 |
HOME |  |
SCHEDULE | |
PROGRAMS | |
KIDS & FAMILY | |
LOCAL | |
SUPPORT KCET | |
ABOUT US | |
SHOP KCET |  |
| About Us | Contact Us | |
 |
|
 |
          |
|
|
 |
 |
||
|
|
Life & Times Transcript
8/23/07 Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times -- Signs of division in the United Way. Why is the group pulling the funds for some nonprofits? Susana Ryan>> We're still trying to figure out what it is and why it is that we're not included. Elise Buik>> We have a duty to the residents of this county and to our donors to always ensure that we're continuing to evaluate how we invest that money. Val Zavala>> And then, a chick flick, a sports pick, and an offbeat romance. Do any of these week's films go beyond the formulas? It's all straight ahead on tonight's Life and Times. Announcer>> Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Val Zavala>> It started a hundred twenty years ago and now United Way is one of the best-known charities in the country. But here in southern California, United Way is making a major change. It's focusing its millions of dollars in charitable giving on one basic issue: poverty. That's important, but as Toni Guinyard tells us, it leaves many other nonprofits empty-handed. Teacher>> "No more monkeys jumping on the bed. How many monkeys on the bed now?" Toni Guinyard>> Nonprofit agencies are quietly working to meet the needs of the people they've chosen to serve, but have you ever wondered about the work being done or how your donation is spent? Teacher>> "Let's count." Students>> "One, two, three, four, five." Toni Guinyard>> In Los Angeles County, agencies and programs like this preschool at La Casa de San Gabriel Community Center have historically relied on getting a percentage of their funds from the United Way. It raises money primarily through workplace campaigns, then distributes the funds. Susana Ryan>> It accounted last year at about fourteen percent of our total budget, so it was about thirty-five thousand dollars that they had been funding for us. Toni Guinyard>> It's money La Casa can no longer depend on. The United Way of Greater Los Angeles is changing the way it does business. It's adopted a ten-year action plan strictly focusing on poverty and the nonprofits now have to submit proposals and compete for funding. Susana Ryan>> So it makes you rethink, you know, what your needs are, how to go get them, and really know that we need to step back, refocus ourselves and then really figure out where we go to get that funding. Toni Guinyard>> Susana Ryan is President of the Board for La Casa de San Gabriel Community Center. Susana Ryan>> So somewhere we got forgotten and I, as President of the Board for La Casa, have to step back and say, "Did I not do something? Did our Board not make sure that our needs, that our programs that the families that we serve weren't identified and put out there in front of people like United Way?" Toni Guinyard>> Fifty-two percent of the one hundred thirty-nine poor agencies chosen to receive funding are new partners. They hadn't received funding from the United Way before. The Downtown Women's Center is one of them. Lisa Watson>> We serve about a hundred forty women a day in our day center and about two thousand women a year. We have a drop-in center where women can come in to receive meals, to take showers, kind of the traditional things that you would think of when you think of a center in Skid Row. Toni Guinyard>> And that's where we met Elise Buik, President and CEO of the United Way of Greater Los Angeles. Elise Buik>> We want to see results, so we're really looking at setting measurable goals for what we're going to try to focus on at the United Way. Toni Guinyard>> It's an attempt to affect policy and take on more of a leadership role. Using the Downtown Women's Center as an example, Buik says that its programs fit the criteria for the United Way's new plan dubbed "Pathways Out Of Poverty". Elise Buik>> We're really focusing on three primary areas, so one is basic needs which is kind of where the legacy of our work has been. It's still very important to us that people have food and housing and health care. But now I think what's newest about the plan is that we're really looking at educational achievement and financial stability for families. Toni Guinyard>> The kind of programs that Dr. George Nalbach believes his agency provides. After all, the Santa Anita Family Service has been a United Way agency, a partner for thirty-nine years, until now. Dr. George Nalbach>> I could see the writing on the wall that things were changing. Toni Guinyard>> The Santa Anita Family Service was de-funded. Dr. George Nalbach>> I have absolutely no problem with what United Way is doing in regards to serving the homeless, helping people learn English and get jobs. I have no problem with that. I'm just saying that there's a lot more going on out here than just that (laughter). Toni Guinyard>> In making no attempt to hide his frustration, Nalbach penned a letter to The Los Angeles Times comparing the break in the agency's relationship with the United Way to a divorce. Dr. George Nalbach>> Problems or no problems, we've been married together for thirty-nine years with the United Way. Toni Guinyard>> He wrote, "What is it about our programs that doesn't cut it anymore?" Dr. George Nalbach>> It feels to me that it's certainly less about supporting community agencies than supporting United Way's vision, whatever they choose the vision to be. Toni Guinyard>> And repeatedly stated to the United Way, "You broke your promise." Dr. George Nalbach>> The United Way was not about competition. It was about, hey, we're going to help you guys meet the needs in your community. Toni Guinyard>> Do you feel as if you broke a promise? Elise Buik>> Well, you know, again, we didn't go into this process lightly. It pains me to have to part ways with long-time nonprofits. But I don't think that our job is to fund nonprofits forever. We have a duty to the residents of this county and to our donors to always ensure that we're continuing to evaluate how we invest that money. Toni Guinyard>> Will your agency apply for United Way funds again? Dr. George Nalbach>> Well, that's a big question. Probably not under the current philosophy, probably not. Toni Guinyard>> To better understand the importance of United Way funding, consider this. A lot of nonprofits apply for and receive government grants, but those have restrictions, strings attached. Susana Ryan>> United Way for us was something that would take on the additional salaries that we had to pay when we have to rush and get something accomplished or to put on those other programs that we make available to the families. Toni Guinyard>> The day we visited, La Casa staff members were called in to help with the distribution of free car seats by the Asian Youth Center, an agency funded by the United Way. It illustrates how the nonprofits, funded and no longer funded, are working together. Susana Ryan>> We're still trying to figure out what it is and why it is that we're not included, but we also recognize that we can't stop. Toni Guinyard>> Agencies that are no longer being funded will still receive some money and support. Elise Buik>> We know that it's really tough to replace funding, so every organization that received a grant that is not receiving a grant in the new proposal will receive a forty percent transition grant. Toni Guinyard>> It's a tough transition. The United Way knows it. Other nonprofits know it. Lisa Watson>> We were sad when the partners who have relied on United Way weren't able to receive funding this round. Susana Ryan>> We're helping these children rethink, you know, and kind of see a future for themselves. Better yet, I think we're learning to take a lesson from that ourselves. We're exactly at that stage right now where we've got to sit down and say, "Who are we?" We've agreed that this is our mission. Now how do we get the funding to move forward? Toni Guinyard>> And that, according to Elise Buik, is the benefit of United Way's new focus. They're focusing agencies to rethink their purpose in an ever-changing community without changing their mission for the sole purpose of securing funding. Elise Buik>> I don't advise any nonprofit to get into mission creep, which is sometimes what happens when people are going after funding. But I would say that we'd like to see an increasing number of nonprofits involve their program into the changing trends. Toni Guinyard>> Trends impacting the lives of people the nonprofit world is determined to help. Dr. George Nalbach>> I still give. I haven't run up and changed my deduction to United Way. You know, if it was sour grapes, I'd tell them, "Here, I'll take my money. I'm not going to give it to you anymore." That's not where I'm at. I will continue to give my usual amount to United Way every year because I believe that they're going to fund some things that I think are important in the world. Toni Guinyard>> The agency he's served twenty-five years may no longer be on United Way's list, but the United Way remains on his. I'm Toni Guinyard for Life and Times. Val Zavala>> So what do you think of this strategic change at United Way of Greater Los Angeles? We'd love to know your opinion. Just go to kcet.org and click on the Life and Times Blog. Announcer>> Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, plus transcripts and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most interesting features. Just go to kcet.org, scroll down the page and click on "Life and Times". Val Zavala>> Should punishment for a crime be based on where you live? Well, that's what's happening in California with juvenile offenders. In fact, if you're a minor who commits a serious crime, you're much more likely to get a longer sentence in Orange County than any other place. And why is that? Roger Cooper went to The Orange County Register to find out. Roger Cooper>> Jenifer McKim, investigative reporter for The Orange County Register, you and a colleague, Monica Rhor, did a long investigation looking into the juvenile justice system. Why did your paper want to take a look at this area? Jenifer McKim>> Well, we decided that we wanted to look at this issue because in 2000 a law was passed, Proposition 21, which allowed prosecutors to charge youths as adults without passing through the juvenile court, so it made it easier for prosecutors to charge youths as adults. When that law was passed, there was a lot of concern that this would be difficult and that it would send a lot of kids into the state prison system. So we decided seven years later to look and see what had happened. Roger Cooper>> Well, approved by a pretty good margin by the voters, Proposition 21 basically is a direct file, they call it, which means that a juvenile judge doesn't even look at this case if the prosecutor, in their discretion, decides to send it to the adult system, right? Jenifer McKim>> That's right. Sixty-two percent of the voters approved this law because they were really afraid at that time that juveniles were dangerous and that they wanted to put a stop to crime involving juveniles. It was a new way to make it a fast-track to adult court without having a juvenile judge look at a kid and say, "Is this a kid who can be rehabilitated? Is this a kid who we should basically just punish and send to the state system?" Roger Cooper>> And basically, you found some geographical disparity in the way this law is being carried out. Orange County uses it a lot. Jenifer McKim>> Absolutely. We received data from the State Department of Justice looking at the county by county data from 2003 to 2005. We found that some counties didn't use it at all. For example, San Francisco and Fresno did not use it at all, but Orange County used it more than anybody else. Roger Cooper>> Can you help me understand, compared to Los Angeles and San Francisco again, just how much it is used here in Orange County? Jenifer McKim>> Sure. We looked at felony crimes per county and realized that Los Angeles, which has a lot more felony crimes, still in numbers did less direct files. But if you consider the amount of felony crime, Orange County was nine times more likely to charge a youth as an adult as Los Angeles. San Francisco didn't charge any. Roger Cooper>> What has been the impact that you found of this disparity in a way this law is used or not used to go to the adult courts? Jenifer McKim>> Well, what we found is that you can have kids in different counties who commit pretty much the exact same crime that will really end up with completely different sentences because of how the prosecutors want to treat youth. Where you have here, they really believe in many cases that you should use this waiver and send kids directly to the adult court, some other counties don't think so. So they'll stay in the juvenile court which is much more focused on rehabilitation for kids. So you'll find a kid in two different counties committing the same crime and one will end up with a long sentence in adult court and another one will be in juvenile court which is more focused on rehabilitation and also they will be released at least by their twenty-fifth birthday. Roger Cooper>> You have a major example. I believe it involves San Jose and Garden Grove. Shootings in each town, an entirely different approach. Jenifer McKim>> Yes, exactly. We found that, in a lot of cases, you have prosecutors in different counties who will find a case where a kid gets involved in some kind of gang fight, but is not the one who is the shooter. He's not the one that shoots someone, but gets involved. The one in San Jose was charged as a juvenile and he was sentenced to the California Youth Authority and will be released at least before his twenty-fifth birthday. The boy here who we were talking about was fourteen years old. They were both fourteen. He's awaiting trial in adult court and could be sentenced for the rest of his life. Roger Cooper>> How is this viewed in the legal community? There are those who think it's a bad thing and others think it's enforcing the law? Jenifer McKim>> I think a lot of the people -- the reason that it was approved by the major district attorneys associations, they said that it basically saves a step for a lot of cases that would go directly to adult court anyway. But juvenile advocates and public defenders say that this step that goes to the juvenile court with a juvenile judge who's used to looking at these cases is an important step. We found that, in about a third of the cases where they went to what they call a fitness hearing in front of a juvenile judge, the case stayed in juvenile court. Roger Cooper>> You interviewed District Attorney Tony Rackauckas who is a big advocate of this. What does he tell you about why he uses it so much in Orange County, the direct file? Jenifer McKim>> Tony Rackauckas believes that it's a useful tool to, as I said, bypass a step in cases that they firmly believe should be going to adult court anyway, cases of homicides and gang crimes and sexual assaults, rather than passing through a fitness hearing, so he thinks that's a good thing. He also believes that a lot of these kids really are adult crimes and they should be in the adult system. Roger Cooper>> On the other hand, some advocates and defense attorneys think this is causing some big injustices among some of these young people. Jenifer McKim>> Exactly. I think when people think about adult crimes in adult court, you're thinking about the youth who really did take the trigger and kill somebody. But when you look at these cases where you have kids who are standing around, considered aiding and abetting legal felony murder, some people would think maybe that's not the kid who belongs in state prison for the rest of their lives. So a lot of the public defenders are saying that some of this initiative is ensnaring youth who would be better served in juvenile court. Roger Cooper>> While there are those in the system who think some injustice is being done, there are some victims who think quite differently. Jenifer McKim>> Absolutely. You have prosecutors and victims associations who say that these youth may be being sent away for ten, twelve, twenty years, but their family member is dead, so that this is fair justice for kids and they believe that this should be done more often than less. Roger Cooper>> Is there any move to change this back, to alter or to modify this effective Proposition 21? Jenifer McKim>> In California, there hasn't been a move to deal with Proposition 21. But right now in the legislature, there's a law to eliminate life without parole for juveniles, for example. So there are definitely moves around the country and people saying that this is really not helping. Also, there was a recent study by the CDC that just came out last month that said that juveniles who go to adult court are thirty-four percent more likely to commit crimes when they get out. Roger Cooper>> Where does the overcrowding of institutions come into this? Jenifer McKim>> There's also that issue, that we have a state that is struggling with overcrowded prisons and we have youths being sent there for decades. Some lawmakers say that that does not make sense, but on the other side, the legislature who really feels that they can't appear soft on crime. So no one at this point is looking at changing these laws. Roger Cooper>> Jenifer McKim, investigative reporter for The Orange County Register, thanks for sharing what you've learned over the past year. Jenifer McKim>> Thank you very much for having me. Announcer>> To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us by mail at this address: Life and Times 4401 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90027 You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org. Ted Chen>> Welcome to FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Ted Chen filling in for Larry Mantle. Our first film this week is an adaptation of the book, "The Nanny Diaries", and it stars Scarlett Johansson and Laura Linney. [Film Clip] Ted Chen>> Joining me this week are critics Andy Klein, film editor of CityBeat, and Jean Oppenheimer of Village Voice Media. Jean, what did you think of "The Nanny Diaries"? Jean Oppenheimer>> I think it's a very mixed bag. Sections of this film are quite entertaining and the other sections are not. I haven't read the book on which it's based, but FilmWeek regular, Lael Loewenstein, has. She told me that it's actually quite different from the movie because the movie is more of a coming of age story of a young college graduate played by Scarlett Johansson who is trying to find herself. The tone of the whole film, well, it's set in this very sort of stylized, candy-colored world and it has a tone of sort of heightened reality, almost a slight surreality. I think the tone was really uneven during the whole film and a big problem is that I didn't feel any empathy for the Scarlett Johansson character, and I felt that the character played by Laura Linney, the really rich woman, was so undimensional. This is a critique, however, more of the script, I think, possibly the directing, rather than the acting. There's also a problem that, for Scarlett Johansson, this is just sort of avoiding adulthood for a while. When you see her set among all the other nannies who are these non-minority, foreign-accented women who are desperate to hold onto these jobs, it makes her less appealing. Ted Chen>> Our next film is the second one to feature the British character of Mr. Bean. Rowan Atkinson returns in "Mr. Bean's Holiday". [Film Clip] Ted Chen>> Andy, what did you think of "Mr. Bean's Holiday"? Andy Klein>> Well, Mr. Bean is definitely an acquired taste and it's one that I haven't entirely acquired yet (laughter). It's very broad. I mean, broad beyond belief almost and I like broad humor. But in this film, he goes around Europe and he just messes everything up which, of course, he always does. Being for like a half hour television show is fine, but for ninety minutes, it gets kind of irritating actually. Rowan Atkinson, I mean, if you like his shtick, then you will probably really respond to this film, but I found it grating for a long portion of it. There are some very funny bits, even for me, but it feels a lot longer than the eighty or eighty-five minutes that it is. Ted Chen>> Our third film stars Josh Hartnett as a reporter writing a story about a former boxer played by Samuel L. Jackson. It's called "Resurrecting the Champ". [Film Clip] Ted Chen>> Jean, your thoughts on "Resurrecting the Champ"? Jean Oppenheimer>> Well, this was another mixed bag to me, but I'd say that overall I liked it. Samuel Jackson is an actor who most people love in everything. I don't. But in this, he really does an absolutely terrific job and it helps to carry the movie. Rod Lurie, the director, I think makes some nice directing choices. And Josh Hartnett who I don't think is the strongest actor in the world, but he's such a likable presence and a likable personality in everything he does that at least I have a certain sympathy for empathy for him. The story tries to draw a parallel, though, between the sort of white lies that the Josh Hartnett character tells his sons and this other bigger lie that is going on in Josh Hartnett's life. What is particularly interesting to me about it is the fact the movie, which is based on something real, is so highly fictionalized that it doesn't really have much to do with the original story. But I think Andy's going to talk about that more. Ted Chen>> Andy, mixed feelings? Andy Klein>> Yeah, I do and fairly similar to Jeanie's. I was really stunned when I did some research after seeing the movie because I'm watching the story which is based on a real magazine article. I thought, "Wow, if this really turned out the way it is in the movie, I would have heard about it." In fact, they've added an entire plot, but that's okay. It's a movie. As long as you know going in that this is not anything close to documentary realism. Yes, I'm one of the people who thinks Sam Jackson's great in everything. This is certainly a real change of pace character for him. He is not Mr. Tough Guy. He doesn't say his signature sort of tough guy line that we all know that I can't say on the air (laughter). I thought Hartnett was okay. I mean, I do have this problem that he served this sort of blank void in the middle of the film generally and it's not an acting issue. I think he's doing what can be done with the role, but there's something very, very bland about him. But this is definitely an entertaining and interesting film. Ted Chen>> Our final film this week is "Dedication". Billy Crudup is a children's author paired with an illustrator played by Mandy Moore. [Film Clip] Ted Chen>> Andy, how did you like "Dedication"? Andy Klein>> I had a real problem with this film. It's directed by the actor, Justin Theroux, who was in "Mulholland Drive" and some other things. It's sort of a romantic comedy, a very cynical romantic comedy. Billy Crudup plays this children's author who is unlikable to start with and then after his partner, Tom Wilkinson, dies, he becomes beyond unlikable. He gets involved with Mandy Moore and you're supposed to be pulling for somehow these two to get together and my reaction was the exact opposite. I was hoping beyond hope that she would find somebody else and move on from this guy because he really struck me as irredeemable. It follows a pattern very much like "As Good As It Gets". I mean, he's a similar kind of character to the Jack Nicholson character. Frankly, in that film, I was rooting for them not to get together, for Helen Hunt to go elsewhere. So if you responded to that one, you might respond to this. Ted Chen>> Jean, what about you? Jean Oppenheimer>> I didn't like the film at all for slightly different reasons than Andy did. There's absolutely no chemistry between Billy Crudup and Mandy Moore. I don't know if the problem is that Mandy Moore can't get away from her sort of wholesome image, you know, or what, but it's not there. Even the kind of friction chemistry that you would want, a kind of sparring, that's not there. Billy Crudup, to me, is one of our finest actors, but you would never know it from this movie. I fault the directing, I guess, and the script. You call him when you want a really nuance, intelligent performance and this is a very broad romantic comedy. He's a phobic guy with a lot of quirks, but it seems so skin deep. There's nothing really behind it. The only good thing to me about the film was Tom Wilkinson who's absolutely wonderful as his initial illustrator. That's the only place and he's not in the film for all that long. Ted Chen>> And that's it for another FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Ted Chen with critics Jean Oppenheimer of Village Voice Media and Andy Klein of CityBeat. Larry Mantle will be back for next week's FilmWeek on Life and Times. Val Zavala>> Tune in to KPCC public radio Fridays at eleven a.m. for a longer version of FilmWeek. And that's our program. I'm Val Zavala. Thanks for watching. We'll see you tomorrow. Announcer>> Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Sponsored in part by:  | |
|
Home | Features | Arts | Health/Science | OC Edition | L&T Blog | Archives | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use |