The private prison industry in FL is now changing; the state is taking more control

By: Mitch Perry 

When private prisons began operating nearly 30 years ago in Florida, they were one of the few systems in the nation to place oversight outside of the usual state corrections administration.

Now, after a damning audit released a year ago showing failures in oversight, the Department of Corrections has taken over the oversight of seven private prisons. The move began this month following legislation passed in the spring and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The transition means that the state’s Department of Management Services (DMS) will no longer be overseeing those seven private prisons.

Of the 85,145 inmates now in prisons in Florida, slightly more than 10,000 are housed in those seven private facilities, according to Department of Corrections Deputy Secretary Richard Comerford, who spoke before the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on Wednesday.

The impetus for transferring the oversight to the FDC stems from a June 2022 Florida Auditor General audit of the DMS which found seven areas of deficiencies, including bureau monitoring of private correctional facility staffing. That means the facilities needed enhancements to ensure that appropriate and qualified staff were assigned to provide for and maintain the security, control, custody, and supervision of inmates.

There are three private prison providers that run the state’s seven private prisons: CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, GEO Group, Inc., and Management and Training Corporation (MTC).

The audit found that the GEO Group did not adequately maintain adequate levels of security personnel at the Graceville Correctional Facility for two three-month periods in 2019, and did not properly maintain the fire safety system for three months in 2018.

It also found that MTC did not follow up on maintenance issues noted at the Gadsden Correctional Facility for 17 months (from 2018 to 2020) and that MTC could not demonstrate that key security personnel had received appropriate training in accordance with Department of Corrections requirements for five months between 2019 and 2020.

Florida is one of 27 states use private corporations to run some of their correctional facilities, according to a 2023 report by the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group that promotes reforms in sentencing policies. The first private facility in the state, Gadsen Correctional Facility, opened in 1995. The most recent private prison is Blackwater in Santa Rosa County, which opened in 2010.

State law requires private prisons to cost 7 percent less than comparable state facilities.

Orange County Democratic Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis asked Comerford to list the differences in policies and procedures between the state’s corrections department and the state’s private prisons – specifically that private prisons don’t transfer out inmates who commit violent infractions as quickly as FDC’s policies require.

Comerford did acknowledge that the state system had fallen behind the private facilities when it came to funding programming and education programs for inmates, but he said with recent funding from the Legislature, “I think we’re even going to be on a level playing field when it comes to programming and education.”

Originally published on October 18th, 2023, in the Florida Phoenix.

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Bills to improve voting access for incarcerated individuals draw support from lawmakers, advocates

‘Pennsylvania can care about our democracy and promoting real justice and safety,’ state Rep. Rick Krajewski said

BY: CASSIE MILLER - 

With the general election weeks away, lawmakers and advocates are calling for legislation to better inform incarcerated Pennsylvanians about their right to vote and permit them to vote via absentee ballot. 

Supporters of House Bill 1756 and its counterpart House Bill 1757 — bills that would permit all incarcerated individuals to vote in Pennsylvania, provide voter information to correctional facilities, and direct the Department of State to create a “uniform policy for civic education” in correctional institutions — gathered on the Capitol steps Wednesday, hoping to garner support for the legislation currently before the House State Government Committee. 

The bill’s prime sponsor, state Rep. Rick Krajewski (D-Philadelphia) said that the legislation is needed to prevent “de-facto disenfranchisement.”

“This process will include dissemination of registration forms, ballot applications and ballots, civic education for voters to learn how to cast their vote, and designated staff to handle the collection and return of ballots. We will also be collecting data from each facility to oversee the effectiveness of their procedures,” Krajewski said. 

As long as they have been citizens for at least one month before the next election and will be at least 18 years of age on election day, many incarcerated individuals are currently allowed to vote in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The list includes pretrial detainees, convicted misdemeanants, individuals who have been released (or will be released by the date of the next election) from a correctional facility or halfway house upon completion of their term of incarceration for conviction of a misdemeanor or a felony, individuals who are on probation or released on parole, and individuals who are under house arrest, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 

The problem, lawmakers said, is that many eligible individuals don’t know it. 

“If you can empower and engage folks on the inside, who are at one of their lowest moments, and get them to engage in our democracy — What happens when they come home?” state Rep. Chris Rabb (D-Philadelphia) asked. “What kind of ambassadors, what kind of advocates are they going to be? Say: ‘Look, I voted, and I was on the inside, what’s your excuse?’”

Rabb, who said supporting the bill was “a no-brainer” for him, called the pair of bills “super voter” bills for their ability to empower more Pennsylvanians to cast their votes on election day. 

“Having people closest to the pain informed the policy — that will allow for justice for all,” Rabb said. 

State Rep. Aerion Abney, a Democrat representing Allegheny County, echoed Rabb’s comments about the potential impact of the legislation. 

“If you are someone who is extremely passionate about protecting our democracy, and expanding access to the ballot and voting rights, then this bill is for you,” state Rep. Aerion Abney (D-Allegheny) said. “If you are someone that cares about criminal justice reform, and protecting the rights of the people who are in our county jails, this bill is also for you as well.”

The rally to support the bills comes just a day after students from across the commonwealth gathered at the Capitol for another voting-related cause, urging lawmakers to consider two bills that would end closed primary elections in Pennsylvania and bring more voters to the polls on election day. 

The flurry of activity around voting rights is also happening as the Legislature quibbles over when Pennsylvania’s 2024 presidential primary should be held, as the current April 23 date conflicts with Passover.

“We have the opportunity to rewrite history,” Krajewski said. “Pennsylvania has historically been one of the worst states in our country when it comes to our carceral system. While we have the wind behind our backs, while we have this majority, we must use this political moment to say another world is possible, that Pennsylvania can be a state that believes everyone deserves a second chance, that Pennsylvania can care about our democracy and promoting real justice and safety.”

Photo credit: Cassie Miller 

Originally published on October 18th, 2023, in Penn Capital-Star

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Kaiser Settlement Sends Strong Message to Providers That Ignore Patient Needs

A California settlement compels the state’s largest health care provider to spend $150 million on behavioral health services.

• MARK KREIDLER
• OCT 16, 2023

Kaiser Permanente’s $200 million settlement with the State of California for its 
repeated failures to provide patients with adequate and timely mental health care 
was a long while coming.  The deficiencies themselves? Kaiser’s own employees 
say they’ve been hiding in plain sight.

“Years and years of banging our heads against the wall have finally paid off,” said Ilana Marcucci-Morris, a therapist at Kaiser Permanente’s Oakland Medical Center. “This has the potential to make Kaiser a leader in mental health care, rather than a serial violator of mental health care laws.”

The settlement, announced late Thursday by the state’s Department of Managed Health Care, includes a $50 million fine — the largest the department has ever levied against a health plan, Director Mary Watanabe said in a statement. Kaiser also pledged to spend $150 million over five years to build out behavioral health services that critics say have been woefully underdeveloped for years, leading to appointment wait times that violated state standards.

The settlement resulted from the department’s enforcement investigation and a nonroutine survey of Kaiser’s practices last year, which identified “several deficiencies and violations in the plan’s provision of behavioral health care services to enrollees,” the department said in a news release. Those included long delays for patients trying to schedule mental health appointments, a failure to contract enough high-level behavioral care facilities within its network, and Kaiser not making out-of-network referrals consistent with requirements under the law when in-network providers were not available, the department said.

Under the settlement, Kaiser must hire an outside consultant “to focus on corrective actions” related to access, referrals, appeals and grievances and to ensure that patients receive the mental health care they need, regardless of the type or severity of their conditions.

“Today’s actions represent a tectonic shift in terms of our accountability on the delivery of behavioral health services,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. Newsom said the settlement aims to “provide Kaiser patients with the care they are entitled to in a timely manner.”

In a statement, Kaiser CEO Greg A. Adams said the agreement “takes full accountability for our performance during the survey period including our shortcomings, acknowledges our work to improve mental health care, and ensures that our ongoing investments not only help the members of Kaiser Permanente but also build a stronger mental health foundation in the communities we serve.”

Critics have argued that Kaiser patients haven’t received adequate care for years, despite previous enforcement actions. Kaiser paid a $4 million fine in 2013 for not providing its members proper access to mental health care. Four years later, it agreed to redress similar failures. Yet Kaiser has consistently left patients without follow-up mental health appointments for weeks, sometimes months, state officials and critics have said.

The situation reached a boiling point last fall, when more than 2,000 mental health professionals affiliated with the National Union of Healthcare Workers walked off the job, frustrated during contract negotiations by what they said was Kaiser’s refusal to address persistent staffing issues and long wait times for behavioral services. (Disclosure: NUHW is a financial supporter of Capital & Main.)

Capital & Main reported in 2021 and again last year that Kaiser workers said wait times for mental health appointments often stretched four to eight weeks or more. Jenny Butera, a marriage and family therapist in Sacramento who has since left Kaiser, said on Aug. 14 last year, “My earliest next appointment (is) mid-October — for anybody.” The American Psychological Association said in 2020 that it had never “seen such an egregious case of delayed access for follow-up appointments.”

The DMHC paid attention to such stories, and legislation that took effect last summer required providers such as Kaiser to schedule follow-up appointments for mental health care patients within 10 days of their last visit. In the wake of Thursday’s announced settlement, the department said its survey continues and could prompt a modified corrective plan.

“This settlement is a monumental victory for Kaiser Permanente patients and its mental health therapists who have waged multiple strikes over the past decade to make Kaiser fix its broken behavioral healthcare system,” said union President Sal Rosselli. “The DMHC’s report affirms everything that Kaiser therapists have said about their patients’ inability to receive timely, adequate mental health care.”

In his statement, Adams said demand for Kaiser’s mental health care services rose 33% during the COVID-19 pandemic and that 20% more people have sought care in 2023 than at the same time last year. He added that “an ongoing shortage of qualified mental health professionals,” along with clinician burnout and turnover and the 10-week strike last year, made it “very difficult to meet this growing need for care.”

The union has disputed Kaiser’s characterization, arguing that qualified therapists fled Kaiser over the years because of unreasonable workloads and short-staffing practices that predated the pandemic.

Kaiser Permanente is the largest health care provider in California, with 9.4 million residents using the system. The company was founded as a nonprofit, though its Permanente Medical Groups operate as for-profit entities. Kaiser reported a record $8.1 billion in net revenue in 2021 before showing a loss in 2022 — the only year since 2007 that the company has posted negative income.

Kaiser therapists have complained for years that Kaiser paid scant attention to the mental health care needs of its patients — a fairly common practice among health providers, industry economists say. Thursday’s settlement will change the math a bit.

“It makes me feel hopeful, knowing they have to put money into this,” Marcucci-Morris said. “We’ve been pushing for well over a decade.”

Capital & Main

The opinions expressed here are solely the author's and do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of the LA Progressive.

Related Articles 

Why are thousands of Kaiser health care workers on strike? 5 questions answered

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Solidarity with the Palestinian right to resist

Only history can place the October 7th Palestinian military action in Israel in its proper context – an act of self-defense in response to a steadily increasing, all-encompassing Israeli assault on Palestinians in the occupied territories, in general, and the “open-air prison” of Gaza in particular. The December 12th Movement International Secretariat strongly supports the Palestinian people in the righteous exercise of their internationally-guaranteed human rights.

Why Black People Should Be Concerned

Black people cannot allow ourselves to be misguided by the U.S. government/mainstream media narrative of what is going on in the Middle East.

As with much of U.S. history, Israel’s began with a myth – “A land without a people, for a people without a land” - to justify its 1948 creation as a settler-colonial state. In many ways, the Palestinian struggle for liberation reflects our struggle in the U.S. Just as the U.S. government domestic policy has historically perpetrated and profited from Black people’s forcible oppression here, its foreign policy does the same around the world, but particularly clearly in Palestine. The U.S. was instrumental in Israel’s establishment and the forced displacement of the Palestinian who lived there. It has unqualifiedly backed it with money, weapons, intelligence, aid, propaganda and political cover ever since. Israel is the U.S.’s “eyes, ears, caretaker and bodyguard” in a critical oil-rich, non-white, non-European, geo-economic-political area.

Israel has now declared a “complete siege” on Gaza and has cut off water, electricity, fuel and food to the already impoverished area. Israel has held Gaza in a state of siege for the last 17 years since Hamas began governing. Israel said that it will “exterminate” Hamas. Hamas is the government of Gaza, not simply a military force. Hamas is an integral part of the 2.4 million people of Gaza, an area the size of Detroit (population 620,000) and one of the most densely populated areas of the world. Israel cannot separate its extermination of Hamas from the people of Gaza. Nevertheless President Biden “has Israel’s back.”

When the entire world has united to condemn Israeli atrocities, the U.S. “has its back.” Between 1972 and 2021, the United States vetoed over 53 UN resolutions against Israel.i Major international human rights organizations have accused Israel of being an apartheid regime.ii And this is not surprising as Israel was one of the few open supporters of the South African Apartheid state. Nevertheless, the U.S. “had its back.”

So we must pay close attention to what is going on in the world, even if it seem unrelated to us. Malcolm X said if we fail to do so, we’ll treat our friends as enemies and our enemies as friends. The Palestinian people are our friends.

We must:

• Demand that the CBC support the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and self-defense
• Condemn Israeli State and colonial violence against the Palestinian people
• Demand that the U.S. end all aid to Israel
• Defend the Palestinian Movement and community in the U.S.
• Demand the Release of all (5000) Palestinian prisoners (including 1350 being held without charge or trial)

i UN Security Council Veto List; Newton, Creede, “A History of the U.S. Blocking UN Resolutions against Israel,” Al Jazeera, 5/19/2021

ii Amnesty International Report, “Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity,” 2/1/2022

Landry’s red wave to victory for governor also carries GOP women toward statewide office

Ultraconservative state lawmakers also avoid runoffs

Attorney General Jeff Landry’s stunning win in the governor’s race Saturday overwhelmed most other election news, but a few notable trends also emerged. Landry was not the only person with a surprising election victory this weekend. A handful of ultraconservative Louisiana Senate candidates also won their races outright and avoided November runoff elections.

State Reps. Rick Edmonds of Baton Rouge, Valarie Hodges of Denham Springs, Blake Miguez of Erath and Alan Seabaugh of Shreveport each claimed open Senate seats in the Legislature Saturday over fellow Republicans who are more moderate. Incumbent Sen. Stewart Cathey, R-Monroe, also beat a GOP challenger who was perceived to be more middle-of-the-road.

Hodges, Miguez and Seabaugh are among the most conservative members of the Louisiana House and have often challenged Republican legislative leadership on spending issues. They were among the 19 legislators who wanted the state to spend hundreds of millions of dollars less on roads and other infrastructure projects this year in order to limit government spending. 

Republicans advancing to the runoff stages of the attorney  general and treasurer races — Liz Murrill and John Fleming, respectively — were also the more conservative options in their primary races. They beat out other, more middle-of-the-road GOP candidates to head into the next stage of the election against Democrats on Nov. 18. 

The right turn in the state Senate should make life easier for Landry as governor. An ultraconservative himself, he should have fewer disputes with lawmakers overall because more of them will be aligned with his political ideology. 

Women rising

Louisiana has not had a woman in statewide office since early 2015, when former U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu left office after losing her reelection to Bill Cassidy.

But in 2024, women will hold at least two of Louisiana’s nine elected statewide offices no matter what happens in the runoffs.

Murrill and Democrat Lindsey Cheek have made it into the runoff for attorney general, and Republican Nancy Landry and Democrat Gwen Collins-Greenup will face each other in the secretary of state’s runoff.

Murrill and Nancy Landry, as Republicans, are considered the favorites to win the races, even though Louisiana has never had two Republican women serving in statewide office at the same time.  

The last time Louisiana had two women in statewide office at all was the beginning of 2008, right before former Gov. Kathleen Blanco stepped down and Landrieu was still in Congress. 

Low voter turnout 

Voter turnout was even lower than political experts and outgoing Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin predicted it would be for this election cycle. 

Unofficial returns indicated statewide turnout of registered voters in the governor’s race was 35.8%. Ardoin’s office predicted between 42% and 46%, and political consultant and pollster John Couvillon thought it would come in between 38% and 40%. 

Registered voter turnout dropped by 10 points from the last gubernatorial primary election in 2019, when it was 45.9%. Gov. John Bel Edwards received 625,970 votes in that election, but only 47% of the overall vote. By comparison, Jeff Landry won the governor’s race Saturday with 547,828 votes and 52% of the overall vote. 

The decrease was more dramatic in Democratic and Black voter strongholds. Orleans Parish voter turnout was nearly 12 points higher, 38.7% in 2019 compared with 27% this weekend. East Baton Rouge Parish voter turnout dropped even more dramatically, by about 13 points from 48% in 2019 to 34.9%.

Low Democratic voter turnout is thought to have benefitted Landry and other conservative candidates, since those constituents are the least likely to vote for far-right Republicans.

This article originally appeared in The Louisiana Illuminator on October 15th, 2023.  

Related Posts

Bland gubernatorial election threatens to suppress voter turnout, Verite News 

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Thomas Sankara

Thomas Sankara (1949-1987) was unique among late 20th century presidents in Africa and beyond. His political leadership was guided by a pro-people militant activism that brought together strands of radical anti-imperial Pan-Africanism, Marxist-Leninism, feminism, agro-ecological approaches to food justice, and more. Through his electrifying public speeches, his militant activism materialised as one grounded in the urgent and on-going need for concrete decolonization—a revolutionary process that Sankara understood to be protracted, necessarily experimental (in this way, ‘mad’), holistic, and centred on the intellectual liberation of everyday African people, who would be responsible for their own empowerment. For Sankara, women and the rural poor were unavoidably at the forefront of liberation projects. 

As such, Sankara, throughout his short life (he was just 37 when he was killed), sought to create the structural and cultural conditions through which Burkinabè people would assert their own projects, ambitions, and goals. Central to this was an explicit distancing from the kinds of economic and social approaches to policy which were conventional in the late Cold War—including foreign debt, socio-economic imperialism, and international development aid. 

During the revolutionary project that he led in the West African country of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987, the revolutionary government pursued ambitious and autonomous large- and small-scale initiatives to promote heath and decrease hunger and thirst in the country. Among these initiatives: mass child vaccination projects, tree-planting and re-forestation initiatives and the construction of a railroad to connect the country’s main cities which was built through collaboration at the grassroots by citizen-workers (international financial institutions refused to back the project). Each of these initiatives was oriented to ensuring that each Burkinabè had ‘two meals a day and access to clean drinking water’.

 

For Sankara, racial, gender, ecological, epistemic, food and economic justice were intrinsically connected. Revolutionary projects are therefore necessarily holistic: there would be no end to hunger without an end to imperialism, he said. There would be no revolution without an end to women’s oppression, he said. There would be no end to deforestation without an emancipatory educational system that re-centred values drawing from the indigenous political orientation of burkindlum* which fostered self-respect, pride, and honesty. 

 

  

The almost astonishing successes of the Burkinabè revolutionary project of the 1980s have received increased popular and scholarly attention in the last decade; this, after two decades of near-silence on and/or superficial and Eurocentric considerations of Sankara in scholarship written in English (there is a rich international scholarship on Sankara in French). 

The 15th of October 2017 marked the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Thomas Sankara and collective, popular ceremonies marking the moment were held in Burkina Faso, Canada, Italy and the US. Significant for such remembering of Sankara’s legacy is an awareness of the on-going absence of justice for his assassination alongside twelve of his collaborators. Sankara’s life and legacies remain critical for activists and young people organizing for justice today.

 

*Burkindlum is a Burkinabè political and ethical orientation that emphasises sacrifice, honesty and integrity in action. See Zakaria Soré (2018) “Balai Citoyen: A New Praxis of Citizen Fight with Sankarist Inspirations” in ‘A Certain Amount of Madness’: The Life, Politics & Legacy of Thomas Sankara, Murrey, Amber (ed.). London: Pluto Press.

 

 

Essential Reading (in English):

Sankara, Thomas (2007) Thomas Sankara Speaks. Pathfinder Press.
Harsch, Ernest (2014) Thomas Sankara: An African Revolutionary. Ohio University Press.
Murrey, Amber, ed. (2018) ‘A Certain Amount of Madness’ The Life, Politics, and Legacy of Thomas Sankara. London: Pluto Press.
Shuffield, Robin (2006) Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man. Documentary Film, 52 mins.

 

Further Reading (in English):
Battistoli, D.S. (2017) What Would A Sympathetic Critique of Thomas Sankara Look Like? Africa Is A Country.

BBC World Service, The Forum, “Sankara: An African Revolutionary,” December 2017.

Biney, Ama (2013) Revisiting Thomas Sankara, 26 Years Later. Pambazuka News. 

Murrey, A (2012) The Revolution and the Emancipation of Women: A Reflection on Sankara’s Speech, 25 Years Later. Pambazuka News, Issue 590.

Murrey, A (2015) A Political Biography of Thomas Sankara. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism. Maty S and Ness I (eds.) London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Murrey, A (2016) ‘Our Stomachs Will Make Themselves Heard’ What Sankara Can Teach Us About Food Justice Today. African Arguments. 

Murrey, A (2017) Remembering Thomas Sankara on the 30th Anniversary of His Assassination. Pambazuka News. 

Ray, Corina (2008) Who Really Killed Thomas Sankara? Pambazuka News. 

Reza, Alexandra (2016) New Broom in Burkina Faso? New Left Review 101.

 

Questions:

1. African feminist Patricia McFadden (2018) has argued that Sankara’s insistence in the importance of women’s emancipation in Africa was the most radical and dangerous element of Sankara’s revolutionary vision. Why might gender justice have been such a radical component of the revolutionary project?

2. Sankara’s memory burns strong in Africa today, where the project for decolonization remains unfinished. What lessons might his revolutionary leadership, militant presidency, and/or holistic approach to emancipation hold for other places in the world?

3. What does the slighting of the Burkinabè revolutionary project of 1983-87 and Sankara’s leadership in Anglophone scholarship reveal about the geopolitics of knowledge, in particular what does it reveal about the study of Africa more broadly?

Submitted by Amber Murrey. For questions, comments or other correspondence about Sankara, please contact: amber.murrey-ndewa@aucegypt.edu

Reprinted with permission from Global Social Theory.

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks