Arizona Prison Watch Newsletter: February 2013.

Dear AZ Prisoners...

Just wanted to update you all on what's been happening out here lately – and some of what's been happening in there. Forgive me if I'm all over the map with this one, but I want to get this out to you all in time for Valentine's Day, so I won't be doing much editing.

First, as many of you know, I was out of town for most of the holidays and am only now catching up to folks. If you wrote to me and your letter came back undeliverable, I apologize - my PO box is just having problems, so be persistent and try again. If you're waiting to hear back from me on something, write to me again – it will bring your file to the top of the pile, and sometimes letters get lost – just don't think I'm ignoring you for some reason – I don't work that way.

While I was out of town I had a lot of help keeping up with stuff here from a couple of friends, including one who has stayed on to help me on an on-going basis – Margie Diddams. She's pretty cool and I trust her implicitly; if she answers a letter from you to me or AZ Prison Watch, rest assured she probably chatted about it with me first. We do a lot of good strategizing together. She's my more organized half, too, so if you have a really complex situation or a lot of paperwork, you'd better hope she's the one on top of it.

One of the things Margie's helping me work on is confronting the high rate of homophobic and transphobic violence behind bars. As many of you know, my good friend Kini Seawright's son, Dana, was murdered at Lewis in July 2010 by the West Side City Crips for being gay (and for loving a Mexican while Black). Since then, I've received a lot of correspondence from prisoners subjected to violence due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Because there are so many intersecting issues they deal with that affect others, when root causes for violence against minorities are addressed, other societal violence tends to abate as well, so this is in everyone's interet in the long run. Therefore, if you or a loved one behind bars is LGBT (or, as I tend to identify myself, just plain Queer) get in touch with us and become part of a more collective effort to change things in there.

I've also been working to build support in the community for the women of Perryville. The Sun City West Valley NOW (National Organization for Women) Chapter had me speak there in November and is really interested in figuring out how they can help women prisoners with health care and conditions of confinement. Don't pass up this chance - If there are any women in Perryville willing to risk institutional harassment for reaching out to them, please ask the NOW women how prisoners can become members (or start your own chapter) at:

Sun City/West Valley NOW, 10015 W Royal Oak Rd #256, Sun City, AZ 85351.

Now, let me just remind you all that I'm no lawyer, nor is Margie. She's still a student (albeit a radical like me), and I'm a college drop-out. I'm a prison abolitionist and human rights activist who happens to blog, which has resulted in quite a bit of contact with state prisoners and their families over the past few years, which compelled me to try to figure out how to help with some of your dilemmas. The best we can do is give you access to things that will empower you to help yourselves. This is our own little way of fighting back against hetero-patriarchy and state violence and all that crap, which is one reason our help comes to prisoners and their families for free. If you have money, though, don't settle for Margie and me – get professional help.

Good intentions alone can sometimes really screw people up, so make sure you access whatever other resources you can if you need help fighting the state- they are pretty formidable.

On to the other news: I'm sure you all know by now that Wexford has bailed on their contract to provide medical care to you all, so Corizon will be taking over beginning March 1. All I can say is that I'll be surprised if it's much of an improvement, so you need to keep arming yourselves with knowledge of civil rights law.

Please be filling out medical grievances per policy (check to see if it changes after March 1, too) if your HNRs aren't being responded to; don't just fill out new HNR's repeating yourselves. The prison library is supposed to give you access to the DOC policy manual, but write to me if they don't cooperate (and send me their note of refusal, so we can nail anyone violating your access to the courts).

Ask your librarian for the DO 902 policy. Look at Attachments A and B. From B, request the packets for filing Section 1983 civil rights complaints, as well as for the rules and forms to file civil actions in state court. You need those documents so you know what they'll be asking you to do later with the grievances you're filing now. It's not enough for the courts to see that you simply wrote grievances – they need to be relevant to the civil suit itself, if you have to go that far to get action from the DOC or medical.

Your grievances show the judge that you had a complaint and made a good faith effort to get the prison administration – all the way up the chain of command - to hear and respond to it BEFORE anyone gets sued. So if you do end up suing after exhausting your administrative remedies, you should still be asking for pretty much the same remedy over the same grievance you started out with in your first inmate letter to your COIII about it. Be clear describing your issue and reasonable in your requests for relief (including disciplinary action against errant officers, compensation for medical care, etc.)

From DO 902 Attachment A, ask your librarian for the Rights of Prisoners, 4th Ed, too – see what they let you see of it, anyway. You may have to pay for them to print up pages for you to keep on you – let me know how they deal with that if you are indigent.

Don't leave it to your family to get action from Central office for you – but if you have family who can raise hell for you, give them my info and I'll help them strategize dealing with the DOC. Just be mindful that no matter what they say or even if they bring an attorney into it for you, you must be filling out those grievances per policy.

On to more news: On January 25, David Fathi from the ACLU-National Prison Project argued in front of US District Court Judge Neil Wake that parsons v. Ryan should be given class status and allowed to proceed as a class action suit. Wake pretty much gave our side a hard time, expressing both annoyance and skepticism, arguing with David about the merits of the case itself (since he already set guidelines about solitary and food rations in recent county jail complaints, for example) instead focusing on the issue at hand...but what do I know about the law? Anyway, he was taking it all under advisement and we're still waiting to hear his decision.

By the way, about that Botulism at Eyman – don't believe everything you hear: the first batch for sure wasn't hooch. The guys say they were coerced into saying it was before they would be provided medical attention, and will be filing suit. If you were affected by the second batch, get a lawyer. Botulism is so incredibly rare that it's like lightning for it to strike twice in the same place...which means there's something fishy going on there.

Please tell me how you manage keep your head up, a smile on your face, or your soul intact through all you must survive in there, my friends. And let me know if yours is a story I can share with others, as well. In the meantime, take care of eachother and yourselves.

Hang in there,

Peg

AZCPOA: Diaz v. Brewer: gender justice

From the Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association. I seldom post the stuff they send out, but this was pretty intriguing. I don't care much for some of the people Binh defends, but more power to him on this if they can get health coverage for all couples - and all kinds of families. Brewercare is killing too many people in this state already...

---------------September 11, 2011---------------

Recently the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in Diaz v. Brewer recognizing that the Arizona Legislature discriminated against same sex partners of state employees in rescinding their health insurance coverage. You will recall that in April 2008, under then Governor Napolitano, ADOA rules were modified so that health insurance coverage could be offered to both same-sex and different-sex domestic partners. But, November 2008, voters approved Prop 102 which amended the Arizona Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, by defining "marriage" as the union of "one man" and "one woman" The following year, in 2009, the Arizona legislature enacted House Bill 2013 that limited health insurance coverage offered by the State to a "spouse under the laws of this State." This effectively eliminated health insurance coverage for all same-sex and different-sex domestic partners as of January 1, 2011. The Diaz v. Brewer suit was filed by a number of gay State employees to challenge House Bill 2013 as discriminatory. The plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction which was granted by the Federal District Court in Phoenix. The District Court noted that House Bill 2013 was not discriminatory on its face, because it affected both same-sex and different-sex couples. However the court found that HB 2013 had a discriminatory effect. This is because, under Arizona law, different-sex couples could retain their health coverage by marrying, but same-sex couples could not. The preliminary injunction stopped HB 2013 from going into effect for same-sex couples (and required the State to continue to provide health coverage for them) until a full trial could be held on the case. Before a full trial could be held, the State appealed to the Ninth Circuit. While the appeal was pending the preliminary injunction allowed same-sex domestic partners of State employees to retain their health coverage. Opposite-sex couples, however, lost heath coverage as of January 1, 2011. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Arizona District Court's ruling, found it to be correct, and upheld it. The State of Arizona had argued that the law was valid because it: (1) promoted marriage, and (2) was a cost savings measure. The court rejected the "promotion of marriage" argument because same-sex marriages are illegal under the Arizona Constitution. Next the court rejected the "cost savings" justification because the only "cost" evidence that the State submitted was the fact that 863 "same and opposite-sex domestic partners" being covered. This is a miniscule number compared to the 57,000 State employees who have health coverage for their spouses and families. Once the State of Arizona's justifications for the law were entirely discredited, the Ninth Circuit had to uphold the injunction. The court noted: "the district court correctly recognized that barring the state of Arizona from discriminating against same-sex couples in its distribution of employee health benefits does not constitute the recognition of a new constitutional right to such benefits. Rather, it is consistent with long standing equal protection jurisprudence holding that "some objectives, such as 'a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,' are not legitimate state interests." The big question is what happens now? The State has a number of options: (1) the State can ask for an en banc rehearing in front of all of the Ninth Circuit judges and hope they overturn the decision, (2) the State can appeal to the US Supreme Court which will take some time, or (3) the State can let the decision stand and bring the case back to the Arizona Federal District Court for a full trial on the merits. We should know what direction the State will take in the next few weeks. In the meantime, same-sex domestic partners of State employees will continue to have health insurance. Opposite-sex domestic partners, who lost health coverage in 2011 are not impacted by this ruling. We are working on possible legislation to fix this issue for our opposite-sex domestic partner members. However, a lot hinges on the ultimate outcome of the case. If same-sex domestic partners wind up winning, we feel we have a strong argument to push for health insurance for opposite-sex domestic partners. We will keep you posted.

Martin Bihn AZCPOA Attorney

Queer youth and prison violence.

'I Was Scared to Sleep': LGBT Youth Face Violence Behind Bars

The Nation / Daniel Redman / June 21, 2010

Over the phone, Krystal has a calm and lilting Southern accent. She identifies as a woman now, but when she entered Louisiana's juvenile justice system at 12 years of age, she presented herself as a boy and used male pronouns. Today, she's 18 and was just recently released from the system. Being closeted about her gender identity was never an option for her. "It's very obvious with me because of how I walk, talk, the way I do things," she says. And while her sentencing judge had told her that she wouldn't be in prison for long, it was five years before a sympathetic counselor made a formal request for her release. In her letter to the judge, the counselor mentioned in passing that Krystal had confided in her that she was probably transgender, and that she was in a romantic relationship with another boy at the facility. On the voicemail he left in response to the counselor's report, the judge openly laughed and called the recommendation a joke. He said that based on those facts, he would absolutely deny the request for a release hearing. "Many judges in rural Louisiana still conflate sex offenses with sexual orientation and gender identity," says Wesley Ware of the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana. It was months before Krystal was finally set free.

Across the United States, the brutal and dysfunctional juvenile justice system sends queer youth to prison in disproportionate numbers, fails to protect them from violence and discrimination while they're inside and to this day condones attempts to turn them straight. Antigay policies aren't just a problem in the Deep South or rural regions. According to Jody Marksamer of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of co-authors of a recent report on LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system, "These things happen in every state."

The road to incarceration begins in pretrial detention, before the youth even meets a judge. Laws and professional standards state that it's appropriate to detain a child before trial only if she might run away or harm someone. Yet for queer youth, these standards are frequently ignored. According to UC Santa Cruz researcher Dr. Angela Irvine, LGBT youth are two times more likely than straight youth to land in a prison cell before adjudication for nonviolent offenses like truancy, running away and prostitution. According to Ilona Picou, executive director of Juvenile Regional Services, Inc., in Louisiana, 50 percent of the gay youth picked up for nonviolent offenses in Louisiana in 2009 were sent to jail to await trial, while less than 10 percent of straight kids were. "Once a child is detained, the judge assumes there's a reason you can't go home," says Dr. Marty Beyer, a juvenile justice specialist. "A kid coming into court wearing handcuffs and shackles versus a kid coming in with his parents—it makes a very different impression."

Once adjudicated and sent to secure care, LGBT youth often face abusive peers. "I was scared to sleep at night because I didn't know if I was going to wake up in the morning," writes one incarcerated youth at Louisiana's Swanson Center for Youth. One 15-year-old who was shuttled back and forth from group homes and secure facilities in Shreveport, New Orleans and Baton Rouge reports that staff did nothing when he reported a rape because he "reported it too late," that he was "whipped with a clothes hanger" for rule violations and that the abuse from staff and other youth was so bad that he tried to kill himself. Two of Krystal's gay friends were raped in prison by other youths. One of them was assaulted so viciously that the injuries required internal stitches. Staff put Krystal's other friend in isolation to protect him from further assault.

Krystal reports that she was physically attacked by other youth nearly every day that she was in the system. Shortly after arriving, Krystal found her shoes in the trash, covered in urine and spit. Frequently, youths attacked Krystal for refusing to perform sex acts. Other queer youth in the facility had similar experiences. "We're all in the same category," she says. And there was nowhere to hide. "It was basically like a big dorm—one big room where everybody sleeps, that's what's going on," Krystal says. "Sometimes you would get sent to lockdown for fighting back, but there's nothing else you can do." Krystal reported the abuse to staff, but "they would just wait till things happened. Sometimes the staff would tell the other youth to stop. Sometimes they wouldn't."

When Krystal was 13 or 14, the bullying and violence became so bad that staff placed her in protective custody, where she remained for a month. But even after what she had experienced, lockdown was so painful that she requested to be returned to the dorm. Sending LGBT victims of violence into isolation, instead of punishing their attackers, is common practice across the country, even though a federal court has held the practice to be unconstitutional and the American Psychological Association opposes it. And once the youth are put on lockdown—whether to punish or to protect—they miss out on crucial educational opportunities. In 2006, a bisexual youth in California petitioned the court to be removed from his facility because staff members had kept him in isolation for twenty-three hours a day. At 20 years old, he had missed so much schooling that he was only halfway to his high school diploma.

Besides using isolation to purportedly protect queer youth, guards also use lockdown as punishment. "We had one kid who wouldn't go to school because he was afraid" of the other youth in the facility, says Wesley Ware. And because he was on the mental health unit, a certain amount of social interaction was required as part of his rehabilitation program. For refusing to leave his cell, he was put on lockdown for noncompliance, and his chances for release diminished yet again.

Often, queer youth face as much hostility from prison guards as they do from peers. When a youth faces bullying or violence from another kid, staff can be reluctant to intervene. "The staff views it as [the kid] deserves it, or he's asking for it—so they don't intervene or they'll egg it on," Ware says. They view it as "good for the kid—gotta teach him and have it beat out of him. Then when the gay kid finally breaks, then he faces the disciplinary consequences."

Guards are often bullies themselves. Krystal reports that staff called her "a disgrace to mankind," a "punk" or "fucking faggot" on a daily basis and threatened her, saying, "I'll beat your fucking ass." When staff called Krystal "faggot" or other names, sometimes she talked back. "Sometimes I would even say, I'm proud to be that," Krystal says. She would receive more tickets for talking back.

There are even reports of staff members sending youths to attack other kids. "When it happened, it was something all the youth knew," Krystal says. "Basically, someone would be left out there in the open." This is not unique to Louisiana. A 16-year-old gay man in Los Angeles interviewed in 2008 reported that staff members used other youth to intimidate him. Another child in the California system reported that "a female staff member set up a bisexual youth and let straight guys into his room to beat him up. I woke up and saw blood on the walls and on the ground."

LGBT kids are often targeted for sexual assault. A 2009 Department of Justice report shows that across the country, LGBT youth are twelve times more likely than straight youth to report being sexually assaulted by a fellow inmate. In Louisiana alone, 10 percent of all youth—gay and straight—reported abuse by a staff member. Krystal reports that she was propositioned twice by guards when she was 14. When she refused, she was verbally abused and called a "bitch."

An LGBT youth's problems with the law frequently begin at home. "LGBT youth are more likely to be arrested than straight youth because they're more likely to be pushed out of their homes," says Dr. Beyer. And "family rejection is a direct pipeline to the juvenile justice system," says San Francisco State University researcher Caitlin Ryan of the Family Acceptance Project. While only 3-10 percent of Americans are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, LGBT youth make up 15 percent of the prison population. Indeed, one-quarter of all LGBT youth are kicked out of their homes or run away. Compared to their heterosexual peers, incarcerated LGBT youth are twice as likely to report abuse at the hands of family members, homelessness or state-ordered foster placement. A shocking estimated 20-40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT.

Courts and law enforcement officials often fail to recognize the factors that drive LGBT youth into the system. Of a 16-year-old client who was a runaway, Picou says, "Everybody refused to allow him to be in a group home or foster care home. He was in super-custody like he's a terrorist. Nobody asked him why he ran away or whether he was prostituting to stay alive." And while a toxic home life leads LGBT youth to live on the street, an unwelcoming school system leads many to avoid school altogether, leading to truancy.

Until 2007, gay and gender non-conforming youth in Louisiana's juvenile justice system were regularly subjected to "sexual identity confusion" counseling. At 14, Krystal went through this process herself. Though she emphasized again and again that she was not confused and had no desire to change her sexuality or gender identity, counselors grilled her for five sessions. Remarks ranged from emotional appeals ("This is not who you are; I don't want you to be like that") to psychobabble ("Maybe you like boys because you're around them so much") to veiled threats ("You're making a distraction in the unit; while you're here, this is how you need to act because it's drawing attention to you"). For other kids, these threats translated into consequences. One feminine gay youth was sent to lockdown for having his hair up. When a male-to-female transgender youth wished to use a female name and pronouns, the counselors refused and advised staff to force her to wear male clothing.

More blatant and brutal antigay conversion efforts have taken place across the country. In an East Coast state that's the subject of an ongoing investigation, prison authorities permit religious volunteers to enter a youth facility to lead explicitly antigay Bible classes. Lesbian youths who refuse to attend the programs have had their sentences extended from nine to upwards of thirteen months. In Mississippi, a judge—with parental approval—sent a lesbian youth to a private hospital for two weeks to cure her homosexuality. In Pennsylvania, a counselor handed out antigay religious tracts to youth in her facility. In Georgia, when a child who had never committed a sexual offense came out as transgender, she was sent to a facility for youth likely to commit sexual offenses against children. Every major mental health, pediatrics or child welfare organization strongly condemns these practices.

The courts have not been silent on this issue. In 2006, in a stunning, first-of-its-kind decision, a federal court in Hawaii held that the facility's "relentless campaign of violence, physical and sexual assault, imposed social isolation and near constant use of homophobic slurs" was unconstitutional. The children who were plaintiffs in that case faced discriminatory and cruel treatment very similar to what Krystal and others have faced. This decision spurred advocates in California, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere to push for reform—with some success.

In the aftermath of the ruling, the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility implemented mandatory training for the entire staff. The experience is instructive for other juvenile justice systems. "There were certain individuals sitting there with arms folded and steam coming out of their ears. They weren't about to have their opinions changed on the okayness of being LGBT," says Dr. Robert Bidwell, a pediatrician who assisted with the training and works at HYCF. The crucial difference, says Bidwell, is that "the training empowered the people who never felt comfortable with that prejudice to hear loud and clear from the director of youth services that this will not be tolerated."

To be sure, even in the worst facilities, gay youth can often find some allies. Krystal told me how in the midst of the terror she experienced, the women who taught school in the facility "were basically another momma to me." One staff member who physically attacked Krystal was ultimately investigated and fired. But at the root of this problem, says Jody Marksamer, is a cold truth. "In the juvenile justice world, even when staff members believe something poses a litigation risk, they'll keep doing it until somebody inside tells them we have to stop doing it, or they get sued."

LGBTI prisoners and the Community's Voice.

Just an FYI for family members: keep your eyes open for chances to put in your two cents - like contacting the National Institute of Corrections, who put out this solicitation I stumbled across (below). If you think corrections does a lousy job with our people, tell them what they should be doing better - not just in your prison or state, but as a national standard. We want to be training the trainers - that's called being proactive. We need to be figuring out and sharing with each other just who those entities are, and how to influence them.

We should also be telling them what kind of research to be doing - what are they not getting? As for this particular solicitation, research shows the bias that results in longer or more severe sentences for people who are or are perceived to be LGBTI; prosecutors play on stereotypes and homophobia to get convictions and harsh sentences just like they exploit racism. Then people just keep getting screwed as they go through the system - singled out for assault, exploitation, false accusations, etc. LGBTQ & I prisoners are subject to extraordinarily abusive conditions and treatment (by guards and other prisoners alike). I don't know what the NIC project will actually yield - probably not anything from a radical women of color's collective, but possibly something creative that will make the punishment of all prisoners a little less cruel and unusual.

In any case, don't just wait and see what the profession comes up with - if you have ideas, let them have them: who else is going to speak up? They need all the help they can get to stop the abuse and neglect of prisoners, and there's no reason that their directions shouldn't come straight from the communities most affected by the social and economic injustices in our society that both fuel and feed on the practice of mass incarceration. Otherwise, we leave the running of the criminal justice system to the same people who got us into this mess in the first place, and it'll just keep grinding up our families and communities. If you are blessed enough to have a voice - especially if you have survived the hell of jail or prison yourself - put it to good use.

--------------------------

(Updated) Cooperative Agreement: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Guidance Project

Published Jun 07 2010, 10:47 AM by Joshua Stengel

Filed under: Cooperative Agreements

Updated: 6/07/2010

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is soliciting proposals from organizations, groups, or individuals to enter into a cooperative agreement for a 12-month project period. Work under this agreement will result in a policy guide for corrections practitioners charged with the care and custody of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) offenders. In addition to providing guidance in selected operational areas (see Goal 2 and Supplementary Information), the guide will provide:

1. A brief summary of the relevant case law,
2. A description of current terms and definitions relevant to the LGBTI population, including an acknowledgment that these terms evolve and change over time, and
3. A list of topics that should be addressed in initial and ongoing staff training.

Informational resources, websites, and sources for additional support should accompany each of these three areas.

DEADLINE: Applications must be received by 4:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, June 11, 2010.

• Download the Full Solicitation
• Read more about NIC’s Cooperative Agreements

Questions/Responses (posted 5/24/2010)

1. What is the time frame for the project?
   This will be a twelve month award.
   
2. Can the due date be extended?
   Proposals will be due June 11, 2010
   
3. In order to achieve Goal 4, developing and testing the first draft of the guide, would the NIC Research and Evaluation unit assist with accessing corrections personnel, or should we have a clear plan and some type of cooperative agreement in place with corrections personnel at the time of proposal writing?
   Applicants should be prepared to meet the project goals as stated. Under a cooperative agreement NIC will work with the awardee to refine their plans for the project.
   
4. Similar to the scope of the PREA Standards, can the policy guide for corrections practitioners charged with the care and custody of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) offenders address those held in adult prisons and jails as well as youth held in juvenile facilities? We believe there is a great need for guidance on this topic for juvenile justice administrators, medical and mental health staff, and training coordinators.
   Applicants should include whatever components they feel best address the project goals. NIC welcomes creative suggestions and innovative approaches to the work, within the budget constraints and available funds.
   
5. (Added 6/7/2010) Is there a predetermined start date for the project?
   No, the 12 month time frame will begin with the date of the award.