The NEAR Act and Sanctuary Cities
Dear Runners,
This week is one of many in which I find myself writing about a topic that I myself am not an expert in. I do a lot of reading and research before I write something down, but I’m sure I am often completely or partially wrong. If any of you are experts on a topic I write about, or just generally knowledgeable, and you ever want to correct me (or write for me!), please let me know. This is something I do in my spare time, and while I desperately want it to be good and authoritative, I even more desperately want it to be accurate. It can only be helpful if the information is correct. I am not infallible! Although I am…
This week my partner Michael is back with a special guest topic on the NEAR Act. Follow him on twitter at @fearnotrieb. Check out what he so kindly wrote for me in Topic 1.
Small Immediate Acts of Resistance
That are never calling your Senator or Representative
- Call Mayor Bowser and ask what DC is going to do, specifically, to protect our status as a Sanctuary City. On Monday morning of this week, AG Sessions announced that state and local governments seeking Justice Department grants must certify they are not so-called sanctuary cities in order to receive the money.He railed against sanctuary cities, claiming that they are harboring criminals from Federal law enforcement. DC is a Sanctuary City, but as of yet we have no specific plans for how to compensate for the potential loss of Federal grant dollars in the District which account for 30% of our budget. 45 very likely won’t be able to pull all of these funds, but he will likely target specific grant programs that will affect vulnerable people (see Topic 2 below for more details). Call Mayor Bowser at (202) 727–2643 and ask what her plans are if the worst happens, and make your support of DC’s immigrant community known to her.
- Sign-up to call DC Officials all the time (or every Thursday or Friday for the next few weeks…) to fight for Paid Family Leave and/or a progressive budget! Jews United for Justice is a great local progressive group that I’ve been working with, especially on the DC Paid Family Leave campaign. You can sign up to make calls alongside their members every Thursday in April and May for their budget priorities, which include fair housing, or every Friday in April and May to ask the DC government to fund Paid Family Leave. Each call will only take a couple of minutes, and they provide who they are calling that week as well as a sample script. This is a really great way to get involved with JUFJ in a tiny way, and no you don’t have to be Jewish (I’m not). Keep calling, it’s easy!
- Find out who your ANC is. In DC, below the city council, we have what are called Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners or ANCs. Do you know what ANC you’re in? Do you know your ANC’s name? Their policies? When they hold monthly meetings? Some of you may know already that after the election, my housemates and I discovered (by looking at her Facebook page) that our ANC, Gail Brevard, who ran unopposed the last two elections, is a Trump supporter and an opponent of gay rights and immigration. We are already making plans to get her out of office. You might be in the same boat. Or, your ANC might be awesome and might be able to help you with activism in your Ward. Use this ANC map to find yours, and if you can’t find their positions listed publicly anywhere, email them and ask or attend their next event.
Topic 1: The NEAR Act
Greetings Forerunnerians! Tis I, Michael! I’m taking a moment away from work, other activism, and the realities of having a dog who’s more like a cat, to tell you about an important piece of DC legislation. The Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results (NEAR) Amendment Act was written by Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie and passed by the City Council in 2016. McDuffie’s goal was to usher in a new approach to public safety in the District, partially in response to rising homicide rates.
2015 was a tough year here in the District for homicides. According to statistics found on the Metropolitan Police Department’s website there were 104 homicides in 2014, but in 2015 there were 162, an increase of fifty four percent. Additionally, according to the Washington Post if you look closer this increase was focused in three particular areas of the city: Ward 5, Ward 7, Ward 8. Seventy four percent of the increase came out of these three wards. Forty percent of the city-wide increase in lethal violence was in Ward 8 with arrests for homicide increasing by sixty seven percent.
These three Wards are three areas of the city with large, primarily black, populations that have historically been disproportionately affected by issues of race, income inequality, and poverty. Any attempt to address public safety must take this legacy into account, a legacy that is built into our neighborhoods, our education system, our laws, into so many aspects of life in the District as a whole. Looking at it through this lense, hoping that MPD, or any police department, can single handedly address crime in the community is at best ill-informed or at worst blatantly discriminatory. To truly tackle these concerns at the root, you have to start with one realization: Public safety is a public health issue. And that is exactly where the NEAR Act starts.
I can’t really put it better than McDuffie did in this press release when his bill passed. According to McDuffie the NEAR Act is
“…a comprehensive bill that re-calibrates how the District approaches public safety, by not just addressing crime after it occurs, but rather working to prevent crime by treating its root causes in a long-term, sustainable way. The NEAR Act addresses crime in several ways, including using a public health approach that requires the collaboration of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and health and human services agencies.”
So what does the NEAR Act actually do? First you can read it for yourself here. The Act begins by establishing the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE). The goal of ONSE would be to identify and recruit those people who are at risk of either participating in criminal activity or being a victim of crime. Once they’re recruited they’d be enrolled in a program, utilizing behavioral and mental health counseling, aimed at preventing their involvement in criminal activity in any way. While in the program they would also be paid a stipend.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Michael, we’re going to pay criminals? Why on earth would I want to do that? Recently I attended a Ward 5 Community Town Hall about public safety organized by McDuffie and believe me I heard this said in the crowd. In fact DC Mayor Bowser, who also attended, said that one of the big problems she had with the NEAR Act was this stipend program. She also stated she’d received significant community feedback in opposition to it. So why do it? Because an evidenced-based, mental health oriented, stipend program has the potential to work. Check out these articles from Mother Jones and NPR. The NPR piece is about Richmond, California, which used to have one of the highest murder rates in the country. The city
“…launched the Operation Peacemaker Fellowship. They identified those 17 people [who were reponsible for most of the city’s gun violence] and several more and made them an offer. The fellowship will give them counseling, social services, a job and a chance to travel if they develop a “life map,” agree to stay in contact every day and stay out of trouble. Then the fellowship will pay them up to a $1,000 a month for nine months.
The result: Richmond has seen its murder rate cut in half since the fellowship began.”
In short, other cities have had pretty high success rates in reducing crime using this model.
The NEAR Act would also establish an office to coordinate different aspects of DC’s government, including MPD, mental health specialists, social workers, and others. It would add behavioral specialists to teams at MPD. These kinds of partnerships are meant to steer police away from arresting those with mental health or other problems. As the saying goes, if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So police officers are going to lean inherently towards arrest as a solution to almost any problem, and we all know that the justice system doesn’t treat everyone fairly, so keeping people out of it right from the beginning could make a huge difference.
As with many things, it’s hard to tell if the NEAR Act would actually reduce crime here in DC before it’s been implemented. All studies that have been conducted on similar programs point to their effectiveness, but certain factors might work against us. For example, per the NPR article from above, in Richmond, California, the program’s success was alrgely attributed to the hiring of a more open-minded, progressive police chief. In other words, if DC’s police and other officials aren’t on board — and both the Mayor and Chief Newsham have expressed their doubts on the Act — the program might be doomed to fail before it even gets started. However, one major point to keep in mind is that the NEAR Act was unanimously approved by the DC Council, yet Mayor Bowser has remained reluctant to fund it in the city’s budget. I personally believe that that goes against the democratic process, and if a bill has passed, it should be implemented. And a community-oriented approach to policing is almost never a bad thing. Let’s not allow this bill to continue to exist but be ignored. Support the NEAR Act.
Topic 2: Sanctuary Cities — with a focus on DC (of course)
It may surprise you to know that there is no legal or otherwise official definition of what constitutes a Sanctuary City, County, or State. Loosely speaking, Any jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate on some level with Federal immigration enforcement is a Sanctuary City (or County or State), but the extent and manner of that lack of cooperation varies widely. Some places have actual laws built into their sanctuary programs, like San Francisco. They passed the City and County of Refuge Ordinance way back in 1989, which legally prohibits city funds or other city resources from being used in the enforcement of Federal immigration procedures unless that assistance is required by state law or a court order. But many other jurisdictions have vaguely defined policies or no policies at all. DC is one such city. Though Mayor Bowser and the Council have declared their intention to keep DC as a Sanctuary City and to maintain a policy of non-cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), respectively, little in the way of specifics has been provided. This is worrisome because, when it comes down to it, we do not have firm rules and laws in place for actual, practical resistance.
This is a broad problem, one that is not unique to DC. As The Washington Post points out, prisons are often run at the county level, so cities like New York and Chicago are sanctuary cities, but many of their surrounding counties are not. This can cause situations where someone is arrested in New York City — again, a sanctuary city — and they are sent to a county jail run by the county sheriff’s department. It is then that jail that may receive what’s called a “detainer request” from ICE if the arrestee is undocumented. A detainer request is simply ICE asking that particular jail to hold the inmate for up to 48 hours so ICE can get a warrant to begin deportation proceedings. (More than one Federal court has ruled that complying with detainer requests is completely voluntary.) Now if this person was sent to a county jail in a New York City suburb where they typically honor detainer requests — as many do — the status of New York City as a Sanctuary City will mean diddly squat to them. I really encourage you to read about the process more in depth in the Post’s article, and look at the map of how many Sanctuary Cities are surrounded by non-sanctuary counties. In DC, we don’t have county jails. Once you move out of DC’s own jail system —
That is just one example of the problems that can be caused by ill-defined sanctuary policies. These cities would do well to either give guidance to officers, or if they can even implement formal procedures in their city, for not transporting immigrants arrested in their cities to county jails with a history of honoring detainer requests. I’m not even sure if that is legally possible, tbh, but if it is they should do it. Barring my completely wild legal speculating, there are groups who are pushing for Sanctuary Cities to adopt specific policies to protect their immigrant populations. I am most familiar with the ACLU’s People Power movement, but there are many others as well. People Power in particular has laid out nine examples of laws that can be passed to firmly define a city or county’s relationship to ICE, and what they will and will not do with regard to Federal immigration enforcement. You can read the nine suggested laws here. These are laws that I think DC officials should consider implementing. The DC Department of Corrections does have guidance that adheres to a lot of this suggested policy, but guidance isn’t always strong enough to withstand fear. What are your city’s policies? Consider calling your local police’s community relations department and asking.
One really positive thing DC has done is to set up a $500,000 legal defense fund for immigrants in the District for hiring legal representation to aid in fighting deportation cases and with asylum seeking, among other things (which Jason Chaffetz, our resident favorite, tried to have blocked). But we could go farther.
I think one of the most important questions being asked right now is: how much can 45 and his goons do to Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States? It depends. This primer from CityLab was enormously helpful to me in answering this question and luckily has some DC-specific numbers. I refer mostly to this, as well as to this piece from CNN, below.
As I mentioned in this week’s acts of resistance, Jeff Sessions has threatened to pull DOJ grant funds from sanctuary cities. This, weird as it seems, is already a bit of a concession from Sessions and 45, because they are only allowed to pull grant funding if the reason it is being pulled is written into the law in a “clear and unambiguous fashion”, and there are pretty much no grant programs that specifically (or rather, “clearly and unambiguously”) demand recipients comply with federal immigration policy. That’s a big kick in the balls to 45’s plan right from the start. (As a side note: It is theoretically possible that Congress can try to rewrite grant conditions so that they do clearly and unambiguously get tied to immigration enforcement, but that’s a whole other thing that would take forever. Still possible though!)
Even then, i.e. even were Congress to overcome that first obstacle by re-writing Federal grants, they could still only pull grants that are specifically related to the reason they’re being pulled, so mostly law enforcement and immigration related grants, aka ones from the DOJ. That’s why Sessions is the first guy to speak about this (that and he’s a dick). Again, it theoretically possible for the Courts to take a larger view about what funding is directly relevant to immigration enforcement. Technically they could decide that any grant that funds services immigrants use — education, for example — would be subject. That’s not the current interpretation though.
So once you’re narrowed down to that funding, you get a pretty narrow picture. Overall, almost 30% of DC’s budget comes from Federal grant money, bu the dollars that go specifically to law enforcement, for example, are much smaller, and could likely be compensated for. CityLab did an analysis of 6 grant programs that are likely targets for cutting, based on the fact Congress has already targeted these grants numerous times, and found that these five programs combined accounted for less than 1% of 5 major cities’ total budgets:
These might only be the first of a few grant programs that are pulled, but nonetheless it’s a hit many cities could absorb. The point is, 45 cannot just pull Federal funding from cities, period. There is an even further provision that the President can’t pull money from states if it’s considered “coercive”, which is why Obama couldn’t withhold all Medicaid money from states that refused to do Medicaid expansion. Cling to your tiny vestiges of hope and truth people, I think grant funding to Sanctuary Cities is relatively safe for now, despite Sessions’ blustering. Keep an eye on things though, as usual!
As always, you guys are amazing for reading and continuing to fight for people who need you under this administration. Hopefully you learned something new today, because I learned lots of new things writing this.
You can reply to this newsletter or email me at theforerunnerletter@gmail.com with your thoughts, criticisms, or ideas. Let me know if you did any of the things I recommended or found anything useful or informative. I ❤ feedback! Check out my Medium page if you’d prefer a blogged version of this newsletter or would like to read any of my previous issues. Last week’s letter was on DC’s elected Police Chief, Peter Newsham, and the American Health Care Act. I mistakenly said “ACHA” instead of “ACHA” the entire time, so, feel free to point and laugh at me. Follow me on Twitter at @speaknojessica. And definitely, definitely get your friends to subscribe to The ForeRunner at http://tinyletter.com/theforerunner. Every time someone new subscribes Maxine Waters says something even more amazing. Check out the event links below the picture of my dog, Maple.
In solidarity,
JM
Event link round up (local to DC unless otherwise noted):
March 30: Black Lives Matter DC Open House hosted by Black Lives Matter DC
March 30: Intro to DC Government Advocacy Training hosted by DC Jobs with Justice (I’ll be there!)
March 31: My First Lobby Day co-hosted by Resist and Rise and DC Vote
April 1: DC Fair Elections Campaign Launch hosted by Sierra Club DC Chapter, RSVP required, Councilmember Grosso will be speaking
April 1: Massive Rally to Take Back our Streets and Divest in Police hosted by Black Lives Matter DC
April 1: I Went to the Women’s March, Now What? hosted by femex and Potter’s House, RSVP required
April 2: Deep Canvassing on Racial Issues in Northern Virginia hosted by SURJ (Showing Up for Racial Justice) DC and SURJ Northern Virginia
April 2: Organizing for Non-Organizers in the Face of Trump hosted by Good Guys DC (I really liked this training when I did it), RSVP required
April 3: JWI Spring Lobby Day hosted by WIN (the Women’s Information Network)
April 6: Immigrant Communities in the Trump Era: A Brown in DC Panel Discussion hosted by Brown Club of DC, RSVP required
