Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) recently announced the availability of approximately $11.7 million in grant funds to support pre- and post-release services for recently released individuals returning to high-poverty, high-crime communities. Services that can be provided under this grant include job training and employment preparation, mentoring, and assistance connecting recently released individuals to programs and supports, including housing, and substance abuse and mental health treatment. The grant stipulates that recipients will develop employment for in-demand occupations, including “green” jobs. The application deadline is March 17, 2011. To download the solicitation for this grant, click here.
To learn more about employment and reentry, please see the National Reentry Resource Center’s Employment and Education Frequently Asked Questions.
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
I grew up near Chicago when neighboring Wisconsin sold alcohol to 18-year-olds and Illinois didn’t, so it’s disorienting to hear about lawmakers traveling south over the border between those states as an act of rebellion. It just doesn’t seem right.
But then I hear the protests in Madison being compared to the protests in Cairo, and I’m reminded how wrong something can be. The Middle East is fighting for freedom. The Middle West is fighting for freedom from doctor visit co-pays or defined contribution pension plans. Not the same.
To what are people entitled? We wisely listed them up front in our nation’s first document: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Fully funded checkups didn’t make the short list. Freedom did.
But we’re not in Wisconsin. We’re in Oregon. We think there’s no upheaval going on in Oregon that is being caused by extra entitlements being claimed by the public sector. Not true.
In 1994, Oregonians passed a tough-on-crime referendum; Measure 11 got 65 percent of the vote. A 2000 move for repeal was thumped by a 3-to-1 margin.
We passed it to give ourselves something to which we felt entitled: a feeling of safety. Boston had its Tea Party, protesting taxation without representation. Our rebellion was Measure 11, led by demagoguing Kevin Mannix. It made no mention of how we would pay for it. Oregon pioneered “representation without taxation.”
Remember that classic scene from “Blazing Saddles,” where the new sheriff of Brockridge takes himself hostage: “Oh lordy, he’s desperate. Do what he say, do what he say!” That’s us, slowly robbing from ourselves, insisting that we’re not bluffing, frightening passers-by that we’re “just crazy enough to do it.”
We put people away, often for long periods, for nonviolent crimes, because removing them from society was easier that making them into productive citizens. But recently, the strategy has come back into view.
A draft report on the efficacy of Measure 11 has been circulating this month, and 11 has not performed as promised. But never mind recidivism rates and sentence standardization; refocus on the public entitlement behind it.
Did you get what you expected? Do you feel safer? Has it been worth it?
Did you answer yes to all three questions? Great. Now look at what that money used to buy, but can’t.
It costs $36,060 to keep one Oregonian behind bars for a year, according to the U.S. Justice Department. The University of Oregon estimates that a year of tuition, plus room and board, will cost an in-state student $26,200. The U.S. Census pegs Oregon’s per capita wage income at $20,940.
Think of it this way: If two Oregonians adopted one inmate for a year, the two not in prison would have $5,820 left to live on for a year, after paying the costs of the incarcerated one — assuming no taxes for any other purpose.
The corrections budget has swelled to 11 percent of the general fund. All the trends point in the wrong direction.
At a time when Oregon lacks affordable housing across the state, we the people find ourselves paying more and more for fully subsidized unaffordable housing. The squeeze on the state’s budget leaves less money for schools, which means fewer teachers.
Eventually, we won’t be able to afford any teachers in our schools. But don’t blame the unions unless you also blame yourself, because your taxes are increasingly devoted to building and maintaining an alternative to education.
What you call a school where attendance is required but supervision is limited to hall monitors? A prison.
We claim we’re stuck, but we’re not. We the people can repeal Measure 11, or we can raise our taxes. We can reinvest in education, affordable housing and social services — expenditures that are proven to reduce prison populations. We can learn from our mistake and correct course.
If we get a remedy on the ballot, I hope those who like the status quo in Oregon will follow the lead of Wisconsin lawmakers. I hope they flee the state while the rest of us vote.
Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a weekly column for The Register-Guard and blogs at www.dksez.com.
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
Senior officials from the Department of Justice, reentry experts, formerly incarcerated individuals, victims, and representatives of programs receiving federal funding through the Second Chance Act (Public Law 110-199) came together today for a three-day conference, convened by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, to share strategies that increase success rates for people released from prisons, jails, and juvenile correctional facilities.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that more than 725,000 people were released from state prisons in 2009 alone (the most recently published statistics). Half of these individuals are expected to be reincarcerated within three years. One of the fastest growing categories of prison admissions consists of people who are already under some form of community supervision.
With support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice, this second annual national conference for Second Chance Act grantees has been convened to help frontline professionals learn from experts and peers. The conference, attended by more than 600 reentry practitioners and experts, will highlight best practices and promising approaches that help make a person’s transition from a correctional facility to the community safe and successful.
“Nearly everyone in prison and jail will someday return to the community, and it is critical that we recognize and prepare for this reality,” said BJA Acting Director James H. Burch, II. “The justice professionals invited to this conference are on the cutting edge of our justice system’s most significant challenge—to increase public safety, strengthen communities, and reduce costs by ensuring that those released from secure confinement do not reoffend and have every opportunity to succeed in the community.”
The U.S. Department of Justice continues to make reentry—and collaboration among reentry partners—a high priority. Attorney General Eric Holder recently convened a cabinet-level Reentry Council, with the Secretaries of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and the Interior; as well as the heads of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Social Security Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the White House Domestic Policy Council, and the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance also oversees the grant programs that provide technical assistance, practical resources, and direct support for individuals and agencies committed to the safe and effective reintegration of people leaving prisons and jails to their communities.
The reentry conference is designed to build the knowledge base of what works to reduce crime and help returning individuals remain contributing members of neighborhoods and families. Information exchanges will help grantees make the most of the federal investment in their programs by highlighting accountability issues and key practices. Among the topics that will be addressed are properly assessing an individual’s risk for committing future crimes, designing data-driven programs, and effectively allocating limited resources for people returning from prisons and jails. Special attention is paid to sharing strategies that meet the unique needs of youth returning to schools and families after detention in a secure facility in an effort to interrupt the cycle of crime and incarceration.
“With states facing intense budget cuts, we simply cannot afford to invest in the status quo, in which people cycle in and out of prisons and jails without positive effect,” said CSG Justice Center board member Michael Lawlor, Undersecretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning at the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. “The Second Chance Act reflects the commitment of leaders in Congress and the Department of Justice to foster new thinking in local, state, and tribal governments about how to break this cycle and get people back on their feet. This conference provides the ideal forum for these ideas to be heard by the front-line practitioners who will make a difference in our communities.”
The National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) provides education, training, and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, local governments, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and corrections institutions working on prisoner reentry. The NRRC is coordinated by the CSG Justice Center, with support from BJA. For more information, visit www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org. For more about the CSG Justice Center, see www.justicecenter.csg.org.
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
Prosecutors and lawmakers endorsed a bill Monday that would remove special legal protection for parents who treat seriously ill children with faith healing instead of providing medical treatment.
Clackamas County District Attorney John Foote and others told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 2721 would help halt needless, avoidable child deaths.
“Oregon’s current laws reward … fanaticism,” said Rita Swan of Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, a group focused on child abuse and neglect among faith healers. “Repealing these religious exemptions gives … all parents the same duty to provide medical care.”
The bill is a response to the Followers of Christ, an Oregon City church with a long history of children dying from treatable medical conditions. It would remove spiritual treatment as a defense against all homicide charges and subject parents to mandatory sentencing under Oregon’s Measure 11.
Supporters of the bill made two main points. It will eliminate exemptions that give one class of parents — those who exclusively practice faith healing — special rights. And it puts more pressure on the most extreme members of the Followers of Christ church to provide medical care for seriously ill children.
In the past two years, Clackamas County prosecuted two couples for failing to provide medical care for dying children. Two other couples are awaiting trial, accused of criminal mistreatment and second-degree manslaughter.
While many church members have abandoned their strict adherence to faith-healing, there are many rigid believers who refuse to do so, Foote said.
“It’s time to hold all parents to the same standard,” said Rep. Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie, one of the bill’s sponsors.
The Christian Science Church, which previously lobbied for religious exemptions to Oregon’s criminal statutes, supports the legislation.
Tomei said she expects the proposal to receive broad support in the House and Senate, where it has the backing of Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, who also testified in favor of the bill.
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
Oregon’s district attorneys, including Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner, are objecting to a state Criminal Justice Commission draft report on Measure 11, the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing law.
Gardner and Walt Beglau, Marion County District Attorney and president of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, criticized the yet-to-be-finished analysis of the 1994 law. The commission chairman, however, on Tuesday defended the work.
Measure 11 sets mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, including murder, rape kidnapping, manslaughter and robbery.
The draft report, written by commission executive director Craig Prins, concluded that Measure 11 has shifted from judges to prosecutors the authority to sentence criminals. And, in spite of the claims of measure backers, the law hasn’t led to consistent sentencing and doesn’t deter people from committing crimes, said the draft report, which was released last week.
Gardner said the report is “more anti-Measure 11 advocacy than balanced, scientific analysis.”
Beglau, one of nine commissioners appointed by the governor to direct the 10-employee Criminal Justice Commission, said agency staff failed to solicit the opinions of district attorneys and other law enforcement authorities as they conducted research for the report.
Commission Chairman Darryl Larson, a former Lane County Circuit Court judge, said the analysis relies on crime data, not opinions, and that it confirms what many people in the criminal justice system suspected was the case — that Measure 11 gives prosecutors more control over sentencing than they had before the law took effect in 1995.
“It’s still hard for me to understand what their complaint is,” Larson said of district attorneys.
Beglau, Larson and the other commissioners will discuss their differences on Thursday, during a commission meeting in Salem.
Larson said he hopes the report will be completed by mid March.
In his critique of the draft report, Beglau wrote that with Measure 11, Oregon still ranks 30th in the nation in the percentage of felony offenders sentenced to prison.
The vast majority of prison inmates in Oregon are there because they committed violent or sexual crimes, he wrote.
Even though Measure 11 increased prison sentences, Beglau wrote that the state’s homicide sentences are slightly below the national average and its sentences for other violent crimes are shorter than national averages. For example, the average national sex crime sentence is 129 months, but it’s only 86 months in Oregon, Beglau wrote.
In their review, commission analysts looked at sentencing trends from 1995 to 2008. During that time, 28 percent of people indicted for a Measure 11 crime were convicted of the most serious charge against them and received the mandatory minimum sentence required by the law, analysts found. Only in those cases did the law “accomplish the goal” of Measure 11 proponents by requiring judges to impose the minimum mandatory sentences, the draft report said.
In the remaining 72 percent of the cases, prosecutors agreed to plea bargains or sought convictions on lesser charges that did not require the minimum mandatory Measure 11 sentences, the report said.
“This report makes clear the effect of the law was to push tough choices about what the sentence should be in an individual case to the executive branch (state prosecutors),” the report said. “It marginalized the role of the judge in the sentencing process.”
Critics of Measure 11 say fear of the measure’s stiff sentences often prompts accused criminals to accept a plea bargain rather than go to trial.
But Gardner said prosecutors have always had the ability to plea bargain. In most Oregon communities, as many as 95 percent of cases are “resolved via negotiation,” he said.
“If that were not the case the system would grind to a halt, as none of the system components has the capacity to manage litigation of every case,” Gardner said.
The district attorneys association “reminded everybody of this fact when the preposterous cost projections for Measure 11 were published in 1994.”
Measure 11 is not perfect, Gardner said, “and there have been collaborative efforts to improve it over time, but it has done a lot to improve community safety in Oregon.”
Larson said district attorneys appear resistant to examining how Measure 11 is working.
Commission staff proposed the Measure 11 analysis, and all the commissioners, except Beglau, “thought it was a great idea,” Larson said.
The district attorneys association “didn’t even want us to look at it,” he said.
In his letter, Beglau said he hoped his association’s concerns would influence the final report. “We hope this moment represents an opportunity to develop collaborative dialogue around sentencing in Oregon with the entire public safety system, legislators and the public,” he wrote.
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
Measure 11, Oregon’s mandatory minimum prison sentencing law, hasn’t delivered what it promised, according to a draft state report that is raising the hackles of crime-victim advocates.
The report, released to people outside state government earlier than a majority of the seven-member Oregon Criminal Justice Commission wanted, concluded that the law has shifted from judges to prosecutors the authority to sentence criminals. And, in spite of proponents’ claims, the law hasn’t led to consistent sentencing and doesn’t deter people from committing crimes, according to the study, written by Criminal Justice Commission Director Craig Prins.
Prison sentence reform advocates praised the report for its analysis of Measure 11, which establishes mandatory minimum sentences for violent and sex crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping and robbery.
But crime-victim advocates said the study is not the impartial analysis expected from a state agency.
“One need read no further than the first page to understand this report is a one-sided attack that takes every opportunity to amplify perceived problems with Measure 11, while glossing over minor details like the fact that Oregon’s violent crime rate has decreased by an astounding 51.2 percent since Measure 11 went into effect,” Howard Rodstein, a policy analyst with Oregon-based Crime Victims United advocacy group, wrote in a rebuttal to the report.
Crime Victims United does not believe that Measure 11 is solely responsible for the drop in violent crime, Rodstein wrote, “but we do believe that it made a substantial contribution to that decrease.”
The controversy comes as elected officials continue to evaluate the impact of mandatory sentencing on the state budget. By increasing incarceration, mandatory sentencing can drive up state prison costs.
To curb prison spending, Gov. John Kitzhaber has proposed revising or delaying implementation of Measure 57 sentencing laws passed by voters in 2008. Kitzhaber also wants to revise last year’s Measure 73, which sets longer sentences for repeat drunk drivers and sex offenders.
He wants the Legislature to review the mandatory minimum sentences imposed by Measure 11 for juvenile offenders older than 15.
Measure 11 has been heavily debated ever since voters approved it to take effect in 1995.
Commission Chairman Darryl Larson, a retired Lane County Circuit Court judge, said he’s disappointed that controversy has erupted before the commission has completed the report.
But any criticism of Measure 11 is controversial, he said. “It’s like the third rail of Oregon government. Even if you have the temerity to talk about Measure 11, you go to the mattresses and start World War III. It’s just ridiculous.”
Marion County District Attorney Walt Beglau, a commission member and president of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, distributed the draft report, Larson said. “I presume he wanted feedback from his compatriots” about the report, he said.
Beglau could not be reached for comment Friday.
The commission released a copy to The Register-Guard in response to a public records request from the paper.
With regard to juvenile offenders, the commission’s study said that, given the seriousness of the crimes, most of the 250 to 350 juvenile offenders between the ages of 15 and 24 incarcerated by the Oregon Youth Authority would have been locked up anyway. However, Measure 11 lengthened their time in custody, the report said.
Commission analysts looked at Measure 11 sentencing trends from 1995 to 2008. During that time, only 28 percent of people indicted for a Measure 11 crime were convicted of the most serious charge against them and received the mandatory sentence required by the law, the study found.
In the remaining 72 percent of cases, prosecutors agreed to plea bargains or sought convictions on lesser charges that did not require the mandatory minimum sentences, the report said. Suspects may be more inclined to accept plea deals when they face the threat of stiff Measure 11 sentences.
Measure 11 “shifted control of the sentencing process from the judge to the prosecutor, but gave no guidance as to what sentence was appropriate,” the report said.
The study also challenged the Measure 11 claim that the law would deter criminals.
“If deterrence works, it eliminates the need for the punishment because the criminal act is prevented,” the report said. “That two thousand offenders are indicted every year for (Measure) 11 crimes is an indication that it did not work in those cases.”
But the study also said Measure 11 led to much lower demand for new jail beds than was originally predicted.
Upon passage of the law, state officials estimated that more than 9,000 additional jail beds would be needed to handle the growth in the number of inmates.
But the sentencing guidelines have only increased the prison population by about 2,900 inmates, the analysis said, mainly because prosecutors are using their discretion to plead down a greater than expected percentage of cases to non-mandatory sentences.
Measure 11 was supposed to be applied uniformly across Oregon, but the study showed disparities in how the law is used in urban and rural counties.
The state’s five most populous counties including Lane, convicted a higher percentage of offenders of the most serious Measure 11 crimes than the remaining 31 counties, the report said.
Larson, who was a Lane County prosecutor before becoming a judge, said he regrets the release of the draft report because the commission has not completed its editing of the document.
The facts and figures of the report are complete, but more work needs to be done on how the findings are portrayed in the executive summary, Larson said.
The report won’t be complete until the end of March, he said.
“This is going to be a valuable report for policy-makers and the people that are thinking about Measure 11,” Larson said.
David Rogers, executive director of Partners for Safety & Justice, a sentencing-reform group, said the report is useful because it shows inconsistencies in the law.
“It’s kind of ironic that Measure 11 was billed as a being a consistent force for justice, but there is nothing consistent about how it’s been implemented and how charges and sentences are distributed across the state,” he said.
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
Hundreds of Oregon juvenile offenders are scheduled to be released into less-restrictive environments and hundreds more now under supervision could be released back into their communities.
That’s the likely result of a major budget cut to the Oregon Youth Authority proposed by Gov. John Kitzhaber on Tuesday as part of his attempt to bridge a $3.5 billion budget gap that could expand with the next economic forecast.
The youth authority is scheduled to lose 425 beds, all of those likely coming from offenders who were put under supervision at the discretion of a judge.
Oregon Youth Authority spokeswoman Ann Snyder said the youth authority’s most serious offenders won’t be released, and those who were sent to the system by a judge — as opposed to a sentence from the Department of Corrections — will be moved into the less-restrictive environments.
“There is no situation where youth with simply be moved out of a facility and put into the community without supervision,” Snyder said.
Snyder said the Legislature could do away with the cuts in its current session, or at least dampen their severity. The agency took a $33 million cut in Kitzhaber’s budget proposal, down almost 13 percent to about $231 million for the biennium that begins on July 1.
Snyder said the agency doesn’t have a clear picture yet of how many of its employees it will lay off, or whether it will need to shutter one of its 11 state facilities.
The youth authority has been down this road before. In 2003, facing serious budget deficits, the state cut the youth authority’s funding and its discretionary beds fell from more than 600 to about 350.
The economy recovered and beds were added back while demand grew.
Last year, cuts loomed again. In September and again in December, the Legislature’s Emergency Board set aside millions to keep the Oregon Youth Authority from having layoffs or reducing beds through April.
The youth authority supervises about 900 offenders of three types. The first two types are sent to them by the Department of Corrections or are considered the most serious youth offenders, and the state orders that each must be housed by the youth authority.
But a third type of offender is considered part of the “discretionary bed allocation,” for which each county in Oregon can send a set number of its juvenile offenders. The discretionary beds are the ones likely to be cut, and some juvenile offenders who would otherwise spend time in a correctional facility will now get a more lenient form of supervision.
Yamhill County Juvenile Department Director Tim Loewen said each county will have to find a way to deal with its individual juvenile justice problem.
“That’s the $24 question,” Loewen said. “Folks have to come up with alternatives. When resources at the state level are diminishing, they’re likely diminishing at the county level. That presents a really big issue.”
Loewen said poorer counties could alleviate overcrowding in their juvenile justice facilities by simply not prosecuting lower-level offenses like property and drug crimes.
“For counties in far eastern Oregon who have more limited resources, when they’re dealing with chronic offenders and have no detention space to keep them, they’re relying on the pooling of discretionary beds,” Loewen said. “This (cut) could pose a very dire issue on how they deal with either violent or repeat offenders.”
Snyder said that the youth authority will conduct a review of each of its youth offenders to determine which ones are most ready for an early release into supervised care. If the Legislature doesn’t help out with emergency dollars, the agency is supposed to have its cuts in place by Oct. 1.
The Oregon Youth Authority was created by a Senate bill in 1995 that sought to separate the juvenile corrections system from the one for child welfare. The voters’ approval of Measure 11 in 1994 also created a fixed, tiered system of sentences for juvenile offenders.
Because Measure 11 brought about mandatory sentences for juveniles, the number Department of Corrections offenders skyrocketed through the 1990s to about 300, and reached almost 400 in April 2009.
According to the youth authority’s forecasting, juvenile crime has dropped significantly from a peak in the mid-1990s, and has remained level since the early 2000s.
The Oregon Youth Authority’s demand for beds stands at 960, and is forecast to remain at about 1,000 for the rest of the decade.
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber has proposed a state budget that would close a spending gap without tax increases.
Kitzhaber had hinted he would ask for steep cuts to health care, education and public safety – but schools and many state agencies would get roughly the same amount of money allotted in the current budget.
The governor’s 2011-13 budget proposes spending about $14.5 billion in general fund and lottery revenue, up about 8 percent from the current $13.5 billion two-year budget.
His school funding proposal is $5.56 billion, even with some recommended changes such as consolidating school districts, is short of the $5.8 billion education lobbyists say is needed.
Kitzhaber News Conference Announcing the Budget Plan
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News ,
Through expert analysis and first-hand testimony from children, parents and care-givers, Children on the Outside: Voicing the Pain and Human Costs of Parental Incarceration uncovers the devastating impact of parental incarceration on youth and the broader community and points to smart approaches to reduce prison populations and assist children. This new Justice Strategies report provides first-hand accounts of the harm experienced by some of the 1.7 million minor children with a parent in prison, a population that has grown with the explosion of the U.S. prison population.
When they do time we also do time. Just because we’re not in there doesn’t mean we don’t do time. Because you’re not with us, we also do time[.]
Araya, a teen girl with an incarcerated father.
The report details the challenges faced by children of incarcerated parents whose experience of grief and loss is compounded by economic insecurity, family instability, a compromised sense of self-worth, attachment and trust problems, and social stigmatization when their parents are incarcerated. The report outlines the ways in which parental incarceration can influence negative outcomes for youth, including mental health problems, possible school failure and unemployment, and antisocial and delinquent behavior.
As with the punitive consequences of our mandatory sentencing and mass incarceration policies, the impact of parental incarceration falls disproportionately on children of color. African American children are seven times and Latino children two and half times more likely to have a parent in prison than white children. The estimated risk of parental imprisonment for white children by the age of 14 is one in 25, while for black children it is one in four by the same age.
Prepared by Patricia Allard and Judith Greene, “Children on the Outside” urges a shift from failed “tough on crime” policies toward a public health and safety strategy that includes evidence-based treatment options and reducing reliance on incarceration. The report provides concrete steps to moderate the negative impact of parental incarceration on children and points to existing and promising approaches for cost-effective criminal justice policies that promote community health and safety. To illustrate this point the report compares New York, which has downsized prisons through drug reform, saved money, and seen larger decreases in crime with Alabama, a state with higher incarceration rates.
Key findings from the report include:
The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that by 2007, more than half (53 percent) of the 1.5 million prisoners in the U.S. were parents of minor children – translating into more than 1.7 million children with an incarcerated parent. This represents an increase of 80 percent since 1991.
Nearly one quarter of these children are age four or younger, and more than a third will become adults while their parent remains behind bars.
Parental imprisonment is associated with:
- Three times the odds that children will engage in antisocial or delinquent behavior (violence or drug abuse).
- Negative outcomes as children and adults (school failure and unemployment).
- Twice the odds of developing serious mental health problems.
Data compiled at BJS shows that the acute problem of racial disparity behind bars is also reflected among the children of incarcerated parents, with black children seven and a half times more likely than white children to have a parent in prison.
While only one in 25 white children born in 1990 had a parent who was imprisoned, one in four black children born that year had a parent imprisoned.
DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE
Loading ...