Everyone starts with:

My name is_____, I am here with _____ a member organization of Californians United for a Re-sponsible Budget. CURB is a statewide coalition of organizations working to reduce the number of people in prison in California and reinvest those resources into programs such as affordable housing, reentry programs, health-care, education and other anti-poverty initiatives. We are asking that you stop SB 863 funding. We do not want more jails in our communities!

Some One-Liners:

Treatment is more effective than imprisonment. Why not pull the plug!

Prop 47 is estimated to reduce county jail population by 2,500 to 7,500 individuals. Pull the plug!

Some counties can’t afford building more jails and are not investing in our future. Pull the plug!

Pro Alternatives Focused: (also look at Critical resistance Alternative Investments Resource)

People throughout California are in need of educational, physical and mental health services, sub-stance abuse and treatment services, and life skills services and instead we are building jails.

Strong, independent re-entry services are proven to reduce recidivism and save public dollars.

Counties have two options. They can keep starving their dwindling community- based programs and services by using realignment resources to build more jails and buy more GPS trackers, or they can keep people out of jail in the first place.

Let’s reduce sentences, decrease policing, invest in our communities and bring our people home. The time for a moratorium is now.

For Counties specifically:

(Your County) is planning to build a new xxx bed jail/jails for (Los Angeles - $2 billion, Fresno - almost $9 million, San Bernardino - overcost of about $29 million and millions of dollars going to private jail partner-ships in Adelanto, San Francisco - $300 million , Riverside - over $40 million with construction debt). We are committed to fighting jail expansion and hope that you will stand with us. We need our county to prioritize split sentencing, pre-trial release, the implementation of Prop.47, mental health diversion and resources for our communities coming back home. No more jails!

California already has within its reach affordable, more effective, and more humane alternatives to its contin-ued reliance on the construction of detention facilities. My county is implementing (Talk about what types of things your county is doing on the list below) and my county is NOT implementing (Talk about what types of things your county is NOT doing on the list below).

Like the LA Times Article suggested this week, we know that our counties need “sufficient time to fully assess the new criminal justice landscape, including their reduced need for jail beds and the savings they are sure to realize from no longer prosecuting as many felonies.”

1. Expediting court processing and transfer

2. Increased use of split-sentencing, as now provided for by the courts

3. Expansion of re-entry services and support

4. Expansion of drug and alcohol treatment options in the community

5. Improved strategies re: mental health diagnoses that divert people from jail and while in custody, guar-

antee/maintain their physical health and mental wellbeing

6. Use of alternative custody programs

7. Increasing the use of probation to supervise people who are convicted of felonies—an effort which

San Mateo County implemented with no apparent impact on crime, arrest, or drug/alcohol casualty

rates

8. Reducing the number of people who receive sentences due to probation revocation—a statistic that

was dropping steadily in the 1990s, but has sharply increased

9. To reflect Proposition 47’s mandate, instituting pre-booking diversion for people who are charged with

simple drug possession and low-level drug sales, sex work, or minor property crimes, into programs

and services

10. Given the fact that as of July 2014 62% of individuals in California County jails were pre-trial prisoners

the implementation of a pretrial release program similar to successful programs in counties such as

Santa Cruz (SB 863 already requires documentation of people in jail who are pre-trial)

The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) was established in July of 2012, replacing the Corrections Standards Authority, which had the responsibility of developing and maintaining state standards for local jails, juvenile detention facilities, and training local corrections staff. In addition to these duties, the BSCC is tasked with finding new strategies around the management of the state’s criminal and juvenile justice populations.

• The BSCC is made up of 13 people including the current chairperson, the director of Cali-fornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) Department of Parole, two sheriffs, two probation officers, a county supervisor, a judge, and two community based service providers. The board only has one position open for community members.

• The BSCC has four divisions: Corrections Planning and Programs, Facilities Standards and Op-erations, Standards and Training for Corrections, and Counties Facilities Construction. Within the Counties Facilities Construction division there are different Executive Steering Commit-tees (ESC) that correspond to each separate jail construction funding plan.

• Currently, construction funding requests submitted by counties are reviewed by Executive Steering Committees that make recommendations to the BSCC about which counties will receive funding and in what amounts. The full Board makes the final decisions over funding. However, counties can also pay for jail construction by undertaking bonded debt, an option L.A. County Supervisors have discussed considering.

CURB has been monitoring counties seeking a portion of the $500 million in construction dollars made available to local governments to build, expand or “renovate” their jails and programming facilities through Senate Bill 1022. The coalition has also written letters to the BSCC detailing our arguments against funding San Mateo County’s new jail project in Redwood City, slated to be built on environmentally contaminated land. CURB will continue to put pressure on Executive Commit-tees overseeing county jail expansion funds as well as the Board as a whole, encouraging them to pull the plug on county plans that expand their capacity to cage more people while short changing community services that provide real help for people in need.

For more information on the BSCC, visit: http://www.bscc.ca.gov/

For a County to receive jail construction funding these 3 things happen..

• Counties must match a minimum of 10 percent of the total construction project costs as coun-ty contribution

• County contribution can come from the county’s general fund and/or county voter approved taxes

• Additionally, each county will have to pay for operational costs. For example in San Mateo County the jail will cost $160 million to construct, it will cost $30 million a year to operate, and thousands more in county debt for decades to come.

New County Debt...

WE DO!

1. The Sheriff ’s Department has to obtain approval from the County Board of Supervisors to submit an Adult Local Criminal Justice Facilities Proposal to the Board of State and Community Correc-tions (BSCC)

2. The BSCC has to award the county state funding which is divided out in different amounts based on county population.

3. The County Board of Supervisors has to approve the jail construction plan, 10% of the construction costs, and the operational funding to manage the new facility.

The bill authorizes the state to borrow $500 million and to distribute the money to local governments to build, expand or “renovate” their jails and programming facilities.

• Large Counties - $80 million• Medium Counties - $40 million• Small Counties - $20 million

Lets make we sure shut down this annual funding once and for all!

The majority of funds generated from Prop 47 (65%) will be under the control of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). The BSCC is charged with implementing realignment, which has resulted in directing billions of dollars of funding for construction of prisons, jails and juvenile detention centers. Given the Board’s composition, which includes an overwhelming majority of law enforcement officials, including the secretary of the CDCR, in effect this allocation expands the scope of the BSCC and gives law enforcement officials and agencies the power to decide on funding for mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment and diversion programs. It is doubtful that any of this will translate into support for the kind of community-based programs which are crucial in order to implement a positive model for such programs.

Scott BudnickProducer of The Hangover SeriesFounder, Anti-Recidivism Coaltion

Susan MaurielloCounty Admin. Officer

Santa Cruz County

Linda PennerChair of the BSCCChief of Probation

Fresno County 2005-2012

Geoff DeanSherriff

Ventura County

Michael ErtolaChief Probation Officer

Nevada County

Mimi SilbertChief Executive Officer

PresidentDelancey St. Foundation

William PoundersRetired Judge

LA County

Michelle BrownChief Probation OfficerSan Bernadino County

Dean GrowdonSherriff

Lassen County

Jeffrey BeardSecretary, California Dept. ofCorrections & Rehabilitation

(CDCR)

David MaggardChief of PoliceCity of Irvine

David SteinhartDirector

Juvenile Justice Commonwealth

Daniel StoneDirector (CDCR)

Adult Parole Operations

What do BSCC Board members think our communities need?

The governor set aside $865,000 planning grant for me in this year’s state budget to build a CDCR “Youth Leadership Acad-emy.” It’ll be a smaller prison with a campus-like

environment!

On services--

“By and large, it will be done by the privates. Those are the people that will be bidding on the various things that we put out when we’re asking for these resi-dential centers.”

“We’re doing things I never thought we would do. Like electronic monitoring and residential drug treatment.”

Dean GrowdonSherriffLassen County

Jeffrey BeardSecretary, California Dept. ofCorrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR)

Scott BudnickProducer of The HangoverFounder,Anti-Recidivism Coaltion

“The least we can do is to stop spending money on incarceration when, in many cases, it’s been shown to do more harmthan good.”

“It makes more sense to get low-level offenders substance abuse treat-ment and job training, and to have them serve their sentences partly incarcer-ated and partly under the supervision of probation officers who can make sure they follow through.”

Susan MaurielloCounty Admin. OfficerSanta Cruz County

Linda PennerChair of the BSCCChief of ProbationFresno County 2005-2012

“Following the sweeping changes of realignment, continuing court mandates, and economic realities, jus-tice agencies throughout the state need to work to-gether on unique solutions to the state’s criminal jus-

tice issues.”

Michelle BrownChief Probation OfficerSan Bernadino County

Geoff DeanSherriffVentura County

“If Proposition 47 passes, law enforcement officers will be limited in their ability to make arrests for violations. Offenders will see no imme-diate consequence for their actions and they will remain free to continue victimizing our good citizens.”

Michael ErtolaChief Probation OfficerNevada County

“We would like to reiterate that law enforcement leaders and crime victim advocates overwhelmingly oppose Prop 47 and agree that it rewrites our laws to benefit criminals. This proposition is nothing more than a lengthy piece of special-interest legislation that will cause irrevocable harm and will have a detri-mental impact on California.”

Dean GrowdonSherriffLassen County

“It is easing theovercrowding of the jails, but those people are now

back in the community.”

“I think we’ll know a lot better as we get further into 2015, where things are going with some of these initiatives.”

Linda PennerChair of the BSCCChief of ProbationFresno County 2005-2012

Realignment and Propo-sition 47 “have put Cal-ifornia on the forefront of innovation in criminal justice, We want to take what resources we have and move them out to

communities.”

“It’s a good thing to keep them out of prison. But we shouldn’t just excuse them, leave them out there and hope they’ll be OK, because I don’t think they will.”

Where do BSCC Board members stand on Prop 47?p

Mimi SilbertChief Executive OfficerPresidentDelancey St. Foundation

Jeffrey BeardSecretary, California Dept. ofCorrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR)

The state borrows the money and then promises to repay lenders--people who purchase bonds--with interest over 7 or more years.

2 types of bonds are used to build a prison:

• A General Obligation Bond

A loan that voters must approve by 2/3 consensus. The loan is guaranteed to be re-paid by “full faith and credit” of the state, residents of California agree to be taxed to pay the loan.

- Hasn’t been used in 20 years because of voters lack of approval

• A Lease Revenue Bond (LRB)

A loan made to the state that is repaid by income (or “revenue”) generated by the project. The state mandates that the Department of Public Works builds the prison and incurs the debt, while the Department of Corrections generates “revenue” to repay the debt.

- LRBs are used without voter approval; politicians do not need majority consensus to use LRBs.- The interest California pays on bonds varies according to the state of the bond market when the bonds are sold. However, it will cost about twice the face value of a bond to repay it

Example: If you borrow $810 billion to build 2,400 in-fill beds, it will cost about $1.62 billion to repay that debt.

In the case of California prison construction, this “revenue” is simply a transfer of money between two gov-ernment agencies and all the money comes from the General Fund - California tax dollars.

NO NEW JAILS!

Californian’s health and safety will not be improved with jail expansion. California county jails are inherently violent, poorly run, and wastes of taxpayer money. The public funds that are now used to police, convict and incarcerate peo-ple should be going to provide housing, education, health care & employment. Safe and healthy communities depend on mental health services, youth centers, supportive and affordable housing, and real opportunities in their commu-nities; not cages.

Californians want, deserve, and demand to live in a state that prioritizes the health, wellbeing, cultural and political life of all of California residents. Currently, many California residents are facing hard times. It is difficult for many peo-ple—particularly in communities of color--to find mean-ingful work, affordable housing, and access to good edu-cation and sustainable healthcare. Decision-makers with the power to change these conditions, however, are not focusing on our communities’ needs. Instead, many polit-ical leaders are prioritizing spending more of our tax

dollars on building more jails, hiring more police, and subsidizing more high-end condos and luxury apartments. We do not need more jails in California counties. We need the basic resources and opportunities that make our communities healthier and whole.

COMMUNITY BASED SOLUTIONS & ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION

Academic and community-based research, repeatedly finds that community-created and community-focused solutions to harm and violence have exponentially better outcomes. Unlike jails, local solutions and community resources are much more likely to keep families intact, assist loved ones to overcome the hardships of addiction, reduce the likelihood of repeated harm, increase community stability. Communities prosper when they are healthy, stable, and people have the tools and resources necessary to build strong relationships.

The state of California has been federally ordered to reduce the number of people in its prison system due to human rights violations caused by crowding and prison conditions. Rather than meet its obligation to reduce the number of people locked up in the state, the state of California is now acting in bad faith with what politicians call “realignment.” This practice does not reduce he number of people locked up in the state, the state of California is now acting in bad faith with what politicians call “realignment.” This practice does not reduce the number of peo-ple who are held behind bars in California, rather, it simply shifts people from state prisons into county jails. Jail use

has been on a downward trend throughout the state for the past several years. Yet, because the state is now look-ing for loopholes around the federal mandate to release people from cages, counties are being enticed to increase their jail sizes. Instead of providing communities with the basic resources and supports that are known to dra-matically reduce the number of offenses that lead to incarceration, millions of tax dollars are now being directed into building more jails throughout the state.

If we restored funding to pretrial diversion programs we could divert people from imprisonment in the first place. Funds would be better utilized for implementing community based programming Alameda County, for example, has done this through the department of public health Innovations In Reentry initiative. Available funds could also be used to expand and support the restorative and transformative justice practices that many community groups are already practicing as alternatives to incarceration. Such approaches to harm reduction have had very positive ef-fects in many of the k-12 schools throughout the state that have implemented them. Prisons, jails and zero-toler-ance punishments have failed time and again to restore people’s lives, dignity and ability to meaningfully participate in society when people are entangled in the system. Building on and supporting the community work to reduce harm and sustain healthy communities that is already taking place throughout the state is a much better and more effective use of our resources and policies.

Instead of building new jails, funds would be better used to:

• Support violence prevention practices that motivate and empower young leaders and neighborhoods to take a stake and central role in building up their communities.

• Prioritize mental health and treatment in all of California’s counties.

• Fund substance use programs that divert people from imprisonment and also help those coming home transition more successfully back into their communities.

• Provide health care for all Californians and connect people coming home from jail to available healthcare services and insurance.

• Fully fund education including community and city colleges. Free education protects Californians from be-ing saddled with debt and prepares our young people to contribute to a more cohesive and vibrant com-munity. Educational opportunities are also a known to reduce a person’s chances becoming imprisoned.

• Create job training programs and living wage jobs for all California workers, including workers without

documentation. People who have been caught up in the prison/jail system are particularly vulnerable to the job insecurity. In addition to job training programs, ending discrimination in hiring practices would pos-itively improve people’s ability to participate fully in the formal economy.

• Fund affordable and stable housing opportunities for all people, including people with criminal records. In most countries around the world, housing is a considered a fundamental right.

• Provide free, culturally affirming after school programming for every child and youth. Culturally affirming pro-grams that address the diverse needs of multilingual students counter-act underserved people’s vulnerability to police and other forms of violence. After-school programs give youth empowering and safe places to grow and play and to develop strong ties to their neighbors and communities.

• Expand community parks and gardens to all Californians. Every person deserves beautiful and life-affirming open spaces that are free and accessible to all to engage in healthy interaction and community restoration. Free and open green spaces facilitate healing and community cooperation for people impacted by harm.

• Support re-entry programs and services for people coming home from prisons. People with conviction records face tremendous barriers to successful social reintegration. Aside from making sure all of the above are accessible to people coming home, we must also provide education opportunities and end discrimination against formerly imprisoned people in jobs, housing, and welfare.

Adapted from the No New San Francisco Jail Coalition’s Jail Fight Platform www.nonewsfjail.wordpress.comand Critical Resistance’s “Alternative Investments to Imprisonment” www.criticalresistance.org