Dental care was recently provided for hundreds of children by Catawba County Public Health.

Catawba County Board of Commissioners adopts resolution supporting citizen participation in government through elections in Catawba County.

Students carry sack lunches at Elk Ridge Elementary School in Buckley, Wash. On Monday, USDA unveiled a new program that would feed millions of children over the summer, when many schools are closed.; Credit: Ted S. Warren/AP

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a new effort Monday to feed millions of children this summer, when free school meals traditionally reach just a small minority of the kids who rely on them the rest of the year. The move expands what's known as the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer, or P-EBT, program into the summer months, and USDA estimates it will reach more than 30 million children.

"If children and children's learning and children's health is a priority for us in this country, then we need to fund our priorities," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a Monday interview with NPR's All Things Considered. "I think it's an important day."

P-EBT takes the value of the meals kids aren't getting at school, about $6.82 per child per weekday, according to USDA, and puts it onto a debit card that families can use at the grocery store. Households already enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (once known as food stamps) can have the value placed directly onto their SNAP debit card.

Children are eligible for the new P-EBT summer expansion if they are eligible to receive free or low-cost meals during the school year. Children younger than 6 can also qualify if they live in a household that currently receives SNAP benefits. According to USDA, eligible families can expect to receive roughly $375 per child to help them through this summer.

"Families are still in crisis as a result of the pandemic and providing Pandemic EBT benefits this summer will help reduce childhood hunger and support good nutrition," said Crystal FitzSimons at the Food Research & Action Center, or FRAC.

P-EBT began in March 2020 as an emergency move to reach children whose schools had closed in response to the pandemic; it was extended as part of the American Rescue Plan, the massive COVID-19 relief package that President Biden signed this past March.

The summer months have traditionally been hard on children who depend on free or low-cost school meals. According to FRAC, in July 2019, just 1 in 7 children who ate at little or no cost during the school year was getting a subsidized school lunch at the height of summer.

Currently, at least 37 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have been approved by USDA to provide P-EBT since the program's inception. On Monday, Secretary Tom Vilsack told All Things Considered host Mary Louise Kelly that he's been on the phone with governors working to expand adoption.

"When I took this job, I think only 12 states were currently enrolled ... and we're continuing to get states in every day," Vilsack said. As for why some states hadn't yet signed on, he said, "I think the guidance that we were providing to states was a little bit murky ... There's no confusion about the simple plan here for the summer. Mom and Dad get a card. They are able to go to the grocery store. They now have more resources to be able to feed their family."

Monday's announcement is just the latest move by USDA to fight child hunger. The agency recently issued waivers that will allow school districts to offer free school meals to all children in the 2021-2022 school year. Schools will also be allowed to pack meals in bulk and deliver them to students still learning at home. The Biden administration also recently pushed a $1.1 billion monthly increase in SNAP benefits through September 2021.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, which has offered regular snapshots of families' wellbeing during the pandemic, food insecurity in the U.S. has been declining in recent months. As of the period from March 17-29, nearly 23% of households with children reported experiencing some food insecurity, down from a pandemic high of 31.4% in December 2020.

"Food insecurity rates are finally starting to come down," said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. A host of federal programs to fight hunger and put money in the pockets of low-income Americans are "putting substantial downward pressure on food insecurity rates. It's a whole new world," Bauer said.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: /Michelle Kondrich for NPR

In Jasmine Williams' family, graduating from the University of Michigan is a rite of passage. Her parents met on the campus, and her older sister graduated from the school a few years ago. She remembers sitting bundled up in the family section for that graduation. "It was overwhelming to feel so many people that proud," she says, "I remember sitting there watching her, and that was probably the first time I was like, 'OK, yeah, I like this. I can't wait to do this.'

This year, Williams' own graduation will look a bit different. The main undergraduate ceremony will be all virtual, though the university has invited students to watch that ceremony from the football stadium on campus known as the Big House. There will be no family members in attendance, and students will be required to have a negative COVID-19 test result to enter.

"I think it's hard not to downplay it when it's reduced to a Zoom," says Williams. But come Saturday, she's planning on donning her cap and gown and heading to the stadium with friends. "Knowing that we are going to the Big House to watch together as a class makes everything way more enjoyable for the weekend; to be able to at least get some remnants of what I witnessed years ago with my sister." Her family plans to host a streaming party from their home in Detroit.

As an academic year like no other comes to an end, colleges and universities are celebrating their graduates in a variety of ways. Some schools, like the University of Idaho and Virginia Tech are hosting multiple smaller, in-person ceremonies to comply with social distancing mandates. Others, like Iowa State, are hosting large ceremonies in football stadiums and outdoor arenas. There's also a handful that are doing virtual-only again, like the University of Washington and Portland State University. At some schools, including the University of Michigan and Emmanuel College in Boston, in-person events are restricted to just graduates; family and friends have to watch from a livestream.

For lots of students, the effort to be in-person is greatly appreciated. "You work hard those four years, you dream of that day, getting to graduate in-person and walk across the stage," says Jamontrae Christmon, a graduating senior at Tennessee State University in Nashville. For most of the year he assumed graduation would be virtual. He even sent out his graduation announcements to friends and family — and left the date off. Weeks later, he learned TSU would actually hold a May 1st in-person ceremony in the football stadium.

"I haven't been sleeping much this week at all. I'm just happy. Excited," says Christmon.

But planning for an event in an ongoing public health emergency has proven to be stressful. Steve Bennett, the chief of staff for academic affairs at Syracuse University, has worked to create commencement ceremonies that are as close to a normal year as possible.

"This may be the single most challenging special event that our team has put together, maybe ever," explains Bennett. "And it's because we keep having to plan towards a moving target."

Syracuse's plan for graduation is to have multiple smaller commencement ceremonies in their stadium; everyone in attendance has to be fully vaccinated or show proof of a recent negative COVID-19 test. According to state guidance, the stadium can only reach 10 % capacity, so graduates are limited to two guests per person. Despite the restrictions, the team that planned the ceremonies is determined to make it one that the class of 2021 deserves.

"The students have been through a lot this year. Graduating seniors lost a number of student experiences due to pandemic conditions that are important to them," says Bennett. That's why having the in-person component was essential. "It was really important to the university, given [the seniors'] commitment to us, that we have a commitment to them."

At California Lutheran University, in Thousand Oaks, Calif., graduation will be celebrated as a drive-in style event at the Ventura County Fairgrounds. Each graduate can bring one carful of people to the fairgrounds parking lot, which can accommodate up to 700 vehicles. Inspired by the city's drive-in concert events, there'll be a stage with speakers and a jumbo screen.

"That's ultimately what led us to our decision to have it at the fairgrounds. Since it's a drive-in and they're staying in their cars, they were allowed to bring family... that was just really important to us," says Karissa Oien, who works in academic affairs at California Lutheran University and is the lead organizer for the drive-in commencement. She's been planning the university's ceremonies for 13 years, and knows how important graduation can be — not just for students, but for those who helped them along the way as well.

"We wanted to have that moment again. Where the families can see their students cross the stage and be there with them."

Jamontrae Christmon, the graduating senior from Tennessee State University, will have his parents, an uncle and one of his sisters there with him at Hale Stadium. "It's just something about your parents being there," says Christmon, "you want to look into the audience and maybe see your parents and you hear them scream your name when they call your name to walk across the stage."

As the day gets closer, Christmon says he's been thinking about the moments of self-doubt he had along the way. "I could have easily said 'I'm not cut out for college' and just gave up, but I didn't." He says his family was a big part of that motivation.

"Not many in my family even attended college, let alone graduated. So this is a big deal," says Christmon. "To me it means I broke the cycle. And that's what they always wanted."

He expects his mother will cry, and likely, he will too.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren holds a news conference in March. She and Sen. Bernie Sanders are leading the push to introduce a bill Tuesday that would make pandemic-related food benefits for college students permanent, and create grants for colleges to address hunger.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Democrats in the House and Senate are introducing legislation Tuesday that would make pandemic-related food benefits for college students permanent. The push is being led by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent,

In the December relief package, Congress increased the number of low-income college students eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP) benefits for the duration of the pandemic. That included students who are eligible for work study, have an Expected Family Contribution of zero dollars, or qualify for a maximum Pell Grant on their federal financial aid form. According to The Century Foundation, this expansion affects about 3 million college students.

The legislation proposed Tuesday would make these changes permanent, including requiring the U.S. Education Department to notify students they may be eligible for SNAP when they fill out their student aid applications. The bill would also require the Department to collect data on hunger and food insecurity, and would create a $1 billion-a-year grant program for institutions to address hunger on campus.

"Far too many college students struggle to meet their basic needs while they get their education and the pandemic has made this problem even worse," Warren said in a statement to NPR. "As students take on a mountain of student loan debt, they shouldn't have to choose between paying tuition and eating."

The push comes amid new research that shows 39% of two-year college students are facing food insecurity; for students at 4-year schools the number affected is 29%, according to Temple University's Hope Center for College, Community and Justice.

Before the pandemic, in 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report on humger among college students, concluding that over a third of students don't always have enough to eat, and that federal systems already in place, including SNAP, could do a better job of helping them.

Many colleges have increased food benefits for their students, creating or expanding emergency grants, food pantries and other forms of assistance. State legislatures in several places including Virginia and Massachusetts have also moved to address issues of hunger on campus.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Robin Heilweil, 6, wears a mask while swinging around with her kindergarten class this month at Kenter Canyon School in Los Angeles.; Credit: Sarah Reingewirtz/Los Angeles Daily News/Southern California News Group via Getty Images

New research released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reinforces an old message: COVID-19 spreads less in schools where teachers and staff wear masks. Yet the study arrives as states and school districts across the country have begun scaling back or simply dropping their masking requirements for staff and students alike.

With the majority of school-age children still too young to qualify for vaccination, Friday's research is the latest salvo in a simmering fight between public health officials and politicians — with parents lining up on both sides.

The new study comes from Georgia and compares COVID-19 infection rates across 169 K-5 schools. Some schools required teachers, staff and sometimes students to wear masks; some did not.

Between Nov. 16 and Dec. 11, researchers found that infection rates were 37% lower in schools where teachers and staff members were required to wear masks. The difference between schools that did and did not require students to wear masks was not statistically significant.

This is one more study showing that masking, among other mitigation efforts, "can reduce infections and ultimately save lives," said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado and vice chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

O'Leary points to a previous CDC study, of schools in Florida, that also found "a strong association with student mask requirements and lower rates of infections in students."

Like any study, Friday's release comes with caveats. Only 12% of schools invited to share their data did so. And it's always worth remembering: Correlation is not causation. Still, the results offer an important warning to states and school districts that are now lifting their school-based mask requirements, especially for adults: It's safer if you don't.

The latest, and perhaps broadest effort to change schools' masking policies comes from Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order Tuesday banning all mask mandates in the state's public schools. After June 4, the order says, "no student, teacher, parent or other staff member or visitor may be required to wear a face covering."

For Abbott, and many opponents of mask mandates, the move is about restoring a balance between safety and freedom. "We can continue to mitigate COVID-19 while defending Texans' liberty to choose whether or not they mask up," he said in announcing the order.

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas American Federation of Teachers, called the move "unconscionable" in a statement. "The governor's new verdict takes a blanket approach to addressing what is still extremely dangerous for some Texans — a return to school unmasked."

And Texas isn't alone. On Thursday, Iowa's Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, also signed a law banning schools from requiring masks. The justification is similar: "I am proud to be a governor of a state that values personal responsibility and individual liberties," Reynolds said in a statement.

"Whether a child wears a mask in school is a decision that should be left only to a student's parents," South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said last week as he issued an executive order allowing parents to opt their children out of school-based mask requirements.

Public health experts have been quick to sound the alarm.

"All along in this pandemic, we have seen the tragic consequences when politics start to play a role in public health decisions. And to me, this kind of maneuver smells like politics — to ban the requirements that are ultimately there to save lives," O'Leary said. "The body of evidence shows us that masks work."

And Dr. Aaron Milstone, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins, likens the banning of mask mandates to having a variable speed limit.

"Unfortunately, with contagious diseases the decisions I make impact someone else," Milstone said. "It would be like saying: You can drive 55 mph if you think that's safe for you, but if someone else thinks they can safely drive 90 mph, their choice may wind up risking your life."

While the CDC recently scaled back its masking guidance for people who are fully vaccinated, the agency also reiterated that schools should continue to require universal masking, at least through the end of the current school year. Though one vaccine has been approved for use for 12- to 15-year-olds, those kids won't be considered fully vaccinated for another month.

Milstone said it's simply too early to talk about schools without masking. "Until vaccines are eligible for all children, it's hard to abandon the practices that we know work the best to prevent the spread of COVID."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the White House, told CNBC this week that it is conceivable the CDC could recommend that middle and high schools be mask-free in the fall — if, that is, enough students 12 years of age and older get vaccinated.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

New York City public schools will stop offering remote learning options in the coming school year, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Monday.; Credit: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising a full reopening of the nation's largest public school system in September. That means in person, five days a week, with no remote option for students to attend school exclusively online. He made the announcement on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Monday.

"You can't have a full recovery without full strength schools," de Blasio said in the segment.

Almost 70% of the nation's students attend schools that are currently offering full-time in-person learning, according to the organization Burbio. De Blasio's announcement comes a week after New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced that there would be no remote option for that state's public school students come September.

But questions remain about how New York City will be able to accommodate 100% of its public school students in person. Some administrators worry there won't be enough space to fit all students in classrooms under current social distancing requirements. At a city council hearing last week, officials testified that all but 10% of the city's public schools could fit their students into classrooms 3 or more feet apart.

At a press conference Monday, the mayor said that he believes schools could make 3-feet social distancing work, but that he expects the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will relax the requirements more by August.

Meanwhile, many New York City parents have expressed reluctance around in-person schooling. Data from the U.S. Education Department shows students of color are less likely than white students to be learning in person, as of March. Communities of color in the U.S. have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In New York, Asian and Black families in particular have been more likely to keep their children home, according to demographic data released by the city. Parents there have cited virus safety concerns, a lack of trust in the school system and fear of discrimination in or on the way to school as reasons for keeping their children home.

Some parents have said they won't feel comfortable until their children are vaccinated, while others have said they prefer remote learning, because it works better for their children academically or socially.

Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, the city's largest teachers union, wrote in the New York Daily News last week that the city must maintain a remote learning option for a limited number of families next school year. On Monday, Mulgrew said, "We still have concerns about the safety of a small number of students with extreme medical challenges. For that small group of students, a remote option may still be necessary."

But some education leaders have argued that offering a remote option would keep more students out of classrooms.

De Blasio said parents will be welcomed back to schools starting in June to ask questions and get answers from educators, as well as to see how schools are keeping students and staff safe.

And remote learning isn't completely going away in New York City. Earlier this month, officials said public school students will learn remotely on Election Day, instead of having the usual day off from school, and class will no longer be suspended on "snow days."

The first day of school in New York City is Sept. 13.

Nicole Cohen contributed to this report.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Students wave goodbye during dismissal at Yung Wing School P.S. 124 on March 25, 2021 in New York City.; Credit: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

New York City schools will reopen in full this fall with no options for virtual learning.

Mayor Bill de Blasio made the announcement during an appearance Monday on MSNBC, saying, "You can't have a full recovery without full-strength schools, everyone back sitting in those classrooms."

De Blasio said the nation's largest school district will meet in person five days a week, with no remote option available. New Jersey has similar plans, and other states want to limit remote lessons as well.

While the decision in New York is being celebrated as an important milestone on the path to returning to some level of normalcy from the pandemic, some parents remain fearful about sending their children back to in-person learning.

Meisha Porter, chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, has heard those concerns firsthand, but says "our schools have been the safest place in the city."

In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Porter said that with New York City in the process of a full reopening, "it's important that our schools be fully open, too."

Porter said the city would not make the vaccine a requirement for staff and teachers, but said more than 70,000 employees have already received at least one dose. The city will continue to monitor the health and safety of children, teachers and staff, she said, "but we know our schools have been safe and we need our children back."

Interview Highlights

What do you say to parents who are still really worried about the virus and may not want their kids to return, especially elementary aged kids who don't have access to a vaccine?

I say what we've said over and over again. You know, this past week, we've been at 0.3% — our seven-day positivity rate. Our schools are the safest place. And I've always said nothing, absolutely nothing, replaces the interaction and the learning that happens between a student and teacher in our classrooms. And so what I say to parents, as a parent, is we're going to continue to be in conversations. We're going to continue to make decisions around health and safety. We're going to continue to do those things that parents need us to do, that I need to ensure that we do, to make sure our buildings remain safe and we can get our babies back.

Is part of that effort a consideration about making the vaccine a requirement for staff and teachers?

At this moment, we're not making it a requirement, but we are encouraging [staff and teachers to get vaccinated], and we're going to really work with the city to provide access for students and families and teachers, as we've done over the last couple of months. And so right now, we're pushing and encouraging our staff to get vaccinated. ...

But I mean, wouldn't that help if you had 100%? I mean, children are required to show proof of of immunizations of vaccines to go to school. Why not maintain the same line for teachers and staff?

... I would say this, that we are not in a place where we want to, at this moment, mandate the vaccine. We want to continue to encourage. We all know that folks have had concerns about vaccines, and we want to continue to encourage that vaccines are safe and they are effective. I've been vaccinated along with the 70,000 DOE employees that have been vaccinated. And so we're not, at the moment where we are going to require it.

Have you heard from families who've come to rely on being able to have their kids, their teenagers, working while in school? There's evidence that those with that kind of economic need are those who want to continue with remote learning or some kind of hybrid.

I can tell you that I haven't heard that from families, that they want to they want remote learning so that their teenagers can continue to work. But I know, that that may be a reality for some families. And one of the things that we're doing this summer is increasing access to summer youth employment, increasing access to our learning-to-work programs for our young people, because we know how important it is for some young people to work. But it is equally, if not more important, that they maintain learning and have a connection to a strong and sound education, and we'll continue to do that through learning to work throughout the school year.

What about those students who have found that remote learning just works better for them? I mean, whether they are kids who have struggled socially in school environments, who have been bullied or kids with learning challenges who appreciate just being able to focus away from other students in the classroom. Are there any plans to come up with ways to better address their needs in the future?

So what we're looking forward to is leveraging what we've learned from remote learning as an innovation in our system as we move forward in return. And I think that's what's going to be important for us.

Do you know what that innovation is going to look like?

It's going to look like access to courses across schools and districts, breaking down district lines and walls, high-level courses, enrichment opportunities. You know, remote learning has expanded the universe of what schools should look like.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: LA Johnson/NPR

Undergraduate college enrollment fell again this spring, down nearly 5% from a year ago. That means 727,000 fewer students, according to new data from the National Student Clearinghouse.

"That's really dramatic," says Doug Shapiro, who leads the clearinghouse's research center. Fall enrollment numbers had indicated things were bad, with a 3.6% undergraduate decline compared with a year earlier, but experts were waiting to see if those students who held off in the fall would enroll in the spring. That didn't appear to happen.

"Despite all kinds of hopes and expectations that things would get better, they've only gotten worse in the spring," Shapiro says. "It's really the end of a truly frightening year for higher education. There will be no easy fixes or quick bounce backs."

Overall enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs has been trending downward since around 2012, and that was true again this spring, which saw a 3.5% decline — seven times worse than the drop from spring 2019 to spring 2020.

The National Student Clearinghouse attributed that decline entirely to undergraduates across all sectors, including for-profit colleges. Community colleges, which often enroll more low-income students and students of color, remained hardest hit by far, making up more than 65% of the total undergraduate enrollment losses this spring. On average, U.S. community colleges saw an enrollment drop of 9.5%, which translates to 476,000 fewer students.

"The enrollment landscape has completely shifted and changed, as though an earthquake has hit the ground," says Heidi Aldes, dean of enrollment management at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, a community college in Minnesota. She says her college's fall 2020 enrollment was down about 8% from the previous year, and spring 2021 enrollment was down about 11%.

"Less students are getting an education"

Based on her conversations with students, Aldes attributes the enrollment decline to a number of factors, including being online, the "pandemic paralysis" community members felt when COVID-19 first hit, and the financial situations families found themselves in.

"Many folks felt like they couldn't afford to not work and so couldn't afford to go to school and lose that full-time income," Aldes says. "There was so much uncertainty and unpredictability."

A disproportionately high number of students of color withdrew or decided to delay their educational goals, she says, adding to equity gaps that already exist in the Minneapolis area.

"Sure, there is a fiscal impact to the college, but that isn't where my brain goes," Aldes says. "There's a decline, which means there are less students getting an education. That is the tragedy, that less students are getting an education, because we know how important education is to a successful future."

To help increase enrollment, her team is reaching out to the high school classes of 2020 and 2021, and they're contacting students who previously applied or previously enrolled and stopped attending. She says she's hopeful the college's in-person offerings — which now make up nearly 45% of its classes — will entice students to come back, and appeal to those who aren't interested in online courses. So far, enrollment numbers for fall 2021 are up by 1%. "We are climbing back," she says.

A widening divide

Despite overall enrollment declines nationally, graduate program enrollments were up by more than 120,000 students this spring. That means there are more students who already have college degrees earning more credentials, while, at the other end of the spectrum, students at the beginning of their higher ed careers are opting out — a grim picture of a widening gap in America.

"It's kind of the educational equivalent of the rich getting richer," Shapiro says. "Those gaps in education and skills will be baked into our economy, and those families' lives, for years to come."

The value of a college degree — and its impact on earning power and recession resilience — has only been reinforced by the pandemic. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans with a college degree were more likely to stay employed during the pandemic, and if they did lose a job, they were more likely to get hired again. Unemployment rates were higher for those without a degree or credential beyond high school.

"Almost all of the income gains and the employment gains for the last decade have gone to people with higher education degrees and credentials," Shapiro says. "Those who are getting squeezed out of college today, especially at community colleges, are just getting further and further away from being able to enjoy some of those benefits."

In the National Student Clearinghouse data, traditional college-aged students, those 18 to 24, were the largest age group missing from undergraduate programs. That includes many students from the high school class of 2020, who graduated at the beginning of the pandemic. Additional research from the Clearinghouse shows a 6.8% decline in college-going rates among the class of 2020 compared to the class of 2019 — that's more than four times the decline between the classes of 2018 and 2019. College-going rates were worse for students at high-poverty high schools, which saw declines of more than 11%.

For the communities and organizations tasked with helping high school graduates transition and succeed in college, the job this year is exponentially harder. Students have always struggled to attend college: "It's not new to us," says Nazy Zargarpour, who leads the Pomona Regional Learning Collaborative, which helps Southern California high school students enroll and graduate from college. "But this year, it's on steroids because of COVID."

Her organization is offering one-on-one outreach to students to help them enroll or re-enroll in college. As part of that effort, Zargarpour and her colleagues conducted research to help them understand why students didn't go on to college during the pandemic.

"Students told us that it's a variety of things, including a lot of just life challenges," she says. "Families being disrupted because of lack of work; families being disrupted because of the challenges of the illness itself; students having to take care of their young siblings; challenges with technology."

The biggest question now: Will those students return to college? Experts say the farther a student gets from their high school graduation, the less likely they are to enroll, because life gets in the way. But Zargarpour is hopeful.

"It will take a little bit of time for us to catch up to normal and better, but my heart can't bear to say all hope is lost for any student ever."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that low-level crack cocaine offenders cannot benefit from a 2018 federal law.; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that some crack cocaine offenders sentenced to harsh prison terms more than a decade ago cannot get their sentences reduced under a federal law adopted with the purpose of doing just that.

At issue in the case was the long and now notorious history of sentencing under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established harsh mandatory prison sentences based on the amount of drugs that the defendant possessed or sold. The triggering amount, however, was different for crack cocaine used most often by Black people, and powder cocaine, used most often by whites.

Indeed, the ratio was 100-to-1, so that a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, for instance, was triggered by possession of 5 grams of crack, whereas the same penalty was triggered by 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Nine years after enactment of these mandatory penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found these disparities unjustified, and by 2010 Congress passed new legislation to reduce the disparity to from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. But that left everyone previously sentenced under the old regime stuck with the harsher penalties. And in 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law a bipartisan bill to make the new ratios retroactive.

That allowed thousands of crack offenders who were serving prison sentences to be resentenced under the new law and new sentencing guidelines, with an average reduction of six years in their sentences. But while the new law allowed even drug kingpins to be resentenced, some prisoners were left out — a number now in the low hundreds, according to the Biden administration.

One of those was the prisoner at the center of Monday's case, Tarahrick Terry, sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of crack cocaine, less than the weight of four paper clips.

He claimed that his sentence, like others, should be revised in light of the 2018 law, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that Terry had been sentenced under a section of the law that applied to "career criminals," those who had two previous drug or violent convictions. Terry did, in fact, have two previous drug convictions as a teenager — for which he spent 120 days in jail.

So, as Thomas observed, Terry was sentenced under the provision of the law that was not included in the 2018 revision.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Cory Booker and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Lee — the sponsors and drafters of the act — warned in a friend of the court brief filed in the case that excluding low-level offenders from the act's reforms would mean ignoring its purpose. "Had Congress intended to exclude individuals with low-level crack offenses from relief," they wrote, "Congress of course could have done so."

Thomas and the rest of the court rejected that argument. "We will not convert nouns to adjectives and vice versa," wrote Thomas, which is what he said Congress was asking the court to do. The 2018 law, he said, did not change the section of the law under which Terry was sentenced, so the argument that the revision modified the whole law just wouldn't wash.

Although the decision was unanimous, it included an interesting back-and-forth about race between Thomas, the only African American on the court and arguably its most conservative member, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, its only Hispanic and arguably most liberal member. Specifically, their disagreement was about the role race played in the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences that were wildly more harsh for possession or sale of crack cocaine than for powder cocaine.

As Thomas saw it, the 100-to-1 ratio for crack cocaine was enacted "with near unanimity" by Congress, because of two concerns expressed by Black leaders at the time: First, that crack "was fueling crime against residents in the inner cities who were predominantly black," and second that "prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black." Moreover, he quoted a 1995 U.S. Sentencing Commission report that concluded the 100-to-1 ratio created "a perception of unfairness," even though there was no reason to believe that "racial bias or animus undergirded the initiation of the federal sentencing law."

In a concurring opinion, Sotomayor declined to join that part of Thomas' opinion, because "it includes an unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of the 100-to-1 ratio," including "race-based myths" about crack cocaine.

"The full history is far less benign," she said. It ignores the fact that Black leaders were promised federal investment in longer term solutions — including in job training and education programs — but that help never arrived. Nor, she noted, did the majority opinion mention that the bill containing the 100-to-1 ratio was "rush[ed] through to pass dramatic drug legislation before the midterm elections," and that the legislative history of the bill offered no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio, "save that it was the highest ratio proposed."

"Most egregiously, the Court barely references the ratio's real-world impact" — one so profound and unjustified, as demonstrated by subsequent research — "that the [Congressional Black Caucus] came together in unanimous and increasingly vocal opposition to the law."

In the end, however, Sotomayor agreed that "unfortunately," the reading of the law urged by the primary sponsors of the 2018 revision is not born out by the text. "Fortunately," she added, "Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice."

As for prisoner Terry, who brought Monday's case, he is now in the final months of his prison term, and according to the Biden administration is serving his remaining time in home confinement.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A customer walks behind a sign at a Nordstrom in Coral Gables, Fla., store seeking employees in May.; Credit: Marta Lavandier/AP

Two organizations filed a lawsuit against Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb in an attempt to block the state's push to end pandemic unemployment benefits on June 19.

Indiana Legal Services, an organization providing free legal assistance, and the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis filed the lawsuit on behalf of five unnamed plaintiffs who are set to lose their jobless benefits. The complaint was filed Monday in Marion County Superior Court.

This lawsuit may be the first of its kind that aims to stop states from ending these benefits earlier than Congress mandated.

The unemployment insurance program "has served as a vital lifeline for thousands of Hoosiers," the complaint, reviewed by NPR, says. "By prematurely deciding t0 stop administering these federal benefits, Indiana has violated the clear mandates 0f Indiana's unemployment statute—to secure all rights and benefits available for unemployed individuals."

Indiana is one of 25 Republican-led states that decided to end jobless aid in an effort to get people to return to work. Indiana and seven other states are set to end expanded unemployment benefits as soon as this weekend. This is despite Congress's authorization for extra payments until early September.

Those benefits include the extra $300 a week in federal aid and the special pandemic program for gig workers that allows them to receive jobless benefits. Ordinarily, independent contractors wouldn't be eligible.

Plaintiffs, as well as many other Indiana residents, rely entirely on the unemployment benefits to pay for food and rent and to care for their families, the complaint alleges.

Attorneys in this case are requesting the judge approve a preliminary injunction that would allow people to receive their benefits while the case continues.

Holcomb says it's time to get back to work

Holcomb told The Indianapolis Star that people no longer need unemployment benefits as the state has a plethora of jobs open.

"Eliminating these pandemic programs will not be a silver bullet for employers to find employees, but we currently have about 116,000 available jobs in the state that need filled now," he said.

According to the governor's office, Indiana's unemployment rate has recovered to 3.9% after climbing to 17% at the height of the pandemic.

The lawsuit challenges Holcomb's assertion.

Each of the five plaintiffs say they are unable to return to work due to lingering injuries or disability, health conditions that put them at risk for COVID-19 exposure, dependent children at home and no childcare available, or no positions that are available in their career field.

Workers of color feel the loss of unemployment the most

The National Employment Law Project says ending these jobless benefits early threatens the livelihoods of workers of color the most.

Millions of Americans still heavily rely on jobless aid as the country slowly reopens from pandemic-induced lockdowns, according to the organization.

As of May 22, more than 15.3 million people still needed some form of unemployment benefit—nearly twice the number who received payments when the aid programs began in late March 2020, NELP said.

According to its analysis, over 46% of unemployment insurance recipients in the states ending the programs early are people of color.

"The brunt of the impact will be felt by Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other people of color," NELP says.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with students on Wednesday, ruling that a former cheerleader's online F-bombs about her school is protected speech under the First Amendment.

By an 8-1 vote, the court declared that school administrators do have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study. But the justices concluded that a few swear words posted online from off campus, as in this case, did not rise to the definition of disruptive.

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.'s interest in free expression in this case," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's majority.

At issue in the case was a series of F-bombs issued in 2017 on Snapchat by Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old high school cheerleader who failed to win a promotion from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading term at her Pennsylvania school.

"I was really upset and frustrated at everything," she said in an interview with NPR in April. So she posted a photo of herself and a friend flipping the bird to the camera, along with a message that said, "F*** the school ... F*** cheer, F*** everything."

Suspended from the team for what was considered disruptive behavior, Brandi and her parents went to court. They argued that the school had no right to punish her for off-campus speech, whether it was posted online while away from school, as in this case, or spoken out loud at a Starbucks across the street from school.

A federal appeals court agreed with her, declaring that school officials have no authority to punish students for speech that occurs in places unconnected to the campus.

The decision marked the first time that an appeals court issued such a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court's landmark student speech decision more then a half century ago. Back then, in a case involving students suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, the court ruled that students do have free speech rights under the Constitution, as long as the speech is not disruptive to the school.

Although Brandi Levy is now in college, the school board in Mahanoy, Pa., appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that disruption can come from outside the campus but still have serious effects on campus. It pointed to laws in 47 states that require schools to enforce anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.

The high court, however, focused on the facts in Levy's case, concluding that while her posts were less than admirable, they did not meet the test of being disruptive.

"We do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus," Breyer wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "If today's decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the school was right to suspend Levy because students like her "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."

"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team," Thomas wrote. "So, too, here."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In a case originating with a California Highway Patrol officer's pursuit of a vehicle and ultimately entering the driver's home, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police may not enter homes without a warrant for minor crimes.; Credit: Chris Carlson/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.

By a unanimous vote, the court declared that police violated the rights of a California man by pursuing him into his garage for allegedly playing loud music while driving down a deserted two-lane highway late at night.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Elena Kagan said police had no right to enter the man's home without a warrant for such a trivial offense.

"On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter – to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home," she wrote. "But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so – even though the misdemeanant fled."

The court's ruling came in the case of Arthur Lange, who was playing loud music in his car late one night, at one point honking his horn several times. A California highway patrol officer, believing Lange was violating a noise ordinance, followed him, and when the motorist slowed to enter his driveway, the officer put on his flashing lights.

Lange, who later said he didn't notice the police car, drove into his garage. The officer, in "hot pursuit," got out of his car and put his foot under the closing garage door sensor to force the door open again. He had no warrant to enter the home, but once inside, he said, he smelled liquor on Lange's breath and arrested him, not only for the noise violation, but also for driving under the influence.

Lange appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, contending that the officer had no right to enter his home without a warrant and that the DUI evidence had been illegally obtained.

The Supreme Court has long held that police may conduct a warrantless search when pursuing a fleeing felon. The question in Lange's case was whether police are free to do the same thing when pursuing someone suspected of a minor offense like playing loud music.

"[P]ursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry," she wrote.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Britney Spears performing onstage in Las Vegas in 2016.; Credit: Christopher Polk/Getty Images

Addressing a Los Angeles Superior Court judge today via a remote connection, Britney Spears on Wednesday afternoon made her most public statement to date about her long-running conservatorship. For over a decade, the pop star's life has been ruled by an atypical court-dictated legal arrangement that removes practically all autonomy from her life. Until now, the pop star has remained mostly quiet on the subject.

Today, in a passionate statement, she plead for the conservatorship to end. According to tweets sent by observers on the scene, Spears was open and outspoken about her situation. She said her life was being exploited, and she can't sleep, is depressed and cries every day. She stated that she wants another baby, but is forced by the agreement to keep an IUD in place.

Before today, after a recent New York Times and FX documentary, Framing Britney Spears, reignited interest in her story and the wider #FreeBritney movement, she has shied away from public comment, but did share some thoughts on social media.

"I didn't watch the documentary but from what I did see of it I was embarrassed by the light they put me in," she wrote in an Instagram caption in March. "I cried for two weeks and well .... I still cry sometimes !!!!"

But on Tuesday, The New York Times, citing recently obtained confidential court records, reported that Spears has been trying to fight her conservatorship for years.

"She articulated she feels the conservatorship has become an oppressive and controlling tool against her," a court investigator wrote in a 2016 report. The system had "too much control," Ms. Spears said, according to the investigator's account of the conversation. "Too, too much!"

Ms. Spears informed the investigator that she wanted the conservatorship terminated as soon as possible. "She is 'sick of being taken advantage of' and she said she is the one working and earning her money but everyone around her is on her payroll," the investigator wrote.

In 2019, Ms. Spears told the court that she had felt forced by the conservatorship into a stay at a mental health facility and to perform against her will.

You can find more details about the history of her conservatorship here, but these are the broad strokes:

In 2008, Britney Spears' father, Jamie Spears, gained control of all aspects of his daughter's life after the singer publicly struggled with her mental health. (As the Framing Britney Spears documentary brought new attention to her case, it also started some soul-searching among media types who farmed her mental health issues for tabloid headlines.) Everything from her performances to her finances to her relationships with her two now-teenage sons was under her father's control.

The pop star's fans began to question the ethics and legality of the arrangement, and under the banner #FreeBritney they have sustained a lengthy campaign to see it end.

During this time, Britney Spears continued working — putting out platinum-selling albums, doing TV gigs and mounting a hugely successful four-year residency in Las Vegas. She had no control over the financial arrangements of any of these projects.

In a 2020 court filing, Spears asked the court to suspend her father from his role as conservator and refused to perform if he remained in charge of her career. As a result, a wealth-management company became a co-conservator for her finances, but her father presently remains the main conservator for all other aspects of Spears' life.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Britney Spears arrives for a movie premier in Hollywood, Calif., on July 22, 2019. On Wednesday, the singer asked a judge to end her conservatorship.; Credit: Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images

Britney Spears is asking a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to end her 13-year conservatorship, saying she is being exploited, bullied and feeling "left out and alone."

Below is a transcript from a leaked audio recording of part of Spears' court statement Wednesday posted on YouTube and verified by NPR.

Britney Spears: I will be honest with you, I haven't been back to court in a long time because I don't think I was heard on any level when I came to court the last time. I brought four sheets of paper in my hands and wrote in length what I had been through the last four months before I came there. The people who did that to me should not be able to walk away so easily. I'll recap: I was on tour in 2018; I was forced to do. My management said if I don't do this tour I will have to find an attorney.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brenda Penny: Ms. Spears, Ms. Spears. I hate to interrupt you, but my court reporter is taking down what you're saying.

Spears: OK.

Penny: And so you have to speak a little more slowly.

Spears: Oh, of course. Yes. OK. I apologize. Great.

Penny: So we hear and make a record of everything you're saying.

Spears: The people who did this to me should not get away and be able to walk away so easily. Recap: I was on tour in 2018. I was forced to do. My management said if I don't do this tour, I will have to find an attorney and by contract my own management could sue me if I didn't follow through with the tour. He handed me a sheet of paper as I got off the stage in Vegas and said I had to sign it. It was very threatening and scary and with the conservatorship, I couldn't even get my own attorney. So out of fear, I went ahead and I did the tour. When I came off that tour, a new show in Las Vegas was supposed to take place. I started rehearsing early, but it was hard cause I'd been doing Vegas for four years and I needed a break in between.

But no, I was told this is the timeline and this is how it's gonna go. I rehearsed four to four days a week, half of the time in the studio and a half of the other time in a Westlake studio. I was basically directing most of the show with my whereabouts, where I preferred to rehearse and actually did most of the choreography, meaning I taught my dancers my new choreography myself. I take everything I do very seriously. There's tons of video with me at rehearsals. I wasn't good. I was great. I led a room of 16 new dancers in rehearsals. It's funny to hear my manager's side of the story. They all said I wasn't participating in rehearsals and I never agreed to take my medication, which my medication is only taken in the mornings, never at rehearsal. They don't even see me. So why are they even claiming that?

When I said no to one dance move into rehearsals, it was as if I planted a huge bomb somewhere and I said, no, I don't want to do it this way. After that, my management, my dancers and my assistant of the new people that were supposed to do the new show all went into a room, shut the door and didn't come out for at least 45 minutes. Ma'am, I'm not here to be anyone's slave. I can say no to a dance move. I was told by my — at the time — therapist, Dr. Benson, who died, that my manager called him and then that moment and told him I wasn't cooperating or following the guidelines in rehearsals. And he also said I wasn't taking my medication, which is so dumb because I've had the same lady every morning for the past eight years give me my same medication and I'm nowhere near these stupid people. It made no sense at all.

There was a week period where they — they were nice to me and they said, "I don't want to do —" And I told them, "I don't want to do the —" They, wait, no — they were nice to me. They said, if I don't want to do the new Vegas show, I don't have to cause I was getting really nervous. I said, "I can wait." It was like, they told me I could wait. It was like lifting literally 200 pounds off of me when they said I don't have to do the show anymore cause it was — I was really, really hard on myself and it was too much.

I couldn't take it anymore. So I remember telling my assistant, "But you know what, I feel weird if I say no. I feel like they're going to come back and be mean to me or punish me or something." Three days later, after I said no to Vegas, my therapist sat me down in a room and said he had a million phone calls about how I was not cooperating in rehearsals and I haven't been taking my medication. All of this was a false. He — he immediately the next day put me on lithium out of nowhere. He took me off my normal meds I'd been on for five years. And lithium is a very, very strong and completely different medication compared to what I was used to. You can go mentally impaired if you take too much, if you stay on it longer than five months. But he put me on that and I felt drunk. I really couldn't even take up for myself. I couldn't even have a conversation with my mom or dad really about anything. I told them I was scared and my doctor had me on — six different nurses with this new medication come to my home, stay with me to monitor me on this new medication, which I never wanted to be on to begin with.

There were six different nurse — nurses in my homes and they wouldn't let me get in my car to go anywhere for — for a month. Not only did my family not do a goddamn thing, my dad was all for it. Anything that happened to me had to be approved by my dad. And my dad only — he acted like he didn't know that I was told I had to be tested over the Christmas holidays before they sent me away when my kids went home to Louisiana. He was the one who approved all of it. My whole family did nothing. Over the two-week holiday, a lady came into my home for four hours a day, sat me down and did a psych test on me. It took forever, but I was — I was told I had to then — after that I got off — Wait.

I was told — I had to then after I got a phone call from my dad saying after I did the psych test with this lady, basically saying I had failed the test or whatever — whatever. "I'm sorry, Britney, you have to listen to your doctors. They are planning to send you to a small home in Beverly Hills to do a small rehab program that we're going to make up for you. You're gonna pay $60,000 a month for this."

I cried on the phone for an hour and he loved every minute of it. The control he had over someone as powerful as me as he loved the control to hurt his own daughter, 100,000%. He loved it.

I packed my bags and went to that place. I worked seven days a week, no days off — which in California, the only similar thing to this is called sex trafficking, making anyone work — work against their will. Taking all their possessions away — credit card, cash, phone, passport card — and placing them in a home where they — they work with the people who live with them. They offer — they all lived in the house with me, the nurses, the 24/7 security. There — there was one chef that came there and cooked for me daily during the weekdays. They watched me change every day, naked. Morning, noon and night. My body — I had no privacy door for my — for my room. I gave eight gallons of blood a week. If I didn't do any of my meetings and work from 8 to 6 at night — which is 10 hours a day, seven days a week, no days off — I wouldn't be able to see my kids or my boyfriend. I never had a say in my schedule. They always told me I had to do this. And ma'am, I will tell you, sitting in a chair 10 hours a day, seven days a week, it ain't fun. And especially when you can't walk out the front door.

And that's why I'm telling you this again two years later, after I've lied and told the whole world I'm OK and I'm happy. It's a lie. I thought I just — maybe I said that enough, maybe I might become happy because I've been in denial. I've been in shock. I am traumatized, you know, fake it till you make it. But now I'm telling you the truth, OK? I'm not happy. I can't sleep. I'm so angry. It's insane and I'm depressed. I cry every day. And the reason I'm telling you this is because I don't think how the state of California can have all this written in the court documents from the time I showed up and do absolutely nothing. Just hire — with my money — another person to keep — and keep my dad on board. Ma'am, my dad and anyone involved in this conservatorship and my management who played a huge role in punishing me when I said, "No, ma'am, they should be in jail." Their cruel tactics working for Miley Cyrus. If she smokes on joints and stage at the VMAs, nothing is ever done to this generation for doing wrong things. But my precious body, whose work for my dad for the past f***ing 13 years, trying to be so good and pretty. So perfect when he works me so hard, when I do everything I'm told, and the state of California allowed my ignorant father to take his own daughter, who only has a role with me if I work with him. They set back the whole course and allowed him to do that to me? That's given these people I've worked for way too much control.

They also threatened me and said if I don't go, then I have to go to court and it will be more embarrassing me if the judge publicly makes you go, "The evidence we have, you have to go." I was advised for my image. I need to go ahead and just go and get it over with. They said that to me. I don't — I don't even drink alcohol. I — I should drink alcohol, considering what they put my heart through.

Also, the Bridges Facility they sent me to none of the kids — I was doing this program for four months. So the last two months I went to a Bridges Facility. None of the kids there did the — did the program. They never showed up for any of them. You didn't have to do anything if you didn't want to. How come they always made me go? How come I was always threatened by my dad and anybody that persisted in this conservatorship? If I don't do this, what they tell me — enslave me to do, they're going to punish me. The last time I spoke to you about just keeping the conservatorship going and also keeping my dad in the loop made me feel like I was dead. Like I didn't matter. Like nothing had been done to to me. Like you thought I was lying or something. I'm telling you again, because I'm not lying. I want to feel heard and I'm telling you this again so maybe you can understand the depth and the degree and the damage that they did to me back then.

I want changes and I want changes going forward. I deserve changes. I was told I have to sit down and be evaluated — again — if I want to end the conservatorship. Ma'am, I didn't know I could petition the conservatorship to end it. I'm sorry for my ignorance, but I honestly didn't know that. But honestly, which I don't think I owe anyone to be evaluated. I've done more than enough. I don't feel like I should even be in a room with anyone to offend me by trying to question my capacity of intelligence, whether I need to be in this stupid conservatorship or not. I've done more than enough. I don't owe these people anything. Especially me, the one that is roofed and fed tons of people on tour on the road. It's embarrassing and demoralizing what I've been through. And that's the main reason I've never said it openly. And mainly I didn't want to say it openly because I honestly don't think anyone would believe me. To be honest with you, the Paris Hilton story on what they did to her, at that school, I didn't believe any of it. I'm sorry, I'm an outsider. And I'll just be honest, I didn't believe it. And maybe I'm wrong. And that's why I didn't want to say any of this to anybody, to the public, because people would make fun of me or laugh at me and say, "She's lying. She's got everything. She's Britney Spears." I'm not lying. I just want my life back. And it's been 13 years and it's enough.

It's been a long time since I've owned my money and it's my wish and my dream for all of this to end without being tested. Again, it makes no sense whatsoever for the state of California to sit back and literally watch me with their own two eyes, make a living for so many people and pay so many people — trucks and buses on tour on the road with me — and be told I'm not good enough. But I'm great at what I do. And I allow these people to control what I do, ma'am, and it's enough, it makes no sense at all. Now, going forward, I'm not willing to meet or see anyone. I've met with enough people against my will. I'm done. All I want is to own my money, for this to end, and my boyfriend to drive me in his f***ing car. And I would honestly like to sue my family, to be totally honest with you.

I also would like to be able to share my story with the world and what they did to me instead of it being a hush hush secret to benefit all of them. I want to be able to be heard on what they did to me by making me keep this in for so long is not good for my heart. I've been so angry and I cry every day. It concerns me I'm told I'm not allowed to expose the people who did this to me. For my sanity, I need you to the judge to approve me to do an interview where I can be heard and what they did to me. And actually, I have the right to use my voice and take up for myself. My attorney says I can't. It's not good. I can't let the public know anything they did to me. And by not saying anything is saying it's OK. I don't know what I said here. It's not OK. I would actually — I don't want to interview. I'd much rather just have an open call to you for the press to hear, which I didn't know today we're doing, so thank you.

Instead of having an interview, honestly, I need that to get it off my heart. The anger and all of it. That — that — that's — that's been happening. It's not fair they're telling me lies about me openly. Even my family. They do interviews to anyone they want on news stations, my own family doing interviews and talking about the situation and making me feel so stupid. And I can't say one thing. And my own people say I can't say anything. It's been two years. I want a recorded call to you — actually, we're doing this now, which I didn't know that we were doing this — until the public knows what they did me. I told my — I know my lawyer Sam has been very scared for me to go forward because he's saying if I speak up, I'm being overworked in that facility, that rehab place that the rehab place will see me. He told me I should keep it to myself. I would personally like to — actually, I know I've had grown with a personal relationship with Sam, my lawyer. I've been talking to him like three times a week now. We've kind of built a relationship, but I haven't really had the opportunity by my own self to actually handpick my own lawyer by myself. And I would like to be able to do that.

I would like to also — the main reason why I'm here is because I want to end the conservatorship without having to be evaluated. I've done a lot of research, ma'am, and there is a lot of judges who do end conservatorships for people without them having to be evaluated all the time. The only times they don't is if a concerned family member says something's wrong with this person and consider an other — otherwise. And considering my family has lived off of my conservatorship for 13 years, I won't be surprised if one of them has has something to say. Go forward and say, "We don't think this should end. We have to help her." Especially if I get my fair serve and turn in exposing what they did to me. Also I want to speak to you about at the moment my obligations, which I personally don't think at the very moment, I owe anybody anything.

I have three meetings a week I have to attend no matter what. I just don't like feeling like I work for the people whom I pay. I don't like being told I have to, no matter what, even if I'm sick, Jodi, the conservator says I have to see my Coach Ken even when I'm sick. I would like to do one meeting a week with a therapist. I've never in — before — even before they sent me to that place, had two therapy sessions. A therapy, one, a therapy session and one therapy session with my — I have a doctor and then a therapy person. What I've been forced to do illegal in my life, I shouldn't be told I have to be available three times a week to these people I don't know.

I'm talking to you today because I feel again, yes, even Jodi is starting to kind of take it too far with me. They have me going to therapy twice a week and a psychiatrist. I've never in the past had — they had me going yeah, twice a week and my doctor goal. So that's three times a week. I've never in the past went to see a therapist more than once a week. It takes too much out of me going to this man I don't know. Number one, I'm scared of people. I don't trust people with what I've been through. And the clever set up of being in what's like, one of the most exposed places in Westlake, which today — yesterday paparazzi showed me coming out of the place, literally crying in there. It's embarrassing and it's demoralizing. I deserve privacy when I go. I deserve privacy when I go and have therapy either at my home, like I've done for eight years — they've always come to my home — or when the Dr. Benson, the guy — the man that died — I went to a place similar to what I went to in Westlake, which was very exposed and really bad. OK, so wait, where was I? It was like, it was identical to Dr. Benson who died. The one who illegally — yes, 100% — abused me by the treatment he gave me to. And to be totally honest with you, I was so —

Penny: Ms. Spears, excuse me for interrupting you. But my reporter says if you could just slow down a little bit because she's trying to make sure she gets everything that you're saying.

Spears: OK, cool.

Penny: And so if you just —.

Spears: OK.

Penny: So that would be great.

Spears: I have been through — and the clever set up in Westlake is identical to Dr. Benson who died, the one who illegally — yes, 100% — abused me by the treatment he gave me. And to be totally honest with you, when he passed away, I got on my knees and thanked God. In other words, my team is pushing — pushing it with me again. I have trapped phobias being in small rooms because the trauma locked me up for four months in that place is not OK for them to send me — sorry, I'm going fast — to that small room like that twice a week with another new therapist I pay that I never even approved. I don't like it. I don't want to do that. And I haven't done anything wrong to deserve this treatment. It's not OK to force me to do anything I don't want to do. By law — by law, Jodi and this so-called team should honestly — I should be able to sue them for threatening me and saying if I don't go and do these meetings twice a week, we — we can't let you have your money and go to Maui on your vacations. You have to do what you're told for this program and then you will be able to go.

But it was very clever. They picked one of the most exposed places in Westlake knowing I have the hot topic of the conservatorship, that over five paparazzi are going to show up and get me crying coming out of that place. I begged them to make sure that they did this at my home so I would have privacy. I deserve privacy. The whole conservatorship from the beginning — once — the conservatorship — the conservatorship from the beginning, once you see someone, whoever it is in the conservatorship, making money, making them money and myself money and working, that whole, that whole statement right there, the conservatorship should end. There should be no — I shouldn't be in a conservatorship if I can work and provide money and work for myself and pay other people. It makes no sense. The laws need to change. What state allows people to own another person's money and account and threaten them and saying, "You can't spend your money unless you do what we want you to do." And I'm paying them.

Ma'am, I've worked since I was 17 years old. You have to understand how thin that is for me. Every morning I get up to know, I can't go on somewhere unless I meet people I don't know every week in an office identical to the one where the therapist was very abusive to me. I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive. And now we can sit here all day and say, "Oh, conservatorships are here to help people." But ma'am, there's a thousand conservatorships that are abusive as well. I don't feel like I can live a full life. I don't — I don't owe them to go see a man I don't know and share him my problems. I don't even believe in therapy. I always think you take it to God.

I want to end the conservatorship without being evaluated. In the meantime, I want this therapist once a week. He can either come to my home — no, I just want him to come to my home. I'm not willing to go to Westlake and be embarrassed by all these paparazzi, these scummy paparazzi laughing at my faces while I'm crying, coming out and taking my pictures as all these white, nice dinners where people drinking wine at restaurants, watching me from these places.

They set me up by sending me to the most exposed places, places. And I told them I didn't want to go there because I knew paparazzi would show up there. They only gave me two options for therapist, and I'm not sure how you make your decisions, ma'am, but this is the only chance for me to talk to you for a while. I need your your help. So if you can just kind of let me know where your head is, I don't really honestly know what to say, but my requests just are to end the conservatorship without being evaluated. I want to petition, basically, to end the conservatorship, but I want to — I want it to be petitioned. And if I don't want to be evaluated, to be sat in a room with people for hours a day like they did me before, and they made it even worse for me after that happened.

So I just — I'm honestly new at this and I'm doing research on all these things. I do know common sense and the method that things can end, it — for people, it has ended without them being evaluated. So I just want you to take that into consider — consideration. I've also done research and wait — also took a year during COVID to get me any self-care methods during COVID. She said there were no services available. She's lying, ma'am. My mom went to the spa twice in Louisiana during COVID. For a year, I didn't have my nails done. No hair styling and no massages, no acupuncture, nothing. For a year. I saw the maids in my home each week with their nails done different each time. She made me feel like my dad does — very similar, her behavior. And my dad, but just a different dynamic. Team wants me to work and stay home instead of having longer vacations. They — they are used to me sort of doing a weekly routine for them and I'm over it. I don't feel like I owe them anything at this point. They need to be reminded they actually work for me. They trick me by sending me to the — OK, I repeated myself there. OK.

Also, I was supposed to be able to have a friend that I used to do AA meetings with. I did AA for two years, I have like, you know — I did three meetings a week and met a bunch of women there. And I'm not able to see my friends that live eight minutes away from me, which I find extremely strange. I feel like they're making me feel like I live in a rehab program. This is my home. I'd like for my boyfriend to be able to drive me in his car. And I want to meet with the therapist once a week, not twice a week. And I want him to come to my home because I actually know I do need a little therapy.

I was told, hold on — I think that's — oh, and I would like to progressively move forward and I want to have the real deal. I want to be able to get married and have a baby. I was told right now in the conservatorship, I'm not able to get married or have a baby. I have an IUD inside of myself right now, so I don't get pregnant. I wanted to take the IUD out so I could start trying to have another baby. But this so-called team won't let me go to the doctor to take it out because they they don't want me to have children — any more children.

So basically this conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good. I — I deserve to have a life. I've worked my whole life. I deserve to have a two- to three-year break and just, you know, do what I want to do. But I do feel like there is a crutch here and I feel like I feel open and I'm OK to talk to you today about it. But I — I wish I could stay with you on the phone forever, because when I get off the phone with you, all of a sudden all I hear — I hear all these no's. No, no, no. And then all of a sudden I get — I feel ganged up on and I feel bullied and I feel left out and alone. And I'm tired of feeling alone. I deserve to have the same rights as anybody does by having a child, a family, any of those things. And more so. And that's all I wanted to say to you. And thank you so much for letting me speak to you today.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison for the murder of George Floyd.; Credit: /Court TV via AP

A Minnesota judge sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison Friday for the murder of George Floyd.

Judge Peter Cahill wrote that part of the mission of the Minneapolis Police Department is to give citizens "voice and respect."

"Mr. Chauvin, rather than pursuing the MPD mission, treated Mr. Floyd without respect and denied him the dignity owed to all human beings and which he certainly would have extended to a friend or neighbor. In the Court's view, 270 months, which amounts to an additional ten years over the presumptive 150-month sentence, is the appropriate sentence."

Read Cahill's entire sentencing order and memoradum for Chauvin below.

Chauvin, 45, was convicted in April of all three charges he faced — second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

He was sentenced only on the first of the charges, the most serious, as is typical in Minnesota.

Cahill said Chauvin's crime included four aggravating factors: that Derek Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority as a police officer, that he treated Floyd with "particular cruelty," that he committed the crime as part of a group with at least three other people, and that children were present during the commission of the offense.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Sonia Doe, pictured here, reached a settlement with the New Jersey Department of Corrections that will make it standard for the state to assign jail stays to a person based on their gender identity, not the sex assigned at birth.; Credit: /The ACLU New Jersey

For 18 months, Sonia Doe faced humiliating strip searches in front of male guards. Male prisoners exposed themselves to her. She faced sexual harassment, discrimination and physical threats from corrections officers and inmates alike.

Doe, who is transgender, has lived her life publicly as a woman since 2003. Yet, Doe — a pseudonym used for her lawsuit — was transported to four different men's prisons across New Jersey from March 2018 to August 2019.

It took a lawsuit filed that August for Doe to finally be transported to a woman's prison weeks later.

As part of the settlement for that lawsuit Tuesday, the New Jersey Department of Corrections will now make it customary for prisoners who identify as transgender, intersex or nonbinary to be assigned a jail stay in line with their gender identity — not with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Tuesday's news marks a major policy shift for the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Research has shown that transgender inmates face particular danger while in prison, but few states offer them protections like these. Connecticut and California passed laws in 2018 and 2020, respectively, that require transgender inmates to be assigned prisons based on their gender identity. Rhode Island, New York City and Massachusetts also have housed inmates based on their gender identity.

"When I was forced to live in men's prisons, I was terrified I wouldn't make it out alive. Those memories still haunt me," Doe said in a statement announcing the settlement. "Though I still have nightmares about that time, it's a relief to know that as a result of my experience the NJDOC has adopted substantial policy changes so no person should be subjected to the horrors I survived."

Doe faced harassment, discrimination and abuse

According to court documents reviewed by NPR, Doe was placed in men's prisons in spite of the state's Department of Corrections knowing she was a transgender woman.

Clear documentation, including her driver's license, showed her gender identity, but Doe was still forced to remain in men's prisons. In addition to facing physical assaults and verbal and sexual harassment in prison, she was also forced to remain in solitary confinement for long stretches.

Corrections staff would refer to her as a man and address her using male pronouns, according to her complaint. She also was denied gender-appropriate clothing items and had difficulty receiving her hormone therapy regularly and on time.

The settlement forces agency-wide changes

The new policy will require staff to use appropriate pronouns, and prohibits harassment and discrimination based on gender identity.

As part of the settlement in the Doe case, all New Jersey state corrections officers, regardless of rank or facility, will have to sign an acknowledgement that they have read the policy. The agency also will provide targeted training on the changes.

The Department of Corrections also said it would guarantee gender-affirming undergarments, clothing, and other property for the inmates. Medical and mental health treatment, including gender-affirming care, also will be provided "as medically appropriate."

Inmates who are transgender also will be given the opportunity to shower separately and won't have to go through a strip searches or pat downs by an officer of the opposite sex.

"The settlement of this lawsuit puts in place systemic, far-reaching policy changes to recognize and respect the gender identity of people in prison," said Tess Borden, ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney. ACLU New Jersey represented Doe along with Robyn Gigl of Gluck Walrath LLP.

As part of the settlement, the New Jersey Department of Corrections have agreed to pay Doe $125,000 in damages and $45,000 in separate attorney's fees.

Longstanding issues at New Jersey prisons

Doe was not the only transgender inmate who has faced frightening treatment in New Jersey prisons.

Rae Rollins, a transgender woman, filed a lawsuit in March saying she was one of several inmates attacked by corrections officers earlier this year at the scandal-plagued Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women. In January, several women were severely beaten by corrections officers at that facility. Ten correctional police officers have been charged in connection to the alleged beatings of prisoners.

Rollins sought a transfer to a different women's prison after the incident, but was moved to a men's prison instead. Rollins has since been moved to an out-of-state prison, according to the state's records.

Earlier this month, New Jersey's embattled corrections commissioner announced his resignation from his post — a day after Gov. Phil Murphy said the state would close the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, pictured in 2019, is hoping to change how the justice system handles cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds who are charged as adults.; Credit: Claire Harbage/NPR

A new proposal from D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine could overhaul the way juveniles are charged as adults and offer greater opportunities for rehabilitation than a federal prison.

If passed, the proposal would impact people like Charlie Curtis, who was charged with armed robbery and sent to adult court at the age of 16 — a decision that he said left him confused and adrift.

Curtis said he had problems reading and writing back then, let alone asking the court to appoint him a lawyer. After his conviction, he spent years in a federal prison in New Jersey.

"It's a little bit of everything," Curtis said. "A little scary, a little nervous, you got to grow up real fast. You're not in the high school gym no more."

Curtis returned home when he was 22. It would be a while before he stabilized, got a good job driving a truck and started a family that grew to include three children. He now volunteers to help other young people leaving jail and prison — trying to offer the support he got too late.

What the legislation would change

NPR has learned Racine will introduce legislation in the D.C. Council Wednesday to ensure that 16- and 17-year-olds accused of certain crimes start in the family court system.

"Children should be treated like children, including 16- and 17-year-olds, notwithstanding the seriousness of their alleged offense," Racine said.

The proposed legislation would apply to teens charged with murder, first-degree sexual abuse, and armed robbery, among other crimes. Currently, the lead federal prosecutor in D.C. can file those kinds of cases directly in adult court — without any say from a judge — even if those defendants ultimately plead guilty to lesser charges.

D.C. has no federal prisons of its own, so young people convicted as adults can spend years in other states, at great distances from their families. The D.C. attorney general said the majority of underaged defendants charged as adults return home to the District before they are 21, but without the benefit of access to educational programs, vocational training and mentoring they could have received if their cases had been handled in the family courts.

"The adult system doesn't work that way," Racine said. "Federal Bureau of Prisons people will tell you the adult system is not made for kids."

Eduardo Ferrer, the policy director at the Georgetown Juvenile Justice Initiative, said research demonstrates charging young people in the adult system decreases public safety by making it more likely they'll break the law in the future. Most charging decisions in these cases in D.C. are made within a half a day, without the benefit of a longer review of the facts of the case and the background of the teenager, he said.

"The process in D.C. right now, because the U.S. Attorney's Office does not exercise discretion often in terms of keeping kids down in juvenile court, is more of a sledgehammer," Ferrer said. "What we really need is a scalpel."

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington and the Metropolitan Police Department did not return calls for comment about the proposal. But its supporters expect some resistance when it's ultimately considered by the City Council.

Ferrer pointed out that the legislation still leaves room for a judge to transfer a young person in D.C. into adult court if the judge has concerns about the ability for rehabilitation and worries about public safety. "The reality is that a young person still can be transferred to adult court," he said. "The difference is we're taking the time to get it right."

The potential impact

The vast majority — 93% — of the 16- and 17-year-olds who are charged as adults in D.C. are Black. One of them is the son of Keela Hailes. In 2008, he was charged with armed robbery. Hailes said she wasn't consulted about decisions about what was best for her son.

"It's like my son went from a 16-year-old to a 30-year-old overnight," Hailes said.

Her son was convicted and sent to federal prison in North Dakota, too far for her to visit regularly as she had done in the D.C. area. Her son, now 30 years old, is incarcerated again. Hailes said she wishes he would have had more options years ago — a chance for an education, and time spent in a juvenile facility instead of around adults in prison.

She said science suggests young people have less judgment and maturity because their brains are still developing. She thinks the new proposal will make a "huge difference" for juveniles in the legal system in the District.

The proposal is the latest in a series of steps Racine has taken to overhaul juvenile justice in D.C. He pushed the courts to stop shackling young defendants; started a restorative justice program for juveniles to meet with and make amends to victims; and worked to limit the ability of police to put handcuffs on most people under age 12.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Cancer-causing chemicals that occur naturally in foods are far more numerous in the human diet than synthetic carcinogens, yet both types are consumed at levels so low that they currently appear to pose little threat to human health, a committee of the National Research Council said in a report released today.

While confirming that the science behind DNA forensics is valid, a new report from a committee of the National Research Council recommends new ways of interpreting DNA evidence to help answer a key question for jurors -- how likely it is that two matching samples came from different people.

A bold national initiative is needed to reduce the enormous health burden of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the United States, according to a new report from a committee of the Institute of Medicine.

Widespread reforms are needed to ensure that all children are equipped with the skills and instruction they need to learn to read, according to a new report from a committee of the National Research Council.

Women who might become pregnant need 400 micrograms of folic acid per day to reduce their risk of having a child with neural tube defects, according to the latest report on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) from the Institute of Medicine.

Many public school students receive little or no exposure to the theory of evolution, the most important concept in understanding biology, says a new guidebook from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy.

Outdated food safety laws and a fragmented federal structure serve as barriers to improving protection of the nations food supply from contamination or other hazards, according to Ensuring Safe Food From Production to Consumption.

Increased research is the key to developing more widely applicable detection systems to find pipe bombs before they explode and to help catch the perpetrators when a bomb has gone off, says a new report from a committee of the National Research Council.

Marijuanas active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.

Good morning and welcome. There has been unprecedented interest in recent years about whether marijuana or its constituent compounds should be used as medicine. Since 1996, voters in seven states have approved the medical use of marijuana.

The explosive growth of information technology is having a profound impact on our lives.

Although there is evidence of harmful health and ecological effects associated with exposure to high doses of chemicals known as hormonally active agents – or endocrine disrupters – little is understood about the harm posed by exposure to the substances at low concentrations, such as those that typically exist in the environment, says a new report from a National Research Council committee.

Reducing one of the nations leading causes of death and injury – medical errors – will require rigorous changes throughout the health care system, including mandatory reporting requirements.

Insufficient evidence exists to support claims that taking megadoses of dietary antioxidants, such as selenium and vitamins C and E, or carotenoids, including beta-carotene, can prevent chronic diseases, says the latest report on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys guideline for protecting the public from a toxic form of mercury is justifiable based on the latest scientific evidence, some children of women who consume large amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy may be at special risk of neurological problems.

Darkly colored, carotene-rich fruits and vegetables -- such as carrots, sweet potatoes, and broccoli -- provide the body with half as much vitamin A as previously thought.

American students progress toward proficiency in mathematics requires major changes in instruction, curricula, and assessment in the nations schools, says a new report from the National Research Council of the National Academies.

Focused attention by world leaders is needed to address the substantial challenges posed by disposal of spent nuclear fuel from reactors and high-level radioactive waste from processing such fuel for military or energy purposes.

The National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Education should promote routine early screenings of children for autistic spectrum disorders, much like they are promoted for vision and hearing problems, says a new report from the National Research Council of the National Academies.

Representatives from academies and research organizations around the world sent messages of condolence and support to members, officials and staff of the U.S. National Academies in the wake of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The following are excerpts from some of these messages.

To ensure that minority students who are poorly prepared for school are not assigned to special education for that reason, educators should be required to first provide them with high-quality instruction and social support in a general education classroom before making a determination that special education is needed.

The federal government should not rely on polygraph examinations for screening prospective or current employees to identify spies or other national-security risks because the test results are too inaccurate when used this way.

As the recent spread of West Nile virus and the anthrax scare of 2001 dramatically illustrate, America faces a variety of new health challenges in the 21st century, along with a number of persistent problems, such as racial disparities in health status and care delivery.

The environmental effects of oil and gas exploration and production on Alaska s North Slope have been accumulating for more than three decades, says a new report from the National Academies National Research Council.

Police officers are perhaps the most visible faces of the law, and one of the few groups authorized to use force when dealing with the public. But despite the pivotal role that officers play in preventing and controlling crime, and in promoting justice, the science base is often inadequate regarding the value, fairness, and legitimacy of police practices and policies.

Good morning. I am Richard Bonnie, chair of the Committee on Developing a Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking.

Welcome to the public release of the latest Institute of Medicine report on the quality of health care in America.

To significantly reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries caused by medical errors every year, health care organizations must adopt information technology systems that are capable of collecting and sharing essential health information on patients and their care, says a new report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

High schools that successfully engage students in learning have many things in common.

Nearly half of all American adults – 90 million people – have difficulty understanding and using health information, and there is a higher rate of hospitalization and use of emergency services among patients with limited health literacy, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

To enhance the vitality and overall operation of the nations patent system, federal officials should take decisive steps to increase the systems flexibility, openness, and reliability, says a new report from the National Academies National Research Council.