Impact evaluation by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Oakland, CA

1. PROPOSITION 6(a.k.a. the Runner measure, the “Safe Neighborhoods Act,” the Criminal Laws and State Spending Statute) Impact evaluation by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Oakland, CA

2. PROPOSITION 6 A punitive approach to public safety; a wasteful approach to public spending

3. Overview of Prop. 6 • 60+ harsh changes in criminal law • New spending: • $1 billion the first year • $500 million each year thereafter

4. Overview of Prop 6:60+ harsh and ineffective changes in criminal law • Limits court’s discretion to not impose enhancements and upper penalties • More charges where a 14-year old is tried as an adult • Life sentences for attempting to intimidate a witness, judge, prosecutor or peace officer • Life sentence for extortion • No ‘good time’ for anyone who commits any offense eligible for a possible life sentence. • 15 to life if more than two persons enter a home to commit robbery • Increased penalties for possession of methamphetamine, or possession for sale, or sale • Ten year enhancement for gun possession by a person with prior felony conviction • Punishes “accomplices” with penalties equal to “principal” • Provide a cell phone or a weapon to a prisoner used in commission of a crime, you are guilty of the same crime • False statement to law enforcement makes one a felony accomplice • Limits court’s discretion to provide probation to persons with prior auto thefts

5. Overview of Prop 6:60+ harsh/ineffective changes in criminal law, contd. • Accused gang members • 5 year sentence enhancement for recruiting a person under 14 to a ‘gang’ • Increased penalties for ‘recruiting’ to a gang • Person who recruits for a gang can be punished for the recruit’s crimes • Admission of hearsay evidence against gang members • Parolees • Failure to register with police as ‘gang member’ on first day after release can result in new prison or jail time • Failure to register in ‘all’ places where one sleeps can result in new jail or prison time • Remove or tamper with a GPS tracking device, a new felony • Undocumented persons • Check immigration status of all persons in jail who are charged with, booked, or convicted of a felony • No bail for foreign national without proof of legal residency for violent crimes and gang-related crimes

6. Overview of Prop 6:New spending for… • “Temporary jails” • Additional State Gang Database • Annual criminal background check on all in Sec. 8 Housing in order to receive funding from Safe Neighborhoods Compliance Enforcement Fund

7. 3/4 VOTE TO AMEND SIMPLE MAJORITY TO INCREASE PENALTIES

8. Overview of Prop 6:Fiscal Effects According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office… • Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations • Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities • Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies

9. What Prop. 6 does not and will not do:Adequately promote prevention and rehabilitation Graph 1. Breakdown of spending ($964 million):

10. What Prop. 6 does not and will not do:Reduce recidivism • Failed parole strategy • Reentry fund requires “aggressive supervision of parolees”; affirms “state’s right to conduct warrantless searches” • Ex-gang members who neglect to register all addresses face new sentence of 1-3 yrs. • Expands the list of violations parole officer is required to report to Board of Parole • Forces cities to strip ex-offenders of Section 8 housing, but provides no alternative source. • Punitive Provisions without reentry support will yield more parole violators, increasing the number of persons cycling through prisons.

11. What Prop. 6 does not and will not do:Stop the revolving door • 51.9% of parolees return to prison as parole violators. 15.6% for new offenses • Graph 2. 2006 admissions to CDCR:

12. What Prop. 6 does do:Lengthens sentences • Increases (to life) penalty for home invasion robbery, carjacking, extortion • “Raising the costs of doing crime (by increasing penalties) will only work if […] there are legitimate opportunities that make the costs of the sanctions something worth avoiding.” (Urban Institute) • Runner does not provide these opportunities.

13. What Prop. 6 does do:Tries youth as adults • More youth sentenced as adults by creating a presumption of unfitness for juvenile court toward youth 14+ involved in gang activity • CDC report finds youth sentenced to adult prison commit more crimes after release than their counterparts in juvenile system (controlling for severity of first offense) • Prison provides less rehabilitation, indoctrinates youth in beliefs and habits of more hardened offenders • Is not cost effective: keeping youth in the juvenile system saves $3 for every dollar spent (Urban Inst.)

14. What Prop. 6 does do:Removes input from important stakeholders • Cuts community reps. and youth service providers from juvenile justice coordinating councils • Excises drug treatment and mental health providers from Y.O. Block Grant funding • Renders these institutions subjects to, rather than partners in, the reentry process • Justice Department: Police should “encourage the community to engage in problem-solving partnerships by offering an opportunity for active participation in—and ownership of—the reentry effort.” Runner measure does the opposite.

15. What Prop. 6 does do:Requires new public spending, without generating new public revenue • According to LAO: • Current Spending: $600 m • Runner Continuing Appropriation: $965 m + COLA • New Prison $500 m

16. NO REVENUE Where does the money come from? GENERAL FUND

17. Bottom Line • Under Prop. 6, cities get funds tethered to a strategy of mass incarceration • 60 harsh changes to criminal law • “more offenders being sentenced to state prison or jail [...] for a longer period of time” (LAO) • Cities do not receive (and may potentially lose) money to implement services that strengthen high-incarceration neighborhoods to resist crime, nor the funds to provide adequately for ex-offenders returning to their neighborhoods. • The more earmarks we impose on the General Fund, the more likely it is that other state programs will be cut

18. What We Need To Do • We need a results-oriented approach to public investment, and a results-oriented approach to public safety • Hard times require disciplined financial planning • Incarceration alone cannot provide a comprehensive public safety strategy

19. Why?California today: • Housing crisis and state budget deficit ($17 billion) • Prisons operating at almost double capacity • “Very modest” revenue growth forecast for 2008-2009 (LAO) • Youth population on the rise; Baby Boomers retiring • Energy crisis / environment in jeopardy • More healthcare investment • To train young people to replace retiring workers (job openings for nurses projected to increase 24.4% over the decade) • To overhaul our energy infrastructure toward sustainability Due to these factors, we desperately need:

20. What we need to do:Focus on high-returns public investments • Investment in education: propels economic activity, increases tax revenues from high-skilled workers • net return of three dollars for every dollar California invests (Campaign for College Opportunity) • Investment in energy infrastructure: improves public health, expands wealth-building opportunities for California workers in a growing industry, combats global warming

21. What we need to do:Implement better models of public safety • Reinvest punishment spending in rebuilding the social and economic capacities of high-incarceration neighborhoods to resist crime (Justice reinvestment) • Reduce recidivism via democratic coordination between housing, employment, health and mental health services (Urban Institute’s 5-point reentry plan)

22. The Ella Baker Vision • California cities need not be looked at as problems and need not be sources of incarceration and despair. Rather, our cities can be looked to for solutions, as centers of innovation and prosperity. • A solution-oriented approach requires smart, balanced investment in education, infrastructure, health care, jobs creation, and public safety, based on a rational assessment of social, economic and environmental returns.

23. Addendum Investment in incarceration yields negative returns • The most economically vulnerable communities bear the economic and social penalties of incarceration • When we include the prison population, employment rates among non-college black men “did not increase at all through the economic expansion of the late 1990s.” (B. Western 2006) • Earnings loss associated with incarceration is 35 percent, when we compare ex-offenders to similarly positioned men (Western) • The percentage of elderly prisoners has tripled over the last 25 years. Elderly prisoners cost twice as much as the average prisoner to incarcerate (San Joaquin Record) • Since 2002, prison costs have increased at a rate (74%) faster than any other major state program (Sacramento Bee)

24. Investment in incarceration yields negative returns, cont. • California’s prison budget “will overtake spending on state’s universities within 5 years” (SF Chronicle)