Open Access Publisher and Free Library
11-human rights.jpg

HUMAN RIGHTS

HUMAN RIGHTS-MIGRATION-TRAFFICKING-SLAVERY-CIVIL RIGHTS

Posts tagged California
Resistance, Retaliation, Repression: Two Years in California Immigration Detention

By Maricela Sanchez

In 2023, we worked with local partners and a brave set of detained leaders to create the California Immigration Detention Database (“Database”). The purpose of the Database was to expose and document the daily conditions of life in California immigration detention by tracking formal grievances sent to us by those inside. “When people try to be heard by staff through their grievances, [they] are ignored. These facilities are not safe, and staff are not held responsible for misconduct.” – Jose Ruben Hernandez Gomez Since the inception of this project, detained immigrants in California have launched widespread labor strikes and hunger strikes and have filed multiple lawsuits and administrative complaints to put a spotlight on the abuse and neglect they suffer. As part of this effort, people in custody have continued to send us copies of the grievances they file through Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE’s”) internal system. As of July 2024, we have received 485 grievances across six immigration detention facilities in California. Together, these grievances reveal a persistent and disturbing pattern of abuse that pervades ICE’s detention regime in California. • Hazardous Facilities and Inhumane Treatment: Inadequate facility management was the most common reason for a grievance, making clear that ICE’s immigration detention facilities in California are consistently unfit for human habitation. ICE also fails to meet the minimum standards of its own policies, like ensuring people have edible food, clean water, and the opportunity to go outside for fresh air and sunshine • Medical neglect: We have received 94 grievances related to inadequate medical care, lack of COVID-19 protections, and denial of medication. Many people in the detention facilities suffer from chronic conditions. Some develop new health problems, sometimes because of hazardous materials or abusive treatment they experience while detained. But requests to see a doctor are left languishing, and ICE and facility staff regularly leave medication unfilled, or otherwise disregard the prescribed treatment. Likewise, during the pandemic, ICE showed a remarkable indifference to the safety of the people it incarcerates. More recently, ICE has withheld potentially life saving treatments, like Paxlovid, from people who contract COVID. • Retaliation: The most common outcome of filing a grievance isn’t change. It’s retaliation. The grievances we’ve received include 56 complaints of bullying and harassment by detention facility staff, 13 complaints related to sexual assault, 15 complaints related to sleep deprivation, and 59 complaints related to other forms of retaliation, such as punitive and extended use of solitary confinement. As part of its regular practice, ICE does not proactively release information about the grievances it receives from people in detention. Based on our conversations with detained people and with local partners who regularly engage in detention-related work, we believe that our records represent the most consistent issues in the detention facilities. This report is intended to support the advocacy and resistance of the people trapped inside ICE’s detention facilities. It includes data, stories, and background that document the ongoing harms of immigration detention. Taken together, it is unequivocally clear that ICE and the private companies it contracts with cannot be trusted to care for the people they detain. The grievance system, which is supposed to offer an avenue for redress, ends up making things worse for those it’s intended to help. Existing oversight mechanisms are inadequate, and human rights violations are rampant. It is our conclusion that the immigration detention system is irredeemable and infected by greed, racism, and impunity

San Francisco: UCLA of Northern California, 2024. 34p.

The Homelessness Prevention Unit: A Proactive Approach to Preventing Homelessness in Los Angeles County

By BRIAN BLACKWELL, COLIN CAPRARA, JANEY ROUNTREE, ROBERT SANTILLANO, DANA VANDERFORD, CLAIRE BATTIS

Homelessness continues to be a major problem in California, and new approaches to addressing it are urgently needed. This report brings to light an innovative predictive model for homelessness prevention that is showing promising results. The data reveals that this approach — being used for the first time in California and the United States — reaches individuals who are outside of the usual preventive safety net at critical junctures in their lives. Timing is everything — and the Homelessness Prevention Unit connects at-risk people to crucial services and support that could help them avoid homelessness. Consider the scope of the problem: more than 75,000 people experience homelessness in Los Angeles County on any given night in 2024. This represents a 9% increase since 2022 and a 43% increase since 2018. Clearly, long-term solutions to homelessness require not just housing people experiencing homelessness but also preventing homelessness before it occurs. A statewide survey in California revealed that most people experiencing homelessness believe that a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000 would have resolved their rapidly escalating financial crises and prevented them from experiencing homelessness. Existing homelessness prevention programs typically include one-time cash assistance ranging on average between $1,000 to $5,000 and short-term direct services such as legal assistance. Several studies have found this approach to be effective at reducing homelessness. Yet research also highlights how difficult it is to ensure that scarce prevention resources primarily reach people who will experience homelessness if they do not receive this help. In partnership with Los Angeles County, the California Policy Lab (CPL) is researching strategies to address this challenge, including developing a data-driven predictive model that can proactively identify people at highest risk of experiencing homelessness. In many prevention programs, participants self-identify as being at risk of homelessness and are then screened into programs based on eligibility criteria or surveys that ask questions about risk factors. CPL’s predictive model, however, analyzes de-identified data to proactively identify people at high risk of homelessness. Our research finds that people identified by the predictive model are not connected to typical prevention programs, indicating that both approaches are valuable and reach different people. To test whether this model could be used to better target prevention resources, in 2020, Los Angeles County created the Homelessness Prevention Unit (HPU) operating out of the Housing for Health division of the Department of Health Services (DHS) in close collaboration with the Chief Information Office (CIO) and Department of Mental Health (DMH). A County seed funding investment in the HPU made it possible to pilot an innovative approach to homelessness prevention that offers flexible cash assistance and tailored case management to individuals and families predicted by CPL’s model to be at the highest risk of experiencing homelessness. Because the HPU is located within the Los Angeles County health system, CPL’s model is focused on people who recently received DHS or DMH services and who are observed as stably housed in County administrative data. This group includes nearly 100,000 people over the course of a year (the “eligible population”). CPL uses the model to produce lists multiple times a year of people with the highest risk of homelessness. The lists are anonymized and rank-ordered from highest to lowest risk of homelessness. CPL sends the high-risk lists to the CIO, where County staff match each person’s anonymized record to a County medical record ID. The CIO then transfers the lists to the HPU so that they can identify names, addresses, and contact info of the patients listed. HPU staff then screen out some people on the risk lists that other data sources indicate are currently experiencing homelessness and are therefore ineligible. For eligible individuals, HPU staff attempt to contact them, and, if they are willing, enroll them in the intervention. The HPU serves between 400 to 600 people per year. The intervention includes rapidly delivered, flexible cash assistance, tailored case management, and referrals to other services, such as mental health care, workforce development, and legal services. This policy report provides an overview of: (1) CPL’s predictive model, including data sources and engineering; (2) the equity of the predictive model; (3) outreach and enrollment in the HPU; (4) the HPU’s design and service model; and (5) how CPL will evaluate the impact of the HPU program in a randomized control trial

Los Angeles: The California Policy Lab , 2024. 50p.

An Evaluation of California’s Indigent Defense Grant Program

Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Nicholas M. Pace, Nastassia Reed, Rosemary Li

In 2020, California took steps to address intercounty variation and shortcomings in indigent defense resources through the Indigent Defense Grant Program (IDGP), which provided 9.8 million to public defenders’ offices in small to medium-sized counties. An understanding of the implementation and outcomes of the projects initiated by grantees is critical to identifying ways to improve the effectiveness of indigent defense across the state and achieve the goals of the IDGP. Authors detail how grantees used program funds, what the funds enabled offices to accomplish, and statewide lessons learned from this program and make recommendations for similar future grant programs.

Key Findings

  • The most common grant-funded hires were attorneys, law clerks or law students, and administrative assistants.

  • Offices used funds for case-support services, including expert witnesses, immigration support, and interpreters.

  • Grantees reported making progress toward such goals as increasing knowledge and skills of staff, improving attorney and staff workloads, and providing services related to behavioral health and well-being.

  • Challenges that grantees experienced included hiring and retention difficulties, delays outside the control of the offices, and data and technology limitations.

  • Grantees cited flexibility in using funds as a feature of the grant program that maximized its impact and suggested increasing the minimum funding allocation

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024, 73 pages