As the Director of Digital Communications, I was responsible for directing the content strategy of a three-day statewide conference focusing on advancing economic equity, workforce education, housing affordability and more. I oversaw and edited daily blogs, social media coverage and daily newsletters.

Click on the image to view a newsletter from a day during the event.

As the Director of Digital Communications, I was responsible for coordinating the videography for this statewide event. I contracted the consultant videographer, video reporter and content writer, as well as wrote the wrap-up video script and oversaw the editing of this video aimed at promoting the event as a special space that stands apart from other conferences of its kind.

Originally published on CA FWD

As the country continues to come to terms with systemic racism within law enforcement it may be important to bring nuance to the discussion. Perhaps the better way is to delve into criminal justice systems to find out how to make them more efficient and equitable.

Four California counties, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz and El Dorado have done just that. These counties are using data to gain greater knowledge about the make-up of their jail and how justice system practices contribute to overcrowding.

When AB 109 became law in 2011, the burden of incarceration shifted from the state to the counties. Soon, they were faced with overcrowded jails, lawsuits surrounding the care of inmates and budget shortfalls tied to increased incarceration rates. Counties began building more jails and looking for better solutions. As one former county leader said, “we can’t build our way out of this.”

In 2014, CA FWD created the Justice System Change Initiative (JSCI) to give counties the tools to change their criminal justice systems using data driven evidence. JSCI employed a team of subject matter experts to collect and evaluate data, which can then be used when making fiscal and policy decisions. The cornerstone of the work is the Jail Utilization Study, a deep dive into a county’s jail population.

“By conducting jail studies, we’ve found that counties have little information about the individuals in jail,” said CA FWD’s JSCI Data Analyst Kevin O’Connell. “They haven’t been tracking how a person got there, whether through a new crime or technical violation, or how many times they’ve been in and out of jail.” The studies also revealed other important contributors to jail populations including how many inmates are living with mental illness and/or substance abuse and how many times an individual has cycled through jail.

Once the data was revealed, the counties had greater knowledge about what factors impacted their jail populations. With the information in hand, they were able to make better informed decisions about policies and resources.

In a deeper look at the work, CA FWD released “Improving Justice System Interventions” a brief providing insights on the lessons learned and best practices by the initiative, including:

• At any given time, nearly half of individuals in county jail are there because they broke rules (probation violations, warrants, and court commitments), not laws. County criminal justice systems can dramatically lower this number by collaborating between departments to create programs that lower reoffending rates. These tactics can also maintain public safety, maximize public health and address issue of racial disparities among the formerly incarcerated.
• Understanding the jail population can help governments be better stewards and direct more resources towards other public priorities such as proven mental health care interventions that prevent crime.
• Evidence-based best practices can assist counties in making policy decisions that can lead to lower incarceration rates and fewer racial disparities in criminal justice while keeping communities safer.
• Government entities must emphasize and implement cross-system collaboration for a more equitable criminal justice system.

“If you have data, data will make the decision for you,” said Riverside County Chief Probation Officer Mark Hake. “It just allows us to more effectively manage the resources that we have. It allows us to target the specific problem areas or it allows us to better focus resources where they’re most needed.”

The jail study data prompted individual county agencies to collaborate. Before the studies, it was common for county departments to work in siloes. The data revealed that many incarcerated individuals would be better served through a cross-section of county departments.

The jail data are also valuable to the counties in other ways. By identifying the reasons individuals end up in jail either through a new crime or a side door, identifying low-risk and high jail utilizers, counties can make better informed decisions on where to put its resources. For some individuals, incarceration is not a good option and it is the most expensive. Diversion and reentry programs that focus on successful outcomes cost counties less and are a better use of taxpayer money.

The Jail Utilization Study data can also help counties identify areas where diversion is a better course of action. For instance, providing drug treatment services to an individual who has cycled in and out of jail or treating a person with mental illness who just needs to stay on his medication, not only saves the county the costs of incarceration, but also allows the individual to participate in society and pay taxes. This allows the counties to be better stewards of taxpayer money.

Riverside, San Bernardino and Santa Cruz are continuing the work CA FWD’s JSCI team started. Riverside County has staff dedicated to justice system change and is committed to refreshing the data to continuously improve. San Bernardino has a data analyst on staff who will update the jail data and delve more deeply into the numbers to discover new areas for improvement.

Knowing who is in jail, why they are there, how long they stay and how often they return is critical. Counties need this data to allocate resources, create cross-system collaborations and access state and federal funding to work toward lowering incarceration rates, solving local budget issues, while maintaining public safety.

To read “Improving Justice System Interventions,” click here.

To learn more about these efforts, join us on February 18 at 11 a.m. for a webinar on Improving Justice System Interventions, a part of our Building Equitable Economies webinar series.

Originally published on CA FWD

It’s the heart of budget season in the California Legislature, and there are many hands grabbing for a piece of the proverbial pie. With so many worthy recipients, the budgeting process can be a difficult, complex and contentious one.

Often during this process, the most long-standing and essential function of our democracy gets the short end of the stick, and that’s elections. And with a particularly heated presidential election in the midst, this may be the perfect opportunity to snag a piece.

California’s counties are in charge of administrating elections, yet they have not received a piece of that budget pie in almost six years and are eager to see some of the nearly $120-million dollar backlog for state-mandated election programs, like providing absentee ballots.

On Thursday, the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee and Budget Subcommittee hosted a joint hearing to entertain this very topic.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla and representatives from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and other organizations testified that, if funding isn’t increased for elections in California, we could find ourselves in a potentially sticky situation.

Exceptionally high voter turnout is expected with California’s almost unprecedented relevance in the presidential primary, a record number of initiatives are expected to drain already cash-strapped counties and significant resources are needed to educate voters on voting, registration status and party affiliation.

Padilla, who warned on Thursday that California might need to print a 200-page voter guide later this year, has requested an extra $32 million to cover costs of the expected June primary voter surge.

Given the fear of an incident similar to Florida in 2000 or this year’s Arizona primary, chances are better that the state will help counties and pitch in some extra cash to avoid a disaster.

But funding will remain a long-term challenge.

Solano County Supervisor Erin Hannigan agrees and wasn’t afraid to say it on Thursday.

Hannigan testified that one-time funding will help ensure successful outcomes during this election season, but also warned of the pressures counties face that will require long-term solutions.

“First, county voting systems are aging rapidly” said Hannigan. “The state is looking at ways to bring California’s elections into the 21st century…this will be the basis for the next decade of elections in our state.”

According to California Forward’s election funding research, around 76 percent of participating counties reported needing to replace voting equipment within 3 to 4 years. With no state funding to do so, many are unsure of how to pay for the next generation of voting systems.

The Supervisor also warned the committee of the unpredictable expenses associated with special elections. These elections are impossible for officials and county supervisors to plan for and are very costly. Additionally, the state has not helped fund a special election since 2009.

“Counties are no longer reimbursed for running special elections to fill legislative or congressional vacancies, which will be triggered like dominoes following the November election as current office holders win new seats,” said Hannigan. “These single contest elections can cost counties millions to run with no good way to set aside resources accordingly for the ‘what if’ scenario should primaries fail to produce a winner and a general special election must be held.”

This issue could potentially be addressed by legislation by Assemblymember Jim Patterson, who has introduced a bill, which would require elected officials who vacate office early to pay for special elections out of their campaign funds. Even if AB 2284 became law, there is much more to be done to ensure the cost of elections is shared equitably.

Lastly, Hannigan discussed the ever-looming backlog of funding that is owed by the state to cover state-required election programs.

“These mandates are proposed for suspension again this year, and despite their integral role in voting systems, we have no indication for repayment at this time” said Hannigan. “All of this is happening when the cost of administering elections is growing. Despite lower voter turnout, it has grown by as much as 270 percent over the last 20 years.”

Thanks to calls to action by Secretary Padilla and county officials, as well dedicated research by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Department of Finance, a solid case is being made for a serious look at funding this year’s elections. However, the undertone in much of the testimony was clear — there are long-term funding issues that remain unresolved.

These are the issues California Forward addresses in its Election Funding Project report to be released in the coming weeks. The report outlines research conducted on how elections are funded both nationwide and throughout California, and provides recommendations to fund the future of California’s elections.

“CA Fwd was created to be the link between good ideas, sound analysis and visionary recommendations and the actual enactment and implementation needed to grow jobs, promote cost-effective public services and create accountability for results,” said Jim Mayer, CA Fwd president and CEO. “Addressing this long-standing issue is important to help improve voter participation in California.”

This year, with surging interest in this election cycle, it is even more apparent that well-funded elections are the cornerstone to ensuring the integrity of our democracy.

UPDATE: The special elections funding bill, AB 2284, failed to pass in the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee.

News21 reporting project covering the influence of the alcohol lobby in the U.S., including web design, interactive chart design, video production and reporting/writing of three feature stories.

Click here to view Beer Pressure final project

Beer Pressure Overview Video:

Originally published on News21

Last May, Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio held a festive fundraiser with a Cinco de Mayo tequila tasting and a $1,000 minimum entry. The second annual event was thrown by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA).

During the two years the alcohol-wholesaler lobby has hosted the tasting, the wholesalers have lobbied for the CARE Act in Congress (short for Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act), and Rep. Ryan has supported the bill both years.

“You don’t need to look any further than that as to why they are sponsoring the bill. That it is under the guise of controlling alcohol is a farce,” said small-batch winemaker Clay Mauritson. “The contributions to the 160 that signed on to the bill — the cumulative amount is in the millions.”

The bill Mauritson is talking about could hurt both small wineries like his and the consumers trying to buy his wine, while benefiting the alcohol wholesalers the WSWA represents. The CARE Act would strengthen states’ ability to regulate alcohol and block out-of-state alcohol.

In fact, the CARE Act is not supported by anyone else in the powerful alcohol industry but has the support of dozens of House Democrats and Republicans. While the bill is still wending its way through Congress, the CARE Act has garnered bipartisan support, with 41 Democratic and 47 Republican sponsors on board so far this year.

“The distributors have that ideal combination of a grass-roots base and lots of money,” said David Jernigan, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has studied the tactics of the alcohol industry for 25 years.

Mixing the Right Cocktail 

In a time when the two political parties can’t seem to agree on anything, what’s the CARE Act’s magic recipe for winning support on both sides of the aisle?

One answer is that alcohol wholesalers bring to the table, and effectively blend, several key ingredients that translate into a powerful cocktail of political influence.

 The Ingredients:

• Money
• Campaign Donations
• Omnipresence
• Organization
• Strong Relationships
• Congressional Sponsors

The Recipe 

Step 1: Make some money

Alcohol wholesalers hold the powerful position as middlemen between the people who make alcohol and those who sell it. Most alcohol is required by law to go through a wholesaler because of regulations created after Prohibition.

And they’re doing well even during economic down times.

“You ought to take a look at the total amount of money that these guys are making and, in this Great Recession, what’s happening,” said Paul Kronenberg, president of Family Winemakers of California, a winery association. “It’s apparent when you read the industry news that they haven’t lost any money, even though people have changed drinking habits and prices have gone down.”

The biggest wholesaler in the U.S. is Southern Wine & Spirits, which is based in Florida. It is also the 30th largest privately held company in the U.S. overall, with revenues of $8.6 billion in 2010, according to Forbes. This represents significant recent growth, as the company pulled in $3.5 billion just a decade ago.

Wholesalers also benefit from the fact that alcohol consumption does not decline as much as other recreational sectors of the economy during a recession.

“It’s a staple sector and purchases are less sensitive to downturn,” said Esther Kwon, an investment analyst at Standard & Poor’s.

The revenues for the makers of alcohol actually dwarf those of wholesalers. The sales for the top three alcohol producers in the world were a combined $65.6 billion globally in 2010.

Step 2: Make campaign donations 

Despite this disparity, there is one category where the wholesalers win every time. Since 1990, the alcohol industry as a whole has run up a $110 million tab on federal political campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics.

Wholesalers are easily the number-one donators within the alcohol industry. In the 2009-2010 election cycle, wholesalers made more than $4 million in campaign contributions to House candidates, according to Maplight.org, another government accountability nonprofit.

Comparatively, the richer alcohol producers, like breweries and distillers, dropped less than half that amount on campaigns, with just $1.7 million in donations, also according to Maplight.

The tequila-tasting benefactor, Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, received $13,500 from wholesalers in 2009-2010. The biggest House recipient of wholesaler money, and another CARE Act sponsor, was Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who received $70,000 during that same period.

The largest single donor within the entire alcohol industry in 2010 was the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA), which lobbies for beer distributors. Its $3.5 million in federal donations last year was bigger than the donations for the next seven alcohol industry donors combined.

“That’s all a part of influence and lobbying in Washington,” said George Radanovich, a former California congressman who opposed the bill last year and who is also a winery owner.

Even critics of the bill say the campaign contributions are not necessarily a negative. But they say the contributions become an issue when the biggest donors seem to benefit disproportionately from narrowly focused, special-interest laws.

“The problem with this is you end up getting laws introduced and passed that favor one particular sector of the industry to the detriment of the rest of the industry, and more importantly, the detriment of the consumer,” said Tom Wark of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association, a vocal critic of the CARE Act bill.

View graph showing the federal contributions to House from both supporters and opponents of the bill.

Wholesalers respond by stating that even opponents of the CARE Act have taken campaign money from wholesale organizations, so those people making the campaign-contribution argument are off target.

“What do they do if they have a problem with policy?  They attack the process,” said Mike Johnson, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer of the NBWA. “We are proud of our ability to participate in the political process. Last year in Congress, we contributed to 365 members, and only 152 members co-sponsored the bill. The NBWA contributed to folks who do not support the CARE Act, including vocal opponents. Those numbers haven’t changed.”

“Members who oppose the CARE Act may support us on another issue. There is no quid pro quo,” added Craig Wolf, president and CEO of Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America.

An example of the wholesalers’ success was on display in Texas earlier this year. They enjoyed a legal victory when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving Texas alcohol laws passed in 2007 that restrict out-of-state retailers from shipping directly to consumers.

Not coincidentally, from 2000 to 2006, alcohol wholesalers outspent banks and insurance companies with more than $7 million in Texas campaign contributions, according to the National Institute on State Politics, which tracks campaign money on the state level.

Step 3: Be Everywhere

The next ingredient wholesalers employ is their omnipresence. Across the U.S., there are 3,300 beer distributors and 3,500 wine and distilled-spirit distributors.

“Many distributors tend to be based in urban areas, while wineries are in less-populated rural areas, where there are fewer congressmen,” explained Kronenberg, the winery association president.

“The big wholesalers, are ubiquitous across a lot of states, and they’re in just about every county for the simple reason that you got to move beer, you got to move distilled spirits to grocery stores, to bars and restaurants,” said Kronenberg. “They know people and they’re more grounded.”

This pervasiveness translates into significant potential for wholesalers to influence policy, if they are well organized nationally. For instance, there are three alcohol wholesalers inside Rep. Ryan’s 17th Congressional District in Ohio outside Cleveland.

“Well, even though [wholesalers] are consolidating, there are many — thousands — of them,” said Jennifer Litz, editor of Craft Business Daily, a beer-industry publication. “And national organizations like NBWA do a pretty good job of, well, organizing them.”

Step 4: Be Organized

The advantage to being everywhere is that wholesalers are able to lobby congressmen as local constituents, explained alcohol policy researcher David Jernigan.

This allows wholesalers to rally more widely to oppose or support legislation. On the other hand, opponents of the CARE Act — alcohol retailers such as liquor stores or wine-club websites — don’t have the same powers of persuasion.

“There are way too many and they’re way too small and decentralized,” said Jernigan. “They can’t make that combination.”

Because wholesalers can field an army of local lobbyists, it gives them a leg up when they ask for help from their congressman.

“It certainly gives them a lot of entry to legislation and allows them to do a lot of advertising for their proposals,” said Vincent DeMarco, the president of the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative, which fought for an alcohol tax increase in that state. “Just the power of having so many people who sell alcohol just write their legislators.”

Step 5: Establish Strong Relationships

Their widespread presence on the ground also allows wholesalers to build up relationships with congressmen over time.

“These are really large companies and, in any congressional district, there’s going to be a local distributor,” said David Jernigan. “For congressmen, local business is their bread and butter. These small businesses, even those are pulling in $100 million a year.”

Cary Greene is COO and general counsel for WineAmerica, a national winery association. Greene pointed out that the wholesalers have been in business for a more extended period, so they have more practice at politics than most of the wineries he represents.

“They’ve been at this a long time. The wine industry is much younger than the wholesale tier,” said Greene. “So we have a lot of people out there who are new to this, who don’t see how all this comes together.”

Many wholesalers, on the other hand, are old, family-owned businesses that have grown substantially over time. The largest one, Southern Wine & Spirits, started in 1968. Another, the Republic National Distributing Company, started out in 1898, while Young’s Market, also one of the largest wholesalers, started in 1888.

This history has enabled them to build those strong relationships on Capitol Hill.

“The industry is well represented on the Hill,” said Radanovich, the former congressman and winery owner. “They have good relationships with people there. And they have some pull, much in the way they attempted in Congress to pass the CARE Act last year.”

Step 6: Consolidate

Another key to the wholesalers’ continued political success is that consolidation in the wholesale alcohol business has resulted in a few very powerful players at the top. This magnifies their organizing abilities and provides them a bigger voice in Washington.

“The big wholesalers are enormous, and 10 of them control something like 60 percent of the wine market,” said Katie Grassini, CEO of the Grassini Family Winery. “I don’t have the voice that they do and, as a result, I get blocked from a lot of states.”

The second largest wholesaler, Republic National Distributing Company, was formed in 2007 when two companies that covered 17 states merged and became the 71st largest private company in the U.S.

Step 7: Get a Sponsor

Finally, a bill needs a sponsor. Because the CARE Act protects the states’ ability to regulate alcohol, a good place to find one is Utah.

The state’s alcohol laws are some of the strictest in the nation. Utahans can purchase hard alcohol and wine from state liquor stores only, and direct shipping of alcohol to consumers is banned.

The wholesalers found a primary sponsor this year in Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

“You can probably guess why a rep from Utah would want to control liquor legislation in his state, rather than have national mandates,” said Jennifer Litz of Craft Business Daily.

Chaffetz said as much in a March press release announcing his sponsorship of the CARE Act.

“I want to preserve states’ rights to decide the appropriate regulation of alcohol within their borders,” said Chaffetz. “Most importantly, the bill preserves the status quo on Utah’s unique regulatory regime, and reaffirms the presumed validity of Utah’s laws.”

Step 8: Mix Well, Serve and Enjoy

So, if anyone is looking for friends on Capitol Hill, one winning recipe is to be everywhere, use your money wisely, get organized and maybe throw a tequila-fueled fundraiser or two. Whether or not the wholesalers’ methods are just business as usual in Washington depends on whom you ask.

“It’s a flawed system, and you have a bunch of crooked politicians on the take,” said winemaker Clay Mauritson. “There’s a huge amount of dollars that these distributors are putting into their coffers and the politicians are basically being bought.”

Videography: The Feel-Good Profile

 

Graphics Reel