Skooma’s David Treccariche says “out-of-state money has influenced our locally elected officials against the betterment of their constituents.” Photo: Eze Amos.
Since Virginia legalized marijuana in 2021, laws surrounding the drug have been hazy. Though adults 21 and over can legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to four plants at home, it will not be legal to sell weed until January 1, 2024. State Democrats unsuccessfully tried to speed up that timeline last year—but now, legislators on both sides of the aisle are pushing to start recreational sales ahead of schedule.
In the House, Republican Del. Keith Hodges has proposed a bill that would allow pharmaceutical and industrial hemp processors to begin selling recreational weed on July 1, but prohibit the state from issuing marijuana licenses to other retailers until July 1, 2024. Democratic state Sen. Adam Ebbin has proposed a bill with the same timeline. While the proposals have drawn support from marijuana advocates pushing for recreational sales to begin before next year, some advocacy groups have criticized them for giving corporations an advantage, and removing social equity provisions included in the monumental 2021 legislation.
Under current law, the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority Board of Directors is required to establish standards and requirements for license applicants who have been convicted of a misdemeanor marijuana crime—or whose parent, child, sibling, or spouse has been convicted of one—as well as applicants who have lived in an area disproportionately policed for marijuana crimes (or an economically distressed area) for at least three of the past five years. People who graduated from a historically Black college or university in the state also qualify for a social equity license.
Hodges’ bill, HB1464, would instead mandate standards and requirements for “any preference in the licensing process for applicants that intend to operate a marijuana establishment in an historically economically disadvantaged community.” Ebbin’s bill, SB1133, would mandate “criteria by which to evaluate and grant license preference to applicants who have resided for at least four of the last five years … [in] a historically economically disadvantaged community.”
By allowing pharmaceutical and industrial hemp processors to sell recreational weed before small businesses, and giving preference to applicants opening dispensaries in economically disadvantaged communities, these bills invite corporations and other outside actors to exploit these areas, and do not guarantee people harmed by the decades-long war on drugs will be prioritized in the licensing process, says Chelsea Higgs Wise, executive director of Marijuana Justice.
“It’s a removal of the focus of the disparate impact of prohibition … and from individuals and families that have been targeted,” says Higgs Wise. “[This] appears to be the compromise across chambers to really encourage the false narrative of urgency to sales.”
The bills introduced by Hodges and Ebbin remove the word “equity” from multiple positions and organizations overseeing the legal marijuana market, and detail provisions for historically economically disadvantaged communities, rather than those specifically impacted by marijuana prohibition. Additionally, HB1464 no longer requires the Cannabis Control Authority to appropriate marijuana tax revenue to pre-kindergarten programs for at-risk children, the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, substance use disorder prevention and treatment programs, and public health programs. Republican Del. Michael Webert has proposed a bill, HB1750, that would delay retail sales to January 1, 2025, and remove social equity license requirements, too.
Higgs Wise worries about the long-term repercussions of marijuana laws without strong social equity provisions—as more states move toward legalizing marijuana, they could follow the commonwealth’s lead.
“Virginia has got to look across borders … and not only talk to people with the most money and the biggest mouths, which are the pharmaceutical companies,” says Higgs Wise, pointing to social equity issues within other states’ cannabis markets, like California and Illinois.
However, Virginia NORML is in support of the early sales bills, stressing the need for a safe, legal market as soon as possible.
“These bills seek to address some of the most immediate policies for adult use retail sales,” says the organization’s Executive Director JM Pedini. “The priority for the General Assembly this session ought to be public and consumer safety when it comes to retail sales—not who gets to make money first or next off of those consumers.”
The ever-changing proposals surrounding retail sales are confusing people interested in opening dispensaries, says Higgs Wise. Sirak Getachew, who plans to open a CBD dispensary in Richmond this spring, hopes to eventually sell legal weed at his business, but is worried about the social equity requirements.
“It just seems like we are on the sideline with nothing,” he says. “It seems like the war [on drugs] is never over.”
David Treccariche, owner of Charlottesville CBD dispensary Skooma, echoes similar concerns regarding early sales and licensing.
“Out-of-state money has influenced our locally elected officials against the betterment of their constituents,” says Treccariche. “The greatest injustice is to the victims of the state. … Those individuals should be given cannabis licenses and grants as easily as they were given summons and tickets.”
It remains to be seen which of the proposed bills—if any—have a fair chance of passing this legislative session. Gov. Glenn Youngkin has yet to clarify his position on a legalization timeline, which is “creating a hurdle, specifically for House Republicans, on the issue,” says Pedini.
Jillian Balow, the state’s superintendent of public education, was charged with correcting errors, omissions, and inaccuracies, and incorporating public feedback in Virginia’s history and social science standards of learning. Photo: Virginia Department of Education.
On January 6, the Virginia Department of Education released a revised proposal of the state’s history and social science standards of learning, after previously proposed standards sparked severe public backlash in November. Critics—including educators, activist groups, parents, and Democratic lawmakers—accused Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration of whitewashing history, perpetuating political bias, and teaching historical inaccuracies.
In response, the state Board of Education delayed its review of the standards, and directed Jillian Balow, Virginia’s superintendent of public education, to correct errors, omissions, and inaccuracies; incorporate public feedback; and prepare a “crosswalk” document comparing the controversial draft to the standards proposed in August, which were based on two years of input from historians, educators, organizations, and representatives of marginalized groups, as well as thousands of public comments. In August and October, Balow asked the board to delay reviewing the 402-page original proposal to allow time to fix mistakes, gain more expert input, and address other concerns with the August proposal.
The newly released proposal includes both “content from earlier drafts” and “new content on events and historical figures previously overlooked in the commonwealth’s history standards,” according to a January 6 VDOE press release.
However, some educators claim the new 68-page standards are simply a “continuation” of the 53-page November proposal, according to Ma’asehyahu Isra-Ul, president of the Virginia Social Studies Leaders Consortium.
The new standards continue the erasure of Indigenous peoples, claims Isra-Ul. For example, in the elementary standards, Columbus Day and Yorktown Victory Day are listed as holidays students will study, but not Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Other holidays celebrated by minority groups—including Kwanzaa and Hanukkah—are also missing from the list. (The standards say that students will not be limited to learning about the listed holidays.)
Since January 6, Isra-Ul, chief lecturer of the Leading By History Collective and an education specialist, says he has received dozens of emails from Virginia educators sharing additional concerns about the new proposal. Some teachers are worried about the substantial amount of information K-3 students are expected to learn within a limited amount of time, while others argue content might be too advanced for certain grade levels.
In November, the VDOE corrected multiple errors within the Youngkin administration’s original proposal, including a reference to Indigenous peoples as “America’s first immigrants,” and the exclusion of Juneteenth and Martin Luther King Jr. Day from elementary standards. The new standards include several other historical events and terms concerning marginalized groups that were missing from the November proposal, including the Chinese Exclusion Act, Hitler’s “Final Solution,” and the gay rights movement. While the previous proposal said there were several causes for the Civil War, the new one says that “slavery and its expansion was the primary cause of the [issues] that divided the nation and was the catalyst for secession of southern states.”
But some criticisms of the November proposal remain in the new one. Sixth graders are expected to study U.S. immigration policies and the challenges immigrants have faced, while 11th graders must analyze “the effects of changes in immigration” across the country. However, the standards do not explicitly mention the history of the Latino or Asian American and Pacific Islander communities in the country. (In response to criticism about excluded content, Balow has said that some subjects will be included in the curriculum framework, which is expected to be publicly released this summer.)
Additionally, Isra-Ul questions who was involved in the drafting of the newly released standards. Critics lambasted the Youngkin administration for working with conservative outsiders on the November proposal, including the Fordham Institute, Hillsdale College, and Reagan education secretary William Bennett.
Following November’s public backlash, the VSSLC, Virginia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and the American Historical Association released their own alternative standards in December. Isra-Ul says the groups reached out to the VDOE, but were not included in the November proposal development process. While working on their alternative proposal—which was completed in a little over a month, to meet the state education board’s timeline—the groups aimed to follow the board’s instructions to Balow, since they “didn’t know what [Balow] was going to do.”
Isra-Ul describes the alternative proposal as a combination of the August and November drafts, with corrected errors and omissions. It specifically includes edits proposed by the state’s African American History Education Commission, which he says were “completely disregarded” in the November proposal. “We used the [August] draft as the center and we found what could be salvaged from the November draft,” he explains.
The three groups urge the state education board to approve their proposal instead of the new standards, pointing to the endorsements they have received from the National Council for Social Studies, Virginia Council for the Social Studies, and Virginia Commission on Civic Education. The Charlottesville School Board has also expressed support for the standards. Virginia Humanities has called on the board to approve the August proposal, but hopes the board will discuss the alternative standards proposed by the three educational groups, too. The groups have not received a response from the board or Balow.
According to the VDOE, public hearings will be scheduled on the newly proposed standards “following acceptance of the draft” by the education board. The board’s next meeting is February 1.
Correction 1/11: Ma’asehyahu Isra-Ul is an education specialist and the chief lecturer of the Leading By History Collective. He is no longer an instructional specialist for Richmond Public Schools.
A male victim was shot last month on 14th Street near the Corner—one of multiple shootings in the Charlottesville area in December. Image: Martyn Kyle.
Amidst holiday celebrations, a string of shootings hit the Charlottesville area in December.
On December 18 at around 2:20am, the Charlottesville Police Department responded to a shots fired call on the 100 block of 14th Street NW. Officers found a male who had been shot, who was taken to the hospital. Two days later, the CPD arrested Anthony Marcus Paige of Charlottesville and Miriah Shavone Smith of Staunton in connection with the shooting. Both Paige, 28, and Smith, 30, were charged with felony malicious wounding, among other crimes.
On December 19 at around 5:45pm, CPD officers responded to a shooting call on the 2300 block of North Berkshire Road, and discovered a woman who had been shot (she was transported to the hospital). Police have not provided additional information regarding the incident.
On December 22 at around 9:32pm, the Albemarle County Police Department and county Fire Rescue responded to a report of an unconscious person in a vehicle in the 5200 block of Stony Point Road. First responders determined that the person had been shot multiple times, and was deceased. The department later identified the victim as 37-year-old Sabrina Elizabeth Jenkins of Orange, who was a mother of four boys, reports The Daily Progress. Two days later, police arrested 31-year-old Dominic Gaskins of Orange, and charged him with second-degree murder. A GoFundMe fundraiser has been started to cover Jenkins’ funeral expenses.
These shootings come after a spike in gun violence in the city and county this past fall, including seven homicides.
On September 17, Charlottesville police responded to a call on Third Street NE and discovered a man who had been shot. He was later identified as 29-year-old Daquain Anderson, and was taken to the hospital, where he died of his injuries. No one has been arrested for his murder.
According to the ACPD, a person was shot in the Rio Hill Apartments parking lot on September 24, and later died of their injuries at the hospital. Police said the shooting appeared to be domestic related, but have yet to announce an arrest.
On October 23, the CPD responded to a shots fired report on the Downtown Mall and found a man and two women who had been shot, following a fight between two men at Lucky Blue’s. The injured man, later identified as Devonn J. Wilson, died at the hospital. The two women, who were bystanders, sustained non-life threatening injuries. On October 28, authorities arrested Marcel Darell Washington of Charlotte, North Carolina, in connection with the shooting, and charged him with second-degree murder.
On October 25, Albemarle police arrested Shawna Marie Natalie Murphy, 38, in connection with the homicide of her boyfriend, Matthew Sean Farrell, 53, at his home on the 2100 block of Stony Point Road, and charged her with second-degree murder. And on November 14, authorities arrested Christopher Darnell Jones Jr., who is accused of killing Devin Chandler, 20, Lavel Davis Jr., 20, and D’Sean Perry, 22, and injuring Michael Hollins, 19, and Marlee Morgan, 19, at the University of Virginia on November 13. Jones, 23, was charged with three felony counts of second-degree murder, among other crimes.
Since September, shootings have also left more than a dozen people injured in Charlottesville and Albemarle. The CPD has pointed to the department’s short staffing as a cause of the increase in gun violence, while the ACPD has blamed gang activity.
Crumbling paint. Exposed pipes. Cracked floors. As I walk through the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, it is clear the 48-year-old facility is in horrible condition.
When ACRJ Superintendent Martin Kumer guides me to a cell block in the older section of the jail, built in 1974, my eyes are immediately drawn to the small silver toilets, tan sinks resting directly above them, inside of each 7-by-5 cell, offering no privacy. The metal bunk beds, covered in chipped blue paint, allow the jail to put up to two people in a cell, but there is one person in each at the moment. Still, when people are allowed to leave their cramped cells and use the common space throughout the day, everyone—and everything—is visible to the entire block.
Kumer points me to the block’s A/C system, which does not remove humidity, making the hot Virginia summers even more unbearable for those incarcerated here. There are no fresh-air intake vents, or air filtration systems, significantly increasing the chance of COVID and other airborne diseases spreading around the jail. The entire space appears very unsanitary—the communal shower, shared by up to a dozen people when the cell block is full, looks like it has not been cleaned in a long time. Before we leave the block, bathed in harsh fluorescent lights, Kumer motions to several bargrate windows that let no natural sunlight in.
The jail’s poor state does not come as a surprise to me. Since the beginning of the pandemic, people incarcerated here have called attention to the facility’s host of health and sanitary issues, including black mold, faulty wiring, leaky ceilings, poor plumbing, freezing temperatures, bug infestations, standing water, and shoddy COVID containment procedures. Seeing these conditions firsthand is no less disturbing.
Kumer takes me past a gym, classroom, visitation room, and small outdoor recreation space before we stop at the intake unit, located in the newer section of the jail. Because the facility has no dedicated mental health unit, people who are experiencing mental health crises and need to be separated from the general population are taken here, where they can be monitored at all times. We see a man inside a small single-person cell, his distressed face visible through the door’s window. The superintendent thinks he recognizes the man, and believes he may be on suicide watch. Staff will ensure the man does not harm himself, but the intake unit’s environment—especially its bright, 24/7 lights—does little to de-escalate mental health crises, and may even worsen them, Kumer admits.
“It’s the best we have,” he says, sighing.
Acknowledging these unsettling conditions, jail leadership has begun taking steps to renovate the facility, which serves the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle and Nelson counties. But the massive project and its $49 million estimated price tag has sparked pushback, particularly regarding the proposed mental health unit. Some community members have called on Charlottesville to invest in local mental health resources and programs instead—and do more to prevent people with mental health conditions from entering the criminal justice system at all.
Kumer gave C-VILLE a tour of the jail, showing the facility’s poor condition. Staff photos.
Proposed renovations
In 2000, the jail added three new housing units, each holding up to 40 people. Compared to the older portion of the jail, these units appear to be in better condition. The bigger cells can house up to four people, but typically two or three people are put in each. There’s also a larger common space, and plexiglass windows instead of bargrate. A gym, medical unit, and other necessities are located next to each housing unit.
The ACRJ, however, currently houses its entire population in the older cell blocks, in addition to the medical, intake, and other units—only those who have tested positive for COVID and need to quarantine are held in one of the newer housing units, largely due to the jail’s low population and staffing shortage. As of December 12, the jail’s population is 262 people, 67 below its rated capacity of 329.
To use these units, “you have to find enough people, 40 or more, who can get along 24/7, otherwise the housing area would be chaotic and unsafe,” Kumer says. “We have a relatively small population with several different issues that make it impossible to find enough people to efficiently use those spaces. Those issues include co-defendants, individuals testifying against others, people who have had issues [with each other], [and] gangs.”
Though the jail could house smaller groups of people who get along with each other in a new unit, it does not have enough staff for a low officer-to-individual ratio—in the older section’s general population areas, each employee is able to supervise between one and 60 individuals, or more.
ACRJ Superintendent Martin Kumer is spearheading the jail’s proposed $49 million renovation project. Photo: Eze Amos.
The $49 million project will completely demolish and rebuild one older jail wing, while renovating the rest of the facility. In addition to upgrading and replacing the HVAC units, electric systems, lighting, and air filtration, the renovation will create an outdoor recreation space and larger visitation area, as well as add more classrooms, programming space, and administrative offices. Housing areas will be revamped with larger common spaces, natural sunlight, sound-deadening materials, plexiglass, and more showers and private toilets.
After the renovation, the jail will house its population in the renovated 1974 section, which will have larger cells. The 2000 section will be used when necessary, depending on the jail’s staffing.
Though the renovation will enlarge the jail’s square footage, it will not add more beds, or increase its capacity. After conducting a needs assessment—which examined crime trends, criminal justice reforms, and other factors in the three localities—jail leadership determined the facility’s population would not increase substantially in the future.
However, the renovations will demolish 40 beds in an old wing, and move them to a new dedicated mental health unit, featuring sound-absorbing materials, anxiety-reducing colors, and other elements of trauma-informed design. The unit will house people with mental health conditions, as well as other people who need to be separated from the general population, until “they are stable enough to be housed in the general population, transferred to a state hospital, entered into the therapeutic docket, or released,” says Kumer.
From July 2015 to July 2021, approximately 33 percent of the people held long enough at ACRJ to receive the Brief Jail Mental Health Screener (at least 24 to 48 hours) met the minimum screening criteria for serious mental illness, according to findings by the 2021-22 UVA Systems Engineering Capstone Team.
“Consistently, we have found that between 25 and 33 percent of ACRJ inmates meet the minimum screening criteria for serious mental illness,” says Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board planner Neal Goodloe. “We have also found that one in four former inmates are treated for either a physical or behavioral health issue at UVA’s Emergency Department within one month of their release from custody.”
“The majority of individuals we see are those who suffer from severe depression, mood disorders, anxiety, bipolar [disorder], and personality disorders that can be effectively treated with medication,” says Kumer. Individuals diagnosed with more severe mental illnesses “who are a harm to themselves or others or cannot care for themselves” are transferred to a state mental hospital until they are stable enough to return to ACRJ.
The new unit will have individual cells and a common area, which people will have access to during the day. Individuals who cannot safely socialize with others will have limited access to the common area.
“The purpose of the unit is to provide an environment that reduces the potential traumatizing effect that incarceration can have on individuals, especially those with mental illness,” says Kumer.
In March, the ACRJ board authority passed a resolution asking the Virginia Board of Local and Regional Jails to consider approving the renovation project, and requesting the state cover 25 percent of the cost. Cyndra Van Clief, a Republican and self-described fiscal conservative, was the only board member who voted against the resolution, citing concerns about the project’s high cost and a desire for more public input. In April, the Albemarle Board of Supervisors voted to remove her from the jail board for her “failure to act in the County’s best interest,” she told C-VILLE in May.
The state is expected to contribute $12.5 million to the renovation, and the three member localities will be on the hook for the rest. Each locality will pay a portion of the renovation cost equivalent to their jail beds usage—Albemarle uses about 45 percent of the beds, while Charlottesville uses around 40 percent, and Nelson about 15 percent.
Community backlash
Some community members and activists have spoken out against the $49 million project, particularly the proposed mental health unit. Instead of investing millions into the jail, they argue the city should increase its funding and support of mental health resources and programs.
“You can’t get well in a jail,” says city resident Gloria Beard. “If anything, if I was put in a jail and my mental health was bad … I think it would make me worse being locked up.”
“The treatment … in [the new unit] will not be any different,” adds Kate Fraleigh. “They won’t be hiring any new staff to provide more services. The only thing that will be different is that it will just look different.”
Kumer argues that medication is the only form of treatment the jail can provide, due to the short stays of individuals—typically 30 to 40 days. “Talk therapy or group therapy can take months or years to be truly effective,” he says. “Individual and group therapies are more common in prisons, since those individuals’ release dates are known and they will be incarcerated for potentially several years.”
Local activist Harold Folley calls for increased investment in community health resources and programs instead of incarceration. Supplied photo.
Harold Folley of the People’s Coalition points to the closure of Region Ten’s Wellness Center as an example of the desperate need for investment in local mental health resources. This year, Region Ten—which serves six localities including Charlottesville and Albemarle County—paused admissions to the 16-bed center, a short-term residential stabilization program for adults experiencing an acute mental health crisis, due to staffing shortages. It hopes to reopen the center in January 2023, according to Community Relations Director Joanna Jennings.
“How can we increase the funds in the places that we need?” asks Folley. “Instead of being reactive, how can we be proactive?”
Fraleigh questions why the renovations cannot reduce the jail’s size, and in turn, come at a cheaper price, citing the area’s dwindling crime rate. From 2012 to 2021, crime in Charlottesville and Albemarle decreased significantly, according to data compiled by Goodloe. Under Charlottesville and Albemarle commonwealth’s attorneys Joe Platania and Jim Hingeley, progressive reforms, including the drug treatment court and restorative justice program, have also diverted people from incarceration. This year, Nelson County started a drug treatment court, too.
“My issue is not the renovation at all. It needs to be done. [The jail is] terrible. The old section is really, really bad. … My objection is how much money is going to be spent,” Fraleigh says. “There will be fewer people in the jail anyway because … crime is dropping.”
The jail’s current low population does not guarantee it will not rise again in the future, making it financially unwise to reduce the jail’s size and capacity now, Kumer says. “In the long run it would be significantly more expensive to at some point have to rebuild a facility you just paid to have demolished.”
The jail will not have any cost savings after the renovations, he adds.
Still, the city can do more to address the root causes of crime, says Ang Conn of Charlottesville Beyond Policing, including by creating a mental health crisis response team.
“Jails, prisons, and detention centers have and never will be designed to rehabilitate but rather continue to disappear those who are most in need of support services,” says Conn. “While some may believe that reform is the key to resolve the immediate needs, true resolve will come from a transformative approach outside of the carceral state.”
Board division
After working for Region Ten for more than 10 years, Charlottesville City Councilor and ACRJ Authority Board member Sena Magill says she understands the community’s concerns over the renovations and mental health unit, but adds the issue is “so much more complicated,” pointing to the cracks in Virginia’s mental health care system.
Since Virginia expanded Medicaid in 2019, the program has increased its coverage of mental health care services. However, Medicaid’s strict reimbursement conditions and inadequate reimbursement rates have contributed to staffing shortages on community service boards like Region Ten, as well as other state mental health care providers, for years. And some services aren’t covered by Medicaid or private insurance, requiring community service boards to try to fill those gaps—leaving even less money available to pay their staff, explains Magill.
“That state has made it so complicated to give services to people,” says Magill, who served as Region Ten’s director of intensive services from 1999 to 2010, and later served on the organization’s board of directors. “People are leaving [community service boards] in droves because it’s just not affordable for them anymore to stay working there.”
Jail board member Lisa Draine is concerned about the renovation project’s high cost. Photo: Eze Amos.
Magill claims the funding for the new mental health unit will not be enough to solve the staffing crisis at Region Ten. Until the state boosts community service board funding, improves Medicaid reimbursement, and takes additional steps to fix its mental health care system, “we’re going to see people [with mental health conditions] in jails,” she says.
“We need massive state infusions. … They got the money,” she adds, citing Virginia’s $654 million Medicaid surplus last year.
Additionally, mental health care resources and programs cannot entirely prevent people with mental health conditions from being put in jail, says Magill, explaining the need for the mental health unit.
“Sometimes someone with a mental health issue commits a crime that has nothing to do with their mental illness. [And] being in jail can set off your symptoms of mental illness,” she says. “The jail needs to be able to do the least amount of damage. It’s not supposed to be treating mental illness … that’s not its purpose.”
Jail board member Lisa Draine, Charlottesville’s citizen representative, says that if she could vote again on the state funding request for the renovations today, she would vote against it, echoing community concerns over the hefty price tag.
When Kumer brought the request to the board for approval in March, “I assumed nothing was set in stone. The three jurisdictions had not been asked for funding for the renovation. … I hoped we as a board would have the opportunity to further discuss the renovations,” says Draine. “If I could do it all again, knowing what I know now, I would change my vote.”
“There’s no question that the jail is in bad shape … but we don’t need to spend this kind of money,” explains Draine, who joined the board in October 2021 when the renovation planning process was already underway. “Should we be putting $49 million of taxpayer money into this facility in which the population is decreasing, instead of putting that money into community solutions and programs that address the root causes that would lead somebody to end up in the criminal legal system?”
Kumer emphasizes that the state funding request is non-binding, and the jail board and leadership can explore ways to cut down the renovation costs. The member jurisdictions can also choose not to move forward with the project in the future.
Draine says she has asked the board multiple times to further discuss the renovation costs, but so far, those conversations have not happened. She hopes jail leadership and the board can find a way to reduce the renovation costs, and leave more funding available for community resources and programs addressing mental health, poverty, and other issues.
Jail board Chairperson and Albemarle County Supervisor Diantha McKeel says there will be “many more discussions to follow in 2023 with the community, service providers, ACRJ inmates, and staff regarding a final design. The current estimate … is only that, an estimate, as required by the [state Department of Corrections] process to submit for 25 percent reimbursement from the state.”
“I certainly understand the concerns around the cost,” McKeel adds. “There will be many opportunities [for] … discussion regarding reduction of cost.”
To cut costs, Draine suggests the jail move its population into the newer wing, make repairs and upgrades to “the infrastructure most in need,” and demolish the 1974 wing entirely.
According to Kumer, the newer housing units are not large enough to do that. “The new section was designed to hold 120 people. … It would be irresponsible to reduce the capacity of the facility to the point that it doesn’t serve the current needs, let alone the future unforeseen needs,” he says. “Several of the jail’s primary services are located in the old section and would have to be maintained. Even if the jail’s population was somehow guaranteed to be 120 people or less … it would be unlikely they could all be housed safely and effectively in three pods.”
Regardless of the project’s final cost, the jail has a strong need for a mental health unit, Kumer says. “I agree people can’t get well in a cell … but I have no control over who comes through that back door.”
Mental health reforms
In response to community and nationwide calls for criminal justice reform, several programs aiming to divert people with mental illnesses from the criminal justice system and reduce police involvement in mental health crisis response have been implemented in the Charlottesville area.
In 2018, Offender Aid and Restoration-Jefferson Area Community Corrections created the therapeutic docket, which allows defendants diagnosed with serious mental illnesses to receive mental health treatment, and be diverted from incarceration in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Since then, 169 people have participated in the program, something that takes a minimum of nine months to complete. The county and state each fund one-fourth of the program’s costs, while the city covers the other half.
Major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder are among the mental illnesses often seen among docket participants. Many also have substance abuse disorders. “These are people that are clinically diagnosed with needing help, are generally on medication, have some history of treatment … and often have had multiple run-ins with the criminal justice system,” explains OAR Executive Director Ross Carew.
When defendants are referred to the therapeutic docket, docket coordinator Jennifer Scott and Region Ten conduct an assessment to determine the influence of mental illness on the offenses they are charged with, before presenting their findings to the court. Defendants must agree in court to participate in the docket, and the judge or commonwealth’s attorney can approve or reject their participation request.
While defendants must plead guilty to their charges in order to participate in the docket, the charges are usually reduced to a misdemeanor with a suspended sentence, or dismissed, upon their completion of the program. The program is limited to Charlottesville and Albemarle residents who are charged with misdemeanors, or felonies that can be “safely reduced” to misdemeanors, says Scott.
Charlottesville City Councilor and jail board member Sena Magill laments the cracks in Virginia’s mental health care system. Photo: Eze Amos.
Upon beginning the docket program, participants meet with a Region Ten clinician and Scott, and attend group therapy at least once a week. They also do regular court check ins. To assist them throughout the program—which often takes a year to complete—they are connected with a Partner for Mental Health navigator. At any point, participants can choose to leave the program, and continue with their case in regular court.
“We try to wrap people as holistically as possible so they have a support network to build the skills so that when it comes time for graduation, they’ve had a period of success,” says Carew.
After graduation, participants are encouraged to continue to receive the services they did while in the program, but they are not required to. Some of them continue with their treatment, and stay in touch with OAR, says Scott.
OAR does not have data yet regarding participant recidivism, but says the program has had a positive impact. According to the Virginia Supreme Court’s 2021 Behavioral Health Docket annual report, “preliminary research, although still very limited, demonstrates that Behavioral Health Docket participants tend to have lower rates of criminal activity and increased linkages to treatment services, when compared to defendants with mental illnesses who go through the traditional court system.”
The docket currently has a long waiting list. OAR plans to ask the county to contribute the same amount of funding as the city so the docket can take on significantly more participants. OAR has also discussed expanding the docket into felony court and the adult side of juvenile and domestic relations court, but “there needs to be more resources before we can do that,” says Carew.
This year, the Albemarle County Police Department opened a Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center through a partnership with Region Ten, offering care to individuals experiencing mental health crises outside of the criminal justice system.
When the Emergency Communication Center receives a 911 call regarding someone experiencing a mental health crisis in the county, an ACPD officer responds to the call and speaks with the individual, then reaches out to the CITAC and speaks with a Region Ten mental health professional about the case. The professional decides if the person meets the criteria to be brought to the center, where they can be connected quickly with resources and treatment, instead of the hospital, explains ACPD Lieutenant Jeremy Wood.
However, the department’s response to mental health calls will soon change again. In the county’s FY23 budget, the Board of Supervisors funded a new Human Services Alternative Response Team. Managed by the county social services department, in collaboration with the police and fire rescue departments, the team will consist of “a police officer, firefighter/paramedic, and human services worker, [and] will respond to incidents where a person is in crisis,” says social services department director Kaki Dimock. “The team will adjust their response based on each situation to ensure the safety and best outcome for the individuals involved and the team members responding.”
A mental health crisis response team will eventually come to Charlottesville, thanks to Virginia’s Marcus-David Peters Act, named in honor of a 24-year-old Black high school biology teacher who was killed by a Richmond police officer during a severe mental health crisis in 2018.
Passed in 2020, the law initially required localities to create a 988 number for mental health crises, and to develop protocols by July 2022 for when behavioral health experts, instead of law enforcement, will respond to crises related to mental health, substance use, and developmental disabilities. But in March, the Republican-majority General Assembly passed a bill allowing localities with populations of less than 40,000 to opt out of the system, and giving those with more than 40,000 residents until July 1, 2028, to implement the system.
Last year, the city’s Marcus Alert work group began exploring how to develop the new system. And this year, the city allocated funds for it—but with the state’s fluctuating deadlines and requirements, it remains unclear when it will be implemented in Charlottesville, which has around 46,000 residents. For Region Ten, the current expectation is for all six of its member localities to implement the system. Marcus Alert legislation will be revisited during the next General Assembly legislative session, according to Jennings.
Magill says Charlottesville’s severe staffing shortage has also slowed down the Marcus Alert implementation process—it currently has around 70 job openings. However, the city plans to look to the county for guidance in the near future.
The shortage “is impacting everything. … New initiatives take time and energy, and we have to have staff to do that,” says Magill. “We really want to see what Albemarle’s doing … and learn from them.”
Pushing forward
As various mental health reforms work to expand or get off the ground in the Charlottesville area, the ACRJ’s massive renovation project is pushing forward.
Charlottesville, Albemarle, and Nelson have passed resolutions supporting the jail’s request for state funding for the project. The Virginia Board of Local and Regional Jails has also recommended the state fulfill the jail’s funding request.
During the next legislative session, the General Assembly is expected to review the BLRJ’s recommendation. “At the same time, [the jail’s] member jurisdictions will hear from Davenport Financial Consulting, and consider the request for interim financing that will fund the planning phase of the project. The funds would be used to finance architecture and engineering services to get the project bid ready,” says Kumer.
Albemarle County Supervisor and jail board chairperson Diantha McKeel says there will be “many more discussions” about the jail renovations next year. Supplied photo.
If the state approves the funding request, the jail plans to advertise a request for proposals, and hire an architectural engineering firm for the renovations next June. The firm will “work with the community and stakeholders to determine the actual renovation design,” says McKeel. “After that, engagement … followed by value engineering and receipt of construction bids [we will] be able to determine an actual cost.” The final cost will be paid by a bond issued by the ACRJ authority.
Construction is estimated to begin in August 2024 and finish in November 2025.
Residents recently began moving into three new apartment buildings that are part of the multi-phase South First Street redevelopment. Phase two of the project, slated to begin in the spring, will replace the 58 existing units with 113 multi-family units, including townhouses and larger apartments. Image: City of Charlottesville.
In April, Khalesha Powell received an important notice: She needed to find a new place for her family to live before her building in the South First Street public housing site is demolished and redeveloped next year. Since then, Powell, a single mother of eight children, says she has applied to live at over a dozen properties, but has been repeatedly denied, racking up hundreds of dollars in application fees.
Landlords who own three or more properties are legally required to accept housing vouchers in Virginia, but Powell says she’s been met with a variety of reasons for denial of her applications.
“I’ve been denied for credit, I’ve been denied for occupancy … they deny you for all kinds of things,” says Powell, who has lived at the 41-year-old public housing complex with her children for nine years. “Sometimes it makes you wonder if they’re denying you because they just don’t want to take the voucher.”
In documents Powell shared with C-VILLE, one property owner cited Powell’s monthly income, number of occupants, and her credit score as reasons why her application was rejected, while another cited her credit score. Four landlords responded to her inquiry about their four- or five-bedroom rental home saying that they did not accept vouchers.
Powell says she was originally supposed to receive a relocation voucher, which would have reimbursed her for housing application fees, and paid for her deposit and first month’s rent. But the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority gave her a tenant-based housing choice voucher, which does not cover any of it.
“I haven’t gotten an application fee less than $50—all that adds up,” says Powell. “For me to have to come out of pocket with a lot of this stuff is crappy.”
According to CRHA executive director John Sales, the CRHA has yet to receive relocation vouchers from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, so it has only been able to distribute tenant-based vouchers.
It’s also been a challenge finding a new home large enough for her family, says Powell, who currently lives in a five-bedroom unit at South First Street. The number of four- and five-bedroom rental properties is limited in Charlottesville, and some landlords would rather rent to students.
“Mostly every four- and five-bedroom that’s been listed [that accepts vouchers], I’ve applied to,” she says. “It’s a lot of getting your hopes up, then your hopes being taken down.”
Instead of a voucher, Powell was told she could move to Hardy Drive. However, around the time she was offered that option, she says her 17-year-old son was jumped by some neighborhood kids, and she did not want to put him in danger. The recent shootings on and near Hardy Drive also made her wary of moving there.
When she first began her housing search, Powell says she found one landlord who was willing to accept her voucher, but, due to delays in receiving vouchers from HUD, CRHA hadn’t given her one. Her application eventually fell through. In September, she finally received the tenant-based voucher, which is set to expire on December 22. She can then receive up to two 30-day extensions, but if she is not given additional extensions, she worries she’ll lose the voucher.
“Where is me and my children going to go if I can’t find no one to take my voucher?” she asks.
Last year, the city broke ground on the long-awaited, multi-phase South First Street redevelopment project. Last month, residents began moving into phase one’s three new apartment buildings, featuring 63 one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. In phase two, set to begin in March or April, the 58 existing units will be replaced with 113 multi-family units, including townhouses and apartments with one to five bedrooms. The planning process for phase three, which will involve the land across the street from the original units, has not yet begun.
Sales stresses that CRHA will ensure no one is left homeless due to the public housing redevelopment. Families with housing vouchers who are unable to secure new housing will instead be moved to Hardy Drive.
Out of South First Street’s 58 families, 16 have already moved to other public housing sites, according to Sales. Forty will either be moved to the new South First Street units, or transferred to other public housing. Powell’s family is one of two who are using a voucher, and still looking for a place to accept it.
To assist voucher recipients with their housing search, CRHA has offered new landlords bonuses for accepting vouchers during the pandemic, thanks to additional HUD funding. It also plans to request city funding for landlord incentives, like those funded by Albemarle County.
Regarding voucher rejections, “if we do find out about it and feel like we can help … we do call the landlord. I’ve spoken with several landlords to try to get them to understand the type of situation we’re in,” says Sales. “But the voucher market is a private market, and we really have no control over the landlords setting their rents and requirements.”
“We really have to almost accept what we get,” he adds.
Warrenton Police Department Chief Michael Kochis, Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office Commander Easton McDonald, and acting Charlottesville Police Chief Latroy “Tito” Durrette are the three candidates for CPD chief. Photo: Eze Amos.
Since former Charlottesville police chief RaShall Brackney’s controversial firing last fall, Captain Latroy “Tito” Durrette has acted as the CPD’s interim chief, while the city searches for the department’s next official leader.
At noon on November 28, the city announced the final three police chief candidates: Warrenton Police Department Chief Michael Kochis, Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office Commander Easton McDonald, and Durrette. Six hours later, the Police Civilian Oversight Board hosted a forum, asking the candidates questions submitted by community members covering a wide range of topics, including community policing, gun violence, and mental health.
This summer, the city hired POLIHIRE to lead the police chief search. The D.C.-based firm used feedback from more than 40 meetings with community stakeholders and residents, as well as an online community survey, to develop a recruitment brochure, and published it nationwide. After receiving 19 applications, acting City Manager Michael Rogers formed an executive screening committee to interview the top five candidates. The committee eliminated one candidate and another declined to move forward, leaving Durrette, Kochis, and McDonald as the finalists.
Durrette touted his 30 years at the CPD. “I care about this community. … We all have had trauma and I want to be a part of that healing process,” he said.
McDonald, who has worked in law enforcement for 25 years, shared that he was attracted to Charlottesville’s desire for 21st-century policing, while Kochis, who has more than 20 years of policing experience, similarly appreciated calls for community involvement in policing, pointing to the PCOB.
Durrette stressed that policing is more than just enforcing laws—it’s building connections with the community, listening to their concerns, and taking action. “We have to recognize [that] in 2017, we failed. We have to change that perception,” he said.
“We haven’t always been on the right side of justice,” added Kochis, who has led the WPD since 2020. “We’re going to be hiring officers who aren’t going to remember 2017, and shame on us if we don’t teach them [and] learn from that.”
Discussing visions and ideas for community policing, McDonald, who has worked for the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office since 2001, shared that he expects officers to get to know people living in the areas they’re assigned to patrol and help improve the neighborhood.
In Warrenton, Kochis explained, the department formed a community action team including residents, faith leaders, business owners, and other stakeholders. Over the past two years, the team has met monthly to review department policies.
Regarding the PCOB, Kochis said he was a “fan” of the board, but was “not convinced it’s been sold [or] communicated directly to the rank and file because it doesn’t have to be a negative thing—we have the same goal in mind.”
To reduce and eliminate disparate policing, McDonald encouraged the community to call in both compliments and complaints about officers, so the department can identify where it needs additional training and education. Kochis emphasized the importance of training including community members, so officers can understand the significant impact of implicit bias. Durrette pointed to community events like the forum as a way to “change that behavior and culture.”
Two candidates have previously stirred up controversy. In 2014, McDonald accidentally shot his teenage daughter when she came home after sneaking out and he mistook her for an intruder. He was not charged with a crime. According to Brackney, Durrette, a former SWAT team commander, was on a “performance improvement plan” under her leadership—last year, the former chief disbanded the team for severe misconduct.
Later in the forum, all three candidates expressed support for the Marcus Alert system, which allows behavioral health experts, instead of law enforcement, to respond to certain calls related to mental health, substance use, and developmental disabilities. (It remains unclear when the system will be fully implemented in Charlottesville due to legislative setbacks.) They also stressed the need for community partnerships and programs to end gun violence, such as activities for youth.
Kochis explained how he’s brought down gun violence in Warrenton by meeting with community stakeholders and members, and utilizing procedural justice, which is “giving people a voice, explaining the why,” he said.
For months, the CPD has had a severe staffing shortage. To recruit and retain more officers, McDonald emphasized providing adequate training and equipment, while Kochis pointed to his leadership in Warrenton—by involving the rank and file in the department’s strategic plan, he was able to fill every vacancy.
The candidates also vowed to recruit more officers of color. McDonald suggested meeting with Black organizations at colleges and universities, and talking with people who may have never have considered joining law enforcement. Durrette recommended building relationships with young people, and getting them interested in the profession. Kochis cited his efforts to recruit more women, too—the WPD is now 24 percent female.
Finally, the candidates advocated for building relationships with unhoused people, showing empathy, and connecting them with critical services.
Rogers will evaluate the candidates’ forum responses and “determine the best selection for our community,” he said.
Next spring, the Premier Circle shelter will shut down, and be turned into permanent supportive housing for unhoused and low-income people. Staff photo.
After purchasing the Red Carpet Inn off Route 29 in Albemarle County last March, the Piedmont Housing Alliance renovated the 40-year-old rundown motel, and transformed it into an emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness, thanks to a $4.25 million grant from the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. Since the low-barrier shelter—managed by People and Congregations Engaged in Ministry and the Blue Ridge Area Coalition for the Homeless—opened its doors last May, it has provided 177 unhoused people a safe, welcoming place to stay, in addition to meals, clothing, case management, health care, employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, and other necessities and resources.
But in April, the Premier Circle shelter will shut down, and the former motel will be transformed once again into something desperately needed in the Charlottesville area: affordable housing.
Virginia Supportive Housing plans to start building 80 permanent supportive housing units at the site in May. The studio apartments will be available to single adults experiencing homelessness, or earning below 50 percent of the area median income. On-site supportive services, like case management, will be available to residents, as well as a fitness center, community room, laundry facility, and other amenities. VSH has received low-income tax credit awards to help pay for the approximately $20 million project, but is working to secure around $3 million more in funding. Construction is expected to last about 15 months, and be completed in fall 2024, according to Director of Real Estate Development Julie Anderson.
After VSH finishes construction, the PHA plans to build around 50 affordable housing units for low-income people making no more than 60 percent AMI. While the project’s design has not been finalized yet, PHA CEO Sunshine Mathon expects the complex to be a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, and says the residents may have access to some of VSH’s services, like counseling. Over the next one to two years, PHA will apply for low-income tax credits for the project, and hopes to complete construction 14 to 18 months after breaking ground.
“We’ve been blessed to have a supportive city, county, [and] state to make this project work,” says BRACH Executive Director Anthony Haro. “We’re excited for the next stage.”
This month, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County gave $200,000 each to the shelter, covering its operating expenses from January until it closes its doors in April—a “big relief” for the shelter’s management, says Haro.
“A lot of the funding we used … over the last two years has been COVID relief funding at the state and local levels,” says Haro. “These last few months, we needed some more funding support to make it through, and really help folks transition over these next four months into housing.”
Since this spring, PACEM and BRACH have been working closely with shelter guests—many of whom are elderly, and have serious illnesses—to create housing plans and find them a new place to live, in partnership with local housing authorities. In mid-October, the shelter stopped accepting new guests, in order to focus on transitioning guests into permanent housing. Between 60 and 70 people currently live at the shelter, according to PACEM Executive Director Jayson Whitehead.
“We’ve had different types of housing vouchers dedicated to folks living at this site, so we’ve been able to transition around 15 folks to permanent housing since September,” says Whitehead.
The deteriorating condition of the former motel has further stressed the need for permanent housing solutions. Though 92 of the facility’s 115 rooms were renovated, “we did start to really experience at some point this past summer really sizable failure in rooms,” says Whitehead, “like roof leaks, floors giving way—all types of things that really were reducing the amount of rooms we had to offer.”
Once the shelter shuts down and housing construction begins, PACEM and BRACH will still work to find emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness, and connect them with affordable housing. During the cold winter months, PACEM will also continue to offer overnight shelter at local churches, gymnasiums, and other community spaces. The organization opened its annual temporary congregate shelters on November 14, and plans to close them at the end of March. “We’ve been pretty full,” says Whitehead.
Additionally, BRACH currently has two hotel rooms available for unhoused people who are at high risk of becoming severely ill or dying from COVID-19 and need to avoid congregate settings, thanks to a partnership with the University of Virginia.
“We haven’t received many requests [for the rooms] … over the past six months or so, [but] that may change this winter,” says Haro. “It’s been a great resource when it comes up.”
But to ensure no one has to sleep on the streets at any time of year, the organizations are working to eventually open a permanent shelter. When PACEM’s temporary shelters are not running, the Salvation Army’s 58-bed overnight shelter is the sole year-round option for unhoused people in Charlottesville—and it’s often at capacity.
“There’s a clear need for [another year-round shelter] in the community,” says Haro. “And there’s been an interest from PACEM and our partners to make that happen.”
The Charlottesville Police Department rejected most of the recommendations former Police Civilian Oversight executive director Hansel Aguilar made in his neutral evaluation of the board’s first case. Supplied photo.
Before ditching Charlottesville for California last month, former Police Civilian Oversight Board executive director Hansel Aguilar evaluated the board’s long-awaited first case, which concerned the violent arrest of a man experiencing homelessness on the Downtown Mall in 2020. Though the board was initially scheduled to hold a hearing on the case in July, complainant Jeff Fogel, a local attorney, and the Charlottesville Police Department agreed to an alternative dispute resolution on the day of the hearing, due to Fogel’s claim that two board members were biased against him. After city attorney Lisa Robertson expressed legal concerns over the ADR, the board and two parties then decided in August to allow Aguilar to conduct a neutral evaluation of the case.
On September 28, Aguilar—who resigned from the board on October 12, after accepting a new gig as the director of police accountability for the City of Berkeley, California—issued his 63-page evaluation, which determined the CPD did not “thoroughly, completely, and accurately” investigate Fogel’s complaint. On October 24, the CPD refuted some of Aguilar’s findings and rejected most of his recommendations for the department, but neglected to address multiple questions and concerns raised by the former director.
Fogel filed his complaint against the CPD in July 2020, after a Charlottesville police officer—identified as Officer Houchens in Aguilar’s report—arrested 36-year-old Christopher Gonzalez, who was lying down on the Downtown Mall. Gonzalez admitted to drinking alcohol, and said he was homeless. Houchens threatened to arrest him for public intoxication unless he left the mall, which Gonzalez refused to do. Houchens tried to handcuff him, but Gonzalez pulled away. Houchens then pinned Gonzalez to the ground, and put him in a headlock for nearly a minute, according to a now-deleted Instagram video. Gonzalez was later charged with assault of a police officer, public intoxication, and obstruction of justice, and was held without bail for almost three weeks at the local jail. Though Gonzalez’s charges were later dismissed, in September 2020 the CPD exonerated Fogel’s allegations of excessive force, and concluded that the allegations of bias-based policing were unfounded.
In his report, Aguilar asserted that the CPD should have evaluated the appropriateness of Houchens’ threat to arrest Gonzalez “through the lens” of its public intoxication policy—which directs officers to arrest intoxicated people when they “may cause harm” to themselves or others—instead of just its biased-based policing policy. Investigators also should have better questioned Houchens to determine if his actions were biased, Aguilar said.
“I like to give them the opportunity to go sober up or go somewhere,” Houchens said during an interview with a CPD investigator. “I know that these people don’t have anywhere to go, really anywhere to be. … Once we start getting calls from citizens about it, that’s kind of when it starts to become a problem, but I still will try to get them at least out of the public’s view.”
“Who are ‘these people’ that the officer is referring to?” asked Aguilar in his evaluation. “Was C.G. ‘causing a problem’ other than community members calling in about him? Under what departmental guidance, practice, or procedure is Officer L.H. operating under when he states the need to ‘try to get them at least out of the public’s view’? Is Officer L.H. suggesting that being intoxicated in public is acceptable just if it is not on the downtown mall?”
“Without asking sufficient questions … it is difficult to ascertain whether the threat to arrest C.G. followed the Department’s policy,” continued Aguilar. However, the former director agreed with the CPD that “the officer had established probable cause to affect the arrest of C.G. in violation of the state’s public intoxication law,” which states that “if any person is intoxicated in public … he is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.”
In response, the CPD claimed that Aguilar was not authorized to publicly release these details from Houchens’ interview, according to a standard operating procedure—but did not explain how Houchens determined Gonzalez was a danger to himself or others, or clarify which department policy directed him to get Gonzalez “out of the public’s view.”
Aguilar also questioned why the CPD did not submit the complaint to the commonwealth’s attorney during its criminal investigation into the matter. “It was unclear what specific investigative steps the CPD Captain took (beyond the interview of Officer L.H.) to reach the conclusion that no criminal violation took place since there is only one email from the CPD Captain,” wrote Aguilar. In the email, the unnamed captain explained that the department did not contact the commonwealth’s attorney because Houchens’ use of force was appropriate and lawful under CPD and state criminal justice department policies.
The CPD countered that then-chief RaShall Brackney agreed with the captain and criminal investigations division that Houchens’ “response to the resistance did not rise to a criminal violation” and “was in accordance” with its response to resistance policy, and therefore “did not require review by the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office.” However, the department’s response did not explain why Houchens did not wait for backup to help de-escalate the situation, or why investigators did not interview Gonzalez, among other questions in Aguilar’s report.
The pyramid above directs CPD officers to use defensive tactics like take-downs if a subject is actively resisting and non-responsive to de-escalation efforts.
Concluding its responses, the CPD rejected six out of Aguilar’s nine recommendations to help increase community-police transparency and accountability, including “lowering the probable cause standard to reasonable suspicion when determining whether to refer complaints to the Commonwealth’s Attorney,” “updating UOF/RTR [use of force/response to resistance] to include explicit identification and handling of pre-assault indicators,” “retraining [Houchens] of de-escalation techniques,” and “revisiting how much information is made available to complainants of misconduct.”
The department argued that “the discretion is up to the Chief of Police regarding a criminal investigation,” and “pre-assault indicators vary from person to person if known.” All officers have already “undergone substantial de-escalation and Crisis Intervention training,” and complainants are not granted access to body-worn camera footage and other evidence during an ongoing investigation, unless the chief allows footage to be released, claimed the department.
Additionally, the CPD disagreed with Aguilar’s recommendation that City Council consider how public intoxication policies can have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities. “We cannot excuse one class of individuals of their illegal actions and immediately turn around [and] charge another for the same crime based on social class. This would be considered a bias-based policing claim,” reads the response.
On November 3, Fogel issued his response to both Aguilar’s report and the CPD’s rebuttals. Though the attorney agreed the former director’s recommendations were worth consideration, he took issue with parts of the evaluation.
“There were several points at which he deviated from his own [prescription] to consider ‘whether the CPD thoroughly, completely, accurately, objectively, and impartially investigated’ the allegations of the complainant and not to ‘reinvestigate the interaction,’” explained Fogel. “His finding that there was probable cause to arrest C.G. for drunk in public under the state statute speaks to a conclusion, not an inquiry into the investigation.”
The attorney questioned why the CPD did not want Houchens’ interview to be released to the public. “Why is this statement subject to secrecy? Because it acknowledges that he makes an effort, when he gets calls, to ‘get them out of the public view . . . [and] just not on the mall.’ This is significant evidence that the arrest was for not leaving the mall, not because C.G. was a danger to himself or others,” said Fogel.
Fogel also slammed the department for rejecting most of Aguilar’s recommendations “without a logical, or even any, explanation,” particularly regarding information provided to complainants.
“Without disclosure of the evidence upon which the CPD relies, there is no opportunity for the complainant to know or challenge the accuracy of IA [internal affairs] determinations, or for the public to have confidence in the IA process,” claimed Fogel. “There was no reason for CPD not to provide the complainant with all of the evidence that IA relied on except for its culture of secrecy.”
When asked how the city planned to move forward with Aguilar’s evaluation and recommendations, Mayor Lloyd Snook said that he did not know what would happen next— “This is all new!” he wrote in an email.
A new report says that cutting fees for people incarcerated in Virginia prisons could save them and their families millions of dollars. Photo: Skyclad Aerial.
In Virginia’s state prisons, just about everything costs money, from phone calls to soap to toilet paper. And because incarcerated people make less than 50 cents per hour, they often rely on their loved ones to help them cover prison’s prohibitive costs, putting many families into debt.
To alleviate the burden these fees put on incarcerated people and their loved ones, a state workgroup recommends the Virginia Department of Corrections offer no-cost phone calls, secure messaging, and video calls; eliminate commissions on commissary sales; reduce deposit fees; and increase its food budget per person, among other reforms, according to a report delivered to the General Assembly on October 1. State lawmakers commissioned the report during this year’s legislative session.
“These fees … are a hidden, regressive tax on the most vulnerable people in our community—83 percent of which are female, and most of them are Black and brown,” says Shawn Weneta, a policy strategist for the ACLU of Virginia. “One in three families goes into debt trying to stay in contact with an incarcerated loved one.”
Implementing the report’s dozen recommendations would cost approximately 2 percent of the VADOC’s $1.4 billion budget. However, the department has rejected most of them, leaving it up to state legislators to pass the reforms.
In addition to formerly incarcerated individuals, family members of incarcerated people, and VADOC employees, the bipartisan workgroup included representatives from ACLU-VA, Sistas in Prison Reform, Worth Rises, and six other advocacy organizations, as well as four state legislators: Del. Patrick Hope, Sen. Jennifer Boysko, and Sen. Barbara Favola (all Democrats), and Republican Del. Mike Cherry.
Under the VADOC’s current business model, incarcerated people pay $0.0409 per minute for phone calls, $4 for a 20-minute video call, $8 for a 50-minute video call, and at least 25 cents per stamp. This is not the case in other states. In Connecticut, phone and video calls and emails are provided at no cost to incarcerated people. And, this year, California passed legislation making prison phone calls free. In Illinois, calls cost about 20 percent of the price of calls in Virginia, though they use the same vendor as the commonwealth, reads the report.
The non-VADOC stakeholders argue that giving incarcerated people free communications would foster stronger parent-child relationships, promote rehabilitation, and reduce recidivism, among other benefits. And it would only cost around $7 million per year—cheaper than many other prison programs.
“Ties to the community and family is one of the greatest indicators of successful re-entry upon release,” says Weneta, who is formerly incarcerated.
“Some of these people are having to pay 35 to 50 cents just to send an email—that’s unconscionable to me,” says Del. Cherry. “The money is there to [offer communication] for free.”
The stakeholders also urge the VADOC to stop collecting a commission—currently 9 percent—on goods sold in prison commissaries, which forces incarcerated people to buy necessities at massively inflated prices. “If you have more than $5 a month, you have to provide everything for yourself. … If you’re earning 23 cents, 27 cents an hour, [you] have to use that,” says Weneta.
Additionally, stakeholders argue, the VADOC should increase its food budget from $2.20 to $4 per day per person and provide healthier meals, which would reduce diet-related diseases among incarcerated people—and, in turn, decrease the department’s spending on prison medical services.
“The biggest single line item in the DOC’s $1.5 billion budget is medical care,” says Weneta. “We have an aging prison population who have been eating these terribly unhealthy meals for decades. … Now you have people struggling with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, all sorts of chronic conditions.”
“I spend $1.20 for [my] cat to eat one meal, and the idea that people who are incarcerated are not getting much more than that is a little bit troubling,” adds Sen. Boysko.
Pushing against a no-cost communications model, the VADOC argues that many incarcerated people “are on the telephone most of the day” under the current toll rate model, causing some to bully or extort others from using the phones. “Unlimited calls can impact the inmate’s motivation to … participate in vital educational and re-entry programming,” reads the VADOC’s response in the report.
Eliminating commissions would provide less funding for services for incarcerated people, claims the VADOC. The department also says that it already serves meals meeting dietary standards, but is working to improve its menu.
“I’m disappointed quite frankly by the DOC,” says Del. Cherry. “They’re taking a stance that they know what’s best and that there are no issues. I don’t think anyone could look at the statistics [and] recommendations of the people that are most closely working with this, and think that everything’s okay.”
The ACLU and other advocacy groups are currently working with lawmakers to introduce bills codifying the stakeholders’ recommendations during the 2023 legislative session. Boysko and Cherry remain optimistic they can get these reforms passed.
There’s an “appetite in Richmond” on both sides of the aisle for increased oversight of the VADOC’s budget, says Cherry. “We’re just hopeful to get things moving in the right direction—and at least advance the conversation, if not the legislation.”
“We have the data to show that these changes are possible,” adds Boysko, “and I’m pledging to continue to work with the DOC to try to realize this.”
A state study on goods and service fees at local jails is currently underway, and due December 1. At Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, incarcerated people receive hygiene products, feminine products, socks, underwear, and t-shirts free of charge, in addition to three meals per day, according to superintendent Martin Kumer. However, they pay 12 cents per minute for phone calls, 25 cents per minute for video calls, 25 cents per electronic message, $1.00 per video message, and .05 cents per minute for games, movies, and music.
ACRJ collects an 80 percent commission on phone and video calls and entertainment media. Phone commissions go towards the jail’s general operating fund. The jail also collects a 41 percent commission on commissary items, which is “used to pay for cable, programming (UVA Russian Literature Class), substance abuse, and educational staff salaries,” said Kumer in an email.
Republican Representative Bob Good and his 5th District Democratic challenger Josh Throneburg avoided discussing local issues at their October 26 Hampden-Sydney College forum. Photo courtesy Josh for Virginia.
Republican Representative Bob Good and his 5th District Democratic challenger Josh Throneburg met for their first and only forum on October 26 at Hampden-Sydney College—after Good refused or ignored multiple debate requests from Throneburg. The two candidates shared their starkly different positions on a string of hot-button national and international issues, including student loan debt, border security, Russia’s war against Ukraine, and climate change. However, the forum’s questions—provided to moderator Mark Spain of WSET by students at the college—did not cover local issues, like broadband expansion and affordable housing.
Throneburg, an ordained minister and small business owner, kicked off the one-hour event by delving into his Republican past. He identified as a conservative until his late 20s, when he “found that oftentimes the things in [his] faith [were] being played out in the Democratic Party.”
Good, a self-proclaimed biblical conservative, railed against the Democratic Party and President Joe Biden during his opening statement—and throughout the entirety of the forum. He claimed the party has not improved anything in the country under Biden and his congressional majority, citing a national increase in crime, gas prices, and inflation. He accused Democrats of “declaring war on America [and] the Constitution.”
Throneburg argued that Good defied the Constitution when he voted against certifying the 2020 election results. “I think faithfulness to our Constitution means that when the voters elect someone, that we listen to the voters,” he said.
To bring down college costs, Good advocated for cutting subsidies—“the federal government ought to get out of education,” he said. He also denounced Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, “a transfer scheme” that only benefits “the wealthy elite.” Throneburg admitted he wished Biden had addressed the student loan crisis with a systemic solution, such as by lowering all loan interest rates. He also expressed support for expanding Pell Grants and making community college free.
Good has sponsored 37 pieces of legislation so far during his first term, focusing largely on national issues like border security. (None of his bills have made it out of committee.) Last week, the Republican reiterated his support for finishing the border wall, increasing border patrol funding, and implementing E-verify everywhere, among other Trump immigration policies. He accused Biden of allowing “an invasion” of undocumented immigrants—5 million have entered the country since the president took office, Good claimed. According to a report by factcheck.org, apprehensions of people trying to enter the country illegally through the Southwest border increased by 336 percent from July 2021 to 2022, compared with former president Donald Trump’s last year in office—however, apprehensions cannot be used to adequately determine the number of undocumented immigrants in the country, and many people who are apprehended are turned around, or later deported.
“We have a very real immigration problem,” agreed Throneburg, vowing to support immigration reforms, like expanding guest worker visa programs.
Addressing the $31 trillion national debt, Good lambasted Democrats for spending government funds “recklessly” during the pandemic, which he referred to as the “China virus situation.” He vowed to vote against any spending that does not “secure the border,” “return us to American energy,” and “limit COVID vaccine mandates.” Throneburg argued that both parties have a “spending problem”—Trump added an equal amount to the national deficit as former president Barack Obama did, but in only four years.
As Russia’s war against Ukraine rages on, Throneburg, who believes the U.S. has a “responsibility” to “stand up for democracy,” said he would vote in favor of additional aid to Ukraine. If China takes military action against Taiwan, he would support “a coordinated response” with U.S. allies.
Good has voted against most of the $66 billion that Congress has given Ukraine since the war began in February. The U.S. should not spend more money on Ukraine, or give aid to Taiwan if it’s invaded, he said, citing the growing national debt.
Stressing the urgency of the climate crisis, Throneburg pushed for investments in renewable energy and green jobs. “This dishonest demonization of fossil fuels and petroleum energy needs to stop,” said Good.
During the final 20 minutes of the forum, when the candidates could ask each other questions, Throneburg questioned the congressman’s vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to the police officers who protected lawmakers during the January 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection. Good called the medal a Democratic “political stunt,” and said he voted for a different bill, “without a political agenda,” that honored the officers.
When asked about gender-affirming care for transgender children, Throneburg pledged to look to medical professionals—and not politicians—for guidance on the issue. And in regard to vaccine mandates, he expressed his support for “personal freedom,” but criticized Good for encouraging students to defy mask mandates.
Closing out the event, Good touted his voting record’s alignment with his conservative platform, and the work he’s done for constituents. “[My office] resolved over 3,000 cases … and recovered over $14 million that was owed to citizens of the 5th District by the federal government,” he said.
Throneburg pointed out that abortion rights were not discussed during a forum at an all-men’s college—“we can do better than that,” he said. If elected, he promised to work on everyone’s behalf.
“If you want someone who’s going to fight about culture wars, I think this is your candidate,” said Throneburg, motioning to Good. “If you want someone who is just going to fight for you, I would love to have your vote on November 8.”
