attendance rate is steadily improving, and is currently at more than 60 percent, Albers said.

At the Chron, C.V. Nevius, whose previous pieces on the subject were quite supportive of the court, offers sharp criticism of Adachi's objection, arguing against his disappearance from the scene precisely when the court is starting to show promise.

It took five months, but the CJC is finally making progress.

Now where is Jeff Adachi? The public defender complained that defendants at the Tenderloin court never showed, and that the court was a waste of time and resources. But now that it is seeing results, Adachi's office is AWOL.

"If I had the staff, I would definitely staff it," Adachi said. "Certainly these are cases our office would handle if they were filed in the Hall of Justice, but we barely have enough staff to cover the Hall."

Look, either you're the public defender or you're not. Your mandate is to fulfill every citizen's right to legal representation - not every defendant whose case is heard in the building where your offices are located.

Frankly, exasperation is building.

"What are our over 400 clients supposed to do?" asked CJC coordinator Tomiquia Moss. "At what point do the numbers become important enough to be worth a lawyer's time?"

The lack of PD jobs is affecting the system in a variety of ways and exacerbating the existing pathologies (not to mention leaving quite a number of newly minted lawyers, who have a huge potential to be phenomenal public defenders, with no position to apply for). I understand the need not to stretch defense resources too thin to the point that quality of representation decreases. A decline in quality would be what we called elsewhere "the dark side of Gideon". Nevertheless, it is disappointing to see an important venture, which emerged from a holistic perspective aimed at solving problems from the root, go unsupported by the very people who should be sensitive to openminded solutions to street crime in the Tenderloin. What do you think?

Nixonland Mentality Wins the Day: Assembly Decision a Bitter Disappointment

Yesterday's Assembly decision, emptying much of the initiative to reform our broken system from its content and neutralizing any healthy effect it would have on prison population, is not only a disappointment; it is also a bitter reminder that, while cost-related arguments have the potential to bring issues to the forefront of public discourse, they can't always carry the day against the older genre of arguments, consisting of unsubstantiated moral panics and political hysteria.

It was a sobering experience to read this morning's paper, which, in addition to these disappointing news, included a report on the unveiling of a hideous crime: kidnapping, rape, and a nightmarish "compound" where the alleged perpetrator kept his victims. Beyond the immediate horror at these events, my concern is that such abnormal, outlier experiences are perceived, and raised, as the norm, feeding our fear and insecurity.

"Crime" is a generic name for a large universe of phenomena that are very easily distinguishable from each other. The Garridos of this world are very different from the vast majority of imprisoned Californians; for every Phillip Garrido there are tens of thousands of arrestees, inmates and parolees whose property and drug crimes are closely linked with the environmental and spatial dimensions of their lives. Yes, there is some free choice and rational calculation in all of this, and the best path out of prison life must include a certain component of assuming responsibility (a little about this in a following post this weekend); but these choices exist in a universe in which not everyone is offered the same set of alternatives. When the limited opportunities contribute to crime, we should be thinking about providing opportunity, in tandem with requiring responsibility. The key is to understand that the answer to crime needs to be more tailored to suit a particular situation or social reality. There is no "one-size-fits-all" answer to crime. And certainly, shaping our response to crime based on the demons we hear about, perceive, and sometimes create, will not generate anything we will be pleased with in the long run.

Who, and what, poses a risk to public safety? What are we afraid of? Those are two different questions. The former requires hard evidence and the willingness to accept the answers we might not have assumed. The latter, unfortunately, is what has been informing criminal justice policy since the Nixon Era. Our budget woes had the potential to shake us out of indifference and generate a real change. The crisis brought together lawmakers of both parties, police officers, reformers, academics, prison personnel, and Federal judges, all of whom realized that these difficult and trying times were an opportunity to generate real change and turn around the collision course that we have been navigating since the 1970s. I fear this opportunity has been, to a large extent, missed by yesterday's decision.

For the Governor's disappointment with the Assembly's decision, read here; for other discontents, see here.

BREAKING NEWS: CA Assembly Guts Inmate Release and Sentencing Reform Plan

Yesterday, the CA Assembly made so many changes to the Senate-approved Governor's plan to release 27,300 inmates and reform sentencing, that it is hardly recognizable. The Chron reports:

The changes would reduce the state's prison population by about 16,000 inmates instead of 27,000, and would save the state about $325 million instead of $525 million.

Set aside were some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, such as allowing sick and elderly inmates to finish their sentences at home or in community hospitals, where they would be monitored by GPS tracking devices, according to Shannon Murphy, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County).

The bill also put aside plans for creating a sentencing commission to revamp the state's rules on punishment and parole, an idea backed by many Senate Democrats including President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. The bill, in its original form, passed the Senate by a 21-19 vote last week.

The original package, negotiated in part by Bass, stalled in the Assembly late last week despite Democrats' strong majority in the lower house of the Legislature.

The revised bill eliminates changes to some crimes - such as writing bad checks and receiving stolen property - so that they are always charged as misdemeanors. The bill was revised to reset the grand theft threshold to $950, higher than the current $400, which was set in 1982, but significantly lower than the $2,500 that the Senate approved last week.

What's left in the bill are changes to the state's parole system so that some low- and moderate-risk offenders would not be subject to parole revocation; allowing certain felons who violate probation to serve time in county jails; and allowing the early release of inmates who complete certain rehabilitation programs such as earning GEDs.

This is, to say the least, very disappointing. We will follow up with a more thorough analysis later in the day. For now, we'll just point out two things:

1. This is proof that budget-based arguments, without a deep understanding of what is ailing the system, can only take us so far. OldThought is still around, and unsubstantiated public safety arguments can still win the day.

2. If the Prison Law Office needs any proof that the state is incapable of carrying out the appropriate and necessary decrowding plans, for the purposes of the Plata/Coleman appeal, this is it.

Relying on Technology: GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders

(image courtesy CDCR)

Yesterday, the CDCR website featured a press release about the use of GPS monitoring to preclude sex offenders from attending the California State Fair. This is an addition to a series of reports about the increase in using GPS monitoring systems to track down parolees and offenders on bail. As one might expect, the focus of supervision has been, in the last years, on sex offenders (read this fascinating 2006 report by Jesse Janetta on GPS usage on San Diego sex offenders), but its uses exceed this category. A while ago, we reported the intent to use GPS systems to follow domestic abusers on restraining orders in California; according to the New York Times, this seems to be a growing trend in other states as well.

The appeal of electronic monitoring is quite understandable. The technology itself is readily available from commercial providers, and, once the system is set in place, the marginal cost of adding parolees to the pool of supervised subjects is not overwhelming. It is certainly less time consuming than adding one more file to the already overflowing docket of parole officers. However, it is important to keep in mind not only what GPS is, but also what it is not.

• GPS does not necessarily prevent crime. Technology does not make the streets crime-proof, and once in a while, tragedies will occur.


• GPS is not the perfect community-based sentencing alternative. In our enthusiasm to seek out alternatives for incarceration, we should keep in mind that technology is just technology - nothing more, nothing less. In the absence of help with housing, education and vocational skills, GPS monitoring in itself will probably not significantly contribute to a decrease in recidivism.


• GPS harbors the threat of expansion. In his 1985 book Visions of Social Control, Stanley Cohen warned us against the tendency of correctional systems to "widen the net" and expand. As surveillance becomes cheap and available, there are likely to be less restraints on including more people in the pool of supervised subjects. This is part of a larger trend, which Malcolm Feeley and Jonathan Simon identify as The New Penology: perceiving people in large aggregates, according to their level of risk.
  

Police Chiefs Support Decrowding Plan

(image courtesy City of Pasadena Police Department website)

This remarkable statement, by Bernard Melekian, President of the Police Chiefs Association, has been circulated quite widely. I reproduce it verbatim for you.

A few comments: I think this is a fine example of the fact that, as Rahm Emanuel (in)famously said recently, we don't want to let a serious crisis go to waste. If something good has come out of all this, it is the willingness of different parties to thoughtfully and systematically examine what we have been doing so far and where to go from here.

***

Because of all of the information out in the press and at the capitol, I wanted to reiterate Cal Chiefs' position on the Corrections Budget legislation. It is important to note that in spite of the various rumors and allegations, our position has not changed in the last few weeks. The floor letter we sent on the 19th is attached again as a reference, and our comments to Jillena Eifer, the Police Advisor to Assembly Member Pedro Nava, appear below to clarify our points on the issue:

"As you can see, the underlying concepts of Alternative Custody and Banked Parole are fundamentally sound, and the Police Chiefs Association believes that those details can be ironed out. What IS critical is that the legislative language implementing the Corrections Reduction package be transparently and openly shared. I strongly believe that the various groups who have issues concerning the Corrections package can iron out all of those details in a constructive fashion that enables the legislative goals to be achieved in a fashion that also protects public safety.

The Sentencing Commission issue is the most troubling part of the package. First, we do not believe it ought to be linked with the Corrections Population Reduction package, at all. One piece does not relate to the other. We are willing to sit down and discuss the Sentencing Commission issue as a free-standing matter, unrelated to the Corrections Reduction package. With respect to the Commission, we believe it is possible to negotiate a construct that is consistent with the long-standing position of the California Police Chiefs Association (and virtually every other law enforcement organization) and also assures that there is a serious examination of California’s sentencing structure.

Bottom line is that I believe that all of the dissenting law enforcement organizations are of the same mind – constructive solutions are possible if only policymakers will take a deep breath and engage in collaborative discussion of the Corrections package. If Assembly Nava can successfully communicate that to legislative leadership, we could then spend the next few days in serious discussion to craft a package that would meet everyone’s needs, rather than engaging in the counter-productive efforts of trying to squeeze 41 votes for a package that could be a consensus item if there were only open discussion."

President Bernard Melekian

California Police Chiefs Association | P.O. Box 255745 | Sacramento, California 95865-5745 | United States

***

props to Kara Dansky for alerting me to this fascinating letter.

KPFK interview on Plata/Coleman

I was on KPFK this morning, speaking about the Plata/Coleman decision and about the recently approved Governor's plan with Roy Urlich on Morning Review Friday. Click here and find today's date to listen.

State Senate Approves Governor's Plan and Sentencing Commission Bill

Yesterday, the State Senate approved the Sentencing Commission Bill, by a narrow margin of 21 to 19 voters. The discussion was quite polarized, with concerns about public safety raised by Republican lawmakers. The next step for the bill is the Senate Assembly's approval.

The bill was approved as part of the narrow approval of the broad plan proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger to release 27,300 inmates.

The approved measures - and the savings they entail - are as follows:

-- $42 million saved by allowing the early release of inmates who complete certain rehabilitation programs, such as by earning GEDs and taking vocational training classes.

-- $134 million saved by reducing the influx of new prisoners by changing some property crimes that now qualify as felonies to misdemeanors. Petty thefts, writing bad checks and receiving stolen property would no longer be charged as felonies. Stealing cars valued at $2,500 or less could be charged as misdemeanors instead of an automatic felony.

-- $120.5 million saved by allowing certain inmates to finish their sentences at homes or hospitals under GPS monitoring. Qualifying inmates would need to be at least 60 years old or severely ill and have less than one year to serve.

-- $30 million saved by allowing certain felons who violate probation to serve time in county jails instead of having them sent back to prisons.

-- $198.5 million saved by changing the state's parole system so that some low- and moderate-risk offenders would not be subject to parole revocation. Also, certain serious offenders would be eligible for early parole discharge if they successfully complete drug treatment.