Contact: Lola Rainey

[email protected]

Local activists claim recent jail deaths are linked to corruption, racism and a culture of violence in the Pima County Sheriff’s Department

The community must reset it’s moral compass by demanding greater transparency and accountability from Sheriff Napier

TUCSON, Arizona, December 27, 2019​. In 2019, two men, David Maxwell and Francisco Ruiz died without ever having the opportunity to prove their guilt or innocence at the Pima County Jail. Each of their deaths were directly linked to excessive force encounters with correctional officers. Arrested at different times on unrelated charges, they were both denied pretrial release.

“Caging people for pretrial detention does not make our community safer,” said Lola Rainey, Director of the Tucson Second Chance Community Bail Fund, “David Maxwell and Francisco Ruiz would be alive today if the Courts had released them back into the community. Their deaths are the direct result of the culture of violence, racism and corruption that pervades the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.”

She added, “The community must reset it’s moral compass by demanding greater transparency and accountability from Sheriff Napier, his senior officers and deputies.”

Local community activists have scheduled a press conference for Friday, January 3, 2020, 9:30 a.m., at the Historic Y, 738 N. 5th Ave., Tucson, AZ 85705, to set out specific demands
to end the unchecked violence at the jail as well as to push for investment in alternatives to pretrial detention. A list that includes:

• The demand for an FBI investigation into possible civil and human rights violations occurring at the Pima County Jail;
• ●  The demand for an FBI investigation into the excessive force deaths of David Maxwell and Francisco Ruiz;
• ●  The demand for the immediate demotion and removal of the Senior Officers in Sheriff Napier’s administration for their nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance which has helped to create and support the corruption, racism and culture of violence at the Pima County Jail;
• ●  A demand that City Court Magistrates make granting pretrial release to all defendants a general rule of practice;
• ●  A demand that City Court Magistrates stop using cash bail to keep poor defendants caged in jail;

• ●  A demand that all future excessive force related deaths occurring at the Pima County Jail be investigated by an outside law enforcement agency;
• ●  A demand that excessive force death autopsies be conducted by an independent medical forensics expert not the Pima County Medical Examiner;
• ●  A demand that any prosecutorial review of excessive force death cases occurring at the Pima County Jail —be conducted the State Attorney General’s Office or the Arizona United States Attorney’s Office not the Pima County Attorney’s Office; and,
•   A demand that the Pima County Board of Supervisors end it’s unsustainable investment in “guns and bullets” and instead reallocate resources currently given to law enforcement to community human and social services which do far more to make us safe by disrupting the cycle of poverty, sickness and addiction that often leads to destructive acts.

 I know what the world has done to my brother and how narrowly he has survived it and I know, which is much worse, and this is the crime of which I accuse my country and my countrymen and for which neither I nor time nor history will ever forgive them, that they have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it. One can be–indeed, one must strive to become–tough and philosophical concerning destruction and death, for this is what most of mankind has been best at since we have heard of war; remember, I said most of mankind, but it is not permissible that the authors of devastation should also be innocent. It is the innocence which constitutes the crime.

James Baldwin, A Letter To My Nephew, December 1, 1962

When I received notice today (April 23, 2019) the Pima County Medical Examiner had released a copy of the autopsy report of David Maxwell, the Black man killed during an alleged “scuffle” with a Pima County Adult Detention  Officer on February 14, 2019, I was hopeful answers would at last be provided regarding the cause of his death. Instead, the eleven page report gave a very officious accounting of all the procedures performed as part of the autopsy but ultimately concluded anti-climatically:

FINAL DIAGNOSES

1. Undetermined cause of death.

There were and still are so many questions about, “what happened to David Maxwell?” left unanswered. Granted,  it is not uncommon for people engaged in a physical altercation to die. One of the combatants may have used too much force, the victim may have hit his head or died as a result of an underlying health condition triggered by the physical altercation. However, a relatively-healthy 53-year-old man does not normally “just die” (for no apparent reason) during a physical altercation with another person. This is the conclusion reached by Dr. Gregory Hess, the Forensic Pathologist (Pima County Medical Examiner), who performed the autopsy on February 15, 2019, in the presence of forensic technicians, two Pima County Sheriff’s Deputies, and two crime scene technicians from the Sheriff’s Department. What is strange is the autopsy was performed without anyone from the Tucson Police Department (TPD) Homicide Unit present. If  Maxwell’s death was the result of a physical altercation with a correctional officer, as alleged, the matter should have immediately been transferred to an outside agency, TPD Homicide,  so a thorough independent investigation could be conducted. Certainly local news reports indicated TPD Homicide was on the scene conducting a separate investigation into the incident.

Although the toxicology screening on Maxwell wasn’t received until February 18, 2019, the autopsy report was completed by February 21, 2019. In other words, the report could have been released to the public anytime after February 21st. The Pima County taxpayers and voters have a right to know all pertinent information about the death of an in-custody detainee at the hands of a jail correctional officer. Failure to release the autopsy report in a timely manner kept the facts and circumstances surrounding Maxwell’s death shrouded in secrecy.

The stated mission of the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner is to provide accurate, timely, compassionate and professional death investigations for the citizens of Pima County, Arizona. If that is indeed the mission, Dr. Hess failed David Maxwell and he failed all citizens who care about the welfare of the men and women being held n-custody at the Pima County Jail. Pretrial detention is not suppose to be a death sentence. Prior to his death, Maxwell was being held in pre-trial detention awaiting trial. Although he had not been convicted of an offense –he had already spent over a year in jail. Sadly, the wrongs committed against Maxwell continue to stack-up. Even in death, he has been written off as a person whose life had little value. It is obvious no real effort was made to unravel the mystery of his death. The autopsy report was a final insult to Maxwell, a man the Pima County Superior Court, prosecutors and attorneys forgot about , permitting him to languish in jail until he was killed. Now it appears, the Sheriff’s Department wants his death to be forgotten, too.

The fact Black people must seek justice from a profoundly anti-Black legal system is a paradox that frustrates and demoralizes all those unfortunate enough to become ensnared by it. Still, the fight for fairness, for justice rages on because Black people know the value of their humanity regardless of what system actors think of them.

David Maxwell’s life had value and the failure of the medical examiner to make definitive findings as to his cause of death is an unacceptable outcome. The TSCCBF will therefore ask the Pima County Board of Supervisors to hire an independent forensic pathologist to conduct a more thorough investigation into his death. Attached is a link to a  copy. of the Maxwell autopsy report which has been saved as a Google document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSZ1oUNkdEvuwqdSgavK8rpDamU2YremqHaRVfrAyYM-YQ6fMelFVxKMDs9Z3VhCH2jxcY7ZAmUuWuD/pub

Additional public records (673 pages) are expected to be received from the Pima County Sheriff’s Department. Once these documents have been reviewed, an effort will be made to give the public access to them as well.

On February 14, 2019, David Maxwell, a 53-year-old Black man, was killed by a Pima County Correctional Officer while awaiting trial. The circumstances surrounding his death are still under investigation but there is a lot Chief Gwaltney, the jail administrator, and Sheriff Napier already know about Mr. Maxwell’s death. In all likelihood, a cause of death determination was made by the Pima County Medical Examiner. In fact, the Tucson Second Chance Community Bail Fund (TSCCBF) requested a copy of the autopsy report from Chief Gwaltney but a copy was never produced. Since the jail is arguably one of the must secure facilities in Tucson, the alleged “scuffle” that ended in the death of Maxwell would have been captured on security cameras found throughout the detention center. In addition, separate from the homicide investigation being conducted by the Tucson Police Department, there would have been a parallel administrative investigation conducted (presumably) by Chief Gwaltney. Statements from witnesses (the men in the same unit as the victim) and staff on duty during the assault would have been taken  (both audio and written). Photographs, fingerprints, blood samples and all manner of physical evidence would have been collected as well. In short, all of these items constitute public records and by statute must be disclosed when a proper request for copies of the documents has been made.

On April 2, 2019, the TSCCBF through its legal counsel, Attorney Michael J. Bloom, submitted a request for release of public records to the Pima County Medical Examiner and the Pima County Jail. We hope both requests for public records will be honored. If not, we are prepared to take further legal action.

The TSCCBF believes the living conditions, care and  treatment of the men and women held in-custody at the Pima County Jail are matters all Tucsonans should be concerned about. The majority of the incarcerated are pre-trial detainees, meaning they are only in custody because they cannot pay bond (some are also being held  on warrants and probation holds), their inability to post bail should not become a death sentence. The voters of Pima County, the people who put  Sheriff Napier into office, have a right to know what happened to David Maxwell, a man killed four days short of his 54th birthday. Transparency is the key to accountability. Once the public has had an opportunity to review the records related to Maxwell’s death, a community discussion/forum about accountability measures needed to prevent the reoccurrence of this tragedy will be in order.

Need to request help? Download our community application flyer or visit our Request Help Page to submit an applicaton!

Download the Flyer

Submit an application

Video initial appearances are held twice daily at the Pima County Adult Detention Center. Once in the morning and once in the evening. In January of 2018, David Ray Maxwell, a then 52-year-old Black man,  appeared on video before a magistrate to face felony charges related to a shooting on New Year’s Eve. In Arizona, courts with pretrial services units  like the Pima County Superior Courts must conduct defendant risk assessments at the initial appearance stage.   Personal information about a defendant is collected and used to populate data fields that yield a risk assessment score. These scores are used by Magistrates to determine what conditions of release should be imposed.

In David Ray Maxwell’s case, the Magistrate imposed a $7500 secured bond; a type of debt that must be paid with property or an asset of equivalent value. Typically, people use a bail bondsman to post secured bonds; an option unavailable to poor people who lack sufficient property or assets to secure a bond. The poor are left to languish in jail until a final disposition of their case can be reached. This is an outcome the Arizona Supreme Court expressly urged judges to guard against, “[I]t (the court) must not impose a monetary condition that results in unnecessary pretrial incarceration solely because the defendant is unable to pay a monetary condition.” (Rule 7.3 (2)(A), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure).

Defendants held in pretrial detention at the Pima County jail exist in what has been described by former detainees as a “hellish limbo”–waiting for court, visitors or if they’re lucky–someone to post bail.  The privatization of jail services places a heavy financial burden on poor defendants and their families. The jail charges fees for telephone calls, fees for medical services, fees to access applications on jailhouse tablets given to detainees, fees for commissary goods and even fees for video and online visitations (in-person visits have been discontinued). Poor defendants’ lack of financial resources not only limits their access to services, it weakens and strains their family ties because visitations are fee based, too.

On February 14, 2019, David Ray Maxwell, was killed by a corrections officer at the Pima County jail during what local news sources describe as a “scuffle”. The exact cause of his death has not yet been made public but an investigation into the incident is being conducted by the Tucson Police Department’s Homicide Unit.

What is most disturbing about David Ray Maxwell’s death is the length of time he spent in pretrial detention–  over a year. His trial was still months away; it was scheduled for October of 2019.  David Ray Maxwell, a man who had not been convicted of a single charge filed against him, was caged in a jail cell for over a year and, had he lived, would have endured another 9 months of incarceration waiting for his trial. Pretrial detention is not suppose to be a death sentence.  David Ray Maxwell was allowed to languish in a jail cell because the Pima County criminal justice system decided his life didn’t count for much. They are wrong. His life matters not only to his family and friends but to all people fighting for a fair criminal justice system..

Ironically, the MacArthur Foundation awarded Pima County a multi-million dollar grant to implement a series of criminal justice reforms including making significant reductions to the jail population. The death of David Ray Maxwell, however, raises serious questions about the adequacy of those reforms. In order to create a criminal justice system that serves all the people not just the wealthy, more must be done–structural changes are needed. Suppose the purpose of initial appearances shifts from populating jails to decarcerating them. Pretrial assessments could then become tools used by Magistrates to free defendants by finding the best ways to support them while on release. In such a system, one that restores the presumption of innocence and principles of fairness,  it is unlikely David Ray Maxwell would have been held in pretrial detention on a $7500 secured bond he could not pay.

TUCSON is one of the poorest cities of its size in the country. Countless families have love ones sitting in pretrial detention at the Pima County Jail who will not be home for the holidays because they are too poor to post bond. The Tucson Second Chance Community Bail Fund (TSCCBF) just posted bond for a man whose release was delayed when Tucson City Court unexpectedly imposed an additional $500 bond on 3 misdemeanor charges. A man who had already spent 2 months in pretrial detention faced the prospect of spending more time in jail–perhaps through the holidays–because his family didn’t have  $500 to bail him out.  Thanks to the generosity of the TSCCBF donors, we were able to post the additional $500 Tucson City Court bond so he could go home.

HOWEVER, once a bond has been posted the funds are held by the Courts until the individual’s case is resolved; a process that generally takes months for a final disposition to be reached. Each time we post a bond, our bail reserves shrink a little more–while we wait for the bonds to be exonerated by the Courts. Our goal as a community bail fund is to maintain sufficient cash reserves to never have to turn away anyone eligible for bail assistance because we don’t have the funds.

THE HOLIDAY season is upon us and TSCCBF is asking the Tucson community to help us bring the men and women sitting in pretrial detention “home for the holidays” .  Our fundraising goal is $10,000—- so will you help us bring families together for the holidays?  You can make your tax deductible donation to the TSCCBF a one time gift  or a re-occuring monthly gift--give what you can.

AS ALWAYS, thank you Tucson for your support

Courts have stolen almost 10,000 years from Black people wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. This figure represents only known cases of wrongful convictions. The actual number is likely much higher.

Source: National Registry of Exonerations

Articles published on racism in the American legal system  eventually reach the same conclusion– White justice and Black justice (or Brown, LGBTQ justice or what passes for justice if you are anyone labeled “other”) are not the same. The lack of racial diversity in the legal profession is often cited as  part of the problem. In deed, the judiciary, one of the three pillars of democracy in this country, has failed to achieve levels of  racial and ethnic diversity that create the “critical mass” (when sufficient numbers of  non-White lawyers, judges, paraprofessionals or staff  are present in a majority White dominated  setting to create sustainable progressive change through collective action) necessary to counter the forces of White supremacy within the legal profession .

A chart of demographic trends prepared by the American Bar Association (ABA) shows the national percentage of White attorneys in the profession decreased only slightly over a 10-year-period. In 2008, White lawyers were 89% of the legal profession. This number dipped to 85% in 2018. The lack of racial diversity is even starker when looking at the national demographics for elected prosecutors, 95% who are White. Not only is there a glaring racial imbalance among prosecutors, there is also one among state court judges. A report released by The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (in June 2016) revealed the nation’s judges, too, are overwhelming white—in fact, 80% of all state judges are White (58% White men and 22% White women.) When 90% of all cases in the United States are tried in state courts, this racial and ethnic “gavel gap” suggests the much touted notion of  color-blind justice is little more than a legal fiction.

Rule 8.4 (comment 3) of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility imposes ethical restrictions on the use of words or actions reflecting racial bias or prejudice but it is a lawyer’s individual conduct not his/her complicity in helping to perpetuate and maintain a racist justice system that triggers scrutiny and possible discipline. A position that ignores what  study after study has documented– mainly racism is systemic and operates in one form or another at every stage of the criminal punishment process.

In Arizona where the African-American population is 4% of the general population but 12% of the prison population and where the state’s incarceration rate of Black defendants is 6th in the nation, evidence of pervasive anti-Black bias within the criminal punishment system has been largely overlooked.  A 2017 report on drug sentencing in Arizona prepared by the American Friends Society Committee (AFSC) found “significant racial disparities in drug sentencing.” Specifically, data collected from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) showed  Black defendants convicted of drug offenses received sentences 25% longer than defendants from other races and ethnicities convicted of the same crimes. However, these findings had no impact on how Black drug defendants were sentenced in the Pima County Superior Court. No moratorium on drug cases involving Black defendants was ordered by the Courts or requested by prosecutors–the racially biased drug sentencing continued unabated and continues even now.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose Arizona chapter refused to advocate on behalf of Black defendants serving longer prison sentences because of their race, recently issued a report on mass incarceration in Arizona (released  September 2018) acknowledging racial bias is so deeply ingrained in the state’s criminal punishment system, new approaches for mitigating the causes of these racial disparities are needed.

In fact, what is needed are not merely criminal justice reforms calling for the election of progressive prosecutors or proposals to enact new reform legislation but rather the will to make strategic structural changes in order to shift power from system insiders to those communities most impacted by decades of mass incarceration policies. What is needed are lawyers willing to reject the status quo because it requires them to be silent and worse, to be complicit with a system they know is rooted in White supremacy. What is needed are more Courts with the moral fortitude to speak hard truths about the racism within the justice system like the Washington State Supreme Court did when it declared last week (October 11, 2018)  the state’s death penalty was unconstitutional because it was  ” arbitrary and racist.” What is need quite simply is more transformative justice.

Need to request help? Download our community application flyer or visit our Request Help Page to submit an applicaton!

Download the Flyer

Submit an application

In April 2017, The Arizona Supreme Court adopted a rule change regarding pretrial release and bail (Ariz. Rules Crim. Pro. 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3). The Court said all persons charged with a crime but not yet convicted are presumed innocent and must be released pending trial with only general release conditions unless the Judge determines such release will not reasonably assure the person’s appearance or protect the victim, other persons, or the community from risk of harm by the defendant. If the Court makes such a determination, it must impose the least onerous conditions under Rule 7.3 (b) that are reasonable and necessary to protect other persons or the community from the risk posed by the defendant or to secure his court appearance.

The Court may not impose monetary bail that results in unnecessary pre-trial incarceration because the defendant is unable to pay bail. If bail is imposed it must be the least onerous and in the lowest amount from the following list:

1. Unsecured appearance bond (promise to pay a bond upon non-appearance). Defendant is released;
2. Deposit bond (a percentage of bond must be paid). Defendant is released;
3. Secured bond (bail company or personal property is used to pay bond). Defendant is released; and,
4. Cash bond (bail bond paid in cash). Defendant is released.

In spite of this rule change, some Pima County Superior Court judges continue to impose high bonds, resulting in the unnecessary incarceration of poor defendants.

If you are a defendant being held in pretrial detention on a high bond (one beyond your ability to pay), it is imperative that you ask your lawyer to request a bond reduction hearing.

If granted, this procedure allows the Court to review your conditions of release. It might result in a substantial bail reduction and/or the imposition of less onerous non-monetary conditions of release.

National Bail Fund Network Establishes Key Principles For Community Bail And Bond Funds

There is no single right way for a community bail or bond fund to operate. For decades, bail and bond funds have taken on different forms as communities came together to get people back to their families and communities, and restore the presumption of innocence. More recently, community bail and bond funds have developed a more explicit analysis about their role in ending the money bail and pretrial detention systems, while continuing their day-to-day harm reduction work. Community bond funds paying immigration bonds are reuniting families and communities while also fighting the unjust immigration detention system.

Work to end money bail and pretrial detention looks different in jurisdictions across the country, despite having many commonalities. In order to identify core areas of alignment for community bail and bond funds, we’ve drafted the following seven core principles. Many of these principles speak specifically to community bail and bond funds that pay bail and bond within the criminal legal system. There are also community bond funds that pay immigration bonds to free people from federal immigration detention. Criminal bail and bond funds and immigration bond funds have many similarities and increasingly work together to fight mass incarceration, which uses both the criminal and immigration systems to cage people and separate families and communities. The following principles apply to both kinds of funds and their core founding principles, while recognizing that there are differences between criminal bail and bond and immigration bond funds’ connection to larger campaigns to end money bail and pretrial detention.*

We believe that the work of community bail and bond funds should:

Be committed to a goal of ending money bail and pretrial detention, with a clear focus on decarceration and confronting current racial disparities. 

Different jurisdictions are in different phases of ending money bail, so what campaigns look like place to place may be different (examples include: jail closures, policy changes, and enforcement of system changes). We believe that bail and bond funds should be connected to jail/prison abolition work more broadly, as well as to specific local campaigns to end money bail in the criminal context, and pretrial detention in both criminal and immigration contexts.

Be accountable to impacted communities. 

To be positioned as a community-based bail or bond fund, we believe that there must be clarity and transparency about the role community plays, what accountability looks like, and how directly impacted communities and formerly and currently incarcerated individuals’ voices are represented.

Collaborate with larger movement work against mass criminalization and incarceration. 

Although the direct focus of a bail or bond fund may be ending money bail and pretrial detention, we believe that bail and bond funds should be clear about how their work relates to the movement to end mass criminalization and incarceration in general.

Have criteria**that reflect the fund’s goals, and do not perpetuate dichotomies around who is deserving versus undeserving, whether based on type of charge or other factors that reinforce biases within the system and pit those targeted by the system against one another.

We believe that bail and bond funds should be clear about the basis of their payment criteria as well as who established the criteria. This requires transparency around how the criteria will avoid perpetuating good/bad or deserving/undeserving dichotomies, and how it is tied to clear and accountable goals. We also believe it is important that funds are clear about whether funders or other system actors are playing a role in setting a bail or bond fund’s criteria.

Have an analysis about how to address the needs of individuals for support services beyond payment of bail or bond.

Paying bail or bond cannot be a completely discrete action. We believe that bail and bond funds must develop clarity around how they will confront additional issues beyond bail payment that will influence pretrial freedom, e.g. the payment of fines, fees, restitution and connections to support services and community-based resources. We believe that bail and bond funds should position their work within the larger conversation about building new community-based solutions outside of the criminal and immigration detention systems.

Have clarity about their position within the system they are trying to dismantle. 

Bail and bond funds often end up having to coordinate with the same system they are trying to dismantle as they pay bail or bond to free individuals. We believe that funds should develop an analysis on how they will navigate this and, specifically, where their limits are (e.g. will bail and bond funds accept being treated differently from individuals within the system, in order to facilitate the fund’s operations). In jurisdictions where the system itself wants to provide funding or operates its own bail or bond fund, we think it is critical to have an analysis of where the levers of power and change exist.

Be clear about the role of funding sources and funding models in their decision- making processes.

The funds generated to operate a community bail or bond fund often raises a number of issues. In addition to questions around determining criteria (discussed above), we believe that bail and bond funds should be clear about the role of funding sources in other parts of their operations and decision-making. We believe that funding sources and models that place too much emphasis on unrealistic or idealized revolving rates will impact who bail and bond funds pay for (including whether additional fees/penalties that affect freedom can be addressed), and how their work will connect with campaigns to end mass incarceration.

 *We are working to establish additional core principles specific to the larger work to end immigration detention.

**By “criteria,” we mean the selection criteria through which funds choose which people they pay bail or bond for.

TSCCBF is committed to finding local community resources to help defendants being held on high pretrial bail bonds get released. At the same time, the Arizona Supreme Court is urging trial courts to end the use of money bail. Earlier this year we added a “What’s New!” page to our website.

One of the suggestions we felt strongly about was that defendants should demand a bail bond reduction hearing. We set out solid reasons this procedure could help defendants sitting in Pima County Jail on high pretrial bail bonds. (Which is 70% – 80% of the total jail population, most of whom are incarcerated on misdemeanor warrants for failure to appear in justice or city court.) We believed then, and even more so now, that something must be done to end the lengthy pretrial detentions of inmates at Pima County Jail. One day of jail costs Pima County about $85 per inmate, and the average pretrial detention stay for inmates here is 110 days — far more than the average of 23 days in many other jurisdictions.

It is perplexing, given the significant foundation dollars being invested in the reduction of the jail population, that the average number of inmates housed at the Pima County Jail hovers around 1700 per month, when 2100 is the jail’s maximum capacity. It is time Tucsonans demanded a higher inmate reduction goal — we should aim for an average monthly jail population of 700, not 1700. To help achieve this goal, judges must be encouraged to do what the Arizona Supreme Court strongly recommends they do; impose the least onerous conditions of release.

As noted earlier, bail reduction hearing are part of the TSCCBF’s “bail+” strategy for helping to reduce the number of pretrial detainees. However, judges need updated, relevant information about a defendant’s circumstances to justify setting less onerous pretrial release conditions, even after they have decided on an initial bond amount. This realization led us to create a new community resource we are happy to share: BAIL REDUCTION/PRETRIAL RELEASE ADVOCACY.

In the new “Community Resources” section of this website, we have added the name of a local mitigation specialist willing to help indigent defendants held in pretrial detention at the jail, their families, and interested court appointed defense counsel advocate for bond reductions, and more favorable pretrial release conditions generally. (Court appointed counsel is private contract counsel appointed by the Pima County Office of Court Appointed Counsel (OCAC)—not Public Defenders or Legal Defenders, who have different resource capabilities.)

This is an exciting development, and TSCCBF plans to periodically update our new “Community Resources” section with other local non-profits, grassroots groups & coalitions, volunteer programs, and advocacy and support service providers who are also working to end mass incarceration.

Need to request help? Download our community application flyer or visit our Request Help Page to submit an applicaton!

Download the Flyer

Submit an application