Six-Hour Meeting on Opioid Settlement Funds Results in No Definitive Board Action
Supervisor-elect Matt Plummer is photographed by a member of the press as he speaks to the Board during a special meeting on opioid fund use. Photo by Annelise Pierce.
Shasta County Supervisors heard presentations from 20 different organizations during a November 12 six-hour marathon meeting on opioid fund use. In the end, the Board took no definitive action, deciding instead to continue discussing details of many of the proposals during an upcoming meeting, likely in December or January.
Supervisor Kevin Crye, who’s pushed for quick deployment of at least some of the nearly $39 million in opioid funds the County is scheduled to receive, seemed to soften his stance by the end of the meeting, acknowledging that developing a plan to deploy funds could take eighteen months. Yesterday, November 13, Crye emphasized to Shasta Scout that he feels youth programs require the most urgent action saying he wants to make decisions related to those in December or January.
The timeline matters. At least two seats on the Board will change early next year, with Matt Plummer assuming Supervisor Patrick Jones’ seat, and Allen Long taking Supervisor Tim Garman’s. Who will hold the fifth seat on the Board is still uncertain, as Shasta County awaits the results of the November 5 election. Supervisor Mary Rickert, who currently represents District 3, currently trails Corky Harmon by about 1,000 votes–but less than half of Shasta County’s ballots have been counted so far.
Supervisor Chris Kelstrom told his fellow Board members during the meeting that he felt it was important to wait to make funding decisions until the new Board members are seated in early 2025. He suggested meanwhile, that Shasta County’s Health and Human Services Agency could produce a comprehensive analysis of what the needs are, saying the process so far feels rushed.
Garman agreed, quoting a Bible verse on the importance of seeking wise counsel and emphasizing that the Board has not yet sought the advice of experts in the field of substance use disorders. Garman suggested forming an advisory commission to assess current needs and advise on how the funds should be used, something that Supervisor Rickert has also repeatedly suggested.
“I like the idea of having some sort of a committee or a council oversee this a little bit,” Garman continued, “because there’s so much (that’s) needed.”
Representatives from the Good News Rescue Mission took a similar stance, stepping to the podium to present during the meeting then instead announcing a decision to withdraw the Mission’s application for funding.
Speaking to Shasta Scout after, Mission Director Jonathan Anderson explained the decision to rescind the funding request, saying he feels strongly that the process being used by the Board so far isn’t the best approach for the community.
“It’s an issue of principle for me,” Anderson said, “I think sometimes money can make people blind. What’s right for the community is having the right people at the table putting together the proper strategic plan.”
Supervisor-elect Plummer also spoke, advocating for strategic planning and cautioning the Board to carefully assess the gaps in current community response in order to deploy the money most successfully.
During Board discussion, Deputy County CEO Erin Bertain expressed her hesitation about moving too quickly towards funding decisions. She pointed out to supervisors that they need to think about strategic concerns such as whether the budget details of each proposal they’re considering meet the allowed uses.
Cash flow is also an important consideration, Bertain noted. While the County will receive at least $38.9 million in opioid settlement funds to spend over the next fifteen years, only $10.5 million is currently in the bank–making it important for the County to appropriately forecast specific timelines for the projects they decide to support.
CEO David Rickert seemed to summarize many individuals concerns when he told the Board towards the end of the meeting that it’s clear that the opioid fund use decision is “a much bigger project than we realized.”
Jones seemed to agree, noting that the Board had shown interest in the majority of proposals submitted during the meeting.
“There are too many yeses here,” Jones said. “Clearly we’re going to run out of money.”
Organizations whose proposals will return for tentative future funding discussions by the Board include Shasta County Substance Use Coalition, Shasta College, River Recovery Services, Visions Of the Cross, Mayers Memorial Hospital, Renewed Life Medical Group, Results Media, Empire Recovery Center, and Hill Country Community Clinic.
Some organizations interested in providing prevention services for youth were also asked to return as a collaborative group. Those include Youth Options Shasta and Raising Shasta, but could also include other agencies. The Board will also continue to consider four County Departments including the Sheriff and Public Defender as well as Veteran Services and Probation.
Crye told Shasta Scout yesterday that while some organizations are returning for future discussions, whether the Board will fund any of them is still uncertain. He said he believes the majority of opioid funding decisions could wait until next year with the contributions of newly-seated supervisors and a “thoughtful strategic plan”.
In contrast, decisions about funding for youth substance use prevention, Crye said, should be made as soon as possible, either in December or January, to ensure they can be rolled our during the next school year. He emphasized that he “already knows for certain” how he’ll vote when it comes to youth prevention programs.
“If it meets certain metrics in my mind that I’ve set forth on outcomes,” Crye said, “I’ll support it.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Measure A could stall commerical growth in rural San Benito County in perpetuity
San Benito County’s population expanded by 5.6 percent over the four years ending in December 2023, while California as a whole lost 1.4 percent of its residents. That’s because the relatively inexpensive county’s proximity to Bay Area jobs has brought commuters to its two incorporated cities, Hollister and San Juan Bautista.
Any weekday after 6 p.m., convoys of home-bound vehicles squeeze onto two-lane Hwy 25 heading east from the Hwy 101 offramp. The county population has increased by more than 5,000 since 2020, but new residents are not all spending that much money in the county itself.
“People are commuting so much they don’t want to go anywhere when they’re not commuting,” said Kristie Kern, owner of an arts-and-crafts coffee shop in downtown Hollister. She said she hopes to bring in more customers on weekends.
This growth and its lack of knock-on revenue are driving a contentious ballot measure that will go before voters countywide on Nov. 5.
Measure A, called the Empower Voters to Make Land Use Decisions Initiative, proposes to reverse pro-development land-use changes made along Hwy 101 over the past decade to their pre-2020 status, and would require a separate vote by the public for every conversion of agricultural, range or rural land use for commercial or housing development outside Hollister and San Juan Bautista.
The initiative would also remove the commercial status of four “nodes”—essentially highway intersections along Hwy 101: at San Juan Road, Betabel Road, Hwy 129 and Livestock 101.
About 99 percent of the 1,391-square-mile county is unincorporated.
Preserving open space by halting commercial development
Measure A’s proponents believe public votes on each potential project will help preserve San Benito’s rustic character—a tourist selling point—while protecting wildlife in the open grassland and mountains. Opponents say it would halt development on heavily trafficked Hwy 101, and throttle any effort to develop much-needed commercial activity in the county.
The measure would effectively decide what happens to future projects such as San Benito County’s most obvious Hwy 101 enterprise, Betabel RV Park. The 25-year-old RV park already pays transient occupancy tax charged on 172 sites for RVs and trailers, plus a tax on some of the sales made in its general store, manager Rachel Labas said. The park gets ample traffic.
“It is kind of a deserted section of Hwy 101, but it doesn’t seem to deter people,” she said.
Next door to the RV park, property owners Rider and Victoria McDowell have tried over the past five years to build a produce market and restaurant, income from which would eventually help fund the Cancer-A-Gogo charity, created in honor of their teenage son who died from brain cancer.
The project faced environmental lawsuits in 2022 after the couple had spent $200,000 clearing land for the project. Today it remains dormant. Rider McDowell did not answer requests for comment.
The McDowell project would be stopped from going ahead if Measure A passed, unless the owners reapplied and went to county voters for approval.
Opponents say the prospect of going before voters would deter developers of even small-scale projects such as truck stops—the likes of which would create local jobs, contribute tax revenue to the county and allow for upgrades of parks, a jail, rural roads and the library.
“The average person is not that aware of financial or growth issues—the impact of an issue like this,” said Bob Tiffany, a spokesman for the opposition.
Other rural California counties have taken different routes to limiting commercial growth, particularly in the use of agriculture or open-space preserves that act as unbending guidelines for planners.
Napa County, for example, approved an agricultural reserve in 1968, leaving 37,100 acres or 7.3 percent of the county in conservation agreements between landowners and a county trust.
Napa has witnessed acrimonious debates among some of its 500-plus wineries against other stakeholders over the past decades regarding growth and took all that time to find the right formula, said Sheli Smith, executive director of the Napa County Historical Society.
The reserve, however, has channeled growth into the city of Napa. Meanwhile, the region pulled together as a winery tourism hub through the joint work of county, city, Chamber of Commerce and visitor association officials, Smith said.
Napa’s wine sector brings in tax money from hotel stays and some of that goes back into tourism—including the county’s museums and heritage sites.
“You could put all your eggs in marketing what you got and maybe that will bring tourism to your doorstep,” she said.
Previously, San Benito County voters faced three other ballot measures asking about commercial growth—a possible source of confusion among the electorate now.
Ballot Measure K in March 2020 proposed approving commercial nodes on the seven-mile stretch of Hwy 101 that runs through the county, but nearly 60 percent of voters opposed it.
In November 2020, about the same percentage of voters rejected Measure N, which would have allowed a project called Strada Verde Innovation Park to conduct research, test vehicles, operate hotels and house other businesses on 2,777 acres.
Measure Q Redux?
And two years later, 56 percent of county voters turned down Measure Q, which—similar to Measure A—would have required voter approval for land-use changes leading to development.
An advocacy group once called Preserve Our Rural Communities, now known as Protect San Benito County, opposed Measures K and N and led the campaign in support of Measure Q.
County officials have tried to develop spots that past ballot measures were meant to protect, meaning the public should be put in charge now, Measure A proponent Andy Hsia-Coron said.
“When you go out and talk to people, they say ‘didn’t we vote on these already?’” he said.
He believes tourism to wineries and scenic spots should bring in the needed tax dollars but resents heavy traffic. Hwy 101, he believes, gets traffic that’s “backed up for miles” on weekends.
Hsia-Coron contends that tourism including ecotourism could add to the county tax base. “This is one of the most spectacular counties in California,” he said.
But tourism development moves at a crawl in San Benito County, Tiffany said, noting that Hollister has seen two new hotels open over as many years. Tourists would need more places to stay outside the city near scenic spots such as Pinnacles National Park. “That would be a very positive thing to have a hotel or a small resort,” he said.
Pro-Measure A fliers issued this year by Protect San Benito County complain of traffic jams, unsafe roads and a loss of farmland to housing—most of which is within the city limits. The group says it’s a 501c(3) nonprofit, which does not allow political activity. Hsia-Coron has declined to address the group’s legal status.
BenitoLink has checked three fliers this election year and found that they contained errors, lacked context or reiterated flawed arguments. A group called the Hollister Guardians distributed two of the fliers.
Out-of-county support
Several Bay Area environmental groups back Measure A on environmental grounds, though none are based in San Benito County.
Jessica Wohlander, an environmental associate with Palo Alto-based group Green Foothills, said keeping Hwy 101 free of more development will let bobcats and mountain lions cross the freeway through tunnels or overpasses between mountain ranges on either side, increasing biodiversity. Green Foothills, along with the Alameda County-based Save Mount Diablo, have helped fund Measure A.
The group has also helped gather signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
Today oak-studded mountains rim San Benito County, stretching southeast through ranches and open space to the Fresno County line. Flatlands closer to the two incorporated cities support farms that grow tomatoes and flowers for nursery use.
Former county supervisor Anthony Botehlo, an opponent of Measure A, says income from stores, restaurants, hotels and other new businesses would contribute to the tens of millions of dollars needed for public services.
San Benito ranks among four California counties where just 9% of property tax revenue went to the county government in 2022, according to the State Board of Equalization. The board logged about $142 million in property taxes for San Benito in 2022.
“It’s very uneven throughout the 58 counties,” Tiffany said. “It puts San Benito County at a real disadvantage to start with, and then on top of that, we have very few other revenue sources, like sales tax, that come in from the unincorporated areas of the county.”
Among the county’s top priorities, Botelho said a new park would cost $1 million per acre, adding that it would cost $40 million to bring the library up to current standards; road repair normally costs $1 million per mile and 450 miles of road are due for upgrades. He also noted that San Benito County Jail needs $7 million more to avoid losing a $15 million grant.
“The measure kills revenue opportunities,” Botelho said. “And that’s it, in a nutshell.”
Measure A, the initiative that would change the way land use decisions are made in San Benito County, is one of the crucial items on the Nov. 5 ballot. BenitoLink reviewed the funding statements that the “Yes” and “No” sides filed with the county’s Election Department. Since both campaigns can still collect more contributions, the figures may change.
Here are five facts about the funding of the Measure A campaigns.
The “No” campaign raised significantly more money.
As of Oct. 30, the No on A campaign, run by Neighbors to Preserve San Benito, has received close to $100,000 more than the Yes campaign, run by Campaign to Protect San Benito. In total, the No campaign reports receiving around $266,000, while the Yes campaign has received around $167,000.
Most of the “No” money comes from Realtors, as well as construction and housing companies, which could be deeply affected if Measure A passes. The initiative would, according to its text, amend the San Benito County General Plan “to require voter approval before redesignating agricultural, rural, or rangelands, and remove commercial regional designation from four Highway 101 nodes.” This, according to the measure’s opponents, will drastically hinder any future commercial development projects in the county.
“We have received funding from people who believe this measure is affecting the entire business community in San Benito County,” California Transportation commissioner and “No” campaign leader Bob Tiffany told BenitoLink.
No on A’s biggest donor is the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization, a political action committee that finances campaigns and lobbies on initiatives on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. The association has given the campaign more than 60% of the money it has raised ($163,000). No on A has also been supported by Bristol SB LLC—the company behind the proposed Strada Verde Innovation Park—and Graniterock, as well as Build Jobs, a Bay Area organization that supports pro-housing candidates and issues.
2. Campaign to Protect San Benito has nearly doubled its funds since its previous initiative failed.
In 2022, San Benito County residents voted on Measure Q, an initiative that also aimed to change how land use decisions were made in the county. The Yes on Q campaign was able to raise around $85,000. This year, Measure A’s promoters have nearly doubled that funding.
The campaign was able to achieve this with donations from environmental associations and individuals outside of the county. Save Mount Diablo, a conservation organization based in Walnut Creek, donated $40,000 and gave the campaign more than $30,000 in mail and social media ads.
Other big donors were Santa Cruz-based Patty Quillin, a film producer, philanthropist, and the wife of Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, with $49,000; Charles Knowles, co-founder of the San Francisco-based Wildlife Conservation Network, with $49,000; and Shepard Harris, a retired San Francisco-based financial advisor, with $10,000.
3. Most of the money on both sides comes from outside the county.
The vast majority of the funding both for and against Measure A comes from outside San Benito County. In both campaigns, more than 90% of the contributions were made by organizations and individuals who don’t live in the county.
The “Yes” campaign was mainly backed by environmental organizations and philanthropists.
Tiffany told BenitoLink that, although most of his group’s contributions come from outside the county, it was “requested” by locals.
4. The “No” campaign misfiled its contributions and is on track to exceed its 2022 funding.
As reported this week by BenitoLink, the “No” campaign misfiled a significant portion of its contributions. The campaign and the county told BenitoLink it was an “honest mistake.” Tiffany also said Dave Bauer, one of the campaign’s treasurers, went back to the county’s Elections Department and filed the reports correctly.
The “No” campaign also received more money than it did during the Measure Q battle in 2022. By the end of October 2022, the campaign had reported $202,000; as of Oct. 30, 2024, they have reported $266,000. By the end of the 2022 election season, No on Q had received around $537,000.
“We have raised a bit more support from unions, Realtors, and people concerned about the measure’s impacts,” said Tiffany.
5. The “Yes” campaign received fewer contributions from locals.
As of Oct. 30, Yes on A had received contributions of less than $1,500, from 26 people who reported living in San Benito County. They add up to around $9,600. The “No” campaign has five local contributors who donated around $14,000.
“Yes” has also received more funding from people who donated less than $100. In total, “Yes” has received around $1,800, while “No” has received $495.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news!BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.
What to do if your vote is challenged: Practical advice from a civil rights attorney for Election Day
Many Rural Californians Still Lack Abortion Access. Here Are Solutions
Two years ago, California voters overwhelmingly decided to enshrine the right to abortion services in the state constitution. And it wasn’t just coastal liberals: voters in the rural north, Central Valley, and Sierra Nevada all voted in favor of the proposition, despite also voting largely for Republican offices.
But many of these residents still lack access and have yet to implement effective solutions.
It took the Hollister Fire Department five days to contain the fire that broke out at a local recycling company north of the city last week. For 11 years, the city of Hollister has provided protection from fires like this in unincorporated areas of San Benito County, which contain some of the most fire-prone lands in the state. But the continuation of those services is no longer certain.
In June 2024, the city terminated its contract for fire protection services with the county and gave officials 270 days—until March 15, 2025—to find a solution. The city and the county have been negotiating for weeks without success.
“We are very seriously exploring other options because we’re being given no other choice,” said San Benito County Supervisor Kollin Kosmicki.
The city wants to hike the fee it charges the county from $2.2 million to $6 million—increase of 160%—which the county says they can’t afford.
Don Ashton, a consultant hired by the county, says this issue is arising throughout the state. “The cost for fire service throughout California is increasing everywhere, and it’s putting a significant strain on all cities and rural parts of California,” Ashton said. “So these costs and how to find money to pay for the services is not unique to San Benito County.”
Don Ashton at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Oct. 22.
At the Oct. 22 Board of Supervisors meeting, Ashton listed seven options the county is considering.
Renegotiating the contract with the city of Hollister.
Creating a hybrid model with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) and local staffing.
Forming a regional fire protection district with neighboring counties.
Creating a new San Benito County Fire Department.
Contracting with private fire service providers.
Leveraging a volunteer or a combination volunteer/professional fire department.
Creating a joint power authority (JPA) with the city of Hollister and other agencies.
San Benito County has nine fire stations—four operated by the Hollister Fire Department, four by CalFire, and one by the Aromas Tri-County Protection District, which has an agreement with CalFire. The county is being asked to pay $6 million for those four stations and their staff.
Ashton said it would be “ideal” if the city and the county could reach a deal, though he recognized $6 million “is a lot of money for a small jurisdiction to pay for fire service.”
Ashton said El Dorado County has 12 or 13 special fire districts, the most expensive of which is in the $2.5 to $3 million range.
“If you could afford it and started paying $6 million, I would tell you, you’re paying more per capita than any other rural fire district I would be aware of.”
The high price of the fire protection services has caused a heated discussion between city and county officials. Some county officials have deemed the city’s termination as “extortion.”
“The way that the city is currently treating this is more closely related to extortion than a partnership,” said County Supervisor Dom Zanger.
Henie Ring, the county’s deputy county administrative officer, has said they have asked the city to rescind the 270-day notice as part of negotiations, but “they were not amiable to that.”
The city, on the other hand, has said the county is not telling the complete truth. Hollister City Manager David Mirrioni said that county officials are not saying they have drawn a path “to remove the 270-day notice.” He also said the county has canceled negotiation meetings and that a group of frequently asked questions published around this issue omits the option of creating a joint powers authority, which the city is considering and the Board of Supervisors approved in August. He claimed omitting all this was “disingenuous.”
BenitoLink reached out to county and city officials for this story and none responded to our calls.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news!BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. It is expensive to produce local news and community support is what keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service, nonprofit news.
A Prison Newspaper Hopes to Bridge ‘Inside’ and ‘Outside’ Worlds in Rural California
This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center.
After being incarcerated for 19 years, most people would be happy to never step foot in a prison again. But Jesse Vasquez returns week after week, flashing his state-wide security clearance to guards who know him by name.
Vasquez leads the Pollen Initiative, a non-profit organization that supports the development of media centers and newspapers in prisons. When he was incarcerated, he was sent to 12 different prisons before ending up at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, located just north of San Francisco. There, he got involved with the prison’s long-running newspaper, San Quentin News. He served as the paper’s editor-in-chief before he was paroled in 2019.
Now, he’s working to bring similar media projects to other prisons in California, especially more rural ones that don’t have the same programming opportunities as San Quentin.
“It’s not necessarily that people don’t want to provide the programs, it’s proximity [to the prison],” Vasquez said.
Jesse Vasquez, right, and Kate McQueen, left, lead the Pollen Initiative’s journalism program in CCWF. They also support prison journalism programs in San Quentin Rehabilitation Center and Mule Creek State Prison, with plans to expand to prisons beyond California soon. (Photo by Anya Petrone Slepyan / Daily Yonder)
Vasquez’s sights are currently set on the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF), one of California’s two women’s prisons located just outside of Chowchilla, a small city in the Central Valley. Since March of 2024, Vasquez and his colleague Kate McQueen have made the two-and-a-half-hour drive from the Bay Area to Chowchilla to teach a journalism class to CCWF’s incarcerated residents.
In mid-September, they printed the first edition of the Paper Trail, a monthly newspaper written and edited by incarcerated journalists at CCWF.
“We want to have media centers and newsrooms flourish inside these institutions primarily because for the longest time they’ve been closed institutions with no transparency, no accountability, and no exposure,” Vasquez said.
Geography Matters
For those incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility, San Quentin News has long been a source of both awe and exasperation.
Megan Hogg is a regular reader of San Quentin News and a member of CCWF’s inaugural journalism class. Though she looks forward to reading the newspaper every month, she said she can’t help but notice the difference between the opportunities available to her at CCWF compared to those at San Quentin.
California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation “has provided so much for San Quentin, but they just ignore us,” Hogg said. “It’s frustrating to open the San Quentin News and see that they have athletes, musicians, and artists coming in. There are no resources like that for the women.”
CCWF is one of the largest women’s prisons in the world, with a population of over 2,100 incarcerated residents. It is one of two facilities for women in California, though it also houses trans men and nonbinary people.
The nearby city of Chowchilla has a population of 19,000 and is in Madera County. Madera County comprises a small, single-county metropolitan area.
Although certain programs like Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and basic education are available across all of California’s prisons – rural and urban – access to other educational, vocational, and therapeutic resources varies across institutions.
CCWF is located outside the small city of Chowchilla, in Madera County. The geographical location of a prison can have a significant effect on the availability of resources, programs, and opportunities for incarcerated people. (Photo by Anya Petrone Slepyan / Daily Yonder)
Many of these programs rely on support from local volunteers and nearby organizations. For example, San Quentin, which is located in the Bay Area, benefits from 500 active monthly volunteers who implement 160 different programs in the prison, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
In comparison, CCWF has 100 monthly volunteers who come in at least once a month.
In more rural prisons like High Desert State Prison, located in Lassen County, a nonmetropolitan county with a population of 32,700, just 36 “long-term program providers and religious volunteers” provide programming to the incarcerated, according to the CDCR. Approximately 10 providers with statewide prison clearance provide services to High Desert “a few times throughout the year,” the corrections department said.
These differences are not lost on Vasquez. While he’s extremely proud of San Quentin News, he said, he’s also “ashamed that we’re not representing the 32 other [California] prisons, many of which are in rural areas and have fewer resources and programming.”
The Fourth Estate Behind Bars
The Pollen Initiative’s effort to support prison newspapers builds on a long history of prison publications in the United States.
The first prison newspaper was published from a debtors’ prison in New York in the year 1800, according to archives from the American Prison Newspapers collection. Printing presses were commonly used for vocational training in prisons during the early and mid-20th century, which allowed for a vibrant prison press to flourish.
Since 1800, more than 700 different newspapers have been published at prisons across the country, with the number of publications peaking in the middle of the 20th century.
But in the 1970s, attitudes towards incarceration began to shift. Punitive, tough-on-crime policies replaced efforts at rehabilitation, and the prison population exploded from 200,000 in 1973 to 2.2 million in 2009, according to a report from the National Resource Council.
This change in attitude also affected educational and vocational opportunities within prisons. For example, the 1994 Crime Bill excluded incarcerated people from using federal Pell Grants, which had previously helped them access college education. Without funding, few prison college programs survived.
Most prison newspapers met a similar fate. Punitive attitudes and legal challenges over censorship and the first amendment rights of the incarcerated caused the majority of prison newspapers to disappear by the end of the 20th century.
Now, it seems a revitalization of the American prison press is underway. At least 25 prison newspapers in 12 states are currently published, and incarcerated journalists are increasingly collaborating with outside publications.
The presence of electronic tablets in prisons and jails across America has also drastically increased the distribution of prison newspapers among incarcerated people. For example, the San Quentin News – and now CCWF’s Paper Trail– are available in print at every California prison, as well as digitally in 950 prisons and jails around the country. Both papers have websites that outside audiences can access.
This reemergence of the prison press could itself be an indication of shifting attitudes toward criminal justice. In combination with state-level reform, federal policies and legislation have reduced prison populations and expanded rehabilitative opportunities over the past 15 years.
While these reforms are promising for the Pollen Initiative’s work, Vasquez says there is no guarantee that such support for prison reform will continue.
“When you look at the pendulum of criminal justice reform, it shifts so slowly in the way of progress and so quickly in the way of ‘tough on crime,’” he said. “So when you have a prison administration open its doors to you, you have to strike while the iron is hot because you don’t know when that door is going to close.”
Central California Women’s Facility is one of the largest women’s prisons in the world. Its current administration, led by acting warden Anissa De La Cruz, has provided critical support for the Paper Trail. (Photo by Anya Petrone Slepyan / Daily Yonder)
At CCWF, it took nine months of meetings with prison officials before they began working inside the prison. That’s because starting a media center requires approval from the prison’s administration and buy-in from the incarcerated population – a trust-building process that takes time.
In the spring of 2024, McQueen began teaching a weekly journalism class to the first cohort of students. The program held a celebration for the 19 graduates in mid-September, the same day the first edition of the Paper Trail was published. The Paper Trail’s editorial board was selected from members of this class and has directed both the content and vision of the new publication.
McQueen and Vasquez said the enthusiasm of the prison’s acting warden, Anissa De La Cruz, has made all of this possible.
“I have made it my mission to give the population of the women’s prison a voice,” De La Cruz wrote in the first print edition of the Paper Trail, which was published September 16, 2024. “Part of that means making space for a newspaper at CCWF, its own newspaper.”
The Paper Trail in Print
In late August, CCWF’s inaugural journalism class laid eyes on the first physical printing of their newspaper – a mockup that Vasquez and McQueen brought in so the editorial board could finalize the design and layout of the first edition.
Though it was just a sample draft on regular printer paper, this first look at their newspaper was emotional for many of the writers. Sagal Sadiq, features editor for the Paper Trail, said seeing his first byline was “surreal.”
“I don’t even know what to say,” Sadiq said, shaking his head.
The writers hope that in addition to providing information and building community among the incarcerated at CCWF, it will also lead to more attention – and therefore more resources – for the prison.
One article in the paper’s first edition highlights a peer support program at CCWF for incarcerated people, the first of its kind in the country. The program, which involves 82 hours of training, equips its participants to help new arrivals as they adapt to life in the prison. They’re also trained to facilitate support groups focused on things like personal health and reentry.
Paper Trail contributors say the newspaper is one way to highlight the innovation happening at this rural prison. “We’re doing things that are groundbreaking here, but we don’t have the same coverage as San Quentin,” said Amber Bray, the Paper Trail’s first editor-in-chief. “So we’re leveling the playing field.”
Bray believes the newspapercan strengthen CCWF’s programming by helping Chowchilla residents see the incarcerated residents as part of their community, which could encourage more volunteers to get involved.
Kate McQueen works with members of the editorial board of the Paper Trail to finalize the layout for their first edition. The board was elected by CCWF’s first journalism class. Between them, they’ve served a cumulative 104 years in prison, mostly at CCWF. Left to right: Kanoa Harris-Pendang, Sagal Sadiq, Kate McQueen, Nora Igova, Amber Bray. (Photo provided by the Pollen Initiative)
Everyone incarcerated at CCWF is counted as a Madera County resident in the U.S. Census, Bray pointed out. And the first edition of the Paper Trail includes coverage of one of the many fundraisers put on by CCWF that directly benefits the outside community. Some local publications have shown interest in republishing articles from the Paper Trail, which would further expand the newspaper’s audience and influence.
“Hopefully the newspaper will motivate people to ask questions, and think about how they can help our community by volunteering and getting engaged,” Bray said.
Nora Igova is the Paper Trail’s art and layout designer. She shares Bray’s hope that the newspaper will bring the inside and outside communities closer together.
“The Paper Trail will humanize us, humanize this community,” Igova told the Daily Yonder. “There is still an instilled fear in the outside community around prisons. We want people to not be afraid to believe in transformation and rehabilitation, and to see us as potential neighbors.”
For Vasquez, the Paper Trail is an example of something he’s always known: every incarcerated person has a story to tell.
“There are thousands inside the prison system who are brilliant thinkers, writers, artists,” he said.
Vasquez knows he was lucky – when he ended up at San Quentin, the resources that were already there allowed him the opportunity to flex his own writing muscle. “I just happened to be at the prison with the most exposure, with the most proximity,” he said.
No matter where a person is incarcerated, he wants them to have similar access to this opportunity. Vasquez and McQueen hope the Paper Trail can serve as a model for what could be possible at other prisons, rural and urban alike.
“We want to show people that it is possible, and this is how you can do it,” Vasquez said.
In a rural California House district, young people could tilt power in Congress
Inter-agency Group Mobilizes to Address Alleged Hate Speech in Anderson Union High School District
Individuals from a number of North State organizations met on August 19 to hear parent and student concerns about racism. Photo was taken by Annelise Pierce. It’s been edited to protect confidentiality.
California education law is meant to protect students from experiencing hate speech including the use of racist language, at school. But some students and parents in Anderson Union High School District say the law, and AUHSD policies, aren’t being enforced on their campus.
After unsuccessfully trying to communicate their concerns to school administrators, a small group of parents reached out to local advocacy organizations for help. About a dozen people from eight different advocacy groups met with parents and students to discuss the issue recently, only days after the new school year started.
Organizers responding to concerns include representatives from the The Beloved Community, the Islamic Center of Redding, the Sikh Centre, the Anti-Racism Task Force, Shasta County Citizens Advocating for Respect, Affram 2015 and SEIU 2015 as well as the Ethnic Minority and Human Rights representatives of the California Teacher’s Association.
AUHSD’s policy on hate-motivated behavior prohibits discriminatory statements that degrade an individual on the basis of their actual or perceived race or ethnicity. Students who demonstrate such hate-motivated behavior, the policy says, shall be subject to discipline. The policy also says that the district will provide counseling, guidance and support to both victims and perpetrators as necessary.
But parents report that students who have used hate speech in at least one AUHSD school have faced only minimal disciplinary action including being asked to apologize and assigned to short stints of picking up trash at school. Students who have reported hate speech say they’ve also faced retaliation from other students at the school for doing so.
The District includes Anderson Union High School, West Valley Early College High School, and Anderson New Technology High School along with adult and alternative education programs.
For this story, Shasta Scout agreed to keep the names of individual students and the specific school they attend within the District, confidential, to address their concerns for further retaliation, something that’s strictly prohibited under California law.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) students and parents can respond to discrimination in school by filing a complaint within six months of the incident, with either the school principal, the District superintendent, or both. Complaints filed at the District level must be responded to by the District within sixty days, in writing. If you’re unsatisfied with your local District response you can appeal to the California Department of Education but must do so within fifteen days of the District’s response.
AUHSD Superintendent Brian Parker responded to a request for comment from Shasta Scout earlier this week saying that while he can’t comment on particulars without knowing them, he encourages students and families who have experienced discriminatory behavior of any kind to reach out to their school administrators immediately.
“If the student/family does not feel the situation was handled appropriately,” Parker said, “please bring the issue to my attention as soon as possible. AUHSD does not tolerate racist speech.”
The inter-agency advocacy group that’s responding to reports of racist speech in local schools say they plan to approach Parker and the Board soon with their concerns. They want to ensure that schools are following the District’s policies on hate-motivated behavior. They’re also hoping to encourage using a “restorative justice” model, focused primarily on education rather than punishment, for those who have engaged in hate speech.
In the meantime organizers hope other Shasta County families will reach out if they are experiencing racism in local schools. You can contact the group at shastaantiracismtaskforce@gmail.com.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
