Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship Reader by Ella Baker Center

2023 Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship Curriculum Reader

Prepared by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Table of Contents Part A - About Us: EBC & the I/O Policy Fellowship ………. 4 Welcome (1a) ……………………………………………………………………… 5 About I/O Policy Fellowship ……………………………………………………… 6 Welcome Remarks from James King ……………………………………………. 9 Welcome I/O Policy Fellows from Thanh Tran ………………………………….. 12 Welcome Policy Fellows from Dortell Williams …………………………………. 13 Inside/Outside Policy Fellows & Alumni ………………………………………… 15 Inside/Outside Tips & Tricks from Alumni ………………………………………. 16 I/O Comms Content Calendar Planning ………………………………………… 24 About the Ella Baker Center (2a) ………………………………………………. 26 About EBC ………………………………………………………………………….. 27 EBC Organizational Timeline ……………………………………………………... 31 EBC’s Strategic Framework ………………………………………………………. 48 EBC Core Values & Alignment Assessment …………………………………….. 57

Ella's Story …………………………………………………………………... 62 Policy (3a) ………………………………………………………………………….. 64 EBC Campaign Screening Criteria Memo ………………………………………. 65 2023 EBC Legislative Priorities …………………………………………………... 68 EBC’s Legislative Timeline ………………………………………………………... 71 Understanding Abolition in Practice by James King …………………………... 85 Reformist Reforms & Abolitionist Steps in Policing ……………………………. 90 Abolition & the State A Discussion Tool ………………………………………… 92 How to Vet a Proposal from an Abolitionist Perspective ……………………… 95 History of the Stop San Quentin Outbreak Coalition ………………………….. 96

Part B - People-Powered Legislative Organizing …………… 106 The Life Cycle of Legislation ……………………………………………………… 107 PPI’s Winnable Criminal Justice Reforms in 2022 ……………………………... 108 Top Trends in Criminal Justice Reform (2022) ………………………………….. 123 California Legislative Calendar 2023-24 ………………………………………… 128 California Senators ………………………………………………………………… 130 California Assemblymembers ……………………………………………….….… 136 Glossary of State Budget Terms …………………………………………………. 143

Part C - Communications Resources ………………………….. 145 EBC Comms Resources (1c) …………………………………………………… 146 EBC Brand Messaging Guide …………………………………………………….. 147 Ethics & Language (2c) ………………………………………………………….. 162 People, Not Stories by Adamu Chan ……………………………………………. 163 Using the right words by Emile DeWeaver ……………………………………… 167 Gender Violence and the PIC by INCITE! ……………………………………….. 169 Trans-Inclusive Style Guide ………………………………………………………. 172 Resources for Writing (3c) ………………………………………………………. 184 Steve Brooks’ Writing Tips ……………………………………………………….. 185 How to Write a Public Testimony by Thanh Tran ……………….……………… 186 Writing Samples (4c) …………………………………………………………..… 190 Steve Brooks’ Article ………………………………………………………………. 191 Thanh Tran’s Article ………………………………………………….………..…… 196

Part D - Supplemental Resources …………………………..…. 199 Books for the I/O Fellowship ……………………………………………….……. 200 Reports for the I/O Fellowship ………………………………………...………… 202

PART A

About Us: EBC & the I/O Policy Fellowship

WELCOME 2023 INSIDE/OUTSIDE POLICY FELLOWSHIP

ABOUT THE I/O POLICY FELLOWSHIP We believe in centering the leadership and voices of people that are directly impacted, those that are incarcerated and formerly incarcerated. In 2020, we designed the Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship, a program to increase contributions to the Ella Baker Center’s policy work by people who are directly impacted by the policies we are advocating to change. The Inside/Outside Fellowship is an opportunity for directly impacted people to learn more about the criminal justice movement and the process for changing policies, while receiving payment for their contributions and labor. If we organize with people who are currently incarcerated, then we breach the barriers designed to maintain the prison industrial complex. We challenge physical, social and political separation by reducing the prison population, centering the ideas, needs, and leadership of people inside, and helping them exercise their political power. For our 2023 Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship, three currently incarcerated Inside Policy Fellows will work with two formerly incarcerated or systems-impacted Outside Fellows for a nine-month fellowship program.

About the Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship CONTEXT California is at a key decision point in criminal justice reform. Powerful organizing by Black-led grassroots movements, gaining widespread public support in 2020, raised a clarion call for reform that cannot easily be ignored. However, well- resourced pushback to movement success has resulted in California increasing police budgets, doubling down on “tough on crime” tactics, and reinforcing criminalization as a “solution” for longstanding problems like homelessness and the mental health crisis. Now more than ever, we need to increase access and influence for directly impacted people to lead the way. Prerequisites of education, job experience, and networks can narrow entry points for directly impacted people to shape California policy – with access barriers even more difficult for currently incarcerated people. However, impacted people are also uniquely positioned to understand what changes are necessary to create more just and caring systems. Those who are or have been incarcerated know the impacts of the criminal justice system firsthand, and are already ideating effective ways to reduce its harms. THE INSIDE/OUTSIDE FELLOWSHIP The Inside/Outside Fellowship is a paid dual Fellowship program that creates pathways for systems-impacted people to lead critical policy advocacy. During their 9-month experience, Inside Fellows (currently incarcerated people) and Outside Fellows (formerly incarcerated people or people with loved ones inside) work hand-in-hand with EBC’s programs team, directly shaping the policies that will impact their lives and their communities. The Inside/Outside Fellowship was created by James King, EBC’s Campaign Manager, whose experiences with leading policy organizing during his incarceration and after his release directly inform the design of this program. The Fellowship consists of: ●

Mentorship and Capacity-Building: Fellows undergo a rigorous training curriculum and political education, with opportunities to practice these skills on the job. All Fellows receive individualized mentorship, which supports them to tackle challenges, unleash their best ideas, and advance in their leadership goals.

●

Policy and Advocacy Leadership: Fellows play a meaningful role in deciding EBC’s policy priorities, drafting policy, and advocating with legislators in Sacramento. They take on leadership in coalitions to move state-wide strategy.

●

Inside/Outside Organizing: Inside Fellows organize inside their respective prisons, increasing access and influence of incarcerated people in specific policies or campaigns. Outside Fellows lead community organizing, coordinating with Inside Fellows to advance aligned goals across bars.

●

Narrative Change: Fellows drive narrative change efforts, such as publishing op-eds, leading social media campaigns, and speaking engagements. Inside/outside coordination helps break the invisibility enforced by the prison system, increasing access for incarcerated voices to advocate with decision-makers and in the media.

A CRITICAL IMPACT We continue to learn in this third year of implementing the Fellowship. The prison system, by nature, serves to inhibit inside/outside organizing, requiring both capacity and creativity to overcome its obstructions. However, we are affirmed by the powerful leadership of our six Fellows to date – they have helped form influential coalitions like #StopSanQuentinPrisonOutbreak and California Alliance for Parole Reform, provided expert witness testimonies in California’s legislative bodies, developed narrative strategies that have reached the Governor’s office, and organized political education and policy groups in their prisons reaching hundreds of their peers. One key example of policies passed with critical support from our Fellows are the Racial Justice Acts – two of the most ambitious policies in EBC’s history. In 2022, Inside Fellow Steve Brooks’ priority campaign was the Racial Justice Act for All (AB 256 - Kalra) which creates a mechanism through which people can challenge past convictions that were impacted by racial bias. This includes California’s 679 death sentences, and makes retroactive the groundbreaking 2020 Racial Justice Act (AB 2542 - Kalra). According to California’s Judicial Council, an estimated 15,000 incarcerated people in California state prisons can file habeas petitions for relief under the Racial Justice Act for All (RJA) within the first four years. If the court rules that race, ethnicity, or national origin impacted their case, several remedies can be taken including a reduction of sentence for these individuals. Further, the RJA also has the potential to remove the majority of current death row sentences by 2026, if the law is applied as intended. Brooks advocated directly with legislators, and wrote compellingly in published articles about the need for this change. He organized with the policy group at San Quentin State Prison, sharing resources and information back, and advised our team on bill amendments. He played an integral role in the coalition, and leveraged his skills as a profound writer to help move this legislation forward. Further, in May 2022 we were overjoyed to stand at the gates of San Quentin State Prison to welcome our inaugural Inside Fellow, Thanh Tran, home. When first starting his Fellowship in 2021, Thanh had been incarcerated for over a decade with no clear release date. But through his incredible advocacy, with the support of EBC (and capacity and visibility dedicated to his freedom journey through the Inside/Outside Fellowship specifically), Thanh secured a commutation from the Governor with a commendation for his inside leadership. He is now home at last with his beloved family. Thanh continues to lead policy and organizing efforts in his freedom that center the priorities of incarcerated people. EBC hired Thanh as a full-time Senior Policy and Communications Fellow after his release. Thanh was promoted to Policy Associate in January 2023 as he expands his expertise and career goals.

Welcome Remarks by Co-Director of Programs, James King For as long as there has been captivity, there has been resistance. People who have been incarcerated in California have a long, and oft untold history of organizing, building power, and working to shape the laws and policies that impact them. There have been heartbreakingly difficult struggles for the most basic of gains, like cleaning supplies, decent meals or ending indeterminate solitary confinement. I myself was an incarcerated organizer and advocate. I first began organizing during the second decade of my imprisonment. The goals we sought were to influence the shape of criminal justice reform in California, build relationships with non-incarcerated advocates in the movement, and for us as people who were incarcerated, to better understand our power and value to the movement. After my release in 2020, I joined the Ella Baker Center, and we launched the Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship program in order to share our access and platforms with incarcerated organizers, learn from them about the changes needed, and give them learning opportunities about the archaic legislative process. Very quickly, the Fellowship has become integral to who we are as an organization at EBC, and how we build power as members of a larger community and movement. The investments we are making in the development and leadership of incarcerated advocates are contributing to organizing at multiple prisons. There are now policy and civic engagement groups at each of the prisons our fellows are at, and dozens of people are learning policy, building relationships with outside community advocates, and helping shape the direction of criminal justice reform in California. In regards to EBC’s approach to supporting Inside Fellows, a few points come to mind: 1) We don’t have a deficit-based relationship with our fellows: we’re not saving or organizing them, we are collectively doing this work together. Their contributions are making our work more effective and helping us win. 2) The resources we send in are multiplied – we send in a curriculum of readings and it’s shared throughout the prisons. People are being trained up collectively, investing in more than just our direct relationships with fellows. 3) The policies that we all come together to pass then impact people in every state prison, while also normalizing civic engagement by communities that are historically disenfranchised. It feels particularly meaningful that we have the opportunity to situate this fellowship within the ongoing work of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. For years, EBC has been fighting and winning at the local and state levels. Our organizing team’s work with the Alameda County DA’s Accountability Group has led to an increase in referrals for resentencing from the previous

Alameda County DA, as well as stricter policies regarding when they oppose someone’s release at a parole board hearing. They have also done an excellent job of highlighting the many abuses and systemic depravity at Santa Rita Jail and we continue to lead the effort to hold the Sheriff accountable. At the state level, we’ve had several victories, including the Racial Justice Act and the Racial Justice Act for All, which has made California the first state that extends civil rights into the courtroom. Thanks to this legislation alone, thousands of people with the most extreme sentences, including the death penalty and Life Without the Possibility of Parole have a meaningful opportunity for relief. Back in 2020, as our strategic framework was being adapted, the world erupted, first with COVID-19, and that same spring, with the murder of George Floyd. Thanks to deep relationships we had with people in our community, and the work we’d been doing for decades inside, to vision a world where we reduce violence and harm in the community by investing in care instead of cages, books instead of bars and recognizing that true safety lies in investment and resources at the community level – we found ourselves in prime position to be even more effective and seek out even larger wins. Specific examples include community campaigns like the Stop San Quentin Outbreak coalition calling for large scale releases during COVID outbreaks inside California state prisons, as well as our inaugural Inside Fellow Thanh Tran’s first public safety testimony in support of AB 292 (Stone). Coming out of that intense time, we did an internal assessment, and realized that if we further align our local and state work, and formalize the deep relationships we formed over the last few years by investing in the leadership development of the very people the state has worked hardest to disenfranchise, we can and will continue to be the political home for people who are currently incarcerated, their families and loved ones, and other communities that deeply care about creating a healthier, more inclusive world. We are building power by investing in the skills and leadership of people who are passionate about dismantling the PIC and getting our people free. We are organizing our work into three themes, which are interdependent and interrelated. People Powered Policy We are our strength. We are the Black community, the directly impacted, queer, trans, and nonbinary community. Those who have been adversely impacted by the PIC and the carceral state, and those who care about creating a world that doesn’t rely upon policing to maintain the status quo. The premise is simple; we build power by sharing our access, trainings, resources and opportunities. We seek to integrate our base and community into every stage of the process to shape policy and do the deep work of democracy, in which, regardless of incarceration status, our members are helping draft bills, advocate for policies that will impact them directly, and lead the conversation around criminalized legal reform. This theme is where we organize around policy campaigns, inside/outside organizing, youth justice, and emergent policy visioning.

Pathways to Freedom Even as we work collectively to dismantle the Prison Industrial Complex at the state and local level, we recognize the need to work to secure freedom for our people at the individual level. To that end, we send resources and information to the over 9,000 currently incarcerated people who have reached out to us. Through programs and coalitions like the Mail Program and The Alameda County DA accountability group, our goal is to effect implementation by ensuring that people have the information and tools necessary to advocate for their freedom or the freedom of a loved one. This theme is about implementation, which as we all know is just as important as passing reforms, and also about making sure we show up for our community members at the heart of our shared struggle. While we are trying to get people free at the state policy level, we are also sending resources and information to incarcerated people and their loved ones so they can be effective in advocating, with our strategic support, for individual freedom.

Community Reinvestment and Power Building A key aspect of our mission is that we are committed to not merely removing resources from policing, and incarceration, but are also committed to shifting those resources to the solutions we know truly create a better, healthier, safer quality of life for all people. To that end, we offer material support to people returning from prison, we are investing in our membership and base through trainings and political education, and we are advocating for budgets that reflect the values of our community. Each of these themes are interrelated. Our Inside Fellows participate in policy campaigns, and we support their individual struggles for freedom. At mail night we are connecting people to resources that help build the power of our community all across the board. Integrating the Inside/Outside Fellowship throughout EBC’s various campaigns has strengthened our efforts to consistently support leadership development at all levels of our community and organization. Whether it is the trainings we are providing for impacted community members to grow in their self advocacy, or trajectories like mine, Thanh Tran’s and so many others, who went from organizing on prison yards to leading movements in the free world. We are intentional about resourcing the trainings, like leadership development and management training, that will give people the tools they need, not just to lead at EBC, but to be effective leaders and organizers wherever their passions lead them. James King Co-Director of Programs

Welcome I/O Policy Fellows by Thanh Tran, Inside Alumni & EBC Staff Dear Future Fellows, Trigger warning. I remember when I was handcuffed and booted in the face by correctional officers in county jail. I remember that incredibly helpless feeling as I was beaten by my oppressors with a 75 year to life sentence hanging over me. I remember calling my attorney the next day trying to file a lawsuit and failing. This was one of many experiences in my life that told me a vicious lie. The lie these experiences told me was that I was weak. It lied to me saying that I was helpless when it came to facing this terrible beast we call the system. Fast forward some years, I remember when I stepped into my first inside organizer meeting. I remember being in awe of my peers who weren’t afraid to stand up to the beast I falsely believed was all powerful. Here was a group of incarcerated folks who had experienced the same traumas as I, if not worse, and still decided to sling a stone into goliath's eye. What was even more incredible, we were winning. I dove into organizing and gave it everything I had. This was an opportunity to change my life and change the lives of those incarcerated with me. I had an opportunity to be a leader who was growing and learning by winning. I constantly read. I asked for feedback. I struggled with imposter syndrome. I overcame it by reminding myself this work is bigger than me. This fellowship is about cementing the fact, currently incarcerated people NEED to be engaged in changing the laws that affect them the most. This fellowship is about cementing the fact that currently incarcerated people are worth MORE than just a testimony here and there. They are writers, organizers, strategists, filmmakers, artists, public speakers, facilitators and they NEED to be PAID to do this work. If that doesn’t deserve a hallelujah - I don’t know what does. I’ll close by saying I believe in your power. I believe in what’s possible when we build community with each other and give each other game on how to navigate systems that we’re unfamiliar with. I was born and raised around drug dealers, pimps, and gang members. Today I’m around lawyers, advocates, and politicians. I’m not special. I took the opportunity this fellowship offered and I became more than just a foster kid from South Sacramento. I became Thanh Tran the Policy Associate with the Ella Baker Center. I love y'all and thank you for taking this dive with me. In Community, Thanh Tran

Welcome Inside Policy Fellows by Dortell Williams, Inside Alumni Dear Ella Baker Inside Fellows, Welcome to the 2023 Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Inside Fellowship. As I depart from my 2022 tenure, I wanted to leave you with some parting words of encouragement, guidance and an idea of what you should expect. Expect a lot of reading. You will receive a series of readings: articles, graphs, memorandums, letters of every type, and educational slides, among other things. Some of it may not seem relevant or interesting, but please consider reading everything sent in. These materials will prepare you for the unexpected, will educate you on populations that we urgently need to learn about in order to be the best advocates we can be, and on very technical aspects of policy-making that can make or break the passage of legislation. The volume of reading may seem daunting at times, but time management is key and prioritizing reading topics helps (e.g. the SPI Reader can be consumed over time.) Being a Fellow for EBC requires discipline. There will be subjects that are boring; some of the calls / telephonic meetings can be slow and unconcerning, but each reading, each call is a brick to the eventual freedom path that you and the policy team are trying to build. My advice is to participate fully in every activity that you possibly can. Not only will your knowledge increase, along with your worth, but unforeseen doors and opportunities will also open up for you. For the first time in our carceral experience we are being offered real-time and engaging employment -- with real world compensation. Not only is EBC investing in us, but they are also counting on our experiences, inside knowledge and creativity. I assure you that you have what it takes to deliver and continuously offer the team a steady stream of intellectual and material products. Challenge yourself! In closing, I want to remind you that you are part of a very empathetic and compassionate team. They see you as an equal with no limitations other than the State. As a resource, they will provide you with extra research, or whatever particular needs that arise to further your success. And get used to their kindness, it is genuine and will not fade. It is often unbelievable how kind the team can be. My advice is to take that kindness and create your own team within the facility -- if you are so inclined -- and teach, mentor and inspire others to engage in this work with the same unique EBC kindness. Above all, have fun! In solidarity, Dortell Williams

Welcome Outside Policy Fellows by Dortell Williams, Inside Alumni Dear Ella Baker Center Outside Fellows, Welcome to the 2023 Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Outside Fellowship. As I depart from my 2022 tenure as an Inside Fellow, I wanted to leave you with some observations, insights, and guidance that may make your facilitation easier, and more fruitful overall for EBC. While I believe every human being is individually and uniquely exceptional, the collective among us inside tend to be defeated, self-limiting, and lack real-world experience. Offering constructive and, or, positive feedback can counter these realities, and can serve as a guide and confidence builder -particularly if they seek it. Likewise, affirmations encourage and edify everyone -- inside and outside. I tend to look for patterns of talent where an individual is superior, then hone in on that talent. Some people do not realize they are gifted in any particular area until others point their superiority out to them, e.g., you speak fluently, have you ever considered doing commentaries? or you write really clearly, have you thought about writing essays? As measurements of growth, I would encourage you as an Outside Fellow to invite the Inside Fellows you work with to name some goals at the outset of the Fellowship, for instance: I. Name three things you want to learn about policy work before the fellowship ends, e.g., how a bill gets passed, or what qualifications does a politician need to be a city council member, etc. II. Name three things you want to accomplish before the fellowship ends, e.g. write a blog for FBC, submit a policy proposal, submit a painting, etc. (Make it clear that it is completely optional.) The idea is to encourage creativity, forward thinking, as well as an opportunity for their own individual contribution(s). I would also consider inviting Inside Fellows to submit a monthly reflection on their experiences, ideas, or whatever they may want to share -- from one paragraph to a single page. This optional exercise provides an opportunity for them to express themselves through the distance of writing, allowing for greater understanding of the individual, perhaps where adjustments could be made, and a chance for new insights and ideas to flourish. And perhaps at the seventh month (one of the least months of listed activities) you might consider inviting the Inside Fellows to create a unique Inside Fellowship curriculum as if they were creating the program. This could prove to be a great exercise for creativity, management insights, the potential for ground-breaking results, and another opportunity for indirect feedback on the Fellowship program. May your Fellowship be fulfilling and satisfying. Sincerely, Dortell

INSIDE/OUTSIDE POLICY FELLOWS & ALUMNI

Steve Warren Inside Fellow 2023

Macio Lindsey Inside Fellow 2023

Mara Plascencia Inside Fellow 2022

Thanh Tran Inside Fellow 2021

Kesha Brown Outside Fellow 2022

Sara Betts Outside Fellow 2023

Steve Brooks Inside Fellow 2022

Isa Borgeson Outside Fellow 2021

Dortell Williams Inside Fellow 2023

Philippe "Kells" Kelly Outside Fellow 2023

Inside/Outside Tips & Tricks From Fellowship Alumni Thanh Tran, 2021 Inside Policy Fellow Tips for INSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: ●

Learn the policy cycle! First things first, learn the policy cycle yall! It will orient you/root you in where we are at in the cycle at any point in the year. And where we are in the cycle lets you know what our priorities and tasks are. And the beauty of learning the policy cycle is it repeats every year! The gift that keeps giving.

●

Manage your time. You need to allocate time in your schedule to do specific EBC related tasks. For example, every night I would spend an hour from 9pm to 10pm, right after lockdown, to go through all my mail and organize my EBC To Do List.

●

Manage your mail. You will be hit with a large amount of reading material from EBC. Some of it will be info you can read at your leisure, other stuff will need a timely response. So find a window of time dedicated strictly to organizing the mail/reading material you will receive from EBC. I chose after lockdown because I usually received legal mail around 8pm. So right after lockdown was best for me to get it off my shelf and into my filing system.

●

READ! It is absolutely necessary that you create time to read often. You will be given so much reading material all the time. Think of it like a college course. And read to understand. Make time to take your time. It is not enough to have lived experience. Study yall. Don’t be average. Be AMAZING.

●

Stay curious! Be a sponge! - Read. Learn. Build with folks in the movement. Challenge your beliefs, then challenge them again. Being an Inside Fellow, I suddenly had access to research information and people in the movement.

●

Presence is power! Show up! I know it’s really hard to get on them payphones but trust me, it is worth the headache. There were two times when I called randomly to check in and ended up in the middle of a legislative visit AKA a meeting with a legislator advocating for one of our bills! So call in often and make your presence felt. People want to hear from you out here. Shout out to Dortell Williams for being the best so far at plugging in!

●

Have an informed opinion. Everyone got opinions. Not everyone has informed opinions. Fuse your lived experience with your research and you find that you will become 20x more impactful. Lived Experience + Research = OG (Organizing Gangster).

(continued):

Thanh Tran, 2021 Inside Policy Fellow Tips for INSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: ●

Get organized! Get a work calendar! When I first started as the inside organizer I was immediately swamped with reading material and tasks to do. Even now that I’m free, staying organized is my greatest tool. Get a working calendar. Mark all of your deadlines on it. I also had a to do list that I referred to and updated multiple times a day.

●

Mentally prepare. This work can feel overwhelming at times. Before becoming EBC’s inside organizer I had never spoken to legislators or became friends with lawyers. This was all new to me. It’s okay to feel overwhelmed at times. It’s okay to feel like a fish out of water. The first few months was a lot for me but after 2 to 3 months I was cruising and loved the work.

●

Don’t fake it til you make it. Ask for help. Ask for feedback. Be honest about your gaps of knowledge, that way the team can support you one by 1) not giving you tasks you don’t know how to do. And 2) they will give you the support you need to grow and become capable of doing said task.

●

Where this can take you… This can take you anywhere you want to go, however, it requires dedication and sacrifice. I sacrificed yard time, leisure time, and even stopped going to certain groups to create time to be an organizer. I read books, articles, studies. I had discussions with the OGs on the yard about politics (real world politics, not prison politics). I dedicated myself to being a conduit to create change and opportunity for other people. That resulted in my early release and full-time employment at EBC. Or you can do the bare minimum of course, collect your check, and now have an interesting experience you can share with the homies on the yard. Everybody got choices!

●

Imposter syndrome. I can only speak for myself. I was a gang member from the age of 12. Spent most of my youth in Juvenile hall. Then went to prison for 10 years. I don’t come from an educated or privileged background. So when I started doing this work I felt really out of place. I felt like I didn’t belong. I felt like I somehow infiltrated this white non-profit landscape. It made me feel uneasy, less than, and somehow unqualified. Let me please tell you that – one, it is okay to feel that. Two, you shouldn’t have to feel that. From the civil rights movement to our current movement to free our incarcerated folks, these originated from directly impacted folks. There are currently and formerly incarcerated folks organizing all over the country to free folks. You are a part of this movement. You belong here. You belong in this movement. You are the movement.

Dortell Williams, 2022 Inside Policy Fellow Tips for INSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: TEAM WORK. ● Develop a team of people to support you and your vision ● Invite their input and make them feel comfortable giving input ● Value them, listen to their ideas and note individual talents ● Honor those talents by leaning and esteeming (some people don't recognize their own gifts, highlight their talents) BE HUMBLE. ● I believe good leadership requires humility. ● Give credit to the author for his/her/their ideas on your team ● Listen ● Admit when you make a mistake ● Remember the team, ''we'' not me. ● Always be patient with people ● Meet people where they are at ● Be flexible with your team PLANNING. ● When giving instructions, be detailed but brief so you don't confuse ● Always invite input, no one person can think of everything ● Always give credit for those whose ideas you implement ● The best ideas come from a group, not an individual; take advantage ● Show/express appreciation ● Note if your team learns better verbally or in writing MAKE IT FUN. ● Develop games where you list questions about various political education materials you receive as a way to teach (and assess talent/skills) ● Be able to laugh at yourself / don't take things personal ● Arrange team activities during down times (Basketball, spreads, etc.) ● Give incentives, be creative

(continued)

Dortell Williams, 2022 Inside Policy Fellow Tips for INSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: CONFLICT. ● Remember the relationships you develop are always, always more important than small disagreements. Let it go, don't burn bridges ● See conflict as inevitable and develop ways to de-escalate situations ● Never argue when angry ● Never correct anyone in front of others, never embarrass or shame ● Be comfortable being able to sincerely say, "I am sorry" (It’s actually a strength.) PERSPECTIVE. ● Policy work is frowned upon by custody staff ● Be prepared to be viewed as a threat, don't take offense ● Empathize with their perspective, and know it conflicts with yours ● Be aware that they can read and listen to all of your communications and when your facility receives the tablets they will be hyper vigilant and inevitably notice your communications. ● Don't be offended if they stop talking to you or get hostile YOUR WORTH. ● Over time, the subtle reminders of our past decisions by staff sinks in when you are esteemed and your value is acknowledged by EBC and friends accept it and try to normalize it in your mind. Be aware of self-defeatism

Steve Brooks, 2022 Inside Policy Fellow Tips for INSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: ●

DON'T GET BOGGED DOWN IN PAPERWORK. You will receive a ton of paperwork from EBC about the fellowship and policy work. Don't let it become a nuisance or fire hazard. Read it quickly and pass it on if possible. Only keep what you really need.

●

START EARLY ON THINKING ABOUT POTENTIAL POLICY IDEAS FOR 2024 LEGISLATIVE CYCLE. You will be asked at the end of the legislative cycle to think about policies EBC should pursue in 2024. Be aware of the policies in effect or that didn't get passed and think about, not only new policies, but how to rework or build on policies that didn't pass, or don't go far enough.

●

THINK ABOUT WHAT EBC CAN DO FOR YOU. Do you need help doing an application for 1170 or a commutation sentence? Maybe you need a board lawyer. Think about what you need.

●

PICK A POLICY TEAM WHOSE POLICIES YOU CARE ABOUT. Don't spread yourself thin. The work of organizing and building coalitions and supporting bills can be tedious and time consuming. It's best to pick one bill you are passionate about and join that team.

●

ACCEPT INVITATIONS FOR PHONE CONVERSATIONS. Be willing to meet everyone you can that is doing the work. Talk to lawmakers if possible. Get the experience of introducing yourself to colleagues, attend meetings when you can. Do some check-ins. Allow someone to visit you early, if they can, to give you a breakdown of what the next nine months will look like.

●

GET A POINT PERSON FROM EACH BUILDING. You need help passing out surveys and questionnaires' and to spread the word about what's going on at EBC with policy. Employ a point person. Find highly motivated people to assist you with disseminating information.

●

REMEMBER YOU'RE MOSTLY HERE TO LEARN. Ask questions and provide feedback when asked to do so. Always make an attempt to do the assignments.

Isa Borgeson, 2021 Outside Policy Fellow Tips for OUTSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: ●

Prioritize building transformative relationships with the Inside Fellows. One of the most important aspects of this fellowship is building in “right relationship” with our folks inside. My best friend Adamu taught me that our work in community must always be grounded in and move at the speed of trust. Our connections to each other can become sites of resistance if we hold a shared commitment to one another’s liberation. Make time from the very beginning of the fellowship to learn about and from the Fellows on a personal level. Make connections with their folks/families/loved ones - they will be great accomplices in this fellowship work, including in the work to free our folks.

●

MAINTAIN THE GOOGLE DRIVE. Stay organized. There is an enormous amount of paperwork that you manage as an Outside Fellow, from curriculum mailings to assignments to draft articles to contracts to checks to commutation applications. Maintain the Tracker regularly and document all mailings, so you can easily check what items were sent to which Inside Fellows. Make Google Drive folders for each Inside Fellow, and maintain it! When you scan mail from the Inside Fellows - separate each PDF, upload them to the drive, and name each file accurately with the content. This will make it easier for other Policy Team members / EBC departments to navigate the folders and collaborate directly with the fellows!

●

Set blocks of time on your calendar for calls from inside. It’s helpful to offer blocks of time when Inside Fellows can call you for your standing 1x1s. Mark this time off on your calendar, and don’t let folks schedule meetings over it! This can and should be during your work hours.

●

Keep a notes doc for your 1x1s with Inside Fellows! Just as you would in meetings over Zoom, it’s helpful to track assignments, asks, and what you need to mail inside in a single Google Doc for running notes. You will get overwhelmed, and you will forget - so write it down. <3

(continued) Isa Borgeson, 2021 Outside Policy Fellow Tips for OUTSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: ●

Put in the work to get our folks free! You have time in your work plan allotted to supporting folks’ freedom journeys. Invest capacity and resources toward supporting Inside Fellows in their efforts to get free and come home. Scan through their commutation application materials (if you have consent to do so). Then, once you already know the basics of their case (the status of their parole/1170/commutation applications, county of conviction, etc.) - schedule meetings with policy team staff asking for their advice for pathways to freedom. Brainstorm legislators who you can ask for a letter of support from for their commutation/1170 apps or upcoming parole hearings. You can’t be the “go to person” for all of their freedom efforts, but you can help utilize EBC’s weight in Sacramento to make meaningful connections that can help bring our folks home. That’s important work that takes a lot of effort to prioritize.

●

Visit the Inside Fellows. When I did my Outside Fellowship, it was in the midst of the COVID outbreaks across CA state prisons. Thanh and I didn’t have the opportunity to visit in-person the way we can now. So much rich relationship building, struggle, and critical work can happen in person over vending machine meals. Visit the Inside Fellows early and often - as much as the budget allows. And prioritize bringing folks with you from EBC so they can build their own relationships with the Fellows!

●

Reflect on your power as a free person. Don’t be a gatekeeper. Commit to collectively reflecting on and interrogating the power dynamics inherent to this work and your positionality as a formerly incarcerated person or loved one. For me personally, as someone who has never been incarcerated before and came to this work supporting my best friend in his own freedom journey, that interrogation of power is essential to my role in this work. Often, the greatest work we can do in supporting this fellowship is getting out of the way and connecting folks inside with non-incarcerated community advocates, legislators, and people working on issues they are advocating for inside.

●

Prioritize capacity to get other folks set up on GTL, Getting Out, JPay, etc. It is tedious and infuriating work to navigate these systems we use to communicate directly with our folks inside. But it is ALWAYS worth it when an Inside Fellow is able to collaborate directly with other EBC departments, a report, or various criminal justice reform allies. It will help your capacity, and it will support their recognition for their work and role in this movement.

●

Document your learnings. A value I hold in this work is “fading facilitation”. I want to ensure that I am never “needed” in order for the fellowship to function. Part of that is a deep commitment to documenting best practices, learnings, and process - so the next person knows how to pick up the work and learn from my missteps.

(continued) Isa Borgeson, 2021 Outside Policy Fellow Tips for OUTSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: ●

Listen to your needs and set boundaries on your capacity. There will always be more work that needs to get done. Remember to close the laptop and step away from the phone. Take breaks. Make your work calls with Inside Fellows during work hours. Communicate if you need to have weekends and/or evenings for yourself. Be honest and communicate with your manager/team/fellows about what is working, not working, and when you need breaks. Don’t burn out, we need you in this work.

Kesha Brown, 2022 Outside Policy Fellow Tips for OUTSIDE FELLOWS from alumni: ●

Keep a folder for projects you and fellows prioritize. Remember inside fellows are also fighting for their freedom. I personally prioritized their freedom actions.

●

Get a working knowledge of the timeline for campaigns fellows are interested in, this way you can organize/sync content deadlines. I.E articles, recordings, call in to meetings or lobby days.

●

Try not to get overwhelmed – tracking bills, participating in campaigns and weekly meetings can be heavy.

●

Be mindful, intentional, understanding, and straight forward.

●

When they call for your 1x1s, check in on the Inside Fellows and ask how they are. Do not just jump into what assignment is due, etc.

●

Be available: most times I TOOK CALLS whether or not I was in the office or on the clock. Recognize that Inside Fellows’ time is limited and it’s difficult to hop on the phones, unlike me who can do other things when I’m not at work to meet my personal needs. This is not a freedom they possess, so you should be mindful of that. Remind them that these check-ins are never “bothering” me or “wasting” my time.

●

Personalize your greetings to the Inside Fellows. My personal phrases: PEACE POWER & BLESSINGS, Stay Up, Be encouraged.

●

Find your place in the work. Take breaks. Listen to your boundaries and communicate when you have too much on your plate. Ask for support.

●

Subscribe to news and reports outlets you find interesting. For example: I subscribed to Prison Policy Institute which provided articles on a variety of topics to help me stay informed.

Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship Comms Content Calendar Planning This calendar is meant to give a rough overview of content (recorded testimonies, op-eds, blog posts, and written statements) that you will create over the course of the 2023 Fellowship in support of EBC's campaigns and legislative priorities. I/O

Month

Content

Prompts Send your bio and photo to Isa.

Outside

Feb

Draft 1-3 paragraphs introducing yourself as EBC's 2023 Inside Policy Introduction Blog + Fellow. What led you to apply for this position? What are you most excited Social Media Video to learn about in this position? Why is it important for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people to lead the movement's policy strategy? What kind of impact do you hope to have on the movement for criminal legal reform? Send your bio and photo to our team (or have a loved one email isabella@ellabakercenter.org).

Inside

Inside + Outside

March

Introduction Blog + Draft 1-3 paragraphs introducing yourself as EBC's 2023 Inside Policy Fellow. What led you to apply for this position? What are you most excited Social Media to learn about in this position? Why is it important for incarcerated and Recording formerly incarcerated people to lead the movement's policy strategy? What kind of impact do you hope to have on the movement for criminal legal reform? Recorded Testimony in Support of EBC Bill

Public Safety Committee: Draft March an Expert April 28th Testimonial for an EBC Bill

April

Draft a remark no longer than 2 minutes that we will play during legislative visits and lobby days in support of the EBC co-sponsored bill you are assigned to.

Draft a 2-minute remark that would serve as a mock “Expert Testimonial” at a Public Safety Committee hearing, in support of the EBC co-sponsored bill you are assigned to. We are including instructions authored by our inaugural Inside Fellow Thanh Tran on how to write an expert testimonial, as well as a example of an expert testimonial from James King and Thanh in support of Assemblymember Stone’s AB 292 Pathways to Programming Act.

Second Chance Month

I/O

Month

Content

Prompts Author a blog post in support of the bill you are assigned to. The blog should be no longer than 650 words. At the end, include a call to action for legislators to support the bill as it comes to floor vote.

Inside + Outside

May

Appropriations Push: Draft Social Media Posts

Inside

May

Mother's Day Post Write a blog post reflecting on Mother's Day and the impact of the prison * industrial complex on families.

Inside + Outside Inside

Inside + Outside

I/O

May 30th Floor Vote Push: - June Draft Social Media 2nd Posts June

July

Write a blog post reflecting on Father's Day and the impact of the prison industrial complex on families.

Community Event / Town Hall: Prepare a Statement

Content

Prompts

August

Updated Testimony in Support of EBC Bill

Our bill may now be in the 2nd house, and likely amendments have been taken. Draft and record an updated statement in support of the bill.

Inside

August

Floor Vote Push: Draft Social Media Posts

Inside

Sept

Governor's Desk: Op-Ed Post

Nov

Devo Event ("Building the Base" Part 2)

Nov

End of Year Campaign: Statement for Development Team

Inside + Outside

Nov

Blog Post: End of Year Reflections from the Fellowship

Inside + Outside

Dec

Ella's Birthday Post

Inside

Inside + Outside

Month

Father's Day Post

Prepare before the end of your fellowship.

ABOUT EBC OUR HISTORY, TEAM, VALUES & PRIORITIES

ABOUT EBC The Ella Baker Center works to shift resources away from prisons and punishment towards opportunities that make our communities safe, healthy, and strong. Named after civil rights hero Ella Baker, we mobilize Black, Brown, and low-income people to build power and prosperity in our communities. For 25 years, the Ella Baker Center has formed unlikely coalitions and won positive change that breaks the cycle of disinvestment and incarceration in communities of color. Among our successes, we: Opened Restore Oakland; our forever home, and the first-of-its-kind community advocacy and training center with a focus and spaces dedicated to Restorative Justice, and Economic Justice. Won a campaign through Bay Area Police Watch to have San Francisco police officer Marc Andaya fired because of his history of violence against people of color. Closed 5 out of 8 California youth prisons in the early 2000’s. In May of 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom decided to shut down the state’s three remaining youth prisons. Created Families for Books Not Bars—California’s first-ever support and advocacy network for over 1,400 families of incarcerated youth Partnered with the California Teachers Association and led a campaign resulting in 70% of voters saying “no” to Proposition 6, a “dumb on crime, tough on the budget” ballot measure. Secured millions more dollars for reentry programs and services through a campaign with allies for Jobs Not Jails in Alameda County. .

Information about the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Based in Oakland, CA, the Ella Baker Center is named after the brilliant, Black hero of the civil rights movement who inspired and guided emerging leaders. We exemplify Ella Baker’s legacy by building the power of Black, brown, and poor people, shifting resources away from prisons and punishment and towards opportunities that make our communities safe, healthy, and strong. We started 25 years ago as an organization that advocates against police brutality. From there, we started several campaigns including one that focuses on youth leadership and another that focuses on bringing the green economy and green jobs to underserved communities. Currently our organization works at the local, state, and national level to end mass criminalization and mass incarceration in the United States. A few of our ongoing campaigns and organizing work include: Healing Through Action: This program is inspired by Mama Barbara, who lost her son, Dujuan Armstrong, to police brutality in Santa Rita Jail. The Healing Through Action program brings harmed families together into healing circles. These transformative circles will offer tools, modalities, and resources to begin a healing journey, which includes learning advocacy skills to lead the fight for justice. Santa Rita Jail Decarceration & Sheriff Accountability: We are committed to the decarceration of Santa Rita Jail, centering and uplifting those communities in Alameda County most impacted by policing and incarceration. We actively work with various allied organizations and impacted individuals to shift resources and power away from the jail/sheriff and instead reinvest into health affirming resources. Narrative Change: We aim to change the conversation about public safety to be less focused on fear and punishment, and more focused on having a living wage job, healthy food, affordable childcare, healthcare, and housing. One example of this work includes the book published in 2020: We Keep Us Safe: Building Secure, Just, and Inclusive Communities. This groundbreaking new vision for public safety that overturns more than 200 years of fear-based discrimination, othering, and punishment was authored by our former Executive Director Zachary Norris. This book was recently re-released as a paperback copy with the title: Defund Fear: Safety Without Policing, Prisons, and Punishment. The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights is proud to announce that former deputy director and long-time movement leader Marlene Sanchez will become the organization’s new executive director. Sanchez is the Ella Baker Center’s first woman of color executive director. Responding to COVID-19: We have been leading work to respond to the COVID-19 outbreaks at Santa Rita Jail (through our County work), San Quentin State Prison (through the #StopSanQuentinOutbreak coalition), and across California state prisons, jails and ICE detention centers by advocating to stop involuntary transfers, expand releases without categorical exclusions, and provide accurate information to people inside and their families.

Night Out for Safety and Liberation (NOSL): NOSL is an annual event which takes place on the first Tuesday of August where we redefine and re-imagine what public safety means for our communities. Dozens of groups participate across the country, and each year, artists from inside prisons and jails contribute to the reimagining of Public Safety by participating in our #SafetyIs campaign. If you are interested in contributing art to this event, please send mail to us ATTN: NOSL. Membership: The Ella Baker Center’s membership is a way for anyone, anywhere—especially those who have been harmed by the justice system—to join the movement to create a truly safe and just nation. Together, we organize to win Jobs not Jails, Books not Bars, and Healthcare not Handcuffs. Members of EBC believe that every person has the right to dignity, safety, self-determination, and equality, and members share a commitment to building the power and leadership of incarcerated people, formerly incarcerated people, victims and survivors of law enforcement abuse, and their families. There isn’t a formal process for people in prison or jails to become members however, we do keep a mailing list and engage people in our campaigns if they have indicated interest. If your loved ones are interested in learning more about us they can find our website www.ellabakercenter.org. If they sign up as a member they will get monthly updates about our campaigns and ways to get involved. Policy Advocacy: We advocate for state legislation that abolishes abusive practices in prisons and jails, strengthens family connections, ends the economic burdens placed on people by mass incarceration, and reinvests in community. We will be updating our quarterly newsletter regarding current legislation on criminal justice after all the 2022 bills have been introduced. We add the newsletter into all outgoing mail, upon request or to everyone on our mailing list at the end of the year. EBC’s legislative platform for 2022 includes:

● AB 256 Racial Justice Act for All (Asm. Kalra) - expands California's new civil rights

protections against courtroom discrimination to criminal cases before 2021. The Act prohibits the state from discriminating on race, ethnicity, or national origin, and allows the court to order a new trial or dismiss enhancements as a remedy.

●

SB 300 Sentencing Reform Act of 2021 (Sen. Cortese) - aimed to reform California’s unjust “felony murder special circumstance” law. Though it did not make it all the way in the Legislature, we remain committed to changing injustices like felony murder laws.

Some prior legislative victories that the Ella Baker Center helped to win include eliminating medical copays in prisons and jails across California (AB 45) in 2019. The law also eliminates fees that blocked access to durable medical equipment, including diabetic shoes, glasses, and dentures. We also helped to pass a series of sentence enhancement reforms including a repeal of the 1-year enhancement for prior prison or jail felony terms (SB 136) in 2019. We supported The Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act of 2018 (SB 1393) which allows for judicial discretion for the 5-year enhancements for prior serious felonies as well as The RISE Act of 2017 (SB 180) which repealed the three-year enhancements for prior drug-related felonies. We also helped pass Proposition 47, which recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, and Proposition 57 which allows parole consideration for people with nonviolent convictions, changes policies on

juvenile prosecution, and authorizes credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. This year we will focus on implementing (AB 292) which promises to limit disruptions to rehabilitative programming as much as possible by requiring that programming continue during lockdowns, and will direct CDCR to develop and implement programming that is not solely based on in-person methods. We will also focus on implementing (SB 483, 2021) which will modestly reduce prison and jail populations, and improve the fairness of the criminal legal system by retroactively applying the elimination of the three-year and one-year sentence enhancements enacted by the State Legislature in 2017 and 2019. Prison Mail Program: We receive a lot of mail and have a small team so we hold a monthly, virtual prison mail night where volunteers, interns, and staff come together and respond to inquiries and requests for information and resources from incarcerated people. Since the start of COVID-19 our inside mailing list has tripled to over 8,000 people. We are not a legal services organization and therefore do not provide legal representation or legal advice. We are also not a pen-pal matching program. We provide updates on recent laws that impact people in prison, jail and in reentry. Resentencing Resources: Our victories in repealing and removing the automatic application of the most common sentence enhancements have helped open a door to get past convictions reconsidered. Building off these wins as well as supporting recent legislative victories in 2021 like AB 1540, we are in the process of updating a guide we first published in 2019 to help people and their families navigate the resentencing process: Back to Court: A Resentencing Guide to the Fair and Just Sentencing and Reform Act (SB 1393) and PC § 1170(d)(1). This toolkit has specific information for people impacted by SB 1393 with 5-year enhancements for prior serious felonies. It is also a detailed general resource for those interested in Penal Code section 1172.1 (formerly PC 1170.03 and PC 1170(d)(1)) resentencing, its impact on other sentence enhancements, and how to request a resentencing referral from either CDCR or District Attorneys. Let us know if you need a copy of the updated Toolkit sent to you when it is published, we also have a Spanish version available De Regreso a la Corte: Una Guia para la resentencia por la Ley de Reforma para una Sentencia Justa (SB 1393) y la PC § 1170 (d)(1) del CP. You can find this information at: https://ellabakercenter.org/resentencing-guide/

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Organizational Timeline

1996 The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights is founded by Van Jones, Diana Frappier, and Mike McLoone; we open our first office in the closet of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco. The Ella Baker Center begins as Bay Area Police Watch, with the mission of holding police accountable for their actions. It is one of the first organizations to compile a database of incidents of police misconduct and to establish a call line for people to report police abuses. Ella Baker Center helps lead a community-based campaign to put San Francisco Police Officer Marc Andaya on trial for killing Aaron Williams.

Andaya led a team of cops who viciously beat, pepper sprayed, tied up, and threw Williams in an unventilated police van where he died. Andaya had previously killed 1 other unarmed Black man, and had 37 formal complaints of racism and brutality and 5 lawsuits against him.

1997 The community mobilization led by Ella Baker Center to protest San Francisco Police Officer Marc Andaya’s long history of violence against communities of color results in him being fired.

1998 TransAction, the organizing campaign to fight against trans violence, begins. Ella Baker Center hosts a rally fighting for justice in the killing of Sheila Detoy; San Francisco police officers claim she was killed because she was “living a hip-hop lifestyle.”

1999 The Third Eye Movement is initiated and soon becomes nationally known for its ability to use hip-hop as a way to create social change.

2000 The Ella Baker Center supports a “hip-hop sit in.” The Third Eye Movement stages a youth-led mass sit-in at the Hilton San Francisco to protest the hotel’s support of Proposition 21. Prop 21 proposed various changes to laws related to the treatment of youth, including sending youth to adult prisons instead of youth facilities, and making it easier for prosecutors to try young people fourteen and older in adult court. The combined efforts of Third Eye and a larger student youth movement make the five Bay Area counties the only counties in California to reject Proposition 21, though it is ultimately passed by the state. In 2016, the Ella Baker Center worked with allies to support Proposition 57, which will begin undoing Proposition 21. We secure the release of two wrongfully convicted Latino youth through a combination of tactics that place the case on the television show 60 Minutes.

2001 The Books Not Bars campaign begins with its partners, WITNESS and Columbia University’s Human Rights Institute, and produces an advocacy video, Books Not Bars. This video documents the youth movement against the youth prison system in California. Books Not Bars hosts the Summer Jam to End the Prison Scam in collaboration with the Youth Force Coalition. More than 20 local groups perform and demand that the $2.3 million intended for the new youth facility be reinvested into social service programs to help people stay out of jail. The Stop the Super Jail campaign successfully stops the construction of a massive juvenile jail in Alameda County.

2002 Books Not Bars hosts the “Still Not Down with the Lockdown II” rally to protest the building of a new detention center for youth.

2004 Books Not Bars’ Close California Youth Authority campaign launches with the goal of closing all state youth prisons. This campaign created the first statewide network of families with incarcerated children, known as Families for Books Not Bars. It grows to include more than 1,400 family members.

System Failure is produced by Ella Baker Center and WITNESS. This video highlights the human rights violations committed by the California Youth Authority, currently known as the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).

Bay Area Police Watch leads a rally demanding justice for Cammerin Boyd who was shot by SFPD after surrendering with his hands on his head and standing on one prosthetic leg.

2005 Books Not Bars holds a “No More Lost Lives: Close Chad Now” memorial and mass march in Stockton, CA to honor Dyron Mandell Brewer, who died in the youth prison in 2004. The campaign goes on to hold memorials for other youth whose lives are lost in the youth prisons: Roberto Carlos Lombana, Durrell Feaster, Deon Whitfeld, Hector Rodriguez, Joseph Maldonado.

The Silence the Violence campaign launches out of the Third Eye Movement. Young community activists and hip-hop artists team up with the Ella Baker Center after realizing they cannot stay silent while so many young people in Oakland are being killed on their streets. Silence the Violence is designed to be a peace movement in the community to make the changes that the government does not prioritize.

The Green Collar Jobs Campaign launches with the goal of building a thriving green economy that puts the planet and the people first. The campaign emphasizes that our economy would be the strongest if we can both restore the planet and create prosperity for all. The Ella Baker Center hosts their 1st annual Ella Awards. This annual event is a time where we recognize and honor other social change leaders whose hard work and dedication helps strengthen communities and promotes peace, justice, and opportunity.

2007 The Book Not Bars campaign successfully passes its first bill, The Family Connection and Youth Rehabilitation Act. This bill eliminates barriers to family connection and expands the purpose of the Division of Juvenile Programs to include promoting family ties between the youth and their families. Silence the Violence hosts their first annual Turf Unity Weekend in collaboration with the Oakland Green Youth Arts Media Center and Art in Action. Turf Unity Weekend is a two-day gathering of rappers from over 30 neighborhoods to create music that promotes unity between turfs, artistic collaboration, and business networking in the hip-hop industry.

The Green Collar Jobs Campaign advocates for the creation of the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, a job-training pathway for Oakland residents who face barriers to employment. The Oakland Green Jobs Corp launches a national movement calling for the creation of an inclusive green economy through investing in green jobs and renewable energy.

Ella Baker Center works to ensure the passage of the federal 2007 Green Jobs Act to win authorization of $125 million in green jobs investment. This eventually leads to $500 million for green-collar job training as part of the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

2008 The organizing led by the Books Not Bars campaign leads to the closing of two of California’s eight youth prisons. The Family Communication Act, a follow up to the Families Connection Bill requiring notification to families regarding youth parole hearings and medical emergencies, is signed into law with bipartisan support.

The Ella Baker Center partners with the California Teachers Association and champions a statewide campaign to defeat Proposition 6, a “dumb on crime, tough on the budget” ballot measure. Nearly 70% of California’s voters ultimately reject the worst lock-‘em-up ballot initiative in California’s history. The Silence the Violence team trains 30 young people as Block Ambassadors for Peace. Bay Area Police Watch helps exonerate a Black youth falsely charged with murder in Lake County.

2009 Soul of the City launches. The campaign aims to develop the leadership of young adults of color in our communities through civic engagement and political leadership development to create an Oakland that is just, sustainable, and equitable. Soul of the City also gives people opportunities to shape the political and cultural life of Oakland through community service, voter mobilization, and leadership development. As a kick off for the new campaign, they host a service day.

2009, cont. The Heal the Streets youth fellowship starts with the goal of training Oakland youth to become community leaders and violence prevention advocates. Urban Peace Movement develops as a spin off of Silence the Violence. Their goal is to transform the culture and circumstances that lead youth to violence within their communities. Urban Peace Movement continued the annual event Turf Unity Weekend for the following years to come.

2010 EBC forms the statewide coalition Communities United Against the Dirty Energy Proposition and mobilizes voters of color in the successful campaign against Proposition 23, which threatened to roll back California’s Global Warming Solutions Act. Ella Baker Center begins efforts to eliminate “time adds,” a policy that allowed guards to extend parole consideration hearing dates without due process in the youth prisons. Books Not Bars succeeds in closing HG Stark Youth Prison, number 3 of the 8 California youth prisons targeted by the campaign. Learning from Our Mistakes: Transforming Juvenile Justice in California is released by Books Not Bars. The first of the two videos, System Failure, showed the failure of the juvenile justice system, while Learning from Our Mistakes shows alternative options. The purpose of this two part series is to educate local and statewide policymakers interested in reforming California’s juvenile justice system. This year, Books Not Bars wins a Prevention for a Safer Society Award.

2011 Preston Youth Prison, number four of eight California prisons targeted by Books Not Bars, closes and the state announces that Norwalk prison will close in 2012.

Soul of the City launches the Reclaim the Future workshop and we host Oakland’s first ever service festival, Throw Down for the Town, engaging more than 300 residents in 23 community led service projects across the city of Oakland. Through our strategic collaboration with Oakland Rising, Soul of the City turns out volunteers to engage hundreds of Oakland residents about the 2010 census and local and statewide elections. Through Soul of the City’s electoral organizing work, the Ella Baker Center partners with Wellstone Action and hosts Camp Wellstone where more than 100 social justice activists participate in a three-day training on how to win issues and elect progressive candidates.

After two years of organizing with the Oakland Climate Action Coalition, Oakland City Council passes a groundbreaking Energy and Climate Action Plan.

2012 Ella Baker Center coordinates Oakland’s 2nd Throw Down for the Town, a morning of service followed by a festival and concert at Snow Park. More than 500 residents participate in 34 service projects throughout Oakland.

Through legislative and budget advocacy, we eliminate the practice of “time adds.” This policy was a primary reason why California youth served the longest average sentences in the nation. We successfully collect over 10,000 signatures to improve the living conditions of Ventura Youth Prison. We co-sponsor a bill that reduces the sentence for the possession of illegal substances for personal use to 1 year or less, as opposed to a minimum of 16 months and possibility of 2 to 3 years. A bill to define and limit the use of youth solitary confinement in California’s juvenile facilities is first introduced and sponsored by the Ella Baker Center.

The Ella Baker Center organized community members to participate and create signs that display why they march in the annual May Day March for Dignity and Resistance.

2013 The Ella Baker Center partners with Justice for Families to launch the Night Out for Safety and Liberation campaign, an alternative to the police-centric National Night Out event held on the first Tuesday of August every year. The campaign distributes posters and invites people to have a new conversation about public safety that is focused on building community instead of surveillance and policing. We reintroduce legislation to end youth solitary confinement. The proposed bill defines and limits the use of solitary confinement, prohibits its use for punishment or retaliation, and requires reporting of how the practice is used. We advocate for federal level reforms including 1) halting all deportations and keep families together, and 2) no new funding for immigrant detention facilities/no renewal of contracts with private prisons.

2014 The 50% for Jobs Not Jails campaign launches in collaboration with the Alameda County Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, demanding that at least half of the county’s public safety budget be spent on re-entry services for people returning from jail.

The Ella Baker Center hosts the first Night Out for Safety and Liberation event in Oakland, where community members come together to redefine what public safety means to them beyond policing.

2014, cont. We conduct outreach to increase voter turnout in the 2014 local elections and inform voters about the necessity of Proposition 47. Proposition 47 is an initiative that would reclassify several low-level offenses as misdemeanors and direct the millions in annual savings from reduced rates of incarceration towards mental health and drug treatment, school programs, and victim services. Prop 47 passed with nearly 60% of the vote and we are now working with allies to ensure that funds are reinvested in communities.

2015 Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, and 20 organizations across the country release Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families. The report highlights the hidden costs families face when their loved ones are locked up, and identifies policy solutions. We launched our first organization-wide membership, creating a pathway for community members to organize with us and be a part of a movement to end criminalization, mass incarceration, and state violence. This year, partner organizations in 4 other cities host Night Out for Safety and Liberation, widening our effort to redefine what public safety means for our communities: dignity, opportunity, and power. The 50% for Jobs Not Jails campaign wins a significant victory when the Board of Supervisors sets aside half of the county’s public safety realignment budget for reentry programs that help people coming out of jail rebuild their lives.

2015, cont. Ella Baker Center supports the ACLU’s development of the Mobile Justice CA app: a people’s body camera that is a tech-savvy, grassroots solution to end police violence against communities of color. We partner with the ACLU of California and family members of victims of state violence in the United Kingdom for the #CaravanForJustice tour where people speak out against police violence. Bills co-sponsored by the Ella Baker Center: Earned Compliance Credits Bill: Would implement a program which provides people with the opportunity to reduce the length of their parole terms; the savings would be redirected to job training and housing support for people on parole. Youth Solitary Confinement Bill: Would define and limit the use of solitary confinement, and require reporting of how the practice is used.

2016 Night Out for Safety and Liberation goes national with the participation of 27 cities across the country. In collaboration with Human Impact Partners and other partners, Ella Baker Center releases “The Long Road Home: Decreasing Barriers to Public Housing for People with Criminal Records,” revealing the negative impact of policies that exclude people with criminal records from public housing. The Ella Baker Center helped pass a landmark piece of legislation to limit the use of long-term isolation in California’s juvenile facilities, and set standards for its use.

2016, cont. Bills co-sponsored by the Ella Baker Center: Repeal Ineffective Sentencing Enhancements (RISE) Act: Would repeal the three-year sentence enhancement for prior drug convictions. Strengthening Family Connections Bill: Would preserve in-person visitation rights in California county jails and juvenile facilities, ensuring that video visitation cannot replace in-person visitation. Asset Forfeiture Bill: Would reduce the circumstances in which police can confiscate personal property before a conviction.

2017 We broke ground on Restore Oakland, a community advocacy and training center that will empower Bay Area community members to transform our economic and justice systems and make a safe and secure future possible for themselves and for their families. Restore Oakland is a partnership between Ella Baker Center, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Causa Justa::Just Cause, Community Works West, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, La Cocina, and others. We released our community safety plan for Oakland, Public Safety Begins with Public Health: Making Oakland Safer Together. The report calls on the city of Oakland to implement public health solutions to public health problems, focusing on health and wellbeing and prevention over criminalization. With allies, we passed the RISE Act, SB 180 (authored by Senator Holly Mitchell), which will help restore balance in the judicial process, address extreme sentences, and reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

2017, cont. With our allies at the Justice Reinvestment Coalition and our members, we kicked off a campaign to audit the Alameda County Sheriff and demand more resources for our communities. We held our 4th Night Out for Safety and Liberation in Oakland, while organizations hosted events to redefine public safety in 28 cities across the country. We co-sponsored a bill to reform money bail in California with Anti Recidivism Coalition, Silicon Valley Debug, Essie Justice Group, SEIU, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Californians for Safety and Justice, American Civil Liberties Union, and California Public Defenders Association. We worked with the Justice Reinvestment Coalition to stop in-custody arraignments from being moved from Oakland to Dublin. SB 1393 - With allies, we get the Fair and Just Resentencing Act passed, which restores the court’s discretion in deciding whether to impose a 5-year sentence enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction.

2019 Our Forever Home, Restore Oakland opens: We held a grand opening for our forever home, Restore Oakland, with 200 social justice organizers, community leaders, elected officials, restaurant industry workers, Oakland residents, and more. This first-of-its-kind community advocacy and training center provides access to housing rights legal services, training for higher-paying jobs, resources to launch and incubate a food-oriented small business, meeting space for RJ circles and the COLORS Restaurant. We want to thank our partners in this project: Causa Justa, Restaurant Opportunities Center United, La Cocina, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth and Community Works West.

2020 The California Racial Justice Act Passes (AB 2542): This act prohibits the use of race, ethnicity, or nation origin in sentencing and convictions. The Racial Justice Act is the first in California that prohibits the state from using explicit bias against a defendant based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, statistical disparities in charging, sentencing, and conviction, and bias at trial and in jury selection. It is an important step in acknowledging and addressing systemic racism in the criminal legal system. EBC co-sponsored RJA along with the American Friends Service Committee, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, the League of Women Voters of California, NextGen, and United Domestic Workers, AFSCME, Local 3930. Night Out for Safety and Liberation 2020: Night Out for Safety and Liberation looks different in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ella Baker Center hosts a socially distanced mutual aid event in the parking lot of Restore Oakland providing community members with free masks, school supplies, voter registration information, hot pupusas, and more. The event culminates in a livestream concert held over Zoom in the evening. Over 25 other NOSL events are held in New York, Minneapolis, Portland, and other cities across the country. Ella's Voice Podcast Launches: Ella's Voice, the official podcast of the Ella Baker Center, launches in March. Our first eight episodes cover a range of topics from the effect of COVID-19 in prisons and jails, to voting for justice, to a look into Ella Baker's life. Tune in as we journey through local, state, and historical stories. You can listen to Ella's Voice through the audio player on our website, or you can subscribe on podcast platforms like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher and Deezer.

2021 Start of the Inside/Outside Policy Fellowship. The Inside/Outside Fellowship launched as a new dual fellowship program designed to increase contributions to EBC’s policy work by people who are directly impacted by the policies we are advocating to change.Our Inside-Outside fellows shifted narratives around incarceration through writing op-eds, blogs, and developing social media toolkits, as well as creating resources for those who are currently incarcerated to join in and take action. They participated in Public Safety hearings, lobbied legislators, and organized write-in campaigns. Together our fellows led rapid response efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 inside prisons statewide through the #StopSanQuentinOutbreak campaign

2022 EBC launched our second year of the Inside/Outside Fellowship. EBC launched our second year of the Inside/Outside Fellowship, and increased the number of policy fellows. Through this program, three currently incarcerated Inside Policy Fellows worked with one systems-impacted Outside Fellow for a nine-month fellowship program. This year's fellows included Dortell Williams, Mara Plasencia, Steve Brooks, and Kesha Brown. Racial Justice Act 4 All (AB 256 - Kalra) passed. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Racial Justice Act for All (AB 256 - Kalra) which allows the protections in the Racial Justice Act (AB 2542 - Kalra) to apply retroactively. RJA made it possible for people to challenge racial bias in their court proceedings, but it only applied to cases from 2021 onward. AB 256 will ensure that all Black and Brown people have a path to challenge racist sentences - no matter how long ago it was.

EBC's Strategic Framework

EBC Core Values & Alignment Assesment

Ella’s Story: The Life & Legacy of Ella Baker The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights is named after a brilliant, Black hero of the civil rights Freedom Movement who inspired and guided emerging leaders. We build on her legacy by building the power of black, brown, and poor people to create solutions for one of the biggest drivers of injustice today: mass incarceration. “The major job was getting people to understand that they had something within their power that they could use, and it could only be used if they understood what was happening and how group action could counter violence…” – Ella Jo Baker Ms. Baker played a key role in some of the most influential organizations of the time, including the NAACP, Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Ella Baker’s Early Life Ella Jo Baker was born on December 13, 1903, in Norfolk, Virginia. Growing up in North Carolina, she developed a sense for social justice early on, due in part to her grandmother’s stories about life under slavery. As a slave, her grandmother had been whipped for refusing to marry a man chosen for her by the slave owner. Her grandmother’s pride and resilience in the face of racism and injustice continued to inspire Ms. Baker throughout her life. Ella Baker’s maternal grandparents bought, lived on, and cultivated land that was formerly a part of the plantation on which they were enslaved. They bought the land for $250, which they paid off in installments. This purchase was the source of great pride for their family, and they went on to become successful farmers. Baker studied at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina. As a student she challenged school policies that she thought were unfair. After graduating in 1927 as class valedictorian, she moved to New York City and began joining social activist organizations. In 1930, she joined the Young Negroes Cooperative League, whose purpose was to develop black economic power through collective planning. She also involved herself with several women’s organizations. She was committed to economic justice for all people and once said, “People cannot be free until there is enough work in this land to give everybody a job.” Joining the Struggle Against Jim Crow Ella Baker began her involvement with the NAACP in 1940. She worked as a field secretary and then served as director of branches from 1943 until 1946.

Inspired by the historic bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955, Baker co-founded the organization In Friendship to raise money to fight against Jim Crow Laws in the deep South. In 1957, Baker moved to Atlanta to help organize Martin Luther King’s new organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). She also ran a voter registration campaign called the Crusade for Citizenship. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) On February 1, 1960, a group of black college students from North Carolina A&T University refused to leave a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina where they had been denied service. Baker left the SCLC after the Greensboro sit-ins. She wanted to assist the new student activists because she viewed young, emerging activists as a resource and an asset to the movement. Miss Baker organized a meeting at Shaw University for the student leaders of the sit-ins in April 1960. From that meeting, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee — SNCC — was born. Adopting the Gandhian theory of nonviolent direct action, SNCC members joined with activists from the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to organize the 1961 Freedom Rides. In 1964 SNCC helped create Freedom Summer, an effort to focus national attention on Mississippi’s racism and to register black voters. Miss Baker, and many of her contemporaries, believed that voting was one key to freedom. Today, that is still the case: if we do not exercise our collective voice, we are unable to influence the policies and laws that impact our lives. To be counted, we must be heard. The Audacity to Dream Big With Ella Baker’s guidance and encouragement, SNCC became one of the foremost advocates for human rights in the country. Ella Baker once said, “This may only be a dream of mine, but I think it can be made real.” Ella Baker’s influence was reflected in the nickname she acquired: “Fundi,” a Swahili word meaning a person who teaches a craft to the next generation. Baker continued to be a respected and influential leader in the fight for human and civil rights until her death on December 13, 1986, her 83rd birthday. Wanting to celebrate Ella Jo Baker as an unsung hero of racial and economic justice, the civil rights movement, and seeking to honor her legacy of leadership and movement building, our founders chose to name our Center for Ella Baker. Her audacity to dream big is a cornerstone of our philosophy. We believe the best way to honor Ms. Baker’s legacy is to inspire people to imagine new possibilities, lead with solutions, and engage communities to drive positive change.

POLICY PEOPLE-POWERED POLICY CAMPAIGNS

ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN SCREENING CRITERIA PRIORITY + ENGAGEMENT LEVELS

In order to support the effective allocation of organizational resources, EBC staff assign one of the following priority levels to a new campaign1 or project idea before screening and adoption. The “owner” and “manager” roles referenced throughout follow the MOCHA project management format. The owner, in partnership with their supervisor, is responsible for identifying the appropriate tier after assessing the likely staffing and resource requirements for the project or campaign. TIER I EBC leads, co-leads, or anchors a Tier I campaign. Staffing and resources are committed for long-term high engagement work to sustain the campaign (i.e., potentially multi-year). A Tier I campaign MOCHA requires significant ongoing engagement from staff across multiple teams. This is EBC’s highest level of commitment. TIER II At Tier II, one EBC team anchors and provides primary or full staffing for the campaign. EBC staff may be leading the Tier II campaign, or they may be supporting a partner organization’s work through participation in a coalition or campaign. Staffing and resources are committed for ongoing work. A Tier II campaign MOCHA may not require consistently high engagement from other teams, though multi-team or staff-wide temporary work (attending a direct action, strategic communications, phone banking, etc.) will emerge periodically. Tier II campaigns are a high priority and are critical for EBC’s success. TIER III At Tier III, one EBC team staffs the work for the campaign. Staffing and resources are allocated within a given team for a Tier III campaign, with guidance and approval from that team’s manager. A Tier III campaign MOCHA requires minimal engagement from other teams.

Throughout this memo, the word campaign can be replaced with the word project to adapt the screening process to internal projects or other non-campaign initiatives.

ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING PROCESS

Before launching or joining a new campaign, initiating a new project, or joining a new coalition, EBC staff proceed through the following screening process in order to prioritize the wellness and sustainability of EBC staff and members, allocate our limited resources to the most impactful opportunities, and advance our mission within a truth and reinvestment framework. The “owner” and “manager” roles referenced below follow the MOCHA project management format. 1. CLASSIFICATION: The owner and their supervisor meet to determine priority level (Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, or Rapid Response). Tier I and II proceed to screening questions (#2 below). Tier III campaigns are managed within the owner’s department using that team’s internal processes. Rapid Response campaigns follow separate protocols in lieu of the screening process below. 2. SCREENING: For Tier I and Tier II campaigns, the owner drafts a full MOCHA and assembles all staff with a role in the proposed campaign to review screening criteria. With facilitation support from the Deputy Director, the assembled staff assess the proposed campaign/project using the “6M” screening criteria (see page 3). Campaigns that pass the screening process proceed to # 3, below. 3. PLAN + BUDGET: With input from staff listed in the MOCHA, the owner leads the creation of a campaign plan that includes specific goals/deliverables, a timeline, and a proposed budget. Projects that fit within the existing budget of the owner’s department can move ahead with approval from that department’s director/manager. If the campaign involves any new staff, new long-term expenses, new temporary staff (paid fellows, canvassers, etc.), or significant equipment purchases, it must also receive approval from the Director of Finance and Operations. 4. NOTICE: Once approved, the owner summarizes the campaign rationale, goals, timeline, and MOCHA in a brief campaign memo and shares with all staff.

ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN SCREENING CRITERIA 6M CRITERIA As part of the screening process for a new campaign, staff with a role in the proposed campaign MOCHA will be asked to collectively determine whether the campaign meets all six of the following criteria. MEANINGFUL A meaningful campaign meets the moment – it aligns with our organizational values, achieves real-world impacts for the communities we serve, and addresses the urgent needs of system-impacted individuals, families, and communities. In a meaningful campaign, staff and members are moved and activated by the work MOVEABLE A moveable campaign has a goal that is politically possible with the people power, resources, and influence available to the Ella Baker Center and our coalition partners. In moveable campaigns, EBC participation brings added value and increases the likelihood of success. MANAGEABLE In a manageable campaign, EBC has enough resources, capacity, and influence to guide the direction of the work and successfully intervene – either through course correction or by shutting down the campaign – if the campaign unexpectedly goes in a harmful direction. MAINTAINABLE In a maintainable campaign, EBC has (or is able to manifest) the staff capacity and resources to effectively deliver on EBC’s role for the full duration of the campaign. If EBC’s role in a campaign is limited, maintainable means that we can effectively deliver on that role for the intended duration. MISSION-FOCUSED A mission-focused campaign advances a truth and reinvestment agenda by shifting resources and public support away from police and prisons and toward community-led work that advances a culture of care. Successful completion of a mission-focused campaign means decreased funding and/or support for the criminal legal system – fewer officers, fewer prisons, fewer people in prison, and/or less funding. MOMENTUM-ORIENTED A momentum-oriented campaign builds EBC’s capacity, strength, and influence, putting us in a better position to advance other campaigns and achieve future victories. Momentum-oriented campaigns build grassroots capacity by transferring power to system-impacted people and families and/or democratizing access to power for people and communities that have been harmed by the criminal legal system.

2023 EBC Legislation and Budgetary Priorities Bill Name, Number, Author, Links

Bill Summary / Elevator Pitch

What is the problem our bill seeks to address?

EBC Point of Contact

This bill restores judicial discretion for individuals serving life without parole or sentenced to death for offenses committed before June 5, 1990, and who have served at least 20 years of their sentence.

In the last decade, the Legislature has enacted several Laws that restored judicial discretion and allowed judges to consider mitigating factors at sentencing, including if one is suffering from a mental illness, being under the age of 26 at the time of the offense, and whether proceedings were influenced by racial bias. Individuals serving LWOP and sentenced to death are locked into sentences that are not consistent with contemporary sentencing practices established by the California Legislature.

Emily, Aldazia, Dortell, (Macio)

Legislation that would prohibit items sold in California state prisons’ canteens from being offered at a price beyond the cost paid to the vendor - ending all price gouging on essential food supplies and hygiene products for incarcerated people.

There is currently no regulation on pricing for canteens in prison. In recent years, canteen prices have skyrocketed, causing undue financial burden on incarcerated people and their loved ones who rely on this food and basic hygiene supplies. According to the latest CDCR auditing reports, in 2020 the average markups were 65% above the price paid to the vendor.

Isa, All Inside Fellows

Most people in county jails have the right to vote but are being denied access to voting. California disproportionately incarcerates people of color, furthering the legacy of Jim Crow laws that denied black and brown people the right to vote by creating harmful barriers like poll taxes, literacy test, and now incarceration.

Thanh, Emily, Lindsey, Sara, (Maybe Steven Warren)

Legislation (Co-Sponsoring) SB 94: Pre-1990 Judicial Review (Cortese) LegInfo Fact Sheet Talking Points Org Support Letter Individual Support

SB 474: BASICs Act (Basic, Affordable Supplies for Incarcerated Californians), (Becker) LegInfo Fact Sheet FAQ Toolkit Org Support Letter Inside Support Individual Support

AB 544: Voting in This bill will remove Jails (Bryan) barriers to vote for people in county jails. LegInfo Fact Sheet Talking Points Org Support Letter Individual Support

CoSponsored by EBC

Bill Name, Number, Author, Links

Bill Summary / Elevator Pitch

What is the problem our bill seeks to address?

EBC Point of Contact

ACA 4: Restoring the Right to Vote in Prisons (Bryan) AB 1595

This allows folks currently incarcerated in prison to vote.

Voting is a fundamental right and duty for citizens just like paying taxes. We know that when incarcerated people feel connected to the community they are less likely to recidivate yet we continue to ostracize and isolate those incarcerated. Denying people's right to vote does not make us safer and hurts our democracy when we exclude populations that some view undesirable.

Thanh, Emily, Lindsey, Sara, (Maybe Steven Warren)

LegInfo Fact Sheet Talking Points Org template letter Individual Support AB 1118: RJA Technical Amendments (Kalra) (Introduced as a spot bill) LegInfo Fact Sheet Talking Points Org Support Letter

This bill will make appeals under the RJA simpler and apply technical fixes. 1) Makes it easier for people on death row to raise an RJA claim. 2) Allows people with a denied RJA habeas petition to appeal. 3) Clarifies that a case does not have to be set for trial for someone to raise a claim.

Co-Sponsore d by EBC

1. If you’re on death row, your case is in a Derick years long process in the Court of Appeals, so it is simpler and more timely to Co-Sponsore raise a claim in trial court instead. d by EBC 2. If you need to raise an RJA claim and you’re in prison, you can file a habeas petition to request a lawyer. Instead of requiring a whole new petition if your petition is denied, this allows a review through a simple appeal. 3. The statute uses the words “trial court” instead of “Superior Court,” as it's called. Some judges interpret this to mean a case needs a set trial date before someone can raise a claim.

Bill Name, #, Author, Links

Bill Summary / Elevator Pitch

What is the problem our bill seeks to address?

EBC Point of Contact

The current process for assessing people for parole suitability is too subjective, arbitrary, and vulnerable to implicit biases. As a result, less than two people eligible for release through this process are actually found suitable for release. Studies show that race, gender and orientation, education level, accessibility issues, and age are significant factors in suitability rates. None of these factors address public safety.

James, Kells

Priority Bill (EBC NOT Co-Sponsoring) SB 81: Parole (Skinner) (Becker) LegInfo Fact Sheet Talking Points Org Support Letter Individual Support

This bill prohibits parole commissioners from weighing several discriminatory factors, like age, race, gender and education level when deciding whether or not a person is suitable for release. In addition, it raises the standard for judicial review and directs the BPH to collect key data to determine trends and biases.

Note: EBC is no longer cosponsoring this legislation, but is strongly supporting. We continue to play a lead role as a founding org of CAPR (California Alliance for Parole Reform).

Budgetary (Co-Sponsoring) RISE Act (SB 483) Implementation

This Budget bill will clarify that everyone with the repealed 1yr and 3yr enhancements is eligible for review, under SB 483, even if their enhancements were stayed or pleaded.

In 2021 SB 483 applied the repeals of the 1yr and 3yr enhancements retroactively by requiring judges to recall and review the sentences that had these enhancements, and remove these repealed enhancements. However, some courts are applying the law inconsistently and denying review for folks with stayed or pleaded enhancements.

Derick

RJA Implementation

When you raise a claim under the RJA, a lawyer is appointed if you cannot afford one. This Budget request will ensure there is funding to provide a lawyer to everyone who will need one.

The State Public Defender provides attorneys for people who cannot afford one and people on death row. But roughly half of those on death row do not have a lawyer because there aren’t enough available. This requests funding for the next three years to make sure the overburdened office can provide lawyers for RJA claims too. Investment is $17.3 million for FY 23-24, and $20.35 million for FY 24-25 and FY 25-26.

Derick

(See SB 474 above.)

Isa

Canteen Request

Funding to offset the loss of funds to the Inmate Welfare (This has not been Fund, that traditionally is formally introduced funded in majority by profits yet because it does from canteen markups. not have a budget Budget item: ~$30MM.

CoSponsored by EBC

champion)

EBC’s Legislative Timeline

25 Years Confronting Policing, Prisons, and Jails with Community Power 1996 The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights is Founded ●

The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights (EBC) begins as Bay Area Police Watch, with the mission of holding police accountable for their actions. It is one of the first organizations to compile a database of incidents of police misconduct and to establish a call line for people to report police abuses.

●

Aaron Williams is killed by San Francisco Police Officer Marc Andaya. EBC helps lead a community-based campaign to hold Marc Andaya accountable. The powerful community pressure EBC builds through this campaign goes on to reshape the egregious Police Commission and get Marc Andaya fired for his long history of violence against communities of color.

1997 – 2000 The Birth of a Youth Movement

●

TransAction, the organizing campaign to fight against trans violence, begins. EBC hosts a rally fighting for justice in the killing of Sheila Detoy; San Francisco police officers claim she was killed because she was “living a hip-hop lifestyle.”

●

The Third Eye Movement is initiated and soon becomes nationally known for its ability to use hip-hop to create social change.

●

EBC supports a “hip-hop sit-in.” The Third Eye Movement stages a youth-led mass sit-in at the Hilton San Francisco to protest the hotel’s support of Proposition 21. ○

Prop 21 was passed and proposed various changes to laws related to the treatment of youth, including sending youth to adult prisons instead of youth facilities and making it easier for prosecutors to try young people fourteen and older in adult court. Youth across the Bay gather to join the protests, birthing an important youth movement.

2001 – 2008 The Books Not Bars Campaign Challenges the California Youth Authority ●

EBC launches the Books Not Bars (BNB) campaign in 2001. ○

BNB hosts “Summer Jam to End the Prison Scam” in collaboration with the Youth Force Coalition. More than 20 local groups perform and demand that the $2.3 million

intended for a large new youth facility in Alameda County be reinvested into social service programs to help people stay out of jail. ○

Hundreds of youth turn out to participate in “Stop the Super Jail” protests and “Still Not Down with the Lockdown” rallies. The force of youth voices successful prevents the construction of the massive juvenile detention center.

●

In 2004, BNB set its sights on closing the California Youth Authority (CYA) and all its youth prisons across the states. Many believe it is an impossible goal. More and more impacted families join BNB, forming the first statewide network of families with incarcerated children (Families for Books Not Bars). Over 1,400 families organize together through the campaign.

●

In 2004, EBC and WITNESS produced the short film “Witness”, bringing a spotlight to the human rights violations committed by CYA, (now known as the California Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).

●

In 2007, EBC launched the Green Collar Jobs Campaign, and plays a leading role in launching the Green Jobs Corp, which trains marginalized young adults to build careers in the green industry. These efforts build a movement calling for inclusive “green” economies which successfully achieve the passage of the Green Collar Jobs Act. ○

●

AB 3018 (Nunez) The Green Jobs Act of 2007 wins authorization of $125 million in green jobs investment. This eventually leads to $500 million for green-collar job training as part of the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

In 2007 Books Not Bars organized a series of actions to protest the deaths of youth in youth prisons. It also passes a key bill that eliminates specific forms of family separation: ○

AB 1300 (Price) The Family Connection and Youth Rehabilitation Act: This bill eliminates barriers to family connection and expands the purpose of the Division of Juvenile Programs to include promoting family ties between the youth and their families.

●

EBC’s local organizing brings young community activists and artists together in 2008 to create the Silence the Violence community peace movement; its Bay Area Police Watch program continues to hold police accountable for harms in the community.

●

EBC partnered with the California Teachers Association (CTA) in 2008 and championed a statewide campaign to defeat Proposition 6, a “dumb on crime, tough on the budget” ballot measure. Nearly 70% of California’s voters ultimately reject the worst lock-‘em-up ballot initiative in California’s history.

●

In 2008, we also fought against Proposition 9 which described Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment. Proposition 9 would require notification to victims during all phases of the criminal justice process and offers them an opportunity for input. EBC was against this proposition as it was extremely expensive and was a duplicative effort of Prop 8.

Unfortunately, Proposition 9 was passed and adversely impacted adult prison systems. ●

In 2008, seven years after beginning BNB, its powerful family organizing led to the closure of El Paso de Robles and DeWitt Nelson Youth Correctional Facilities.

●

We helped get SB 1250 (Yee) The Family Communication Act passed in 2008 as a follow-up to AB 1300. This bill requires at least one individual who is a parent, guardian or designated emergency contact of a person in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Facilities, if the individual can be reasonably located, to be successfully notified within 24 hours of any suicide attempt by the person.

2009 – 2013 Leading the Narrative Shift away from Punishment and towards Public Health and Community Safety ●

BNB organizes to close more state youth prisons. By 2012, with the closure of Norwalk prison, BNB successfully achieves the closure of five of California’s eight youth prisons.

●

In 2009, Urban Peace Movement develops a spin-off of Silence the Violence. Their goal is to transform the culture and circumstances that lead youth to violence within their communities. Urban Peace Movement continued the annual event Turf Unity Weekend for the following years to come.

●

EBC launches The Heal The Streets Fellowship in 2009, which trains Oakland youth to become community leaders and violence prevention advocates.

●

In 2009, EBC’s Soul of the City program brings hundreds of community members together to lead service projects, engage Oakland residents in the census, mobilize voters for local and statewide elections, and to train cohorts of community activists.

●

In 2010, Ella Baker Center begins efforts to eliminate abusive policies that infringe on the rights of incarcerated youth, including restricting the use of solitary confinement, and eliminating “time-adds”, which was the primary reason California youth served the longest average sentences in the nation. Time adds is a policy that allows youth prison guards to extend parole consideration hearing dates without due process.

●

In 2012, we successfully collect over 10,000 signatures to improve the living conditions of Ventura Youth Prison.

●

Further, in 2012 we co-sponsor SB 1363 (Yee) Juveniles: solitary confinement which would 1) establish standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities for the confinement of delinquent wards, as specified; and 2) make some changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions, as specified. SB 1363 failed passage in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.

●

In 2012, Trayvon Martin was murdered by a neighborhood watch coordinator. Thus, in 2013

The EBC led organizations and activists across the country to host Night Out for Safety and Liberation (NOSL) to counter National Night Out and its message of policing our neighbors. Through NOSL, EBC leads a reimagining of what safety really means for our communities: having a living wage job, healthy food, healthcare, housing, education, and more.

2014 – 2019 Policy Advocacy for Truth and Reinvestment ●

Following the 2011 Supreme Court ruling that California address overcrowding by reducing its prison population, $80M of realignment funding is poised to flow into Alameda County every year.

●

EBC launched the 50% for Jobs Not Jails campaign in 2014, successfully moving half of this public safety funding away from policing and jails, and into community programs and re-entry services.

●

In 2013, We co-sponsored another version of the SB 1363 (Yee) bill, now called SB 61 (Yee) Juveniles: solitary confinement. This bill would have established standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities for the confinement of delinquent wards, as specified, and makes changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions, as specified SB 61 was ordered to the inactive file

●

In 2014, EBC conducted outreach to increase voter turnout in the 2014 local elections and inform voters about the necessity of Proposition 47. ○

●

In 2014, we attempted again to change the landscape of juvenile justice and we co-sponsored SB 970 (Yee) Juveniles: solitary confinement. ○

●

Proposition 47 is an initiative that would reclassify several low-level offenses as misdemeanors and direct the millions in annual savings from reduced rates of incarceration towards mental health and drug treatment, school programs, and victim services. This had passed with nearly 60% of the vote.

SB 970 (Yee) Juveniles: solitary confinement: This Bill would have generally prohibited a minor or ward who is detained in, or sentenced to, any juvenile facility or other secure state or local facility from being subject to solitary confinement, as defined, unless the minor or ward poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others or to the security of the facility, and all other less-restrictive options have been exhausted, and only in accordance with specified guidelines. SB 970 was never heard.

EBC published “Who Pays?: The True Cost of Incarceration on Families” in 2015, which was a groundbreaking report that brought widespread attention to the invisible costs of policing and incarceration on families and communities. With growing recognition from legislators, EBC passed a series of policies that reduce fines and fees, reduce the costs of phone calls and commissary items, and increase access to medical care.

●

In 2015, we co-sponsored the following bills which unfortunately were not able to successfully pass through the legislature: ○

AB 926 (Jones-Sawyer) Earned Compliance Credits Bill: Would implement a program that provides people with the opportunity to reduce the length of their parole terms; the savings would be redirected to job training and housing support for people on parole.

○

AB 396 (Jones-Sawyer) Rental housing discrimination: applications: criminal records: Mandates that rental housing providers cannot ask about a criminal record until AFTER confirming an applicant’s eligibility to rent. This bill would also Allow applicants to not disclose arrests that didn’t lead to a conviction, convictions that have been expunged/exonerated, partaking in a diversion or a deferral of judgment program, or adjudications incurred in the juvenile justice system.

○

SB 124 (Leno) Youth Solitary Confinement Bill: This would define and limit the use of solitary confinement, and require reporting of how the practice is used.

In 2016, the EBC worked with allies to support Proposition 57, which will begin undoing Proposition 21. ○

●

Proposition 57 Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements: This would allow parole consideration for nonviolent felons. It would authorize sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Additionally, this proposition would provide juvenile court judges discretion in deciding whether juveniles will be prosecuted as adults. This proposition was approved.

Additionally, in 2016 we co-sponsored: ○

SB 443 (Mitchell) Asset Forfeiture Bill which could reduce the circumstances in which police can confiscate personal property before a conviction. This bill became a law.

○

SB 1157 (Mitchell) Strengthening Family Connections Bill which would preserve in-person visitation rights in California county jails and juvenile facilities, ensuring that video visitation cannot replace in-person visitation. Despite passing in both assembly and senate houses, this bill was vetoed by the governor.

In 2016, EBC also targeted resentencing reform as a strategy to further reduce California’s prison population and racial injustice. ○

SB 966 (Mitchell) Sentence enhancements: prior convictions: was introduced to repeal the three-year sentence enhancement for prior drug convictions. This had died quickly on the senate floor.

●

In 2017, EBC tried again with some changes made to SB 996 (Mitchell) and a better political climate for criminal justice reform, and introduced SB 180 (Mitchell). ○ SB 180 (Mitchell) Drug Sentence Enhancement - repeals the three-year sentence enhancement for certain prior drug convictions that are added to any new conviction. This was signed into law but was not retroactive.

●

In 2017 we co-sponsored SB 10 (Hertzberg) Pretrial release or detention: pretrial services. This bill was passed and it created a risk-based non-monetary pre-arraignment and pretrial release system for people arrested for criminal offenses including preventative detention procedures for person’s determined to be too high a risk to assure public safety if released.

●

Additionally, in 2017 we co-sponsored another bail bill called AB 42 (Bonta) Bail: pretrial release. This bill would have revised the pretrial release system by limiting pretrial detention to specified persons, eliminating the use of bail schedules, and establishing pretrial services agencies tasked with conducting risk assessments on arrested persons and preparing reports with recommendations for conditions of release. Unfortunately, this bill died.

●

In 2018, introduces SB 1393 (Mitchell) which would allow a judge discretion to strike a prior serious felony conviction, to avoid the imposition of the five-year prison enhancement when the defendant has been convicted of a serious felony. This was signed and written into law. ○

●

We also helped introduce SB 1392 (Mitchell) which would repeal the one-year sentence enhancement for each prior prison or county jail felony term that applies to a defendant sentenced on a new felony. Unfortunately, this bill died on the Senate floor.

In 2019, EBC all co-sponsored bills were approved by the Governor which includes: ○

SB 136 (Wiener) RISE Act 2019 – This law narrowed the application of the 1-yr sentence enhancement. Before this campaign, a prosecutor or judge would add an extra year to your sentence for every time you got the harsher sentence of prison or jail instead of probation. The Rise Act impacts 14,000 currently incarcerated people. This enhancement has overwhelmingly impacted Black and Brown people.

○

SB 36 (Hertzberg) Pretrial Risk Assessments – This law required that risk assessments used in pretrial detention decisions be validated for accuracy and screened for bias based on gender, race, or ethnicity. Judicial Council will collect data regarding information fed into risk assessment tools and the outputs they generate.

○

AB 45 (Stone) Eliminating Medical Copays in Prisons and Jails – People in California prisons and jails no longer have to pay a medical copay before they can see a doctor or dentist. The law also eliminates fees that block access to durable medical equipment – like diabetic shoes, glasses, and dentures.

In 2019, we also cosponsored SB 144 (Mitchell) Families Over Fees Act. This bill would have eliminated many of the administrative fees imposed by the criminal legal system and reduced the suffering caused by court debt. Fees eliminated by this bill would include those for drug

testing, bookings, arrest, probation, parole supervision, and electronic monitoring. Unfortunately, this bill died. ●

In 2019, EBC opened the doors of Restore Oakland. A first of its kind organizing and training hub, Restore Oakland brings diverse services like re-entry support and job training, housing support, restorative justice circles, and community healing all under one roof. Restore Oakland offers a tangible model of alternative investments to prisons based on restorative justice and community care.

2020-2023 and Onwards Bold Steps Forward for Safety, Justice, and Power

●

Communities across the country rise up to protest the brutal killing of George Floyd in 2020 and demand divestments from the police. Defund Fear, authored by EBC Executive Director Zach Norris in 2019, preemptively provides care-based solutions to organizers and communities as they seek viable alternatives to policing.

●

Starting May 2020, EBC responds to the devastating impact of COVID-19 inside prisons, jails, and our communities in Oakland. EBC is a leading member of the whistleblowing #StopSanQuentinOutbreak coalition, which brings state-wide attention to the crisis inside state prisons and influences a significant reduction in California’s prison population.

●

The once “impossible” vision of Books Not Bars is achieved when Governor Newsom announces the pending closure of the Department of Juvenile Justice, and with it, the three remaining youth prisons in California. As youth justice is realigned to counties, EBC begins work to turn Alameda County into a model for zero youth incarceration. In this effort, we decided to support the following bill: ○

SB-823 Juvenile justice realignment: Office of Youth and Community Restoration: This is a budget trailer bill that repeals the provisions that would have created the Department of Youth and Community Restoration within the Health and Human Services Agency. This bill closes intake at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) on July 1, 2021. Courts may continue to commit youth in whose case a motion to transfer them from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction was filed.

●

In 2020, EBC played a significant role in getting the Families Over Fees Act AB 1869 & SB 824 (Mitchell) – passed which would eliminate 21 of the administrative fees imposed by the criminal legal system and reduce the suffering caused by court debt. Fees eliminated would include those for home detention, cost of counsel, work furloughs, and electronic monitoring.

●

In 2020, we also joined as co-sponsors on SB 555 (Mitchell) Jail Fair Access and Connection to Support. This bill would have required that the items in a county jail canteen are offered for sale at the cost paid to the vendor supplying the items. This bill also would change the name of the Inmate Welfare Fund to the Incarcerated People’s Fund and requires that these funds be expended solely for the benefit, education, and welfare of the people who are incarcerated in the facility. In addition, this bill would have prohibited commissions in telephone and communication service contracts for juvenile facilities and county jails and requires such telephone and communication service contracts to be negotiated and awarded to the

lowest-cost provider. This bill was vetoed by the governor. ●

Additionally, in 2020 EBC led the passage of the landmark Racial Justice Act AB 2542 (Kalra), the most expansive policy in the United States to prohibit racial discrimination in trials and sentencing, and provide tools to challenge this in court.

●

NOSL grows to 50+ communities across the United States. The racial justice movement faces conservative pushback following our successes in 2020, making EBC’s alternative narrative of safety (based not on policing but on thriving communities) a critical strategy for keeping open this important window of reform.

●

In 2021, EBC celebrates its 25th anniversary with our community. After assessing our historic successes and strengths, EBC launches a new Strategic Framework that builds power with impacted communities to achieve visionary change and claim the future we deserve.

●

In 2021, we co-sponsored the following bills that were signed all into law by the Governor: ○

AB 292 Access to Programming Act (Stone): This bill reduces barriers to programming, like interruptions due to transfers, quarantines, lockdowns and conflicting work assignments. It encourages more hours of programming available to all people incarcerated under CDCR, despite their security level or length of sentence. It ensures alternatives to in-person programming are offered and that those alternatives do not limit or negatively affect the quality or quantity of in-person programming.

○

SB 483 Repeal Ineffective Sentence Enhancements (RISE) Act (Allen):Authorizes courts to retroactively remove 1-year prison prior and 3-year drug prior enhancements from the sentences of currently or formerly incarcerated people, including those with “final sentences.” If you have not yet been contacted or wish to expedite, you can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to request a resentencing hearing. Updates: Currently, there is a major backlog in SB 483 petitions, especially in Los Angeles courts. The good news is that people are being resentenced, the bad news is there is a backlog in courts all over California. We are exploring a number of paths with our allies to ensure this bill is implemented meaningfully.

●

In 2021, we introduced SB 300 Sentencing Reform Act of 2021 (Cortese) which was a 2-year bill. This bill would reform California’s unjust “felony murder special circumstances” law to ensure that the death penalty or LWOP would not be imposed on those who did not kill a person, or who as an accomplice did not intend that a person die. It will restore the judge's discretion to strike a ‘special circumstances’ enhancement. This bill required a 2/3rds majority vote for passage and was pulled by the author prior to the last floor vote.

●

In 2022, EBC's Deputy Director and long-time movement leader, Marlene Sanchez, was elevated to Executive Director - the first woman of color in this role. In addition to her lived experience as a formerly incarcerated person, Sanchez brings more than 20 years of professional experience organizing people inside and outside throughout California and across

the country. ●

Additionally in 2022, the retroactive Racial Justice Act for All AB 256 (Kalra) was passed, making thousands eligible for resentencing across the state.

●

In 2022, we helped support a Parole Reform bill, SB 875 (Skinner) which would prohibit the board from considering discriminatory factors when reaching a finding of unsuitability for parole, including, among other factors, the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, cultural or religious affiliation, and cognitive, speech, or physical impairment. This bill was pulled by the author prior to its first Public Safety Committee Hearing.

●

As we look to the future of our organization, EBC launches “We Mentor Us”, an initiative to build a strong leadership pipeline by making meaningful investments in the movement leadership of systems-impacted people.

●

In 2023, EBC is co-sponsoring the following legislative and budgetary campaigns: ○

Parole Reform (SB 81, Becker): Legislation would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to increase transparency, predictability, and accountability of parole suitability hearings.

○

Pre-1990 Judicial Review (SB 94, Cortese): Legislation that would provide for judicial review for individuals serving life without parole or sentenced to death for offenses committed before June 5, 1990, and who have served at least 20 years of their sentence. Courts will review evidence of mitigating factors or reduced risk of violence consistent with changes in California law enacted in intervening years. In these cases, judges will have the discretion to leave the sentence unchanged or to resentence the person to a lesser sentence.

○

Canteen Pricing (SB SB 474, Becker): Legislation that would eliminate markups on canteen items across California state prisons, lowering the cost of essential foods and hygiene products for incarcerated communities across the state.

○

Polling Sites in Jails (AB 544, Bryan): Legislation that would mandate county jails give meaningful access to voting and voting education materials.

○

Restoring the Right to Vote for Incarcerated People (ACA 4, Bryan): Legislation that would restore currently incarcerated people’s right to vote.

EBC’s Legislative Timeline Year

Bill + Author

Description (Bill Title + Description)

Status

2007

AB 3018 (Nunez)

The Green Jobs Act: This bill would set forth legislative findings and declarations relating to the state's green economy and the increasing demand for a highly skilled and well-trained green collar workforce

Signed

AB 1300 (Price)

The Family Connection and Youth Rehabilitation Act: This bill eliminates barriers to family connection and expands the purpose of the Division of Juvenile Programs to include promoting family ties between the youth and their families.

Signed

SB 1250 (Yee)

The Family Communication Act: This bill requires at least one individual who is a parent,guardian or designated emergency contact of a person in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Facilities, if the individual can be reasonably located, to be successfully notified within 24 hours of any suicide attempt by the person.

Signed

2012

SB 1363 (Yee)

Juveniles: solitary confinement: This bill would establish standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities for the confinement of delinquent wards, as specified; and make some changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions, as specified.

Failed

2014

Prop 47

Prop 47 is an initiative that would reclassify several low-level offenses as misdemeanors and direct the millions in annual savings from reduced rates of incarceration towards mental health and drug treatment, school programs, and victim services

Signed

SB 970 ( Yee)

Juveniles: solitary confinement: This Bill would have generally prohibited a minor or ward who is detained in, or sentenced to, any juvenile facility or other secure state or local facility from being subject to solitary confinement, as defined, unless the minor or ward poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others or to the security of the facility, and all other less-restrictive options have been exhausted, and only in accordance with specified guidelines.

Failed

AB 926 (JonesSawyer)

Earned Compliance Credits Bill: This bill would implement a program that provides people with the opportunity to reduce the length of their parole terms; the savings would be redirected to job training and housing support for people on parole.

Failed

SB 124 (Leno)

Youth Solitary Confinement Bill: This bill will prohibit the use of solitary confinement on a person confined in a juvenile facility who is an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder or who is gravely disabled, or for the purposes of discipline, punishment, coercion, or retaliation by staff.

Failed

2015

EBC’s Legislative Timeline Year

Bill + Author Description (Bill Title + Description)

Status

2015

AB 396

Rental housing discrimination: applications: criminal records: This bill mandates that rental housing providers cannot ask about a criminal record until AFTER confirming an applicant’s eligibility to rent. This bill would also allow applicants to not disclose arrests that didn’t lead to a conviction, convictions that have been expunged/exonerated, partaking in a diversion or a deferral of judgment program, or adjudications incurred in the juvenile justice system.

Failed

SB 443 (Mitchell)

Asset Forfeiture Bill: This bill would reduce the circumstances in which police can confiscate personal property before a conviction.

Signed, then chaptered

SB 1157 (Mitchell)

Strengthening Family Connections Bill: This bill would preserve in-person visitation rights in California county jails and juvenile facilities, ensuring that video visitation cannot replace in-person visitation.

Vetoed

SB 966 (Mitchell)

Sentence enhancements: prior convictions: This bill was introduced to repeal the three-year sentence enhancement for prior drug convictions

Failed

SB 180 (Mitchell)

Drug Sentence Enhancement: This bill would repeal the three-year sentence enhancement for certain prior drug convictions that are added to any new conviction.

Signed

SB 10 (Hertzberg)

Pretrial release or detention: pretrial services. This bill created a risk-based non-monetary pre arraignment and pretrial release system for people arrested for criminal offenses including preventative detention procedures for people determined to be too high a risk to assure public safety if released.

Signed, then chaptered

AB 42 (Bonta)

Bail: pretrial release. This bill would have revised the pretrial release system by limiting pretrial detention to specified persons, eliminating the use of bail schedules, and establishing pretrial services agencies tasked with conducting risk assessments on arrested persons and preparing reports with recommendations for conditions of release.

Failed

SB 1393 (Mitchell)

Sentencing: This bill would allow a judge discretion to strike a prior serious felony conviction, to avoid the imposition of the five-year prison enhancement when the defendant has been convicted of a serious felony.

Signed

SB 1392 (Mitchell)

Sentencing: This bill would repeal the one-year sentence enhancement for each prior prison or county jail felony term that applies to a defendant sentenced on a new felony.

Failed

(Jones-Sawyer)

2016

2017

2018

EBC’s Legislative Timeline Year

Bill + Author Description (Bill Title + Description)

Status

2019

SB 136 (Wiener)

RISE Act 2019: This law narrowed the application of the 1-yr sentence enhancement. Before this campaign, a prosecutor or judge would add an extra year to your sentence for every time you got the harsher sentence of prison or jail instead of probation.

Signed

SB 36 (Hertzberg)

Pretrial Risk Assessments: This law required that risk assessment used in pretrial detention decisions be validated for accuracy and screened for bias based on gender, race, or ethnicity. Judicial Council will collect data regarding information fed into risk assessment tools and the outputs they generate.

Signed

AB 45 (Stone)

Eliminating Medical Copays in Prisons and Jails: People in California prisons and jails no longer have to pay a medical copay before they can see a doctor or dentist. The law also eliminates fees that blocked access to durable medical equipment – like diabetic shoes, glasses, and dentures

Signed

SB 144 (Mitchell)

Families Over Fees Act: This bill would have eliminated many of the administrative fees imposed by the criminal legal system and reduced the suffering caused by court debt. Fees eliminated by this bill would include those for drug testing, bookings, arrest, probation, parole supervision, and electronic monitoring.

Failed

AB 2542 (Kalra)

Racial Justice Act: This bill prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction, or from imposing a sentence, based upon race, ethnicity, or national origin, beginning January 1st 2021.

Signed

AB 1869 (Mitchell)

Criminal Fees: This bill would repeal the authority to collect many fees and make the unpaid balance of these court-imposed costs unenforceable and uncollectible and would require any portion of a judgment imposing those costs be vacated.

Approved, then chaptered

SB 824 (Mitchell)

Families Over Fees Act: This bill would repeal the authority to collect many fees and make the unpaid balance of these court-imposed costs unenforceable and uncollectible. It would require any portion of a judgment imposing those costs to be vacated.

Failed

SB 823 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)

Juvenile justice realignment: Office of Youth and Community Restoration: Budget trailer bill that repeals the provisions that would have created the Department of Youth and Community Restoration within the Health and Human Services Agency. This bill closes intake at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) on July 1, 2021. Courts may continue to commit youth in whose case a motion to transfer them from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction was filed.

Signed

2020

EBC’s Legislative Timeline Year

Bill + Author Description (Bill Title + Description)

Status

2021

AB 292 (Stone)

Access to Programming Act: This bill reduces barriers to programming, like interruptions due to transfers, quarantines, lockdowns and conflicting work assignments. It encourages more hours of programming available to all people incarcerated under CDCR, despite their security level or length of sentence. It ensures alternatives to in-person programming are offered and that those alternatives do not limit or negatively affect the quality or quantity of in-person programming. Unfortunately, the bill was amended to remove provisions establishing a pathway for people serving convictions for either nonviolent or violent offenses to earn the same amount of good conduct credits once their VIO administrative determinant is removed.

Signed

SB 483 (Allen)

Repeal Ineffective Sentence Enhancements (RISE) Act: Effective Jan. 1, 2022, this bill would reduce prison and jail populations by retroactively applying the repeal of the three-year (SB 180, 2017) and one-year (SB 136, 2019) sentence enhancements. This bill requires CDCR and Sheriffs to identify folks with these enhancements and provide their information to resentencing courts by July 1st, 2022 -- for individuals who have served their base term and are currently serving a sentence based on an enhancement -- and by December 31, 2023, for all other individuals. Every person has a right to a resentencing hearing with the presumption that their sentence enhancements will be removed. This presumption can be overcome and the same sentence can be reimposed, but a higher sentence cannot be. Individuals can also request a lower sentence based on additional changes in law or other mitigating factors and counsel must be appointed.

Signed

SB 300* (Cortese)

Sentencing Reform Act of 2021:This bill would reform California’s unjust “felony murder special circumstances” law to ensure that the death penalty or LWOP would not be imposed on those who did not kill a person, or who as an accomplice did not intend that a person die. It will restore the judge's discretion to strike a ‘special circumstances’ enhancement. Unfortunately, the bill was amended to remove the section that provided for resentencing of persons currently in prison with a LWOP or death sentence.

Failed ( author pulled prior to last floor vote)

AB 256* (Kalra)

RJA retroactive: This bill makes the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (CRJA), which prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, apply retroactively and makes other changes.

Signed

EBC’s Legislative Timeline Year

Bill + Author Description (Bill Title + Description)

Status

2022

SB 875 (Skinner)

Parole Reform: This bill would prohibit the board from considering discriminatory factors when reaching a finding of unsuitability for parole, including, among other factors, the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, cultural or religious affiliation, and cognitive, speech, or physical impairment.

Failed (Pulled by Author)

2023

SB 94 (Cortese)

Recall and Resentencing: special circumstances: This bill would authorize an individual sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a conviction in which one or more special circumstances were found to be true to petition for recall and resentencing if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, and the individual has served at least 20 years in custody. The bill would authorize the court to modify the petitioner’s sentence to impose a lesser sentence and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion, or to vacate the petitioner’s conviction and impose judgment on a lesser included offense, as specified.

Introduced

SB 81 (Becker)

Parole Hearings: This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to increase transparency, predictability, and accountability of parole suitability hearings.

Introduced

AB 544 (Bryan)

Polling Sites in Jails: Legislation that would mandate county jails give meaningful access to voting and voting education materials

Introduced

ACA 4 (Bryan)

Restoring the Right to Vote for Incarcerated People: Legislation that would restore currently incarcerated people’s right to vote.

Introduced

SB 474 (Becker)

Canteen Pricing: Legislation that would eliminate markups on canteen items across California state prisons, lowering the cost of essential foods and hygiene products for incarcerated communities across the state.

Introduced

Understanding Prison Abolition in Practice: Reentry and Community by James King I am extremely honored to be invited to speak to you today at the Humanities Beyond Bars Symposium. In fact, I feel particularly privileged to be at this specific event because, it was during the latter years of my incarceration, that classes in philosophy and literature helped expand my thinking and situate my life and experiences within the broader context of the communities and institutions I’ve interacted with throughout my life. I realized that I didn’t have to see myself as nothing more than my incarceration status; and that I didn’t have to cling to a version of black masculinity that formed in my culture as a toxic response to white supremacy; one that demanded I view the world through the binary of predator and prey; but that I could instead think of myself as a student and a writer, and as a friend and positive force in my community. In a very real sense, studying the humanities helped me discover my own humanity while still incarcerated. I realized during that period of my life, that prison, and the underlying messages it conveyed about my worth, when blindly accepted, were fundamentally undermining my ability to be a fully functioning interdependent community member who operates in love and kindness. The movement to dismantle the criminal legal system and defund the prison industrial complex is once again at a pivotal moment. As I write this, my heart is heavy because of the extreme violence that recently occurred in Sacramento, in which 6 ppl were killed, almost a dozen others were wounded, and many others were exposed to the overwhelming trauma of gun violence. I’ve either experienced or committed violence throughout each of the five decades of my own life, so I am achingly familiar with the pain, the fear, feelings of isolation, shame and unworthiness that perpetuate and result from these devastating acts. I know what it feels like to see someone shot and wonder, why not me? Or to wrestle with the randomness when indiscriminate terror bursts into your life. For me, and perhaps others, the violence of this particular act hits close to home in ways that the bombs dropping in Ukraine and other parts of the world do not. While I can abstractly empathize with people who are forced to endure the violence of war, I’ve never personally experienced it. Besides, I’ve been taught to distinguish between acts of war, crimes, and even state sanctioned violence in the name of public safety as so entirely different that they seemingly cannot be cut from the same cloth. While I can now recognize the rhetorical tricks and tortured carceral logic at play when we make these distinctions, none of it comes close to healing the harm we all experience when we are forced to accept violence as a way of life. On a side note, when I speak of state sanctioned violence, I’m referring to arrest at gunpoint, the coercive aspects of being tried, and forced captivity. Whether a person believes state

violence is justified or has value, it is still a form of violence, and one that is largely invisible to people whose property, privilege, or safety is seemingly protected by it. Each time I see one of these shootings, I’m struck by the ways violence begins to compile upon violence. Each time, I am disturbed by how normal it all is, how the media and various actors begin their own ritualized forms of violence that are typically less acute, yet support the conditions and belief systems that normalize violence in the first place. To be more specific, I’m talking about politicians who attempt to exploit the emotions of the aftermath of the violence to make the case for state sanctioned violence as the answer. And the willingness of media to be exploited, in the name of increasing their readership and revenue. I recently read a few media stories that detailed the criminal history of one of the people accused of the shooting in Sacramento. He’s been in and out of prison since he was 18 years old. In 2018 he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but was actually released about 4 years later. The District Attorney, who coincidentally is running for higher office, saw this coming and vigorously opposed this person’s release. But he was released anyway. Then this happened. Why did they let him out? On and on this narrative goes. It’s compelling to the majority of people, perhaps because we have been hearing different versions of it from politicians and the media for eons. Left out is any type of critique of the response by the state to acts of violence the person in question has been accused of in the past. As I mentioned earlier, this person was thrown in prison at age 18. The media doesn’t report anything about his life prior to his first arrest. It is almost as if he did not exist until the very moment he began going through the criminal legal system. A person, telling this story, decided that nothing about this individual’s life was relevant beyond their conviction history. Oh, there was one other detail, a picture, of a young black man, unsmiling, taking what appeared to be a mugshot. So now, we know his gender, race, and conviction history. Theoretically, I know that no one is born a criminal, or committing acts of violence. Instead, what we deem criminal acts spring from an inability of the person in question to respond to trauma in their own life in healthy ways that avoid perpetuating the violence they experience. I hate that we, as a society, are so desensitized to the factors that would bring a person into the prison industrial complex at such a young age, but instead seem to take it as something that inevitably happens for some. It reminds me that, when I was growing up, going to jail was considered a rite of passage that signaled my transition from black child to young black male. Or as Ice Cube said about county jail way back in 1990, “A piece of cake, it was just like a party, cause in the County you know everybody.” I also really dislike that the storyteller has so much sway in what is reported. I believe it is an extension of state sanctioned violence when journalists only get their details from law enforcement. I can not begin to describe the impact generations of images in newspapers or on the news have had upon all of us when it comes to internalizing anti black biases.

In addition to the normalization of incarcerating black children, in this instance we are also asked to ignore that this person went to prison multiple times, and by the media’s account became increasingly violent and disconnected from society as a result. That is because, violence is not an effective remedy for ending violence. In fact, many of the factors that contribute to violent behavior, like the inability to process trauma, feelings of shame, low self worth, a lack of empathy and respect for the value of life are exacerbated by the violence of incarceration. Moreover, the person in question spent close to 7 years incarcerated between jail and prison on a ten year sentence. Even in the politician’s own logic, it is unclear how an additional few years of captivity would change the factors that led to this act he is accused of. Instead, this logic sees the person in question as fundamentally irredeemable, and unworthy of larger society ever. I’d remind each of us, these are forms of violence that are being perpetuated prior to any final determination of what happened. Of course, this violence I’m describing isn’t as acute as the mass shooting. It will probably only traumatize his family members and loved ones, but I’d argue it is a central aspect of our current system for criminalization that drives over incarceration, extreme sentencing. For all of the shortcomings of this tough on crime sensationalized rhetoric however, I tend to think abolitionist rhetoric is similarly insufficient. As you all know, this language springs from the movement in the 19th century to abolish slavery. Many parts of it work well for the current movement. For instance, abolition highlights the racism of the current legal system, and makes the case that incarceration is the direct descendant of slavery in this country. Actually though, incarceration has several important differences with slavery. A chief one being that people were largely born into slavery, whereas to be incarcerated in this country there are a series of rituals one has to go through, like arrest, trial, and conviction. So when comparing slavery to incarceration, some see the similarities, while others focus on the differences. Because this is an imperfect metaphor, I believe people respond to it according to their pre held biases. Like all language however, this metaphor is also reductive. The issues that the abolitionist framework attempts to address go far beyond our legal systems and the prison industrial complex. This nation’s series of rituals that result in criminalization and incarceration are a product of a series of institutions and structures that commodify and objectify everyone. Policing and incarceration in this nation are tools for ensuring capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy operate effectively. And since abolitionist rhetoric highlights what are essentially subsystems of a much larger network of systems and structures that formalize oppression, disenfranchisement, and what Ruth Wilson Gilmore has termed the Organized Abandonment of whole swaths of people in this country, it then falls short of describing the entirety of what is needed to create a society that nurtures, shares resources, uplifts and creates a sense of belonging for any and all people.

You may disagree with this, but I believe that when people are feeling the pain of what happened in Sacramento, an abolitionist response doesn’t resonate for people in pain in the same ways that tough on crime rhetoric, with its implications of retribution, and co-opting of the notion of justice does. At the same time, if pressed, I would respond to questions the same way any good abolitionist would. I’d point out that before the shooting, our society failed the individuals involved completely. When those people acted out earlier in response to trauma in their own lives, they were criminalized, and taken into captivity. Instead, they should have had access to trauma support as children, access to mental health resources, affordable housing, education, a pathway to a standard of living that met their material needs, and by providing those resources early, we could prevent violence later. To take it even a step further, I believe the community based resources that some of us are receiving upon our release from prison can actually serve as the template for the resources needed to actually practice an abolitionist community. Today, there are many great organizations supporting reentry for people leaving prison. In my case, I’d been offered a job with a living wage just before my release. I was picked up at the gate, given new clothes, and taken out for breakfast. I went to a transitional house where I lived with two other people. I had my own room, my own shower, and food. Friends and community members donated a laptop, a cell phone, and other items to me. I even had a small amount of savings from writing I’d published while incarcerated. Upon reentry, each of my material needs were met, and I was supported, affirmed, and held in community by people who knew I’d been in prison and didn’t think less of me for it. Going back even further, while in prison, I’d been mentored by other incarcerated people, many of whom are still in captivity, who taught me how to end the cycle of being traumatized and perpetuating trauma I’d been caught up in my entire life. Incarcerated men taught me to walk it off, journal, weigh the pros and cons of my actions, and accept the consequences. From incarcerated women, I learned that the oppression one experiences being a black man in this country does not exempt you from inflicting similar harms on others. They taught me to see the interconnectedness of all of our campaigns to end institutionalized oppression in our communities. Let me say explicitly, I am not trying to make a case for rehabilitation. It is an aspect of privilege to ignore the violence of poverty, the failures of society to provide basic support and resources for marginalized neighborhoods, to disenfranchise people, who are often still teenagers, and then say that person alone needs to be rehabilitated. The children from low income neighborhoods are not not inherently bad, so if they disproportionately cause harm later in their lives, it is essential we look to which systems are failing them. I believe that the resources that are forming to support loved ones who are being released from prison give us a fresh way of providing concrete answers about what an abolitionist society could

look like. Organizations likeProject Rebound, David Cowan’s Bonafied, or the Ahimsa Collective give us tangible, practical answers about the ways we can create healing in our communities that will eventually reduce violence in our neighborhoods. In addition, the number one reentry provider are the families of people being released. Offering them support and resources does not happen nearly enough. A few things these community based resources share are a respect for people’s dignity and agency. They also have compassion when people make mistakes, and a humility to avoid centering their knowledge of reentry above an individual’s experience. Every person successfully reentering society from prison needs similar things; an internalized new identity that increases their feelings of self worth and community, the tools to process trauma in ways that don’t cause harm to themselves or others, and opportunities and resources to have a standard of life that feels dignifying. These are the same things all community members need regardless of any criminalization or incarceration. When we accept the value of all life, by investing in each life, we make moments like what happened in Sacramento last week virtually impossible. I don’t care who you are. If your family, and your neighborhood helped you feel safe and empowered as a child, you won’t turn to a gun for those feelings later. When you are taught that you matter, your happiness matters, your security matters, love matters, you will see that others matter too. There is a way of contributing to people’s feelings of self worth that lead them to see the worth of others. I learned that from people who are incarcerated. Individuals the government has said never deserve to see the light of day. I’ve been nurtured by people who are being kept from their own families at gunpoint, so I know that any belief system that sees people as disposable is not only missing the mark, it is actively causing harm. As a society, I sincerely hope we do not let the fears that are being exploited by some for personal gain, deter us from openly and honestly critiquing state sanctioned violence in our nation. Just as committing acts of violence towards children in the name of discipline normalizes violence for them, responding to individual acts of violence in our communities with arrest and captivity normalizes and reinforces the violence we are all trying to see end. I believe it is time we add to the language of what we want to abolish, dismantle, and defund. We already have several examples of the world we want to build. Philosophies like “We keep us safe,” and “Care not Cages” and all they imply about the community’s role in creating alternatives to policing and incarceration gives us a roadmap to creating safer communities that do not rely upon punishment and retribution.

Reformist Reforms vs. Abolitionist Steps in Policing By Critical Resistance These charts break down the difference between reformist reforms which continue or expand the reach of policing, and abolitionist steps that work to chip away and reduce its overall impact. As we struggle to decrease the power of policing there are also positive and proactive investments we can make in communities.

YES.

YEs. If we, decrease funding for policing, this wirl decrease its resources.

YEs. lhis can INCREASE community-based budgets since w,e won't have, to pay tor cops lea ming how to better mak,e war on our· communlties.

) ) YES,

YES. Prioritizing funding, re,sources also creates spaceto imagine, le-arn about and make rnsourc8'S that a.ctuaCly create W!lll-being.

YES. It charlenges the noli on that we ne . ed police to be trained for "coun1.er1.0rrorism• and othll'r military-style action and surveillanee in the guise of Increasing ''safety."

YES. It challenges the notior1 that w·e need police to be trained for "counlerterrorism" and other military-style action and surveillanc!I in th8 guise of increasing ''safely."

YES. It cihalleng1ts the notion that k[IIJngs and 8J(C8'Sslve force, are 8J(C!ll)'lion,s, rather than the rule.

YES. Tllli,s can INCAEASIE community-ba,S>8d budgets as municipalities no longer pa',' for policing's harm against community members. YES. lhis can INCREASE c-om.munity-baood budgets since we won't have, to pay for cops lea ming how to better mak,e war on our c-ommuniUes.

YES. It challenges th.e nolion that policing violence, and the administrative costs ii incurs., are essential risks of creating "safety,"

YES. Th[s can INCAEASE com.munity-baood budgets as municipaliti es no longer pay for pollclng's harm against com.munity members.

)

YES.

YES. If we decreasefundin{l1 for p1:1licing. this wrn decrease tile e,xpanslon ot toots and technology.

YES. Weapons trainings and expos are used to scale up po.licing Infrastructure and shape goals for future tools, tactics, techno�,y.

YES. Weapon,s trainings and expos arn used to scale up po.licing infrastructure and shape goals for future tools, tactics, technolo,g ' ,y.

YES. II reduces the abillty of police forces to move around or re-.angage cops �own for their us!I ot violenc!I,

YES. Access to paid ad'minislrative leave lessel'liS lhe conse,qlJ8noes of use of force, and presumes the right of police to use violence at a.II.

)

) )

)

YES..

YES. If we decr11ase funding for policing, this will decrease- the size, scope and capacfty of syslem,s of po[icing.

YES. This srops police from increasing their legillmacy, capacity, and slll:il Is as "th.e blue Ii ne" in order to expand their reach ov11r our darl� lives and community spaces.

YES, TIiis stops police from increasing their le{! itimacy, capacity, and skills as "the blue, llne" in order ro mcpand ·1helr r,eacil1 o•.rer our daily lives and community spac!l's.

YES.

YES. The, less financial support for police undergoing irwestiga.tion for killing and excessiv , e use of force, tile le•ss support for policing.

-g

U,m

:es -::c

cu,

� -I

'"c:

..,, 0

-<'"

-nc-

-g -

oz r- u,

�, -

Abolition & the State A Discussion Tool by Interrupting Criminalization

-�

�jUNSIDE/OUTSIDE r.JJIPOLICY FELLOWSHIP Moving Within, �inst, and Beyond the state This approach problematizes the state, and the corporate interests it represents, and the system of racial capitalism it upholds, without limiting the field l of contestation or exercise of power to the state, and intentionally creates spaces to experiment, practice, and expand our capacity to collectively govern ourselves beyond the nation-state.

It invites us to draw on the best thinking of multiple political tendencies and understandings of the state, and to focus more specifically on the process of transition to the world we want - how do we meet our individual and collective needs now? How do we expand our imaginations and experiment with different approaches to governance? How do we extract power and resources from the state to make them real? How do we defend our communities? How do we organize ourselves into the societies we want?

-�

�jUNSIDE/OUTSIDE r.JJIPOLICY FELLOWSHIP

How to Vet a Proposal from an Abolitionist Perspective Compiled by Interrupting Criminalization, Project Nia & Critical Resistance

1. Does it (as a whole or in part) legitimize or expand the carceral system we’re trying to dismantle? 2. Does it benefit parts of the Prison Industrial Complex, industries that profit from the PIC, or elected officials who sustain the PIC? 3. Do the effects it creates already exist in a way we have to organize against? Will we, or others, be organizing to undo its effects in five years? 4. Does it preserve existing power relations? Who makes the decisions about how it will be implemented and enforced? 5. Does it create a division between “deserving” and “undeserving” people? Does it leave out especially marginalized groups (people with criminal records, undocumented people, etc.)? Does it cherry-pick particular people or groups as a token public face? 6. Does it undermine efforts to organize and mobilize the most affected for ongoing struggle? Or does it help us build power?

History of the Stop San Quentin Outbreak Coalition The #StopSanQuentinOutbreak coalition came together in June 2020 after the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) transferred over 100 individuals from a known COVID-19 hotspot to San Quentin State Prison, causing what soon became the biggest coronavirus outbreak in the nation to date. Organizers, loved ones, and several social justice organizations came together to amplify the demands of our currently incarcerated community members at San Quentin. We continue to demand large-scale releases (without categorical exclusions based on conviction or sentence) across all California state prisons, jails, and ICE detention centers. Decarceration remains the only public health solution to this global pandemic inside and beyond prison walls. Our Commitments We approach our work with the understanding that prisons do not keep us safe. We demand large-scale releases from prisons, jails, and detention centers, closing carceral institutions, and safer conditions for incarcerated folks. We recognize that transgender incarcerated folks are at disproportionate risk of harm and violence in prisons, and thus seek to work with trans, intersex, non-binary, and gender queer incarcerated and formerly incarcerated community to understand their specific needs during COVID-19 and to ensure they are being urgently considered for releases. We also recognize the specific needs of incarcerated folks who are on Death Row, as a majority of the people who have died from COVID-19 in San Quentin State Prison were from this community. We demand releases throughout the system, including folks on Death Row and serving LWOP sentences. We challenge the false binary of non-violent vs. violent convictions, which deems the majority of incarcerated people, including many of our loved ones, undeserving of humanity and freedom. Advocacy with categorical exclusions creates harmful binaries that are not grounded in our collective goal of community safety and equity. We do not offer solutions or advocacy strategies that expand the carceral system. Alternatives to mass releases such as house arrest, temporary release, or transfers to new or re-opened facilities, etc. should not be regarded as solutions because they expand systems of surveillance and incarceration.

Demands from the Incarcerated Community at San Quentin Prison It is impossible to ensure the safety of incarcerated people living in prisons that are operating well-above the capacity they were designed to house. Therefore we demand: 1. Governor Newsom and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must grant large-scale releases and begin the process of drastically reducing the overall prison population to below 50% of current capacity – following the recommendations of Healthcare Quality issued by Amend. In order to achieve this level of decarceration, Governor Newsom must grant releases without categorical exclusions based on crimes of conviction. 2. CDCR must STOP transferring incarcerated individuals from one CA prison to another. Current harm prevention methods have failed, and any further transfers will undoubtedly lead to the spread of the virus and the creation of new prison “hot spots.” 3. Additionally, Governor Newsom and the CDCR must STOP notification and transfers between CDCR and ICE for immigrants who have completed their time. 4. Ongoing and adequate testing must be provided to 100% of incarcerated people and prison staff now through the end of the pandemic. When administering COVID-19 tests, staff must take care to properly sanitize all equipment and change gloves between tests. 5. Prison staff and Correctional Officers must be regulated to working and moving in only one part of the prison, to avoid actively spreading the virus across the prison. 6. COVID-19 has forced CDCR to shut down all in-prison programming. CDCR must adapt credit-earning opportunities during the pandemic to allow incarcerated people to participate in distance programming and work toward accelerating their release date. 7. CDCR must provide personal protective equipment (PPE), sanitizer, hygiene products, and other essential goods (stamps, envelopes, food) free of charge, now through the end of the pandemic. 8. We demand email access, tele-visiting privileges, and expanded phone access free of charge now through the duration of the pandemic. All visiting has been suspended since March 2020, cutting off contact between incarcerated people and their families and communities. As we know, ongoing connections with outside community and family members is an essential support system to incarcerated people and their loved ones during these times and always.

April 1, 2021

Sign-On Letter to the Governor

Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor of the State of California 1303 10th Street, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Urgent Releases Due to COVID-19 Dear Governor Newsom: This past March 22nd marked exactly one year since the first confirmed COVID-19 case of an incarcerated person in California’s state prison system. As of today, all of California’s 35 prisons have experienced a COVID-19 outbreak, 49,224 incarcerated people and 16,090 staff within California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) have tested positive for COVID-19, and 217 incarcerated people and 26 staff have lost their lives due to the virus. For those incarcerated people who survived, much of the last year was spent under excruciating 23-hour-per-day lockdowns, all without access to family visits, in-person legal proceedings, programming, regular showers or recreational yard time. Beyond the numbers, our community behind bars, including those in jails and ICE detention centers, have and continue to endure mental health crises, grief and trauma that cannot possibly be measured by the staggering death toll. A year since the onset of the pandemic, we are relieved that our prison population has decreased by roughly 24,000 individuals. This reduction is in part due to the temporary halting of intake from county jails across the state, releases of roughly 3,000 people per month as standard operating procedure, and an early release program introduced by your administration last year that authorized early releases of up to 8,000 incarcerated people, including those considered medically vulnerable to COVID-19. We applaud the steps taken by your administration to prioritize the health and safety of incarcerated people through releases, and yet, California’s prison population levels remain wholly unsafe for occupancy. Despite the far-reaching potential of your early release program, data shows that the majority of people released early were relatively young, within 180 days of their scheduled out date, and serving sentences for non-violent offenses. These early release efforts left behind a large population of elderly, vulnerable individuals serving lengthy sentences despite overwhelming data indicating that these individuals do not pose a threat to public safety and can safely rejoin their communities. We also regret that 20 California prisons are still operating at above 100% design capacity. In the current pandemic context, meeting a 100% capacity target no longer suffices – public health experts are calling for drastic decarceration to 50 - 85% capacity (depending upon the facility’s design)1 to successfully minimize the harmful effects of COVID-19 transmission. People have been dying at alarming rates due to preventable, common illnesses in California prisons for decades because of severe overcrowding – this was the subject of the landmark Plata v. Brown class action that has 1

https://amend.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/COVID19-Outbreak-SQ-Prison-6.15.2020.pdf

been ongoing for over a decade. COVID-19 revealed for a larger audience just how deadly the effects of prison overcrowding can be when coupled with infectious disease. The long-term effects of COVID-19, along with new viral strains, means that the threat of overcrowding must be urgently addressed through decarceration. We know that in order to meaningfully reduce the prison population and protect public health, we need increasingly bold action to grant releases without broad exclusions. Governor Newsom, we have seen you demonstrate an understanding that individuals serving long sentences for even serious and violent crimes are ready to safely re-enter their communities. You have clearly modeled this in your grants of clemency throughout the pandemic, including 56 commutations, 49 pardons which prevented many people from being taken into ICE custody, and a record-setting 14 medical reprieves. We have also seen you demonstrate an understanding that decarceration is essential for the future of California. In fact, you courageously identified prison closures and reinvestment in education as a core value for your administration, announcing visionary plans to close two prisons in two years. You have led among the Governors in centering health equity and evidence-based decision-making when prioritizing vaccine access. Your administration has employed common-sense logic informed by data and public health expertise when mandating that public spaces operate at between 10-50% capacity to protect public safety, even as wide-scale vaccination progresses. Despite broad progress towards wide-scale vaccination, research shows that even high-efficacy vaccines will be significantly less effective in high-spread, congregate settings like prisons, due to factors like overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and mistrust of the carceral healthcare system by those with lived experiences of harm within CDCR. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the world's leading medical journal, “Reliance on vaccination alone thus seems unlikely to achieve necessary reductions in COVID-19 transmission in incarcerated populations. Fortunately, we already have strong evidence for a policy tool that can stop the spread of Covid-19 in jails and prisons: decarceration.”2 It is clear that vaccination coupled with significant decarceration is the only solution to the public health crisis that persists across California prisons, jails, ICE detention facilities, and juvenile facilities. We urge you to follow the evidence and embrace decarceration as the leading strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in carceral facilities, which research shows will directly lower COVID-19 rates in surrounding communities. In doing so, you would be standing with countless advocates who have long called for the twin strategy of decarceration and reinvestment in our communities for a healthier, safer, and more equitable California. We ask that you use your authority as the Governor of the state of California to reduce our state prison population to safer occupancy levels, following the community-generated recommendations below: Stop ICE Transfers 1. Stop all ICE transfers from prisons and jails, and begin to decarcerate detention centers in California. California is under no legal obligation to assist the federal government with deportations, but CDCR voluntarily transfers undocumented community members upon release from California state prisons to ICE for detention and deportation. As COVID-19 cases continue to spike in 2

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2100609

California prisons, jails, and ICE detentions, transfers to ICE exacerbate the public health crisis. We ask you to intervene to protect people who have completed their sentence or obtained parole as they should be allowed to return to the care of their families and communities. You can do this by ordering CDCR not to notify or coordinate with ICE when people with ICE holds are being released, and to grant pardons to recently released people whose past convictions pose a grave threat to ICE targeting them for detention and deportation. Number of people impacted: As of May 2020, there were 9,512 individuals in CDCR (about 8%) with an ICE hold on them.3 Grant Commutations 2. Review for commutation everyone serving Death Penalty and Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentences to parole-eligible sentences and expedite parole hearings. You can strengthen the Death Penalty moratorium by ending LWOP - a living death sentence - and commuting all LWOP and Death Penalty sentences to life sentences with immediate eligibility for parole review. We urge you to commute the sentences of people facing the Death Penalty and Life Without Parole to parole-eligible sentences. People with LWOP and death sentences are unjustly excluded from Compassionate Release and CDCR’s Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) program. Number of people impacted: There are 706 people facing the Death Penalty in California and there are 5,200 people in California with LWOP sentences. 3. Review for commutation criminalized Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. We are heartened to see your recent commutation of Teresa Paulinkonis, and we request that you continue this important work and thoroughly review and consider any commutation petitions for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Number of people impacted: The ACLU estimates that nearly 60% of people nationwide in women’s prison alone (and as many as 94% of some women’s prison populations) have a history of physical or sexual abuse before being incarcerated.4 Expedite Releases and Parole Hearings Without Categorical Exclusions 4. Expedite release for people already found suitable for parole by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), or referred for Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) resentencing. We request that you direct BPH to continue to conduct expedited review of parole grant decisions, and to refer people who are medically vulnerable and “low risk” to En Banc for a potential reversal in favor of release. We also ask you to use your parole review authority towards public safety and justice and to not refer people who have been granted parole back to En Banc and to not reverse parole grants at a time when urgent decarceration remains the most important public health concern. We request that you begin to review all parole denials and to refer people back to En Banc for reconsideration and release on parole. We also ask that you direct CDCR to release all people who have been referred for PC section 1170(d)(1) resentencing. Number of People Impacted: There are roughly 1,000 people inside CA state prisons who have already been granted parole but are still in custody for months of potentially deadly delays. You reversed 95 (2019) and 33 (2020) people’s parole grants and referred 85 (2019) and 95 (2020) people back for En Banc review. As of February 2021, 1,605 people have been referred for resentencing by CDCR since 2018 but are still in custody. 3

http://www.iceoutofca.org/ca-values-act-sb54-408546.html https://www.aclu.org/other/prison-rape-elimination-act-2003-prea?redirect=prisoners-rights-womens-rights/prison-rape -elimination-act-2003-prea 4

100

5. Expedite release for people who are medically vulnerable to COVID-19 and eligible for medical and/or elderly parole. We request that you review commutation applications and release people with a compromised immune system or high-risk medical condition. This includes (but is not limited to) people over the age of 50 who have served 20 or more years of their sentence. We ask you to grant releases for people with terminal conditions and have twelve months to live or less, and to release those who are eligible for expanded medical and elderly parole. Number of People Impacted: CDCR staff have already identified over 50,000 people who have at least one risk factor for severe complications and death from the COVID-19 virus. 25% of people in prison are age 50 years or older. In 2019, nearly 1,400 people were eligible for Medical and/or Elderly Parole, and policy reforms in 2020 expanded that number significantly. 6. Expedite release and parole review for people eligible for Proposition 57 and Youth Offender parole hearings. We are heartened to see CDCR Secretary Kathleen Allison recently discuss a new 50% credit-earning program for people eligible for Proposition 57. We ask you to further this important work and review for expedited release those people who are eligible for Proposition 57 early parole. We also ask you to direct CDCR and BPH to expedite the parole review of and release people who are eligible for youth parole consideration, who have aged out of crime, rehabilitated, and have families waiting to welcome them home. Number of People Impacted: Roughly 10,000 people were eligible for Proposition 57 parole review, but only 2,000 have been released since 2016. Roughly 6,000 people are eligible for Youth Offender Parole (YOP) hearings, in 2019 alone, the parole board held over 3,300 YOP hearings. 7. Expedite release for people with homecoming dates within the next year, and who are serving “enhancement time.” We ask you to direct CDCR to recommit to ongoing releases for those who are within one year of their scheduled release date, expanding eligibility to include all categories of conviction across all CA state prisons without exclusions. We ask you to direct CDCR to expedite the release of people who have served their base term and are now serving enhancements that have been repealed or made discretionary, like gun enhancements, prior prison term and prior felony enhancements, drug enhancements, as well as historically racist gang enhancements, enhancements now ruled illegal by California courts, and other enhancements currently up for repeal in the 2021 bill cycle. Number of People Impacted: Roughly 30,000 people are within 12 months of their release date. Upwards of 25,000 people have served their base term and are now serving enhancement time. 8. Expedite release for people who CDCR rates as “low risk” to recidivate. We urge you to grant commutations and direct CDCR to expedite release to all people currently deemed “low-risk” on either their Comprehensive Risk Assessment or their California Static Risk Assessment. Number of People Impacted: As of 2020, 52% of the people inside California state prisons, roughly 60,000 people, have been deemed a “low risk” to recidivate by CDCR’s forensic psychologists and tests. This would include roughly 10,000 people serving life sentences who are aging, at-risk to COVID-19, and pose the lowest risk to recidivate upon release. 9. Expedite release for people serving time for technical probation/parole violations. We urge you to direct CDCR and BPH to release everyone in custody serving time for parole violations. Number of People Impacted: 8% of people inside or ~10,000 people.

101

We’re proud that in California, our legislature has partnered with various community-based organizations to propose criminal justice reforms that, if passed, would have a long-term impact on significantly reducing California’s prison population. We respectfully request that you consider these community-generated strategies (as well as influencing comparable changes across county jails) to achieve urgently needed decarceration, not only to protect the lives of those incarcerated but to promote public health and safety for all Californians. Sincerely, #StopSanQuentinOutbreak Coalition #StopSanQuentinOutbreak Death Row Working Group A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing) ACLU California Advocates Delivering Love Alliance of South Asians Taking Action American Friends Service Committee Anti Police-Terror Project API Equality – Northern California Arab Resource & Organizing Center (AROC) Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus Asian Prisoner Support Committee (APSC) Asians4BlackLives Bend The Arc: Jewish Action, California California Coalition for Women Prisoners California Prison Focus Californians for Safety and Justice Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB) Chaplain of the Heart Communications Workers of America Local 9415 Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto Community Works Decarcerate Sacramento Dignity and Power Now Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Essie Justice Group Faith In Action East Bay Families United to End Life without Parole (F.U.E.L.) GABRIELA USA Human Impact Partners

Initiate Justice Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity Justice Reinvestment Coalition K.A.G.E. Universal Kehilla Community Synagogue Kern County Participatory Defense Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Lincoln Memorial Church Mourning Our Losses No Justice Under Capitalism No More Tears San Quentin On the Margins Prisoners' Solidarity Committee of Workers World Party Progressive Doctors Psychologists for Social Responsibility Public Health Justice Collective Re:Store Justice Restore Oakland Resentence and Decarcerate (RAD) Project Root & Rebound Saint Mark United Methodist Church SFGH Social Medicine Silicon Valley De-Bug Sistas’ With Voices Success Stories Program SURJ Bay Area The Young Women’s Freedom Center Transgender Advocacy Group (TAG) Transgender, Gender-Variant, & Intersex Justice Project Transitions Clinic Network UCSF Street Nursing UCSF White Coats for Black Lives UnCommon Law Urban Peace Movement

102

#StopSanQuentinOutbreak Graphic Timeline

During this one-year anniversary of the prison transfer that led to the horrendous COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin State Prison, artist Orlando Smith (currently incarcerated at SQ) illustrated this timeline tracking the outbreak at San Quentin and statewide organizing in response calling for urgent releases. Orlando Smith is an illustrated journalist, whose work has been published in the Appeal, the Davis Vanguard, the Columbia Journalism Review, the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. As an artist, Orlando has produced over 39 protest poster series which he has donated to numerous activists and social justice organizations.

103

-�

�J i INSIDE/OUTSIDE r�JIPOLICY FELLOWSHIP

104

-�

�jUNSIDE/OUTSIDE r.JJIPOLICY FELLOWSHIP

105

PART B People-Powered Legislative

Organizing: How Bills Work in CA

The Life Cycle of Legislation

107

Prison Policy Initaitve’s California Criminal Justice Winnable criminal justice reforms in 2023 In this year’s guide to winnable criminal justice reforms, we’ve added a reference to caregiver and proximity laws and a new section — Set people up to succeed upon release. The two reforms in this new section are: (1) barring discrimination against people based on conviction history, and (2) connecting people to benefits that will help with successful reentry. As always, we’ve also updated our list of Winnable criminal justice reforms and added new example bills and resources where you can learn more. While this briefing is not intended to be a comprehensive platform, we’ve curated this list to offer policymakers and advocates straightforward solutions that would have the greatest impacts on reducing incarceration and ameliorating harms experienced by those with a conviction history, without further investments in the carceral system. We have also included some talking points and resources that can be used to push back when carve-outs to criminal justice reforms (that is, categorical exclusions of people who would benefit from reforms) are being discussed. Because each state’s criminal legal system varies so much — from law and procedures, the data collected, and even how the same words are defined — it can be difficult to apply lessons from other states to the same problem in one’s own. This guide is designed to facilitate the sharing of ideas and information across states. That said, while we point to multiple bills, model legislation, and regulations in this document, we also recognize that many of these examples reflect compromise and could be strengthened or made more comprehensive. This information is intended to serve as a resource as you determine which problems are a priority in your state and which lessons from elsewhere are most useful. Readers should also note that we made a conscious choice to not include critical reforms that are unique to just a few states, or important reforms for which we don’t yet have enough useful resources to be helpful to most states. But this guide grows and evolves each year, so we welcome ideas and resources from other advocates and state legislators.

Expand alternative to criminal justice system responses to social problems Redirect public funds to community organizations that provide social services Problem: Many communities in the U.S. are not only overpoliced, but deprived of resources they could use to prevent crime without punishing or surveilling community members, such as youth programs and affordable housing. Solutions: Shift funding from local or state public safety budgets into a local grant program to support community-led safety strategies in communities most impacted by mass incarceration, over-policing, and crime. States can use Colorado’s “Community Reinvestment” model. In fiscal year 2021-22 alone, four Community Reinvestment Initiatives will provide $12.8 million to community-based services in reentry, harm reduction, crime prevention, and crime survivors. More information: See the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition’s Community Reinvestment memo, the Center for American Progress’s How to Reinvest in Communities when Reducing the Scope of Policing, and the Urban Institute’s Investing Justice Resources to Address Community Needs. Fund and implement alternative response systems for calls involving people with disabilities or experiencing mental health crises Problem: People with disabilities and mental illnesses are disproportionately arrested and jailed every year, but police and jail staff do not have the specific, in-depth training — nor the mandate — to treat mental illness or to accommodate those with other disabilities. As a result, approximately 25% of people killed by police have a serious mental illness and suicide is one of the leading causes of death in local jails.

108

Solutions: Cities, counties, and states should establish non-police crisis response systems. A promising model is Eugene, Oregon’s CAHOOTS program, which dispatches medical specialists rather than police to 911 calls related to addiction, mental health crises, and homelessness. More information: See details about the CAHOOTS program. For a review of other strategies ranging from police-based responses to community-based responses, see the Vera Institute of Justice’s Behavioral Health Crisis Alternatives, the Brookings Institute’s Innovative solutions to address the mental health crisis, and The Council of State Governments’ Expanding First Response: A Toolkit for Community Responder Programs.

Reduce the number of people entering the “revolving doors” of jails and prisons Use alternatives to arrest and incarceration for all offenses that do not threaten public safety Problem: Spending time in a local jail leads to a number of collateral consequences and financial roadblocks to successful reentry, and higher recidivism rates that quickly lead to higher state prison populations. Yet one out of every three people behind bars is being held in a local jail, most for low-level or non-person offenses. Solutions: Although jails are ostensibly locally controlled, the people held in jails are generally accused of violating state law, so both state and local policymakers have the power to reduce jail populations. State leaders can: ● Reclassify criminal offenses and turn misdemeanor charges that don’t threaten public safety into non-jailable infractions, or decriminalize them entirely. ● Make citations, rather than arrest, the default action for low-level crimes. ● Institute grace periods for missed court appearances to reduce the use of “bench warrants,” which lead to unnecessary incarceration for low-level and even “non-jailable” offenses. ● Establish an “open hours court” for those who have recently missed appearances to reschedule without fear of arrest. ● Decriminalize drugs, poverty, sex work, and homelessness. More information: See our reports, Era of Mass Expansion: Why State Officials Should Fight Jail Growth and Arrest, Release, Repeat: How policy and jails are misused to respond to social problems, and The Bail Project’s After Cash Bail. For a discussion on decriminalization policies, see The People’s Commission to Decriminalize Maryland’s Interim Report 2021. Decriminalize youth and stop prosecuting and sentencing them as adults Problem: While the Supreme Court has affirmed that until someone is an adult, they cannot be held fully culpable for crimes they have committed, in every state youth under 18 can be tried and sentenced in adult criminal courts and, as of 2019, there was no minimum age in at least 21 states and D.C. The juvenile justice system can also be shockingly punitive: In most states, even young children can be punished by the state, including for “status offenses” that aren’t law violations for adults, such as running away. Solutions: States should “raise the age” of juvenile court jurisdiction to reflect our current understanding that youth should not be held culpable as adults, “raise the floor” to stop criminalizing young children, end the transfer of youth to adult courts and systems of punishment, and move “status offenses” out of juvenile court jurisdiction. More information:For information on the youth justice reforms discussed, see The National Conference of State Legislatures Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws; the recently-closed Campaign for Youth Justice resources summarizing legislative reforms to Raise the Age, limit youth transfers, and remove

109

youth from adult jails (available here and here); Youth First Initiative’s No Kids in Prison campaign; and The Vera Institute of Justice’s Status Offense Toolkit. Keep families together Problem: Numerous studies have linked parental incarceration to negative outcomes for parents and children. Parental incarceration can result in the termination of parental rights, and contribute to the cycle of incarceration, as children whose parents were incarcerated are more likely to become incarcerated themselves. Solutions: States should seek to avoid parental incarceration. States should pass legislation requiring that a parent’s status as a caregiver be considered at the time of sentencing and when considering alternatives to incarceration. If a parent is incarcerated, they should be placed as close to their family as possible, and meaningful transportation options (such as state-funded ride programs) should be available to guarantee that children are able to regularly visit incarcerated parents. Legislation: Tennessee SB 0985/ HB 1449 (2019) and Massachusetts S 2371 (2018) permit or require primary caregiver status and available alternatives to incarceration to be considered for certain defendants prior to sentencing. New Jersey A 3979 (2018) requires incarcerated parents be placed as close to their minor child’s place of residence as possible, allows contact visits, prohibits restrictions on the number of minor children allowed to visit an incarcerated parent, and also requires visitation be available at least 6 days a week. More information:See Families for Justice as Healing, Free Hearts, Operation Restoration, and Human Impact Partners’ Keeping Kids and Parents Together: A Healthier Approach to Sentencing in MA, TN, LA and the Illinois Task Force on Children of Incarcerated Parents’ Final Report and Recommendations. End pretrial detention for most defendants Problem: Many people who face criminal charges are unnecessarily detained before trial. Often the sole criteria for release is access to money for bail. This puts pressure on defendants to accept plea bargains even when they are innocent, since even a few days in jail can destabilize their lives: they can lose their housing, jobs, and even custody of children. Pretrial detention also leads to jail overcrowding, which means more dangerous conditions for people in jail, and it drives sheriffs’ demands for more and bigger jails — wasting taxpayer dollars on more unnecessary incarceration. Solutions: States should implement pretrial reforms that end the use of money bail, limit the types of offenses for which pretrial detention is allowed, establish the presumption of pretrial release for all cases with conditions only when necessary, and offer supportive pretrial services such as reminders to appear in court, transportation and childcare assistance for court appearances, and referrals to needed social services. Legislation: Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act, HB 3653 (2019), passed in 2021, abolishes money bail, limits pretrial detention, regulates the use of risk assessment tools in pretrial decisions, and requires reconsideration of pretrial conditions or detention at each court date. When this legislation takes effect in 2023, roughly 80% of people arrested in Cook County (Chicago) will be ineligible for pretrial detention. More information: See The Bail Project’s After Cash Bail, the Pretrial Justice Institute’s website, the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School’s Moving Beyond Money, and Critical Resistance & Community Justice Exchange’s On the Road to Freedom. For information on how the bail industry — which often actively opposes efforts to reform the money bail system — profits off the current system, see our report All profit, no risk: How the bail industry exploits the legal system.

110

Establish moratoriums on jail and prison construction Problem: Proposals and pushes to build new carceral buildings and enlarge existing ones, particularly jails, are constantly being advanced across the U.S. These proposals typically seek to increase the capacity of a county or state to incarcerate more people, and have frequently been made even when criminal justice reforms have passed — but not yet been fully implemented — which are intended to reduce incarceration rates, or when there are numerous measures that can and should be adopted to reduce the number of people held behind bars. Solutions: States should pass legislation establishing moratoriums on jail and prison construction. Moratoriums on building new, or expanding existing, facilities allow reforms to reduce incarceration to be prioritized over proposals that would worsen our nation’s mass incarceration epidemic. Moratoriums also allow for the impact of reforms enacted to be fully realized and push states to identify effective alternatives to incarceration. Legislation: Massachusetts S 2030/H 1905 (2021) proposed a 5-year moratorium on jail and prison expansion by prohibiting the state or any public agency from building a new facility, studying or identifying sites for a new facility, or expanding or converting portions of an existing facility to expand detention capacity. Hawaii HB 1082/SB1245 (2021) proposed a 1-year moratorium on the construction of new correctional facilities. More information: For a discussion on historic statements made on moratoriums, arguments in favor of moratoriums, and how to push for a moratorium, see Instead of Prisons Chapter 4 (“Moratorium on Prison/Jail Construction”). For examples of reforms you can argue should be adopted to reduce jail populations, and which a moratorium could give time to take effect, see our report Does our county really need a bigger jail?. Properly fund and oversee indigent defense Problem: With approximately 80 percent of criminal defendants unable afford to an attorney, public defenders play an essential role in the fight against mass incarceration. Public defenders fight to keep low-income individuals from entering the revolving door of criminal legal system involvement, reduce excessive sentences, and prevent wrongful convictions. When people are provided with a public defender earlier, such as prior to their first appearance, they typically spend less time in custody. However, public defense systems are not adequately resourced; rather, prosecutors and courts hold a disproportionate amount of resources. The U.S. Constitution guarantees legal counsel to individuals who are charged with a crime, but many states delegate this constitutional obligation to local governments, and then completely fail to hold local governments accountable when defendants are not provided competent defense counsel. Solutions: States must either directly fund and administer indigent defense services, ensuring that it is funded as an equal component of the legal system, or create a state entity with the authority to set, evaluate, and enforce indigent defense standards for services funded and administered by local governments. More information: See our briefing Nine ways that states can provide better public defense; the Sixth Amendment Center’s Know Your State page, which provides an invaluable guide to the structure of each state’s indigent defense system, including whether each state has an independent commission with oversight of all public defense services (most do not); the American Bar Association’s Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System; and the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Resolution in Support of Public Defense.

Improve sentencing structures and release processes to encourage timely and successful releases from prison

111

Make it easier to change excessive prison sentences Problem: Nationally, one of every six people in state prisons has been incarcerated for a decade or more. While many states have taken laudable steps to reduce the number of people serving time for low-level offenses, little has been done to bring relief to people needlessly serving decades in prison. Solutions: State legislative strategies include: enacting presumptive parole, second-look sentencing, and other common-sense reforms, such as expanding “good time” credit policies. All of these changes should be made retroactive, and should not categorically exclude any groups based on offense type, sentence length, age, or any other factor. Legislation: Federally, S 2146 (2019), the Second Look Act of 2019, proposed to allow people to petition a federal court for a sentence reduction after serving at least 10 years. California AB 2942 (2018) removed the Parole Board’s exclusive authority to revisit excessive sentences and established a process for people serving a sentence of 15 years-to-life to ask the district attorney to make a recommendation to the court for a new sentence after completing half of their sentence or 15 years, whichever comes first. California AB 1245 (2021) proposed to amend this process by allowing a person who has served at least 15 years of their sentence to directly petition the court for resentencing. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has created model legislation that would allow a lengthy sentence to be revisited after 10 years. More information: For a discussion of reasons and strategies for reducing excessive sentences, see our reports Eight Keys to Mercy: How to shorten excessive prison sentences and Reforms Without Results: Why states should stop excluding violent offenses from criminal justice reforms. For materials on second-look sentencing, including a catalogue of legislation that has been introduced in states, see Families Against Mandatory Minimums’ Second Look Sentencing page. Repeal or reform mandatory minimum sentences and automatic “sentencing enhancements” Problem: Automatic sentencing structures have fueled the country’s skyrocketing incarceration rates. For example, mandatory minimum sentences, which by the 1980s had been enacted in all 50 states, reallocate power from judges to prosecutors and force defendants into plea bargains, exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal legal system, and prevent judges from taking into account the circumstances surrounding a criminal charge. In addition, “sentencing enhancements,” like those enhanced penalties that are automatically applied in most states when drug crimes are committed within a certain distance of schools, have been shown to exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal legal system. Both mandatory minimums and sentencing enhancements harm individuals and undermine our communities and national well-being, all without significant increases to public safety. Solutions: The best course is to repeal automatic sentencing structures so that judges can craft sentences to fit the unique circumstances of each crime and individual. Where that option is not possible, states should: adopt sentencing “safety valve” laws, which give judges the ability to deviate from the mandatory minimum under specified circumstances; make enhancement penalties subject to judicial discretion, rather than mandatory; and reduce the size of sentencing enhancement zones. Legislation: Several examples of state and federal statutes are included in Families Against Mandatory Minimums’ (FAMM) Turning Off the Spigot. The American Legislative Exchange Council has produced model legislation, the Justice Safety Valve Act. More information: See FAMM’s Turning Off the Spigot and our geographic sentencing enhancement zones page.

112

Stop mandating programming requirements that impede release on parole Problem: The release of individuals who have been granted parole is often delayed for months because the parole board requires them to complete a class or program (often a drug or alcohol treatment program) that is not readily available before they can go home. As of 2015, at least 40 states used institutional program participation as a factor in parole determinations. In some states — notably Tennessee and Texas — thousands of people whom the parole board deemed “safe” to return to the community remain incarcerated simply because the state has imposed this bureaucratic hurdle. Solutions: Parole boards can waive these requirements or offer community-based programming after release. Research shows that these programs are effective when offered after release as part of the reentry process. More information: See our briefing When parole doesn’t mean release. Increase the dollar threshold for felony theft Problem: Generally, the dollar amount of a theft controls whether the crime is treated as a felony or a misdemeanor. In many states, these limits have not been increased in years, even though inflation has risen almost every year, making stagnant thresholds increasingly punitive over time. Solutions: States should increase the dollar amount of a theft to qualify for felony punishment, and require that the threshold be adjusted regularly to account for inflation. This change should also be made retroactive for all people currently in prison, on parole, or on probation for felony theft. Legislation: For model legislation, see the Public Leadership Institute’s Felony Threshold Reform Act. More information: For the felony threshold in your state and the date it was last updated, see our explainer How inflation makes your state’s criminal justice system harsher today than it was yesterday. The Pew Charitable Trusts report States Can Safely Raise Their Felony Theft Thresholds, Research Shows demonstrates that in the states that have recently increased the limits, this did not increase the risk of offending nor did it lead to more expensive items being stolen. Reduce the footprint of probation and parole systems and support success on supervision End punitive probation and parole conditions that impede success and are unrelated to the crime of conviction Problem: Probation and parole are supposed to provide alternatives to incarceration. However, the conditions of probation and parole are often unrelated to the individual’s crime of conviction or their specific needs, and instead set them up to fail. For example, restrictions on associating with others and requirements to notify probation or parole officers before a change in address or employment have little to do with either public safety or “rehabilitation.” Additionally, some states allow community supervision to be revoked when a person is “alleged” to have violated — or believed to be “about to” violate — these or other terms of their supervision. Adding to the problem are excessively long supervision sentences, which spread resources thin and put defendants at risk of lengthy incarceration for subsequent minor offenses or violations of supervision rules. Because probation is billed as an alternative to incarceration and is often imposed through plea bargains, the lengths of probation sentences do not receive as much scrutiny as they should. Solutions: There are a number of solutions available to address these problems. For example, states should: ● Set upper limits for probation and parole sentences. ● Enable early discharge from probation and parole for successfully meeting probation’s requirements for a given time period.

113

● ● ●

Bar the inability to pay financial obligations from making a person ineligible for early discharge. End punitive conditions of probation and parole that set people up to fail and require that any condition imposed be reasonably related to the crime of conviction. Prohibit the revocation of probation or parole for a violation that does not result in a new conviction.

Legislation: California AB 1950 (2020), Louisiana SB 139 (2017), New York S 4664A (2014), and Virginia HB 5148 (2020) have shortened probation sentences by eliminating minimum sentences, setting caps on probation sentences, or awarding compliance credits. Michigan S 1051 (2020) requires conditions of parole be tailored to the “assessed risks and needs of the parolee.” Michigan S 1050 (2020) states a person may not be ineligible for early discharge from probation because of the inability to pay for the conditions of probation or court-ordered financial obligations. Massachusetts H 1798/S 1600 (2021) sought to eliminate punitive parole conditions, require parole conditions be related to the crime of conviction, and prohibit revocation of parole for parole violations that do not result in conviction. More information: See our report Correctional Control 2018: Incarceration and supervision by state for details on how probation sets people up to fail and the Executive Session on Community Corrections report Less Is More: How Reducing Probation Populations Can Improve Outcomes for more on downsizing probation. To learn more about your state’s parole system and whether restrictions are placed on association, see Appendix A of our report Grading the parole release systems of all 50 states. Eliminate re-incarceration and the use of jail sanctions for non-criminal “technical” violations of probation or parole rules Problem: Technical violations are behaviors that break parole rules that would not count as “crimes” for someone not under community supervision, such as missing curfew or a check-in meeting, maintaining employment, associating with people who have conviction histories, and failing a drug test. In 8 states, more people are admitted to prison for technical violations than for new crimes. Incarcerating people for “technical violations” of probation and parole conditions — whether in jail for a so-called “quick dip” or “flash incarceration” or in prison — is a common but harmful and disproportionate response to minor rule violations. These unnecessary incarcerations make it harder for people under supervision to succeed and lead to higher correction costs. Solutions: States should limit incarceration as a response to supervision violations to when the violation has resulted in a new criminal conviction and poses a direct threat to public safety. If incarceration is used to respond to technical violations, the length of time served should be limited and proportionate to the harm caused by the non-criminal rule violation. Legislation: New York S 1144A (2021) restricts incarceration for technical violations of parole; Michigan S 1050 (2020) restricts the amount of time a person can be incarcerated for technical violations of probation; and Massachusetts H 1798/S 1600 (2021) proposed to reduce reincarceration for technical violations or parole. More information: The Council of State Governments’ report Confined and Costly shows how many people are admitted and incarcerated for technical violations in your state’s prisons. See also the Pew Charitable Trusts’ report To Safely Cut Incarceration, States Rethink Responses to Supervision Violations. End electronic monitoring for people on community supervision Problem: Between 2005 and 2015, the number of people on electronic monitoring in the United States increased by nearly 140 percent. Individuals on pretrial supervision, probation, and parole face an array of requirements that may result in them being returned to jail or prison even without committing another crime. Electronic monitoring imposes unnecessary, often contradictory, conditions on recently released individuals, hindering their movement and creating serious barriers to successful reentry.

114

Solutions: States can introduce and enforce legislation that would outlaw the imposition of electronic monitoring devices for individuals on pretrial supervision, probation, or parole. Until then, individuals forced to wear electronic monitors should not be required to pay for those devices nor be fined or re-incarcerated for their inability to pay monitoring fees. When ordered as a condition of pretrial supervision, defendants should be credited for time served on electronic monitoring, and people placed on electronic monitoring should not be confined to their home, but rather allowed to work, attend medical appointments, and spend time with their families and communities. Legislation: Illinois HB 3653 (2019) requires that prosecutors bear the burden of proving a person should be monitored, requires judges to reconsider the necessity of monitoring every 60 days, guarantees a person on electronic monitoring freedom of movement to complete certain essential functions, and requires that people receive credit for time spent on electronic monitoring that will count as time served at sentencing. More information: Challenging E-Carceration, provides details about the encroachment of electronic monitoring into community supervision, and Cages Without Bars provides details about electronic monitoring practices across a number of U.S. jurisdictions and recommendations for reform. Fact sheets, case studies, and guidelines for respecting the rights of people on electronic monitors are available from the Center for Media Justice. Eliminate driver’s license suspensions for nonpayment of fines and fees Problem: 35 states (Ala., Alaska, Ariz., Ark., Conn., Del., Fla., Ga., Ind., Iowa, Kan., La., Maine, Md., Mass., Mich., Mo., Neb., N.H., N.J., N.M., N.Y., N.C., N.D., Ohio, Okla., Pa., R.I., S.C., S.D., Tenn., Texas, Vt., Wash., and Wisc.) suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew driver’s licenses for unpaid traffic, toll, misdemeanor and felony fines and fees, resulting in millions of debt-related suspensions nationwide. License suspension prevents people from earning the money they need to pay their fines and fees, undercuts their ability to support themselves, and forces law enforcement to waste time stopping, citing, and arresting people for driving on a suspended license. Solutions: Stop suspending, revoking, and prohibiting the renewal of driver’s licenses for nonpayment of fines and fees. Since 2017, fifteen states (Calif., Colo., Hawaii, Idaho, Ill., Ky., Minn., Miss., Mont., Nev., Ore., Utah, Va., W.Va., and Wyo.) and the District of Columbia have eliminated all of these practices. Legislation: Montana HB 217 (2019) provides that a person’s driver’s license may not be suspended for failure to pay a fine, fee, or restitution and allows those whose licenses have already been suspended for failure to pay to file a petition to have their license reinstated. More information: See the Free to Drive Coalition’s state-by-state analysis, and the Legal Aid Justice Center’s 2017 report Driven By Dollars: A State-By-State Analysis of Driver’s License Suspension Laws for Failure to Pay Court Debt. Eliminate financial incentives that encourage excessive probation sentences Problem: Most states charge people on probation a monthly fee, even though many are among the nation’s poorest. While the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to incarcerate someone because they cannot afford to pay court ordered fines and fees, many courts effectively do just that, by treating nonpayment as a probation violation. Where counties rely on these fees for revenue, courts are incentivized to impose unnecessary or excessive probation sentences. Moreover, the growth of privatized probation in some states has led to unnecessary “pay only” probation supervision for minor offenses. Solutions: Pass legislation that would eliminate probation fees, require hearings on ability to pay before assessing fees, and/or regulate the use of privatized probation.

115

Legislation: California AB 1869 (2020) eliminated the ability to enforce and collect probation fees. Prior to passage of this legislation, multiple counties had passed ordinances to address probation fees. For example, San Francisco County Ordinance No. 131-18 (2018) eliminated all discretionary criminal justice fees, including probation fees; the ordinance includes a detailed discussion of the County’s reasons for ending these fees. Louisiana HB 249 (2017) requires inquiries be made into a person’s ability to pay before imposing fines and fees or enforcing any penalties for failure to pay. More information: See our briefing with national data and state-specific data for 15 states (Colo., Idaho, Ill., La., Maine, Mass., Mich., Miss., Mont., N.M., N.D., Ohio, Okla., S.C., and Wash.) that charge monthly fees even though half (or more) of their probation populations earn less than $20,000 per year. States with privatized misdemeanor probation systems will find helpful the six recommendations on pages 7-10 of the Human Rights Watch report Set up to Fail: The Impact of Offender-Funded Private Probation on the Poor. Protect incarcerated people and families from exploitation by private contractors Eliminate or lower the cost people in prison and jail must pay for calls Problem: Calls home from prisons and jails cost too much because the prison and jail telephone industry offers correctional facilities hefty kickbacks in exchange for exclusive contracts. While most state prison phone systems have lowered their rates, and the Federal Communications Commission has capped the interstate calling rate for small jails at 21c per minute, many jails are charging higher prices for in-state calls to landlines. Solutions: The Federal Communications Commission has made progress on lowering interstate phone rates, but the agency is legally unable to regulate prices for in-state calling. States can address this vacuum by passing legislation requiring state prison systems and counties to negotiate for phone calls and video calling services for people in their custody on the basis of the lowest cost to the consumer. State legislatures and local governments can also shift the cost of calls from those who are incarcerated to corrections agencies. Public utilities commissions in many states can also regulate the industry. Legislation and regulations: Legislation like Connecticut’s S.B. 972 (2021) ensured that the state — not incarcerated people — pay for the cost of calls. Short of that, the best model is New York Corrections Law S 623 which requires that contracts be negotiated on the basis of the lowest possible cost to consumers and bars the state from receiving any portion of the revenue. (While this law only applied to contracts with state prisons, an ideal solution would also include local jail contracts.) States can also increase the authority of public utilities commissions to regulate the industry (as Colorado did) and California Public Utilities Commission has produced the strongest and most up-to-date state regulations of the industry. More information: For more reform ideas, including data on the highest rate charged in each state, see our forthcoming report State of Phone Justice. For additional information, see our Regulating the prison phone industry page and the work of our ally Worth Rises. Stop prisons and jails from requiring people being released to receive their money on fee-ridden “release cards” Problem: Correctional facilities increasingly use fee-riddled cards to repay people they release for money in their possession when initially arrested, money earned working in the facility, or money sent by friends and relatives. Before the rise of these release cards, people were given cash or a check. Now, they are given a mandatory prepaid card instead, which comes with high fees that eat into their balance. For example, the cards charge for things like having an account, making a purchase, checking the balance, or closing the account.

116

Solutions: States have the power to decisively end this pernicious practice by prohibiting facilities from using release cards that charge fees, and requiring fee-free alternative payment methods. Legislation: See our model bill. More information: See our Release Cards page. Promote physical and mental health among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people Offer evidence-based opioid treatment to reduce deaths and re-incarceration Problem: Despite a growing body of evidence that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is effective at treating opioid use disorders, most prisons are refusing to offer those treatments to incarcerated people, exacerbating the overdose and recidivism rate among people released from custody. In fact, studies have stated that drug overdose is the leading cause of death after release from prison, and the risk of death is significantly higher for women. Solutions: States can pass legislation requiring their Department of Corrections to implement MAT to eligible patients in their custody. MAT pairs counseling with low doses of opioids that, depending on the medication used, either reduce cravings or make it impossible to get high off of opiates. Legislation and model program: New York SB 1795 (2021) establishes MAT for people incarcerated in state correctional facilities and local jails. In addition, Rhode Island launched a successful program to provide MAT to some of the people incarcerated in their facilities. The early results are very encouraging: In the first year, Rhode Island reported a 60.5% reduction in opioid-related mortality among recently incarcerated people. More information: See our explainer on preventing opioid overdose deaths in prison, and our report Chronic Punishment, which details the high number of people in state prisons with substance use disorders. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration published a useful guide to using MAT for opioid use disorder in jails and prisons. Eliminate medical fees (or “copays”) in prison and jail Problem: While many states suspended medical fees (or “copays”) at least temporarily in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most state departments of corrections, and many local jails, charge incarcerated people a co-pay to see a doctor. Though these fees appear inexpensive, $2-$13.55 for a person in prison can amount to a day’s wages (or more). As a result, medical fees often deter sick people from seeking medical attention — they create health problems in prisons and high healthcare costs for people leaving prison. Solutions: Pass legislation ending medical fees in prisons and jails. Legislation: California AB 45 (2018) eliminated medical and dental fees for people in prison and jail. More information: See our analysis showing which states charge people in prison medical fees, and illustrating the cost burden of each state’s fee on incarcerated patients, our 2019 update, our summary of what states suspended prison medical fees during the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic, and our recent analysis of the state of medical fees in 2022. Protect in-person family visits from the video calling industry Problem: Video calling is quietly sweeping the nation’s prisons and local jails. Unfortunately, rather than providing the video technology as an additional way for families to stay connected, private companies and

117

sheriffs are working together to replace traditional in-person family visits with expensive, grainy computer chats. Solutions: Follow the lead of Texas, California, and Massachusetts, which have passed legislation that requires jails to preserve in-person visits. Legislation: Section 36C of Massachusetts’ S 2371 (2018) requires people in jails be provided with at least two in-person visits per week and prohibits jails from replacing in-person visits with video calls. More information: See our report Screening Out Family Time and other resources on our prison and jail visitation page. Protect postal mail in prisons and jails Problem: Letters and cards give incarcerated people a vital link to their loved ones, but mail to and from correctional facilities is under threat. A sharply growing number of prisons and jails are scanning and destroying incoming mail — providing those incarcerated only with the scanned copies — while others have banned incoming mail that is any larger than a postcard. Corrections officials often claim that these policies are for reducing dangerous drug contraband, but their effectiveness in this regard is disputed. Solutions: States can send a clear message about the importance of protecting family communication by passing a bill or administrative rule requiring correctional facilities to allow individuals who are incarcerated to receive mail in its original form and bar restrictions on the dimensions or number of pages for personal correspondence. Example rule: Incarcerated people are permitted to send as many letters of as many pages as they desire, to whomever they desire. Incarcerated people may receive postal correspondence in any quantity, amount, and number of pages. This mail will be promptly distributed to recipients in its original form. (Based on Texas Admin. Code S 291.2.) More information: See Mail scanning: A harsh and exploitative new trend in prisons, Protecting Written Family Communication in Jails: A 50-State Survey, and The Biden Administration must walk back the MailGuard program banning letters from home in federal prisons.

Give all communities equal voice in how our justice system works Abolish felony and misdemeanor disenfranchisement Problem: Most states bar some or all people with felony convictions from voting. However, the laws across states vary: Only 2 states (Maine and Vermont) and 2 territories (D.C. and Puerto Rico) never deprive people of their right to vote based on a criminal conviction, while over 20% of states have laws providing for permanent disenfranchisement for at least some people with criminal convictions. Additionally, while approximately 40% of states limit the right to vote only when a person is incarcerated, others require a person to complete probation or parole before their voting rights are restored, or institute waiting periods for people who have completed or are on probation or parole. In at least 6 states, people who have been convicted of a misdemeanor lose their right to vote while they are incarcerated. Given the racial disparities in the criminal justice system, these policies disproportionately exclude Black and Latinx Americans from the ballot box. As of 2022, 1 in 19 Black adults nationwide was disenfranchised because of a felony conviction (and in 8 states, it’s more than 1 in 8).

118

Solutions: Change state laws and/or state constitutions to remove disenfranchising provisions. Additionally, governors should immediately restore voting rights to disenfranchised people via executive action when they have the power to do so. Legislation: D.C. B 23-0324 (2019) ended the practice of felony disenfranchisement for Washington D.C. residents; Hawai’i SB 1503/HB 1506 (2019) would have allowed people who were Hawai’i residents prior to incarceration to vote absentee in Hawai’i elections; New Jersey A 3456/S 2100 (2018) would have ended the practice of denying New Jersey residents incarcerated for a felony conviction of their right to vote. More information: See the Sentencing Project’s Voting Rights in the Era of Mass Incarceration and Locked Out 2022, and the Brennan Center’s Criminal Disenfranchisement Laws Across the United States. Eliminate barriers to the ballot for currently eligible, jailed voters Problem: Many people who are detained pretrial or jailed on misdemeanor convictions maintain their right to vote, but many eligible, incarcerated people are unaware that they can vote from jail. In addition, state laws and practices can make it impossible for eligible voters who are incarcerated to exercise their right to vote, by limiting access to absentee ballots, when requests for ballots can be submitted, how requests for ballots and ballots themselves must be submitted, and how errors on an absentee ballot envelope can be fixed. Solutions: Because the voting systems vary from one state to the next, the reforms needed in states may also vary. However, states should guarantee that voting protections are in place. These protections may include: ● County-wide Election Day polling locations are available in each facility so that people who are incarcerated at the facility can vote in-person but no one from the surrounding community is required to vote at the jail or carceral institution; ● Election-related mail receives expedited treatment in the jail mail process; ● People who are incarcerated up to the day of an election are able to exercise their right to vote; ● People who are incarcerated have access to registration services and ballots; ● Community-based organizations can provide voter registration services and voting assistance to people who are incarcerated; ● The contact information for board of elections is available and boards can be contacted free of charge; ● Local boards of elections and sheriff’s offices are required to establish voting plans; and ● Obstacles on submitting ballot applications or ballots are eliminated. Legislation and regulations: Illinois SB 2090 (2019) established a polling location at Cook County Jail and required election authorities and county jails to work together to facilitate absentee voting. In addition, in 2019 the Colorado Secretary of State adopted a rule requiring the state’s 64 sheriffs to coordinate with county election clerks to facilitate voting in jails (see 8 CCR 1505-1, Rules 7.4, 7.4.1). More information: See our report Eligible, but excluded for ways to remove barriers for eligible voters held in jails, and see our briefing Jail-based polling locations for information showing that people will vote from jail when ballots are accessible. End prison gerrymandering from giving people who live near prisons more political power Problem: The Census Bureau’s practice of tabulating incarcerated people at correctional facility locations (rather than at their home addresses) leads state and local governments to draw skewed electoral districts that grant undue political clout to people who live near large prisons and dilute the representation of people everywhere else. Solutions: States can pass legislation to count incarcerated people at home for redistricting purposes, as Calif., Colo., Conn., Del., Ill., Md., Nev., N.J., N.Y, Va., and Wash. have done. Ideally, the Census Bureau would

119

implement a national solution by tabulating incarcerated people at home in the 2030 Census, but states must be prepared to fix their own redistricting data should the Census fail to act. Taking action now ensures that your state will have the data it needs to end prison gerrymandering in the 2030 redistricting cycle. Legislation: See our model bill. More information: See our Prison Gerrymandering Project website. End restrictions on jury service for people with conviction histories Problem: In courthouses throughout the country, defendants are routinely denied the promise of a “jury of their peers,” thanks to a lack of racial diversity in jury boxes. One major reason for this lack of diversity is the constellation of laws prohibiting people convicted (or sometimes simply accused) of crimes from serving on juries. These laws bar more than twenty million people from jury service, reduce jury diversity by disproportionately excluding Black and Latinx people, and actually cause juries to deliberate less effectively. Such exclusionary practices often ban people from jury service forever. Solutions: End restrictions that exclude people with conviction histories, as well as people who are charged with a felony or misdemeanor, from jury service. States and U.S. territories have changed restrictions on jury service through legislative reform, amendments to court rules, and changes to executive clemency rules. Legislation and rulemaking: New York S 1014/A 2377 (2021) proposed to end the lifetime ban on jury service for people with felony convictions in New York and restore the right to serve on a jury after completion of sentence. Louisiana HB 84 (2021) ends the state’s lifetime jury service ban on people with felony convictions and restores the right to serve on a jury for people who have been free from incarceration and off of probation and parole for five years. In addition, the Jury Plan for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia was amended in 2020 to reduce the time a person must wait after completing their sentence to serve on a petit jury from 10 years to 1 year, and in March 2021, Florida changed its executive clemency rules to allow people to regain their right to serve on a jury after completion of sentence. More information: See our report Rigging the jury, and the Collateral Consequences Resource Center’s chart for your state’s laws on when, or if, people with a conviction history qualify for jury service.

Set people up to succeed upon release Bar discrimination against people based on conviction history Problem: The impacts of incarceration extend far beyond the time that a person is released from prison or jail. A conviction history can act as a barrier to employment, education, housing, public benefits, and much more. Additionally, the increasing use of background checks in recent years, as well as the ability to find information about a person’s conviction history from a simple internet search, allows for unchecked discrimination against people who were formerly incarcerated. The stigma of having a conviction history prevents individuals from being able to successfully support themselves, impacts families whose loved ones were incarcerated, and can result in higher recidivism rates. Solutions: Pass laws or ordinances that make people with conviction histories a protected class under civil rights statutes. Legislation: Ordinance 22-O-1748 (2022), passed in October 2022 by the Atlanta City Council, bars employment discrimination on the basis of “criminal history status” in most circumstances.

120

More information: See Ending Legal Bias Against Formerly Incarcerated People: Establishing Protected Legal Status, by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society (now the Othering & Belonging Institute), and Barred Business’s The Protected Campaign for information about the campaign to pass Ordinance 22-O-1748 in Atlanta. For information about unemployment among formerly incarcerated people, see our publications Out of Prison & Out of Work and New data on formerly incarcerated people’s employment reveal labor market injustices. Provide benefits that will help individuals have a successful reentry Problem: Individuals who experience incarceration are more likely to have had lower incomes, lacked health care coverage, and experienced housing insecurity. However, when exiting a prison or jail, individuals are often not connected with necessary supports. While mortality rates and recidivism risk are highest shortly after release, those exiting prison may be released with little more than a one-time stipend (ranging from about $10 — $200), a train or bus ticket, some clothes, and items that they had at the time of admission. Frequently, individuals are not connected to public benefits that can help set them up to succeed. Solutions: Link people up with benefits that increase stability. For example: ● Ensure that people have access to health care benefits prior to release. Screen and help people enroll in Medicaid benefits upon incarceration and prior to release; if a person’s Medicaid benefits were suspended upon incarceration, ensure that they are active prior to release; and ensure people have their medical cards upon release. ● End bans on access to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) benefits. ● Provide reentry cash assistance. Legislation: Rhode Island S 2694 (2022) proposed to: maintain Medicaid enrollment for the first 30 days of a person’s incarceration; require Medicaid eligibility be determined, and eligible individuals enrolled, upon incarceration; require reinstatement of suspended health benefits and the delivery of medical assistance identify cards prior to release from incarceration. More information: See our briefing Why states should change Medicaid rules to cover people leaving prison The Center for Law and Social Policy’s No More Double Punishments: Lifting the Ban on SNAP and TANF for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, How SNAP Can Better Serve the Formerly Incarcerated, the Center for Employment Opportunities’ Providing Cash Assistance through Decarceration and Reinvestment, and Kaiser Family Foundation’s States Reporting Corrections-Related Medicaid Enrollment Policies in Place for Prisons or Jails. For information on the demographics and characteristics of people see our reports: Chronic Punishment: The unmet health needs of people in state prisons, Beyond the count: A deep dive into state prison populations, and Prisons of Poverty.

Eliminate relics of the harmful and racist “war on drugs” End civil asset forfeiture Problem: Police are empowered to seize and keep any personal assets, such as cash or cars, that they suspect are involved in a crime, even when there is never a related arrest or conviction. The use and scope of civil asset forfeiture was greatly expanded because of the war on drugs. But while it was intended to disrupt major criminal organizations, it is disproportionately used against poor people who cannot afford to challenge the seizures (unlike a criminal proceeding, there is generally no right to free counsel in a forfeiture case). Civil asset forfeiture makes poor communities poorer and incentivizes aggressive policing. Solutions: Legislatures can pass laws requiring a criminal conviction for permanent forfeiture, creating a presumption that low-value seizures are not connected to a crime and therefore not eligible for forfeiture,

121

ending participation in the federal “equitable sharing” program, creating a right to court-appointed counsel in forfeiture cases, and requiring proceeds from forfeitures to instead go to the state’s general fund or a fund dedicated to community development, education, or crime victim compensation. Legislation: Maine LD 1521 (2021) brings Maine among the ranks of Nebraska, North Carolina, and New Mexico in ending civil asset forfeiture. More information: See the Institute for Justice’s End Civil Asset Forfeiture page, the Center for American Progress report Forfeiting the American Dream, and the Drug Policy Alliance’s work on Asset Forfeiture Reform. End driver’s license suspension for drug offenses unrelated to driving Problem: Four states have failed to repeal another outdated relic from the war on drugs — automatic driver’s license suspensions for all drug offenses, including those unrelated to driving. Our analysis shows that there are over 49,000 licenses suspended every year for non-driving drug convictions. These suspensions disproportionately impact low-income communities and waste government resources and time. Solutions: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Texas should formally opt out of the federal automatic suspension law. There is no financial penalty for opting-out as long as states pass a legislative resolution and the governor informs the Federal Highway Administration. More information: See our driver’s license suspensions page.

122

Top Trends in Criminal Justice Reform, 2022 From the Sentencing Project Formerly incarcerated activists, lawmakers, and advocates achieved important changes in criminal justice policy in 2022 to challenge extreme sentencing, expand voting rights and advance youth justice. This briefing paper highlights top trends in criminal justice reform in 2022. Overview The United States continues to lead the world in incarceration. More than five million people were under some form of correctional control in 2020 (the last year available) with nearly two million in prison or jail. Nationwide, an estimated 70-100 million persons have a criminal record, including at least 19 million persons living with a felony conviction. Changes in policy and practice may help counter the impact of tough on crime rhetoric that reinforce mass incarceration policies. State lawmakers in at least 15 states and Washington D.C. adopted policy reforms in 2022 that may contribute to decarceration and addressing collateral consequences while promoting effective approaches to public safety. This briefing paper provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of extreme sentencing and decarceration, drug policy, prison reform, probation and parole, guaranteeing voting rights, and youth justice. Changes in criminal justice policy were realized for various reasons, including an interest in managing prison capacity. Lawmakers have demonstrated interest in enacting reforms that recognize that the nation’s scale of incarceration has produced diminishing returns for public safety. However, stakeholders working to reform adult and youth criminal legal system practices also encountered rhetoric on increases in violent crime which impacted the ability to adopt significant reforms like the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences and expansion of alternatives to incarceration for prison bound defendants. Consequently, legislators and other stakeholders have prioritized implementing policies that provide a more balanced approach to public safety. The evolving framework is rooted in reducing returns to prison for technical violations, expanding alternatives to prison for persons convicted of low level offenses and authorizing earned release for prisoners who complete certain rehabilitation programs. Extreme Sentencing and Decarceration Reforms Lawmakers enacted legal reforms to reduce prison admissions and to adjust penalties to criminal sentences that more fairly hold persons convicted of crimes accountable. Washington D.C. council members unanimously approved B24–0416, the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA). The bill was a major overhaul to modernize the city’s criminal code. Specifically, the comprehensive measure eliminated most mandatory minimum sentences, lowered maximum sentences to 45 years, eliminated accomplice liability for felony murder, and expanded judicial reconsideration for all persons serving long prison terms. The RCCA extends judicial reconsideration to all, allowing individuals convicted of offenses committed after their 25th birthday to submit a petition for resentencing after serving 20 years. While local officials in the District approved the change it must survive a 60-day congressional review period as of December 2022. Challenging Racial Disparity Racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system have been extensively documented.

123

California officials adopted Assembly Bill 256, the Racial Justice Act for All. The measure allows persons with convictions or judgements prior to January 1, 2021 to petition the court and seek relief if racial bias was proven to be present in their case. AB 256 builds upon 2020 legislation (Assembly Bill 2542), which allowed individuals to challenge racial bias in criminal charges, convictions, and sentences but was limited to cases after January 1, 2021. Drug Policy Reform Lawmakers and advocates are revisiting policies adopted during the punitive War on Drugs era that resulted in dramatic growth in incarceration for drug offenses. Lawmakers considered sentencing alternatives for certain drug offenses while voters considered ballot measures to legalize or decriminalize certain drugs. ● Kentucky officials adopted Senate Bill 90 which authorizes the establishment of pilot behavioral health conditional dismissal programs in at least 10 Kentucky counties selected by the Kentucky Supreme Court chief justice for persons charged with certain low-level drug offenses. The measure allows someone charged with certain non-violent crimes determined to have a mental health or substance use disorder to have their case put on hold and go into treatment instead, under certain conditions. The pilot program would include access to services like outpatient treatment, cognitive and behavioral therapies, educational and vocational services and housing assistance. ● Voters in Maryland legalized recreational marijuana with 66% approval of Question 4 while Missouri authorized marijuana use with 53% support of Constitutional Amendment 3. Both ballot initiatives legalized possession of marijuana for persons 21 years of age or older. The approval of these ballot measures expands the number of states that legalize recreational marijuana use to 21 since 2012. Voters did not approve ballot measures in Arkansas, North Dakota, or South Dakota. Nationally, these changes might reduce hundreds of thousands of marijuana arrests made every year. ● In Colorado, 54% of voters approved Proposition 122 to decriminalize certain psychedelics, including psilocybin mushrooms — a substance that is decriminalized only in Oregon and a handful of cities. Oregon became the first state to legalize the supervised use of psilocybin in 2020. Limiting Incarceration for Probation and Parole Violations Too many persons are admitted to prison due to technical probation and parole violations. In 2022, lawmakers advanced policies that allowed early completion of probation and parole sentences. Two states enacted legislative measures that reduce time served requirements for successful participation in rehabilitation programs that include vocational training, education, and substance abuse treatment. ● Florida officials enacted Senate Bill 752 which allows residents on probation to receive education and workforce credits to reduce their probation terms. Individuals under this law can earn at least 30 days off their supervision terms during each six-month period they work at least an average of 30 hours per week. The measure also authorizes persons to earn 60 days off their probation term for each completed educational activity. ● Oklahoma lawmakers adopted House Bill 4369. The law modifies the administrative parole process by allowing consideration of early termination of probation and parole for persons within one calendar year of their discharge date. HB 4369 also allows for persons under parole

124

supervision to earn compliance discharge credits every month to reduce the length of time supervised on parole. Prison Reform: Abolishing Involuntary Servitude and Slavery Four states – Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont – adopted ballot measures to remove language from their state constitutions allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for the conviction of a crime. Louisiana voters did not approve a related initiative. Similar ballot measures were passed in Colorado in 2018 and Nebraska and Utah in 2020. ● Alabama voters approved the Alabama Recompiled Constitution Ratification Question by 77% to eliminate racist language from the state Constitution and delete an exemption that allows for involuntary servitude for certain crimes. ● Voters in Oregon approved a Measure 112 with 56% support to remove “all language creating an exception” and make “the prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude unequivocal.” The ballot initiative also amended the Oregon Constitution to allow “programs to be ordered as part of sentencing,” including programs for education, counseling, treatment and community service. ● Tennessee voters approved Constitutional Amendment 3 by 79% to amend the state’s constitution to say slavery and indentured servitude shall be “forever prohibited.” ● Voters in Vermont approved Proposition 2 by 89% to remove text from the state’s constitution that read “no person born in this country, or brought from oversea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years, unless bound by the person’s own consent, after arriving to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.” Expanding the Vote In 2022, 4.6 million citizens were ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction although many residents with felony convictions had regained their voting rights since 1997 due to policy reforms. During 2022, officials in Massachusetts and Washington state approved various efforts to guarantee ballot access for incarcerated voters. ● Massachusetts Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed a comprehensive voting rights bill named the VOTES Act which included provisions guaranteeing ballot access for persons in jails. The law directs jails to “ensure the receipt, private voting, where possible, and return of mail ballots” for incarcerated people. The measure also requires sheriffs to track the number of people incarcerated in their jails who sought to vote, any complaints related to voting issues and the outcome of those requests. ● Washington officials adopted a policy to support ballot access for jail based voting. The state’s 2022 budget allocated $628,000 to the Office of the Secretary of State to distribute to county jails to help improve voter awareness, registration and voting in jails. Grants were allocated prior to this year’s August primary with plans to continue funding through the November general elections. Promoting Youth Justice Lawmakers adopted policies that demonstrated a commitment to protecting young defendants and expanding release options for persons sentenced in their youth. These changes in policy continue a trend that seeks to change the response to juvenile crime.

125

●

Indiana lawmakers adopted House Bill 1359, a comprehensive youth justice reform measure that included raising the age of detention to 12, instituting risk assessment to divert youth away from court involvement and improving data collection, among other policy changes. Maryland lawmakers adopted several youth justice reforms with enactment of Senate Bill 691 including raising the minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 13 (with some rare exceptions). The measure also largely prohibits the use of secure detention or commitment to the Department of Juvenile Services for technical violations of probation and misdemeanor offenses (with exceptions for handgun violations and repeated misdemeanor offenses). The law also removes barriers to diversion, including allowing youth with nonviolent felonies to be diverted without prosecutor or victim approval. The Tennessee Supreme Court declared mandatory 51-life sentences for youth unconstitutional in Tennessee v. Booker. Tennessee is among several states where nearly 10% of the people serving a life sentence were under 18 at the time of their crime. The state supreme court ruling impacts all persons who were under 18 at the time of their offense and sentenced to mandatory life and de facto life sentences. In each of those cases, the opinion stated, the person sentenced should receive individualized parole hearings after serving a minimum of 25 years. Wyoming officials enacted House Bill 37 to require the Department of Family Services to collect juvenile justice data from state and local governments to standardize juvenile justice information. Compiling these data will better track outcomes, including the use of detention and commitment, as well as the transfer of youth into adult courts.

Trends that Reinforce Mass Incarceration Despite reforms, policies were adopted that might exacerbate mass incarceration and lengthen sentences. Indiana lawmakers adopted House Bill 1004 to reverse a 2014 reform that authorized incarceration in jails rather than prison for persons sentenced to low level felonies. Tennessee officials enacted a “truth-in-sentencing” framework with Senate Bill 2248 to require 85% time served requirements for certain criminal penalties. House Bill 215 was passed in Kentucky to increase minimum time served requirements to 85% time served from 50%time served for persons convicted of trafficking fentanyl. It also makes importing those drugs from another state or country a Class C felony, subject to five to 10 years in prison, and eliminates pretrial diversion for persons charged with this offense. Recommendations to Challenge Mass Incarceration In 2022 Lawmakers advanced policy reforms to decarcerate, challenge racial disparities in imprisonment, guarantee ballot access for justice impacted voters, and address youth justice. Most of these measures will have a modest impact on the scale of incarceration or its consequences, and while helpful, more comprehensive reforms are needed to transform the adult and youth legal systems to meaningfully challenge mass incarceration. To end mass incarceration transformational changes are necessary: ●

Reform Extreme Sentencing Statutes: The Sentencing Project is part of a coalition of national and state-level organizations that work to end extreme sentencing practices in the United States. Recommended reforms include: limiting maximum prison terms to 20 years, except in unusual circumstances; repealing mandatory minimums; establishing “Second Look” sentencing review practices; ending Life-Without-Parole (LWOP) sentences and authorizing presumptive parole.

126

●

Advance Policy to Address Racial Disparities: The Sentencing Project supports state, local and national partners in advancing racial impact statements. Racial impact statements offer a specific legislative solution to forecast potential impact of proposed sentencing laws on racial disparities in imprisonment; retroactive application of racial impact statements would allow lawmakers and other stakeholders to review current policies and practices. Responsible lawmaking increases when information about the consequences of harsh punishments is available. Additional policy reforms addressing racial disparity include reducing prison admissions and enacting presumptive release policies.

●

Expand Voting Rights to All Justice Involved Citizens: As of 2022, 4.6 million citizens with a felony conviction were disenfranchised from voting, most living in the community. While voter suppression laws have proliferated in recent years across the country, The Sentencing Project supports state, local and national partners in efforts to expand the franchise to justice-involved residents and guarantee ballot access for voters who are incarcerated. Much progress is being made, but millions are still denied the vote. Guaranteeing voting rights for persons completing their sentence inside and outside of prison or jail will ensure a stronger democracy for all.

●

Decarcerate Youth in Custody: The Sentencing Project works with groups at the national, state and local level to minimize all involvement by youth in both the adult and youth justice systems. Significant youth justice reforms continued this year and the number of states ending juvenile life without parole increased to 25. States should continue safeguards that prevent transfers to adult court and keep youth out of adult jails while continuing to shrink the footprint of the youth justice system by diverting youth from all forms of detention in favor of community-based interventions and supports.

127

California Legislative Calendar 2023-24

128

129

California Senators

Benjamin Allen (D) District 24

Angelique V. Ashby (D) District 08

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6610, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4024

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7320, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4008

District Oﬃce 2512 Artesia Blvd., Suite 320, Redondo Beach, CA 90278; (310) 318-6994

District Oﬃce

Marie Alvarado-Gil (D) District 04

Toni G. Atkins (D) District 39

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7240, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4004

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 8518, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4039

District Oﬃces

District Oﬃce 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108; (619) 688-6700

Bob Archuleta (D) District 30

Josh Becker (D) District 13

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6620, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4030

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4013

District Oﬃce 12501 Imperial Highway, Suite 110, Norwalk, CA 90650; (562) 406-1001

District Oﬃce 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo, CA 94402; (650) 212- 3313

102 Grove Ave., Suite B, Oakdale, CA 95361; (209) 848-8001 460 Sutter Hill Rd., Suite C, Sutter Creek, CA 95685. (209) 267-503

1020 N St., Room 568, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-1529 2251 Florin Rd., Suite 156, Sacramento, CA 95822; (916) 262-290

130

Catherine Blakespear (D) District 38

Dave Cortese (D) District 15

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7340, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4038

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6630, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4015

District Oﬃces 24031 El Toro Rd., Suite 201A, Laguna Hills, CA 92653; (949) 598-5850. 169 Saxony Rd., Suite 103, Encinitas, CA 92024; (760) 642-0809.

District Oﬃce 2105 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 154, Campbell, CA 95008; (408) 558-1295

Steven Bradford (D) District 35

Brian Dahle (R) District 01

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7210, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4035

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7230, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4001 District Oﬃces

District Oﬃce One Manchester Blvd., Suite 600, Inglewood, CA 90301; (310) 412-6120 302 W. 5th Street, Suite 203, San Pedro, CA 90731; (310) 514-8573

1320 Yuba Street, Suite 102, Redding, CA 96001; (530) 224-7001 11230 Gold Express Drive, Suite 304, Gold River, CA 95670; (916) 464-4201 11310 McCourtney Road, Unit E2/E3, Grass Valley, CA 95949; (530) 271-1022

Anna M. Caballero (D) District 14

Bill Dodd (D) District 03

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7620, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4014

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7610, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4003

District Oﬃces 510 West Main Street, Suite E, Merced, CA 95340; (209) 726-5495 132 W. Gabilan Street, Suite 101, Salinas, CA 93901; (831) 769-8040 2550 Mariposa Mall, Suite 2016, Fresno, CA 93721; (559) 264-3070

District Oﬃces 2721 Napa Valley Corporate Drive, Building 4, 2nd Floor, Napa, CA 94558; (707) 224-1990 555 Mason Street, Suite 275, Vacaville, CA 95688; (707) 454-3808 50 D Street, Suite 300, Santa Rosa, CA 95404; (707) 576-2093 420 Virginia Street, Suite 1-C, Vallejo, CA 94590; (707) 551-2389

131

María Elena Durazo (D) District 26

Shannon Grove (R) District 12

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7530, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4026

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7150, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4012

District Oﬃce 1808 W. Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90026; (213) 483-9300

District Oﬃce 5701 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 150, Bakersﬁeld, CA 93309; (661) 323-0443 567 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite A-3, Fresno, CA 93704; (559) 243-8580 7248 Joshua Lane, Yucca Valley, CA 92284; (760) 228-3136

Susan Talamantes Eggman (D) District 05

Melissa Hurtado (D) District 16

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 8530, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4005

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7310, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4016

District Oﬃces 2291 W. March Lane, Suite B200, Stockton, CA 95207; 209-472-9535

District Oﬃce 1201 E. California Avenue, Suite A, Bakersﬁeld, CA 93307; (661) 395-2620 611 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230; (559) 585-7161

Steven M. Glazer (D) District 07

Brian W. Jones (R) District 40

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7520, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4007

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7640, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4040

District Oﬃces 51 Moraga Way, Suite 2, Orinda, CA 94563; (925) 258-1176 420 W. 3rd Street, Antioch, CA 94509; (925) 754-1461

District Oﬃces 500 Fesler Street, Suite 201, El Cajon, CA 92020; (619) 596-3136 720 N. Broadway, Suite 110, Escondido, CA 92025; (760) 796-4655

132

Lena A. Gonzalez (D) District 33

John Laird (D) District 17

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7720, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4033

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 8720, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4017

District Oﬃce 3939 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 107, Long Beach, CA 90807; (562) 256-7921 3355 East Gage Avenue, Huntington Park, CA 90255; (323) 277-4560

District Oﬃces

Monique Limón (D) District 19

Dave Min (D) District 37

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6510, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4019

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6710, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4037

District Oﬃces

District Oﬃce 2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 258, Irvine, CA 92612; (949) 223-5472

Mike McGuire (D) District 02

Josh Newman (D) District 29

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 8610, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4002

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6520, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4029

District Oﬃces

District Oﬃce 203 N. Harbor Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92832; (714) 525-2342

222 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 309, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; (805) 965-0862 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 430, Oxnard, CA 93036; (805) 988-1940

3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 425, San Rafael, CA 94903; (415) 479-6612 50 D Street, Suite 120A, Santa Rosa, CA 95404; (707) 576-2771 200 South School Street, Suite F, Ukiah, CA 95482; (707) 468-8914 1080 Mason Mall, Suite 4, Crescent City, CA 95531; (707) 464-1255 1036 5th Street, Suite D, Eureka, CA 95501; (707) 445-6508 885 Lakeport Blvd., Lakeport, CA 95453; (707) 468-8914

1026 Palm Street, Suite 201, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; (805) 549-3784 99 Paciﬁc Street, Suite 575F, Monterey, CA 93940; (831) 657-6315 701 Ocean Street, Suite 318A, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; (831) 425-0401

133

Caroline Menjivar (D) District 20

Janet Nguyen (R) District 36

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6720, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4020

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7130, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4036

District Oﬃce 6150 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 400 Van Nuys, CA 91401; (818) 901-5588

District Oﬃce 301 Main Street, Suite 212 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 374-4000

Roger W. Niello (R) District 06

Richard D. Roth (D) District 31

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7110, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4006

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7510, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4031

District Oﬃce

Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R) District 23

Susan Rubio (D) District 22

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7220, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4023

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 8710, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4022

District Oﬃce 1758 Orange Tree Lane, Suite B, Redlands, CA 92374; (909) 335-0271

District Oﬃces

Steve Padilla (D) District 18

Kelly Seyarto (R) District 32

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6640, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4018

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7120, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4032

2200A Douglas Blvd., Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95661; (916) 772-0571

District Oﬃce

1224 State Street, Suite D, El Centro, CA 92243; (760) 335-3442 303 H Street, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA 91910; (619) 409-7690

3737 Main Street, Suite 104, Riverside, CA 92501; (951) 680-6750

100 S. Vincent Avenue, Suite 401, West Covina, CA 91790; (626) 430-2499 101 W. Mission Blvd., Suite 111, Pomona; (909)469-1110

District Oﬃce 25186 Hancock Ave., Suite 320, Murrieta, CA 92562; (951)894-3530

134

Anthony J. Portantino (D) District 25

Nancy Skinner (D) District 09

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7630, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4025

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 8630, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4009

District Oﬃces

District Oﬃce 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2202, Oakland, CA 94612; (510) 286-1333

Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D) District 28

Aisha Wahab (D) District 10

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6730, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4028

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7330, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4410

District Oﬃce

District Oﬃces

601 East Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 210, Glendale, CA 91207; (818) 409-0400 201 E. Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773; (909) 599-7351

700 Exposition Park Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90037; (213)745-6656

39510 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 280, Fremont, CA 94538; (510) 794-3900

Henry I. Stern (D) District 27

Scott D. Wiener (D) District 11

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7710, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4027

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 8620, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4011

District Oﬃce

5016 N. Parkway Calabasas, Suite 222, Calabasas, CA 91302; (818) 876-3352

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14800, San Francisco, CA 94102; (415) 557-1300

Thomas J. Umberg (D) District 34

Scott Wilk (R) District 21

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 6530, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4034

Capitol Oﬃce 1021 O Street, Suite 7140, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4021

District Oﬃce 1000 East Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 220B, Santa Ana, CA 92701; (714) 558-3785

District Oﬃces

848 W. Lancaster Blvd., Suite 101, Lancaster, CA 93534; (661) 729-6232 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 250, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; (661) 286-1471 14343 Civic Drive, First Floor, Victorville, CA 92392; (760) 843-8414

135

California State Assemblymembers Addis, Dawn District 30, Democrat

Bains, Jasmeet District 35, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5350 P.O. Box 942849-0030; (916) 319-2030 COUNTIES REPRESENTED Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5730 P.O. Box 942849-0035; (916) 319-2035

Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. District 4, Democrat

Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca District 16, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6350 P.O. Box 942849-0004; (916) 319-2004

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6320 P.O. Box 942849-0016; (916) 319-2016

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Colusa, Lake, Napa, Sonoma, Yolo

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Alameda, Contra Costa

Alanis, Juan District 22, Republican

Bennett, Steve District 38, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4640 P.O. Box 942849-0022; (916) 319-2022

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4710 P.O. Box 942849-0038; (916) 319-2038

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Merced, Stanislaus

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Ventura

Alvarez, David A. District 80, Democrat

Berman, Marc District 23, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5320 P.O. Box 942849-0080; (916) 319-2080

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6130 P.O. Box 942849-0023; (916) 319-2023

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Diego

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Mateo, Santa Clara

Arambula, Dr. Joaquin District 31, Democrat

Boerner Horvath, Tasha District 77, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8130 P.O. Box 942849-0031; (916) 319-2031

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4150 P.O. Box 942849-0077; (916) 319-2077

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Fresno

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Diego

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Kern

136

Bonta, Mia District 18, Democrat

Chen, Phillip District 59, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5620 P.O. Box 942849-0018; (916) 319-2018

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4620 P.O. Box 942849-0059; (916) 319-2059

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Alameda

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Orange, San Bernardino

Bryan, Isaac District 55, Democrat

Connolly, Damon District 12, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5630 P.O. Box 942849-0055; (916) 319-2055

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5240 P.O. Box 942849-0012; (916) 319-2012

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Marin, Sonoma

Calderon, Lisa District 56, Democrat

Dahle, Megan District 1, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4650 P.O. Box 942849-0056; (916) 319-2056

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5710 P.O. Box 942849-0001; (916) 319-2001

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou

Carrillo, Juan District 39, Democrat

Davies, Laurie District 74, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4320 P.O. Box 942849-0039; (916) 319-2039

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4720 P.O. Box 942849-0074; (916) 319-2074

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles, San Bernardino

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Orange, San Diego

Carrillo, Wendy District 52, Democrat

Dixon, Diane District 72, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8140 P.O. Box 942849-0052; (916) 319-2052

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5330 P.O. Box 942849-0072; (916) 319-2072

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Orange

Cervantes, Sabrina District 58, Democrat

Essayli, Bill District 63, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6120 P.O. Box 942849-0058; (916) 319-2058

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4520 P.O. Box 942849-0063; (916) 319-2063

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Riverside, San Bernardino

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Riverside

137

Flora, Heath District 9, Republican

Garcia, Eduardo District 36, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4730 P.O. Box 942849-0009; (916) 319-2009

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8120 P.O. Box 942849-0036; (916) 319-2036

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Amador, Calaveras, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino

Fong, Vince District 32, Republican

Gipson, Mike A. District 65, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4630 P.O. Box 942849-0032; (916) 319-2032

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8110 P.O. Box 942849-0065; (916) 319-2065

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Kern, Tulare

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

Fong, Mike District 49, Democrat

Grayson, Timothy District 15, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5230 P.O. Box 942849-0049; (916) 319-2049

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5510 P.O. Box 942849-0015; (916) 319-2015

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Contra Costa

Friedman, Laura District 44, Democrat

Haney, Matt District 17, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5740 P.O. Box 942849-0044; (916) 319-2044

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5310 P.O. Box 942849-0017; (916) 319-2017

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Francisco

Gabriel, Jesse District 46, Democrat

Hart, Gregg District 37, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5220 P.O. Box 942849-0046; (916) 319-2046

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6230 P.O. Box 942849-0037; (916) 319-2037

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles, Ventura

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara

Gallagher, James District 3, Republican

Holden, Chris District 41, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4740 P.O. Box 942849-0003; (916) 319-2003

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5650 P.O. Box 942849-0041; (916) 319-2041

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Butte, Glenn, Placer, Sutter, Tehama, Yuba

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles, San Bernardino

138

Hoover, Josh District 7, Republican

Lee, Alex District 24, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4540 P.O. Box 942849-0007; (916) 319-2007

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6330 P.O. Box 942849-0024; (916) 319-2024

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Sacramento

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Alameda, Santa Clara

Irwin, Jacqui District 42, Democrat

Low, Evan District 26, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6220 P.O. Box 942849-0042; (916) 319-2042

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6110 P.O. Box 942849-0026; (916) 319-2026

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles, Ventura

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Santa Clara

Jackson, Dr. Corey District 60, Democrat

Lowenthal, Josh District 69, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6120 P.O. Box 942849-0060; (916) 319-2060

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5130 P.O. Box 942849-0069; (916) 319-2069

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Riverside

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

Jones-Sawyer, Reginald Byron District 57, Democrat

Maienschein, Brian District 76, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5210 P.O. Box 942849-0057; (916) 319-2057

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5640 P.O. Box 942849-0076; (916) 319-2076

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Diego

Kalra, Ash District 25, Democrat

Mathis, Devon District 33, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4610 P.O. Box 942849-0025; (916) 319-2025

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5530 P.O. Box 942849-0033; (916) 319-2033

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Santa Clara

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Fresno, Kings, Tulare

Lackey, Tom District 34, Republican

McCarty, Kevin District 6, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5340 P.O. Box 942849-0034; (916) 319-2034

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4510 P.O. Box 942849-0006; (916) 319-2006

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Sacramento

139

McKinnor, Tina District 61, Democrat

Patterson, Joe District 5, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5520 P.O. Box 942849-0061; (916) 319-2061

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4530 P.O. Box 942849-0005; (916) 319-2005

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED El Dorado, Placer

Muratsuchi, Al District 66, Democrat

Patterson, Jim District 8, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5610 P.O. Box 942849-0066; (916) 319-2066

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4310 P.O. Box 942849-0008; (916) 319-2008

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Tuolumne

Nguyen, Stephanie District 10, Democrat

Pellerin, Gail District 28, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5720 P.O. Box 942849-0010; (916) 319-2010

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6310 P.O. Box 942849-0028; (916) 319-2028

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Sacramento

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Santa Clara, Santa Cruz

Ortega, Liz District 20, Democrat

Petrie-Norris, Cottie District 73, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5120 P.O. Box 942849-0020; (916) 319-2020

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4230 P.O. Box 942849-0073; (916) 319-2073

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Alameda

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Orange

Pacheco, Blanca District 64, Democrat

Quirk-Silva, Sharon District 67, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6240 P.O. Box 942849-0064; (916) 319-2064

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4210 P.O. Box 942849-0067; (916) 319-2067

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles, Orange

Papan, Diane District 21, Democrat

Ramos, James District 45, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4220 P.O. Box 942849-0021; (916) 319-2021

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8310 P.O. Box 942849-0045; (916) 319-2045

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Mateo

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Bernardino

140

Rendon, Anthony District 62, Democrat

Sanchez, Kate A. District 71, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8330 P.O. Box 942849-0062; (916) 319-2062

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4340 P.O. Box 942849-0071; (916) 319-2071

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Orange, Riverside

Reyes, Eloise Gómez District 50, Democrat

Santiago, Miguel District 54, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8210 P.O. Box 942849-0050; (916) 319-2050

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6150 P.O. Box 942849-0054; (916) 319-2054

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Bernardino

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

Rivas, Robert District 29, Democrat

Schiavo, Pilar District 40, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5110 P.O. Box 942849-0029; (916) 319-2029

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4140 P.O. Box 942849-0040; (916) 319-2040

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

Rivas, Luz District 43, Democrat

Soria, Esmeralda District 27, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4250 P.O. Box 942849-0043; (916) 319-2043

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4110 P.O. Box 942849-0027; (916) 319-2027

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Fresno, Madera, Merced

Rodriguez, Freddie District 53, Democrat

Ta, Tri District 70, Republican

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5250 P.O. Box 942849-0053; (916) 319-2053

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5540 P.O. Box 942849-0070; (916) 319-2070

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles, San Bernardino

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Orange

Rubio, Blanca District 48, Democrat

Ting, Philip District 19, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5140 P.O. Box 942849-0048; (916) 319-2048

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8230 P.O. Box 942849-0019; (916) 319-2019

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Francisco, San Mateo

141

Valencia, Avelino District 68, Democrat

Wicks, Buffy District 14, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4120 P.O. Box 942849-0068; (916) 319-2068

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4240 P.O. Box 942849-0014; (916) 319-2014

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Orange

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Alameda, Contra Costa

Villapudua, Carlos District 13, Democrat

Wilson, Lori District 11, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6340 P.O. Box 942849-0013; (916) 319-2013

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5150 P.O. Box 942849-0011; (916) 319-2011

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Joaquin

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano

Waldron, Marie District 75 Republican

Wood, Jim District 2, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6140 P.O. Box 942849-0075; (916) 319-2075

Capitol Office, 1020 N Street, Suite 390 P.O. Box 942849-0002; (916) 319-2002

COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Diego

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Trinity

Wallis, Greg District 47, Republican

Zbur, Rick Chavez District 51, Democrat

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4330 P.O. Box 942849-0047; (916) 319-2047

Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4350 P.O. Box 942849-0051; (916) 319-2051

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Riverside, San Bernardino

COUNTIES REPRESENTED Los Angeles

Ward, Christopher M. District 78, Democrat Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8320 P.O. Box 942849-0078; (916) 319-2078 COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Diego Weber, M.D., Akilah District 79, Democrat Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4130 P.O. Box 942849-0079; (916) 319-2079 COUNTIES REPRESENTED San Diego

142

Overview

Glossary of State Budget Terms

What’s the difference between a trailer bill and a policy bill? A surplus and an operating surplus? Special funds and the General Fund? And what exactly is a “Budget Bill Jr.”? Understanding these and other key budget-related terms is critical to navigating the state budget process and effectively engaging decision-makers in order to advocate for fair and just policy choices for Californians.

Key Terms Appropriation - Authorizes agencies, departments, and other entities to spend money or create obligations from a specific fund for a specific purpose. Only budget bills may contain more than a single item of appropriation. Assembly Budget Committee - Reviews the governor’s budget proposals and develops the Assembly’s version of the state budget. Most of the committee’s work is done through subcommittees that focus on specific policy areas. Augmentation - An increase to a previously authorized appropriation. Balanced-Budget Requirement - A state constitutional mandate for estimated revenues to equal or exceed estimated spending. It applies both to the governor’s proposed budget and to the budget bill as passed by the Legislature. Bond Bill - A bill authorizing the sale of state general obligation bonds. Bond Funds - State funds that account for the receipt and disbursement of proceeds from general obligation bonds. Budget Act - The initial budget bill passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor, after any line-item vetoes. The Budget Act can be referred to by the year in which it becomes law (“Budget Act of 2022”) or by the fiscal year to which it applies (“2022-23 Budget Act”). Budget Bill - A bill that provides authority to spend money (appropriations) across an array of public services and systems for a single fiscal year. Each year’s budget package typically contains multiple budget bills, including the Budget Act and at least one Budget Bill Jr. Budget bills move through budget committees rather than through the Legislature’s policy bill process. The Legislature can pass budget bills with a simple majority vote of each house. Budget Bill Jr. - The informal term to describe any budget bill that amends the Budget Act. Multiple Budget Bill Jrs. may be described using Roman numerals (Budget Bill Jr. I, Budget Bill Jr. II, etc.). Budget Bill Provisional Language - Explains how appropriations in the Budget Act must be administered, such as by specifying constraints on expenditures or providing additional or exceptional authority. Provisional language is inserted after an appropriation, or a set of appropriations, and is distinct from the control sections in the Budget Act. Budget Change Proposal (BCP) - A proposal by an agency, department, or other entity to revise a currently authorized level of service, create a program, or eliminate a program. BCPs that are approved by

143

the governor and submitted to the Legislature for consideration are posted to the Department of Finance website. Budget Conference Committee - A small group of legislators from both houses who work to reconcile differences between the Assembly and Senate versions of the state budget. Members are appointed by the leadership of each house, typically in late May or early June, with the majority party controlling most of the allotted seats. Lawmakers do not have to form a conference committee to create a unified legislative budget. Instead, they may reconcile differences through private negotiations, which may or may not include the participation of the minority party. Budget Package - The combined set of budget bills and trailer bills — potentially numbering into the dozens — that make up the state budget for a fiscal year. The Legislature typically sends the initial set of bills in the budget package to the governor in late June and sometimes early July. Additional budget-related legislation is enacted at other times during the fiscal year, thus increasing the size and scope of the initial budget package. Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) - California’s main state budget reserve. Deposits into and withdrawals from the BSA are governed by rules added to the state Constitution by Proposition 2 (2014). The BSA is commonly referred to as the state’s “rainy day fund.” Budget Year - The upcoming state fiscal year, which begins on July 1. See also Current Year. Capital Outlay - Expenditures to acquire land; construct, modify, or expand buildings; and/or purchase construction-related equipment. Certain types of capital outlay expenditures — including for housing-related projects — are excluded from appropriations that are subject to the state spending cap (Gann Limit). Constitutional Amendment - A resolution to change the language of the state Constitution. Such resolutions require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature and must be approved by voters in a statewide election (simple majority vote). Constitutional amendments also can be placed on a statewide ballot through the initiative process, thus bypassing the Legislature. On rare occasions, legislative proposals to amend the state Constitution may be integral to the state budget framework, and in these cases would typically be recognized as part of the overall budget package. Continuing Appropriation - An appropriation for a specific amount that is available for more than a single year. Not to be confused with continuous appropriation. Continuous Appropriation - An expenditure that is authorized by the state Constitution or by state law that is renewed each year without additional action by the Legislature. Not to be confused with continuing appropriation. Control Sections - The individual sections of the Budget Act, beginning with 1.00. Control sections define the terms used in the budget, identify restrictions on appropriations, and provide other instructions and information related to the budget. Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) - An adjustment in spending that reflects the change in the cost of living. The Legislature and the governor may provide “discretionary” COLAs through the annual state budget process. In contrast, “statutory” COLAs are required by state law. However, the Legislature may suspend a statutory COLA for a fiscal year by a simple majority vote of each house.

144

PART C Communications Resources

EBC COMMS RESOURCES BRAND MESSAGING & I/O TIMELINE

Ella Baker Center Brand Messaging Guide Cheat Sheet: Nuts and Bolts Elevator Pitch: Our namesake Ella Baker was a hero of the civil rights movement and like her, we believe in the power of everyday people to win change. The Ella Baker Center organizes with Black, Brown, and low-income people to shift resources away from prisons and punishment and towards opportunities that make our communities safe, healthy, and strong. Primary Audiences: ● People impacted by incarceration ● Policymakers

Core Message: What you water grows. For too long we have “watered” punishment and prisons, instead of things that actually help our communities thrive. Our goal is to channel resources and opportunities into communities of color who have been most harmed by the lack of investment and prejudicial policies that have resulted in poverty and incarceration. Talking about Truth and Reinvestment: “Truth and Reinvestment” is our vision for our work; it is both a conversation and a call to action. “Truth” means reckoning with the reality of racial injustice in our country. It means talking about how our country has continuously prioritized and profited from shackles, walls, and jails in communities of color – from slavery to Jim Crow to our current criminal justice system. “Reinvestment” means rejecting these priorities and advancing solutions that create opportunity for our families and neighborhoods. Building opportunity—whether investing in our schools, creating jobs, or making sure people can afford homes—is the driver of true safety in our communities. Our Work: The Ella Baker Center’s membership is a way for anyone, anywhere—especially those who have been harmed by the justice system—to join the movement to create a truly safe and just nation. Restore Oakland is a community advocacy and training center that will empower Bay Area community members to transform our economic and justice systems and make a safe and secure future possible for themselves and for their families. It is a joint initiative between Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United). The Ella Baker Center wins policies that reduce sentences, remove barriers, and restore opportunities. We demand budgets that prioritize what our communities need to thrive: jobs, education, healthcare, and housing. On Night Out for Safety and Liberation, people across the country come together to redefine what #SafetyIs: dignity, opportunity, and power in our communities. Internal Resources: Brand Essence The Essence is the core pieces around which the rest of the brand is built. These tools articulate from the internal point of view how we want to position ourselves in the world. Additionally, we lay out the promise we want to make to our key audiences and constituents.

147

Promise Statement The brand promise statement is the value your constituents receive from your work. The brand promise statement is not intended as a public message, but as a tool to convey the Center in a way that will attract individuals and organizations to dedicate their resources to it. Think of this statement as if a member of our audience was reciting the words- we want our programs and messaging always to aspire to fulfill this promise. The Ella Baker Center lifts up solutions inspired and created by those directly impacted by incarceration, criminalization, and divestment in order to create a future where everyone lives with dignity, safety, and opportunity. The Ella Baker Center shares my hopes for the future for my family, my community and myself, and gives me the chance to be involved in creating that future. Internal Resources: Ella Baker Center Values Brand values communicate the ideals upon which our mission and vision are built. You can think of them as the “guiding stars” that govern what we do and how we do it. People-power We believe in self-determination - the power of people and communities to change their own destiny. We seek to lift up the voices and leadership of low-income Black and Brown communities and bring to the center those who have been historically marginalized within liberation movements (and society at large), such as women, queer people, transgender and gender non-conforming people, and those separated by incarceration. Solutions We lead with bold solutions that address the root causes of the problems that people experience in their daily lives. We proactively seek both short- and long-term solutions by advocating for changes to the law, dismantling oppressive structures, and building capacity and leadership within communities most impacted by state violence and mass incarceration. Integrity Our commitment to social justice is unrelenting, yet grounded in clear paths towards winning meaningful solutions as identified by communities most impacted by state violence and mass incarceration. We are not afraid to “tell it like it is” and to stand on the side of what we believe is right, even when it is unpopular. We resist false solutions and do not limit ourselves based on what is considered politically possible. We embrace the responsibilities that come with our respective positions and privileges. Interconnection We are all connected to each other and our planet. True liberation leaves no one behind. We understand that the path to liberation for all communities must be rooted in the liberation of Black communities. As an organization operating within the backdrop of a broader movement, we share the belief that when all Black people get free, especially those who have been historically marginalized within Black liberation movements, such as women, queer people, transgender and gender non-conforming people, and those separated by incarceration, everybody gets free. Humility Movements are built at the speed of trust so how we show up matters. We aim to be “soft on people, hard on structures.” We are committed to taking risks, making mistakes, and continuous learning in our pursuit of justice and liberation. Love (Joy, Fun) Joy and love inspire our work. Working at or with the Ella Baker Center is a labor of love. We hold one another accountable and lift each other up from a place of love. We are committed to a balance of self-care and self-sacrifice. We laugh, have fun, share joy, and build community through our work.

148

Internal Resources: Brand Personality Every brand—each person, company and organization—has a personality. These are the character traits that make up your authentic and unique organizational self. These help to distinguish us from other organizations and, along with the promise, offer a reason to work with us. They also set the tone for how we communicate about ourselvesverbally, visually and experientially. Revolutionary Common Sense – Part of our unique approach is to push for change in ways both radical and practical. Revolutionary ideas are beyond where many people are willing to go. Ella Baker Center staff and activists create pathways to bring the edge back to the center, to make radical ideas seem more like common sense than revolutionary. The Ella Baker Center’s practical side recognizes that change can be incremental, slow, and stealth. Our campaigns set attainable goals, working inside and outside of the establishment and pushing in the right directions at the right times. The Ella Baker Center functions as both insiders and outsiders in a variety of settings, depending on the situation and strategy. Grounded – Because the Ella Baker Center is deeply rooted in the community, lives its values, and has a deep connection with its mission and purpose, it is centered, stable, and true. This confidence allows stakeholders to be critical, analyze the work and results, and ask the tough questions. Our core builds strength in our communities, rather than division. Fierce – Since inception, the Ella Baker Center has had the audacity to dream big and the tenacity to take on issues that others avoid. We are not afraid of a fight, of standing up to powers and problems that seem greater than ourselves. The Ella Baker Center is not only willing to take on big challenges, it “leans into” society’s most vexing and complex issues. The Center refuses to be driven by fear, and challenges others to move beyond fear in policy and resource decisions and instead, move toward love and the recognition of our common interests. External Resources: Message Platform Every organization needs a set of core messages to convey our framework, values, personality and impact. Key message points are simply tools. You can use them and adapt them as needed for the diverse array of conversations, materials and other mediums where we must communicate about the Ella Baker Center. A note on Audiences and Messaging The Ella Baker Center has two priority audiences for our work: ● The Base, aka folks impacted by incarceration ● Policy makers Obviously these two audiences care about different things, use different language, and are influenced by different factors in their decision-making. Therefore it can be hard to use the same exact messages with both audiences. The same ideas and frameworks will resonate with both audiences though you may tweak the actual words and approach depending on with whom you are speaking. To that end, here are some tips for adapting the messaging within this guide depending on whom you are talking to: The Base ● Connect messages to the city, community, or neighborhood where people live ● Engage folks about their personal experiences that related to the issues ● Ask questions about their vision for their family, community, or city ● Share stories that illustrate the problem and examples of solutions that actually work ● Use language that invites people to join ● Tie messages to current events and other issues that a community might care about, i.e. safety, immigration, housing, schools, etc. ● Use messaging that builds on moral outrage in community about disparities and backwards funding priorities ● Useful words and phrases:

149

Phrases that show the tradeoff the system currently makes, i.e. Shouldn’t we invest in people, not prisons? Wouldn’t it be better if money were spent on jobs, instead of jails? ○ No one should be treated as their worst mistake ○ Second chances ○ Every person matters; Every person should matter Less useful language and concepts: ○ Reinvestment as a noun (Reinvest as a verb is okay) ■ In this guide you will often see the word “re/invest;” this indicates that you can choose to use invest or reinvest interchangeably in those messages depending on which is a better match for your audience. ■ The term reinvestment is included sparingly but can be used to promote understanding of the concept as long is it tied to an example of what reinvestment means. ○ Messages that frame the situation as a fight, battle, struggle ○ Language about community investment that may sound too similar to messaging related to gentrification. ○ Directly impacted ■ Instead of saying “directly impacted people,” which can refer to people impacted by all types of injustices and harmful systems, be as specific as possible about who you are talking about. ● Examples of more specific alternatives: people who have been incarcerated; people who are currently incarcerated, family members with loved ones locked up ○ Movement jargon such as: ■ End mass incarceration ■ Prison industrial complex ■ Recidivism ■ Justice reinvestment ■ Marginalized communities ○

●

Policy Makers ● Data can be useful to demonstrate the scale of a problem, the efficacy of a solution, or to illustrate public opinion on an issue ● Economic arguments are effective so talking about the costs of incarceration can be useful ● Share stories of individuals who live in a policy maker’s district to illustrate your points ● Connect messages to the Constitution, state laws, ‘Californian values’ ● SHOW, i.e. explain the policies and realities that have created disparities and don’t just TELL, i.e. say that disparities exist. ● Useful words and phrases: o Accountability o Responsibility o Second chances o Recidivism o Public safety o Wasteful spending o What voters want… Core Message The core message is the seed of our brand garden. It is the basic essence of our brand, and the starting place for conversations with a wide variety of audiences and in a wide variety of platforms. The core message isn’t meant to be a script, but rather an idea that can begin every conversation about the Ella Baker Center. Our core message: “What you water grows.”

150

For too long we have “watered” punishment and prisons, instead of things that actually help our communities thrive. Our goal is to channel resources and opportunities into communities of color who have been most harmed by the lack of investment and prejudicial policies that have resulted in poverty and incarceration. Master Narrative A Master Narrative provides the framework of the story you want to tell about your organization. It is meant to serve not as a script, but rather as guidance on where to start conversations about your organization. It is the high level narrative arc around which you can continue to add new, concrete details and examples from your work to help tell multiple yet consistent stories about who you are and what you do. In some settings you may find a need to use all of it, but in many settings you may only need bits and pieces. The formula for a successful Master Narrative contains four parts, which follow a specific sequence: ● What do we care about? ● What stands in the way? ● What should we do? ● How will the world be different? The Ella Baker Center Master Narrative is: What do we care about? We believe everyone should be able to live in a healthy and strong community that they have the opportunity to help shape. We also know that what you water grows. When you spend money on education, employment, and opportunity- prosperity and safety are the result. When you waste resources on police, prisons, and punishment, families and communities suffer. What stands in the way? In far too many communities, people in power waste resources on punishment, policing, and prisons, creating real harm in people’s lives while failing to foster accountability. These policies and approaches fail to make communities safer, and have led to high rates of incarceration and poverty. Furthermore, the people who have been most impacted rarely have the opportunity to shape the policies and realities of their lives. What should we do about it? It is time that we reckon with the truth and impact of incarceration and poverty, and re/invest resources in communities that have been most harmed. Reckoning with that truth means talking about how our country has continuously prioritized and profited from shackles, walls, and jails in communities of color – from slavery to Jim Crow to our current criminal justice system. Reinvestment means rejecting practices that hurt and criminalize our communities and advancing real, long-term solutions that create opportunity for our families and neighbors. How will the world be different? To truly believe in the possibility of redemption for every individual and community is to acknowledge that a complete overhaul of our approach to criminal justice is long overdue. In a nation where resources are invested in growth, redemption, and support instead of wasted on punishment and prisons we will all be able to reach our full potential. Communities with greater opportunity for everyone are safer, healthier, and more just for all. ELEVATOR PITCH Our elevator pitch is the short story we tell about ourselves to make a connection and pique interest in a new, uninitiated audience. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that in 30 seconds you could ever give all the details of who, what, why, where in one little statement. The elevator pitch should give enough of a sense of why we exist so that people want to learn more and get an idea of our mission and vision. An effective elevator pitch should trigger audiences to say, “Tell me more.”

151

Depending on the situation and the audience, don’t think you have to use this as a script. More as a summary of the main elements with which to begin a conversation about Ella Baker Center, especially with someone you don’t know a lot about. Also, this elevator pitch is designed for use with a very broad cross-section of people- from your uncle to the stranger in line behind you at the grocery store. That doesn’t mean it is the right approach for everyone you meet or are trying to build with. You can adapt this basic pitch as needed for the range of people you might introduce to the Ella Baker Center. Our elevator pitch is: Our namesake Ella Baker was a hero of the civil rights movement and like her, we believe in the power of everyday people to win change. The Ella Baker Center organizes with Black, Brown, and low-income people to shift resources away from prisons and punishment and towards opportunities that make our communities safe, healthy, and strong. Optional follow-up: Only through honest conversation about the damage shackles, walls, and jails have caused in communities of color can we build a country that is more just for us all. To continue the conversation: For example, I work on local campaigns in Alameda County where we recently won 1,400 new jobs for formerly incarcerated people… For example, I work on policy solutions that move funding away from prisons and policing, and towards resources communities need to thrive. TAGLINE An organization’s tagline is another simple tool for engaging broad audiences. Taglines that are consistent with the rest of your messaging platform tend to be most successful. They are a jumping off point for communicating the narratives, mission and values of an organization. Through a process with Mission Minded in 2009, we learned some of the best practices for organizational taglines and focused on the goal of finding a tagline that: ● ● ● ● ●

Invites everyone in Is agreeable, aspirational Inspire action Answers “Why?” Decodes our name

The tagline that we have chosen is: Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. She led. So can you. This tagline is effective at telling the story of one of our key values- that everyone has something they can contribute to the work of social change. The “So can you” piece of the tagline is very accessible, and invites people to be engaged in the work. It is also effective at decoding our name. The tagline is used, mostly, as a written tool with our logo, for brochures, websites and flyers. SECONDARY MESSAGES

152

So you have perked someone’s interest with a conversation centered on the core message or master narrative. Now what? This section includes a large range of mix and match message tools to help you in verbal and written communications paint a fuller picture of our mission, our vision, our value and our work. WHY Additional messages that give other answers to the question- Why does the Ella Baker Center matter? Why does it exist? What problems does your work solve? Why should I care? ●

●

● ●

●

Everyone makes mistakes. Yet no one should be remembered simply as their worst mistake. We need to move away from a system that sees people of color as their worst mistake and towards new solutions that hold people accountable while recognizing that everyone deserves a second chance. Accountability is key to a just system; not only should our justice system work to hold people accountable for their actions, but as a nation we should hold the system and our government accountable for their mistakes as well. Prisons strip people of humanity, opportunity, and a chance at a healthy future. We believe everyone is worth investment and has the potential for redemption. When people in power waste money on prisons and police they strip entire communities of prosperity. We know that what we water grows. If our electeds spent those resources on positive things such as schools, treatment programs, and job training, our communities would be safer and more prosperous. We believe a world is possible where everyone can build and be a part of a healthy, strong community. To achieve that vision, we must re/invest resources in opportunity within communities who have been harmed the most by incarceration, policing, and poverty. Communities face struggling schools, family separation, and a lack of opportunity as a direct result of disproportionate policing and punishment. We want our communities to influence policies that impact our lives. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and divestment created a justice system that targets Black, Brown, and poor people. We must reckon with this truth and re/invest resources into the communities who have been most harmed. When people struggle with mental illness, addiction, and poverty, we should respond with public health solutions, but instead our government locks people up. If money spent imprisoning people was instead spent on services that promote health, our communities would be safer and more prosperous. For too long, we have approached justice with punishment in mind. When the government pushes people into a system where they are treated day in and day out as criminals, they set them up to fail by refusing to see their possibility for redemption. What would our nation look like if we recognized the worth and the possibility for change of every individual? When people come home from prison and discriminatory policies prevent them from getting a job, the cycle of poverty continues. Creating economic opportunity is one of the first steps toward building safe communities.

HOW Messages that explain our approach. How we do our work, and how our approaches are unique and impactful. ● ● ●

●

We want to build schools, not prisons; cultivate parks, not jails; and celebrate our children, not punish them. “Truth and Reinvestment” is our vision for our work; it is both a conversation and a call to action. “Truth” means reckoning with the reality of racial injustice in our country. It means talking about how our country has continuously prioritized and profited from shackles, walls, and jails in communities of color – from slavery to Jim Crow to our current criminal justice system. “Reinvestment” means rejecting these priorities and advancing solutions that create opportunity for our families and neighborhoods. Building opportunity—whether investing in our schools, creating jobs, or making sure people can afford homes- is the driver of true safety in our communities.

153

●

● ● ●

We recognize the devastating effect that incarceration has on people and communities of color. We seek to build the power of those who have been harmed, and engage them as leaders to reinvest resources into healing our communities. The Ella Baker Center believes in the power of redemption. We know that every person can be much more than their worst mistake when given respect and opportunity. Our nation has based policies on fear and punishment for far too long. We seek to build a society where decisions and laws are based on support, justice, and equity. As the administration in the White House advances a destructive agenda nationally, we will work locally to counteract it- flipping city and county budgets so that money is spent on resources for communities instead of policing and prisons.

WHAT Messages that explain the actual components of our work and programs. ● ● ● ● ●

The Ella Baker Center implements people-powered campaigns to bring prosperity, opportunity, and justice to our communities. We believe in the power and leadership of people who have been directly harmed by the systems we seek to change. Their experiences and wisdom influence our programs and guide our work. The Ella Baker Center wins policies locally, statewide, and nationally that will end mass incarceration and criminalization and make our communities safer, healthier, and stronger.. Our goal is reinvestment. That means spending less money on things that criminalize our communities and more money to support opportunity- like jobs, housing and education. We organize every day people to build power and to win jobs not jails, books not bars and healthcare, not handcuffs.

Ella Baker Center Membership: The Ella Baker Center’s membership is a way for anyone, anywhere—especially those who have been harmed by the justice system—to join the movement to create a truly safe and just nation. Together, we will organize to win jobs not jails, books not bars, and healthcare not handcuffs. Why: ●

● ● ●

How: ●

● ●

●

Our namesake, Ella Jo Baker, believed in the power of everyday people to make change. We carry on her legacy through our membership by lifting up voices and solutions from communities who have been harmed by the systems we seek to transform. Each of our people-powered campaigns roots its demands in the needs of the community and reflects what people truly need to thrive. People who have been most harmed by incarceration and law enforcement violence have the solutions we need to make our communities safer and healthier. We believe that our communities are filled with powerful leaders whose voices and experiences must be part of conversations about how to build a better future.

Anyone, anywhere can join our membership and become connected to campaigns to move money away from prisons and police, and towards what our communities need: jobs, education, healthcare, and housing. In order for us to win jobs not jails, books not bars, and healthcare not handcuffs, we need as many people with us as possible, and everyone has a role to play. People who have been directly impacted by the criminal justice system are the leaders we need to drive the solutions to problems like police violence and incarceration, and we also need as many allies as possible to stand with them. Ella Baker Center members gather signatures, volunteer at events, organize rallies, help us develop campaign demands, and much more.

154

● ●

We hold monthly meetings for our members in the Bay Area where you can learn about the campaigns we are working on, offer input, and find out how to plug in. Members based outside of the Bay Area can get involved by organizing with us online or in their own communities: signing petitions, emailing or calling legislators, or joining the conversation on social media.

What: ● Our grassroots, membership-based network will end criminalization, incarceration, and poverty, and create more safe and just communities across the nation. ● Through our membership, people come together to create more opportunity in our communities, and end injustice. Everyone has a role to play in this movement, and we have different entry points so that anyone who wants to has a way of joining us. ● Our membership prioritizes the needs and experiences of people who have been harmed by the justice system. ● Our membership is the heart of the Ella Baker Center. Our campaigns and our advocacy work are informed by the experiences and passions of our members- people who have been directly harmed by the systems we seek to transform. Restore Oakland: A joint initiative between Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), Restore Oakland is a community advocacy and training center that will empower Bay Area community members to transform our economic and justice systems and make a safe and secure future possible for themselves and for their families. Why: ●

●

How: ●

● ● ●

Too often, our city’s resources have gone to prisons and punishment rather than pathways that lead to security and real safety. Many people in Oakland have been shut out of job and career opportunities due to prior involvement with the criminal justice system along with decades of unjust economic and criminal justice policies. We all want to live in an Oakland where everyone belongs and can prosper, our families feel safe and all residents are empowered to take part in the benefits of a booming economy and a thriving community. Yet, our economy and the justice system fail to create opportunity, accountability or inclusion for all our residents. Discriminatory policies and practices result in Black and Brown communities being locked out of economic opportunities, and disproportionately locked up. By creating a space focused both on providing more economic opportunity, and on preventing more people from entering the criminal justice system in the first place, Restore Oakland will create a more whole, healthy, and economically vibrant community. Our vision of Truth and Reinvestment means talking about how our country has prioritized and profited from shackles, walls, and jails in communities of color, while divesting from those same communities. Restore Oakland is a solution that reinvests in opportunity and healing for those who have been most harmed.

Build community and economic power – Community organizing, collective power-building and community self-determination to advance campaigns will drive investment in jobs, housing and education, not more punishment and prisons. Job training and placement – Hands-on training through COLORS restaurant and placement services will help workers advance to livable-wage restaurant jobs in a fast-growing Bay Area industry. Business incubation – Working people will be supported to incubate and launch their own worker-owned food enterprises, such as pop-up restaurants, catering businesses and food companies. Restorative justice – Restore Oakland will serve as a neighborhood space where community members can come together and resolve conflict, offering an alternative to punishment and incarceration and providing solutions rooted in healing.

155

What: ● Our vision is a people-powered economy and an accountability centered justice system. Our community organizing and advocacy efforts will help shift resources away from prisons and punishment and toward community reinvestment and restorative justice. ● Our model is unique is because we lead with organizing and advocacy to build real power and self-determination for our communities while also providing hands-on job training, business incubation, restorative justice mediation and housing rights services—all in one space. ● The restaurant sector holds promise for creating jobs and careers, including for immigrants and people who have been formerly incarcerated. Restore Oakland will act as a model for generating economic opportunity for all. ● Every year, Restore Oakland will work with hundreds of local community members to hold our institutions and decision makers accountable to our community’s collective needs and vision for the future. ● Together with the community, we are creating a better model for community transformation that can be replicated in other cities and communities. Policy/Organizing: The Ella Baker Center wins policies that reduce sentences, remove barriers, and restore opportunities. We demand budgets that prioritize what our communities need to thrive: jobs, education, healthcare, and housing. Why: ● ●

●

● ●

●

How: ●

●

We know that what we water grows. If our electeds spent resources on schools, treatment programs, and job training, our communities would be safer and more prosperous. Our country has continuously prioritized and profited from shackles, walls, and jails in communities of color – from slavery to Jim Crow to “tough on crime” laws. These policies and institutions have resulted in a criminal justice system that targets Black and Brown people and perpetuates a cycle of poverty and incarceration. Law enforcement and the courts criminalize, police, and punish the real-life manifestations of poverty, trauma, and addiction. We can create safer communities by prioritizing and reinvesting in support and opportunity. So-called tough on crime policies like the war on drugs, and decreased public investment in resources like healthcare, housing, education, and job opportunities makes us less safe. Safety begins with healthy communities, not police. We create healthy communities by prioritizing opportunity-building investments like safe and affordable places to live, strong education, and reliable transit over police. Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration, the report we released in 2015 with Forward Together and 20 other organizations across the country, revealed that overwhelming debt, mental and physical ailments and severed family bonds are just some of the hidden consequences of mass incarceration in the United States.

We are driven by our vision for Truth and Reinvestment: acknowledging how “tough on crime” laws, segregation, disenfranchisement, and racial profiling have harmed Black and Brown communities, and advancing policies that reinvest in the resources our communities need to thrive. Our policy work wins necessary, effective change. For example, we worked with the Justice Reinvestment Coalition, our allies in Oakland, to win a Jobs Not Jails campaign in Alameda County that shifts nearly $10 million a year out of a local jail budget and into re-entry services for formerly incarcerated people. Our policy priorities include ending abusive practices inside prisons and jails, curbing unjust and extreme sentences, keeping families connected while their loved ones are locked up, and reducing the financial burdens faced by incarcerated people and their families. Our priority is to win reinvestment in communities of color and low-income communities. Black, Brown, and low-income people will be most vulnerable to attack by the presidential administration, so it is even

156

more critical to demand investment in job opportunities, education, healthcare, and housing for our communities. What: ● Ella Baker Center advocates for {local, state, and national} policies that strengthen family connections, end abusive practices in prisons and jails, and channel resources back into communities most harmed by incarceration and policing. ● We campaign for policies that curb unjust and extreme sentences, support people’s successful re-entry, keeping families connected while their loved ones are locked up, and reduce the financial burdens faced by incarcerated people and their families. ● The Ella Baker Center champions policies that remove barriers, restore opportunities, and restructure sentences to repair harm done to families by incarceration, and to build safer and stronger communities. ● The Ella Baker Center lifts up policy solutions identified by the people and their family members who have been harmed most by incarceration. ● The current strategy to increase public safety is criminalize and incarcerate first—our policy work wins alternative approaches that give people the support they need so that communities thrive. ● As states adopt sentencing reform, we implement policies that ensure changes are tied to re/investment back into communities most harmed by decades of punitive approaches. ● In the past five years we have ended long-term isolation of youth in California’s juvenile facilities, repealed ineffective drug sentencing enhancements, and supported the passage of Propositions 47 and 57, which reduce sentences, stop youth from being automatically charged as adults, and reinvest resources in communities. Night Out for Safety and Liberation: On Night Out for Safety and Liberation, people across the country come together to redefine what #SafetyIs: dignity, opportunity, and power in our communities. Why: ●

● ●

● ● ● ●

●

● ●

Too often, conversations about public safety revolve around crime and fear. Safety is about more than that—it’s about having a living wage job, healthy food, and being able to afford childcare, healthcare, and housing. We will all be safer when we turn to our neighbors, instead of turning on them. Trump and his administration wants us to fear each other, but we can’t let fear get in the way of our compassion. Safety doesn’t begin with police; safety begins with healthy communities. You don’t create healthy communities by prioritizing police over opportunity-building investments like safe and affordable places to live, strong education, and reliable transit. Communities with greater opportunity for everyone are safer, healthier, and more just for all. People should be able to walk down their street without worrying about harassment or violence from law enforcement. Safety means having the resources that people need within their communities. To build safer communities, we first need to acknowledge what has made us less safe: policies that prioritize punishment and divest from communities of color. Then we need to talk with our neighbors about what we need to feel safe, and demand investment in those resources. Building safer communities starts with building connections between neighbors. Events like Night Out for Safety and Liberation help neighbors act collectively and in solidarity to reduce harm in their neighborhoods. When neighbors reach out to each other to offer a job to a formerly incarcerated person, mentor a child, or plant a community garden, safer communities follow. Local surveillance initiatives and private patrols encourage people to watch their neighbors by being the “eyes and ears” of their neighborhoods—but people are more than their “eyes and ears;” they also have hearts and hands to help each other.

157

●

How: ●

●

People in power have co-opted “safety” to criminalize, brutalize, and incarcerate low-income communities and communities of color. Now is the time to reclaim what public safety means: communities with dignity, power, equity, and opportunity.

On Night Out for Safety and Liberation, organizations across the country host block parties, vigils, rallies, and other community events where people come together to talk about what safety means to them and how to build it together. By reimagining and redefining what safety means to us, we demand what we need to thrive: less money wasted on police and prisons and more spent on what our communities need: jobs, education, healthcare and housing. Night Out for Safety and Liberation is an opportunity for conversations about Truth and Reinvestment: how our country has continuously prioritized and profited from shackles, walls, and jails in communities of color, and how we need to invest in long-term solutions that create opportunity for those who have been most harmed. For our communities to be truly safe, we need to reinvest resources in restorative justice initiatives, employment programs, education, healthcare, and housing, especially in communities most harmed by criminalization, incarceration, and police violence. Night Out for Safety and Liberation is an opportunity to build our vision for Freedom Cities: a movement that seeks to make entire cities, towns, and communities safe for workers, the disabled, immigrants, Black people, Muslims, LGBTQ people and all oppressed communities. We believe we all deserve to live with dignity and have the opportunity to thrive. ○ Freedom Cities are places where policies are shaped by local communities.

What: ● Night Out for Safety and Liberation is an annual event on the first Tuesday of August where we redefine and reimagine what public safety means for our communities. ● Our goal is to change the conversation about public safety to be less focused on fear and punishment and more focused on how we can build dignity, power, and opportunity by reinvesting in our communities. ● Safety doesn’t begin with police. That’s why we host Night Out for Safety and Liberation, an alternative to the police-centric National Night Out, to expand conversations about what our communities need to be safe and prosperous. ● Events like Night Out for Safety and Liberation help neighbors act collectively and in solidarity to reduce harm in their neighborhoods. Questions and Answers This section, again, has mix and match messaging tools to help you prepare and succeed in a range of conversations with diverse audiences. Why should I get involved? – If you receive these types of questions, it means you have engaged someone. They think the work is worthwhile, but they need a push to see their role in it. Some conversation starters for people you may want to build with: ●

●

“I know you are concerned about safety in your community. A lot of people involved with the Ella Baker Center share that concern. Our approach is to bring more opportunity to our communities as alternatives to violence, poverty and incarceration. Is that something you would like to support?” How do you feel about your community? What could make it better? We’d love to hear your vision for this neighborhood and work with you to make it a reality, especially since too often change in our communities happens without any input from the people who already live here. Oakland is changing quickly. We want to make sure that the changes can benefit everyone who lives here and protects the people who are at the heart of each neighborhood.

158

●

When and where do you feel safe? We believe everyone should feel safe, and live free from fear of violence and prejudice. Our vision is a world where safety is enjoyed by everyone, and not just those who live in specific communities. What do you think could create safety in our neighborhood? I believe that what we waters grows… For too long, our government has “watered” things that hurt our community like prisons and police. That’s a waste of money. I’m working to shift those resources into more helpful things like schools and treatment programs. Would you want to join me?

If this conversation follows up with the question “How can I get involved?” offer the next tangible opportunity to show support whether it’s something big like making a donation or joining the membership or small like signing a petition. And encourage people who use email to sign up for Email Updates. Don’t we need police/prisons to keep us safe? Whenever possible start your response with a personal story where you learned/saw/observed that prisons and/or police did more harm than help. The following messages can pair with your stories to continue the conversation. ● ●

● ●

●

A lot of times we think that more police could help make us safer. But too often, it is actually the presence of the police that leads to violence, distrust and fear especially for people of color. For decades, we have been told that prisons and police are key to keeping us safe. Yet, in our/my community we need more than that to actually help people thrive. Real safety will only come when everyone has a place to live, food to eat, and a good job. For far too long, we have been told that prisons and police are key to keeping us safe. We have wasted billions of dollars on locking people up, yet it hasn’t actually helped most of my neighbors feel safe. If prisons and jails truly created safety, the United States would be the safest country on the planet. Not only is that far from true, but we have also seen how the communities with the most incarceration and criminalization are also those that struggle most with poverty and trauma. We can’t afford to keep wasting money on policies and approaches that are a failure. Everyone wants to live someplace where they feel safe. We believe the key to safety is good jobs, quality education, and more opportunity for everyone. If our community had more of those good things, we wouldn’t need to rely on police to feel safe.

Frequently Asked Questions Why don’t you work on X? (Note: X might be something within justice work that isn’t our focus, or something completely unrelated to your current focus.) ● The Ella Baker Center focuses on transforming the justice system. We believe there is a unique opportunity to end decades of wasteful punishment-based approaches and channel resources back into communities who have been harmed the most. ● With so many problems facing our communities, it can be a real challenge to decide where to focus our energy. We believe that shifting money out of punishment and prisons and into what our communities need is a crucial part of creating a nation where every person can thrive. How come you don’t work on Green Collar Jobs, Soul of the City, Heal the Streets, etc. anymore? What were those campaigns? Throughout our 20 year history, Ella Baker Center has worked on policy advocacy, civic engagement, the green jobs movement, and violence prevention. All of our wins and experiences have helped us define our core focus: winning more resources for low-income communities of color, and ending the cycle of poverty and incarceration. Background on our past work: We have: ● Campaigned against police brutality through Bay Area Police Watch ● Increased civic engagement through Soul of the City ● Trained youth advocates through Heal the Streets

159

● ●

Promoted solutions to climate change that would create opportunity for communities of color through Green Collar Jobs Organized with families to close 7 of California’s abusive youth prisons through Books Not Bars

Over the years, our victories include that we: ● Stopped the construction of a Super Jail for youth in Alameda County ● Helped pass the federal 2007 Green Jobs Act ● Organized participants in the Soul of the City campaign to contribute over 1,500 hours of community service and voter mobilization ● Graduated three cohorts through the Heal the Streets fellowship program, which trained Oakland youth who were impacted by violence to become advocates for peace and social change ● Enacted multiple bills to help families stay connected with their children while they are locked up in youth prisons ● Eliminated the practice of “time adds,” a policy that allowed guards to extend parole consideration hearing dates without due process in the youth prisons (a primary reason why California youths served the longest average sentences in the nation Our successes in policy advocacy, civic engagement, the green jobs movement, and violence prevention have led us to build a movement for Truth and Reinvestment. “Truth” means reckoning with the reality of racial injustice in our country. It means talking about how our country has continuously prioritized and profited from shackles, walls, and jails in communities of color – from slavery to Jim Crow to our current criminal justice system. “Reinvestment” means advancing real, long-term solutions that create opportunity for our families and neighbors, and rejecting practices that hurt and criminalize our communities. Building opportunity—whether investing in our schools, creating jobs, or making sure people can afford homes—is the driver of true safety in our communities. What is the Human Rights parts of your name about? Our definition of Human Rights is broad. We believe that the ability to live to your full potential and have opportunities is a human right. We honor and support the work of groups and individuals who focus on international human rights struggles. But we believe there is much work to be done, here at home, to ensure that everyone in our country has the resources they need to live to their full potential. What’s Van up to? Is Van still involved? Right now, Van is working with his new project DreamCorps and providing commentary on CNN. We are proud to be continuing his work of mobilizing every day people to make change. Can I get legal services from the Ella Baker Center? We organize campaigns to increase opportunity and channel resources back into communities who have been most harmed by incarceration and criminalization, but we aren’t a direct service provider. We can give you a referral to one of our trusted partners who provide legal support. Who is Ella Baker? We are named for a hero of the civil rights movement who inspired and guided emerging leaders. We build on Miss Baker’s legacy by investing in the power of people and giving them a chance to lift up solutions to the challenges that have harmed their communities. The Words and Legacy of Miss Baker The Center is lucky to have a real person who said and did amazing things to reference as a touchstone for messages. Using her words as an example or framing device can be very powerful. These quotes should always

160

be used as quotes, attributed to Miss Baker and properly notated, particular because some contain language that is considered “insider” or activist-y. Despite that, they can be powerful tools for introducing or framing our work. ● “Give light and people will find the way.” ● “Change society so that the have-nots can share in it.” ● “The major job was getting people to understand that they had something within their power that they could use.” ● “People cannot be free until there is enough work in this land to give everybody a job.” ● “Politics are only as important as the real human beings with and for whom we struggle.” ● “Education should lead to self-directed action.” ● “We have rights only as long as we are willing to struggle for them.” ● “Oppressed people, whatever their level of formal education, have the ability to understand and interpret the world around them, to see the world for what it is, and move to transform it.” Example: ● Miss Baker believed that if you “give light, people will find the way.” We agree, which is why we center our work on the experiences and solutions lifted up by people most impacted by the problems of incarceration and criminalization. ● Miss Baker once said “People cannot be free until there is enough work in this land to give everybody a job.” That is why we know that police and prisons will never truly make our communities safe- for that we need good jobs and opportunity for all. Ella Baker Center Branding Best Practices Start with the Why No matter who you are talking with, starting broad and with the WHY of our work is a more effective approach then skipping straight to the weeds of specific programs and approaches. Keep it simple When you come into contact with someone for the first time, whether in print or in person, it’s tempting to share everything there is to know about your organization. Be disciplined about what to share and always try to begin with a “why” message. Show, not tell. While the talking points and messages included in this guide will be useful, the power of storytelling means that change can’t be made with messaging alone. Sharing specific stories of people and communities are the most effective way to demonstrate the importance of your mission and to paint a picture of the world you seek to build. Consistency Now that we have adopted this Brand Messaging Guide, Ella Baker Center staff, board, interns and key constituents will be trained and expected to use them. Note: often at first, brand messages will feel contrived. They won’t start feeling like us until we really use them for a while. Avoid Acronyms Our name is more powerful when we spell it out, rather than use the shorthand of EBC. Other organizations also use EBC, and our brand will be stronger when people know us as Ella Baker Center or Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Avoid Jargon As trained leaders in the social movement, we have access to lots of words and phrases that are often used by activists. Think “systemic change” or “prison industrial complex” or “end mass incarceration.” However, this is “insider” language and may not mean much to broader audiences. In the left, we often rely on activist jargon and coded language which can be inaccessible to the everyday folks we want to build with.

161

ETHICS & LANGUAGE HOW WE TALK ABOUT OUR WORK

People, Not Stories: Pathways to Accountability in Prison Documentaries By Adamu Chan

Images courtesy of "What These Walls Won't Hold" film: Under dappled sunlight in a parking lot, a family reunifies with a loved one. Standing a respectful distance away is a photographer wearing a blue puffy jacket

During my 15 years in prison, numerous filmmakers and media professionals entered the facilities where I was housed with the intention of telling the stories of the people inside. Some hoped to shed light into dark spaces that our society has created; others hoped to fulfill the appetites of mainstream audiences desiring the thrill of the sensational. During my time inside, I observed an outside film crew producing a big budget film involving incarcerated people as their central participants. The directors and producers earned the trust of the incarcerated participants by approaching those relationships as friendships and making a promise of representing them in the best possible way, and with careful consideration for the stakes some people were facing. But when the film was finished, and screened inside, many of us were shocked that some characters were represented as monsters who had committed monstrous acts, and not as we all knew them to be — pillars in our community of incarcerated people. One of my close friends, who became one of the central characters in the film, was represented in such harmful ways in the film that he subsequently received a 5-year denial at his parole hearing. The film disproportionately highlighted his crime and its impact on the victim’s family, without mentioning the decades of work my friend (who is now out of prison) had done while incarcerated to support healing and restoration for those harmed by violence. The filmmakers told participants that the film’s

163

producers and funders thought that there wasn’t enough “drama" in the story, and that they had made narrative choices based on this feedback. Many of us felt furious and betrayed. What seemed like a good faith attempt to tell a story about the lives of incarcerated people resulted in disastrous consequences. This story is not uncommon, as outside filmmakers all too often fall back on dominant tropes and stereotypes about prisons and the people that reside within them. It is not just the participants of these films who are directly impacted — these tendencies, when left unchecked, can lead to immense harm on a societal scale, as they have before. Historically, mainstream media representations of criminalized communities have fueled tough on crime voter sentiment, racialized fears about public safety, and cemented punitive logic in the national consciousness. This phenomenon was key to the explosion in harsh and racist sentencing laws that resulted in the mass incarceration of Black and brown communities. So in this current moment when we are seeing a surge in films about prisons, and increased public appetite for stories about incarceration, we must be instructed by the lessons of the past. We should be wary of defaulting into historical patterns in which we allow people who lack lived experience with the carceral system to dictate the discourse around incarceration and those impacted by it. We must be vigilant of all that is lost, fragmented, and distorted in that process, and the people who are harmed as a result. The reality is that most who are directly impacted by incarceration are not positioned in a way where we have access to telling our own stories. They are most often told by outsiders who lack an understanding of the nuanced but very real stakes for incarcerated people who go public with their stories, lacking regard or commitment to their safety and liberation, while being able to position themselves as experts or neutral translators nonetheless. Their commitment is to the story, not to the people. I learned filmmaking in 2018 when I got to San Quentin and eventually began leading a media project called FirstWatch (now ForwardThis Productions). We were creating short films and videos, not only about the realities of prison, but also about our boundless inner lives and the communities we were creating within and beyond walls. The film equipment, which was donated by outside organizations and sponsors, allowed us to communicate through this medium with the outside world, as the videos were permitted to leave the prison and live on certain media platforms. However, even though we were working and growing as filmmakers inside, producing works for the prison and outside organizations, we were never compensated monetarily for our labor. At FirstWatch, we were committed to empowering directly-impacted people to tell our own stories authentically as a path to reclaiming media representation and seeding political change. Since we knew intimately that one huge function of prisons is to make people invisible, if people could see us the way we saw each other, if we could see ourselves in different ways, there was a possibility for transformation — both personal and political. Though we weren’t compensated or otherwise given the respect of professional filmmakers, we could see the impact of our work within our community, as the films and videos we created screened in all 36 of California’s prisons. I would regularly hear from people coming to San Quentin from other prisons about how inspiring and healing it was to see incarcerated people represented on the screen in ways that they had never seen before. All of our work was grounded in community — we understood that everything that we did flowed from our political commitments with our fellow incarcerated people across the nation. With an

164

awareness of the privilege and unique platform we had making films from inside of a prison, we stood in direct opposition to ideology that says that Black and Brown communities are inherently violent and should be caged. This commitment to community-based political organizing challenges the institutional power of the media, which is overrepresented by white media professionals and perpetuates racist, harmful narratives about communities impacted by incarceration while upholding the power and authority of law enforcement institutions. In contrast, narrative repair replaces harmful tropes of incarcerated people with narratives that uplift and inspire impacted-people to resist, heal, and build solidarity with each other. By creating new identities based on collective struggle and care, systems-impacted communities can begin to heal the ways they’ve internalized brokenness. After coming home in October of 2020, I set out to direct and produce my first film, What These Walls Won’t Hold, about my experience living through the COVID-19 pandemic in prison and the intimacies formed between people through political organizing. The production of the film felt like an important place to reconsider and undo all of the unscrupulous practices that I had witnessed from the filmmakers who had extracted stories from inside. All of the participants in the film are my dear friends. It was vital to me that the film be a communal space where people felt like their stories could be expressed accurately, and with care. The participants have producer credits and were also compensated for their work on the film, unlike my time working as a filmmaker inside of San Quentin, when we were never paid for our work. In spite of all of the work I would do to create an equitable environment working across prison walls, I would ultimately see the limitations that the prison would put on these relationships. The distance between myself and my loved ones inside, whom I was working on the film with, wasn’t just physical, but also about status, access, privilege, and power. The moment I had walked out of that place and into the free world, I inhabited a completely different social position, away from the daily violence, urgency, inhumane conditions, and high-stakes of prison life. As much as I sought to resist this dynamic, to relate to my dear friends in the same ways that had brought us so close together, in work and in personal growth, the inequities in the material conditions of our existences were a reality that I couldn't avoid. So in light of these inevitable power dynamics, how can we work towards creating new models of ethical partnerships in our filmmaking process? Inspired by the Documentary Accountability Working Group framework and adapting it for the particulars of prison documentaries, here are some key tenets I consider: 1. Be Accountable: Filmmakers should be accountable to the participants in their films, and cognizant of the extreme stakes that are present for incarcerated people when they decide to

165

share their stories. Their freedom and safety is at stake, and there should be a commitment to protecting those things. 2. Consult with directly impacted people: It is critical to receive input from consultants with lived experience who exist outside of the filmmaker-subject relationship. For film to be useful for social movements that work in resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex, they must be led, or in deep collaboration with, impacted people and political organizers. 3. Employ systems-based storytelling: What is often missing in character-driven storytelling is a critical analysis of the structures that shape a person’s life and decisions — in essence, seeing the trees but not the forest. 4. Be transparent in your relationships: Practice honesty with your protagonists, supporters and funders and be clear about your intentions for making the film — there is a higher standard for transparency when it comes to the people participating in your film, especially if they are incarcerated. Be transparent about your decision-making and what guides it (do your participants have any say or is it all yours?). Be transparent about who your main audience is and what kind of impact the film may have on a person's life. 5. Acknowledge and share power: You hold the power to shape and interpret stories — your own and those of others. A values-based filmmaking practice requires an acknowledgement and deep examination of your lens, preconceptions, and the power you hold as a filmmaker. Consider what you have to gain and lose as a filmmaker, and whether or not that is out of balance with your participants, and work to close those gaps. Are you the best person to tell this story/make this film? 6. Respect the dignity and agency of the people in your film: Build informed consent in your interactions with participants, giving people agency to represent their story in a way that honors them. 7. Understand that your audience also includes impacted communities: with roughly 2 million people currently in carceral facilities across the US, plus their loved ones and communities, an outsized population has a stake in these stories and should be accounted for. Consider the ways that your work may be read, interpreted and experienced by the people who have intimate knowledge of the story. Be clear about who your intended audience is, and what information you can add to their already established knowledge. Additionally, be responsible about the ways that your film could trigger or traumatize those audience members who have more experience with the film’s content. Understanding the complicated power dynamics of collaboration across prison walls means not only being in deep relationships with participants, but also constantly asking the following questions: How can I make this exchange reciprocal? How can I align the intentions of the film with the needs of my participants on both a personal and political level? Why am I telling this story? Adamu Chan is a filmmaker, writer, and community organizer from the Bay Area who was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison during one of the largest COVID-19 outbreaks in the country.

166

The right words can help tear down the prison system By Emile DeWeaver

Speaking at an event sponsored by San Quentin’s Creative Writing Class, Emile DeWeaver evokes laughter that breaks down barriers between those who will sleep in a cell that night and those who will go home to their own bedroom. DeWeaver is an accomplished journalist and author who serves as secretary of the San Quentin Society of Professional Journalists. – Photo: Peter Merts I am a prison abolitionist in my heart. But I’m a prison reformist in the world by virtue of the sad fact that I can’t yet imagine a working society without prisons. I’ve spent every birthday since my 13th in an institution, so I’ve seen only prisons, heard only “prisons.” I want to abolish prisons; I just don’t have the imagination. Part of my failure is a lack of language to describe such a world convincingly. Likewise, a barrier we face trying to dismantle the prison industrial complex (PIC) is we continue to use the language that helped build it. The words “prisoner,” “inmate” and “offender” reinforce othering processes that institutionalize the PIC. If you want to be an ally to incarcerated people, do the hard work of eliminating those words from your daily speech. A barrier we face trying to dismantle the prison industrial complex (PIC) is we continue to use the language that helped build it. Poet and Black activist Tyson Amir writes in “Black Boy Poems” about how every word has a context, an embedded narrative, that partly defines what we can and cannot experience. He examines a period in world history when pseudo scientists embedded narratives of Black inferiority and white supremacy in dictionary definitions of “black” and “white.” “The impact of this type of bias in the construction of [English] is not benign,” Amir writes. “What do you think this can do to people who are identified in their society as [W]hite or as [B]lack? If all the meanings associated with how you are described are positive or negative, it will have an effect.” So what do most people associate with “prisoner,” “inmate” and “offender”? Willie Horton. Super predators. America’s Most Wanted. Sinister mug shots. Exploiters of human decency. The list could continue and what we’d find is not one positive quality.

167

Hundreds of thousands of people in prison have many positive qualities, but our current language excludes them from conversation. Words like “prisoner” create a false reality that corrupts public thought about incarceration, reform and public safety. Corrupt thoughts result in corrupt actions, which result in decadent political conditions. For example, we live in a country armed with overwhelming scientific evidence that the retributive criminal justice system on which the PIC rests makes society less safe. Despite this evidence, scholars agree that the country lacks the political will to denounce retributive principles. So what do most people associate with “prisoner,” “inmate” and “offender”? Willie Horton. Super predators. America’s Most Wanted. Sinister mug shots. Exploiters of human decency. The list could continue and what we’d find is not one positive quality. The corruption of thought and discourse extends beyond supporters of the PIC to those of us trying to dismantle it. I’m an incarcerated activist who has never encountered a force more destructive to humanity than prisons, but who struggles to imagine a world without prisons. Beyond my personal example, new volunteers in prisons like San Quentin find themselves shocked and transformed by the compassion, intelligence and resilience they encounter in incarcerated people. They have a hard time conveying their experiences in prison to their friends and families. Often these volunteers must reduce their explanations to “you just have to come and see what I’m saying.” These volunteers struggle to communicate their experiences because they’re trying to explain something about “prisoners” that’s almost impossible. New volunteers in prisons like San Quentin find themselves shocked and transformed by the compassion, intelligence and resilience they encounter in incarcerated people. They have a hard time conveying their experiences in prison to their friends and families. It’s almost impossible because the narratives embedded in the word are incompatible with compassionate, deserving, amazing human beings. In essence, when people try to convey the human value of a “prisoner,” they are inadvertently expressing something other than human value. Such inadvertence comes from a misunderstanding of what language is. George Orwell writes about this common misconception in his essay “Politics and the English Language.” Orwell argues that language is not a “natural growth.” Instead, language is “an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.” Given the inaccurate narratives embedded in “prisoner,” “inmate” and “offender,” what is the purpose of these words? What I see is they erase people to make it palatable for a nation that holds itself up as the flagship of liberty to systematically deny liberty to millions of people. If you are an ally to incarcerated people, please renounce that system and the language that supports it. Join us in creating a different language that reflects a different purpose. As you advocate for incarcerated people, advocate also for a language that doesn’t need “prisoners,” “inmates” and “offenders.” I hold hope that this may lead to a world that doesn’t need prisons. If you are an ally to incarcerated people, please renounce that system and the language that supports it. Join us in creating a different language that reflects a different purpose. Emile DeWeaver is a Black community organizer who’s been incarcerated for 20 years. He co-founded prisonrenaissance.org, a nonprofit organization that joins arts, education and advocacy to support progressive reform. Send our brother some love and light: Emile DeWeaver, P-78987, San Quentin State Prison, San Quentin, CA 94964.

168

Statement on Gender Violence and the Prison Industrial Complex (2001) by INCITE! We call social justice movements to develop strategies and analysis that address both state AND interpersonal violence, particularly violence against women. Currently, activists/movements that address state violence (such as anti-prison, anti-police brutality groups) often work in isolation from activists/movements that address domestic and sexual violence. The result is that women of color, who suffer disproportionately from both state and interpersonal violence, have become marginalized within these movements. It is critical that we develop responses to gender violence that do not depend on a sexist, racist, classist, and homophobic criminal justice system. It is also important that we develop strategies that challenge the criminal justice system and that also provide safety for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. To live violence free-lives, we must develop holistic strategies for addressing violence that speak to the intersection of all forms of oppression. The anti-violence movement has been critically important in breaking the silence around violence against women and providing much-needed services to survivors. However, the mainstream anti-violence movement has increasingly relied on the criminal justice system as the front-line approach toward ending violence against women of color. It is important to assess the impact of this strategy. 1. Law enforcement approaches to violence against women MAY deter some acts of violence in the short term. However, as an overall strategy for ending violence, criminalization has not worked. In fact, the overall impact of mandatory arrests laws for domestic violence have led to decreases in the number of battered women who kill their partners in self-defense, but they have not led to a decrease in the number of batterers who kill their partners. Thus, the law protects batterers more than it protects survivors. 2. The criminalization approach has also brought many women into conflict with the law, particularly women of color, poor women, lesbians, sex workers, immigrant women, women with disabilities, and other marginalized women. For instance, under mandatory arrest laws, there have been numerous incidents where police officers called to domestic incidents have arrested the woman who is being battered. Many undocumented women have reported cases of sexual and domestic violence, only to find themselves deported. A tough law and order agenda also leads to long punitive sentences for women convicted of killing their batterers. Finally, when public funding is channeled into policing and prisons, budget cuts for social programs, including women’s shelters, welfare and public housing are the inevitable side effect. These cutbacks leave women less able to escape violent relationships. 3. Prisons don’t work. Despite an exponential increase in the number of men in prisons, women are not any safer, and the rates of sexual assault and domestic violence have not decreased. In calling for greater police responses to and harsher sentences for perpetrators of gender violence, the anti-violence movement has fueled the proliferation of prisons which now lock up more people per capita in the U.S. than any other country. During the past fifteen years, the numbers of women, especially women of color in prison has skyrocketed. Prisons also inflict violence on the growing numbers of women behind bars. Slashing, suicide, the proliferation of HIV, strip searches, medical neglect and rape of prisoners has largely been ignored by anti-violence activists. The criminal justice system, an institution of violence, domination, and control, has increased the level of violence in society. 4. The reliance on state funding to support anti-violence programs has increased the professionalization of the anti-violence movement and alienated it from its community-organizing, social justice roots. Such reliance has isolated the anti-violence movement from other social justice movements

169

that seek to eradicate state violence, such that it acts in conflict rather than in collaboration with these movements. 5. The reliance on the criminal justice system has taken power away from women’s ability to organize collectively to stop violence and has invested this power within the state. The result is that women who seek redress in the criminal justice system feel disempowered and alienated. It has also promoted an individualistic approach toward ending violence such that the only way people think they can intervene in stopping violence is to call the police. This reliance has shifted our focus from developing ways communities can collectively respond to violence. In recent years, the mainstream anti-prison movement has called important attention to the negative impact of criminalization and the build-up of the prison industrial complex. Because activists who seek to reverse the tide of mass incarceration and criminalization of poor communities and communities of color have not always centered gender and sexuality in their analysis or organizing, we have not always responded adequately to the needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. 1. Prison and police accountability activists have generally organized around and conceptualized men of color as the primary victims of state violence. Women prisoners and victims of police brutality have been made invisible by a focus on the war on our brothers and sons. It has failed to consider how women are affected as severely by state violence as men. The plight of women who are raped by INS officers or prison guards, for instance, has not received sufficient attention. In addition, women carry the burden of caring for extended family when family and community members are criminalized and wherehoused. Several organizations have been established to advocate for women prisoners; however, these groups have been frequently marginalized within the mainstream anti-prison movement. 2. The anti-prison movement has not addressed strategies for addressing the rampant forms of violence women face in their everyday lives, including street harassment, sexual harassment at work, rape, and intimate partner abuse. Until these strategies are developed, many women will feel shortchanged by the movement. In addition, by not seeking alliances with the anti-violence movement, the anti-prison movement has sent the message that it is possible to liberate communities without seeking the well-being and safety of women. 3. The anti-prison movement has failed to sufficiently organize around the forms of state violence faced by LGBTI communities. LGBTI street youth and trans people in general are particularly vulnerable to police brutality and criminalization. LGBTI prisoners are denied basic human rights such as family visits from same sex partners, and same sex consensual relationships in prison are policed and punished. 4. While prison abolitionists have correctly pointed out that rapists and serial murderers comprise a small number of the prison population, we have not answered the question of how these cases should be addressed. The inability to answer the question is interpreted by many anti-violence activists as a lack of concern for the safety of women. 5. The various alternatives to incarceration that have been developed by anti-prison activists have generally failed to provide sufficient mechanism for safety and accountability for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. These alternatives often rely on a romanticized notion of communities, which have yet to demonstrate their commitment and ability to keep women and children safe or seriously address the sexism and homophobia that is deeply embedded within them.

170

We call on social justice movements concerned with ending violence in all its forms to: 1. Develop community-based responses to violence that do not rely on the criminal justice system AND which have mechanisms that ensure safety and accountability for survivors of sexual and domestic violence.Transformative practices emerging from local communities should be documented and disseminated to promote collective responses to violence. 2. Critically assess the impact of state funding on social justice organizations and develop alternative fundraising strategies to support these organizations. Develop collective fundraising and organizing strategies for anti-prison and anti-violence organizations. Develop strategies and analysis that specifically target state forms of sexual violence. 3. Make connections between interpersonal violence, the violence inflicted by domestic state institutions (such as prisons, detention centers, mental hospitals, and child protective services), and international violence (such as war, military base prostitution, and nuclear testing). 4. Develop an analysis and strategies to end violence that do not isolate individual acts of violence (either committed by the state or individuals) from their larger contexts. These strategies must address how entire communities of all genders are affected in multiple ways by both state violence and interpersonal gender violence. Battered women prisoners represent an intersection of state and interpersonal violence and as such provide and opportunity for both movements to build coalitions and joint struggles. 5. Put poor/working class women of color in the center of their analysis, organizing practices, and leadership development. Recognize the role of economic oppression, welfare “reform,” and attacks on women workers’ rights in increasing women’s vulnerability to all forms of violence and locate anti-violence and anti-prison activism alongside efforts to transform the capitalist economic system. 6. Center stories of state violence committed against women of color in our organizing efforts. 7. Oppose legislative change that promotes prison expansion,criminalization of poor communities and communities of color and thus state violence against women of color, even if these changes also incorporate measure to support victims of interpersonal gender violence. 8. Promote holistic political education at the everyday level within our communities, specifically how sexual violence helps reproduce the colonial, racist, capitalist, heterosexist, and patriarchal society we live in as well as how state violence produces interpersonal violence within communities. 9. Develop strategies for mobilizing against sexism and homophobia WITHIN our communities in order to keep women safe. 10. Challenge men of color and all men in social justice movements to take particular responsibility to address and organize around gender violence in their communities as a primary strategy for addressing violence and colonialism. We challenge men to address how their own histories of victimization have hindered their ability to establish gender justice in their communities. 11. Link struggles for personal transformation and healing with struggles for social justice. We seek to build movements that not only end violence, but that create a society based on radical freedom, mutual accountability, and passionate reciprocity. In this society, safety and security will not be premised on violence or the threat of violence; it will be based on a collective commitment to guaranteeing the survival and care of all peoples.

171

Trans-Inclusive Style Guide

Guidance on gender-inclusive language In recent years, trans people and issues have become hypervisible in the media. While many outlets have published some thoughtful, accurate stories, too much of that coverage has failed their audiences and trans communities. The media bears a great responsibility when it comes to ensuring accurate and sensitive coverage of trans communities. Most of the public’s primary source of information on trans topics is likely the media (only about a quarter of people in the United States, for instance, have a close friend or family member who is out as trans), meaning media coverage is critical in shaping how the public talks and thinks about transgender people. Therefore, it’s imperative for media outlets to get this coverage right. The Trans Journalists Association’s Style Guide is a tool reporters, editors and other media makers can use to begin to improve trans coverage. It gives insight into appropriate language, common shortcomings, and steps journalists can take to make their coverage better. While this guide provides a strong foundation for covering trans communities with sensitivity and care, trans communities are incredibly diverse. The language some trans people use to describe themselves and their communities might be different from or even contradict parts of this guide. Reporting well on trans communities requires nuance and care, and this guide is only a starting point. Section 1 — Guidance on Improving Trans Coverage 1.1 Guidance on diversifying newsrooms and sources to improve coverage hire trans reporters, editors, and leadership The number one way to improve trans coverage is to hire trans people. Because of their lived experiences, trans reporters often have a much deeper and more nuanced understanding of trans issues and gender than even the best cis reporters. Trans journalists also have greater access to trans communities and can more easily gain the trust of trans sources, which will result in stronger coverage. Additionally, many underrepresented groups face an uphill battle when it comes to improving coverage of their communities because newsrooms lack diverse editors and leadership. Newsrooms must do better and prioritize diversity. It’s necessary to include trans people in that diversity. talk to trans people about trans people. When reporting a story about trans issues, trans people should be interviewed and quoted as experts, not just subjects. Trans people are the experts on trans lives and experiences. Their voices should be centered in this coverage. A cis person will rarely have better insight. Trans people are also often the leaders in research on trans communities. There are cis experts worth quoting within specific specialities; however, when you write about trans issues, do not include more experts who are cis than trans. When covering trans issues, consider whether you need any cis voices in your stories. have more trans sources on stories that aren’t about trans issues Trans people are also often experts and have unique perspectives in subject areas beyond trans issues. Incorporate trans people into your source base, and interview them for stories across beats, just as you would interview people with a variety of backgrounds and perspectives for most stories. hire trans sensitivity readers Even the most well-meaning and well-intentioned reporters make mistakes. When reporting on trans people, communities, and issues, it’s best to involve trans reporters and/or editors who understand these

172

communities. If this is not possible, hire an outside trans sensitivity reader or editor to provide feedback before publication. This is even more essential when your coverage involves trans people who experience marginalization in multiple ways — for instance, trans people of color, trans sex workers, or trans people with disabilities. In these cases, we advise hiring sensitivity readers who understand the various axes of oppression relevant to the story and sources. use the trans news “Bechdel test” as a guide Trans communities are varied and diverse. However, the overwhelming majority of trans sources quoted in the media are white, non-disabled transgender women. Like with any story, a lack of diverse sources often makes coverage one-dimensional and less nuanced. It fails to give voice to various perspectives, life experiences, and viewpoints. One way to improve trans coverage is to diversify sources. Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help determine how you’re doing. ● ● ●

Have I quoted more than one transgender person? Is at least one of those transgender people an expert in their field? Is at least one of those transgender people not a white transgender woman?

Much like the Bechdel test, these questions are not the final arbiter of whether the sources in your coverage are diverse. However, this is a helpful framework to assess stories and think about how you can improve the diversity in your coverage. 1.2 Guidance on respectful coverage when other sources deadname or misgender a trans person A friend, family member, or the police may misgender or deadname your source. Do not use that quote in your story without a correction. Use brackets to replace the incorrect information with the correct information for text stories. For video or audio stories, reporters should find another clip or write around the deadnaming or misgendering. If this is not possible, consider not using this person as a source. You may also let the listener/viewer know the person is being misgendered/deadnamed and bleep those words out, as you would with a curse word or protected personal information. writing about someone in the past Use someone’s current name and pronouns when writing about that person in the past, unless they tell you differently. don’t identify someone as trans unless it’s relevant If you’re working on a story unrelated to transgender issues and a person you’re quoting is trans, you don’t usually need to mention that they’re trans. Only report this information if it’s necessary to contextualize a quote or explain the inclusion of the source. don’t make a big deal about someone’s pronouns Reporters never write a sentence to explain a cis source’s pronouns. For example: “Jill, who uses she/her pronouns, attended the event.” If we don’t emphasize cis people’s pronouns, we shouldn’t need to explain trans people’s pronouns — especially when they are common pronouns like he, she, and they. They/them pronouns are not new and should not require an explanation for audiences. The pronoun they has been in use as a singular pronoun since the 1300s. The media has been reporting regularly on singular they/them pronouns in relation to trans people for at least a decade, and these pronouns are in the dictionary. They/them pronouns are only confusing when stories are written poorly. When a source uses less common pronouns, it’s acceptable to have a quick, appositive phrase mentioning their pronouns. For example: Taylor, who uses ze/hir pronouns, attended the event.

173

don’t make a big deal about someone’s gender When writing about cis people who are men or women, reporters never write a phrase explaining their gender. For example: “Jill, who is a woman, attended the event.” If we don’t make a big deal of cis people’s gender, we shouldn’t need to explain and call unnecessary attention to a trans person’s gender. Unless the source’s individual experience with gender is integral to understanding the story, there’s no need to even mention it. Additionally, when a non-binary source is introduced, reporters often include a phrase explaining their gender. Not only are these definitions often inaccurate, but they’re also unnecessary and treat trans people like oddities. The public is aware that non-binary people exist, and this level of explanation is no longer necessary. When a deeper explanation of someone’s gender is important to the story, an explanation may be appropriate. In these cases, reporters should take care to use only words that the individual uses to explain their gender. Also, reporters should avoid mentioning a trans person’s assigned sex at birth, as this level of explanation is not necessary, especially when the person in question is a trans man or trans woman. Journalists should only mention the assigned sex of a non-binary person if it’s crucial to understanding the story. don’t assume a source’s gender or pronouns It’s impossible to tell if everyone is cis or trans – or guess their gender or their pronouns – based on their appearance. You shouldn’t assume this information. Most stories don’t require information about someone’s gender, and journalists should avoid asking for that information when it’s not relevant to their coverage or interactions with a source. Journalists should make a habit of asking sources for their pronouns, so they don’t misgender someone in their coverage. This guidance applies to all coverage and beats, as trans people exist throughout different communities and industries. never out your sources Take extra care not to out your sources. Some trans people may be out to certain people in some contexts but not want to be out publicly in a report published online. Like with any source, make sure they understand the implications of being featured in your report. Clarify with them whether sensitive information they’ve shared is on-the-record. It’s also worth asking which pronouns they’d like used in the story, as some people use different pronouns publicly than they use in other contexts for various reasons, including safety. changing/removing names in published stories If a trans person contacts a newsroom or reporter asking for a story to be updated with their new name or to remove information that outs the person as trans, newsrooms should always make those changes when possible. In cases where it would materially change the content of the piece — for instance, a story about the lived experiences of trans people — consider making that person anonymous or only using a first name. These changes have little to no impact on newsrooms or reporters when it comes to work that has already been published; however, they can have a major impact on a trans person’s life. Additionally, publications should update these stories to include the appropriate pronouns when requested. changing bylines When a reporter, editor, or writer changes their name, news organizations should update bylines on past stories to reflect the person’s new name at the individual’s request. don’t equate gender and anatomy Avoid equating gender and anatomy in your coverage. This is particularly prevalent when writing about “men’s health” and “women’s health.” Consider whether that framing is trans-inclusive. When you write the word women, are you including trans women? Does it apply to non-binary people and trans men? Most reporting about health according to gender overlooks trans people and incorrectly equates anatomy to gender. Instead of simply writing “men” or “women,” consider who the issue you’re writing about affects — for instance: people with ovaries, people with prostates, people who can get pregnant. In some

174

cases, the answer is not immediately clear, and it might be necessary to consult an expert. If you’re unable to find a clear answer, you can use “cis men/women and some intersex and trans people.” take care not to ask offensive or inappropriate questions Don’t ask someone about their genitals, hormones, or medical procedures. In rare cases where this information is relevant to the story, ask the person you’re interviewing whether they’re comfortable sharing this information publicly before asking for these personal details. Some sources may be comfortable sharing specifics with you, but not want some information published. Be sure to delineate what is on and off the record, in those areas. Ask for only the information you need for the story. Don’t ask about someone’s deadname. When reporting on some topics, reporters will run background checks and search public records. If such a story involves someone you know is trans and a background check is necessary, you may ask for this person’s deadname sensitively. Explain why you’re asking and how you’ll use that information. Understand that you are never entitled to this information. You should also never publish it. Don’t ask for or publish a person’s criminal history unless it’s completely relevant. Be aware that trans people are disproportionately criminalized and policed. If the person you’re reporting on has a criminal record, reporting that information could have consequences for that person. For instance, it could make it harder for an individual to find work. Reporting on that criminal record also perpetuates stereotypes about trans people. If that history is not relevant to the story, you should not report it. If it is, you should consult with the individual about whether they are comfortable with that information being published. Before proceeding, discuss the potential negative impact publishing such information could have on them. You may need to find a different source or give the source anonymity if you cannot proceed with the story without publishing their criminal history. Publishing such information is rarely in the public interest. Consider killing a story if you have no alternatives. 1.3 Guidance on avoiding harmful cliches and stereotypes avoid hyper-focus on trans bodies and transition-related care Trans bodies and medical care are often sensationalized and treated like an oddity in the press. When writing about transgender people, consider whether it’s necessary or appropriate to mention their medical history. Are you shedding light on the importance of these procedures and the barriers to care? Or are you just adding a line about someone’s transition in a story that doesn’t require it? Additionally, coverage of transition-related care tends to focus on the potential risks of such care, especially when it comes to young people. Journalists should cover these stories with extra thoughtfulness and not overemphasize them. Activists and politicians often use this sort of coverage to justify denying lifesaving care to trans people. For more on this, see the section titled “overemphasis and disinformation on detransitioning” and “disinformation on ‘rapid onset dysphoria.’” avoid hyper-focus on the way trans people look Do not over-describe the way trans people look. Do not focus on a trans person’s appearance any more than you would focus on the appearance of a cis person in your reporting. Journalists should not use descriptions that call attention to the sex trans people were assigned at birth. For instance, avoid descriptions of trans women being tall, trans men having high-pitched voices, or trans women having large hands. Journalists should also avoid describing certain features as masculine, feminine, or androgynous unless a source uses that language themself or are comfortable with it. Additionally,

175

journalists should avoid descriptive language that suggests a trans person’s gender is superficial or that trans people are reinforcing gender stereotypes. For instance, avoid focusing on how a trans woman is dressed, her makeup, her nails, etc. cover stories beyond trans pain The media often fails to cover trans stories beyond trauma and pain. That contributes to a culture that makes trans people afraid to come out and imagine a happy life for themselves. It also worsens fears that parents and family have when their children come out as trans. Many trans people live happy, successful lives. Reporting on trans civil rights, homelessness, and other issues facing trans communities is important but so is telling stories of trans people thriving. Avoid furthering the “losing a loved one” cliche. Often, the media will quote sources saying they feel as though they’ve lost their trans relative, lover, or friend. While loved ones of trans people often need to process that their loved one is trans, it is overdone and unoriginal to emphasize the grief of cis family and partners. These stories also center cis people in stories about trans people. Many people are happy and joyful that the trans people in their lives feel free to live as their authentic selves, yet those stories rarely get told. These stories are especially important and should be normalized. don’t suggest trans and non-binary people are “new” or overemphasize trans youth In recent years, many outlets have published trend pieces about trans youth. Young people have more access to information about trans people, and many cultures have become more accepting, which means many trans people are discovering who they are at a younger age. However, many of these trend pieces have perpetuated a harmful myth that being trans is “a new thing” or limited to young people. Non-binary genders especially are often written about as if they’re new, which is incorrect. Evidence of trans people and gender variance exists across time and culture. Additionally, many stories about trans youth focus on their bodies and medical care (i.e. puberty blockers, binders, hormones, etc.) and highlight the risks of transition-related care. This contributes to a hyper-focus on trans bodies and medical care. (See entry “avoid hyper-focus on trans bodies and transition-related care.”) don’t use stereotypically gendered imagery or “before” and “after” pictures Trans stories often use stereotypically gendered imagery. For instance, a trans woman putting on makeup or wearing heels or a trans man going to the gym. This imagery reinforces the harmful idea that trans people’s genders are superficial. It can also communicate that the existence of trans people reinforces gender stereotypes — a common argument used to deny trans people medical care and civil rights. Find other ways to illustrate a story. Additionally, avoid “before” and “after” pictures of someone’s transition. These almost never add value to a story and are simply used to satiate invasive curiosity about trans people. 1.4 Guidance on covering anti-trans hate and disinformation report carefully on anti-trans hate Like anti–gay rights groups or climate science deniers, anti–trans rights groups and individuals push a fringe, radical agenda. Leading medical and psychology organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association affirm trans people exist; these organizations also state that trans people need access to gender-affirming care, gender-appropriate public resources, and jobs where they can be themselves. Giving anti–trans groups a platform isn’t being unbiased, but rather giving fringe ideology outsized influence. When reporting on these groups or quoting people with this ideology, take care to fact-check their claims within the article. Do not spread disinformation.

176

avoid giving a platform to TERFs or so-called “gender critical feminists” Some anti-trans rights groups and individuals use the euphemism “gender critical feminism” to describe their hateful ideology. They are also sometimes called “trans exclusionary radical feminists” or TERFs. This ideology should not be elevated in the press. When reporting on fringe groups and hate groups, instead of calling them TERFs or gender critical feminists, use language like transphobic, anti-trans, etc. Avoid referring to anyone as a feminist when they are spreading anti-trans hate. avoid giving a platform to transmedicalists/truscum Transmedicalists are a fringe part of the trans community who believe that experiencing gender dysphoria and seeking gender-affirming medical care is a prerequisite of being trans. Many wrongly argue that non-binary people cannot be trans and spread the inaccurate message that non-binary people don’t need or want gender-affirming medical care. Avoid elevating this harmful ideology, which ignores the varied experiences of trans people. On the rare occasion that it’s ethical to report on this ideology, bear in mind that only reporters deeply familiar with trans communities are equipped to cover this topic without causing harm and spreading disinformation. avoid disinformation on “rapid onset gender dysphoria” Much like the media’s overemphasis on detransitioners (see entry “do not emphasize detransitioning or report disinformation on those who stop transition-related care”), disinformation around so-called “rapid onset gender dysphoria” harms young trans people and fuels the far right’s attacks on trans children. The concept of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” comes from a flawed study that’s been heavily criticized by academics and scientists. There’s no evidence this is a real phenomenon at this time, and reporting otherwise is irresponsible. don’t emphasize detransitioning or report disinformation on those who stop transition-related care “Detransitioning” is generally defined as seeking gender-affirming medical care and then stopping it and/or attempting to reverse its effects. Journalists have overemphasized and sensationalized stories about detransition. Narratives of detransition should be generally avoided because they misrepresent the social and financial complications of transition. They often suggest trans people should not have bodily autonomy and give fuel to the far right’s attacks on trans youth. Many people who fall into the mainstream media’s definition of “detransitioner” are still trans and/or non-binary and find being characterized as a detransitioner inaccurate or offensive. Trans people stop seeking gender-affirming care for a variety of reasons. Some more common reasons include that they lack the social support or resources to continue care, that they do not wish to complete what some consider “full transition” to a binary gender, and that they want to have biological children. Additionally, many trans people experience shifts in gender over time — this is especially common in genderfluid individuals. Some sources who have been quoted for major stories on “detransition” have even later decided to retransition. Only a small fraction of people fall into the common detransition narrative, which posits that every single person who stops transitioning does so because they are not actually trans. This is inaccurate. While there’s no good data, a Swedish study found only 2.2 percent of participants who sought gender-affirming medical care regretted their transition. This is lower than the rate of people who regret their abortions. This is also much lower than the rate of people who are dissatisfied with their nose jobs and other cosmetic surgeries, according to various studies. Unlike many elective plastic surgeries, transition-related care is lifesaving. None of this means people’s experiences with detransition are invalid. They are, however, sensationalized and given a disproportionate amount of weight in the media. When journalists do cover detransition stories, they should include examples of people who are trans, yet have stopped transition-related care.

177

Additionally, journalists should find subjects who actually started medically transitioning. “Detransition” narratives often feature people who thought they were trans or experiencing gender dysphoria and later figured out they weren’t without medical treatment. These stories should not be used to question established medical standards that give trans people bodily autonomy, which are laid out by the internationally recognized World Professional Association for Transgender Health. avoid misinformation in coverage of trans women in sports Often, stories about whether trans women should be able to compete in women’s sports contain misinformation. For instance, many outlets fail to fact-check the people who argue that trans women have an inherent and irreparable advantage over cisgender women. Journalists also often show bias against trans athletes by only covering trans people in sports when a trans woman wins a competition. Medical experts are rarely quoted in these stories, which often contain no scientific information about how cross-sex hormones alter trans women’s athletic performance. Trans women, with moderate medical intervention, have been allowed to compete in women’s categories in the Olympics since 2003 and the NCAA since 2010. Likewise, thousands of high school athletics programs operate under inclusive policies at the state level — you can check your own state’s policies here. This is important context for your readers as political campaigns against the rights of transgender students often falsely portray issues around athletic competitions as “new” and untested. When outlets cover trans men in sports, they also spread misinformation — especially in instances where leagues force trans men to compete with cis women. Outlets should take extra care to clarify those competing are trans men so that readers do not assume the athlete is a trans woman 1.5 Additional Guidance take care when reporting on anti-trans violence Do not report information before it’s verified. When reporting on violence against trans people, take care not to jump to conclusions. This is doubly important when writing about violence against trans women of color, who disproportionately experience anti-trans violence. Don’t assume the death of a trans person is a murder, and don’t rush to pin a series of trans murders on a potential serial killer. Reporting on the epidemic of violence against transfeminine Black, brown, and Indigenous people of color is crucial, but these stories should be told with extra care. Reporters should also seek sources beyond the police when reporting on violence against trans people. Police often deadname, misgender, and provide inaccurate information about trans victims. Not only is the information often inaccurate, but reporting this inaccurate information will erode trust between journalists and trans communities. Journalism about murdered trans people often reduces those people’s lives to their gender and the crime against them. Instead, these stories should seek a more nuanced snapshot of the victim that doesn’t sensationalize their life. Additional information about covering trans homicides with sensitivity can be found in the FAQ for reporters writing about anti-trans violence from the Trans Journalists Association, Media Matters and the Human Rights Campaign as well as GLAAD’s More Than A Number report. do not make assumptions about trans identities and gender variation in other cultures When reporting on a culture outside of your own, it’s always important to take extra care to understand and accurately represent people and communities within that cultural context. This style guide primarily outlines the terms, understandings of gender, and norms of a western, colonial perspective and is U.S.-centric. While parts of this guide might be applicable beyond this perspective, much of the guidance laid out is inappropriate or inaccurate when discussing trans or gender nonconforming communities in other cultures.

178

take extra care when reporting on trans sex workers Familiarize yourself with current best practices regarding reporting on sex work. Sex Workers Outreach Project’s resource list and Nina Luo’s “Decriminalizing Survival” are two great starting points. When reporting on trans sex workers, clarify what names and pronouns they want published when stories reference their work experience. Many have work identifiers that are different from their civilian identifiers (which can be different from legal names and/or deadnames, too). Others may go by their work name in other parts of their life or have different work names for different services. Trans sex workers may refer to themselves by slang clients use on hobbyist forums or online communities, which may include words that are demeaning out of context. If reported, these words need to be used in context. They should only describe individuals who would use those words for themselves and not be applied to groups of people. Additionally, you should confirm what details are on the record and off the record with sources. For example, some sources may be out about their sex work among colleagues but would not want this information published due to safety concerns. Other sources may openly advertise some services but only discuss their full-service work off the record. Journalists should also aim to diversify sources. White former sex workers, activists, and workers with higher class status are often more visible in media than current workers, workers who are Black, brown, and Indigenous people of color, and survival/street workers. Also consider hiring a sensitivity reader, especially if you don’t have a deep understanding and familiarity with trans and sex worker communities. cover healthcare concerns for trans people outside transition-related care Covering the barriers to transition-related care is essential. But journalists should also report on other aspects of trans healthcare. Trans people experience health concerns and barriers to receiving healthcare that are unrelated to transition-related care. Like other marginalized groups, trans people often lack access to culturally competent care, responsive providers, and affordable healthcare. Trans people are also more likely to be mistreated or harassed by their providers. On top of that, trans people face many of the same barriers and have the same concerns around healthcare as cis patients. Section 2 — Terms and Phrases To Avoid biological women/men or born male/female - Avoid the terms “biological gender,” “biological sex,” “biological woman,” “biological female,” “biological man,” or “biological male.” These terms are inaccurate and often offensive. When necessary, you can refer to someone’s assigned sex at birth using terms like “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” These can be abbreviated as “AMAB” and “AFAB” after first reference. Think seriously about whether a story requires this information. Instead use: assigned male/female at birth, assigned sex at birth or raised as a boy/girl crossdresser - A term that’s considered outdated and offensive when referring to trans people. Avoid using this language unless an individual uses it for themselves. female/feminine pronouns, male/masculine pronouns - Not all people who use she/her are women, and not all people who use he/him are men. Instead use: pronouns, she/her pronouns, he/him pronouns gender identity disorder - This is an outdated term that is no longer relevant and often considered offensive. Gender identity disorder used to be the official psychological diagnosis from the American Psychological Association for trans people seeking transition-related care in the U.S. In 2012, it was changed to gender dysphoria. Instead use: gender dysphoria gender non-binary - This language is awkward, grammatically incorrect and should not be used. We would not say “gender woman” to describe a woman. Writers should use the same grammatical conventions we use for woman or man when writing about other genders. Instead use: non-binary

179

identify as/identifies as - Avoid the phrase “identifies as” to write about a trans person’s gender when replacing it with “is” doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence. This language questions a trans person’s gender by calling it an “identity” instead of just stating someone is non-binary or a man/woman. Journalists never write about cis people’s genders this way. Extend the same respect to the trans people. It is only acceptable to use this language when quoting a trans source. Instead use: is male-bodied/female-bodied - “Male-bodied” and “female-bodied” are inaccurate terms and are often considered offensive. Male and female bodies come in all shapes in sizes with various primary and secondary sex characteristics. Instead use: assigned male/female at birth or raised as a boy/girl male-to-female (MtF), female-to-male (FtM) - These terms used to be a common way to describe a trans person. In recent years, they’ve come to be considered outdated and sometimes offensive descriptors. Journalists should avoid this language unless quoting a trans source. Instead use: trans woman, trans man non-binary pronouns - Avoid the term “non-binary pronouns.” This is inaccurate because not all non-binary people use the same pronouns, and people of other genders use they/them pronouns. While many non-binary people use they/them pronouns, many non-binary people also use he/him, she/her, ze/hir, and other pronouns. Instead use: gender-neutral pronouns, they/them pronouns, or pronouns opposite sex/gender - This language reinforces the gender binary and inaccurately positions men/males and women/females as opposites, rather than merely different genders/sexes. Instead use: different gender/sex preferred pronouns - Avoid using the term “preferred pronouns.” Someone’s pronouns are not a preference, but rather the only appropriate way to refer to that person. The term “preferred pronouns” is only appropriate when someone uses more than one set of pronouns and has a preference for one over the other. Instead use: pronouns sex change/sex reassignment - These are outdated terms and sometimes considered offensive. Don’t use them unless quoting a trans source. Instead use: transition, gender-affirming care, or transition-related care stealth/passing - Avoid using the terms “stealth” or “passing” to describe someone who is not generally perceived as trans unless you are quoting a trans person who uses those words. These terms imply trans people are deceptive by simply existing. Similar phrases like “you’d never be able to tell she was trans” are similarly inappropriate in most cases. Journalists should also avoid making assessments about how trans someone appears to be. When this information is necessary to understand a story, use language like “generally perceived as trans” or “not generally perceived as trans.”Instead use: out as trans, not out as trans, publicly disclosed as trans, not publicly disclosed as trans, generally perceived as trans, not generally perceived as trans transgenderism/gender ideology/trans ideology/trans agenda - Far right and anti-trans activists use these terms in disinformation campaigns against trans people. They are politically loaded terms that such activists use to describe what they believe to be a radical trans agenda. This is similar to anti-gay activists fearmongering about “the gay agenda.” transgendered - This is not a word and is widely considered offensive. Instead use: transgender Section 3 — Glossary of Terms agender - A term that often describes someone who falls under the non-binary umbrella and does not have a gender.

180

assigned male/female at birth/assigned sex at birth - Instead of “born male” or “born female,” which are inaccurate and considered offensive, use “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth” (often abbreviated to AMAB and AFAB). You may also use “raised as a boy” or “raised as a girl” when appropriate. When using this language, consider whether it’s necessary to call attention to someone’s assigned sex or the gender they were raised as. It usually is not. Most audiences understand what transgender means and don’t need to know a person’s assigned sex at birth to understand the story you’re sharing. bigender - A non-binary gender or word to describe someone’s gender that often means someone who has two genders. These genders can be, but are not always, male and female. binary gender - A gender that exists within the gender binary: man or woman. cis - Short for cisgender. cisgender - A term used for someone whose gender is exclusively the one they were assigned at birth. cis man - A man who is cisgender. cis woman - A woman who is cisgender. deadname - A trans person’s given or former name that they no longer use, also often referred to as a “given name” or “legal name.” There’s never a reason to publish someone’s deadname in a story. Reporters should refrain from asking for this information unless it’s absolutely necessary for background checks or public records access. If writing about an individual, you should ask them what language they prefer if you refer to the existence of a deadname. While deadname is usually a noun, it’s also used as a verb to refer to the act of using the wrong name for a trans person. demiboy - A non-binary gender that often describes someone who is partially a man, boy, or masculine gender. demigirl - A non-binary gender that often describes someone who is partially a woman, girl, or feminine gender. gender-affirming care/transition-related medical care - A broad term for health care transgender people may pursue, including counseling, hormone replacement therapy, and surgical treatments. Not all transgender people pursue every form of medical treatment available. Many never receive medical care of any kind due to cost, access, or personal choice. When writing about medical care is appropriate and not objectifying (see “avoid hyper-focus on trans bodies and transition-related care” under the “Guidance on avoiding harmful cliches and stereotypes” section), terms like “gender-affirming medical care” or “transition-related medical care” will usually suffice. General language is usually better than more specific terms that draw unnecessary attention to trans bodies and medical procedures. Occasionally, stories will require more specific language to describe a procedure. When appropriate and necessary, journalists should generally use the official name of a surgery or treatment. One major exception: avoid the term mastectomy when describing surgical changes to a transmasculine person’s chest. Instead, use the terms “chest reconstruction surgery” or “chest masculinization surgery.” gender binary - A cultural and societal classification system that sorts everyone into a male/female binary from birth. gender dysphoria - In a medical context, gender dysphoria refers to the feeling of discomfort or distress some trans people feel when their bodies don’t align with their gender. Gender dysphoria can also refer to feelings of discomfort many trans people experience when misgendered, deadnamed, or otherwise treated as the wrong gender. Not all trans people have dysphoria. Some terms describe specific types of gender dysphoria (see “social dysphoria/social euphoria”).

181

gender euphoria - The feeling of comfort or happiness some trans people feel when their gender is affirmed. People sometimes experience gender euphoria when their body aligns with their gender or when others use the correct name and pronouns for them. Some terms describe specific types of gender euphoria (see “social dysphoria/social euphoria”). genderfluid - A non-binary gender or word to describe someone’s gender that often means someone whose gender fluctuates or is not fixed. gender nonconforming - Gender nonconforming (often abbreviated as GNC) refers to gender presentations outside typical gendered expectations. Note that gender nonconforming is not a synonym for non-binary. While many non-binary people are gender nonconforming, many gender nonconforming people are also cisgender. gender-neutral pronouns - Use this language to describe they/them pronouns and other gender-neutral pronouns. They/them pronouns are not interchangeable with other gender-neutral pronouns such as ze/hir and ey/em. While these pronouns are considered gender-neutral pronouns, they are often not appropriate replacements for gendered pronouns, especially within trans communities. Using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to a person who uses gendered pronouns can often be offensive and feel invalidating. Take care to use the appropriate pronouns for everyone in your coverage and interactions. Also, keep in mind that non-binary people don’t always use they/them pronouns and often use she/her, he/him or other gender-neutral pronouns. genderqueer - A non-binary gender or word to describe someone’s gender. intersex - Someone born with reproductive or sexual anatomy and/or chromosomes that don’t fit into strict binary understandings of sex. Intersex people can be any gender and may or may not consider themselves trans. marginalized genders - An umbrella term used to describe everyone who is not a cis man. This is the preferred and more inclusive alternative to “women, non-binary, and trans people.” misgender - The act of gendering someone incorrectly. This often involves using gendered words that are inappropriate or the wrong pronouns. neutrois - A non-binary gender or word to describe someone’s gender that often means someone whose gender is neutral or who has no gender. non-binary/nonbinary - An umbrella term for genders other than man and woman. This is also a term for a specific gender. While non-binary is considered a trans identity, not everyone who is non-binary considers themselves trans. Be aware that Indigenous communities and communities of color have other words to describe gender variance. Sometimes these terms can be included in the non-binary umbrella and sometimes they cannot. Always consult experts from these communities and the individuals you are reporting on in regard to this. pronouns - When writing about someone, ask the person what pronouns they would want you to publish. Do so even when those pronouns are new to you. Avoiding using someone’s pronouns is not only bad writing, but disrespectful to the person you’re writing about. Our audiences learn how to write and talk about trans people from media. Refusing to use someone’s pronouns in media coverage strengthens public discomfort with unfamiliar pronouns. Some sources may request that you use different pronouns for publication than in person. Respect this request. It can be a matter of safety for some trans people. For more guidance, see the entry “don’t make a big deal about someone’s pronouns” under the “Guidance on respectful coverage” section. reproductive health - Use the term “reproductive health” instead of “women’s health” when writing about abortion, birth control, and other reproductive health issues. Additionally, use gender-neutral language

182

like “people who menstruate” when writing about people who get pregnant, menstruate, need access to abortion, and other related topics. These issues affect trans men and many non-binary people, so they are not just “women’s health” issues. social dysphoria/social euphoria - Social dysphoria is a type of gender dysphoria that refers specifically to the feeling some trans people get when others do not treat them as the correct gender. People sometimes use “social dysphoria” to distinguish between dysphoria prompted by interactions with others and dysphoria prompted by physical or internal factors. Conversely, “social euphoria” refers to the feeling some trans people get when others affirm their gender. top surgery/bottom surgery - These are colloquial terms trans people often use to refer to transition-related medical procedures. When writing about surgical procedures, refer to the guidance in the entry “gender-affirming care/transition-related medical care.” trans - A term used for someone whose gender is not (exclusively) the one they were assigned at birth. It’s most widely understood to be short for transgender. Though it can have different meanings for some trans communities and individuals, such as being short for transsexual (see “transsexual” entry). transfeminine - A term that often refers to trans women and non-binary trans people who have a more feminine gender than the one they were assigned at birth. This term is not interchangeable with trans woman. transgender - A term used for someone whose gender is not (exclusively) the one they were assigned at birth. Transgender is an adjective and should not be used as a noun. Be aware that Indigenous communities and communities of color have other words to describe gender variance. Sometimes these terms can be included in the transgender umbrella and sometimes they cannot. Always consult experts from these communities and the individuals you are reporting on in regard to this. transition - The social, legal, and/or medical process of aligning one’s life with one’s gender. This can (but does not always) include changing one’s name and pronouns; altering dress, speech, and mannerisms; updating documents and legal registries; and seeking medical treatment to change physical characteristics. trans man - A man who is trans. “Trans man” is two words and trans is an adjective use to describe man. Making this one word is considered disrespectful and inaccurate, as it implies a trans man is not really a man. transmasculine - A term that often refers to trans men and non-binary trans people who have a more masculine gender than the one they were assigned at birth. This term is not interchangeable with trans man. transmisogyny - A term coined by Julia Serano in her book Whipping Girl, that describes the unique oppression transfeminine people face because of both misogyny and transphobia. transmisogynoir - A term coined by Trudy on her blog Gradient Lair that describes the unique oppression Black, transfeminine people face due to racism, misogyny, and transphobia. transsexual - A term that often refers to someone who has had or seeks gender-affirming medical care. Once the dominant word to describe someone who wants or seeks treatment for gender dysphoria, this is now a more niche and intra-community term. Some consider it outdated or offensive. The term should only be used when an individual or group of people use it for themselves. trans woman - A woman who is trans. “Trans woman” is two words and trans is an adjective use to describe woman. Making this one word is considered disrespectful and inaccurate, as it implies a trans woman is not really a woman.

183

RESOURCES FOR WRITING TIPS, TRICKS & GUIDES FOR WRITTEN WORK

Steve Brooks’ Writing Tips Advice from an Inside Policy Fellow Alumni I.

All your written and voice recorded work should have three main ingredients, Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. These are ancient Greek words that basically mean credibility, knowledge, and emotion. Remember that your ethos (credibility) is your lived prison experience. Your Logos (knowledge) is what you can show that logically connects through facts, data, surveys, interviews, and statistics. Pathos (emotion) is the most important when it comes to storytelling to change policy. Who has a story that can make people care? Tell the sad parts of a story or the parts that enrage. This means your writing will always contain the basics: (1) your name, (2) how long you’ve been in prison and the (3) different types of incarceration you have been subjected to over the years. This is your lived world and carceral experience? How are you affected by the issues? How are others affected? Why is it important to change a policy? Say what the problem is and the solution. Elements of good writing contain: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

II.

Introduce the topic. What is the problem? What is the solution? What is the call to action? Remember to weave in your experience. Who are you? ● Ethos: lived experience ● Knowledge: (facts, statistics, interviews, survey, problem etc.) ● Emotion: a strong story or character people care about.

Below are the different types of writing you may encounter during the fellowship. Fellowship recording: It's a 3-4 minute piece that basically talks about what the fellowship means to you and the issues you care about. Public comment: A 200-250 word written piece that speaks to your connection and experience with what you perceive is a problem that needs changing. Blog Piece: Shouldn't be more than 800 words and it should speak to who you are, what you care about in the movement, and what you'd like to see as far as change in the world. Thank You letter: This is for donors. You may be asked to talk about what it means to be involved in the fellowship. Build The Base: You will be presented with a question and you will be able to answer it in writing in preparation for a 3 minute voice recording. Your life experience, especially in prison and your relationship with EBC will come into full focus. Expert Testimonial: What is your experience like when it comes to the issues? How are you impacted from a personal story standpoint? You might want to focus on one key incident in your life that ties to the issues. Written Comments on Regulation Changes: EBC templates for comments are available. You can also create your own comments for regulation changes that will have a negative impact on you and the population (one page) Op-ed's or Guest Essay's: Should be no more than 650 words. You can write whatever your opinion may be on the issues. ●

Elements of a good Op-ed: Anecdote-tell the reader something interesting that draws them to your topic. This is the set-up material for the story. Introduce the problem, a scene or character, a solution to the problem, and a call to action.

185

How to Write an Expert Testimonial for a Public Safety Committee Hearing - By Thanh Tran Note from Thanh: Drafting an expert testimonial can be intimidating. When I was the first inside fellow I was really nervous and hesitant but I utilized these tools listed below and it helped me complete the task and be impactful. This is only a suggestion on how to go about writing a testimonial. If you have a different process, that is absolutely okay. That said, whether you’re new to this or used to this, you will find some useful tools in this guide. I hope this is a useful resource as you step out on your journey of advocacy and organizing. Content Tips for Preparing an Expert Testimonials: ●

Use stories, be specific. Stories stick with people. Stories move people. So try your best to share stories to make your point. Also be specific. The worst thing to do during any testimony is to be talking in general terms.

●

Be descriptive. Help people see what you see. Help people feel, taste, hear the injustices that you are trying to correct. “I was in a closet sized, 4 by 9 cell for 23 hours a day!” is more powerful than just saying “I was in a cell for most of the day.”

●

Testimonies are restricted by time. Get right to the point. You usually have a time limit of 2 minutes or less to make your statement - so don't ramble! Write out your statement and practice saying it out loud with a timer as well. As a guide, two minutes should be about a 500-word statement, depending on how fast you talk. Note: If you go over time, you take away time for the next speaker.

●

Read and understand the bill! You are presenting to the Public Safety Committee as the expert on this bill. Make sure to review the language, know how to concisely summarize what this bill does and does not do, and ask questions if there are places in the bill that confuses you.

●

Name the author of the bill when you speak on it! Shout out to the legislator who authored your bill when you first name the bill as good practice.

●

Use a first person point of view! Talking about what you saw or what you experienced firsthand makes you more impactful. “I suffered through this injustice”, is more powerful than, “I saw Jimmy suffer through this injustice.” So avoid third person point of views if possible.

●

Why are you uniquely the right person to deliver this message? What have you experienced as a currently incarcerated person? As a foster youth? As someone sentenced with enhancements? Whatever it is, asking the right questions will help you orient yourself to deliver.

186

Knowing why you’re the right person to speak will help you narrow down your testimony and help you stay on message. ●

How is this bill a solution to the problem you’re presenting? Clearly understand and present this bill as a solution to the issue you are revealing. That will assist you in developing impactful and concise arguments for your testimony.

●

Right time, right place. This is a time and place to advocate for why this bill is a specific solution to a specific problem. Some people misguidedly believe public safety hearings are their chance to be “seen” and lift up other urgent issues or make their case. There’s a time and place for that, public safety hearings are not that.

●

The trifecta. A powerful tool I was taught that helped me become a better communicator and public speaker in person, while writing articles, or even on social media was understanding the trifecta - Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. In short, below are summarized definitions of each. -

●

Ethos appeals to the speaker's status or authority, making the audience more likely to trust them. Pathos appeals to the emotions, trying to make the audience feel angry or sympathetic, for example. Logos appeals to the audience's reason, building up logical arguments.

What is your message? Break down your takeaway message into one or two sentences in your mind. Now what are some supporting arguments that flesh out your takeaway message? I’ll break down my AB 292 Access to Programming testimony to help you understand the process I use for almost every speaking engagement. 1. What is this bill? AB 292 by Assemblymember Stone, known as the Access to Programming Act will expand upon the growing success of rehabilitative in-prison programming by preventing disruptions to programming. As a response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, this bill ensures that in-prison programming continues during public health crises or other related emergencies instead of being indefinitely suspended. 2. Why am I the right person to deliver this message? I lived through the pandemic inside of San Quentin. I know the harm that’s happening in real time. 3. What is my takeaway message? I want folks to know we are suffering here because of these lockdowns, and that CDCR must give us access to programs.

187

4. What are some supporting arguments for this takeaway message? I was on 23 to 24 hr lockdowns in a 4 by 9 cage for a year. 5. What are some stories or experiences that I can draw from? - Watching people die around me in SQ due to COVID. - Barely seeing the sky for the first time after months of lockdown. - Hearing people scream in agony as they lose their minds due to lockdowns. (You don’t have to cram every story. Just outline the ones you could potentially use.) 6. Why should the audience care? How to relate? - If we don’t give people access to programs, people’s mental health is going to deteriorate. We are going to take these hurt people, hurt them some more, then send them back to our society. What do you think will happen? - Everyone on the outside is talking about how being stuck in an air conditioned house with Netflix and a pet dog is destroying their mental health. Can they imagine what we are experiencing in a 4 by 9 cell with nothing but shitty tv stations? - This is more than just a conditions of confinement bill, this is about what type of neighbors we want coming home. This is about acknowledging humanity while keeping our neighborhoods safe. 7. What is my call to action? PASS THIS BILL!!!!!!!! Example of James King’s Testimonial: Thank you to Asm Mark Stone for authoring this important legislation, and to the members of the public safety committee for considering this bill. AB 292 - The Access to Programming Act will reduce barriers to programming for people who are incarcerated within California state prisons and ensure that most credit earning is merit based, instead of conviction based. My name is James King. I currently serve as campaign manager for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a role in which I interact daily with currently incarcerated people and often support them by helping them identify resources to prepare for reentry into society. I am also formerly incarcerated, and have experienced firsthand the importance of access to programming within our state prisons. Over the last 5 years, California’s Department of Correction and Rehabilitation has made a strong effort to offer self help programming at each of its prisons, and incentivize people to make use of these valuable resources. Unfortunately however, there are barriers in the current design that work against CDCR’s goal of increased access to programming, For instance, every year, CDCR does a security assessment of each person they incarcerate, and for the majority of people who avoid disciplinary write ups, and participate in job assignments, education or self help programming, their security level drops, making

188

them eligible to transfer to lower security prisons that grant more freedom of movement. Even though these transfers are deemed non adverse transfers, there are currently adverse consequences. People who transfer to new prisons, even when it's for staying disciplinary free, have to go to the back of programming waiting lists that are often years long. In my experience, when a person is first sent to a new prison, the first year is spent waiting to get back into the same type of self help programs the person was taking prior to being transferred. This bill reduces that barrier, by prioritizing people who transfer on waitlists at the receiving prison, and creates new pathways to rehabilitative programming by directing CDCR to award time off for correspondence courses and other non in-person programming. This bill also acknowledges, for the first time, the rehabilitative value of many of the jobs assignments people work during their incarceration. It incentivizes, via credit earning, the rehabilitative value of going to work every day, and learning job skills in job assignments. In truth, there are many CDCR jobs that serve as de facto internships, such as electrical assistant or programming clerk. Another important component of this bill is that it will allow people with disabilities, or medical issues, the same credit earning opportunities as the able bodied people who work in CDCR conservation camps fighting fires. When people see pathways to shorten their sentences by programming, it provides hope, and this bill remedies some of the bureaucratic barriers that undermine that hope. And to be clear, when we use the term “programming”, what we are actually referring to is helping people understand the experiences that shape them, the belief systems they accepted, and the insight to see how those beliefs are failing them and sometimes leading them to cause harm. We are also talking about giving people the means to change their belief systems and find new ways to process trauma in their lives before they return home. One example of one of the thousands of people within CDCR who has done the work is my friend Thanh Tran. Thanh is currently incarcerated in San Quentin State Prison, and was one of many who was taking full advantage of programs there, until COVID-19 caused CDCR to indefinitely halt all in person self help programming. What follows is testimony from Thanh, written specifically for this hearing: Example of Thanh’s AB 292 Expert Testimony for the Public Safety Committee: I have been confined to a cubicle sized cell, for 23 to 24 hours a day, for a year now. I’ve had friends die in cells next to mine during this pandemic. I remember a few months ago I saw the sky for the first time since the pandemic started. For people on the outside this lockdown has affected their mental health dramatically. I just ask of you to reflect on what lockdowns mean to us in prison. We incarcerate hurt human beings then further damage them with lockdowns. So yes, this bill is very much about access to programs, but it’s also very much about what type of neighbors we want returning home to our communities. This bill is about rehabilitation and healing. This bill is about crime prevention. This bill is about how we treat other human beings. As a person who would be directly impacted by this piece of legislation, I implore you to pass this bill.

189

WRITING SAMPLES EXCERPTS FROM PAST INSIDE POLICY FELLOWS

Prisoners Forced to Work for Showers Are Now Being Punished for Taking Them Regulations to combat a severe drought in California are being used to control prisoners under the auspices of conserving water, people inside San Quentin say. By Olivia Heffernan and Steven Brook (Published in The Nation Magazine on September 27, 2022)

For the past 20 years, Steven Brooks has worked various jobs behind bars in California’s prisons in exchange for a shower. Before the pandemic, under severe drought conditions, Steven found this arrangement unhygienic, but in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and overcrowding in prisons, the 50-year-old has found it to be inhumane. Steven came to prison in 1996 and to San Quentin in 2014. He doesn’t remember a time prior to 2015 when accessing water was limited or considered grounds for punishment. The grass was regularly watered. Sprinkler systems and water hoses were constantly used. The water fountains worked. Toilets flushed routinely. Before water conservation measures were implemented in San Quentin, Steven knew he could shower after a day of sweating in the yard. Sometimes he’d shower in the morning and again at night. There was no one clocking time spent in the shower. People incarcerated at the prison could shower every day, unless it was on an emergency lockdown. But then-Governor Jerry Brown’s executive order, proclaiming a state of emergency due to severe drought conditions in California, set a new precedent around water. The order called for a 25 percent reduction of water usage on a statewide level, but made no mention of how to conserve water in

191

prisons. In the absence of clear direction, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) developed its own protocol. San Quentin’s warden at the time, Ron Davis, issued a bulletin imposing water restrictions, including limiting showers to three times a week and for five minutes (except for culinary, plant operations, and Prison Industry Authority workers), as well as the closure of all outdoor showers and kitchen hoses. Those incarcerated at San Quentin who have chosen to go to school or work a non-CDCR approved job are restricted to three five-minute showers a week—on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Over the years, Steven has observed that jobs that don’t uphold the prison economy are those that do not allow for more extensive shower access. Steven’s job as Journalism Guild chairman at The San Quentin News, a newspaper written and produced by incarcerated people inside the facility, allows him a daily five-minute shower. The regulations around water, he notes, are designed to maintain the prison’s facilities, to reinforce prison officials’ control, and to perpetuate the prison-industrial complex. BEARING A BURDEN NOT OF THEIR DOING California, like other similarly afflicted regions, has continued to experience record temperatures and a drought. So many, if not all, of the CDCR’s and Warden Davis’s restrictions have remained in place under Warden Ron Broomfield, who was appointed in 2021. These regulations, Steven and others incarcerated at San Quentin attest, are used to coerce, punish, and control them under the auspices of conserving water. All the while, San Quentin, a maximum security facility and the oldest prison in California, is plagued by dripping showers, leaking faucets, and broken water mains throughout the facility. While California’s current governor, Gavin Newsom, has ordered state agencies to conserve water, his office’s August 2022 document “California’s Water Supply Strategy: Adapting to a Hotter, Drier Future” makes no mention of limitations on any California residents’ showers. The strategy focuses less on individual conservation and more on state systems. According to the Los Angeles Times, the emergency regulations allow for “a general exemption in the rules for water that’s necessary for public health and safety.” The Department of Corrections has written memos suggesting that prisoners should be allowed to shower every day during quarantines, but that’s not the reality. San Quentin officials cited Governor Newsom’s May 25, 2021, emergency drought proclamation and Warden Davis’s July 8, 2021, bulletin when, on September 3, 2022, they denied a grievance Steven filed in July 2022 requesting daily five minute showers for non-critical/essential workers. In the claim he writes: “Inmates are unable to maintain their personal hygiene showering only three days a week with over 700 prisoners in the North block, overcrowding, poor ventilation and disease spread easily.” San Quentin prison officials are avoiding taking responsibility for how they restrict non-worker prisoners’ water access, displacing blame on the governor, because the restrictions can rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Publicly, CDCR has documented its water conservation initiatives, including allocating millions of dollars to retrofit toilets, faucets, shower heads, and urinals in correctional facilities across the state. All 35 California state prisons are committed to water conservation, but only some have implemented shower restrictions, which Steven reports are applied differently in some parts of San Quentin than in

192

others, often depending on the custody personnel in charge. (The CDCR didn’t respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.) Many incarcerated people, Steven included, find emotional catharsis in exercise, particularly when most of their time is spent in double occupancy—11-foot-by-four-foot cells that leave only three feet between each incarcerated person’s two-and-a-half-foot-wide bunk bed and shared sink and toilet, with limitations on flushing. Amid a pandemic, uncomfortable heat, and limited access to showers, Steven finds himself sitting amid the stench of musty flesh, athlete’s foot, and moldy laundry. Each day people incarcerated at San Quentin are forced to breathe in stale air of sweat, dirty mops, and viruses. Rahsaan Thomas—writer, filmmaker, and cohost of Ear Hustle, a podcast inside San Quentin—said: “Showers were limited before the drought by requiring us to wait until noon for a shower. Visiting hours start at 7:30 AM, so an AM shower could come in handy.… I love to work out and play basketball but because only ‘critical workers’ can shower, I can only bird bath. I respect that the drought is real, but so is living in a 6×9 space with another human being during Covid when doctors recommend washing your hands constantly to prevent infection spread. There needs to be more compromise.” WORKING FOR WATER AND BEING PUNISHED FOR USING IT Today’s restrictions on water not only contrast with the norm in previous decades; water access has also been used to bribe and punish. “I remember when they gave inmates ducats [appointments] who refused to shower,” said Arthur Jackson, an incarcerated person at San Quentin who has been confined for over 30 years. “If officers searched your cell and it was filthy and you were filthy, they changed out all your linen and scheduled you for a shower.” Jackson said he personally witnessed these events as far back as 1992, and when he did time at other California state prisons. In fact, Steven recalls that in the 1990s personal hygiene was a must. You could get a 115 rule violation report for being dirty. This could lead to loss of yard exercise, dayroom, canteen, or food package privileges. He witnessed what most people only see in sensationalized depictions of the carceral state: guards turning water hoses on unhygienic prisoners and worse. But as time passed, and the population began to double and triple, and water stopped falling from the sky, access to water began to dwindle. Steven has heard incarcerated people in other California facilities are offered extra meals in exchange for not showering. More common, though, he says, are cases of incarcerated people trading meals for shower access when in solitary confinement. Steven explained that before the pandemic, he and others incarcerated at San Quentin would fill up water bottles to bring outside to drink from or cool themselves off with while working out. That is typically no longer allowed. Some incarcerated at San Quentin report that water bottles have been considered contraband and being caught with one could result in a record violation documented on their record. Title 15 Section 3006 of the the California Code of Regulations does not name water bottles among items designated as contraband. Interpretation and application of Section 3006 differs across facilities and within them, Steven says. The parole board can and regularly does take rule violation reports into consideration when deliberating parole and release dates.

193

Other prisoners have received violations for taking showers outside of allotted days/times. Michael Moore received a violation for taking a shower during the day and time that only essential workers and showers for medical purposes were being allowed to. Moore is not considered essential because he is enrolled at Mount Tamalpais College. He is a lifer who will have to go before a parole board to get released. Since this violation, Moore anticipates the board will view him and his case unfavorably. “I was accused of maliciously breaking the rules and jeopardizing safety and security for taking a shower,” Moore said. “They don’t see education students as people who need daily showers.” Some incarcerated people have had parole dates postponed and have been ordered to take a criminal thinking class for taking a shower without permission, he adds. Reports from incarcerated people about water restrictions arrive on the heels of the failure of a bill to outlaw involuntary servitude in California’s prison. Under state law, prisoners are required to work but without protections—a legacy of Jim Crow. The bill’s failure upholds that earning eight to 50 cents an hour and allowing the “right” to shower daily for just less than five minutes is not in violation of prisoners’ rights. The pandemic has exposed a number of issues in prisons beyond unfair labor practices, including the impossible combination of water restrictions and overcrowding. WATER, OVERCROWDING, AND COVID Amid public health officials’ numerous suggestions for curtailing Covid-19’s spread, two of the most salient—regular handwashing and social distancing—are impossible at San Quentin. Since the 2020 outbreak that killed 28 prisoners and one guard, prison officials have not eased up on water restrictions, Steven reports. Steven has heard of numerous incarcerated people at San Quentin pursuing lawsuits over this and other inhumane conditions in the US District for the Northern District Court of California. Steven saw firsthand how, during the outbreak of Covid-19 at San Quentin, it was just chaos—and it still is. When he had Covid-19, Steven and his negative cellmate were forced to quarantine together. There are countless stories of people who were negative but forced to stay in a cell with someone positive. San Quentin’s cell size, 49.5 square feet, is in violation of the American Correctional Association standard of 70 square feet per person if the person is incarcerated for more than 10 hours per day. Incarcerated people living in a cell size smaller than the regulation for lengthy periods of time can file suit against the CDCR for violation of the Eighth Amendment—cruel and unusual punishment. San Quentin was built for single-cell occupancy and a maximum population of 3,084. In April 2020, The Appeal reported that the prison’s north and west blocks were close to 200 percent capacity. San Quentin was the site of a particularly poor response to the virus. A judge found that officials there acted with “deliberate indifference” to the health of people incarcerated there, precipitating a court-ordered population reduction that posited overcrowding as the reason for the preventable spread of Covid-19 and the ensuing 28 deaths. The CDCR temporarily reduced the prison’s population by 40 percent. But numbers are back to over-capacity: 3,175 as of September 14, 2022. More than anything else, the pandemic has exposed that California and the rest of the United States is not equipped to warehouse millions of people in prison.

194

The combination of Covid-19, overcrowding, and restricted water access is mentally paralyzing. Steven says it gets to the point where incarcerated people don’t want to think anymore. They get brain fog, become tired and fatigued, and want to sleep in response to feeling overwhelmed by the “deliberate indifference” to their well-being. The consensus of many inside San Quentin is that the place is designed to kill. Despite the emotional and physical stress that overcrowding and limited water rights has caused those at San Quentin, Steven noted the upside of it: More than ever, people are focused on finding ways to get out, to avoid giving the system any more ammunition to keep them inside. He has noticed more people participating in self-help groups, considering emotional intelligence an important skill to develop, and filing grievances and lawsuits. But even while people inside San Quentin are getting smarter about how to get out and stay out, people outside are failing to find ways to stop climate change from causing the droughts and high temperatures for which incarcerated people end up paying the price. --Olivia Heffernan is a writer and filmmaker whose work examines the intersection of race, labor, and incarceration. Steven Brooks is the Journalism Guild chairman of San Quentin News, manager and staff writer at Wall City, and member of Empowerment Avenue. He has written numerous articles for different publications, and is the recipient of the 2020 “Excellence in Commentary Award” from the Northern California Society of Professional Journalists.

195

Surviving COVID-19 at San Quentin By Thanh Tran

196

197

198

PART D

Supplemental Resources An Ode to the Watermelon

- Aracelis Girmay

Books: Required Readings Below is a list of books we will mail you throughout the fellowship. The New Jim Crow - Michelle Alexander

Once in a great while a book comes along that changes the way we see the world and helps to fuel a nationwide social movement. The New Jim Crow is such a book. Praised by Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier as "brave and bold," this book directly challenges the notion that the election of Barack Obama signals a new era of colorblindness. With dazzling candor, legal scholar Michelle Alexander argues that "we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it." By targeting black men through the War on Drugs and decimating communities of color, the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control—relegating millions to a permanent second-class status—even as it formally adheres to the principle of colorblindness. In the words of Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP, this book is a "call to action." Called "stunning" by Pulitzer Prize–winning historian David Levering Lewis, "invaluable" by the Daily Kos, "explosive" by Kirkus, and "profoundly necessary" by the Miami Herald, this updated and revised paperback edition of The New Jim Crow, now with a foreword by Cornel West, is a must-read for all people of conscience.

Locked In - John Pfaff A groundbreaking reassessment of the American prison system, challenging the widely accepted explanations for our exploding incarceration rates In Locked In, John Pfaff argues that the factors most commonly cited to explain mass incarceration -- the failed War on Drugs, draconian sentencing laws, an increasing reliance on private prisons -- tell us much less than we think. Instead, Pfaff urges us to look at other factors, especially a major shift in prosecutor behavior that occurred in the mid-1990s, when prosecutors began bringing felony charges against arrestees about twice as often as they had before. An authoritative, clear-eyed account of a national catastrophe, Locked In is "a must-read for anyone who dreams of an America that is not the world's most imprisoned nation" (Chris Hayes, author of A Colony in a Nation). It transforms our understanding of what ails the American system of punishment and ultimately forces us to reconsider how we can build a more equitable and humane society.

Until We Reckon - Danielle Sered Although over half the people incarcerated in America today have committed violent offenses, the focus of reformers has been almost entirely on nonviolent and drug offenses. Called “innovative” and “truly remarkable” by The Atlantic and “a top-notch entry into the burgeoning incarceration debate” by Kirkus Reviews, Sered’s Until We Reckon argues with searing force and clarity that our communities are safer the less we rely on prisons and jails as a solution for wrongdoing.Sered asks us to reconsider the purposes of incarceration and argues persuasively that the needs of survivors of violent crime are better met by asking people who commit violence to accept responsibility for their actions and make amends in ways that are meaningful to those they have hurt—none of which happens in the context of a criminal trial or a prison sentence.

Playbook for Progressives - Eric Mann

An organizing manifesto for the twenty-first century, Playbook for Progressives is a must-have for the activist’s tool kit. This comprehensive guide articulates pragmatically what is required in the often mystifying and rarely explained on-the-ground practice of organizing. Here, Eric Mann distills lessons he learned from over forty years as an organizer, as well as from other organizers within the civil rights, labor, LGBT, economic justice, and environmental movements.

200

Books: Optional Readings Below is a list of books we CAN mail you throughout the fellowship. Please let us know which, if any, are of interest to you and we will mail inside. Are Prisons Obsolete? - Angela Davis Angela Davis has put the case for the latest abolition movement in American life: the abolition of the prison. As she notes, American life is replete with abolition movements, and when they were engaged in these struggles, their chances of success seemed almost unthinkable. For generations of Americans, the abolition of slavery was sheerest illusion. Similarly,the entrenched system of racial segregation seemed to last forever, and generations lived in the midst of the practice, with few predicting its passage from custom. The brutal, exploitative (dare one say lucrative?) convict-lease system that succeeded formal slavery reaped millions to southern jurisdictions (and untold miseries for tens of thousands of men, and women). Few predicted its passing from the American penal landscape. Davis expertly argues how social movements transformed these social, political and cultural institutions, and made such practices untenable. In Are Prisons Obsolete?, Professor Davis seeks to illustrate that the time for the prison is approaching an end. She argues forthrightly for "decarceration", and argues for the transformation of the society as a whole.

Golden Gulag - Ruth Wilson Gilmore Since 1980, the number of people in U.S. prisons has increased more than 450%. Despite a crime rate that has been falling steadily for decades, California has led the way in this explosion, with what a state analyst called “the biggest prison building project in the history of the world.” Golden Gulag provides the first detailed explanation for that buildup by looking at how political and economic forces, ranging from global to local, conjoined to produce the prison boom. Gilmore examines this issue through statewide, rural, and urban perspectives to explain how the expansion developed from surpluses of finance capital, labor, land, and state capacity. Detailing crises that hit California’s economy with particular ferocity, she argues that defeats of radical struggles, weakening of labor, and shifting patterns of capital investment have been key conditions for prison growth. The results―a vast and expensive prison system, a huge number of incarcerated young people of color, and the increase in punitive justice such as the “three strikes” law―pose profound and troubling questions for the future of California, the United States, and the world.

Beyond Survival - Ejeris Dixon; Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha Transformative justice seeks to solve the problem of violence at the grassroots level, without relying on punishment, incarceration, or policing. Community-based approaches to preventing crime and repairing its damage have existed for centuries. However, in the punitive atmosphere of contemporary criminal justice systems, they are often marginalized and operate under the radar. Beyond Survival puts these strategies front and center as real alternatives to today’s failed models of confinement and “correction.” In this collection, a diverse group of authors focuses on concrete and practical forms of redress and accountability, assessing existing practices and marking paths forward. They use a variety of forms—from toolkits to personal essays—to delve deeply into the “how to” of transformative justice, providing alternatives to calling the police, ways to support people having mental health crises, stories of community-based murder investigations, and much more. At the same time, they document the history of this radical movement, creating space for long-time organizers to reflect on victories, struggles, mistakes, and transformations.

201

Reports: Supplemental Readings 1. EBC Reports & Resources A. REPORT: Who Pays? Report In September 2015, the Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design, and 20 other organizations across the country launched Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families. The report proves that the costs of locking up millions of people in jail cells is much deeper than we think – when we lock up individuals we also break apart their families and communities. B. Back to Court: A Resentencing Guide for Penal Code section 1172.1 and New Sentence Enhancement Laws in California This Resentencing Toolkit is designed to be both a specific and a general resource. Specifically, this Toolkit provides information for people serving sentences with a range of sentence enhancements. It is now possible to request resentencing on the basis of these enhancements because of the passage Of SB 1393, SB 620, AB 333, SB 124, SB 81, as well as to file for mandatory resentencing because of SB 180, SB 136, and SB 483. We hope that this Toolkit's general overview of PC section 1172.1 Recall and Resentencing will be helpful for people who are seeking a referral to get back to court. This Toolkit contains information that applies to people who are awaiting sentencing or already sentenced under California state laws, whether they are currently on appeal or have a "final" sentence. This includes people who are currently serving time in either California state or county custody, as well as people who are no longer incarcerated, including people on parole or probation.

2. Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) Reports A. 31 criminal justice reforms ripe for victory in 2023 legislative sessions List of high-impact 2023 policy ideas for state legislators and advocates who are looking to reform their criminal justice system without making it bigger. B. Where people in prison come from: The geography of mass incarceration in California In this report, we found that the largest number of imprisoned people in California are from the state’s large cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and Fresno. Surprisingly, a handful of less populous and more rural counties — like Kings, Shasta, Tehama, and Yuba counties — and even some smaller cities — including Avenal, Red Bluff, Corcoran, and Sonora — have high imprisonment rates as well, suggesting that people all over California are affected by the state’s reliance on mass incarceration. This report discuss implications and uses for the data provided. C. The prison context itself undermines public health and vaccination efforts A new report from the Correctional Association of New York about why some people in prison are reluctant to get the COVID-19 vaccine and a lot of it has to do with distrust in the correctional system. D. Untangling why prison & jail populations dropped early in the pandemic This report discusses the reductions in prison and jail populations due to COVID-related slowdowns in the gears of the criminal legal system. Without intentional action, these reductions will be erased. E. "Prisons are a daily environmental injustice" Prisons fail to provide a basic standard of livability, while climate change and extreme weather test the ability of prison administrations to carry out contingency plans for the hundreds of thousands of people in their care. The ways in which environmental hazard and risk maps onto other unsafe conditions of confinement amounts to a human rights crisis that has persisted for decades. This report describes the plethora of environmental effects prisons have on people and the planet.

202

State of Phone Justice 2022: The problem, the progress, and what's next This report discusses the state of phone justice in prisons and jails. Our data, from December 2021, show that per-minute rates in jails and prisons have been steadily falling over the last ten years, a result of action at both the FCC and at the state and local levels. This report provides policy recommendations for Congress, the FCC, and state and local governments.

G. What the end of Roe v Wade mean for People on Probation or Parole This report describes how the end of Roe v. Wade will create new barriers to abortion care for incarcerated people. The abortions that these new post-Roe laws prevent will disproportionately be among people who are poor and lack access to transportation across state lines. People on probation and parole are a key segment of this demographic. Far too many individuals, having been swept into the criminal legal system by laws that criminalize poverty, will now find themselves without recourse for accessing what should be basic healthcare. H. Both sides of the bars: How mass incarceration punishes families Government survey results illuminate the broader consequences of locking up people with children.Half of people in prison are parents to minors, leaving 1.25 million kids struggling to cope This report provides various statistics on the negative effects arresting people with children. Furthermore, the report disclose political interventions states and the federal government can pass to allow reconciliation with families. I.

Since you asked: How many people are released from each state's prisons and jails every year? The number of people going through reentry each year vastly exceeds the resources available to them in most communities. This report is intended to provide information to organizations and advocates on the total number of people released from prisons and jails in their state each year.

J. Where People in Prison come from: the geography of mass incarceration This report is a culmination of state-specific reports that provide analysis of the geography of mass incarceration in each state and the datasets behind that analysis. K. Trans people in state prison This report looks at the experiences of 29 incarcerated transgender people before and during their incarceration. L. "Prisons and jails will separate millions of mothers from their children in 2022" This report evaluates the scale of maternal incarceration and its related harms.(58%) of all women in U.S. prisons are mothers, as are 80% of women in jails, including many who are incarcerated awaiting trial simply because they can’t afford bail. Incarceration does not only impact the individual but their families as well. M. Eight Keys to Mercy: How to shorten excessive prison sentences There exist vastly underused strategies that policy makers can employ to halt, and meaningfully reverse, our overreliance on incarceration. This report presents eight of those strategies. N. New data confirms that prisons neglected COVID-19 mitigation strategies, putting public health at risk This report reveals new data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics which summarizes state policies and prison population changes from March 2020 to February 2021. While the newest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows us evidence of what we observed — state departments of corrections failing to implement even the most obvious mitigation efforts — the data do not give us a full picture of the consequences of these shortcomings.Consequently, the truth about just how bad conditions were in certain state prison systems remains obscured.

203

O. "Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022" This report offers some much-needed clarity by piecing together the data about this country’s disparate systems of confinement. It provides a detailed look at where and why people are locked up in the U.S., and dispels some modern myths to focus attention on the real drivers of mass incarceration and overlooked issues that call for reform. P. Jail-based polling locations: A way to fight voter disenfranchisement Evidence from seven jail-based polling locations shows that it is not only feasible but effective.The emerging evidence shows, when combined with outreach and education to ensure incarcerated voters know what steps they must take to cast their ballots, jail-based polling locations are not only feasible, they’re effective: when people know they can vote from jail, they will vote. Q. Visualizing the unequal treatment of LGBTQ people in the criminal justice system LGBTQ people are overrepresented at every stage of our criminal justice system, from juvenile justice to parole. In this compiled research report, authors discuss the existing research on LGBTQ involvement and experiences with the criminal justice system, and – where the data did not yet exist – analyzed a recent national data set to fill in the gaps. This report present the findings for each stage of the criminal justice system with available data, and pair them with new graphics illustrating the dramatic disparities in the system related to sexuality and gender identity.

3. Reports from Criminal Justice (CJ) Allies A. New Alameda County Resentencing Toolkit The toolkit outlines the resentencing process as well as clear strategies impacted individuals can utilize in Alameda County. B. CURB Prison Closure Report The People’s Plan for Prison Closure (PPPC) is a visionary roadmap that demands bold commitments to justice reinvestment. It provides detailed recommendations including: the prioritization of ten prisons to close in the next five years, and why; a call to close all women’s prisons; an analysis of cost-savings to be captured and reinvested in impacted communities; and data driven information about the roles racism and draconian sentencing continue to play in both prison expansion and overcrowding. C. Initiate Justice - Democracy Needs Everyone: The Urgency of Ending Felony Disenfranchisement in California This report explores how California’s political system can improve if we abolished all felony disenfranchisement laws in the state. This report present the findings of a survey with the goal of uplifting the voices of people in prison and on parole who are barred from the voting process, and to reveal the reality that we as a society are losing by excluding them. Especially considering the existing research that shows voter disenfranchisement increases the likelihood of recidivism and our newfound research indicating incarcerated people believe voting will help them feel more connected to society, we must also view the restoration of voting rights as a proposal to increase public safety.

4. Other Reports A. OIG Report - COVID-19 REVIEW SERIES: Part Three

In this report, Part Three, our final one of the series, we address the remaining requests in the context of the department’s decision to transfer 189 medically vulnerable incarcerated persons from the California Institution for Men to the California State Prison, Corcoran (Corcoran), and San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin).

204

B. Three Strikes in California Report (Committee on Revision of the Penal Code)

In this report, we document the frequency of enhancements under the state’s Three-Strikes law among two samples: (1) people admitted to state prison since 2015, and (2) people who are incarcerated in state prison as of January 2022. We compare the characteristics of those whose sentences are lengthened by provisions of Three Strikes to those without strike enhancements, including comparisons of demographics, offense characteristics, age-at-admission to prison, total time served, mental health level of care, and assessed risk of committing a new offense. We explore the offenses that most frequently generate either a doubled-sentence or a 25-to-life indeterminate sentence and the precise manner by which these enhancements lengthen prison sentences. We analyze variation across counties in the rate at which people are admitted to prison with a strike enhancement, benchmarking admission rates against the level of felony arrests in the county.

C. So Is that Actually an Abolitionist Proposal or Strategy?

This report is filled with excerpts from resources that advocates have frequently used as jumping off points when we began thinking strategically about abolitionist organizing. The excerpts included in the report highlight tools that authors found helpful when getting into the nitty-gritty of strategizing and evaluating next-steps: questions to ask, lists to consider, steps to take, charts to consult.

D. Penal Code Revision Committee Report 2021

This report provides seven recommendations of how the penal code should be revised.The Committee’s recommendations are unanimous and build on exhaustive research and testimony from 23 expert witnesses who addressed the Committee this year, including California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Rob Bonta, crime victims, law enforcement leaders, judges, and criminal defense experts and advocates. This report contains extensive support for each recommendation, including empirical research, experiences from other jurisdictions, and new data.

E. Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists- Chapter 9

This chapter talks about community based alternatives and meeting community needs, the empowerment of incarcerated people and their self-advocacy, what allyship looks like, etc.

F. Debt to Society: The Role of Fines & Fees Reform in Dismantling the Carceral State

Using Tennessee as a case study and drawing on the author’s experiences working within the State’s system, this Article considers ways to effectively advocate for the elimination of court debt as a punishment for poverty. First, it provides an abbreviated history of court debt and explains how that history still impacts individuals today. This Article also draws upon the author’s experiences representing individuals in court, appearing before judges, and collaborating with other stakeholders to show the difficulty of achieving a state-wide movement for reform in Tennessee’s current political climate, a problem not unique to this state.

G. Challenging power dynamics within RJ circles

Power dynamics play an important and often unacknowledged role in restorative processes. At the societal level, variables such as race, gender, age, sexual orientation,and socioeconomic status interact to create explicit and implicit biases towards members of some groups. At the restorative system level, unquestioned paradigms around the roles of victims, offenders, gatekeepers, and facilitators may contribute to inequitable access and procedures. Finally, at the restorative process level, facilitation and practices that limit participation and ownership may contribute to participant disempowerment. When power dynamics within these three levels interact and influence each other, they result in less restorative processes and outcomes for all.

H. Guide to the California State Budget Process

This report sheds light on the state budget and the budget process with the goal of giving Californians the tools they need to effectively engage decision makers and advocate for fair and just policy choices.

205