Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02292016 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE ***SPECIAL MEETING*** February 29, 2016 9:00 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee 1.Introductions 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). 3. APPROVE Record of Action from the February 8, 2016 meeting. (Page 4) 4. RECEIVE update on proposed next steps to implement a Disproportionate Minority Contact effort within the County. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 13) 5. CONSIDER reviewing and approving fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 Community Advisory Board (CAB) budget recommendations for integration into requests for proposal to be released for a new three year contract period beginning July 1, 2016. (Donte Blue, County Reentry Coordinator) (Page 242) 6. CONSIDER approving and authorizing the County Administrator, or designee, to conduct a comprehensive, multi-year request for proposals/qualifications process to implement the community programs allocation of the FY 2016/17 AB 109 budget and adopt related recommendations. (Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator) (Page 245) 0. CONSIDER approving the calendar year 2015 Public Protection Committee Annual Report for submission to the Board of Supervisors and approve the calendar year 2016 Public Protection Committee work plan. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 345) 7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM. 8.Adjourn The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:02/29/2016 Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - February 8, 2016 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - February 8, 2016 Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 Referral History: County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its February 8, 2016 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the February 8, 2016 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - February 8, 2016 BGO Waiver Request Page 4 of 354 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE February 8, 2016 9:00 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez ***RECORD OF ACTION*** Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee Present: Candace Andersen, Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Staff Present: David J. Twa, County Administrator Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator-Committee Staff Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator 1. Introductions Convene - 10:01 AM 2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). No public comment. 3. APPROVE Record of Action from the December 14, 2015 meeting. Approved as presented Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 4. REVIEW and APPROVE fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 budget recommendations for integration into the fiscal year 2016/17 County Recommended Budget for consideration by the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the CCP-Executive Committee. Approved as presented by the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee with the following additions: 1. Fund an additional $500,000 to the Community Advisory Board (CAB) and direct the CAB to determine how the funding will be allocated to community based programming for purposes of conducting a Request for Proposals. Report back to the Public Protection Committee at the February 29, 2016 meeting. 2. Fund an additional $110,000 to the District Attorney's Office for the proposed Ceasefire program. Page 5 of 354 Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 5. CONSIDER approving a proposed framework for the distribution of fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Qs) and provide feedback to staff. (Lara DeLaney, County Administrator's Office) The Committee reviewed and approved a waiver from the Better Government Ordinance to include additional materials related to this item. The waiver request and materials are posted on the Public Protection Committee website and attached to the Record of Action for reference. Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed The staff report and recommendations were approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Return to the February 29, 2016 Committee meeting to discuss the Request for Proposals/Qualifications along with the Community Advisory Board (CAB) proposal on how to allocate FY 2016/17 AB 109 Community Programming funding. Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 6. The next meeting is currently scheduled for February 29, 2016 at 9:00 am. 7. Adjourn Adjourn - 12:20 PM The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us Page 6 of 354 Page 7 of 354 - 1 - OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Public Protection Committee Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair FROM: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator DATE: February 4, 2016 SUBJECT: Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Request for Qualifications (RFQs) for AB 109 Community Programs RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER approving a proposed framework for the distribution of fiscal year 2016/17 AB 109 Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Qs) and provide feedback to staff. 2. REVIEW the proposed Draft Timeline for the Process. 3. REVIEW the proposed Review Panel composition for the RFP Process. BACKGROUND In 2011, the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill 109), which transferred responsibility for supervising specific low- level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to counties. This Act tasked local government at the county level with developing a new approach to reducing recidivism among certain low-level felony criminal offenders. AB 109 took effect October 1, 2011 and realigned three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation: Transferred the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail pursuant to Penal Code 1170 (h) and provides for an expanded role for post-release Mandatory Supervision for these offenders; Transferred responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the Page 8 of 354 - 2 - county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post- Release Community Supervision (PRCS); Transferred the housing responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail custody. AB 109 also tasked the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) with recommending to the County Board of Supervisors a plan for implementing Public Safety Realignment. On November 9, 2012, the CCP Executive Committee adopted a finalized Operational Plan. On January 22, 2016 the CCP Executive Committee adopted a FY 2016-17 Public Safety Realignment Budget for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The recommended FY 2016-17 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget includes $4,020,036 for Community Programs as follows: Employment Support and Placement Services $2,000,000 Support of WCRSC & Central-East Reentry Network $1,225,036 Short and Long-Term Housing Access $500,000 Peer and Mentoring Services $110,000 Family Reunification Services $90,000 Legal Services $80,000 Development of a “Reentry Resource Guide” $15,000 In addition, the CCP Executive Committee recommended an additional appropriation of $160,000 (approximately 4%) to the AB 109 Community Programs, to be allocated among the Community Program service areas upon the advice of its Community Advisory Board (CAB). The CAB is apparently not expected to take action on its recommended allocations until its Feb. 11, 2016 meeting. In its Budget request to the CCP, the CAB recommended that the County undertake an RFP/RFQ process for the contracts that will commence in FY 16-17 for the following services: 1. Employment Support and Placement 2. Housing 3. Civil Legal Services 4. Family Reunification 5. Mentoring Services 6. Data/Program Evaluation (Note: The CAO’s office is proposing an update to the County’s Reentry Strategic Plan, an update of the County’s AB 109 Operations Plan, and the implementation of the AB 109 Annual Report for the FY 16-17 program evaluation and implementation support services.) Page 9 of 354 - 3 - 7. Jail to Community Services (Note: The funding for the Jail-to-Community services is provided in the Sheriff’s Office budget and not administered through the CAO’s office, as are the Community Programs contracts.) The CAB further recommended that contracts be structured as multi-year (3 years recommended) contracts. The CAO’s office administers the Community Programs contracts and has done so since 2013, when RFPs/RFQs were initially undertaken. Other recommendations from the CAB regarding the procurement process included: 1. For the RFP development process, the CAO should include the Network Manager, the Success Center Director, the County Reentry Coordinator, a member of the CAB, and a member of the CCP. 2. RFP/RFQs should include trauma informed principles, practices, and competencies as preference points and should be established as contractual requirements. 3. Responding organizations should be required to demonstrate cultural competency to engage and provide services to Contra Costa’s formerly incarcerated population and their families. 4. The RFP/RFQ process should seek to encourage meaningful collaboration among organizations for the more integrated and efficient delivery of services (allowing a proposal to respond to more than one service area; allowing a proposal to include multiple partners—which the RFP/RFQs presently allow). The CAO’s office proposes using the original RFP/Qs developed for the current Community Program contracts as the starting point for the RFP/Q development process and incorporate the recommendations of the CAB. Staff will research RFP/Qs issued in other counties in California for reentry services for procurement best practices. Staff will also seek to broaden its RFP/Q notification process, to ensure that as many service providers as possible are notified about the opportunity. CAO staff recommends that one RFP be issued for Mentoring and Family Reunification services, rather than two separate RFPs. Proposed Timeline of RFP Process The Proposed Timeline of the RFP/RFQ process envisions a process that from date of issuance to Board of Supervisors award would last approximately two months. If there is strict adherence to the timeline, the Board of Supervisors would be authorizing contracts for services at their May 10, 2016 meeting, and Page 10 of 354 - 4 - staff would be executing contracts to begin on July 1, 2016, with a contract term running through June 30, 2019. AB 109 RFP/RFQs Timeline Event Date RFPs Issued March 1, 2016 Bidders Conference #1: West County week of Mar. 7 Bidders Conference #2: East County week of Mar. 7 Bidders Conference #3: Central County week of Mar. 7 Written Questions Due from bidders Mar. 14 Addendum Issued Mar. 16 Responses Due April 1, 2016 Evaluation Period April 4‐8, 2016 Vendor Interviews April 11‐15, 2016 Results Letter Issued April 15, 2016 Appeal Period April 18‐22 CCP Reviews Results May 6, 2016 Public Protection Reviews Results April 25, 2016 Board Award Date May 10, 2016 Contract Start Date July 1, 2016 Note that due to the 2016 Public Protection Committee and CCP meeting schedules (whereupon the CCP meets every other month and the PPC meets on the 4th Monday of each month), at the conclusion of the Evaluation and Award Recommendation process in April, following the prior protocol of sending the results to the CCP before sending the results to the PPC would mean that the PPC, barring any schedule change, would not act upon the results until its May 23, 2016 meeting, pushing out the Board of Supervisors contract award date until June 7, 2016. This would allow only 3 weeks for contract development. Staff is therefore recommending that the PPC review the results at its April 25 meeting and conditionally accept them upon the concurrence of the CCP, at its May 6, 2016 meeting. If the CCP does not concur with the results, the matter can be further reviewed at the PPC’s May 23, 2016 meeting. Proposed Review Panel Participants To conduct the proposal evaluation and vendor interview process, Review Panels will need to be established. The following members are proposed: 1. Chief of Probation Philip Kader or Assistant Chief Todd Billeci 2. Lara DeLaney representing the CAO’s office. Page 11 of 354 - 5 - 3. A Reentry Coordinator from a neighboring County. 4. A Member of the CAB 5. A subject matter expert in each of the service areas 6. A formerly incarcerated person or family member of a formerly incarcerated person CAO staff proposes that the County Reentry Coordinator, Donte Blue, facilitate the Review Panel process. Page 12 of 354 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:02/29/2016 Subject:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE COALITION Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE COALITION Presenter: Supervisor Gioia Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 Referral History: On April 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors received a letter (attached) from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition requesting review of topics within the local criminal justice system. The Public Protection Committee (PPC) generally hears all matters related to public safety within the County. On July 6, 2015, the Committee initiated discussion regarding this referral and directed staff to research certain items identified in the Coalition's letter to the Board of Supervisors and return to the Committee in September 2015. On September 14, 2015, the Committee received a comprehensive report from staff on current data related to race in the Contra Costa County criminal justice system, information regarding the County's Workplace Diversity Training and information regarding diversity and implicit bias trainings and presentations from across the country. On December 14, 2015, the Committee received an update from the Public Defender, District Attorney and Probation Department on how best to proceed with an update to the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) report completed in 2008. At that time, the concept of establishing a new task force was discussed. The Committee directed to three departments above to provide a written project scope and task force composition to the Committee for final review. Information from the December report has been included in today's packet to support the discussion, including: Attachment A – Contra Costa County data on race in criminal justice The attachment includes: Summary of race data in criminal justice systems in Contra Costa County Contra Costa County population estimates Probation Department data on Pretrial, AB 109 adult and juvenile probation populations Superior Court data on criminal case filings and jury service Note: The Sheriff’s Office made efforts to provide data on arrested individuals booked into Page 13 of 354 County detention facilities but was unable to complete the report by the time of publication of this agenda. Attachment B - San Francisco Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis Related article: http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2015/06/study-shocking-racial-disparities-in-sf-courts/ Attachment C – Contra Costa County’s workplace diversity training The attachment includes: Summary of eLearning vendor Target Solutions' Workplace Diversity training materials Risk Management memo on diversity training, including completion data by department Board policy on required sexual harassment and workplace diversity training Attachment D – Other Diversity and Implicit Bias trainings and presentations The attachment includes: Governing for Racial Equity (GRE) Conference presentation on Incorporating Race and Justice Principals into Criminal Justice System Policies. The GRE Network is a regional consortium of government, philanthropy, higher education and the community partnering to achieve racial equity. The GRE Network brings together public sector employees from across the U.S. to end institutional and structural racism, strengthen regional alliances, and increase public will to achieve racial equity. The 2015 conference took place on June 11 & 12 in Seattle, Washington. EmTrain’s guide to the online training on Fostering a Diverse & Inclusive Workplace. EmTrain is San Mateo County’s online training vendor and is an approved provider of continuing education. King County participant’s guide to their workshop on Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat. Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) presentation on Equity in Government. GARE Director Julie Nelson conducts trainings with elected officials, housing, police officers, commissioners and others that is focused on normalizing conversations about race (delineating the differences between implicit and explicit bias and individual, institutional and structural racism), organizing within institutions and with the community and operationalizing equity. GARE will be launching a year-long learning cohort for jurisdictions in the Bay Area that are at the beginning phases of working on racial equity. For more information, please contact Julie Nelson, Director of the Government Alliance on Race and Equity, at julie.nelson62@gmail.com or (206) 816-5104. At the November 9, 2015 meeting, the Committee received a brief presentation reintroducing the referral to the Committee and providing an update on how the DMC report compares with the statistical data presented at the September meeting. Following discussion, the Committee directed staff to return in December 2015 following discussions between the County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender with thoughts about how to approach a new DMC initiative in the County. Referral Update: The County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender have provided a written Page 14 of 354 The County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender have provided a written description of the task force discussed at the December 2015 meeting and will be available to discuss this issue further at today's meeting. At this point, Committee staff will be requesting that the Committee forward it's research, findings and recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors for review, further discussion and potential approval. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. RECEIVE update on proposed next steps to implement a Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) effort within the County. 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments Racial Justice Taskforce Recommendation - December 21, 2015 November 2015 - PowerPoint Presentation Attachment A – Contra Costa County data on race in criminal justice Attachment B - San Francisco Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis Attachment C - County Workplace Diversity Training Attachment D – Other Diversity and Implicit Bias trainings and presentations Letter from Racial Justice Coalition April 7, 2015 BSCC Press Release: 2016 Implicit Bias Grant, September 17, 2015 Report: Disproportionate Minority Contact- Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County, December 2008 Page 15 of 354 Date: December 21, 2015 To: Supervisor John Gioia Supervisor Federal Glover From: Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Phil Kader, Chief Probation Officer Tom Kensok, Assistant District Attorney Subject: Recommendation for Racial Justice Taskforce As requested by the Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors, the above named individuals have met to discuss how the County can best move forward to address the disproportionate representation of racial minorities in the criminal justice system in Contra Costa County. We recommend that the County appoint a Racial Justice Taskforce (RJT) to be comprised of no more than 15 members representing governmental agencies and community organizations whose work concerns racial equality within the criminal justice system. We propose the following persons and/or entities for membership on the RJT; Chief Probation Officer Public Defender District Attorney Sheriff Superior Court of Contra Costa County Local Law Enforcement (member to be name by the CCC Police Chiefs Association) Local School Districts (up to 3 representatives) Department of Health Community-based Organizations (up to 5 members) We recommend that the mission of the RJT be to: 1. Identify some consensus measures within the County to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system; 2. Make recommendations for implementation of the measures once identified; and 3. Report back to the Board of Supervisors on progress made toward reducing racial disparities within the criminal justice system. In recognition that this is a challenging undertaking, we further recommend that the County provide funding for two necessary components to the success of the RJT. First, we ask that the County contract with an impartial trained facilitator to guide the RJT through this process. Second, we suggest that the County contract with a public interest research entity or an academic institution to assist in data collection and outcome analysis. Page 16 of 354 Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)/Implicit Bias Training Staff Report 1 Page 17 of 354 April 7, 2015 – The Board of Supervisors received a letter from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition April 21, 2015 – The Board of Supervisors referred the letter to the Public Protection Committee July 2015 – The Public Protection Committee introduced the issue for discussion 2 Page 18 of 354 In July, the PPC focused future discussion on two topics ◦Research of racial trends within the local criminal justice system ◦County training on implicit bias In September, the PPC requested staff to return at a future meeting with… ◦Information about a previous County effort to address DMC in the juvenile justice system ◦Coordinate with the Risk Manager about the feasibility of integrating Implicit Bias concepts into employee training 3 Page 19 of 354 Disproportionate Minority Contact does exist in the local criminal justice system, but… ◦Jurisdictions across the country are dealing with the same issues ◦Several socio-economic factors contribute to this disparity Most Public Safety Classifications in the County do receive Implicit Bias training ◦Current County training does not include an implicit bias component ◦The vast majority of law enforcement classifications in the County do receive Implicit Bias training mandated by the State ◦Some departments offer a department level training on Implicit Bias (e.g. District Attorney partners with the Goldman School) 4 Page 20 of 354 5 Sources: U.S. Census, Probation Department, Contra Costa Superior Court Page 21 of 354 6 Identifies juvenile DMC trends in selected communities within the County in 2006, including: o Richmond area (West County) o Monument Corridor (Central County) o Bay Point (East County) Makes short and long term recommendations for addressing DMC issues identified. Page 22 of 354 7 Page 23 of 354 8 Source: Morris M.S., Monique. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County.2008. Page 24 of 354 9 Source: Morris M.S., Monique. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County.2008. Page 25 of 354 10 Source: Morris M.S., Monique. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County.2008. Page 26 of 354 11 Two data sets reporting different information with similar findings DMC Report is neutral on causation and focused on facts and what local justice system could do to address once a juvenile enters the system DMC Report provides a work-plan that could be re-considered by key stakeholders Page 27 of 354 12 Reestablish the DMC workgroup? o Determine Composition o Community Stakeholder representation o Determine current need, target areas Identify current resources and efforts underway to address DMC issues o Landscape has changed since 2008 Page 28 of 354 13 Page 29 of 354 Summary of Race Data in Criminal Justice Systems in Contra Costa County Sources: Census, Probation Department, Contra Costa Superior Court Attachment A Page 30 of 354 People QuickFacts Contra Costa County California Population, 2014 estimate 1,111,339 38,802,500 Population, 2013 estimate 1,095,980 38,431,393 Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base 1,049,197 37,254,503 Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 5.9% 4.2% Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 4.5% 3.2% Population, 2010 1,049,025 37,253,956 Persons under 5 years, percent, 2013 5.9% 6.5% Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013 23.8% 23.9% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2013 13.8% 12.5% Female persons, percent, 2013 51.2% 50.3% White alone, percent, 2013 (a) 67.9% 73.5% Black or African American alone, percent, 2013 (a) 9.6% 6.6% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2013 (a) 1.0% 1.7% Asian alone, percent, 2013 (a) 15.9% 14.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2013 (a) 0.6% 0.5% Two or More Races, percent, 2013 5.0% 3.7% Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 (b) 24.9% 38.4% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 46.3% 39.0% (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. Contra Costa County Population Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts Attachment A Page 31 of 354 Gender Not Specified 131 313 289 590 Female 3506 24% 3011 23% 2990 23% 4069 24% Male 10938 75% 9843 75% 9890 75% 12520 73% Total 14575 13167 13169 17179 Race Not Specified 214 578 470 765 A OTHER ASIAN 213 216 200 281 B BLACK 3669 25% 3376 26% 3594 27% 4274 25% 26% C CHINESE 7 9 9 22 D CAMBODIAN 1 F FILIPINO 50 42 36 65 G GUAMANIAN 2 2 5 H LATIN AMERICAN/HISPANIC 3558 24% 2883 22% 2868 22% 3727 22% 22% I AMERICAN INDIAN 12 11 17 15 J JAPANESE 5313 K KOREAN 6632 L LAOTIAN 6 2 M SPANISH OR MEXICAN AMERICAN O OTHER 635 644 608 830 P PACIFIC ISLANDER 23 26 15 25 S SAMOAN 3654 U HAWAIIAN 21 4 5 11 V VIETNAMESE 11345 W CAUCASIAN 6099 42% 5252 40% 5282 40% 7070 41% 41% X UNKNOWN 33 84 38 64 Z ASIAN INDIAN 8 23 13 8 Total 14575 13168 13168 17179 # Fiscal Year 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 Source: Court criminal case management system. Data retrieved from District Attorney files. Time Frame: Fiscal years 2010/11-2013/14 Criminal Cases Fiscal Year 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 Attachment A Page 32 of 354 Pretrial - Total Granted Supervision Currently being supervised Black/African- American 555 40% Black/African- American 189 44% Black/African- American 93 47% White 473 34% White 130 31% White 58 29% Hispanic/Latino 286 20% Hispanic/Latino 81 19% Hispanic/Latino 40 20% Asian 24 Asian 8 Asian 4 Other 21 Other 8 Other 2 Unknown 20 Unknown Unknown Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 17 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 8 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 3 American Indian/Alaskan Native 6 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native Total 1402 Total 425 Total 200 Completed Successfully Unsuccessful Black/African- American 76 44% Black/African- American 29 33% White 54 31% White 32 36% Hispanic/Latino 29 17% Hispanic/Latino 23 26% Asian 4 Asian Other 5 Other 2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 4 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2 American Indian/Alaskan Native American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 Total 172 Total 89 Source: Probation Department CMS. Upon completion of interview with clients, probation officer enters data retrieved from California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and from Public Defender’s Office worksheet; Time Frame: March 2014-July 2015 Pretrial Attachment A Page 33 of 354 Adult Probation Black 1008 41%Black 1060 30% Hispanic 743 30% Hispanic 877 25% White 437 18% White 1112 31% Unknown 147 Unknown 277 Other Non-Asian 42 Other Non-Asian 67 Asian Indian 24 Asian Indian 21 Filipino 16 Filipino 30 Pacific Islander 11 Pacific Islander 4 Laotian 8 Laotian 1 Indian (American) 6 Indian (American) 3 Other Asians 5 Other Asians Hawaiian 3 Hawaiian 79 Samoan 3 Samoan 3 Guamanian 1 Guamanian 1 Chinese 1 Chinese 3 Cambodian 1 Cambodian Vietnamese 1 Vietnamese 2 Japanese 1 Japanese Korean Korean 1 Total 2458 Total 3541 Juvenile Probation Source: Probation Department CMS. Clerk enters data retrieved from the Court or CLETS. Time Frame: All current Adult and Juvenile Probation, as of July 2015 Adult and Juvenile Probation Attachment A Page 34 of 354 Black 786 40% White 758 38% Hispanic 384 19% Unknown 19 Filipino 15 Asian 10 Samoan 3 Pacific Islander 3 Vietnamese 3 Chinese 2 Other 2 Am Indian 1 Japanese 1 Laotian 1 Total 1988 Caucasian 44% African-American 31% Hispanic 8% Probation Employees AB 109 Population Source: Probation Department CMS. Clerk enters data retrieved from the Court or from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Time Frame: October 2011-July 2015 Probation Department Employees Source: Human Resources AB 109 Attachment A Page 35 of 354 1.1% 12.1% 8.8% 15.2% 62.9% 1.2% 15.9% 9.3% 12.9% 63.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic White Cumulative Jury Appearance to Target Demographics 2001-2010 2000 Census 2001-2010 % of Total Jurors by Race Racial data is self-reported by jurors based on questionnaires distributed at the time they report for service at each court location 2001-2010 % of Total Jurors by Race represents cumulative responses for the 10 year period between 2001-2010 Multi-racial responses are recorded as one (1) full person in each race 2000 baseline census numbers for jury demographic study have been filtered to exclude; persons under 18, and Non-U.S. Citizens Attachment A Page 36 of 354 1.0% 16.2% 9.4% 21.3% 53.8% 1.3% 18.4% 7.5% 14.9% 61.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic White Cumulative Jury Appearance to Target Demographics 2011-2015 2010 Census 2011 -2015 % of Total Jurors by Race Racial data is self-reported by jurors based on questionnaires distributed at the time they report for service at each court location 2011-2015 % of Total Jurors by Race represents cumulative responses for the 4.5 year period between 2011-2015 Multi-racial responses are recorded as one (1) full person in each race 2010 baseline census numbers for jury demographic study have been filtered to exclude; persons under 18, and Non-U.S. Citizens Attachment A Page 37 of 354 Summary Note: These data can provide a good overview of demographic trends for those who report for jury service, but data for individuals who identify as either Hispanic or multi-racial may not be precisely accurate for any of three reasons: 1. Individuals who identify as Hispanic (an ethnicity, but reported here as if it were a racial category) may have selected any one of the racial categories listed on the form, or none of these categories, or “other” 2. Individuals who identified their racial category as “other” are not included in these data 3. Individuals who self-identify as multi-racial can indicate their racial identification by checking “multi-racial”, “other”, two or more of the other racial categories provided on the survey, or check the boxes for any combination of these categories Attachment A Page 38 of 354 SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Attachment B Page 39 of 354 DISPROPORTIONALITY AT EVERY STAGE o In 2013, there were a disproportionate number of Black adults represented at every stage of the criminal justice process. While Black adults represent only 6% of the adult population, they represent 40% of people arrested, 44% of people booked in County Jail, and 40% of people convicted. o When looking at the relative likelihood of system involvement- as opposed to the proportion of Black adults at key decision points – disparities for Black adults remain stark. Black adults are 7.1 times as likely as White adults to be arrested, 11 times as likely to be booked into County Jail, and 10.3 times as likely to be convicted of a crime in San Francisco. FINDINGS REGARDING DATA CAPACITY o Data required to answer several key questions regarding racial and ethnic disparities were unavailable. As stakeholders move forward to more fully understand the disparities highlighted in the repot, they will need to build capacity for a more comprehensive and system- wide approach to reporting data on racial and ethnic disparities. o Lack of “ethnicity” data impeded a full analysis of the problem of disparities. Justice system stakeholders must improve their capacity to collect and record data on ethnicity of justice system clients. Lack of data regarding Latino adults’ involvement is problematic for obvious reasons – if we do not understand the extent of the problem, we cannot craft the appropriate policy solutions. Additionally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” are counted as White. The result is a likely inflated rate of system involvement for White adults1, and an underestimation of the disparity gap between White and Black adults. 1 Nationally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” (89%) would be identified as “White.”). Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). “Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013.” Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS IN SAN FRANCISCO o Data indicate that San Francisco’s demographic make-up is changing. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of Black adults decreased by 21 percent. At the same time, the number of Latino adults increased by 31 percent. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 2013: DISPARITY GAP FOR BLACK ADULTS AT KEY DECISION POINTS Arrests Bookings ConvictionsTimes More Likely Than Whites12 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.1 11 10.3 White Comparison 2013 DATA: SAN FRANCISCO 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 35% 13%9%12%13% 14% 15%16% 45%45%32%39%31% 6% 40% 44% 49% 40% 2% Population Arrests Bookings Pretrial Convictions Eligible White Black Latino Other The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) is a national non-profit organization that has worked successfully with local jurisdictions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system by leading traditional and non-traditional stakeholders through a data-driven, consensus based process. BI was engaged by the Reentry Council of The City and County of San Francisco to conduct a decision point analysis to learn whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at key criminal justice decision making points in San Francisco. The analysis was limited due to data limitations. For additional information regarding the key findings listed in this summary, please see the full report. SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL Attachment B Page 40 of 354 ARRESTS o In 2013, Black Adults in San Francisco were more than seven times as likely as White adults to be arrested. o Despite a significant overall reduction in arrest rates in San Francisco, the disparity gap – the relative rate of arrest for Black adults compared to White adults - is increasing. o Whereas the disparity gap in arrests statewide is decreasing, the disparity gap in San Francisco is increasing. o Rates of arrest are higher for Black adults than White adults for every offense category. o Despite reductions in rates of arrest for drug offenses, the Black/White disparity gap increased for every drug offense category. BOOKINGS TO JAIL (PRETRIAL) o Black adults in San Francisco are 11 times as likely as White adults to be booked into County Jail. This disparity is true for both Black men (11.4 times as likely) and Black Women (10.9 times as likely). o Latino adults are 1.5 times as likely to be booked as White adults. o Booking rates for Black and Latino adults have increased over the past three years while booking rates for White adults have decreased. o The top three residence zip codes of Black adults booked into County Jail were: 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), 94124 (Bayview-Hunters Point), and 94103 (South of Market). o The top three residence zip codes for Latino adults booked into County Jail were: 94110 (Inner Mission/ Bernal Heights), 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), and 94112 (Ingelside-Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon). o A vast majority (83 percent) of individuals booked into jail in San Francisco had residence zip codes within the County. Overall, only 17 percent of individuals booked into jail had residence zip codes outside of San Francisco.2 PRETRIAL RELEASE o Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to meet the criteria for pretrial release.3 o Black adults are less likely to be released at all process steps: Black adults are less likely to receive an “other” release (i.e., cited, bailed, and dismissed); less likely than White adults to be released by the duty commissioner; and less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. o Rates of pretrial releases at arraignment are higher for White adults for almost every quarter. o Out of all adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release (the entirety of the SFPDP database): o 39 percent of Black adults had prior felony(ies) compared to 26 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior felony were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior felony; 2 Data regarding the homeless population were unavailable. Of the total 19,273 book- ings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. 3 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included as “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. DISPARITY GAP FOR ARRESTS (1994 and 2013) 1994 2013 White 1 White 1 Black 4.6 Black 7.1 For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 1994, there were 4.6 Black adults arrested. For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 2013, there were more than 7 Black adults arrested. White 1 Black 11 Latino 1.5 API 0.4 For every 1 White adult booked into San Francisco County Jail, there were 11 Black adults and 1.5 Latino adults booked DISPARITY GAP FOR BOOKINGS (2013) Attachment B Page 41 of 354 o 44 percent of Black adults had prior misdemeanor(s) compared to 45 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior misdemeanor were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior misdemeanor; and o 62 percent of Black adults had a high school diploma or GED compared to 66 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a HSD/GED were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a HSD/GED. CONVICTIONS/SENTENCING o For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted.4 (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos). o Black adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are ten times as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court. o Latino adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are nearly twice as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court.5 o The vast majority of all people convicted are sentenced to Jail/ Probation. Black adults with Jail/Probation sentences are more likely to receive formal probation than White adults. Whereas 31 percent of White Adults receive formal probation, 53 percent of Black adults did. o Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to prison and county jail alone and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation sentence than White adults. o When they receive Jail/Probation sentences, Black adults are more likely to have a longer County Jail sentence than White adults. o Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges with blood alcohol levels greater than or equal to .08 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults convicted of these charges are more likely to have a longer jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults.6 o Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances; of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. While the number of adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults.7 o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to stay longer in jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. o Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either though county jail alone or as a part of a Jail/Probation sentence). Black adults account for 50 percent of these sentenced bed days. 4 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. 5 See note above. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the conviction/sentencing section which compare White and Latino rates. 6 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is VC 23152(b)/M. 7 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is HS 11352(a)/F. DISPARITY GAP FOR CONVICTIONS (2013) White 1 Black 10.3 Latino 1.7 API 0.4 For every 1 White adult convicted of a crime in San Francisco, there were more than 10 Black adults and nearly 2 Latino adults convicted. 475 14th Street, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612 415.321.4100 • 415.321.4140 fax • info@burnsinstitute.org Attachment B Page 42 of 354 SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL & ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL BY W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE June 23, 2015 Attachment B Page 43 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) 2 Our Work The Burns Institute works to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system by using a data driven, community centered approach to reducing system involvement for people of color. Our Work in San Francisco: Conduct analysis to identify whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at key criminal justice decision making points. Attachment B Page 44 of 354 1.Identify Disparities Identify whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist 2.Identify, Analyze and Strategize around a “Target Population” Identify target population to focus the work. “Dig deeper” into target population to learn more about policy, practice, procedure and other factors contributing to disparities. Strategize around how policy, practice, and/or procedure change might result in reductions in disparities. Pilot or adopt policy, practice or procedural change 3.Measure Progress Monitor Effectiveness of Change Document c hanges in disparities 3 BI Strategy for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Ongoing process Attachment B Page 45 of 354 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 San Francisco Adult Population: Changing Demographics Black Latino San Francisco Demographics are Changing 49% 45% 8% 6% 13% 14% 30% 35% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 1994 2013 White Black Latino Other Source: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ 4 Attachment B Page 46 of 354 Overrepresentation of People of Color in San Francisco Criminal Justice System Population Source: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online. Arrest Source: “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register”, State of California Department of Justice (October 2014). Online Booking, SFPDP and Conviction Data provided to Burns Institute by Adult Probation as part of JRI data analysis agreement. Sources: CMS, JMS, SFPDP Databases. 5 45% 45% 32% 39% 31% 6% 40% 44% 49% 40% 14% 2% 15% 16% 35% 13% 9% 12% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Population Arrest Booking SFPDP Conviction 2013 Data: San Francisco White Black Latino Other Black adults: Overrepresented at each stage: • 6% of adults in the population •40% of arrests •44% of bookings to jail (pretrial) •49% of adults eligible for SFPDP •40% of convictions Latino adults: appear to be undercounted at various points in the criminal justice process, but data vary across decision points. This is likely caused by misidentification of some Latinos as White. Asian Pacific Islander and “other” adults: This analysis did not focus on API or “other” adults. Future disparities analysis should do so and must account for differences between subgroups within the larger API population. Attachment B Page 47 of 354 Disparity Gap at Key Decision Points 6 7.1 11 10.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Arrests Bookings ConvictionsTimes More Likely Than White Disparity Gap for Black Adults at Key Decision Points (2013) White Comparison Attachment B Page 48 of 354 ARRESTS 7 Attachment B Page 49 of 354 Arrest Rate Deductions 75 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 San Francisco Arrest Rates (per 1000 Adults) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 San Francisco Arrest Rates by Race & Ethnicity per 1,000 in Population White Black Latino Other Reduction in Rate of Arrests: •White = 62% reduction (72 per 1,000 to 27 per 1,000) •Black = 42% reduction (334 per 1,000 to 195 per 1,000) What is the “Disparity Gap?” 72 27 334 195 What is the difference between these rates? 8 What is the difference between these rates? ARRESTS Note: These data do not include cite and release interactions with police. Note: When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. Attachment B Page 50 of 354 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.8 6.6 7.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Times More Likely than White Disparity Gap Between Black and White Arrest Rates Despite significant reductions in arrest rates, disparities between Black and White adult arrests have increased. 9 For every on 1 White adult arrested in 1994, 4.6 Black adults were arrested For every on 1 White adult arrested in 2013, 7.1 Black adults were arrested. White Comparison ARRESTS Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. Arrest Source: “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register”, State of California Department of Justice (October 2014). Online Attachment B Page 51 of 354 California & SF Disparity Gaps 4.6 7.1 3.9 3.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Disparity Gap Between Black and White Arrest Rates San Francisco vs. State of California SF Black CA BlackTimes More likely than White White Comparison •Disparities in the rate of arrest between Black and White adults in San Francisco are greater than disparities in the State. •Disparities in the State are decreasing slightly while disparities in San Francisco continue to increase +53% Increase -23% Decrease Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. Arrest Source: “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register”, State of California Department of Justice (October 2014). Online 10 ARRESTS Attachment B Page 52 of 354 Disparities in Arrests for Drug Offenses Increased 11 4.1 5.5 1.7 0.9 2.7 9.0 14.5 6.8 4.5 7.9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 All Felony Drug Narcotics (F)Marijuana (F)Dangerous (F)Other Drug (F) Black/White Disparities in Felony Drug Arrests 1994 2013 4.0 2.1 2.8 6.8 11.9 3.9 2.6 13.9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 All Misdemenaor Drug Marijuana (M)Dangerous (M)Other (M) Black/White Disparities in Misdemeanor Drug Arrests 1994 2013 White Comparison Although rates of arrest for drug offenses have decreased in San Francisco from 1994 to 2013, the relative rate of arrest for drug offenses or “disparity gap” has increased. 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2013 Misdemeanor Drug Arrest Rate Felony Drug Arrest Rate Drug Arrest Rates per 1,000 Felony White Felony Black Misdemeanor White Misdemeanor Black ARRESTS Attachment B Page 53 of 354 BOOKING TO PRETRIAL JAIL 12 Attachment B Page 54 of 354 Overview of the Booking Data Source: CMS race/ethnicity pulled from JMS Full Time Frame: 1/1/11-6/30/14 Started with 155,060 cases After we cleaned up the data, there were 63,318 bookings with data on race and ethnicity In 2013 (latest year): 19,273 cases with data on race and ethnicity 13 Data required extensive clean-up in order to answer basic questions BOOKINGS 1/1/11- 6/30/14 # White 21,758 Black 28,125 Latino 7,010 API 4,058 Nat. Am. 246 Other 2,121 Total 63,318 Attachment B Page 55 of 354 Rates and Disparity Gaps in Bookings to Jail in San Francisco (2011-2013) 14 In 2013, for every 1 White adult booked: •11 Black adults were booked •1.5 Latino adults were booked •.3 Asian adults were booked 1 11 1.5 0.3 BOOKINGS Rates of booking to jail are increasing for people of color in San Francisco, particularly Latino and Black adults. Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. API API Attachment B Page 56 of 354 Bookings by Residence Zip Code 15 The vast majority of all adults booked in County Jail in San Francisco have a residence zip code within San Francisco. Note: Zip Code analysis is based on cases for which zip code was recorded (in 2013, 15,272 cases). Data regarding the homeless population was unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. 82% 85% 80% 78% 97% 74% 83% 18% 15% 20% 22% 3% 26% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% White Black Latino API Native American Other Total Proportion of Booked Adults with Residence Zip Code within San Francisco (2013) San Francisco Zip Code Out of County Attachment B Page 57 of 354 Top Residence Zip Codes of Adults Booked into Jail in San Francisco Black: 94102: Tenderloin 94124: Bayview-Hunters Point 94103: South of Market Latino: 94110: Inner Mission/Bernal Heights 94102: Tenderloin 94112: Ingelside-Excelsior/Crocker- Amazon White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 94102 3177 3939 675 313 49 150 8303 94124 471 3915 386 237 8 115 5132 94103 1201 1464 301 129 12 74 3181 94110 1037 794 909 99 17 103 2959 94112 672 728 541 247 10 117 2315 94109 1123 752 160 149 11 67 2262 16 BOOKINGS Attachment B Page 58 of 354 PRETRIAL RELEASE 17 Attachment B Page 59 of 354 Overview of the Data Source: San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SFPDP) Data Full Time Frame: 1/1/11-6/30/14 Started with 26,657 cases After we cleaned up the data, we had 26,275 cases with race/ethnicity Latest full year: Q3 2013 – Q2 2014 7,840 cases with data on race/ethnicity 3,118 white; 3,683 black; 25 Latino; 100 Asian; 892 Other 18 Data required extensive clean-up in order to answer basic questions Note: Only black/white disparity analyzed due to small numbers for other racial/ethnic groups. When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. SFPDP 1/1/11- 6/30/14 # White 10,426 Black 12,825 Latino 155 Asian 792 Other 2,077 Total 26,275 Attachment B Page 60 of 354 Pretrial Release Flow 19 SFPDP Attachment B Page 61 of 354 Pretrial Release Eligible Compared to Bookings 20 35% 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Booked Adults who are Eligible for Pretrial Release White Black White Black Bookings 5,940 7,947 Pretrial Release Eligible 3,118 3,683 Percent of Booked Adults who are Eligible for Pretrial Release 35% 46% Note: Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included within “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. Black adults booked into San Francisco County Jail are more likely than White adults to be eligible for Pretrial Release. Whereas 35% of White adults booked were eligible for Pretrial Release, 46% of booked Black adults were eligible. Attachment B Page 62 of 354 Other Releases: Bailed, Cited, and Dismissed (Q3 2013 – Q2 2014) 21 •Overall, a substantial proportion (51%) of all cases eligible for pretrial release were Other Releases. •The proportion of eligible White adults released (54%) was higher than the proportion of eligible Black adults (48%). •The vast majority of Black & White adults released had their cases dismissed. •Black adults were more likely than White adults to have their case dismissed. White adults were more likely to post bail and be cited out than Black adults. SFPDP 54% (n=1673) 48% (n=1777) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Other Release Other: Bailed, Cited, & Dismissed White Black 7% (n=109) 11% (n=179) 83% (n=1385) 4% (n=68) 8% (n=137) 88% (n=1572) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bailed Cited Dismissed Breakdown of Other Releases White Black Attachment B Page 63 of 354 Duty Commissioner Outcomes (Q3 2013-Q2 2014) 22 •A higher proportion of White adults presented to duty commissioner were granted OR (34%) than Black adults presented (30%). SFPDP 34% 66% 30% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Granted (ORPJ and Sup ORPJ)Denied Duty Commissioner Outcomes White Black(n=105) (n=223) (n=240) (n=114) Attachment B Page 64 of 354 Presented at Arraignment (Q3 2013- Q2 2014) 35% (n=1087) 36% (n=1311) 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% Presented at Arraignment Presented at Arraignment White Black 23 •65% of adults eligible for pretrial release were released prior to arraignment. •Black adults were less likely to be granted release at arraignment than White adults. SFPDP 30% 70% 25% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment Denied Outcomes at Arraignment White Black (n=762) (n=972) (n=321) (n=330) Attachment B Page 65 of 354 Outcomes at Key Points Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to be eligible for Pretrial Release, but White adults are more likely to be released throughout the process. 24 SFPDP 35% 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Booked Adults who are Eligible for Pretrial Release White Black Note: Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Attachment B Page 66 of 354 Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment 32% 32% 24% 27% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 Pretrial Release at Arraignment (2011- Q2 2014) White Black 8 point difference 25 White adults are consistently more likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. Note: Trends in Duty Commissioner Grants of OR were not included due to small numbers. SFPDP 5 point difference Attachment B Page 67 of 354 Trends for Adults at Arraignment (full time frame: Q1 2011 - Q2 2014) 26 35% 35% 25% 33% 0% 20% 40% Had HSD/GED and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black SFPDP •Educational Status •66% of White adults & 62% of Black adults had a high school diploma (HSD) or GED •When limiting the parameters to only those with a HSD or GED, White adults were still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. •Prior Misdemeanor Convictions •45% of White adults and 44% of Black adults had a prior misdemeanor within 5 years. •When limiting the parameters to only those with a prior misdemeanor conviction within 5 years, White adults were still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. The chart to the right shows the percent of each group released that had a misdemeanor within 5 years. •Prior Felony Convictions •26% of White adults and 39% of Black adults had a prior felony within 5 years. •When limiting the parameters to only those with a prior felony conviction within 5 years, White adults were still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. The chart to the right shows the percent of each group released that had a prior felony within 5 years. 28% 30% 18% 25% 0% 20% 40% Had Prior Misdemeanor w/in 5 Years and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black 18% 22% 14% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% Had Prior Felony w/in 5 Years and Granted OR at Arraignment White Black Note: Not all prior convictions are SF convictions. Attachment B Page 68 of 354 CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCING 27 Attachment B Page 69 of 354 General Sentencing Questions a)What types of sentences do defendants receive? b)How long are the sentences? c)Are defendants of color more likely to receive more restrictive sentences than White defendants? d)What sentences do defendants receive for the top convicted charges? e)How have sentences changed from 2011-2013/2014? Sentencing Options 28 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 70 of 354 Overview of the Data Source: CMS Race/Ethnicity pulled from JMS Full Time Frame: 1/1/11-6/30/14 Started with 18,621 convictions After we cleaned up the data, there were 14,618 cases with data on race/ethnicity Latest full year: Q3 2013-Q2 2014 4,806 convictions with both SF# and data on race/ethnicity 29 Data required extensive clean-up in order to answer basic questions CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING 1/1/11- 6/30/14 # White 4,963 Black 6,030 Latino 1,731 API 1,210 Nat. Am. 46 Other 638 Total 14,618 Attachment B Page 71 of 354 Disparity Gaps in Convictions in San Francisco (2011-2013) 30 4.2 45.3 2.4 1.1 4.9 37.6 4.2 1.5 4.2 42.9 7.0 1.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 White Black Latino Asian Convictions per 1,000 in population (2011, 2012, 2013) Source of population data for rates calculation: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ Increase in reported numbers for Latino adults is likely due to better data collection. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING API Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. Attachment B Page 72 of 354 1% 1% 74% 21% 2% 1% 63% 25% 9% 80% 13% 5% 1% 85% 11% 2% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Fine Probation Jail/Probation County Jail State Prison Sentence White Black Latino API Least restrictive Most restrictive 976 1107 567 306 280 448 93 40 Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to a more restrictive Sentence. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Sentence Type by Race/Ethnicity latest full year: Q3 2013– Q2 2014 150 * An Additional 47 adults received “Suspended State to Jail/Probation (W=10; B=25; L=7; API= 3). State Prison: 2 % of White Adults were sentenced to Prison 5% of Latino Adults were sentenced to Prison 9% of Black Adults were sentenced to Prison County Jail: 21% of White Adults were sentenced to County Jail 25% of Black Adults were sentenced to County Jail Black adults are more likely to receive Formal Probation than White Adults. •Black Adults: 53% receive Formal (47% receive CT) •White Adults: 31% receive Formal (69% receive CT) Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. Attachment B Page 73 of 354 Sentence Length: Jail/Probation Sentences (latest full year: Q3 2013– Q2 2014) Probation Sentences are Similar for all Racial/Ethnic Groups and across Gender (measured in months) Sentences to County Jail vary considerably (measured in days) Probation (months) W B L API NA O Total N 976 1,107 567 306 10 142 3,108 Mean 35.7 36.3 37.1 36.4 34.2 35.5 36.2 Median 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Min: 6 mo. Max: 60 mo. Median 36 mo. All groups Mean Ranges from 34.2 – 37.1 mo. County Jail (days) W B L API NA O Total N 976 1,107 567 306 10 142 3,108 Mean 38 63* 39 39 74 29 47 Median 10 20* 10 10 23 10 13 Median 13 days (overall) W-10 B-20 Mean: 47 days Ranges from 29 -74 days W-38 B-63 32 * Statistically significant (p=.05). CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 74 of 354 Top Convicted Charges (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total DUI BAC .08—VC23152(b) (M) 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 Felony Burglary (F) 249 412 47 38 2 22 770 Reckless Driving (M) 244 72 70 120 2 55 563 Misd. Burglary (M) 200 256 37 47 3 11 554 Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances—HS11352(a) (F) 71 361 43 13 0 16 504 DUI Alcohol/Drugs (M) 205 73 59 67 1 49 454 Solicit Specific H and S Acts (M) 150 206 31 13 0 11 411 Battery (M) 120 101 54 31 1 21 328 Rec Known Stolen Prop $400 (F) 103 147 34 19 0 13 316 Poss Methaqualone/Etc. (M) 53 189 19 8 0 9 278 Grand Theft from Person (F) 32 201 28 10 0 7 278 Possess Controlled Substance (F) 50 195 16 7 0 6 274 Lost/Stolen Property (M) 131 94 19 25 1 4 274 Possess Controlled Substance (M) 150 61 27 14 0 6 258 Robbery (F) 27 176 32 14 0 6 255 all other charges 2,278 3,208 822 504 32 224 7,068 Total 4,963 6,030 1,731 1,210 46 638 14,618 33 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 75 of 354 A closer look at sentences for DUI Blood Alcohol .08 (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) WHY DUI? (23152(B)VC/M) DUI was the top convicted charge code. In the full time period, 14% (2,033 of 14,618 sentences) were for DUI. White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total DUI .08 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 All Sentences 4,963 6,030 1,731 1,210 46 638 14,618 DUI as % of total 18% 5% 23% 23% 9% 28% 14% White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total County Jail 11 (1%) 10 (4%) 9 (2%) 1 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (1%) 33 (2%) Probation 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) Jail/Probation 888 (99%) 268 (96%) 384 (98%) 276 (99%) 3 (75%) 177 (99%) 1,996 (98%) Total 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 Jail/Probation Sentences are by far the most frequently used sentence for DUI. * There were a total of 18,206 cases with sentences, but only 14,618 had data on race/ethnicity. There were 2,914 sentences for DUI, but 2,033 had data on race/ethnicity. 34 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 76 of 354 Sentence Length: Jail/Probation Sentences for DUI .08 (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) (VC 23152(b)) Probation Sentences are similar across racial/ethnic groups. Black and Latino Adults have longer average sentences to County Jail than White Adults. Probation (months) W B L API NA O Total N 888 268 384 276 3 177 1,996 Mean 40.1 41.1 41.2 40.4 36.0 40.5 40.5 Median 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Min: 6 mo. Max: 60 mo. Median: 36 months Mean Ranges from 36-41 months County Jail (days) W B L AP I NA O Total N 888 268 384 276 3 177 1,996 Mean 13 17 18* 12 7 15 15 Median 7 8 10 5 5 5 8 Median: 8 days Mean: 15 days W-13 B-17 L-18 Min: 1 day Max: 365 days 35 * Statistically significant (p=.05). CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 77 of 354 WHY Transport/Sell Controlled Substances? (HS 11352(a)/F) Transport/Sell Controlled Substances was the 2nd most frequent charge for which Black adults were convicted in the full time frame. White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total Trans Sell Controlled Substances 71 361 43 13 0 16 504 All Sentences 4,963 6,030 1,731 1,210 46 638 14,618 Trans/Sell as % of total 1% 6% 2% 1% 0% 3% 3% A closer look at sentences for Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances (HS 11352(a)/F) (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total County Jail 6 (8%) 53 (15%) 3 (7%) 4 (31%) 1 (6%) 67 (13%) Jail/Probation 64 (90%) 238 (66%) 33 (77%) 4 (31%) 13 (81%) 352 (70%) State prison 1 (1%) 38 (11%) 7 (16%) 2 (15%) 2 (13%) 50 (10%) Suspended state to Jail/Probation 0 (0%) 32 (9%) 0 (0%) 3 (23%) 0 (0%) 35 (7%) Total 71 361 43 13 16 504 36 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 78 of 354 Sentence Length: Jail/Probation Sentences for Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) Black adults had longer average probation sentences than White adults. Black and Latino adults had longer average and median lengths of Sentences to County Jail than White adults. Probation (months) W B L API O Total N 64 238 33 4 13 352 Mean 35.8 38.2* 36.7 39 39.7 37.7 Median 36 36 36 36 36 36 Min: 4 mo. Max: 238 mo. Median: 36 months Mean Ranges from 35.8-39.7 months County Jail (days) W B L API O Total N 64 238 33 4 13 352 Mean 86 151* 129 114 128 136 Median 43 120 74 92 120 91 Median: 91 days Mean: 136 days W-86 B-151 Min: 4 days Max: 238 days B -120 W - 43 37 * Statistically significant (p=.05). CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 79 of 354 State Prison Sentences have Decreased for All Groups (Q1 2011-Q2 2014) 34 (of 315) = 11% 7 (of 326) = 2% 71 (of 460) = 15% 35 (of441) = 8% 134 (of 938) =14% 52 (of 1087) = 5% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 State Prison Sentences White Black Total 38 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING The proportion of convicted adults who are sent to State Prison decreased, but the relative likelihood of a State Prison sentence for convicted Black adults compared to convicted White adults increased. •Q1 2011: Convicted Black adults are 1.4 times as likely as convicted White adults to be sentenced to Prison. •In Q1 2011, 11% of convicted White adults and 15% of convicted Black adults were sentenced to State Prison. •Q2 2014: Convicted Black adults are nearly 4 times as likely as convicted White adults to be sentenced to Prison. •In Q2 2014, 2 % of convicted White adults and 8% of convicted Black adults were sentenced to State Prison. Q1 2011: Black adults made up 53% of all State Prison Sentences. Q2 2014: Black adults made up 67% of all State Prison Sentences. Attachment B Page 80 of 354 Use of Jail/Probation Sentences and County Jail have Increased 628 804 145 209 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 Jail/Probation & County Jail Sentences over Time Probation and County Jail County Jail +28% +44% 39 48 63 79 103 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 County Jail Sentences White Black Latino 226 246 292 293 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 Jail/Probation Sentences White Black Latino CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 81 of 354 Average County Jail Sentences in Jail/Probation Sentences have decreased over time, but are consistently longer for Black and Latino Adults 53 41 98 60 74 33 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 '11 Q1 '11 Q2 '11 Q3 '11 Q4 '12 Q1 '12 Q2 '12 Q3 '12 Q4 '13 Q1 '13 Q2 '13 Q3 '13 Q4 '14 Q1 '14 Q2 Average Jail Time (in Days) for County Jail/Probation Sentences (Q1 2011-Q2 2014) White Black Latino Black adults received average jail sentence 45 days longer (85% longer) than White adults. 40 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Black adults received average jail sentence 19 days longer (46% longer) than White adults. Attachment B Page 82 of 354 Total Sentenced Bed Days (Q3 2013-Q2 2014) 41 54,089 110,197 20,920 13,854 27,901 33,853 13,942 5,528 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 White Black Latino API Bed Days Sentenced (including Jail/Probation and County) Felony Misdemeanor •Between Q3 2013 & Q2 2014, there were 288,177 bed days sentenced as the result of court sentences to jail (either though county jail alone (50%) or as a part of a jail/probation sentence (50%). •Proportion of bed days: •White adults account for 28 % of sentenced bed days in the time period. •Black adults account for 50% of sentenced bed days in the time period. •Latino adults account for 12% of sentenced bed days in the time period. •API adults account for 12% of sentenced bed days in the time period. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Attachment B Page 83 of 354 Next Steps/Recommendations 42 I.Build data capacity/address data limitations A.Appropriate existing committees (CMS and/or JUSTIS) should review reports and prioritize recommendations; ad hoc committees may need to be created. B.Consider: Protocols and Documentation; Creating a Data Dictionary; Staff Training; Modifications to Data Systems; Generating Regular Reports and Using Data. II.Develop capacity to answer key questions BI was unable to answer due to data limitations. For instance*: A.How do racial/ethnic disparities change when citations are included in arrests? B.When bail is set, do defendants of color have higher bail amounts attached to their bail offer than White defendants? Are defendants of color less likely to post bail? C.Are people of color more likely to plead guilty? Does the likelihood of a guilty plea increase for defendants who remain in custody pretrial? D.Why are Motions to Revoke Probation or Parole filed? What are the outcomes of MTRs for clients of color? *Additional questions are included in the report. These are examples. Attachment B Page 84 of 354 Next Steps/Recommendations cont. 43 III.Develop a system of reporting key indicators of racial and ethnic disparities on a regular basis; BI recommends quarterly. See sample table below. IV.Institutionalize a process for deliberating on the data regularly, with traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. Attachment B Page 85 of 354 Burns Institute Contact Information 44 W. Haywood Burns Institute 475 14th St., Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94608 (415) 321-4100 www.burnsinstitute.org Attachment B Page 86 of 354 SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL Attachment B Page 87 of 354 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary of Key Findings .............................................................................................................................. 4 San Francisco’s Changing Demographics and Overrepresentation at Key Decision Points .......................... 8 Arrests ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Booking to Jail (Pretrial) .............................................................................................................................. 13 Pretrial Release ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Sentencing................................................................................................................................................... 22 Building Data Capacity to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities ................................................................. 32 Conclusion and Next Steps.......................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix A: Initial Questions and Flow Charts ........................................................................................... 38 Appendix B: Disparity Gap in Arrests .......................................................................................................... 39 Appendix C: Description of SFPDP process Diagram and Terminology ...................................................... 41 Appendix D: Conviction/Sentencing Data ................................................................................................... 42 Attachment B Page 88 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Introduction W. Haywood Burns Institute and the Importance of Data The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) is a national non-profit organization that has worked successfully with local jurisdictions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities (R.E.D.) in the justice system by leading traditional and non- traditional stakeholders through a data-driven, consensus based process. It is BI’s experience that local jurisdictions can implement successful and sustainable strategies that lead to reductions in racial and ethnic disparities at critical criminal justice decision-making points. An essential component of reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system is the capacity to collect, analyze and use data. To target disparity reduction efforts, local stakeholders must have the ability to accurately identify the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist at key decision making points, which decision points exacerbate or mitigate the problem, and why people of color are involved at various points of contact in the justice system. To do so, system stakeholders and analysts must not only collect certain data, but they must know the appropriate data-related questions to ask to drive the work. Stakeholders and analysts must evaluate gaps in current data systems and the quality of the available data to assess their capacity to effectively identify and address disparities and sustain reductions. Finally, there must be an intentional process of deliberating on the data in collaborative meetings to drive policy. BI encountered significant and repeated problems in using existing datasets to better understand disparities in San Francisco’s criminal justice system. Data required to answer basic and fundamental questions about disparities were largely unavailable, or were in a format that required extensive clean up prior to analysis. This is troubling. If stakeholders are unable to understand the problem or review data on a regular basis, it will impede the development of appropriate policy solutions, and the sustainability of reform efforts. Importantly, the findings regarding the lack of data should serve as a call to action. If San Francisco is committed to reducing disparities, it must develop better data infrastructure to understand the problem. This report is a first step in using available data to understand whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at key decision making points. Despite the significant data access challenges, BI and San Francisco justice partners have confidence in the accuracy of the findings presented in this report. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 1 | Page Attachment B Page 89 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Background In February 2011, the Reentry Council of The City and County of San Francisco (Reentry Council) submitted a letter of interest to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to participate in the local Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). In May 2011, following BJA’s selection of San Francisco as a JRI site, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice (CRJ) began working with and providing technical assistance to the Reentry Council. From CJI’s presentations to the Reentry Council, and based on these preliminary findings, the Reentry Council identified three policy areas with potential for achieving cost savings and reinvestment opportunities: 1. Eliminate disproportionality in San Francisco’s criminal justice system 2. Create a uniform early termination protocol for probation 3. Maintain and expand pretrial alternatives to detention Reducing the disproportionate representation of people of color in San Francisco’s criminal justice system remains a priority in JRI activities. Learning more about these disparities was a priority for Phase II. In November 2014, CJI contracted BI to provide an analysis of whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at the five following key decision making points: • Arrest • Bail and Pretrial Jail • Pretrial Release • Sentencing • Motion to Revoke Probation (MTR)1 The analysis in this report describes the nature and extent of racial and ethnic disparities in the decision making points above. The analysis does not explore the causes of disparities. BI did not perform statistical analyses to isolate the extent to which race/ethnicity – rather than a variety of other factors – predicts justice system involvement. Additionally, the analysis does not explore the extent to which individual bias impacts the disproportionate representation of people of color in the justice system. The disparities analysis was contingent upon availability of reliable data in an agreed-upon 1 Due to lack of data, the analyses regarding Motions to Revoke (MTR) were not possible. Due to the data limitations, BI narrowed its analysis to answer the following questions: 1. Arrest i. Are people of color more likely than White people to be arrested in San Francisco? ii. Are there certain categories of offenses that people of color are more likely to be arrested for? iii. How have racial and ethnic disparities in arrests changed from 2011 to 2014? 2. Booking to Jail (pretrial) i. Are defendants of color booked into jail pretrial at higher rates than White defendants? ii. Are there racial and ethnic disparities in rates of booking to jail when broken down by gender? iii. What are the top resident zip codes of adults booked into jail pretrial? 3. Pretrial Release i. Are defendants of color who meet the criteria for pretrial release less likely to be released on Own Recognizance (OR) than White defendants? ii. At what stage in the pretrial process are defendants released? (example: prior to or by duty commissioner review, before arraignment, or by arraignment judge) iii. How have racial and ethnic disparities in pretrial releases changed from 2011 to 2014? 4. Sentencing i. What types of sentences do defendants receive? ii. How long are the sentences? iii. Are defendants of color more likely to receive more restrictive sentences than White defendants? iv. What sentences do defendants receive for top convicted charges? v. How have racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing changed from 2011 to 2014? San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 2 | Page Attachment B Page 90 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute format. As mentioned above, there were many limitations related to data availability and data integrity.2 These limitations can be broken down into the following categories3: • Unavailability of key data. • Lack of information system protections. • Incomplete fields in databases. • Lack of clear protocols in data collection. • Data not available in format conducive to analysis. • Definitions of certain variables were misunderstood or outdated. Despite the significant challenges, basic questions about racial and ethnic disparities were answered and are summarized in the next section. Prior to the release of this report, local justice system partners in San Francisco had the opportunity to review and vet the findings for accuracy. Thus, while the analysis included is only a first step in identifying disparities, BI and San Francisco justice partners have confidence in the accuracy of the findings presented in this report. 2 The original list of questions the analysis sought to answer is included in Appendix A. 3 BI submitted an additional report to the Reentry Council (“Summary of Data Challenges Encountered during Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System”), which provides examples of these limitations. Our observations informed the data- related recommendations in this report. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 3 | Page Attachment B Page 91 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Summary of Key Findings Demographic Shifts in San Francisco: o Data indicate that San Francisco’s demographic make-up is changing. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of Black adults decreased by 21 percent. At the same time, the number of Latino adults increased by 31 percent. Disproportionality at Every Stage: o In 2013, there were a disproportionate number of Black adults represented at every stage of the criminal justice process. While Black adults represent only 6% of the adult population, they represent 40% of people arrested, 44% of people booked in County Jail, and 40% of people convicted. o When looking at the relative likelihood of system involvement- as opposed to the proportion of Black adults at key decision points – disparities for Black adults remain stark. Black adults are 7.1 times as likely as White adults to be arrested, 11 times as likely to be booked into County Jail, and 10.3 times as likely to be convicted of a crime in San Francisco. Findings Regarding Data Capacity: o Data required to answer several key questions regarding racial and ethnic disparities were unavailable. As stakeholders move forward to more fully understand the disparities highlighted in the repot, they will need to build capacity for a more comprehensive and system-wide approach to reporting data on racial and ethnic disparities. o Lack of “ethnicity” data impeded a full analysis of the problem of disparities. Justice system stakeholders must improve their capacity to collect and record data on ethnicity of justice system clients. Lack of data regarding Latino adults’ involvement is problematic for obvious reasons—if we do not understand the extent of the problem, we cannot craft the appropriate policy and practice solutions. Additionally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” are counted as White. The result is a likely inflated rate of system involvement for White adults 4, and an underestimation of the disparity gap between White and Black adults. 4 Nationally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” (89%) would be identified as “White.”). Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 4 | Page Attachment B Page 92 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Arrests: o In 2013, Black Adults in San Francisco were more than seven times as likely as White adults to be arrested. o Despite a significant overall reduction in arrest rates in San Francisco, the disparity gap – relative rate of arrest for Black adults compared to White adults - is increasing. o Whereas the disparity gap in arrests statewide is decreasing, the disparity gap in San Francisco is increasing. o Rates of arrest are higher for Black adults than White adults for every offense category. o Despite reductions in rates of arrest for drug offenses, the Black/White disparity gap increased for every drug offense category. Bookings to Jail (Pretrial): o Black adults in San Francisco are 11 times as likely as White adults to be booked into County Jail. This disparity is true for both Black men (11.4 times as likely) and Black Women (10.9 times as likely). o Latino adults are 1.5 times as likely to be booked as White adults 5. o Booking rates for Black and Latino adults have increased over the past three years while booking rates for White adults have decreased. o The top three residence zip codes of Black adults booked into County Jail were: 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), 94124 (Bayview-Hunters Point), and 94103 (South of Market). o The top three residence zip codes for Latino adults booked into jail were: 94110 (Inner Mission/Bernal Heights), 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), and 94112 (Ingelside- Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon). o A vast majority (83 percent) of individuals booked into jail in San Francisco had residence zip codes within the County. Overall, only 17 percent of individuals booked into jail had residence zip codes outside of San Francisco 6. Pretrial Release: o Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to meet the criteria for pretrial release7. 5 Data on Latino adults booked into County Jail is likely an undercount. When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 6 Data regarding the homeless population was unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. Disparity Gap for Arrests (1994 and 2013): For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 1994, there were 4.6 Black adults arrested. For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 2013, there were more than 7 Black adults arrested. Disparity Gap for Bookings (2013): For every 1 White adult booked into San Francisco County Jail, there were 11 Black adults and 1.5 Latino adults booked. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 5 | Page Attachment B Page 93 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute o Black adults are less likely to be released at all process steps: Black adults are less likely to receive an “other” release (i.e., cited, bailed, and dismissed); less likely than White adults to be released by the duty commissioner; and less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. o Rates of pretrial releases at arraignment are higher for White adults for almost every quarter. o Out of all adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release (the entirety of the SFPDP database): o 39 percent of Black adults had prior felony(ies) compared to 26 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior felony were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior felony; o 44 percent of Black adults had prior misdemeanor(s) compared to 45 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior misdemeanor were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior misdemeanor; and o 62 percent of Black adults had a high school diploma or GED compared to 66 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a HSD/GED were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a HSD/GED. Convictions/Sentencing: o For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted.8 (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos.) o Black adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are ten times as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court. o Latino adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are nearly twice as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court.9 o The vast majority of all people convicted are sentenced to Jail/Probation. Black adults with Jail/Probation sentences are more likely to receive formal probation than White adults. Whereas 31 percent of White Adults receive formal probation, 53 percent of Black adults did. o Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison and County Jail alone and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation than White adults. o When they receive Jail/Probation sentences, Black adults are more likely to have a longer jail sentence than White adults. o Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either through County Jail alone or as a part of a Jail/Probation sentence). Black adults account for 50 percent of these sentenced bed days. 7 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included as “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. 8 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 9 See note above. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the conviction/sentencing section which compare White and Latino rates. Disparity Gap for Convictions (2013): For Every 1 White adult convicted of a crime in San Francisco, there were more than 10 Black adults and nearly 2 Latino adults convicted. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 6 | Page Attachment B Page 94 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute o Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges with blood alcohol levels greater than or equal to .08 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults convicted of these charges are more likely to have a longer jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults.10 o Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances; of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. While the number of adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults.11 o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison than White adults convicted of the same offense. o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to stay longer in County Jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. 10 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is VC 23152(b)/M. 11 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is HS 11352(a)/F. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 7 | Page Attachment B Page 95 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute San Francisco’s Changing Demographics and Overrepresentation at Key Decision Points Data indicate that San Francisco’s demographic make-up is changing. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of Black adults decreased by 21 percent. At the same time, the number of Latino adults increased by 31 percent. The proportion of the adult population that is Black decreased from eight percent to six percent, and the proportion of the adult population that is Latino increased from thirteen percent to fourteen percent. While compared to White adults, Asian adults are underrepresented in criminal justice system involvement; the proportion of the population that is Asian has also increased, from 30 percent to 35 percent. Latino Adults The growing number of Latino adults in the County calls for a clear and consistent protocol for accurately identifying and recording ethnicity in all criminal justice information systems. As indicated in the Phase I findings, not only are Black adults disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, race and ethnicity are inconsistently recorded in criminal justice departments’ data systems. The lack of a standardized format for race and ethnicity data collection across criminal justice agencies makes it impossible to ascertain what disparities may or may not exist for all communities of color. As identified in Phase I of JRI, challenges include differences in the way race and ethnicity is recorded by law enforcement agencies leading to difficulties in comparing groups across the system. Since the issue has been identified, efforts have been made to improve properly identifying and recording race and ethnicity. However, as the analysis below describes, most of the existing information systems still lack data on ethnicity. As a result, the analysis of the extent to which Latino adults are involved in the criminal justice system is limited. Although Latino adults represent 14 percent of the adult population, data indicates they represent only two percent of arrests and less than one percent of adults eligible for San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Program (SFPDP). While the proportion of Latino adults represented in booking and conviction data is higher, stakeholders BI worked with expressed concern that there is still work to be done to ensure they are using best practice for identifying and recording race and ethnicity. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 8 | Page Attachment B Page 96 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Lack of data regarding Latino adults’ involvement is problematic for obvious reasons—if we do not understand the extent of the problem, we cannot craft the appropriate policy and practice solutions. Additionally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” are counted as White. The result is a likely inflated rate of system involvement for White adults 12, and an underestimation of the disparity gap between White and Black adults. Black Adults Black adults are overrepresented at each stage of the criminal justice process investigated. In 2013, Black adults represented 6 percent of adults in the population, but they represented 40 percent of adult arrests; 44 percent of adults booked; 49 percent of adults eligible for SFPDP, and 40 percent of adults convicted. Asian Pacific Islander and “Other” Adults Due to lack of consistent data, this analysis did not focus on Asian Pacific Islander (API) or “other” adults. Future disparities analyses should include these populations but must account for differences between subgroups within the larger API population. Historical, cultural and economic differences between groups of Asian and Pacific Islander immigrants to the United States often result in a wide variety of experiences and outcomes within American society, including interaction with and rates of involvement in the criminal justice system. Improved data collection on race and ethnicity will support this type of analysis. 12 (Nationally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” (89%) would be identified as “White.”) Easy Access to Juvenile Populations. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 9 | Page Attachment B Page 97 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Arrests San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) was unable to provide data on the total number of arrests in San Francisco disaggregated by race and ethnicity. In lieu of local data from the Reentry Council member agencies, BI used the State of California Department of Justice (DOJ) “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register” (MACR) to compile data on arrests in San Francisco. An “arrest” using these data includes “any person taken into custody because an officer has reason to believe the person violated the law 13.” When an individual is arrested for multiple charges, MACR captures only the most serious offense based on the severity of possible punishment. Importantly, these arrest data do not include cite and release interactions with police. To understand the full scope of racial and ethnic disparities at arrest, SFPD must build capacity to collect and report on all arrests and contacts. Key Findings o In 2013, Black Adults in San Francisco were more than seven times as likely as White adults to be arrested 14. o Despite a significant overall reduction in arrest rates in San Francisco, the disparity gap – relative rate of arrest for Black adults compared to White adults - is increasing. o Whereas the disparity gap in arrests statewide is decreasing, the disparity gap in San Francisco is increasing. o Rates of arrest are higher for Black adults than White adults for every offense category. o Despite reductions in rates of arrest for drug offenses, the Black/White disparity gap increased for every drug offense category. Over the past two decades, arrest rates in San Francisco have decreased, but reductions for White adults outpaced Black adults. Between 1994 and 2013, arrests rates fell by 62 percent for White adults (from 72 arrests per 1,000 White adults in the population to 27 arrests). During that same time, arrest rates fell by 42 percent for Black adults (from 334 arrests per 1,000 to 195 arrests). 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2013 Percent Change 1994-2013 White # of Arrests 22,011 23,466 18,052 13,026 9,151 8,836 Rate per 1000 72 74 58 44 29 27 -62% Black # of Arrests 17,374 19,809 17,896 12,735 8,198 8,027 Rate per 1000 334 400 385 296 196 195 -42% 13 California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (MACR) Data Files; CJSC published tables (accessed November 2014). 14 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 10 | Page Attachment B Page 98 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Disparity Gap in Arrests: San Francisco The result of different arrest rate reductions is that despite significant reductions in arrest rates, the disparity between Black and White adults has increased. In 1994, for every White adult arrested, 4.6 Black adults were arrested, but in 2013 for every White adult arrested, 7.1 Black adults were arrested. Disparity Gap: San Francisco Arrests Compared to State of California Arrests During the same time period that San Francisco’s disparity gap increased by 45 percent, from Black adults being 4.6 times as likely as White adults to be arrested to 7.1 times as likely, the disparity gap in arrest rates for the State of California decreased. Statewide, in 1994, Black adults were 3.9 times as likely as White adults to be arrested. In 2013, Black adults were 3 times as likely. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 11 | Page Attachment B Page 99 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Disparities in Drug Arrest Between 1994 and 2013, rates for felony drug arrests in San Francisco decreased by 88 percent for White adults (decreasing from 14.1 per 1,000 to 1.7) and by 74 percent for Black adults (decreasing from 58.5 per 1,000 to 15.5). During the same time, rates for misdemeanor drug offenses decreased by 85 percent for White adults (from 2 per 1,000 to 0.3 per 1,000), while rates for Black adults decreased by 48 percent (from 7.9 per 1,000 to 4.1). The disparity gap between White and Black adult arrests has increased for almost every felony and misdemeanor drug offense. A review of changes in the disparity gap for other offenses is available in Appendix B. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 12 | Page Attachment B Page 100 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Bookings to Jail (Pretrial) When an adult in San Francisco is arrested or has violated the terms and conditions of his or her probation or parole, he or she may be booked into County Jail. The following analysis explores pretrial bookings to County Jail. Unfortunately, the analysis was restricted due to limited data. For this analysis, BI used data from the Court Management System (CMS) and supplemented it with race and ethnicity data from the Sheriff Department’s Jail Management System (JMS). The full time frame for the data analyzed is January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014. Data required extensive clean up to answer the most basic questions about booking to pretrial jail. Many questions we were interested in exploring could not be answered. After we cleaned up the data,15 there were 63,318 bookings to jail in the full time frame with data on race and ethnicity. In 2013, 19,273 cases included data on race and ethnicity. Key Findings o Black adults in San Francisco are 11 times as likely as White adults to be booked into County Jail. This disparity is true for both Black men (11.4 times as likely) and Black Women (10.9 times as likely). o Latino adults are 1.5 times as likely to be booked as White adults 16. o Booking rates for Black and Latino adults have increased over the past three years while booking rates for White adults have decreased. o The top three residence zip codes of Black adults booked into County Jail were: 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), 94124 (Bayview-Hunters Point), and 94103 (South of Market). o The top three residence zip codes for Latino adults booked into jail were: 94110 (Inner Mission/Bernal Heights), 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), and 94112 (Ingelside-Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon). o A vast majority (83 percent) of individuals booked into jail in San Francisco had residence zip codes within the County. Overall, only 17 percent of individuals booked into jail had residence zip codes outside of San Francisco 17. The rate of booking to County Jail has increased in San Francisco over the past 3 years for people of color, but it has decreased for White adults. The rate of booking for Black adults increased from 191 per 1,000 in 2011 to 206 per 1,000 in 2013. Data indicate that the rate of booking for Latino adults increased by 153 percent. The significant increase is likely due – in some part – to better data collection practices to identify ethnicity. However, the data should be explored further. In 2013, Black and Latino adults were more likely to be booked into County Jail than White adults. For every one White adult booked into jail, there were eleven (11) Black adults and one and a half (1.5) Latino adults. 15 The data clean-up process for the booking data is described in the separate report BI submitted regarding data challenges (“Summary of Data Challenges Encountered during Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System”). 16 Data on Latino adults booked into County Jail is likely an undercount. When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 17 Data regarding the homeless population were unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 13 | Page Attachment B Page 101 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 Pop. 319,436 41,404 99,104 243,503 2,223 n/a 705,670 2011 Booked 6,269 7,920 1,072 1,012 62 603 16,938 2011 Rate per 1,000 20 191 11 4 28 24 2012 Pop. 322,713 41,094 101,132 249,203 2,234 n/a 716,376 2012 Booked 6,493 7,940 1,863 1,228 66 684 18,274 2012 Rate per 1,000 20 193 18 5 30 26 2013 Pop. 324,372 41,237 102,261 255,069 2,248 n/a 725,187 2013 Booked 6,095 8,508 2,803 1,203 82 582 19,273 2013 Rate per 1,000 19 206 27 5 36 27 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 14 | Page Attachment B Page 102 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Zip Code Analysis BI explored the top residence zip codes of adults booked into County Jail pretrial. The vast majority of all adults booked in County Jail in San Francisco have a residence zip code within San Francisco (83 percent)18. The top zip codes were different for Black and Latino adults, but 94102 was a top zip code for both. Exploring top zip codes where people who are booked into jail reside can help local stakeholders better understand existing services and programs in those areas, as well as service gaps and needs. Additionally, justice stakeholders can explore policies and practices that impact justice system involvement such as police deployment and locations of neighborhood courts. 18 Zip Code analysis is based on cases for which zip code was recorded (in 2013, 15,272 cases). Data regarding the homeless population was unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 94102 3177 3939 675 313 49 150 8303 94124 471 3915 386 237 8 115 5132 94103 1201 1464 301 129 12 74 3181 94110 1037 794 909 99 17 103 2959 94112 672 728 541 247 10 117 2315 94109 1123 752 160 149 11 67 2262 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 15 | Page Attachment B Page 103 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Pretrial Release Some defendants booked into County Jail are released pretrial. The types of release include release on own recognizance (OR), release to supervision programs operated by the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Program (SFPDP), and other releases (released with a citation, case dismissal, bail posting, etc.). The mission of SFPDP is to facilitate, within various communities, positive and effective alternatives to fines, criminal prosecution, and detention. Key Findings o Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to meet the criteria for pretrial release19. o Black adults are less likely to be released at all process steps: Black adults are less likely to receive an “other” release (i.e., cited, bailed, and dismissed); less likely than White adults to be released by the duty commissioner; and less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. o Rates of pretrial releases at arraignment are higher for White adults for almost every quarter. o Out of all adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release (the entirety of the SFPDP database): o 39 percent of Black adults had prior felony(ies) compared to 26 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior felony were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior felony; o 44 percent of Black adults had prior misdemeanor(s) compared to 45 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior misdemeanor were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior misdemeanor; and o 62 percent of Black adults had a high school diploma or GED compared to 66 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a HSD/GED were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a HSD/GED. Overview of Data BI analyzed the data from the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SFPDP) database from the first quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2014. This analysis was done with the goal of answering the following questions 20: o Are defendants of color who meet the criteria for pretrial release less likely to be released on OR than White defendants? o At what stage in the pretrial process are defendants released? o How have racial and ethnic disparities in pretrial releases changed from 2011 to 2014? The analysis was done in two parts: first a detailed look at the last full year of data received, quarter three of 2013 to quarter two of 2014, broken down by race and ethnicity; and second, three and a half year trends that looked at the relative release rates over time. BI received four data files from SFPDP for 2011, 2012, 2013 and the first half of 2014. The full time frame of the data analyzed is January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014. All four files were merged resulting in a single file of 26,657 cases. 161 cases (rows) were then deleted for lack of any data (blank), and 221 cases were excluded for lack of race and ethnicity data. The resulting number of valid cases is 26,496. For the last full year (quarter three 2013 to quarter two 2014), there are 7,840 valid cases. 19 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included as “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. 20 These questions were not the entirety of this analysis but after careful study of the available data and numerous communications with staff at SFPDP, the limitations within the information system and data became clear, resulting in a need to limit the scope of the analysis. See Appendix A for full list of questions. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 16 | Page Attachment B Page 104 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Limited Race and Ethnicity Data In 2013, Latino adults represented 14.1 percent of the adult population in San Francisco. For the same year, the SFPDP data indicate that Latino adults represent only 0.2 percent of adults eligible for pretrial services. The relatively small numbers of Latinos, Asians, and Others in the SFPDP data make it difficult to identify meaningful trends.21 Therefore only White/Black disparities will be analyzed.22 Pretrial Release Overview The following analysis includes only for Black and White adults.23 The charts in this section show the number and respective percentage of the 6,801 individuals (3,118 White and 3,683 Black) as they proceeded through the various decision thresholds associated with pretrial release. The data indicate there was no disproportionality between White and Black adults who met criteria for pretrial release and were interviewed by SFPDP (both 85%). It should be noted that the 15 percent of White and Black adults who were not interviewed were not precluded from release at arraignment. Adults not interviewed by SFPDP are only precluded from being granted OR release by the duty commissioner, see Appendix C. 21 An analysis of racial and ethnic disparities depends heavily on the availability of relevant data at each stage with comparable population parameters. Counts, rates, and relative rate indices can fluctuate widely over time (e.g., year to year), especially with small case counts. When case counts are too low they tend to produce unreliable results. For example, in the last full year, there were only 25 Latinos (0.3%), 100 Asians (1.3%), and 892 “other” individuals (11.4%), compared to 3,118 Whites (40%) and 3,683 Blacks (47%). When these figures are broken down further into the various stages of the SFPDP process, the number of cases is even smaller. For example, of the 25 Latino individuals, five were presented to the duty commissioner. A comparison of what happened to those five individuals versus what happened to the 349 White individuals presented to the duty commissioner in the same time period would not yield meaningful results. 22 Note: When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the arrest section which compare White and Black arrest rates. 23 This section highlights outcomes from the last full year of data BI received, Quarter 3 of 2013 to Quarter 4 of 2014 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 17 | Page Attachment B Page 105 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Pretrial Release Flow 24 When adults booked into County Jail are identified as meeting the criteria for pretrial release (Eligible for Pretrial Release), they are interviewed to further assess appropriateness for pretrial release and SFPDP services. Once interviewed, their information packet may be presented to a duty commissioner where they may be granted or denied release on their own recognizance (OR). Adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release, but whose information is not presented to the duty commissioner or who are not granted OR by the duty commissioner may be granted or denied release at arraignment. In addition to those released by the duty commissioner or arraignment judge, adults may be released pretrial because their case was dismissed, they were cited out or they posted bail. 24 Description of terms in this chart is included in Appendix C. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 18 | Page Attachment B Page 106 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Pretrial Release Compared to Bookings Black adults booked into San Francisco County Jail are more likely than White adults to be eligible for pretrial release. According to booking data, there were 5,940 White adults and 7,947 Black adults booked into County Jail during the most recent year. According to SFPD data, during the same time period, there were 3,118 White adults and 3,683 Black adults eligible for some form of pretrial release. By comparing these data, we can learn the proportion of adults booked that were eligible for pretrial release 25. Whereas 35 percent of booked White adults were eligible for pretrial release, 46 percent of booked Black adults were eligible.26 Other Release: Bailed, Cited, and Dismissed The data indicate that 51 percent of all cases that met the criteria for pretrial release were released under the “other releases” category. The proportion of White adults who met the criteria for pretrial release who were released in the “other” category (54%) was higher than the proportion of Black adults that met the criteria for pretrial release who were released under “other” (48%). The vast majority of these released adults had their cases dismissed. Black adults were more likely than White adults to have their case dismissed. White adults were more likely to post bail or be cited out than Black adults. 25 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included within “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. 26 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Q3 2013-Q2 2014 White Black Bookings 5,940 7,947 Pretrial Release Eligible 3,118 3,683 % of Booked Adults Eligible for Pretrial Release 35% 46% San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 19 | Page Attachment B Page 107 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Presented to Duty Commissioner Per Penal Code Section 1270.1, not everyone eligible for pretrial release or arraignment review is eligible for presentation to the duty commissioner. In the year analyzed, 682 people were presented to the duty commissioner. White adults presented to the duty commissioner were more likely to be granted OR than Black adults. Thirty- three (33) percent of White adults presented to the duty commissioner were granted OR compared to 30 percent of Black adults presented.27 Presented at Arraignment Sixty five percent of adults eligible for pretrial release were released prior to arraignment. Adults who meet pretrial release criteria, and who have not yet been released, are presented at arraignment. Black adults were less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. Whereas 30 percent of White adults were released at arraignment, only 25 percent of Black adults were. 27 See Appendix C for description of ORNF. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 20 | Page Attachment B Page 108 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Trends in Pretrial Releases at Arraignment White adults are consistently more likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment than Black adults for nearly every quarter. In Quarter 1 2011, 24 percent of Black adults and 32 percent of White adults were granted pretrial release at arraignment. In Quarter 2 2014, the difference narrowed because a higher proportion of Black adults were granted pretrial release (27 percent), but White adults were still more likely to receive pretrial release. Educational Status Out of all cases in the SFPDP database, 66 percent of White adults and 62 percent of Black adults in the full timeframe had a high school diploma (HSD) or a GED. However, when disaggregating data by educational status, White adults are still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Out of all cases in the SFPDP database, 45 percent of White adults and 44 percent of Black adults within the full timeframe had a prior misdemeanor within five years.28 When limiting the pool of data to adults with a prior misdemeanor conviction within the last five years, White adults are still more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults in most quarters. Prior Felony Convictions Out of all cases in the SFPDP database, 26 percent of White adults and 39 percent of Black adults within the full timeframe had a prior felony within five years. When limiting the pool of data to adults with a prior felony conviction within the last five years, White adults are still more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults in most quarters. 28 Not all prior convictions are San Francisco convictions. 35%35% 25%33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 HSD/GED and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black 28%30% 18% 25% 0% 20% 40% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 Prior Misdemeanor w/in 5 Years and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black 18%22% 14%20% 0% 20% 40% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 Prior Felony w/in 5 Years and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 21 | Page Attachment B Page 109 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Sentencing If the judge finds beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed the alleged offense, the person is convicted and the judge imposes a sentence. The sentences included in this analysis include all adults sentenced, regardless of whether they were in custody pretrial. Key Findings o For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted.29 (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos.) o Black adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are ten times as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court. o Latino adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are nearly twice as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court.30 o The vast majority of all people convicted are sentenced to Jail/Probation. Black adults with Jail/Probation sentences are more likely to receive formal probation than White adults. Whereas 31 percent of White Adults receive formal probation, 53 percent of Black adults did. o Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison and County Jail alone and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation than White adults. o When they receive Jail/Probation sentences, Black adults are more likely to have a longer jail sentence than White adults. o Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either through County Jail alone or as a part of a Jail/Probation sentence). Black adults account for 50 percent of these sentenced bed days. o Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges with blood alcohol levels greater than or equal to .08 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults convicted of these charges are more likely to have a longer jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults.31 o Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances; of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. While the number of adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults.32 o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison than White adults convicted of the same offense. o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to stay longer in County Jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. The analysis of sentencing was intended to explore basic questions around potential racial and ethnic disparities in sentences for convicted adults in San Francisco, not to answer questions regarding why the disparities exist or where the responsibility for the disparities lies. The figure on the next page illustrates sentencing options. 29 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 30 See note above. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the conviction/sentencing section which compare White and Latino rates. 31 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is VC 23152(b)/M. 32 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is HS 11352(a)/F. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 22 | Page Attachment B Page 110 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute In analyzing sentencing, BI answers the following questions: • What types of sentences do defendants receive? • How long are the sentences? • Are defendants of color more likely to receive more restrictive sentences than White defendants? • What sentences do defendants receive for the top convicted charges? • How have racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing changed from 2011 to 2014? In answering these questions, BI used data from the Court Management System (CMS) and supplemented it with race and ethnicity data from the Sheriff Department’s Jail Management System (JMS). The full time frame for the data analyzed is January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014.33 Disparity Gap in Convictions In 2013, more than 10 Black adults were convicted for every White adult convicted in San Francisco. Almost two Latino adults were convicted for every White adult convicted. For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted. (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos). The disparity gap in convictions between Black and White adults remains high, whether convictions are compared to arrests or to the total adult population. Convictions per 1,000 in the population appear to be increasing quickly for Latinos, but this could be a reflection of changes in data collection practices. The number of convicted Latino adults increased by more than 200 percent between 2011 and 2013, rising from 235 to 711. 33 There were a total of 18,621 convictions in this data set. The data required extensive clean up to answer the questions. This included removing 335 cases with no SF#, the only means of reliably identifying an individual, leaving 18,268 cases. BI was advised not use the “case disposition” field in the CMS data to inform its understanding of sentence types. Instead the four sentence types and length variables were used to create 15 unique combinations of sentences each with a unique code. Eight of these unique codes, representing 80 cases, were excluded because they appeared to be data entry errors. This left 18,206 valid cases; however, of these cases 3,588 (19.7%) were missing race and ethnicity data, leaving 14,618 cases with both an SF# and race and ethnicity data. In order to show the most recent information, pieces of this analysis limit the timeframe to the last full year of data, quarter 3 of 2013 to quarter 2 of 2014, which included 4,806 cases with valid data on race and ethnicity. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 23 | Page Attachment B Page 111 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute White Black Latino API Native American 2011 Population 319,436 41,404 99,104 243,503 2,223 2011 Convictions 1,352 1,877 235 261 9 2011 Rate per 1,000 4.2 45.3 2.4 1.1 4.0 2011 Disparity Gap 1 10.7 .6 .3 1.0 2012 Population 322,713 41,094 101,132 249,203 2,234 2012 Convictions 1,588 1,544 426 370 6 2012 Rate per 1,000 4.9 37.6 4.2 1.5 2.7 2012 Disparity Gap 1 7.6 .9 .3 .5 2013 Population 324,372 41,237 102,261 255,069 2,248 2013 Convictions 1,355 1,769 711 406 24 2013 Rate per 1,000 4.2 42.9 7.0 1.6 10.7 2013 Disparity Gap 1 10.3 1.7 .4 2.6 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 24 | Page Attachment B Page 112 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Sentence Types Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison and County Jail and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation sentences than White adults. Data shown is for the latest full year: Q3 2013-Q2 2014 The vast majority of all sentences were Jail/Probation. Convicted White adults were more likely than convicted Black adults to receive a Jail/Probation sentence. Whereas 74 percent of White adults received a Jail/Probation sentence, 63 percent of convicted Black adults were sentenced to Jail/Probation. For the probation portion of Jail/Probation sentence, Black adults were more likely to receive formal probation than Black adults. Fifty-three (53) percent of Black adults received Formal Probation and 47percent received Court Probation (a form of informal probation). In contrast, only 31 percent received Formal Probation and 69 percent of White adults received Court Probation. While BI was unable to determine who was eligible for Court vs. Formal Probation from the data received, a next step would be to examine who was eligible for Court Probation but received Formal (disaggregated by race and ethnicity).34 Convicted Black adults were more likely than convicted White adults to be sentenced to County Jail. Twenty-one (21) percent of White adults were sentenced to County Jail, whereas 25 percent of Black adults were sentenced to County Jail. Convicted Black and Latino adults were also more likely than convicted White adults to be sentenced to State Prison. Whereas two (2) percent of convicted White adults were sentenced to State Prison, five (5) percent of Latino adults and nine (9) percent of Black adults were sentenced to State Prison. 34 A variable to identify eligibility for Court Probation would need to be captured in the database. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 25 | Page Attachment B Page 113 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Sentence Length When they receive a Jail/Probation sentence, Black adults are more likely to have a longer jail sentence than White adults. The tables below show mean and median sentences for Jail/Probation, County Jail, and State Prison sentences. The sentence lengths are further disaggregated by felony and misdemeanor offenses. Not surprisingly, the sentence lengths for felonies exceed the sentence length for misdemeanors. Jail/Probation sentences comprised 72 percent of all sentences in the latest year. The average number of days sentenced for White adults in the last year of data is 38 days in County Jail, compared to an average of 63 days for Black adults. The White-Black disparity persists when looking at the median; White adults have a median of ten days in County Jail compared to 20 days for Black adults.35 There did not appear to be disparities in lengths of probation in the Jail/Probation sentences. In the last full year, the mean sentence to probation ranged from 34.2 months to 37.1 months, and the median sentence was 36 months for all groups. Black adults are more likely to receive a longer State Prison sentence than White adults. Whereas the average State Prison sentence for White adults was 33 months, the average for Black adults was 149 months. When looking at County Jail sentences alone, while the differences in sentences were not statistically significant, Black and Latino adults had longer sentences than White adults. Moreover, 68 percent of adults sentenced to County Jail in the last full year were people of color. This is cause for concern. 35 The Mann-Whitney test was used to test significance in differences of median County Jail sentence length for Jail/Probation sentences and the results showed that there is a significant difference in the median jail sentence for Black and White adults. The Games-Howell Post Hoc test was used to determine if the differences in the mean sentences were significant, and the results showed that the mean sentence for Black adults is significant when compared to White. White N=280 N=27 N=280 N=27 Felony 314.5 33.3 180 24 Misdemeanor 75.5 *30 * Total 160.3 33.3 60 24 Black N=448 N=150 N=448 N=150 Felony 266 149 128 36 Misdemeanor 80.2 *26 * Total 166.1 149 71 36 Latino N=93 N=37 N=93 N=37 Felony 282.5 37.2 210 36 Misdemeanor 78.9 *30 * Total 139.4 37.2 69 36 Asian Pacific Islander N=40 N=7 N=11 N=7 Felony 334.2 46.7 365 30 Misdemeanor 85.2 *180 * Total 198 46.7 29 30 Latest Full Year: Q3 2013 - Q2 2014 County Jail (Days) Prison (Months) N=976 N=1,107 N=567 N=306 73 10 8 75 Jail/Probation Jail/Probation Probation Jail (Days)Jail (Days)Probation County Jail (Days) Prison (Months) Mean Sentence Median Sentence 36.4 35.9 38.9 36 36 36 N=306 10 7 62 36 36 10 36 36 36 20 71 10 36 36 36 10 38.9 36 129.7 15.3 37.1 38.6 39.2 110.3 36.5 19.8 36.3 62.9 N=567 38.1 117.3 34.9 23.2 35.7 38.3 N=1,107 39.4 128.6 34.9 18.3 N=976 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 26 | Page Attachment B Page 114 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute County Jail Bed Days Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 sentenced bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either through county jail alone (50%) or as a part of a jail/probation sentence (50%).36 • White adults account for 28 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. • Black adults account for 50 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. • Latino adults account for 12 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. • API adults account for 12 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. Sentences for DUI (VC 23152(b)/M) DUI was selected for closer analysis because it is the top conviction charge.37 In the full time frame, 14 percent of all convictions were for DUIs. The vast majority of sentences for DUI were Jail/Probation, comprising 98 percent of all sentences for DUIs. Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges38 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults are more likely to have a longer County Jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults. Whereas on average, Black and Latino adults were sentenced to 17 days and 18 days of County Jail, respectively, White adults were sentenced to 13 days County Jail. Additionally, the number of DUI convictions has increased over time, signaling that this is an offense that is still relevant in San Francisco. 36 This refers to sentenced bed days, not bed days served. The number of days served may be less than the number sentenced due to half time credits available for some convictions. 37 See Appendix D for the top offenses for which people were convicted broken down by race and ethnicity. 38 Analysis includes the entire timeframe, in order to include more cases. California code is VC 23152(b)/M, which is driving with a blood alcohol level greater than or equal to .08. DUI Sentences White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total County Jail 11 (1%) 10 (4%) 9 (2%) 1 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (1%) 33 (2%) Probation 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) Jail/Probation 888 (99%) 268 (96%) 384 (98%) 276 (99%) 3 (75%) 177 (99%) 1,996 (98%) Total 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 Jail/Probation Jail (days) White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total N 888 268 384 276 3 177 1,996 Mean 13 17 18 12 7 15 15 Median 7 8 10 5 5 5 8 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 27 | Page Attachment B Page 115 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Sentences for Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances (HS 11352(A)/F) In addition to analyzing DUIs, BI reviewed sentencing outcomes for adults convicted of felony transporting or selling controlled substances (Health and Safety Code 11352(A)). This offense was selected because it was the second most frequent offense for which Black adults were convicted. Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances.Of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances 39 are more likely to stay longer in jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. While the number of adults convicted for transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults. 39 Analysis includes the entire timeframe, in order to include more cases. California code is HS 11352(A)/F. Sentences for transporting or selling controlled substances—HS 11352(A)/ White Black Latino API Other Total County Jail 6 (8%) 53 (15%) 3 (7%) 4 (31%) 1 (6%) 67 (13%) Jail/Probation 64 (90%) 238 (66%) 33 (77%) 4 (31%) 13 (81%) 352 (70%) State prison 1 (1%) 38 (11%) 7 (16%) 2 (15%) 2 (13%) 50 (10%) Suspended State Prison to Jail/Probation 0 (0%) 32 (9%) 0 (0%) 3 (23%) 0 (0%) 35 (7%) Total 71 361 43 13 16 504 Jail/Probation Jail (days) White Black Latino API Other Total N 64 238 33 4 13 352 Mean 86 151* 129 114 128 136 Median 43 120 74 92 120 91 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 28 | Page Attachment B Page 116 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute White adults convicted of transport /sell narcotics are more likely to receive a Jail/Probation sentence than Black adults, 90 percent compared to 66 percent. The County Jail portion of the Jail/Probation sentence is longer for Black and Latino adults convicted of transport/sell narcotics. Whereas White adults are sentenced to an average of 86 days, Black adults are sentenced to 151 days and Latino adults to 129 days. The number of convictions has decreased dramatically since the first quarter of 2011. Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to County Jail or State Prison for transport/sell narcotics. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 29 | Page Attachment B Page 117 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Sentencing Trends State prison sentences decreased for all groups since the first quarter of 2011. During the same time period the use of Jail/Probation Sentences and County Jail Sentences has increased. Given legal reforms in recent years, such as AB109 and Proposition 47, reductions in the use of State Prison sentences are not surprising. However, the time frame of our analysis suggests that the declining use of State Prison was a trend that began before the impacts of these reforms were fully realized. AB 109 went into effect in October 2011 and Prop 47 was passed and implemented in November 2014. In the first quarter of 2011, 72 percent of White adults (226 of 315) received Jail/Probation compared to 63 percent of Black adults (292 of 460). In the second quarter of 2014, 75 percent of White adults (246 of 326) received Jail/Probation, compared to 64% of Black adults (293 of 441). Stated differently, in the first quarter of 2011 White adults are 1.13 times more likely to get a Jail/Probation sentence than Black adults, and in the second quarter of 2014 White adults are 1.14 times more likely to get a Jail/Probation sentence. In the first quarter of 2011, 15 percent of White adults (48 of 315) and 17 percent of Black adults (79 of 460) received a County Jail sentence. In the second quarter of 2014, 20 percent of White adults (63 of 326) and 25 percent of Black adults (103 of 441) received a County Jail sentence. In other words, in the first quarter of 2011 Black adults were 1.13 times more likely to get a County Jail sentence than White adults, and in the second quarter of 2014, Black adults are 1.21 times more likely to get a County Jail sentence than White adults. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 30 | Page Attachment B Page 118 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Trends in State Prison Sentences Despite overall decreases, the use of State Prison sentences continues to be relevant to the discussion of disparities. The proportion of convicted adults sentenced to State Prison decreased from 14 percent of all convictions in the first quarter of 2011 to just five percent of all convictions in quarter 2 of 2014. In the first quarter of 2011, 15 percent of Black adults convicted received a sentence of State Prison, and 11 percent of White adults convicted received a sentence of State Prison. In the second quarter of 2014, eight percent of Black adults convicted were sentenced to State Prison, and two percent of White adults convicted were sentenced to State Prison. In comparing sentences to State Prison for White and Black adults, the disparity grew. Whereas in the first quarter of 2011, convicted Black adults were 1.4 times as likely as convicted White adults to be sent to State Prison, in quarter two of 2014, convicted Black adults were nearly four times as likely to be sent to State Prison. In other words, the proportion of Black adults sentenced to State Prison increased over time. During the first quarter of 2011, Black adults made up 53 percent of all State Prison sentences. By the second quarter of 2014, Black adults made up 67 percent of all State Prison sentences. Trends in Length of County Jail (for Jail/Probation Sentences) In Q1 2011, Black adults received an average jail sentence that was 45 days longer (85% longer) than White adults. In Q2 2014, Black adults received an average jail sentence that was 19 days longer (46% longer) than White adults. Although the average length of a County Jail sentence for Jail/Probation sentences have decreased, they are still consistently longer for Black and Latino adults. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 31 | Page Attachment B Page 119 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Building Data Capacity to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities The purpose of these recommendations is to aid in the development of data capacity, including data collection, analysis, and use. These recommendations build on a separate report BI submitted to the Reentry Council detailing the problems we encountered with respect to data availability and data integrity. Accessing reliable and accurate data is a common challenge for justice systems. Often criminal justice information systems are built for case management, not analytics. As a result, asking basic questions of the vast and often separate information systems is complicated. Based on our minimal experience in working with key criminal justice information systems in San Francisco, this will require a commitment. In making our observations and recommendations, BI would like to acknowledge that the San Francisco Adult Probation Department spent a significant amount of time and effort outreaching to various internal and external partners to make sense of the data. This outreach often resulted in a new understanding of data variables. Often, BI discovered that the data variables required to answer questions about disparities in the system were meaningless or were previously misunderstood. What was clear is that the knowledge necessary to improve data capacity in a meaningful way is shared by individuals in different departments and agencies. Therefore, there must be collective and collaborative effort to build data capacity, or efforts will be severely hindered. While BI recognizes that there is much we do not understand about the information systems and protocols in place, we hope these observations will help stakeholders continue to build capacity to use data to better understand decision-making in San Francisco’s criminal justice agencies. Both our identification of problems and recommendations are limited in nature as an information system or data capacity assessment was not part of our scope of work. However, due to the extensive challenges we encountered in attempting to perform our analysis, we felt it would be helpful to share our experiences and recommendations. The appropriate existing committees that already focus on building data infrastructure (CMS Committee and/or JUSTIS Committee) should review these reports, and prioritize the most relevant recommendations for further investigation and implementation. Additional ad-hoc or subcommittees may also be helpful to focus upon specific issues that are identified. Protocols and Documentation I. Develop clear protocols for gathering and entering key data into the information systems For instance, there is currently no clear and consistent procedure for collecting race and ethnicity data across criminal justice agencies. All agencies should adopt a consistent protocol and consistent race and ethnicity categories. The current best practice is to use a two-tiered questioning process: A. The first question: Do you identify as Hispanic or Latino? B. The second question: What is your race or ethnicity? II. Relevant agencies should develop or review and update existing training manuals It is not clear to BI which agencies have training manuals and when these were last reviewed and updated. A key component for ensuring strong data quality is having a detailed training process for users of the system. This is San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 32 | Page Attachment B Page 120 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute accomplished in part by documentation. A training manual helps to ensure that users are trained according to a defined and agreed upon process. Additionally, agencies should evaluate quality assurance measures to ensure that data collection practice aligns with written protocol. III. Create and Distribute a Data Dictionary A significant portion of time was spent attempting to understand the terminology used in the various systems during our analysis of the data provided by the various stakeholders. While it is unavoidable to have some niche specific jargon within any professional environment, having a dictionary of this terminology and the meaning of the different variables in the various data systems can: A. Make each system more uniform and consistent by allowing its various users to have a common understanding of what it is they are inputting; and B. Act as a place to store knowledge that is currently known only to one or two people within the various stakeholder agencies, which will cut down the time in the future for this type of analysis. Staff Training I. Train staff to enter data according to protocol. Training staff in data entry protocols is important. It is equally important to make the system as user friendly as possible and to develop protocols that are simple in relation to a more efficient and protected system. II. Incentivize Proper Data Collection Procedures In addition to a training manual, it is good practice to create incentives for users of IT systems to be invested in the quality of the data that they are capturing. Two suggestions for incentivizing stronger and more consistent data collection are: A. Develop and/or implement user logging system. Utilizing a user logging system is a valuable way to enforce data collection rules. Essentially a user logging system captures who, when, and where data was added or modified. With this information, statistics may be developed that suggest varying levels of data quality for system users. Data quality measures may provide valuable statistics for performance reviews while also providing greater transparency into where data quality issues are occurring so that they can be addressed more directly and quickly. B. Educate staff on the value of data. Educating users as to why the data they are collecting is important may also serve as a valuable tool for greater data quality. A particular approach that may be useful is to share data analytics with the users who collect the data that feeds into the statistics. In addition, consider creative ways to empower users to be part of the analytical process. Modifications to Data Systems to Improve Data Integrity I. Limit the number of open fields in information systems This will help eliminate the problem of the same data being entered in multiple ways, such as encountered with the SFPDP database. II. Leverage Constraint Potential of Information Systems/Enforce Protections San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 33 | Page Attachment B Page 121 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute In addition to greater efficiency, this provides the opportunity to leverage the information system to recall and enforce data rules. A simple example is requiring release dates to be later than booking dates. These types of constraints might address a good portion of the challenges encountered within the MTR data. Generating Reports and Using Data I. Develop infrastructure to report on key data disaggregated by race and ethnicity Jurisdictions that are committed to reforming any part of their system or ensuring that all people are being treated fairly and equitably must have the appropriate infrastructure in place. As a starting point in San Francisco, the relevant data committee should identify what information system modifications and data collection processes are required to answer the disparities questions developed by BI and refined by San Francisco stakeholders (as described in Appendix A). II. Develop regular reports (BI recommends quarterly) Once the capacity is in place, San Francisco should develop a report that will be reviewed regularly by stakeholders to measure progress on an ongoing basis. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 34 | Page Attachment B Page 122 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Conclusion and Next Steps Having worked in over 100 jurisdictions, BI continues to see racial and ethnic disparities similar to those in this report. The prevalence of these disparities undermines any notion of “justice” in our criminal justice system. Given the disparities in San Francisco outlined in this report, it is incumbent on local stakeholders to address the inequities within the criminal justice system. We hope this analysis provides a starting point for stakeholders to consider more effective reform strategies that promote equity and reduce the significant racial and ethnic disparities outlined in this report. To further disparity reduction efforts, BI recommends: (1) Build data capacity per the suggestions in this report. (2) Develop capacity to answer the key questions BI was unable to answer due to data limitations. For example: • Arrest: 1. How do racial and ethnic disparities change (if at all) when citations are included in arrests? 2. Are people of color more likely than White adults to have a more restrictive outcome to their arrest? (i.e. remain in jail vs. divert or citation for appearance); 3. Where are people of color arrested most frequently? • Pretrial Jail and Bail Decisions: 1. Do defendants of color remain in jail pretrial at higher rates than White defendants? 2. When bail is set, do defendants of color have higher bail amounts attached to their bail offer than White defendants? 3. Are defendants of color less likely to post bail? 4. Do defendants of color have a longer pretrial length of stay than White defendants? 5. How do lengths of stay differ by release types (i.e. cited out; dismissed; release on bail; release on pretrial services; release with credit for time served)? 6. Are defendants of color more likely than White defendants to remain in jail during the trial? • Charging and Sentencing: 1. Are defendants of color who remain in jail during trial more likely to have more restrictive sentences? 2. How does race and ethnicity impact charging decisions? 3. Are people of color more likely to plead guilty? Does the likelihood of a guilty plea increase for defendants who remain in custody pretrial? • Motions to Revoke Probation (MTR): 1. Are probation clients (“clients”) of color more likely than White clients to have MTRs filed? 2. Which departments or agencies are filing the MTRs? 3. Why was the MTR filed? (new arrest, drug use, fail to report, violate stay away order, etc.) 4. Do clients of color have their probation revoked for different reasons than White clients? 5. What are the outcomes of MTRs for clients of color (i.e., modification of probation leading to jail? Modification leading to treatment mandate? Revocation leading to state prison?) (3) Develop a system of reporting key indicators of racial and ethnic disparities on a regular basis; BI recommends quarterly. These reports should be disseminated to key partners and be made publicly available. The reports can be used to both identify where disparities exist and to identify target populations for disparity reduction work. Regular reports may be used to monitor trends and whether system involvement for people of color is increasing or decreasing. Below are examples of basic tables that stakeholders may agree to populate. The tables are included as a starting point for discussion --for each key decision point, there are additional data to consider. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 35 | Page Attachment B Page 123 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Key Decision Points to Monitor White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Arrests Bookings to Jail Filings Declinations Convictions Jail Bookings by Most Serious Offense Category White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Felony Person Property Drug Public Order Sex Other Total Misdemeanor Person Property Drug Public Order Sex Other Total Technical/ Administrative Violation of Probation Bench Warrant Other Technical Violation Average Daily Population in Jail White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Average Daily Population (Total) ADP Felony Pretrial ADP Misdemeanor Pretrial ADP Probation Violation ADP FTA Warrant Hold ADP AWOL Warrant Hold ADP ICE Hold ADP Sentenced to Jail Misdemeanor ADP Sentenced to Jail Felony Length of Stay in Jail (Average and Median) by Release Type White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Cite Out Dismiss Release on Bail Release to Pretrial Services Release with Credit for Time Served San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 36 | Page Attachment B Page 124 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Bail Set and Post White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total $1 -$100 Bail Set Bail Posted $101- $500 Bail Set Bail Posted $501- $1000 Bail Set Bail Posted $1001- $5000 Bail Set Bail Posted $5001- $10,000 Bail Set Bail Posted $10,001- $20,000 Bail Set Bail Posted $20,000+ Bail Set Bail Posted Pretrial Release Decision by Risk Assessment Score White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Total Booked in Jail High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk Pretrial Release High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk Release on Monetary Bail High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk Remain in Jail High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk (4) Institutionalize a process for deliberating on the data regularly. Importantly, not only should the data be collected and reported, the data must be discussed by a collaborative made up of traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. During these meetings, stakeholders should consider how local policy and practice change could result in reductions in disparities. As data capacity is strengthened, these are the types of focused conversations we encourage San Francisco stakeholders to have. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 37 | Page Attachment B Page 125 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Appendix A: Initial Questions and Flow Charts 40 40 This initial analysis focus purposefully excluded charging decisions, a key decision point. JRI stakeholders agreed that BI’s analysis would not look at charging decisions, as both the Public Defender and District Attorney were already engaged in their own studies of this decision point. Their studies will provide a more in-depth look at charging decisions and will be shared with JRI partners. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 38 | Page Attachment B Page 126 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Appendix A: Initial Questions and Flow Charts San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 39 | Page Attachment B Page 127 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Appendix B: Disparity Gap in Arrests (2013) Disparity Gap (Times More Likely Than White) White Arrest Rate (per 1000) Black Arrest Rate (per 1000) Kidnapping (F) 62.9 0.003 0.19 Lewd or Lascivious (F) 23.6 0.003 0.07 Robbery (F) 17.0 0.34 5.77 Other Sex Law Violations (F) 15.7 0.05 0.73 Checks / Access Cards (M) 15.7 0.003 0.05 Narcotics (F) 14.5 0.69 10.04 Sex Offenses (F) 14.4 0.06 0.80 Other Drugs (M) 13.9 0.28 3.90 Weapons (M) 11.8 0.03 0.36 Weapons (F) 11.7 0.22 2.52 Forgery / Checks / Access Cards (F) 11.3 0.10 1.19 Other Felonies (F) 11.3 4.06 45.78 Other Offenses (F) 10.9 4.45 48.55 Burglary (F) 9.9 0.75 7.42 Homicide (F) 9.6 0.03 0.27 All Felony 9.4 10.56 98.82 Property Offenses (F) 9.0 1.81 16.34 Drug Offenses (F) 9.0 1.72 15.52 Other Misdemeanors (M) 8.9 1.33 11.91 Theft (F) 8.8 0.62 5.46 Failure to Appear Non-Traffic (M) 8.7 2.48 21.53 Other Drugs (F) 7.9 0.01 0.07 Disturbing the Peace (M) 7.4 0.06 0.41 Selected Traffic Violations (M) 7.2 2.86 20.59 Motor Vehicle Theft (F) 7.1 0.29 2.04 Violent Offenses (F) 7.0 2.52 17.61 Malicious Mischief (M) 6.9 0.02 0.17 Marijuana (F) 6.8 0.35 2.38 Trespassing (M) 6.0 0.57 3.40 Liquor Laws (M) 6.0 0.11 0.68 All Misdemeanor 5.7 16.68 95.84 Prostitution (M) 5.6 0.40 2.26 Other Theft (M) 5.3 0.09 0.46 Assault (F) 5.3 2.12 11.23 Forcible Rape (F) 5.2 0.03 0.15 Burglary Tools (M) 5.2 0.06 0.29 Assault and Battery (M) 5.2 1.98 10.23 Arson (F) 4.9 0.05 0.24 Dangerous Drugs (F) 4.5 0.67 3.03 Marijuana (M) 3.9 0.01 0.02 Petty Theft (M) 3.9 0.69 2.72 Drunk (M) 3.4 3.31 11.20 Lewd Conduct (M) 2.8 0.04 0.12 Dangerous Drugs 2.6 0.06 0.15 Hit and Run (M) 2.6 0.05 0.12 Manslaughter Vehicular (F) 2.6 0.01 0.02 Annoying Children (M) 2.6 0.01 0.02 City / County Ordinances (M) 2.6 0.01 0.02 Disorderly Conduct (M) 2.6 0.16 0.41 Driving Under the Influence (M) 2.3 1.80 4.20 Vandalism (M) 2.0 0.23 0.46 Indecent Exposure (M) 2.0 0.01 0.02 Hit and Run (F) 1.7 0.04 0.07 Obscene Matter (M) 1.3 0.02 0.02 Driving Under the Influence (F) 1.2 0.12 0.15 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 40 | Page Attachment B Page 128 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Appendix C: Description of SFPDP Process Diagram and Terminology “Eligible for Pretrial Release” is the largest and most inclusive category in the SFPDP system. It includes all individuals in the entire SFPDP data set. Eligible for Pretrial Release is not a term used in the SFPDP database, but rather a term BI created, after discussions with Reentry Staff, to label everyone in the SFPDP database. “Eligible for Pretrial Release” is the base of comparison for much of the analysis conducted with regard to pretrial release. “Interviewed,” indicates an individual was interviewed to determine eligibility for presentation to the duty commissioner. “Not Interviewed” is a term BI created to include all individuals that did not, for whatever reason, get interviewed to determine if they could be presented to the duty commissioner. “Other: Bailed, Cited, or Dismissed” is represents individuals that are cited out, bailed out, or have their case dismissed at some stage in the process, but not at arraignment or by the duty commissioner. Within this category “Bailed,” “Cited,” and “Dismissed”, some dispositions are distinguished within the SFPDP database as “Before Presentation” (BP), i.e., before presentation to the duty commissioner. These individuals were denoted by a BP prefix to their disposition in the SFPDP Rebooking Status variable. For example, both of these are dispositions within the SFPDP system: “Bailed” and “BP Bailed.” These distinctions are not relevant for this analysis and were therefore omitted. “Presented to Duty Commissioner” means that an individual was interviewed for eligibility and then presented to the duty judge. BI focused on two types of dispositions: “Granted OR by Commissioner” and “Denied OR by Commissioner.” “Granted OR by Commissioner” indicates that an individual who was interviewed and presented to the duty commissioner was then released on their Own Recognizance (OR) by the duty judge. This can happen in two ways, either regular ORPJ or Supervised-ORPJ (terminology used within the SFPDP database), the only difference being the reporting requirements. Correspondingly “Denied OR by Commissioner” means that the individual was not granted ORPJ or Supervised-ORPJ. Another disposition at the Duty Commissioner stage is ORNF stands for “Own Recognizance Not Filed.” ORNF is a designation within the SFPDP system that means the staff did not file the case for a variety of reasons, for example a person would have been presented to the duty judge, but they paid bail before their case was concluded or their case was dismissed. These individuals were not counted in the “Granted OR by Commissioner” category. Persons who were considered “ineligible” (SFPDP database terminology) for a duty commissioner outcome were subtracted from the total number of individuals presented for a given quarter, i.e., the denominator, for each analysis conducted. These individuals are only included in the totals listed, for example at the top of the SFPDP System Flow, and are not part of the rate (percentage) calculations. An individual is considered “ineligible” because of a hold on their file that precludes a duty judge from releasing that individual, for example, an ICE hold. This applies to the entire three and a half year duty commissioner outcome trends. “Presented at Arraignment” includes all individuals that were actually arraigned. There are several paths through the SFPDP process for a person to end in the “Presented at Arraignment” category. BI focused on whether a person was granted or denied “Pretrial Release at Arraignment.” Persons who had an arraignment status of “Hold” (SFPDP database terminology) were subtracted from the total number of individuals presented for a given quarter, i.e., the denominator. These individuals are only included in the totals listed, for example at the top of the SFPDP System Flow, and are not part of the rate (percentage) calculations. An individual with a hold is not eligible for release at arraignment due to, for example, an ICE hold. This applies to the entire three and a half year arraignment outcome trends. “Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment” is a category that means that a person at arraignment was released by the court either on CTOR or Supervised-CTOR (terminology in the SFPDP database), the only difference being reporting requirements. “Denied Pretrial Release at Arraignment” means that once an individual was arraigned, he or she was denied CTOR. All the relevant information regarding this process is stored in four separate columns of data in the SFPDP data base: interview status (whether an individual was interviewed or not), rebooking status (whether an individual was released before presentation to the duty commissioner or before presentation at arraignment), duty judge 41 outcome (whether an individual was released or denied release by the duty commissioner), and arraignment outcome (whether an individual was released or denied). Due to the fact that within the base of all individuals various conclusions could occur leading to a lack of contiguity and because of a lack of a non-variable base (for example, all arrested), the only basis for comparison in most cases was whether an individual was eligible for an interview (defined above). 41 The term “judge” is used in the SFPDP database and not “commissioner” which is the more appropriate term, according to staff. San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 41 | Page Attachment B Page 129 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Appendix D: Conviction/Sentencing Data Conviction Numbers Broken Down by Gender and Race/Ethnicity for Each Year TOTAL White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 1352 1877 235 261 9 168 3902 2012 1588 1544 426 370 6 230 4164 2013 1355 1769 711 406 24 161 4426 2014 668 840 359 173 7 79 2126 Total 4963 6030 1731 1210 46 638 14618 MALE White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 1155 1563 209 225 8 155 3315 2012 1291 1281 388 300 5 191 3456 2013 1126 1438 619 338 18 138 3677 2014 539 696 326 140 7 74 1782 Total 4111 4978 1542 1003 38 558 12230 FEMALE White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 197 314 26 36 1 13 587 2012 297 263 38 70 1 39 708 2013 229 331 92 68 6 23 749 2014 129 144 33 33 0 5 344 Total 852 1052 189 207 8 80 2388 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 42 | Page Attachment B Page 130 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Top 25 Charges Resulting In Conviction (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total DUI (M) [23152(B)VC] 900 278 393 280 4 178 2033 Burglary (F) [459PC] 249 412 47 38 2 22 770 Reckless Driving (M) [23103VC] 244 72 70 120 2 55 563 Burglary (M) [459PC] 200 256 37 47 3 11 554 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 71 361 43 13 0 16 504 DUI (M) [23152(A)VC] 205 73 59 67 1 49 454 "SOLICIT SPECIF H AND S ACTS" (M) [653F(D)PC] 150 206 31 13 0 11 411 Battery (M) [242PC] 120 101 54 31 1 21 328 Receiving Stolen Property (M) [496(A)PC] 103 147 34 19 0 13 316 Possession of Controlled Substance (M) [11350(B)HS] 53 189 19 8 0 9 278 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 32 201 28 10 0 7 278 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 50 195 16 7 0 6 274 Theft (M) [484A4905PC] 131 94 19 25 1 4 274 Possession of Methamphetamines (M) [11377(A)HS] 150 61 27 14 0 6 258 Robbery (F) [211PC] 27 176 32 14 0 6 255 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 64 98 30 15 0 5 212 ADW (F) [245(A)1PC] 58 98 29 12 2 10 209 Assault GBI (F) [245(A)4PC ] 48 95 37 15 0 1 196 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 19 141 13 4 1 6 184 Possession of Concentrated Cannibis (M) [11357(C)HS] 101 48 13 7 1 6 176 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 8 129 10 2 0 1 150 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 78 35 18 14 1 4 150 Domestic Battery (M) [243(E)1PC] 46 58 29 8 0 6 147 Vandalism (M) [594(B)1PC] 63 51 20 7 1 5 147 Accessory After the Fact (M) [32PC] 32 64 20 14 0 2 132 All Other 1706 2236 584 397 21 177 5121 Total 4963 6030 1731 1210 46 638 14618 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 43 | Page Attachment B Page 131 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Top 25 Convicted Charges Resulting In Sentence to Jail/Probation (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total DUI (M) [23152(B)VC] 888 268 384 276 3 177 1996 Reckless Driving (M) [23103VC] 239 67 65 119 2 50 542 Burglary (F) [459PC] 138 249 30 27 1 13 458 DUI (M) [23152(A)VC] 202 68 56 67 0 47 440 Burglary (M) [459PC] 143 184 29 43 1 10 410 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 64 238 33 4 0 13 352 "SOLICIT SPECIF H AND S ACTS" (M) [653F(D)PC] 126 158 25 10 0 9 328 Battery (M) [242PC] 99 80 45 25 0 19 268 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 42 170 14 7 0 5 238 Receiving Stolen Property (M) [496(A)PC] 76 107 26 18 0 10 237 Possession of Controlled Substance (M) [11350(B)HS] 46 144 14 3 0 6 213 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 21 143 18 9 0 7 198 Possession of Methamphetamines (M) [11377(A)HS] 107 46 19 11 0 5 188 Theft (M) [484A4905PC] 83 57 12 15 0 2 169 Assault GBI (F) [245(A)4PC ] 40 74 34 14 0 1 163 Possession of Concentrated Cannabis (M) [11357(C)HS] 91 35 11 6 1 6 150 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 44 68 24 8 0 4 148 Robbery (F) [211PC] 14 89 18 7 0 2 130 ADW (F) [245(A)1PC] 36 53 15 9 0 8 121 Vandalism (M) [594(B)1PC] 51 41 17 6 1 5 121 Domestic Battery (M) [243(E)1PC] 41 43 24 6 0 5 119 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 8 84 7 1 0 0 100 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 54 21 12 8 0 3 98 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 12 71 7 2 1 4 97 Assault (M) [245(A)1PC] 41 39 6 6 0 2 94 All Other 1219 1410 414 309 12 129 3493 Total 3925 4007 1359 1016 22 542 10871 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 44 | Page Attachment B Page 132 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Top 25 Convicted Charges Resulting In Sentence to County Jail (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total Burglary (M) [459PC] 57 71 8 4 2 1 143 Burglary (F) [459PC] 62 64 5 5 0 4 140 Theft (M) [484A4905PC] 46 36 6 10 1 2 101 "SOLICIT SPECIF H AND S ACTS" (M) [653F(D)PC] 23 47 6 3 0 2 81 Receiving Stolen Property (M) [496(A)PC] 27 40 8 1 0 3 79 Possession of Methamphetamines (M) [11377(A)HS] 43 15 8 3 0 1 70 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 6 53 3 4 0 1 67 Possession of Controlled Substance (M) [11350(B)HS] 7 43 5 5 0 3 63 Parole Revocation (F) [3455(A)PC] 8 42 7 3 1 1 62 Battery (M) [242PC] 20 21 9 5 1 2 58 Accessory After the Fact (M) [32PC] 4 27 5 3 0 0 39 Contempt of Court (M) [166(A)4PC] 13 17 1 4 1 0 36 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 6 22 6 0 0 0 34 DUI (M) [23152(B)VC] 11 10 9 1 1 1 33 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 5 23 3 0 0 0 31 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 17 8 4 2 0 0 31 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 11 13 5 1 0 0 30 Unlawful Taking of Vehicle (M) [10851(A)VC] 9 11 6 1 0 1 28 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 0 25 2 0 0 1 28 Domestic Battery (M) [243(E)1PC] 5 15 5 2 0 1 28 Vandalism (M) [594(B)1PC] 12 10 3 1 0 0 26 Driving Without License (M) [12500(A)VC] 5 15 5 0 0 0 25 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 5 17 1 0 0 1 24 Resisting Arrest (M) [148(A)1PC] 3 13 6 2 0 0 24 Possession of Concentrated Cannabis (M) [11357(C)HS] 7 13 2 1 0 0 23 All Other 279 398 98 50 6 22 853 Total 746 1224 245 120 18 48 2401 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 45 | Page Attachment B Page 133 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute Top 25 Convicted Charges Resulting In Sentence to State Prison (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total Burglary (F) [459PC] 37 72 12 6 1 4 132 Robbery (F) [211PC] 9 63 10 6 0 3 91 ADW (F) [245(A)1PC] 21 37 13 0 2 2 75 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 2 41 3 2 0 2 50 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 1 38 7 2 0 2 50 Inflict Corporal Injury on Spouse (F) [273,5(A)PC] 9 29 4 1 0 0 43 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 5 26 3 1 0 0 35 Felon/Addict in Possession of Weapon (F) [12021A1PC] 4 26 2 2 0 0 34 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 7 14 1 6 0 1 29 Assault GBI (F) [245(A)4PC ] 5 15 3 0 0 0 23 Felon in Possession of Weapon (F) [29800A1PC] 2 17 1 1 0 1 22 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 6 6 1 4 0 1 18 Reckless Evading of Police Officer (F) [2800,2AVC] 4 9 2 0 1 2 18 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 0 14 1 1 0 0 16 Elder Abuse (F) [368(B)1PC] 3 7 0 2 0 0 12 Unlawful Taking of Vehicle (F) [10851(A)VC] 4 4 1 1 0 1 11 Grand Theft (F) [487(A)PC] 2 5 2 1 0 0 10 Attempted Robbery (F) [664,211PC] 4 6 0 0 0 0 10 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 1 7 1 0 0 0 9 Possession of Methamphetamines (F) [11377(A)HS] 1 3 3 1 0 1 9 Criminal Threat (F) [422PC] 3 5 1 0 0 0 9 Possession of Marijuana for Sales (F) [11359HS] 0 5 2 1 0 0 8 Assault with Firearm (F) [245(A)2PC] 0 6 2 0 0 0 8 Voluntary Manslaughter (F) [192(A)PC] 0 4 1 1 0 1 7 Indecent Exposure (F) [314,1PC] 2 5 0 0 0 0 7 All Other 47 107 25 10 1 10 200 Total 179 571 101 49 5 31 936 San Francisco Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis 46 | Page Attachment B Page 134 of 354 The W. Haywood Burns Institute 475 14th Street, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 415.321.4100 415.321.4140 fax info@burnsinstitute.org Attachment B Page 135 of 354 Descript Ethnic di backgrou unity and with a ten Course D 1 hour(s) Lessons: Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 Lesson 5 Lesson 6 Lesson 7 Lesson 8 Summary Workp tion: iversity is ra unds or cultu d tolerance to n-question e Duration: ) : - Benefits o 2 - Challenge - Creating a 4 - Federal Jo - Who Anti 6 - Filing a C 7 - Dealing w - Resolving y – Summary lace Diver acial, nationa ures. An awa o the workpl exam. of Workplace es of Workpl a Positive W ob Discrimin i-Discrimina Charge with a Charge g a Charge y rsity train al and religio areness abou lace or comm e Diversity lace Diversit Work Atmosp nation Laws ation Laws A e ing provid ous variety o ut different cu munity. This ty phere Affect ded by Ta of groups of p ultures and b s training cou rget Solut people who backgrounds urse has 7 le tions have varyin s helps bring earning mod ng g dules Attachment C Page 136 of 354 County Administrator Risk Management Division 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 140 Martinez, California 94553 Contra Costa County Risk Management Adm ini stration Fax Number {925) 335-1400 (925) 335-1421 September 10, 2015 In response to an inquiry from the County Administrator’s office, Risk Management would like to offer the following information regarding Contra Costa County’s eLearning Diversity training. What Are the Employer's Responsibilities for Diversity in the Workplace? Employers have an obligation to provide employees with a safe work environment free from discrimination, harassment and intimidation. Without the proper training and management, a diverse workplace can become a breeding ground for behavior and actions that rise to the level of unlawful and unfair employment practices. Therefore, employers have several responsibilities concerning diversity in the workplace. Definition Since the enactment of early nondiscrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the meaning of diversity changed dramatically. In the 1960s, diversity typically referred to differences such as race, color, sex, national origin and religion. In fact, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act specifically prohibits discrimination based on these factors. In later years, the meaning of diversity expanded to include individuals with disabilities, workers age 40 and over, and veterans. However, the definition of diversity in the workplace isn’t confined to the characteristics and status codified by law. Workplace diversity includes differences attributed to generation, culture and work styles, and preferences. Training An employer’s communication policy pertaining to workplace diversity doesn’t end with a simple Equal Opportunity Employer (EOE) stamp. Employers also have a responsibility for training employees and managers on topics related to diversity. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission strongly recommends a workplace diversity component within every employer’s training and development offerings. Attachment C Page 137 of 354 The agency states: "Such training should explain the types of conduct that violate the employer’s anti‐harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; the responsibilities of supervisors and managers when they learn of alleged harassment; and the prohibition against retaliation." New employees, from entry‐level to seasoned workers and from executive leadership to front‐line production workers, must receive company training on workplace diversity. Effective training teaches employees how to recognize behaviors that are inconsistent with company policy and actions that demonstrate lack of respect for differences among employees, customers, vendors and suppliers. Contra Costa County has taken a strong position on ensuring that the workforce learns about the anti‐harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; communicating the responsibilities of the supervisors and managers as it relates to their respective role in handling alleged harassment; and ensured widespread communication on the importance of completing workplace diversity training. Workplace diversity training is provided through an eLearning platform, Target Solutions. This web‐based platform is an exceptional utility program that offers our county employees efficient, time saving, risk management tools. Target Solutions is used by more than 2,500 public entities nationwide. The platform also monitors key compliance tasks, distributes organizational policies, and manages employee certifications and licenses. The workplace diversity training is self‐paced and cross‐browser compliant with cutting‐edge interactions. On July 1, 2014, David Twa, County Administrator directed all the Department Heads /Directors to ensure that their respective existing staff and new employees be trained according to the County Board of Supervisors’ directive. David Twa’s memo designated the Workplace Diversity training as a mandated training topic. That directive originated from the Board of Supervisors’ Internal Operations report of October 24, 1991. Prior to the memo, this training was not enforced. Through collaboration of David Twa’s memo, the eLearning platform delivery and tracking system, and designating the training as mandatory – 4, 076 Contra Costa County employees have completed the workplace diversity training. Please refer to the table on the following page. Attachment C Page 138 of 354 Workplace Diversity Completions by Department As of August 2015 Department Number of Completions Total Number of Employees Treasurer 28 26 108% Auditor 49 52 94% Sheriff's Office 946 1091 87% District Attorney 183 236 78% Child Support Services 164 227 72% County Administrators 120 168 71% Human Resources 32 54 59% County Counsel 24 50 48% County Clerk‐Recorder 27 62 44% Department Heads 10 25 40% Probation 161 417 39% Veteran Services 5 13 38% Health Services 2051 5508 37% Assessor 43 153 28% Animal Services 70 253 28% Board of Supervisors 6 45 13% Library 32 433 7% Public Works 28 397 7% Public Defender 3 87 3% Agriculture 2 73 3% Employment and Human Services 87 3300 3% Retirement 1 55 2% Conservation and Development 4 258 2% Totals: 4076 12983 31% *Total number of employees taken from Target Solutions data, based off CCC PeopleSoft software program; Figures may include temporary employees and contractors. Attachment C Page 139 of 354 In Closing Increasing attention to workplace diversity has created a new vernacular which includes buzzwords used to describe employer’s responsibilities for creating workplaces that recognize and appreciate diversity among its workforce. Inclusiveness is one such buzzword. Contra Costa County has a responsibility to practice, not just advertise, inclusiveness. We practice inclusiveness by expanding recruitment practices through innovative outreach methods that produce a wider pool of qualified applicants. Creating a diversity friendly workplace in Contra Costa County isn’t about political correctness, procuring a buzzword, a quota issue, or dodging a consent decree order. It’s about making sure that our employees of all backgrounds and potential employees feel valued. Attachment C Page 140 of 354 Attachment CPage 141 of 354 Attachment CPage 142 of 354 Attachment CPage 143 of 354 Fostering a Diverse & Inclusive Workplace TABLE OF CONTENTS ___________________________________________Introduction 2 ________________________________Dimensions of Identity 3 ______________________________________Bias & Stereotype 5 __________________________________Common Challenges 6 _______________________________Breaking Down Barriers 8 _____________________________________________Mentoring 9 _____________________________________________Conclusion 9 © 2000-2014 Attachment D Page 144 of 354 Introduction Workplace diversity is a people issue, where we try to understand our differences and similarities. We define diversity broadly to include not just race and gender, but all the different identities and perspectives that people bring, such as profession, education, parental status, geographic location and so forth. Diversity is about including and learning from others who are not the same as us... about dignity and respect for everyone, and about creating a workplace environment that encourages learning from others and leverages the diverse perspectives and contributions. This course has the following objectives: •To increase your understanding of how your identity influences how you perceive others and how others perceive you •To understand our filters and how filters create barriers •To leverage our differences to create more business value •To foster and promote a more diverse, inclusive workplace Why is Diversity Important What is the business case for diversity? Certainly, it is the “right thing to do.” But beyond that, diversity can improve the quality of our workforce and provide us a competitive business advantage. As society changes, our markets and customers change and our workforce must reflect those changes as well. Traditional “minority” groups are now the majority in 6 out of the 8 largest cities in the United States with a combined buying power in the billions of dollars. Women are the primary investors in more than half of U.S. households. A diverse workforce can better understand our customers, identify market needs and suggest potential new products and services. Diversity initiatives can attract the best and brightest employees to our workplace. Our future depends on the quality of our employees today and our ability to attract and retain the top-notch talent of tomorrow. We also need a diverse workforce to increase our creativity and innovation since employees from varied backgrounds can bring different perspectives, ideas and solutions to the table. Our society is quickly changing and it's up to us to broaden our horizons and expand our awareness of different types of people. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 2 PAGE 2 Attachment D Page 145 of 354 Dimensions of Identity In order to understand and foster diversity, we all need to become aware of and understand our own social and personal characteristics and how those characteristics influence our perspective. We also need to understand the characteristics of other people with whom we work and do business. The first step to awareness is to understand the 4 dimensions of identity: •Individual •Primary •Secondary •Universal Individual identity means those core characteristics that make up our unique personality and perspective on life. Primary identity refers to those characteristics that we cannot easily change such as our race, gender, age, and so forth. Secondary identity consists of characteristics that are more easily changed such as our marital status, religion, education, income level, and so on. Universal identity means those traits we all share and can understand in one another such as our love for our family. Individual Identity We all have a unique way of interacting with others and a unique perspective. Individual identity is the most powerful motivator of how a particular person will think or act. Our individual identity is far more relevant and predictive of how we will act than our primary or secondary identity. So, understanding someone’s individual identity is the best way to understand and predict that person's behavior and reactions. Primary Identity Our primary identity consists of core characteristics that have a powerful effect on our perspective AND on how others perceive us. Examples of primary identity include: •Race •Gender •Age •Ethnicity and National Origin •Disabilities Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 3 PAGE 3 Attachment D Page 146 of 354 •Sexual Orientation According to the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), the 9 factors we first notice about someone are: •Race •Gender •Age •Appearance •Facial expressions •Eye contact •Movement •Personal space •Touch We notice what matters to us. So the fact that race, gender, and age are the top three things we notice about someone indicates the role our primary identity plays in how we perceive others and how others perceive us. Secondary Identity Our secondary identity can change over time, but it also affects our perspective and how others perceive us. Secondary identity dimensions can include: •Marital or parental status •Religion •Education •Income level •Geographic location •Career •Sports, hobbies or other personal interests The primary and secondary identity dimensions can either be a source of commonality between people, OR, a difference that separates people. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 4 PAGE 4 Attachment D Page 147 of 354 Universal Identity Our universal identity includes those traits we all share and can relate to as human beings across the globe such as: •Love for family •Need to support family •Need for dignity and respect •Need for esteem and a sense of belonging Bias & Stereotype As we mature, our perspective on people and situations increasingly stems from our life experiences and the attitudes of our friends and family. While this is a very natural evolution, it also creates blinders that cloud how you view people. These blinders become stereotypes and biases. What are Stereotypes and Biases? A stereotype is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. Bias is a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. Identifying Your Blinders Blinders are intangible feelings that get in the way of facts. To identify blinders, ask yourself questions such as: •Do I have the same reaction to members of a given group each time you encounter him or her? •Do I have these reactions before--or after--I have a chance to know the individual? If the answer is “before you know the individual,” you’re operating on stereotypes and blinders. Work to label these automatic responses as stereotypes and remind yourself that they are not valid indicators of one’s character, skills or personality. Stereotyping is a learned habit, and it can be unlearned with practice. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 5 PAGE 5 Attachment D Page 148 of 354 Common Challenges Diversity challenges can stem from all types of identity differences. However, there are a few common diversity challenges that we all seem to experience and that would be helpful to explore further. Gender The gender difference is arguably the greatest difference and therefore, the greatest challenge for people working together. Race Race and cultural background plays a big factor in either uniting or dividing people, depending on whether a person is “in the group” or outside it. When fostering an inclusive workplace, the key is to get to know and include all types of people... not just those who look and act like you. National Origin & Cultural Differences In today’s society, it’s relatively common to work alongside people who were born in different countries and exposed to very different cultural backgrounds. Also, given increasing globalization, it’s easy for any company to conduct business globally and work with people from all over the world. Therefore, becoming more aware of cultural differences is essential. Not surprisingly, it’s easier for people to accurately recognize emotions within their own culture than in others. A Chinese businessperson is more likely to accurately label the emotions underlying the facial expressions of a Chinese colleague than those of an American colleague. So here is a diversity tip: people need to know the emotional norms in each culture they do business in, or the cultures of the people they work with, to minimize unintended signals or miscommunications. Expanding your knowledge base and doing a little cultural research could provide huge dividends. Religion Every year some people in the workplace feel excluded and/or uncomfortable during the holiday season. Remember that many religions have important celebrations not only during the month of Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 6 PAGE 6 Attachment D Page 149 of 354 December, but at other times of the year as well. Be respectful and be inclusive of everyone's celebration. Language This is one of the most common tensions in today's workforce. A growing percentage of the workforce speaks two or more languages. Be respectful and be open-minded. Don't assume someone is talking about you if he or she is speaking in a language you can't understand. If you are multilingual, try to avoid speaking in another language in front of others who can't understand, as it often makes them feel uncomfortable and excluded. Generational Issues While each generation has its merits and strengths, their weaknesses and stereotypes can cause tension and disrespect. Younger workers may not appreciate or understand the intense work lives of Baby Boomers. Each generation also has a different view of, and approach to communication. While you may not subscribe to the text-messaging habits of Millennials, it's important to appreciate every generation's modes of communication to better manage an age- diverse staff. The chart below shows some generalized differences between the 4 generations working together in today’s workplace. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 7 PAGE 7 Attachment D Page 150 of 354 Breaking Down Barriers We are each responsible for changing our stereotypes and taking down our blinders. Here, we will look at five easy steps to minimize blinders and foster a more inclusive environment. Break Assumptions •Collect information •Divide out the facts from your opinions and theories •Make judgment based only on the facts •Periodically refine your judgment based on the facts •Try to continue expanding your opinion of a person's potential. Empathize In order understand people from different cultures, empathy is vital. Try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes to see or appreciate their point of view. Involve Learn about the values and beliefs of others in the organization. Involving others in your world and involving yourself in other’s empowers and educates. Identify ways to value uniqueness among your colleagues. Look for ways to be inclusive and don’t build walls between people. Avoid Herd Mentality Herd mentality refers to a one-dimensional, group perspective. This way of thinking curbs creativity, innovation and advancement as people are limited in how they can approach or engage with different types of people. An inclusive environment can only develop if people are encouraged to think as individuals, and share their different ideas and perspectives. Do Not Tolerate Insensitive Behavior People can and do behave insensitively. By attacking someone’s person, you attack their dignity, which can only be divisive. Cultural competency is based upon people thinking through words and actions to ensure they do not act inappropriately. When insensitive behavior is witnessed, it is the responsibility of all to shun it and ensure it remains unacceptable. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 8 PAGE 8 Attachment D Page 151 of 354 Mentoring Mentors can be critical to an employee's success in an organization. Providing strong mentors helps employees develop confidence, competence and credibility in an organization - traits that lead to career advancement. Mentors provide critical support in 5 ways: •Mentoring relationships open the door to challenging assignments that allow employees to gain professional competence. •By trusting and investing in the employee, a mentor sends a signal to the rest of the organization that the employee is a high performer, which helps the employee gain confidence and establish credibility. •Mentors provide crucial career advice and counsel that prevents their protégés from getting sidetracked from the path leading to the executive level. •Mentors often become powerful sponsors later in the employee's career, recruiting them repeatedly to new positions. •Mentors protect their protégés by confronting subordinates or peers who level unfair criticism, especially if the criticism has discriminatory undertones. All in all, mentoring is a win, win strategy. It helps the career advancement of employees AND it helps the organization DEVELOP and RETAIN diverse talent. Conclusion Fostering diversity is good for business. As organizations compete in an increasingly global marketplace, the different perspectives and experiences gained by having a rich mix of employees will be important to produce creative thinking, innovative solutions and a broader appeal to a larger customer base. But to foster diversity, we first need to appreciate the strength we gain from our differences and diversity. Here are 4 ways to show our appreciation for diversity: •Value it: Valuing differences is a critical first step in melding a productive and inclusive workforce. Differences are an advantage, but only if you recognize them as such. •Demonstrate: Talk is easy. Demonstrating your appreciation of differences and helping to create a more inclusive environment is more difficult. Be willing to consider and/or implement new ideas and ways of dealing with issues. •Reward: You need to reward people who demonstrate an appreciation for everyone's uniqueness. Rewarding inclusive behavior is critical. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 9 PAGE 9 Attachment D Page 152 of 354 •Learn: Learn from colleagues whose value base and experiences are different from yours. Your efforts at learning send a message to your colleagues that you appreciate and value their differences. What develops when you are willing to learn from others is mutual respect, better communication and a greater understanding among everyone. By understanding our own identity and blinders, and those of others, we can understand and appreciate our differences. By appreciating and being sensitive to our differences, we can foster a diverse and inclusive workplace, and leverage our diversity for our benefit. Questions? Feel free to ask questions about this topic by emailing legalteam@emtrain.com © Emtrain 2014 1.800.242.6099 Updated Monday, April 21, 2014 Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 10 PAGE 10 Attachment D Page 153 of 354 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 1 Inclusion, Belonging, and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat A Note to Participants Thank you for being brave and open while you participate in this discussion, and for your commitment to ending racism within our lifetime. This session is designed to foster a nurturing community of learning, where all participants feel empowered to share and have positive interactions. Achieving Fairness and Opportunity in King County Government Practices Ensuring fairness and opportunity in how we operate as King County government and how we serve our communities, requires proactively dismantling institutional and structural racism. The concepts and tools provided in this discussion enable us to actively and effectively promote equitable outcomes in our workplaces and communities. Taking an Implicit Association Test (IAT) Before you join this discussion, please take the Race Implicit Association Test and at least one other IAT of your choice: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html A considerable part of this discussion is about understanding our individual unconscious biases – yes, we all have them. The IAT is an educational tool that evaluates a baseline of some of our most common unconscious biases. The IAT can only be taken on a computer. It is advised that you take the IATs in a private place where you feel comfortable. Feedback How did it go? Share your insights with jake.ketchum@kingcounty.gov, candace.jackson@kingcounty.gov, or arun.sambataro@kingcounty.gov. PARTICIPANT GUIDE Attachment D Page 154 of 354 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 2 Inclusion, Belonging, and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat Participant Guide* Total time = 90 minutes Part 1: Getting Started (15 minutes) Purpose: Achieve King County Equity and Social Justice foundational practice of “fostering an organizational culture that promotes fairness and opportunity.”† Discussion Goals 1. Understand the concept of implicit bias and begin to identify our individual biases. 2. Learn how we experience racial anxiety and stereotype threat, and how these experiences impact our workplace and community interactions. 3. Discuss ways to mitigate implicit bias at decision points: Hiring Work relationships Policy (drafting, interpretation, implementation) Community engagement Customer service Personnel supervision * Revised by Rachel Godsil from Within Our Lifetime Facilitator Guide created by Patrick L. Scully, Ph.D. Clearview Consulting, LLC. Adapted for King County Equity and Social Justice. For more information, see http://www.withinourlifetime.net/Blog/index.html † King County Ordinance 16948. October 2010 (Pg. 4, Line 80.) Attachment D Page 155 of 354 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 3 Guidelines for Multicultural Interactions (by Laurin Mayeno and Elena Featherston, 2006, adapted from VISIONS, Inc.) Be present… Bring your full attention to the process. Acknowledge anything that you need to let go of in order to be present. Try on new ideas, perspectives… Be willing to open up to new territory and break through old patterns. Remember, “try on” is not the same as “take on.” It’s OK to disagree… Avoid attacking, discounting or judging the beliefs and views of others. Instead, welcome disagreement as an opportunity to expand your world. Confidentiality… It helps to remember that the story belongs to the teller. Step up, step back… Be aware of sharing space in the group. Respect the different rhythms in the room; it is ok to be with silence. Self-awareness… Respect and connect to your thoughts, feelings and reactions in the process. Monitor the content, the process and yourself. Check out assumptions… This is an opportunity to learn more about yourself and others; do not “assume” you know what is meant by a communication especially when it triggers you – ask questions. Practice “both/and” thinking… Making room for more than one idea at a time means appreciating and valuing multiple realities. Intent is different from impact… and both are important. It is also important to own our ability to have a negative impact in another person’s life despite our best intention. Listen deeply… Listen with intent to hear, listen for the entire content and what is behind the words. Engage heart and mind -- listen with alert compassion. Speak from the “I… is speaking from one’s personal experience rather than saying “we,” it allows us to take ownership of thoughts, feelings and actions. Instructions for Participants Around your table/group, share what you hope to get out of this discussion. Attachment D Page 156 of 354 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 4 Part 2: Understanding the Concepts (45 minutes, with video) Implicit bias refers to the process of associating stereotypes or attitudes toward categories of people without conscious awareness. Racial anxiety is discomfort about the experience and potential consequences of inter-racial interaction: People of color can be anxious that they will be the target of discrimination and hostile or distant treatment; Whites can be anxious that they will be assumed to be racist and, therefore, will be met with distrust or hostility. People experiencing racial anxiety often engage in less eye contact, have shorter interactions, and generally seem—and feel—awkward. Not surprisingly, if two people are both anxious that an interaction will be negative, it often is. So racial anxiety can result in a negative feedback loop in which both parties’ fears appear to be confirmed by the behavior of the other. Stereotype threat occurs when a person is concerned that she will confirm a negative stereotype about her group. When people are aware of a negative stereotype about their group in a domain in which they are identified, their attention is split between the activity at hand and concerns about being seen stereotypically. Implicit Association Test (drawing from Discussion Materials, Patricia Devine) (15+minutes) Questions for Participants Have you taken the Race IAT and one other IAT of your choice? What are your thoughts or reactions? What does it mean for how you work with your colleagues? The public? If you took the Race IAT and found it easier to pair white faces with positive words and black faces with negative words or the Gender IAT and found it easier to associate words linked to work with men and family to women, you are not alone. More than 85% of whites are shown to have a “preference” for whites, for example. The good news is that this “preference” is not fixed – you can change it – and that you can make sure your behavior is not affected by this automatic response that is not consistent with your conscious beliefs. Short video from Rachel Godsil’s presentation at the 2014 ESJ Annual Forum – Building a Culture of Equity (28 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGlRt-5HX_E&feature=em-share_video_user Attachment D Page 157 of 354 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 5 Part 3: Preventing Effects of Implicit Bias (30 minutes) It is important that people consciously engage in the process (Wald and Tropp*‡, 2013): Have intention and motivation to bring about change Become aware of bias Pay attention to when stereotypical responses or assumptions are activated Make time to practice new strategies Instructions for Participants Take a moment to review the interventions handout. (2 min.) We will focus on the interventions that we can practice easily on our own as individuals, and start to develop immediately within our workplaces, to bring about positive change. Individual Interventions Institutional Interventions Improve Conditions of Decision-making§ Count ‡ Wald, J., Tropp, L. Strategies for Reducing Racial Bias and Anxiety in Schools (PDF document). Retrieved from http://www.onenationindivisible.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Strategies-for-Reducing-Racial-Bias-and-Anxiety-in- Schools_Wald-and-Tropp.pdf That’s Elena: Mexican- American, from San Francisco, IT manager, loves skiing. That’s Steve: Korean- American, from NYC, Parks supervisor, loves hip-hop. Filipino- Individuation That’s James: African-American epidemiologist, from Auburn, enjoys traveling. Stereotype Replacement Increasing opportunities for contact Attachment D Page 158 of 354 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 6 Questions for Participants Consider a specific decision point (select one from list on page 2) and discuss how we can apply these concepts and interventions that we reviewed above, during decision-making to minimize/eliminate negative impact. 1. What are some known risk areas where bias can influence interactions and decision- making? 2. How is implicit bias, racial anxiety, or stereotype threat at play? 3. How can you determine whether bias, racial anxiety or stereotype threat might be impacting decisions? 4. Which of the interventions (see definitions sheet) are likely to be most useful and how can they be applied to the situation? 5. How will you measure success? FOOD for THOUGHT (additional reading on these mind sciences) Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People by Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald, explore hidden biases that we all carry from a lifetime of experiences with social groups – age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, social class, sexuality, disability status, or nationality. Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do (Issues of Our Time) by Claude M. Steele offers a vivid first-person account of the research that supports his groundbreaking conclusions on stereotypes and identity. Attachment D Page 159 of 354 Guidelines for Multicultural Interactions Be present…Let go of anything that might be a distraction (deadlines, paperwork, children, etc.) and be intentional about your purpose in this moment. Bring your full attention to the process. Acknowledge anything that you need to let go of in order to be present. Try on new ideas, perspectives … as well as concepts and experiences that are different than your own. Be willing to open up to new territory and break through old patterns. Remember, “try on” is not the same as “take on.” It’s OK to disagree… Avoid attacking, discounting or judging the beliefs and views of others. Discounting can be verbally or non-verbally. Instead, welcome disagreement as an opportunity to expand your world. Ask questions to understand the other person’s perspective. Confidentiality…There is another dimension of confidentiality that includes “asking permission” to share or discuss any statement another person makes of a personal nature. It helps to remember that the story belongs to the teller. Step up, step back… Be aware of sharing space in the group. If you are person who shares easily, leave space for others to step into. Respect the different rhythms in the room, it is ok to be with silence. If you are a person who doesn’t speak often, consider stepping forward and sharing your wisdom and perspective. Self awareness… Respect and connect to your thoughts, feelings and reactions in the process. Be aware of your inner voice and own where you are by questioning why you are reacting, thinking and feeling as you do. Monitor the content, the process and yourself. Check out assumptions…This is an opportunity to learn more about yourself and others; do not “assume” you know what is meant by a communication especially when it triggers you – ask questions. Practice “both/and” thinking… Making room for more than one idea at a time means appreciating and valuing multiple realities (it is possible to be both excited and sad at the same time) – your own and others. While either/or thinking has it place it can often be a barrier to human communication Intent is different from impact… and both are important. It is also important to own our ability to have a negative impact in another person’s life despite our best intention. In generous listening, if we assume positive intent rather than judging or blaming, we can respond, rather than reacting or attacking when negative impact occurs. Listen deeply …Listen with intent to hear, listen for the entire content and what is behind the words. Encourage and respect different points of view and different ways of communicating. Engage heart and mind -- listen with alert compassion. Speak from the “I”…is speaking from one’s personal experience rather than saying “we,” it allows us to take ownership of thoughts, feelings and actions Laurin Mayeno and Elena Featherston, 2006 Adapted from VISIONS, Inc. Attachment D Page 160 of 354 Inclusion, Belonging and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat | kingcounty.gov/equity | 1 Definitions of Interventions* Implicit Bias Interventions Studies have shown that people who engage in the strategies described below reduce their implicit bias, are more aware of and concerned about discrimination, and are more enthusiastic about inter-racial contact. (Devine et al, 2012) The following are steps that individuals can take to “break the prejudice habit” (Devine et al, 2012): Stereotype replacement: 1) Recognize that a response is based on stereotypes, 2) label the response as stereotypical, and 3) reflect on why the response occurred. This creates a process to consider how the biased response could be avoided in the future and replaces it with an unbiased response. Counter-stereotypic imaging: Imagine counter-stereotypic others in detail – friends, co-workers, respected community members, even celebrities. This makes positive images more available and begins the process of replacing the negative, often inaccurate stereotypes. Individuation: Learn specific information about your colleagues. This prevents stereotypic assumptions and enables association based on personal and unique, rather than group, characteristics. Perspective taking: Imagine oneself to be a member of a stereotyped group. This increases psychological closeness to the stereotyped group, which ameliorates automatic group-based evaluations. Increasing opportunities for contact: Increased contact between groups can reduce implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering their images of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group. (Ex: learn about other cultures by attending community events and other public educational opportunities like exhibits, media, etc.) Institutions can establish practices to prevent these biases from seeping into decision-making. A group of researchers developed these four interventions listed, which have been found to be constructive (Kang et al., 2011): 1. Doubt Objectivity: Presuming oneself to be objective actually tends to increase the role of implicit bias; teaching people about non-conscious thought * Revised by King County Office of Equity and Social Justice in collaboration with Rachel Godsil. Adapted from Within Our Lifetime Facilitator Guide created by Patrick L. Scully, Ph.D. Clearview Consulting, LLC. For more information, see http://www.withinourlifetime.net/Blog/index.html Attachment D Page 161 of 354 Inclusion, Belonging and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat | kingcounty.gov/equity | 2 processes will lead people to be skeptical of their own objectivity and better able to guard against biased evaluations. 2. Increase Motivation to be Fair: Internal motivations to be fair rather than fear of external judgments tend to decrease biased actions. 3. Improve Conditions of Decision-making: Implicit biases are a function of automaticity. Think slowly by engaging in mindful, deliberate processing, not in the throes of emotions prevents our implicit biases from kicking in and determining our behaviors. 4. Count: Implicitly biased behavior is best detected by using data to determine whether patterns of behavior are leading to racially disparate outcomes. Once one is aware that decisions or behavior are having disparate outcomes, it is then possible to consider whether the outcomes are linked to bias. Racial Anxiety and Stereotype Threat Interventions Most of these interventions were developed in the context of the threat experienced by people of color and women linked to stereotypes of academic capacity and performance, but can be useful in the work place and are also be translatable to whites who fear confirming the stereotype that they are racist so can be useful in reducing racial anxiety. Social Belonging Intervention: Help employees realize that people of every identity category experience some challenge when they begin a new job or new set of responsibilities but that those feelings abate over time. This has been shown to have the effect of protecting employees from stigmatized identity categories from assuming that they do not belong due to their race or other identity category and helped them develop resilience in the face of adversity. Wise Criticism: Convey high expectations and belief in the capacity to meet them. Giving feedback that communicates both high expectations and a confidence that an individual can meet those expectations minimizes uncertainty about whether criticism is a result of racial bias or favor (attributional ambiguity). If the feedback is merely critical, it may be the product of bias; if feedback is merely positive, it may be the product of racial condescension. Behavioral Scripts: Setting set forth clear norms of behavior and terms of discussion can reduce racial anxiety and prevent stereotype threat from being triggered. Growth Mindset: Teaching people that abilities including the ability to be racially sensitive are learnable/incremental rather fixed has been useful in the stereotype threat context because it can prevent any particular performance for serving as “stereotype confirming evidence.” Attachment D Page 162 of 354 Local and Regional Government alliance on race & EquityEquity WorkshopBuilding Healthy CommunitiesThe California Endowment Staff & PartnersNovember 24, 2014 Attachment DPage 163 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY• Increase understanding of the role and opportunityfor governmental work on racial equity• Learn about key strategiesto support racial equity work• Enhance understanding of key racial equity conceptsand how they apply to government Objectives:Attachment DPage 164 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRacial inequityAttachment DPage 165 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY•“Closing the gaps”so that race does not predict one’s success, while also improving outcomes for all •To do so, have to: Target strategies to focus improvements for those worse offMove beyond “services”and focus on changing policies, institutions and structuresRacial equity means:Attachment DPage 166 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYSource: Unconscious (Implicit) Bias and Health Disparities: Where Do We Go from Here?Explicit biasExplicit biasExpressed directlyExpressed directlyAware of biasAware of biasOperates consciously Operates consciously Implicit biasImplicit biasExpressed indirectlyExpressed indirectlyUnaware of biasUnaware of biasOperates sub‐consciouslyOperates sub‐consciouslyTypes of biasAttachment DPage 167 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYJob search – identical resumes, apart from namesMore “white-sounding”names 50% more callbacks for jobs than “African-American sounding”names.Susan SmithLaKeshaWashington50% more call‐backs.Example of implicit biasAttachment DPage 168 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY•Suppressing or denying biased thoughts can actually increase prejudice rather than eradicate it. •Research has confirmed that if we openly challenge our biases, we can develop effective strategies and make more progress.What to do with bias?Attachment DPage 169 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYInstitutional Explicit Institutional ImplicitIndividual ExplicitIndividual ImplicitWhat creates different outcomes?Attachment DPage 170 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYWhat creates different outcomes?Institutional / ExplicitPolicies which explicitly discriminate against a group.Example: Police department refusing to hire people of color.Institutional / ImplicitPolicies that negatively impact one group unintentionally.Example:Police department focusing on street‐level drug arrests.Individual / ExplicitPrejudice in action –discrimination.Example:Police officer calling someone an ethnic slur while arresting them.Individual / ImplicitUnconscious attitudes and beliefs.Example:Police officer calling for back‐up more often when stopping a person of color.Attachment DPage 171 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYIndividual racism:•Pre‐judgment, bias, or discrimination by an individual based on race. structuralinstitutionalindividualInstitutional racism:•Policies, practices and procedures that work better for white people than for people of color, often unintentionally or inadvertently.Structural racism:•A history and current reality of institutional racism across all institutions, combining to create a system that negatively impacts communities of color.Re-framing racismAttachment DPage 172 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRacial equity in the communityEducationJobsCriminalJusticeHousingEquitable DevelopmentWorking across systems to achieve equityAchieving equityAttachment DPage 173 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment explicitly creates and maintains racial inequityExplicit biasDiscrimination illegal, but “race-neutral” policies and practices perpetuate inequity.Implicit biasProactive polices, practices and procedures for achieving racial equityGovernment for racial equityHistory of GovernmentAttachment DPage 174 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRacial inequities exist for all indicator for success Individual racismFund targeted services to help those with the greatest needsInstitutional racismFund services that incorporate policy changes. Training curriculum and implementation tools. Integrate racial equity analyses into decision‐making and planning. Structural racismPartner with others to leverage policy and organizational change. Build a national movement within government.Roles for government:But there is greater potential for impact at the institutional and structural levelsEffort has been put into eliminating individual racism Improve outcomes for all and eliminate racial inequitiesThe leverage of government can:Governmental roles in working towards racial equityAttachment DPage 175 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTransforming government to proactively work for racial equity Transforming government to proactively work for racial equity Liberates communityLiberates communitySo we can achieve racial equitySo we can achieve racial equityEffect of governmental transformationin communityAttachment DPage 176 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment’s work for racial equityExample:• Seattle Race and Social Justice InitiativeAttachment DPage 177 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYSeattle lessons learned:Develop and use a common analysisBuild capacity and infrastructureChange behavior and use toolsBe data drivenPartner across sectors with communityMove with urgencyAttachment DPage 178 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY RACE AND SOCIALJUSTICE COMMUNITY ROUNTABLECORE TEAM- Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement- Workforce Equity- Contracting Equity- Immigrant and Refugee Access to ServicesDirect Reporting RelationshipIndirect Reporting RelationshipCHANGE TEAMS CITY DEPARTMENTS RSJI COORDINATING TEAM (SOCR) RSJI SUB-CABINET MAYOR - CITY COUNCILINTERDEPARTMENTAL TEAMS•Equity in Education•Equitable Development•Equity in Criminal Justice•Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement•Workforce Equity•Contracting Equity•Campaign for Racial EquityGOVERNING FOR RACIAL EQUITYNETWORKWorking GroupsRSJI Strategy Team –The Initiative managing team from the Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR)Change Team –A group of employees in each department that help implement RSJI activities and work plans.Core Team –A Citywide leadership development team of 25 people that work with IDT’s to implement RSJI activities.RSJI Sub‐Cabinet –Department Directors or deputies who advise and review RSJI activities.Interdepartmental Teams –Convened by lead departments to develop and implement Citywide strategies and community partnerships to address racial inequity.RSJ Community Roundtable –A coalition of 25 government and community based organizations working for racial equity in King County.Governing for Racial Equity Network –A regional network of government agencies in Washington, Oregon and northern California working on issues of equity.RSJI STRATEGY TEAMBuild capacityAttachment DPage 179 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRSJI Employee Survey 2012“Examine impact of race at work”“Actively promoting RSJI changes”“Dept and City making progress”Attachment DPage 180 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCollective impactCommon agendaCommon agendaShared measurementShared measurementMutually reinforcing activitiesMutually reinforcing activitiesContinuous communicationContinuous communicationBackbone organizationBackbone organizationFor racial equityMove with urgencyAttachment DPage 181 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCollective impactShared racial foundation, leadership development, capacity buildingRacial equityRacial equity collective impactAttachment DPage 182 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYMove with urgencyLatest successes:• RACE: are we so different? partnership with Pacific Science• Structural racism partnership fund• Expanded support from new Mayor Attachment DPage 183 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment’s work for racial equityEast Salinas•How did it get started? •What is the community’s role? •How is the role of government evolving? •How is healing a part of the work?Attachment DPage 184 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYData‐driven and accountableData‐driven and accountableInclusion and EngagementInclusion and EngagementIntegrated program and policy strategies Integrated program and policy strategies Structural change / partnershipsStructural change / partnershipsEducate and communicate about racial equityEducate and communicate about racial equityRacial Equity ToolkitAttachment DPage 185 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY• A Racial Equity Toolkit can be used in budget, policy and program decisions. • Examples:Streetlights / complaint-based systemsRestrictions on use of criminal background checks in hiring processes Contracting policies and proceduresCourt appearancesRacial Equity ToolkitAttachment DPage 186 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYpoliticalconceptpoliticalactionVan Jones’s “Heart Space/Head Space Grid” from Rebuild the Dream (2012) How does change occur?Attachment DPage 187 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRational Political conceptPoliticalactionEmotionalHEADSPACEHEARTSPACEOUTSIDEGAMEINSIDEGAMEHow does change occur?Attachment DPage 188 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYHead, heart, inside, outside•All four quadrants are important.•The key is a dynamic balance.Pair‐up –where are you most comfortable? What are your strategies to round‐out the other quadrants?Attachment DPage 189 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTransactional /transformational change“The single biggest failure in change initiatives is to treat adaptive challenges like technical problems.”Attachment DPage 190 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTransactional /transformational changeTechnical Problems / TransactAdaptive Problem / TransformEasy to identify Easy to deny (difficult to identify) Often lend themselves to routine solutions using skills and experience readily available Require changes in values, beliefs, roles, relationships, and approaches to workOften solved by an authority or expert People with the problem do the work of solving itRequire change in just one or a few places; often contained within organizational boundaries Require change in numerous places; usually cross organizational boundariesPeople are generally receptive to technical solutions People try to avoid the work of “solving” the adaptive challengeSolutions can often be implemented quickly—even by edict“Solutions” require experiments and new discoveries; they can take a long time to implement and cannot be implemented by edictAttachment DPage 191 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTechnical Problems / Transact Adaptive Problem / TransformInvite WMBE contractors to apply for contracts.Educate and encourage prime contractors to subcontract with WMBE firms.Change policies driving the resultsTranslate documents for limited English speaking public.Meet with and develop relationships with immigrant and refugee communities.Pass “ban the box” legislation Develop a criminal justice agendaTransactional /transformational examplesAttachment DPage 192 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYBuilding a movementSmall group discussions at each site –•What are the opportunities and challenges in working for or with government on racial equity? •What are the barriers? Attachment DPage 193 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYBuilding a movementGovernment Alliance on Race and Equity A national network of government working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for allAttachment DPage 194 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYSupport a cohort of governmental jurisdictions. Support a cohort of governmental jurisdictions. Develop a “pathway for entry” for new jurisdictions. Develop a “pathway for entry” for new jurisdictions. Build cross-sector collaborations to achieve equity in our communities. Build cross-sector collaborations to achieve equity in our communities. Alliance ApproachAttachment DPage 195 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCommitment to racial equity.Supportive electeds, department leadership and expertise within front-line staff work with communitySupportive stakeholders and partners.Alliance cohortAttachment DPage 196 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCustomized local strategies and collective national agendaBest practices – policies and toolsTechnical assistanceTraining / capacity buildingConvenings / organized peer‐to‐peer learningAcademic / philanthropic resourcesPartnerships with communityCohort ModelAttachment DPage 197 of 354 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment Alliance on Race and EquityJulie Nelson, Director(206) 816‐5104Julie.nelson@racialequityalliance.orgCenter for Social InclusionGlenn Harris, Presidentgharris@thecsi.org(206) 790‐0837Contact informationAttachment DPage 198 of 354 Governing for Racial Equity Conference June 11, 2015, Seattle, Washington Attachment D Page 199 of 354 Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy necessary? Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy possible? How do we incorporate RSJ principles into CJS policy? Provide relevant examples within the institutions where RSJ principles have been incorporated… Conversation Guide Attachment D Page 200 of 354 Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy necessary? Attachment D Page 201 of 354 Attachment D Page 202 of 354 Attachment D Page 203 of 354 How do we compare? Attachment D Page 204 of 354 Attachment D Page 205 of 354 Blacks 6.4 X more likely to be incarcerated than whites 30,600 people in jail or prison Attachment D Page 206 of 354 Attachment D Page 207 of 354 2012 Washington State Juvenile Justice Annual Report available at dshs.wa.gov Attachment D Page 208 of 354 Washington’s Death Row Attachment D Page 209 of 354 Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy necessary Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy possible How do we incorporate RSJ principles into CJS policy Provide relevant examples within the institutions where RSJ principles have been incorporated… Questions Attachment D Page 210 of 354 2012 Washington State Juvenile Justice Annual Report: DSHS.WA.GOV Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System Report: http://www.law.seattleu.edu/centers-and- institutes/korematsu-center/race-and-criminal-justice Racial Equity Toolkit: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/RSJI /RacialEquityToolkit_FINAL_August2012.pdf Resources Attachment D Page 211 of 354 Mercer Island Police Chief Ed Holmes: ed.holmes@mercergov.org Seattle City Attorney Peter Holmes: Peter.Holmes@seattle.gov Dir. Kimberly D. Ambrose: kambrose@uw.edu Prof. Carl Livingston, Jr.: Carl.Livingston@seattlecolleges.edu Panelist Contact Information Attachment D Page 212 of 354 Page 213 of 354 BSCC Grant Will Strengthen Law Enforcement-Community Relationships 9-17-2015 POMONA (Sept. 17, 2015) – The Board of State and Community Corrections is moving forward on a new grant designed to help strengthen relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve. The Board voted to approve establishment of an Executive Steering Committee that will develop requirements for the $6 million in funding that will be available through the new Strengthening Law Enforcement and Community Relations grant. The Board selected as Chair new Board Member David Bejarano, chief of the Chula Vista Police Department. The Budget Act of 2015 established the grant to provide law enforcement training on issues such as implicit bias and assessing the status of law enforcement-community relations, and to establish problem-oriented initiatives such as Operation Ceasefire, behavioral health programs and restorative justice programs. It also provides for funding for research to examine how local policing services currently are being delivered and to assess existing relationships, among other things. The BSCC plans for the Executive Steering Committee to develop its Request for Proposals by early next year. The RFP is expected to be released to the public after the Board’s February 2016 meeting. Applications for funding will be due in April 2016, with contracts starting July 1, 2016. The BSCC will accept statements of interest from members of the public who would like to serve on the Executive Steering Committee from Sept. 18, 2015 to Oct. 9, 2015. Please visit www.bscc.ca.gov (http://www.bscc.ca.gov) For more information please contact: Ricardo Goodridge at 916-341-5160 or at ricardo.goodridge@bscc.ca.gov (mailto:ricardo.goodridge@bscc.ca.gov) AB 1056 Expands Areas of Prop 47 Funding (news.php?id=80)10-06-2015 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION - AMENDMENT AND ADOPTION OF TITLE 15 REGULATIONS (news.php?id=79) 09-25-2015 BSCC Sets First Regional Meeting on Prop 47 (news.php?id=78) 09-21-2015 Latest News Page 214 of 354 Pay For Success Program Launches (news.php?id=77) 09-17-2015 BSCC Awards $3m to Juvenile Justice Programs (news.php?id=76) 09-17-2015 BSCC Grant Will Strengthen Law Enforcement-Community Relationships (news.php?id=75) 09-17- 2015 Wild Horse Redemption in Sacramento County (news.php?id=74) 09-02-2015 BSCC Board Gets Two New Members (news.php?id=73) 08-27-2015 In LA, New Section 8 Rules Mean Some Felons Can Go Home (news.php?id=72) 07-27-2015 Magi Work named Deputy Director of CFC Division (news.php?id=71) 07-09-2015 Back to Top Conditions of Use Privacy Policy Accessibility Contact Us Copyright © 2014 State of California Page 215 of 354 DDDIIISSSPPPRRROOOPPPOOORRRTTTIIIOOONNNAAATTTEEE MMMIIINNNOOORRRIIITTTYYY CCCOOONNNTTTAAACCCTTT RRReeeddduuuccciiinnnggg DDDiiissspppaaarrriiitttyyy iiinnn CCCooonnntttrrraaa CCCooossstttaaa CCCooouuunnntttyyy Prepared by Monique W. Morris, M.S. for the Contra Costa County Probation Officer Page 216 of 354 1 Table of Contents PART I: DMC IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 II. REVIEW OF DMC TRENDS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 4 III. REVIEW OF PROBATION DMC TRAINING ACTIVITIES 7 IV. REVIEW OF DIVERSION PLANNING ACTIVITIES 9 V. OTHER STAKEHOLDER DMC REDUCTION ACTIVITIES 10 PART II: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESPONSES TO DMC TRENDS VI. CONTRA COSTA DMC LOGIC MODEL 13 INPUTS 13 OUTPUTS 15 OUTCOMES 17 VII. CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS 17 IMMEDIATE 18 SHORT‐TERM 19 INTERMEDIATE 21 LONG‐TERM 22 VIII. CONCLUSION 22 IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 23 Page 217 of 354 2 PART I: DMC IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 218 of 354 3 I. Introduction and Background In 1974, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Action (JJDPA) mandated that states address Disproportionate Minority Confinement. In 1988, an amendment to JJDPA required states receiving Formula Grant Funds to address the disproportionate confinement and incarceration of youth of color. Disproportionate Minority Confinement was defined as when the proportion of a minority group1 detained or confined exceeded their proportion in the population. A number of states participating in the data‐driven, outcome focused effort to measure DMC developed and implemented a plan to reduce DMC. In 1992, the amendment to JJDPA became a core requirement to be eligible for future funding. DMC language was changed from Disproportionate Minority Confinement to Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), so as to include a more complete analysis of the factors that lead to confinement and/or involvement with the justice system at various points along the continuum. National research has found many factors that contribute to Disproportionate Minority Contact, socioeconomic factors, juvenile justice system factors, educational factors, factors associated with the family and society, victimization, legal and legislative factors, and geographical factors have all been found to correlate with the overrepresentation of youth of color in contact with the justice system. The state of California, though the Corrections Standards Authority, has implemented several efforts to comply with federal DMC requirements, including distributing grant applications that prioritize consideration for efforts that focus services on youth of color; hosting regional trainings and meetings that provide information about DMC and strategies for addressing it; including DMC information in other juvenile justice workshops and conferences throughout the state; and facilitating the Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance Project in five counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Alameda, and Contra Costa County. Since 2005, the effort to examine DMC in Contra Costa County has been led by the Probation Department, under the leadership of Chief Lionel Chatman. Further leadership is provided by a Decision Makers Workgroup, which was formed to bring together the key decision makers in the County’s juvenile justice system to discuss DMC, examine data which would hopefully identify the degree of DMC at various decision points along the justice system, develop recommendations regarding ways to reduce the level of DMC, and lead the implementation of next steps to be taken in this ongoing process. The Decision Making Workgroup is composed entirely of department heads or executive level staff of the various agencies who have some involvement in the 1 “Minority group” includes the following racial and ethnic classifications: Asian Pacific American, African American, Latino/Hispanic American, and Native American. Page 219 of 354 4 juvenile justice system. Its members include the County Probation Officer, the District Attorney, the Presiding Juvenile Court Judge, an Assistant Public Defender, Representatives from the County Board of Supervisors, a representative for the County Administrator’s Office, Director of Employment and Human Services, Director of Health Services, County Superintendent of Schools, Chief of the Concord Police Department, Chief of the Richmond Police Department, and the Undersheriff. The selection of members was, to some degree, influenced by the scope of this project, which was designed to study the issue of DMC in three specific areas: the City of Richmond, the city of Bay Point, and the community in the City of Concord known as the Monument Corridor. II. Review of DMC Trends in Contra Costa County Data findings analyzed in 2006 revealed that racial disparities in the three target areas were most prevalent at the early stages of the juvenile justice continuum, specifically at the points of arrest and referral to probation. In all three areas, disparities were found for African American youth at arrest and referral to probation, however disparities were also found for other ethnic groups at various decision points. Specifically, in Richmond, disparities were found for African American and Latino youth, although additional research has documented racial disparities for Southeast Asian males in Richmond as well.2 [See Table 1] Table 1: DMC Trends in Richmond, by RRI, 2005 2 Juneja, P., with West Contra Costa County Southeast Asian Youth and Family Alliance. (2006) Hidden Challenges: A report in a series examining the status of API youth in West Contra Costa County, California. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Race/Ethnicity Arrests Referrals to Probation African American 2.8 2.6 Latino 1.0 1.1 White 1.0 1.0 Asian 0.2 0.3 Pacific Islander ‐‐ ‐‐ American Indian ‐‐ ‐‐ Unknown/Other 1.1 0.6 Page 220 of 354 5 In Concord, disparities were found for African American youth at the points of arrest and referrals to probation. Slight disparities were also found for Latino youth at referrals to probation and for Pacific Islander and for youth whose ethnicity is recorded as “unknown” at point of arrest. [See Table 2] Table 2: DMC Trends in the Monument Corridor, by RRI, 2005 In Bay Point, in addition to the disparities found for African American youth, a slight overrepresentation was found for Latino youth at point of arrest and referral to probation. Disparity was also shown for youth whose ethnic backgrounds were recorded as “unknown” and Pacific Islander youth at referral to probation. [See Table 3] A 2007 report by Mark Morris Associates revealed further that the greatest disparities were found at other stages of the justice continuum as well, particularly for African American youth. The study analyzed more than 1,594 youth with a Contra Costa County juvenile court disposition in 2006, and included youth from all over. Leading cities in the sample included: Richmond (22%), Antioch (19%), Concord (12%), and Pittsburg (10%). Race/Ethnicity Arrests Referrals to Probation African American 3.8 5.2 Latino 1.1 2.0 White 1.0 1.0 Asian 0.2 0.1 Pacific Islander 1.4 0.0 American Indian 0.0 0.0 Unknown/Other 1.3 0.2 Page 221 of 354 6 Table 3: DMC Trends in the Bay Point, by RRI, 2005 African American Youth African Americans were involved in the justice system at disproportionately high rates: • African American youth almost 13 times as likely as white youth to be placed in secure confinement. • Disparities were also found among average lengths of stay in detention. African American males were detained longer than non‐African American males: o African American males: 31 days o Latino American males: 13 days o White males: nine days o Asian American males: five days • African American males, on average, had a greater number of previous arrests and sustained petitions than non‐African American males. • African American males and females were referred to probation at younger ages than their white counterparts. • African American females more likely to have sustained petitions for misdemeanor violent offenses (42%) compared to Latina and white females. Latino Youth Mark Morris Associates found that like their African American counterparts, Latino youth were more likely to be detained than white youth and stay in detention for a Race/Ethnicity Arrests Referrals to Probation African American 5.7 2.7 Latino 1.7 1.2 White 1.0 1.0 Asian 0 0.1 Pacific Islander 0 3.8 American Indian 0 0 Unknown/Other 2.5 0.3 Page 222 of 354 7 longer period of time (13 days, compared to nine days and five days for White and Asian American males, respectively). III. Review of Probation DMC Training Activities Probation DMC Training In 2008, eight of trainings were conducted with Probation staff. As of the writing of this report, all Contra Costa County Probation staff members have been trained on the key causes and correlates of DMC. In addition to presenting research and policy trends, the training provided an opportunity for Probation staff to offer their perspectives on the tools, resources and mechanisms required to support the individual and collective efforts to reduce DMC. Specifically, in each training Probation staff were asked the following questions: 1. What type of programming would you like to see to address the issue of DMC? 2. Where in your own work do you think you could impact DMC? 3. What challenges do you feel exist re: reducing DMC in Contra Costa County? 4. What support would you need to address DMC in your own work? A summary of the responses to these questions are presented below: Programs of Interest: • Early intervention in the education (i.e., elementary school), literacy programs and school tutoring • Increased juvenile mentoring and community service programs • Life skills and vocational training • Improved recreation and sports programs (i.e., PAL) • Alternative detention facilities for girls • Multilingual outreach • Victim impact speakers • Parental education and social skills Where Probation can Impact DMC: • Improve staffing, particularly community‐based probation officers • Adjudication intake is critical • Cultural competency training for management and staff • Ongoing cross‐training • Provide resources and opportunities equally to all clients • Promote basic life skills among clients • Treat all clients with dignity and respect • Batterer’s Program should include more than one spot for those w/o means to pay for programs. Page 223 of 354 8 Challenges: • Lack of funding to provide needed resources. • Lack of education about DMC • Lack of employment opportunities for high‐risk communities • Perceived lack of a motivation among client and community • Perceived lack of staff and administrative buy‐in • Home/Parent situation – Parents should be held more accountable • Lack of cultural sensitivity and discussion • Fostering cooperation & communication between agencies Support Needed • Increase data collection • Need for specialized units • Management support, cooperation, flexibility. • Financial, support • Clients support Each session lasted four hours, and was co‐facilitated by the consultant and two of the six Probation staff (2 Deputy Probation Officers, 2 Institutional Supervisor II, and two Institutional Supervisor I) who have been trained to present materials and research on DMC. A follow‐up survey was conducted by Mark Morris Associates. A summary of their findings will be submitted in a separate report. Community‐based Partner DMC Training Four training sessions were held with the Probation contractors who provide direct services to youth on probation. Community‐Based Organization (CBO) partners, including Project Reach (Antioch/Pittsburg), West Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau (Richmond), and New Connections (Concord/Bay Point). Participants in these training sessions were also provided an opportunity to share their ideas regarding how to support a better partnership to improve public safety and reduce DMC. Specifically, in each training session, CBO partners were asked the following questions: 1. How can the Probation Department better support CBO’s effort to improve outcomes for youth and support DMC? 2. What role can the CBO partner play in advancing culturally specific programming for youth of color? 3. What challenges do you feel exist re: reducing DMC in Contra Costa County? Page 224 of 354 9 4. What support would you need to address DMC in your own work? A summary of the responses to these questions are presented below: • Communication‐ The majority of CBO respondents perceived there to be very little meaningful communication between the Probation Department and the CBO contract about the client (i.e. youth on probation). Improving communication was seen as a key area that could impact other areas of service, particularly where there may be assumptions about roles and responsibilities that need clarification. • Resources: CBOs tended to note a need for improved human and financial resources to support parental services, appropriate language access and services, and mental health programs and responses. • Challenges: CBOs identified fear and a lack of knowledge as major challenges for this work to continue in Contra Costa County. Connecting with unidentified stakeholders and lack of respect for CBO work were also viewed as challenges. • Needs: CBOs identified funding as a continued need with regard to supporting continued efforts to reduce DMC. Additional trainings were also viewed as key to a continued strategy to bridge communication gaps and to support joint strategies to address the overrepresentation of youth of color. A follow‐up survey was conducted by Mark Morris Associates. A summary of their findings will be submitted in a separate cover. IV. Review of Diversion Planning Activities There are currently no formal diversion programs recognized by law enforcement in the Richmond, Bay Point, or the Monument Corridor. Diversion programs should occur at the early stages of juvenile justice processing, but can also be instituted at later stages of the continuum to prevent further penetration into the system and costly placements. By definition, these programs divert youth from formal court processing while still providing a means to hold them accountable for their actions. Research3 has confirmed that there are several important benefits to diversion, including that they provide more effective and appropriate treatment for youth, reduce recidivism, decrease overcrowding in detention facilities, facilitate the 3 Davidson, W. et. al, (1990) Alternative Treatments for Troubled Youth: The Case of Diversion from the Justice System. New York: NY: Plenum Press. Page 225 of 354 10 further development of community‐based services, improve working relationships of cross‐systems groups, and expedite court processing of youth into services. In 2008, two diversion subcommittees were established; one addressing Richmond and one addressing the Monument Corridor/Bay Point. These sub‐ committees are currently working to prepare a series of recommendations to the Decision Makers Workgroup regarding the design of area‐specific diversion protocols and programming, eligibility criteria, and communications strategies between agencies. The mission of these subcommittees is to develop tools, protocols, and recommend programming to divert youth from further contact with the juvenile justice system. Tools developed by this committee will assist juvenile justice professionals in determining who is eligible for diversion; and will be used, along with internal policies and procedures and the experience and expertise of juvenile justice professionals, as a guide for decision‐making. To support the development of these recommendations, two “best practices” panels on diversion were held. The first panel featured presentations from Sandra McBrayer of the San Diego Children’s Bureau; Joella Brooks of the Southwest Key Programs, Inc., and Julie Posadas Guzman of the Youth Justice Institute—all organizations that have established promising approaches and best practices with regard to protocols, data collection, and the implementation of culturally‐competent and gender‐responsive programming. A second panel and presentation on diversion was held for diversion subcommittee members and included presentations by Corporal Elmer Glasser of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Julie Posadas Guzman of the Youth Justice Institute, and the consultant. V. Other Stakeholder DMC Reduction Activities A number of other county agencies are working on efforts that are related to DMC. According to Contra Costa Health Services, the following activities are underway: - CCHS has a department wide commitment to Reducing Health Disparities, with a unit dedicated to implementing a five‐year plan. The goals of the plan are to improve consumer/client/patient/customer experience; increase engagement and partnership with the community, improve staff cultural sensitivity and respect and responsiveness; and develop systems to support and promote access. - A Cross Divisional Violence Prevention Team has developed 12 recommendations for addressing street violence in Contra Costa and is focusing on communities with disproportionately high rates of violence. Page 226 of 354 11 - With John Muir Trauma Center and the Office of Neighborhood Safety in Richmond, CCHS is working to implement a pilot project called Caught in the Crossfire, designed to work with violence victims and their families to prevent retaliation. - With staff and funding, CCHS support RYSE, the new youth center in Richmond that is based on a harm‐reduction model for empowering young people and developing partnerships to provide them with capacity building and services. According to the Children & Family Services Bureau: In 2001, the Children & Family Services Bureau began a Child Welfare Redesign of a 30‐year old system using data from the U.C. Berkeley Center of Social Services Research. A convening of countywide meetings resulted over a two‐year period with community partners and agency collaborative efforts. During this two‐year period alarming data surfaced from the U.C. Berkeley research indicating a disproportionate number of African American children entering into Contra Costa County’s child welfare system, and a disproportionate number of children remaining in our system at age 12‐13 years. In 2002‐2003, Children & Family Services formed a Cultural Competency Oversight Committee made up from all classification ranks. In the spring of 2003, as part of the oversight committee’s recommendations, Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau launched the training series for all child welfare staff. The series addresses Cultural Competency, Racial Disproportionality & Disparity, Color Blindness, Difficult Dialogue, Bias & Stereotypes, Decision Making and Cultural Considerations. All these trainings were mandated. From 2003 to 2005, Children & Family Services provided thirty‐three trainings with 1,219 Children & Family Services staff, thirty‐seven CBO’s and collaborative agencies. During this time period Children & Family Services initiated the Annie E. Casey Foundation “Family to Family Initiative” (F2F), and the use of “Team Decision Making” (TDM) for all African American children four years and under countywide in an effort to reduce entry into the child welfare system. Currently Children & Family Services is at the final training stages for staff on “Best Practice” on the “Words Means Things” training to address office dialogue and written reports. Page 227 of 354 12 PART II: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESPONSES TO DMC TRENDS Page 228 of 354 13 VI. Contra Costa County DMC Logic Model The mission of the Contra Costa County DMC effort is to reduce delinquency and DMC by identifying key opportunities to prevent youth of color from contacting and penetrating the juvenile justice system, and by fostering partnerships among and between justice and community stakeholders to improve the healthy life outcomes of all youth. The Contra Costa logic model [Figure 1] depicts the interconnections of inputs, outputs (activities and reach) and outcomes related to reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact. Research has confirmed that many factors contribute to DMC and no one entity can reduce DMC alone; therefore this logic model reflects the input and skills of multiple stakeholders toward the goal of reducing DMC. Activities associated with the two primary findings of the research conducted by Mark Morris Associates—that African American youth are disproportionately overrepresented throughout the justice system and that Latino males are disproportionately represented in detention are specifically addressed in this logic model. This logic model depicts four primary areas for reducing DMC for these populations: 1) Inputs, including time and expertise of DMC reduction partners, financial resources, and knowledge; 2) Outputs, including a description of the activities to be performed and who are to comprise the target recipients of services; 3) Outcomes, including those intended outcomes in the short‐, intermediate‐, and long‐term; and 4) External Influences, which—as of the writing of this report—are to be determined by the Decision Making workgroup. Inputs Contra Costa County has invested several resources into this process to reduce delinquency and the overrepresentation of youth of color in contact with the justice system. Specifically, the Probation Department has devoted the time and expertise of staff, and invested financial resources into this process by supporting the education needs of DMC trainers and providing materials and space for training sessions. The Probation Department has also invested in the process of gaining knowledge regarding best practices, promising approaches, and data collection to inform the process of reducing DMC. The Probation Department worked with a DMC consultant and a data consultant to support this process, and performed site‐visits to Oregon and Santa Cruz, California in order to observe efforts in other counties regarding this issue. These site visits were helpful in terms of providing the Probation trainers with concrete examples of successes and challenges associated with reducing disparities. Page 229 of 354 14 Figure 1: Contra Costa County DMC Logic Model Page 230 of 354 15 Additionally, the time and expertise of other key decision‐making stakeholders are important inputs to this process and provide the partnership necessary to implement strategies and promising approaches to reduce delinquency and racial disparities in the Contra Costa County juvenile justice system. These inputs inform the outputs associated with this effort, specifically with regard to what activities are performed in association to this effort and which audiences are to be reached. Outputs The outputs associated with this effort should include data reports on progress, other research support on progress, training and informational sessions, and the development of a five‐year plan to reduce DMC. The Probation Department has launched a number of activities associated with this effort, including the following: • DMC Training As noted above, the Probation Department has trained all staff members on the key concepts of DMC, its causes and correlates, and key responses to DMC. An updated training session will be offered in 2009‐2010 that includes information regarding the outcomes of the previous training, an overview of new research and legislation that may affect DMC in California and nationwide, and the outcomes of current efforts to reduce delinquency and DMC in Contra Costa County. Target Audience: Probation Staff • Motivational Interviewing Research4 has confirmed that motivational interviewing is an efficacious, client‐centered approach to engaging with individual who exhibit high‐risk behaviors, including alcohol and drug abuse. As part of its strategy to improve the quality of services, the Probation Department has been conducting training for staff on motivational interviewing. Target Audience: Probation Staff, with the ultimate beneficiary being the juvenile in contact with the department. • Cognitive Behavior Training Research5 supports the use of cognitive behavioral therapy as a tool to understand behaviors and to foster improved workplace communication and teamwork. In the Probation Department, this effort has been widely regarded 4 Miller, W.R. (1996) Motivational Interviewing: Research, Practice, and Puzzles. Addictive Behaviors, Volume 21, Issue 6, November‐December 1996, pp. 835‐842. 5 Gatto, R. (2006) Reflections from the Workplace. Weirton, WV: National Association of Cognitive‐ Behavioral Therapists. Page 231 of 354 16 as an opportunity to improve communications skills that can ultimately improve the quality of services that are provided to probationers. Target Audience: Probation Staff. • Risk Assessment Tool Research6 has shown that the use of a structured decision‐making instrument at the point of intake to secure detention can dramatically improve the objectivity of decision‐making with regard to who is admitted. Historically, juvenile justice researchers and policymakers advocated the use of juvenile detention for two reasons, if youthful offenders pose a public safety risk to themselves or to others. Otherwise, a series of graduated sanctions and alternatives to detention should be established to adequately respond to the risk factors being exhibited by juvenile offenders. 7 Contra Costa County is in the process of developing a validated risk assessment tool toward the goal of reserving secure detention as a sanction for those who need it. Target Audience: Juvenile Offenders. • Parent Survey The Probation Department worked with consultants to develop a survey designed to capture the perceptions of parents who have had contact with the Probation Department regarding services provided. The survey inquires about the manner in which services were provided, as well as about the types of programs and services that they believe would have had an impact on the behaviors of their children. Target Audience: Parents of Juvenile Offenders • Diversion Programming Several justice and community stakeholders have been meeting to develop recommendations for the Decision Makers regarding diversion protocols for Contra Costa County, as well as programming in the area of Richmond, Monument Corridor, and Bay Point. Target Audience: Juvenile Offenders • Focus Groups As of the writing of this report, the Probation Department is working with consultants to conduct focus groups with youth in custody. The focus groups will provide an opportunity for feedback from the affected population to describe the programs and strategies that they feel are most effective to address their behavior, and what resources they feel are needed to support continued efforts toward rehabilitation in their home communities. 6 Bishop, D and Frazier, C. (1996) Race Effects in Juvenile Justice Decision-Making: Findings of a Statewide Analysis. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol 86, No 2.; p. 392- 7 Wilson, J. and Howell, B. (1993) Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: A Comprehensive Strategy. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Page 232 of 354 17 Target Audience: Juvenile Offenders • Cultural Competency Training and Events The Probation Department has developed a number of events (e.g., luncheons, lectures, etc.) to support the continued learning about the diverse cultures among staff and clients. Additionally, the department is planning a training session on cultural competency. Target Audience: Probation Staff. Additionally, several stakeholders in this process have been engaged in discussions regarding disparities in other fields (e.g., health, education, child welfare, etc.). To the extent that these efforts can partner and offer joint training and/or discussion groups in Richmond, Bay Point, and the Monument Corridor, the overall effort to reduce DMC would be enhanced. Outcomes The outputs described above are designed to foster immediate, short‐term, intermediate, and long‐term outcomes. Specific outcome statements need to be developed by the stakeholders involved in this effort. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to reduce delinquency and DMC in Contra Costa County. The outcomes needed to achieve this goal will be reached through the implementation of research‐ supported activities, including the recommendations below. VII. Consultant Recommendations According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,8 the steps required to reduce DMC include the following: • Define the Problem • Develop Program Logic • Identify Measures • Implement Evidence‐Based Programming • Collect and Analyze Data • Report Findings • Evaluate Effectiveness of Program Logic These steps require the input and participation of multiple stakeholders, including individuals and agencies who represent the following: juvenile justice and law enforcement, education, child welfare/social services, health services, community‐ 8 Nellis, A. (2005) Seven Steps to Develop and Evaluate Strategies to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Page 233 of 354 18 based services, faith community, youth and parents. Additionally, research 9 has found that in order to reduce DMC, data must be collected and carefully analyzed to inform efforts to reduce racial disparity in the justice system, that strong leadership is essential to the successful implementation of recommendations, and that while it is impossible to control all of the factors that lead to racial disparities, there are activities that can control and change rates of contact with the justice system. In light of these established steps and principles, and other research that supports diversion, early intervention and the importance of implementing a series of graduated sanctions and program alternatives to promote a reduction in delinquency and disproportionate minority contact, the consultant has prepared a summary of recommendations for Contra Costa County. These recommendations are organized according to those activities, which can and should take place immediately (within six months), in the short‐term (six months to one year), in the intermediate term (one to two years), and in the long‐term (three to five years). A. Immediate (Within 6 Months) Probation Specific 1. The Probation Department should contract with a consultant who can continue the process of guiding strategies, meetings, and training sessions regarding reducing DMC in Contra Costa County’s three target areas. The consultant’s primary role should be to help support the identification of effective diversion protocols and programming, foster a continued momentum of the project, and work with the Probation leadership on this effort to communicate successes to the Corrections Standards Authority, and other key stakeholders to execute activities according to its identified set of priorities. 2. The Probation Department should consider appointing DMC Coordinators in each of the major segments of the department’s services. DMC coordinators should be assigned to the field, juvenile hall, and the Oren Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center. These positions should be designed to support the collection of data, the monitoring of progress at key decision points, and the assistance with implementation of culturally competent programming and services where appropriate. 3. The Probation Department should continue its training of all Probation staff on DMC. Future curricula should include a review of the key causes and correlates, but also relate the findings and key successes of the 2008 study and the current activities to reduce delinquency and DMC. 4. The Probation Department should finalize its risk assessment tool being developed for the juvenile hall and train appropriate staff on its usage. 9 Hinton-Hoytt, E. et.al. (2002) Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. A project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Page 234 of 354 19 5. The Probation Department should follow up with its CBO partners to arrange meetings to discuss and clarify roles, responsibilities and communication between Deputy Probation Officers and community‐ based service providers, so as to improve the outcomes of juvenile probationers. All Stakeholders 6. To support the ongoing effort to address DMC and delinquency prevention at decision points that are under the control of agencies other than Probation, juvenile justice stakeholders represented among the Decision Making workgroup should consider conducting DMC training for their staff. Training should mirror the curriculum provided for the Probation Department and include specific information about the way in which their agencies can contribute to the overarching goal of this effort. 7. The Diversion subcommittees should continue to discuss protocols and programming to develop recommendations for the Decision Makers Workgroup regarding diversion pilot initiatives in Richmond, Monument Corridor, and Bay Point. 8. The DMC Decision Makers Workgroup and other partnering agencies in the DMC effort should develop and adopt a set of cultural competency principles. These principles should set a tone for continued discussions regarding DMC and the administration of intervention services and programs to all juvenile offenders in Contra Costa County. These principles should be shared and visible within the agencies working with youth who are system‐involved. B. ShortTerm (Between 612 Months) Probation Specific 1. The Probation Department should complete the design, validation, implementation, training, and use of a validated risk assessment tool at intake decision point in the juvenile hall. A valid research assessment instrument is a critical tool to support objective decision‐making and the application of uniform responses to youth who are facing detention. 2. The Probation Department should work with appropriate analysts to collect data at the DMC decision points, which will continue to inform the DMC and delinquency reduction process in Contra Costa County, and specifically in Richmond, the Monument Corridor, and Bay Point. Data reports are necessary in the following areas: Page 235 of 354 20 • Juveniles arrested in Contra Costa County, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense (note first‐time and repeat offenders. If repeat, note prior services rendered); • Juveniles in diversion programs, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, offense, and prior services rendered; • Juveniles referred to probation, by race, ethnicity, age, and gender • Juvenile petitions filed, by offense, by race, ethnicity, age, gender and offense; • Juveniles with a sustained petition by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense; • Juveniles in detention, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense • Average length of stay for juveniles in detention, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense (pre‐ and post‐adjudication); • Juveniles transferred to adult court, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense. If possible, additional data reports, including the RRI, should be generated in the following areas: • School suspensions and expulsions, by race, ethnicity, age, and gender; • School‐based incidents that lead to law enforcement or probation officers intervention—by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense. • Dual jurisdiction case trends, including reports on juveniles who qualify for 241.1 hearing, by race, ethnicity, age, and gender (300 and 600 cases); • Mental health trends (assessments that lead to formal diagnoses and treatment), by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense; and • Group home placement trends, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense. 3. The Probation Department should continue its planning and implementation of cultural competency training for all Probation Department staff. Additionally, the Department should continue to implement its other activities and events that provide opportunities to celebrate the diversity and acknowledge the presence of diverse cultures among the population of youth and families who are in contact with the Probation Department. 4. The Probation Department should examine the outcomes and findings of the surveys conducted with the Probation Department, its CBO partners, and parent surveys to determine whether responses and/or modifications to existing training curriculum, policies, or events are necessary. All Stakeholders Page 236 of 354 21 5. The Diversion subcommittees that have been established for the Monument Corridor/Bay Point and Richmond areas should complete their development of recommendations to the Decision Makers Workgroup regarding the implementation of a pilot diversion program in each of the three target areas. Once the protocols and program are confirmed and adopted, the County should design an evaluation protocol and implement the pilot strategies as recommended. 6. Key stakeholders should work with a new consultant to develop an action plan to implement recommendations. For each problem issue, the planning team will should develop goals, objectives, and specific activities, processes, and outcome measures. EXAMPLE: Problem Issue: African American and Latino youth in Contra Costa County are underrepresented at the Diversion decision point. Goal: To reduce delinquency and DMC at the early stages of contact with the juvenile justice continuum. Objective: To develop diversion program alternatives for youth who are arrested and live in Richmond, Bay Point, and the Monument Corridor Activities Process Measure Outcomes Outcome Measures 7. The Decision Makers Workgroup should continue to meet as needed (at least quarterly) to monitor and discuss progress regarding the DMC effort in Contra Costa County. C. Intermediate (Between 12 Years) Probation Specific 1. The Probation Department should launch the use of a new Management Information System, which can produce reports on key DMC data areas. These data reports identical to those produced in the short‐term period, so as to measure progress and inform the efforts made regarding reductions in delinquency and DMC. Findings of the reports should be reviewed and discussed by key Probation Department staff and appropriate stakeholders in this effort. 2. The Probation Department should consider establishing ethnic liaison groups with community stakeholders to help guide the development of culturally competent protocol, programming, and communication Page 237 of 354 22 regarding youth who are system‐involved—in custody and out of custody—African American, Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, and Native American. This effort should include the development of MOUs, meeting schedules and agendas to be discussed between the Probation Department and the members of the liaison group. All Stakeholders 3. The Decision Makers Workgroup should meet and evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot diversion programs in the City of Richmond and the Monument Corridor/Bay Point areas. 4. The Decision Makers Workgroup, in partnership with the Board of Supervisors—and potentially, other Bay Area DMC counties—should consider sponsoring a summit or convening to discuss the regional successes, challenges, and opportunities regarding responding to DMC in the Bay Area. D. LongTerm (Between 35 Years) All Stakeholders 1. Research10 has confirmed that it is essential to evaluate the process on a regular cycle to determine if the logic model and its accompanying activities are producing the intended outcomes, or if there unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Therefore, all key stakeholders should review the effectiveness of logic model and discuss changes as needed. 2. All key stakeholders should continue the process of monitoring trends at key decision‐making points and developing programming and policy responses to decisions or practices that are found to result in unfair or unnecessary contact with the justice system. 3. All key stakeholders should continue to examine their respective areas of control and/or decision‐making and determine whether existing programs and strategies are sufficiently producing intended outcomes or if it is necessary to expand programming and services to support culturally‐competent and gender‐responsive efforts to reduce DMC. 4. At the end of five years, key stakeholders should work together to evaluate key outcomes of the DMC effort and determine where additional support is needed. 10 SUPRA, Note 6. Page 238 of 354 23 VIII. Conclusion Contra Costa County is poised to accept the tremendous opportunity to continue its efforts to reduce DMC. As discussed in this report, the County has already taken important steps toward establishing an infrastructure to support and continue this work. With a continued commitment to implementing best practices to produce positive life outcomes for youth and provide a range of fair and equitable responses to youth who come into contact with the justice system, Contra Costa County will maximize its opportunities to reduce delinquency and DMC. VIII. Acknowledgments The consultant would like to extend her acknowledgment and appreciation to several individuals who have provided leadership and commitment to this effort. First, the consultant would like to thank Cynthia Haven, Contra Costa County’s DMC Coordinator, for her commitment and passion with regard to this project. The consultant would also like to thank the Probation Department, and specifically Chief Lionel Chatman, for providing a vision for working together to reduce disparities and to improve the quality of services provided to youth in contact with the justice system. A strong and heartfelt thank you is extended to the six Probation trainers— Arthur Fernandez, Suzanne Nelson, Marlon Washington, Theodore Martell, Petrenya Boykins, and Forrest Coleman—who dedicated hours of their time to learning and teaching the DMC curriculum to their colleagues. The consultant would also like to extend her gratitude to the Decision Makers Workgroup, which has continued to provide leadership on this effort: Ms. Bianca Bloom, Contra Costa County Office of Education Chief Lionel Chatman, Probation Department Mr. David Coleman, Public Defender Ms. Valerie Early, Employment and Human Services Department Mr. John Gioia, Board of Supervisors Mr. Federal Glover, Board of Supervisors Hon. Lois Haight, Presiding Juvenile Court Judge Mr. Robert Kochly, District Attorney, Chairperson of Decision Makers Workgroup Chief David Livingston, Concord Police Department Chief Chris Magnus, Richmond Police Department Dr. William Walker, Contra Costa Health Services Mr. Timothy Ewell, County Administrator’s Office Additionally, there were several agencies and individuals who have participated in or supported this ongoing process to examine DMC in Contra Costa County. Mr. Devonne Boggan, Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety Ms. Joella Brooks, Southwest Key Programs, Inc. Page 239 of 354 24 Ms. Kim Broussard, CA Corrections Standards Authority Mr. Daniel Cabral, District Attorney’s Office Ms. Lily Caceres, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. Terrance Cheung, Supervisor John Gioia’s Office Chief Judy Cox, Retired, Santa Cruz County Probation Department Ms. Sheryl Dash, Salem/Kaiser NAACP Ms. Kanwarpal Dhaliwal, RYSE Youth Center Ms. Julie Freestone, Contra Costa County Health Services Cpl. Elmer Glasser, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Mr. Wendell Greer, West Contra Costa County School District Ms. Taalia Hasan, Youth Service Bureau Ms. Shalinee Hunter, CA Corrections Standards Authority Mr. Lonnie Jackson, Oregon Youth Authority Sgt. Marice Jennings, Concord Police Department Mr. Robert Jester, Oregon Youth Authority Lt. Dennis Kahane, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Mr. David Koch, Multnomah Dept. of Community Justice Mr. Don Lau, YMCA of Richmond Mr. Jack Lawson, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. Phillip Lemman, Oregon Youth Authority Cpl. Larry Lewis, Richmond Police Department Mr. Steve Liday, Multnomah Dept. of Community Justice Ms. Anita Marquez, Center for Human Development Ms. Sandra McBrayer, The Children’s Initiative Mr. Michael Newton, Contra Costa County Probation Ms. Denise Nolan, Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office Ms. Carolyn Plath, Ygnacio Valley High School Ms. Julie Posadas Guzman, Youth Justice Institute Ms. Elaine Prendergast, Center for Human Development Ms. Christina Puentes, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. Rich Saito, Consultant Dr. Cynthia Scheinberg, New Connections Ms. Anya Seiko, Oregon State DMC Coordinator Hon. Bill Shinn, Mayor of Concord, CA Mr. Ron Weaver, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. James Woggan, Mt. Diablo School District Ambrose Community Center La Clinica de La Raza Monument Community Partnership Project REACH Richmond Building Blocks for Kids West Contra Costa County Youth Service Bureau For this project, the Contra Costa County training team had the opportunity to conduct site‐visits to the Oregon Youth Authority and the Santa Cruz Probation Page 240 of 354 25 Department. Thank you to all of the individuals at those institutions for their hospitality and resources, as well as their willingness to share information, successful strategies, and pitfalls with regard to examining this issue. Additionally, the consultants would like to acknowledge the parents, youth, and community members who attended meetings and participated in surveys and interviews associated with this project. Page 241 of 354 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:02/29/2016 Subject:FY 2016/17 AB109 Public Safety Realignment Budget - CAB RFP Recommendations Submitted For: AB109 CAB, Community Advisory Board on Public Safety Realignment Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: AB109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Presenter: Donte Blue, 925-313-4158 Contact: Donte Blue, 925-313-4158 Referral History: In September 2015 the Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) convened an ad hoc workgroup with the specific task of developing recommendations to be considered in the CCP 2016-17 budget cycle. After the workgroup met twice in September, CAB held a Special Session on October 22. In this Special Session CAB voted on the general framework of the budget, decided to recommend contracts be put back out to a competitive bidding process, and agreed to request a modest cost of living adjustment (COLA) for main staff of the Reentry Success Center and Network System of Services. The workgroup met once more in November before drafting a 2016-17 an initial set of recommendations. During a subsequent Special Session that was held in Richmond at the Reentry Success Center on November 30. Both the Network System of Services Manager and Success Center Director were invited to the Special Session, and offered time on the Agenda to discuss their specific requests. CAB approved an amended version of these recommendations that was then presented to the CCP at its Budget Workshop on December 4, 2015. This set of recommendations to the CCP included a community programs budget of $5,250,000 – $1,255,000 more than the prior year’s allocation. CAB’s budget workgroup met for the final time on December 30, 2015, at Goodwill Industries in Concord; a No Wrong Door Site. Again, both the Network Manager and Center Director were provided with an opportunity to further discuss their impending budget requests. I final revision of the recommendations were developed and submitted to the full CAB for consideration. To ensure CAB’s timely approval of these recommendations, CAB advanced its January General Meeting to January 6, 2016. CAB’s approved recommendations for fiscal year 2016-17 was subsequently submitted to the CCP for consideration, and included a streamlined budget in the amount of $4,850,000. In addition to reducing the incremental budget amount by nearly one-third, CAB also prioritized the programs recommended for increased funding. After hearing considering CAB’s recommendations at its January 22 meeting, the CCP approved Page 242 of 354 After hearing considering CAB’s recommendations at its January 22 meeting, the CCP approved CAB’s status quo budget, including an incremental $25,036 COLA for the main staff of the Network and Success Center. The CCP also approved an additional $160,000 allocation for the community programs with direction that CAB provide the CCP with recommendations on how to allocate this additional incremental funding. When CAB’s final recommendations were considered this Committee (Public Protection Committee), an additional incremental allocation of $500,000 was provided to the community programs with similar direction for CAB to provide this body with recommendations on how to best allocate this $660,000 of combined incremental funding. Referral Update: In fulfillment of this Committee’s wishes, and using the program funding priorities recently developed for its budget narrative, CAB approved the following recommended allocations for the $660,000 of combined incremental funding at its February 2016 General Meeting: Short and Long Term Housing Access – $530,036 Reentry Success Center - $56,344 Network System of Services - $3,620 Legal Services - $70,000 Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. Recognize that the total allocation approved for community programs in fiscal year 2016-17 is currently $4,680,036. Unless additional funding is contemplated, round this amount down to $4,680,000 to make developing and responding to forthcoming RFP’s less cumbersome. 2. Approve CAB’s recommended services and allocation amounts for the AB 109 2016-17 fiscal year community programs as follows ($4,680,000 in total): Employment Support and Placement - $2,000,000a. Short and Long Term Housing - $1,030,000b. Implementation of Reentry First Stops - $1,285,000c. Mentoring and Family Reunification - $200,000d. Civil Legal Services - $150,000e. Reentry Resource Guide - $15,000f. Fiscal Impact (if any): No additional fiscal impact. Attachments FY 2016/17 AB 109 Recommended Budget as approved by the PPC Page 243 of 354 as of 2/8/2016 2015/16 ONGOING REQUEST NEW FUNDING PPC ONGOING PPC ONE-TIME PROGRAM EXPENDITURES Sheriff Salaries & Benefits 5,827,782 5,983,717 - 5,983,717 - Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250 - 456,250 - Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000 - 55,000 - IT Support 40,000 40,000 - 40,000 - Vehicle Maintenance/Depreciation 48,000 - - - - Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500 - 80,500 - Transport Bus Maintenance 79,032 - - - - "Jail to Community" Program 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 - Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling 731,000 - 731,000 - 16/17 WCDF Capital Projects - 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 Sheriff Total 6,786,564 7,546,467 1,800,000 7,546,467 1,800,000 Probation Salaries & Benefits 2,459,421 2,489,970 - 2,489,970 - Operating Costs 223,597 294,173 - 294,173 - Probation Total 2,683,018 2,784,143 - 2,784,143 - Behavioral Health Salaries & Benefits 827,352 827,352 - 827,352 - Operating Costs 91,205 97,533 - 97,533 - Contracts 1,315,858 1,285,900 - 1,285,900 - Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 9,018 22,448 - 22,448 - Travel - 10,200 - 10,200 - Behavioral Health Total 2,243,433 2,243,433 - 2,243,433 - Health Services--Detention Health Services Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 180,324 180,324 - 180,324 - Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 283,376 283,376 - 283,376 - Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 475,004 475,004 - 475,004 - Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 116,858 116,858 - 116,858 - Detention Health Services Total 1,055,562 1,055,562 - 1,055,562 - Public Defender Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 209,000 239,689 77,241 316,930 - Sal & Ben-ACER Program 665,000 697,958 - 697,958 - Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordinator 250,000 257,399 - 257,399 - Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program - - 151,080 151,080 - Public Defender Total 1,124,000 1,195,046 228,321 1,423,367 - District Attorney Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 87,434 87,434 - 87,434 - Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 592,516 592,516 - 592,516 - Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 606,169 606,169 - 606,169 - Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 89,624 89,624 - 89,624 - Salaries & Benefits-Add (1) Gen'l Clerk - - 68,059 68,059 - Ceasefire Coordinator Program - - 110,000 110,000 - Operating Costs 82,995 82,995 - 82,995 - District Attorney Total 1,458,738 1,458,738 178,059 1,636,797 - Employment & Human Services Data Collection/Evaluation 40,000 - - - - EHSD Total 40,000 - - - - EHSD‐‐ Workforce Development Board Salaries & Benefits 196,000 196,000 - 196,000 - Travel 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 - EHSD-WDB Total 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 - County Administrator Salaries & Benefits 225,000 225,000 - 225,000 - Data Collection/ Program Review 225,000 225,000 - 225,000 - CAO Total 450,000 450,000 - 450,000 - CCC Police Chief's Association Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 522,000 522,000 - 522,000 - CCC Police Chiefs' Total 522,000 522,000 - 522,000 - Pre-Trial Services Program (Probation/Public Defender) Salaries & Benefits-Probation 751,717 719,322 - 719,322 - Salaries & Benefits-Public Defender 138,002 147,541 - 147,541 - Operating Costs 10,281 75,497 - 75,497 - Pre-Trial Total 900,000 942,360 - 942,360 - Community Programs Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,000,000 2,000,000 200,000 2,000,000 - Implementation of (3) One-Stop Centers 1,200,000 1,225,036 59,964 1,225,036 - Short and Long-Term Housing Access 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - Peer and Mentoring Services 100,000 110,000 - 110,000 - Development of a "Re-entry Resource Guide" 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 - Legal Services 80,000 80,000 70,000 80,000 - Family Reunification 100,000 90,000 - 90,000 - COLA (Program Allocation TBD ) - - - 660,000 - Community Programs Total 3,995,000 4,020,036 829,964 4,680,036 - Superior Court Salaries and Benefits - Veteran's Court - - 207,380 - - Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial - - 200,405 200,405 - Superior Court Total - - 407,785 200,405 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 21,458,315 22,417,785 3,444,129 23,684,570 1,800,000 Notes:25,484,570 1. "Ongoing" column includes the FY 2015/16 approved budget for ongoing expenditures (non one‐time) 2. "Request" column includes FY 2016/17 requests for budget increases to existing programs at current staffing levels. 3. "New Funding" column includes FY 2016/17 requests for new programs, expansion of existing programs and one‐time capital costs. 4. "PPC Ongoing" column includes FY 2016/17 budget allocations for ongoing expenditures recommended by the Public Protection Committee on February 8, 2016 5. "PPC One‐Time" column includes FY 2016/17 budget allocations for one‐time expenditures recommended by the Public Protection Committee on February 8, 2016. 2016/17 2016/17 AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM FY 2016/17 SUMMARY OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS (as recommended by the Public Protection Committee on February 8, 2016) Page 244 of 354 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:02/29/2016 Subject:FY 2016/17 AB 109 COMMUNITY PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS/QUALIFICATIONS Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT IMPLEMENTATION Presenter: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator Contact: Lara DeLaney Referral History: See attached staff report. Referral Update: See attached staff report. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. REVIEW the Draft RFP/RFQs and PROVIDE input and direction to staff on their content and distribution. 2. CONSIDER the issue of the distribution of funding for Employment and Housing services: Should the $2M for Employment and $1,030,000 for Housing be distributed regionally utilizing the same formula as in the past (40% to East, 30% to Central, 30% to West); updated to reflect current population numbers (Approximately 41% reside in East County, approximately 28% reside in West County, approximately 20% reside in Central County); or based on need. PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs. 3. CONSIDER the issue of the extent to which a respondent identifies matching funds for their program. Should there be explicit preference for providing leveraged resources in the Budget? If so, at what level. PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs. 4. CONSIDER the term of the contracts: Are contracts for 3 years, or one year with 2 one-year renewal options? PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs. 5. CONSIDER the recommendation of staff to commence the development and distribution of the RFQ for Planning and Facilitation Services related to the update of the County’s Reentry Strategic Plan and AB 109 Operational Plan after the current RFPs and RFQ are issued. Page 245 of 354 Attachments Staff Report Attachment A: Employment and Placement Services RFP Attachment B: Short and Long-Term Housing Services RFP Attachment C: Mentoring and Family Reunification Services RFP Attachment D: Legal Services RFP Page 246 of 354 - 1 - OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Public Protection Committee Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair FROM: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator DATE: February 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Request for Proposals (RFPs) and Request for Qualifications (RFQs) for AB 109 Community Programs RECOMMENDATIONS 1. REVIEW the Draft RFP/RFQs and PROVIDE input and direction to staff on their content and distribution. 2. CONSIDER the issue of the distribution of funding for Employment and Housing services: Should the $2M for Employment and $1,030,000 for Housing be distributed regionally utilizing the same formula as in the past (40% to East, 30% to Central, 30% to West); updated to reflect current population numbers (Approximately 41% reside in East County, approximately 28% reside in West County, approximately 20% reside in Central County); or based on need. PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs. 3. CONSIDER the issue of the extent to which a respondent identifies matching funds for their program. Should there be explicit preference for providing leveraged resources in the Budget? If so, at what level. PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs. 4. CONSIDER the term of the contracts: Are contracts for 3 years, or one year with 2 one-year renewal options? PROVIDE direction to staff for incorporation into Final RFPs. 5. CONSIDER the recommendation of staff to commence the development and distribution of the RFQ for Planning and Facilitation Services related to the update of the County’s Reentry Strategic Plan and AB 109 Operational Plan after the current RFPs and RFQ are issued. Page 247 of 354 - 2 - BACKGROUND On January 22, 2016 the CCP Executive Committee adopted a FY 2016-17 Public Safety Realignment Budget for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The recommended FY 2016-17 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget included $4,020,036 for Community Programs as follows: Employment Support and Placement Services $2,000,000 Support of WCRSC & Central-East Reentry Network $1,225,036 Short and Long-Term Housing Access $500,000 Peer and Mentoring Services $110,000 Family Reunification Services $90,000 Legal Services $80,000 Development of a “Reentry Resource Guide” $15,000 In addition, the CCP Executive Committee recommended an additional appropriation of $160,000 (approximately 4%) to the AB 109 Community Programs, to be allocated among the Community Program service areas upon the advice of its Community Advisory Board (CAB). At its February 8, 2016 meeting, the PPC recommended that an additional $500,000 be allocated to the Community Programs, with advice from the CAB on its distribution. The CAB took action on its recommended allocations at its Feb. 11, 2016 meeting and recommends allocation amounts for the AB 109 2016-17 fiscal year Community Programs as follows ($4,680,000 in total): a. Employment Support and Placement Services - $2,000,000 b. Short and Long-Term Housing - $1,030,000 c. Reentry Success Center and Central-East Network- $1,285,000 d. Mentoring and Family Reunification - $200,000 e. Civil Legal Services - $150,000 f. Reentry Resource Guide - $15,000 In its Budget request to the CCP, the CAB recommended that the County undertake an RFP/RFQ process for the contracts that will commence in FY 16-17 for the following services: 1. Employment Support and Placement Services 2. Short and Long-Term Housing 3. Civil Legal Services 4. Family Reunification 5. Mentoring Services 6. Data/Program Evaluation Note: The CAO’s office is proposing an update to the County’s Reentry Strategic Plan, an update of the County’s AB 109 Operations Plan, and the implementation of the AB 109 Annual Report for the FY 16-17 program evaluation and implementation support services. Page 248 of 354 - 3 - CAO staff recommends commencing the procurement process for these services after the RFPs for Employment, Housing, Mentoring & Family Reunification and the RFQ for Civil Legal Services are issued to allow for additional, sufficient RFQ development time. 7. Jail to Community Services (Note: The funding for the Jail-to-Community services is provided in the Sheriff’s Office budget and not administered through the CAO’s office, as are the Community Programs contracts. Staff from the Sheriff’s Office has indicated that RFPs are not anticipated to be issued at this time.) The CAB further recommended that contracts be structured as multi-year (3 years recommended) contracts. The CAO’s office administers the Community Programs contracts and has done so since 2013, when RFPs/RFQs were initially undertaken. Other recommendations from the CAB regarding the procurement process included: 1. For the RFP development process, the CAO should include the Network Manager, the Success Center Director, the County Reentry Coordinator, a member of the CAB, and a member of the CCP. 2. RFP/RFQs should include trauma informed principles, practices, and competencies as preference points and should be established as contractual requirements. 3. Responding organizations should be required to demonstrate cultural competency to engage and provide services to Contra Costa’s formerly incarcerated population and their families. 4. The RFP/RFQ process should seek to encourage meaningful collaboration among organizations for the more integrated and efficient delivery of services (allowing a proposal to respond to more than one service area; allowing a proposal to include multiple partners). In developing the Final Draft RFPs and RFQ, the CAO’s office used the original RFP/Qs developed in 2013 for the current Community Program contracts as the starting point for the RFP/Q development process and incorporated the recommendations of the CAB. Staff researched RFP/Qs issued in other counties in California for reentry services for procurement best practices and program design. In addition, multiple conference calls were held with the RFP/Q development team to ensure participation and input on their development. Substantive changes from the original RFPs and RFQ include: a. Timeline Updated b. Service Delivery Model Updated Page 249 of 354 - 4 - c. Target Population remains AB 109 but service population expanded to formerly incarcerated d. Updated the Demographic information to current data e. Contract term: 3 years f. Minimum Organization Requirements expanded to include “Trauma-Informed Principles and Practices,” “Risks-Needs- Responsivity”; and “Evidence Based Practices” and “Cultural Competency” rewritten g. Outcomes re-written to describe program objectives, rather than providing outcome measures (which are requested from responders) h. Substitute for recent audit provided as an option (provided for in 2013, after RFPs issued) i. Proposal length reduced from 20 to 16 pages in RFPs. j. Explicit identification of evidence-based practices (EBP) and Risk- Needs-Responsivity (RNR) principles in Program Narrative required and points awarded in Rating Sheet for demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to implement EBP and RNR k. Fidelity to EBP in Implementation and Oversight plan required l. 3 year Budget requirement m. Changing order of Forms and Attachments n. Changing description of Housing Services and Program Narrative to explicitly encourage SLE/Supportive Housing o. Developed description of Family Reunification services p. Added $150,000 in Network Housing to the Countywide Housing RFP but indicated distinction of the funding between Network support and countywide services. Timeline of RFP Process The Timeline of the RFP/RFQ process envisions a process that from date of issuance to Board of Supervisors award will last approximately two months. If there is strict adherence to the timeline, the Board of Supervisors would be authorizing contracts for services at their May 10, 2016 meeting, and staff would be executing contracts to begin on July 1, 2016, with a contract term running through June 30, 2019. AB 109 RFP/RFQs Timeline Event Date RFPs Issued March 1, 2016 Bidders Conference #1: East County Mar. 7 9:00 to 11:00 Bidders Conference #2: Central County Mar. 8 10:00 to noon Bidders Conference #3: West County Mar. 9 2:30 to 4:30 Written Questions Due from bidders Mar. 14 Page 250 of 354 - 5 - Addendum Issued Mar. 16 Responses Due April 1, 2016 Evaluation Period April 4‐8, 2016 Vendor Interviews April 11‐15, 2016 Results Letter Issued April 15, 2016 Appeal Period April 18‐22 Public Protection Reviews Results April 25, 2016 CCP Reviews Results May 6, 2016 Board Award Date May 10, 2016 Contract Start Date July 1, 2016 Review Panel Participants To conduct the proposal evaluation and vendor interview process, Review Panels will need to be established. The following members are proposed: 1. Assistant Chief Todd Billeci or designee 2. Lara DeLaney representing the CAO’s office. 3. A Reentry Coordinator from a neighboring County. 4. A Member of the CAB 5. A subject matter expert in each of the service areas 6. A formerly incarcerated person or family member of a formerly incarcerated person The County Reentry Coordinator, Donte Blue, will facilitate the Review Panel process. The CAO staff will commence solicitation of volunteers to serve on the Panels after the RFPs/RFQ are released. Staff will seek to broaden its RFP/Q notification process, to ensure that as many service providers as possible are notified about the opportunity. Attachment A: RFP Employment Support and Placement Services Attachment B: RFP Short and Long-Term Housing Access Attachment C: RFP Peer Mentoring and Family Reunification Attachment D: RFQ Civil Legal Services Note: With the exception of Attachment A, the RFP for Employment Services, the attached Final Drafts of the RFPs and RFQ do not include pages where “boiler-plate” content comprises the text of the document. Only pages where substantive differences are included are attached. Page 251 of 354 2/24/16 Page 1 of 52 Draft RFP Interested parties are required to attend a MANDATORY Bidders Conference At any of the following dates/times/locations: March 7 from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in the Pittsburg City Council Chambers, 65 Civic Ave., Pittsburg March 8 from 10:00 a.m. to noon in the Zoning Administrator Room, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez March 9 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Richmond City Council Chambers, 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond Attendance at this mandatory Bidders Conference is a requirement for submitting a proposal. The Bidders Conference is an opportunity to ask questions about the RFP and to receive technical assistance. Final proposals will be due at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, Martinez CA 94553 by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 2016. Written questions about the RFP can be submitted to lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us by 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2016. Questions received after the Bidders Conference will be answered and made available at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2366. Thank you in advance for your efforts in preparing your response. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1602-167 Employment Support and Placement Services for AB 109 Program The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office is pleased to announce, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the availability of up to $2,000,000 on an annual basis for “Employment Support and Placement Services” to be provided to formerly incarcerated individuals for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. This RFP is a process by which the County solicits proposals of qualified bidders that may be selected to enter into a contract with the County. Please read this entire packet carefully. Contra Costa County Attachment A Page 252 of 354 2/24/16 Page 2 of 52 Draft RFP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. RFP Timeline 3 Project Description 5 RFP Requirements and Instructions for Bidders 16 Proposal Preparation Instructions 20 Program Narrative 21 Program Budget Information 24 Proposal Review and Selection 27 Rating Sheet 29 Bidders Conference RSVP Form 31 Forms 1-4 33-40 Required Attachments and Respondent Checklist ~ Attachment A 42 County Contract Requirements and General Contract Conditions ~ Attachment B 45 Attachment A Page 253 of 354 2/24/16 Page 3 of 52 Draft RFP RFP TIMELINE 1. RFP announced Tues., March 1, 2016 2. Mandatory Bidders Conference March 7 from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in the Pittsburg City Council Chambers, 65 Civic Ave., Pittsburg; or March 8 from 10:00 a.m. to noon in the Zoning Administrator Room, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez; or March 9 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Richmond City Council Chambers, 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond 3. Written Questions Due from Responders 5:00 p.m., Mon., Mar. 14, 2016 4. Addendum Issued Tues., Mar. 16, 2016 5. Response Submission Deadline 5:00 p.m., Fri., April 1, 2016 County Administrator’s Office 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 No response will be accepted after this date and time. Postmarked, facsimiled, or e-mailed submissions will not be accepted. 6. Review, rating, and interview process April 4-15, 2016 7. Notification of award recommendations Fri., April 15, 2016 8. Appeal period April 18-22, 2016 9. Deadline to submit appeal letters 5:00 p.m., April 22, 2016 10. Public Protection Committee Review Mon., April 25, 2016 11. Community Corrections Partnership Review Fri., May 6, 2016 Board of Supervisors approval and authorization to award contracts is tentatively scheduled for the May 10, 2016 Board of Supervisors’ agenda Attachment A Page 254 of 354 2/24/16 Page 4 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Project Description Attachment A Page 255 of 354 2/24/16 Page 5 of 52 Draft RFP I. Introduction The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, is issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) # 1602-167 to receive proposals from service providers for a specific set of reentry services related to the implementation of AB 109 Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County. Based on the response to this solicitation for proposals, Contra Costa County (County) plans to contract with service providers for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2019. The County will retain the discretion to renew any contract issued, contingent on availability of funding and demonstrated successful performance by funded entities during the contract period. Private, not-for-profit organizations, for-profit organizations, public agencies, and not-for-profit institutions of education who offer programs that serve the needs of the AB 109 population and the formerly incarcerated, with demonstrated effectiveness in providing evidence-based and research-informed services that address criminogenic needs and are designed to reduce recidivism, and with a commitment to working within collaborative efforts, are invited to submit proposals. If your organization is capable of providing the requested services by contract with the County, please carefully review the Request for Proposals (RFP) and submit your proposal as directed in the "Proposal Preparation Instructions." This solicitation is not in any way to be construed as an agreement, obligation, or contract between the County and any party submitting a proposal, nor will the County pay for any costs associated with the preparation of any proposal. II. Synonymous Terms As used throughout this bid and its attachments, the following terms are synonymous: 1. a. Supplier, Vendor, Contractor, Successful Bidder, Operator b. Contract, Agreement c. Services, Work, Scope, and Project d. Proposer, Responder, Respondent, Bidder 2. “The County” refers to the County of Contra Costa, California. III. Background In 2011, the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill 109), which transferred responsibility for supervising specific low-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to counties. This Act tasked local government at the county level with developing a new approach to reducing recidivism among this population. AB 109 took effect October 1, 2011 and realigned three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation: Attachment A Page 256 of 354 2/24/16 Page 6 of 52 Draft RFP Transferred the location of incarceration for individuals convicted of lower-level specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offences from state prison to local county jail pursuant to Penal Code 1170 (h) and provides for an expanded role for their post-release Mandatory Supervision; Transferred responsibility from the State to the County for post-release supervision of those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS); Transferred the housing responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail custody. AB 109 also tasked the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) with recommending to the County Board of Supervisors a plan for implementing Public Safety Realignment. The Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa County Realignment Plan on October 4, 2011 (Agenda Item No. D.5), as recommended by the Executive Committee of the CCP. On November 9, 2012, the CCP Executive Committee adopted an AB 109 Operational Plan. The Executive Committee of the CCP is presently composed of the County Probation Officer (Chair), Sheriff-Coroner, a Chief of Police (represented by the Antioch Police Chief), District Attorney, Public Defender, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court or designee (represented by the Court Executive Officer), and the County Employment and Human Services Director. The recommended FY 2016/17 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget includes $4,680,000 for Community Programs as follows: • Employment Support and Placement Services $2,000,000 • Implementation of Reentry Success Center and Network $1,285,000 • Short and Long-term Housing Access $1,030,000 • Mentoring and Family Reunification Services $200,000 • Legal Services $150,000 • Development of a “Reentry Resource Guide” $15,000 Attachment A Page 257 of 354 2/24/16 Page 7 of 52 Draft RFP IV. Service Delivery Model The service delivery model developed by the CCP involves multiple organizations working in collaboration to provide services to address the specific criminogenic needs of the AB 109 population and others formerly incarcerated. The CCP is supported in this model development by the advice of the Community Advisory Board and its subcommittees. The coordination of all of the County’s re-entry efforts is led by a contracted Reentry Coordinator, situated in the Probation Office, and administratively supported by the County Administrator’s Office. A dedicated unit of AB 109 Probation Officers serve as lead case managers to coordinate client services provided by County and community-based partner organizations. AB 109 Probation Officers also work closely with the County’s Behavioral Health Division’s Forensic Team to coordinate service referrals. The Forensic Team was formed to address the needs of criminal justice-involved individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. In addition to mental health counseling and medication management, clients can access residential and out-patient substance abuse treatment, short-term housing through homeless shelters, as well as assistance with enrollment in state and federal benefits including health care and income supports. AB 109 individuals who are not dually diagnosed with co-occurring disorders can still access the AB 109 designated shelter beds and substance abuse programs with Probation Officer referral to the County Behavioral Health Division. This partnership between County agencies is further supported by community-based organizations contracted to provide employment support and placement, housing, mentoring, civil legal and family reunification services. Navigation and referral assistance to all of these services comes through access to the Reentry Success Center (located in Richmond) and the Central-East Network Reentry System of Services. The Central-East Reentry Network is managed by a contracted Network Manager and supported by three contracted Field Operations Coordinators (one located in the Concord Police Department, one in the Antioch Police Department, and another in the Pittsburg Police Department). The Reentry Network (http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/5220/Reentry-Network) provides a "No Wrong Door" service mechanism to help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully reintegrate into the communities where they resided before incarceration, leading to a reduced recidivism rate, increased public safety, and healthy family reunification. Network services include transitional housing, specialized employment training in auto mechanics, employment and education liaison services, and leadership training. The Reentry Success Center is intended to serve as a centralized, site-based gathering place for learning, capacity-development, and access to information and services related to reentry. Gathering resources into one accessible and welcoming hub of integrated services in a restorative environment, the Center is intended to serve a variety of members, including people who are currently incarcerated in prison or jail and who are within six months of returning to Contra Costa; formerly incarcerated people who live in Contra Costa; and Contra Costa County residents who are family members of currently incarcerated or formerly incarcerated people. Attachment A Page 258 of 354 2/24/16 Page 8 of 52 Draft RFP Led by its Director, the Center is co-governed by Rubicon Programs in formal partnership with the Center’s multi-sector Steering Committee. This 13 member governance body is charged with stewarding the Center’s mission, values, and vision, and guiding the alignment of the Center’s operations with the community’s identified needs and desires. Generally, thirty to sixty days prior to a person’s release from county jail to Mandatory Supervision, or to Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) from nearby prisons, a Deputy Probation Officer is able to make an initial contact with a client and introduce them to the programs and services made available to them. During this initial contact and interview the Deputy Probation Officer administers the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS), a comprehensive assessment tool that combines validated risk and needs assessments with suggested supervision strategies for case planning. Through this process, areas of criminogenic need are identified and prioritized while an individualized case plan for the client is developed that addresses specific goals and needed services. The person is then referred to service providers to help meet the needs of the client and to obtain the goals that have been identified and agreed upon. In addition to the coordinated care system described above, the County has also allocated AB 109 funding to the Public Defender and District Attorney (DA) for an Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) program, to ensure representation at arraignment for indigent clients; staff support for a Clean Slate program to aid County residents seeking expungement and related record remedy services; funding for the development of a “Failure to Appear” program; an additional Assistant District Attorney for Domestic Violence filings; additional Victim Witness Advocates; and a Reentry Attorney in the DA’s office. Funding has also been recommended for FY 2016-17 for a Ceasefire Coordinator. In addition, a Pre-trial Services program has been implemented, as a partnership between the DA, Sheriff’s Office, Public Defender and Probation Office. The Workforce Development Board receives AB 109 funding to coordinate with County and community providers, leverage their existing services, and develop new employment opportunities for this population in designated high growth sectors. The Contra Costa County Police Chiefs Association also receives AB 109 funding to support 4.0 FTE officers in the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg and Richmond for coordinated support of AB 109 related law enforcement activities. Finally, funding has been provided since 2013 for data collection and evaluation efforts to measure the efficacy of the County and community services and programs over time. V. Target Population The target population to be served includes individuals released from state prison on or after October 1, 2011 who are placed on PRCS provided by the Probation Department and those convicted of a non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offense pursuant to Penal Code 1170(h) who are incarcerated in County jail and/or assigned to Mandatory Supervision by Probation. If additional program capacity exists within the available funding, program services may be expanded to other formerly incarcerated populations in a tiered approach that prioritizes and ensures services to AB 109 clients. Attachment A Page 259 of 354 2/24/16 Page 9 of 52 Draft RFP Demographic Highlights: The County seeks to partner with eligible entities that have expertise in delivering reentry services to a diverse population assessed as moderate to high risk to re-offend. Respondents must demonstrate understanding of the demographics and criminogenic needs of justice-involved individuals and clearly articulate a track record of experience providing commensurate evidence- based services and interventions. Where any new or innovative practice is proposed, it must at least be research-informed, if not already regarded as promising. Since October 1, 2011, the AB 109 unit of the Contra Costa County Probation Department has supervised 1917 clients, 1212 under Post-Release Community Supervision and 705 on Mandatory Supervision under Penal Code 1170(h)(5)(b). A majority (90%) of AB 109 clients are male. Even so, services that are gender-responsive to the needs of female clients are encouraged. While clients range in age from 18 to over 65, the average age is 39 and the majority of clients are in the 26 to 45 age range. Ninety-two (92) percent of currently supervised AB 109 clients are assessed as moderate to high- risk for recidivism using the CAIS tool. CAIS determines risk through a semi-structured interview that identifies gender responsive risks, strengths and needs based on criminogenic needs including mental illness and substance abuse, antisocial behavior history, antisocial- procriminal attitudes and associations, personality patterns and familial factors. As of February 1, 2016, the AB 109 unit actively supervised 1,414 clients residing in Contra Costa County. Approximately 165 (41%) reside in East County (Antioch, Bay Point, Brentwood, Discovery Bay, Oakley, Pittsburg), approximately 115 (28%) reside in West County (Crockett, El Sobrante, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, Rodeo, San Pablo), approximately 80 (20%) reside in Central County (Clayton, Concord, Lafayette, Pacheco, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek), and 11% of AB 109 clients reside in other counties (Alameda, Sacramento, Solano, Yolo). In East County, 83% of AB 109 clients reside in Antioch, Pittsburg and Bay Point. In West County, 73% reside in the cities of Richmond and San Pablo. In Central County, 60% reside in Concord and Martinez. Respondents should demonstrate capacity to provide services in the cities where the majority of AB 109 clients reside. AB 109 Population Demographics Up to 2/1/2016 PRCS 1170(h) Both Total Clients 1212 705 1917 Gender Male 1133 584 90% Female 79 121 10% Other 1 0 Age Average Age 39.5 39.4 39.4 18-25 9% 7% 8% 26-35 32% 37% 34% Attachment A Page 260 of 354 2/24/16 Page 10 of 52 Draft RFP 36-45 32% 31% 31% 46-55 21% 19% 20% 56-65 6% 6% 6% 66+ 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% Race/Ethnicity White 34% 44% 38% Black 44% 34% 40% Hispanic 19% 19% 19% Asian 0.8% 1.1% 1% Pacific Islander NA 0.3% 0.1% Filipino 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% Samoan 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Native American 0.1% NA 0.1% Other 0.2% NA 0.1% Unknown 0.7% 1.1% 0.9% VI. Funding Up to $2,000,000 (two million dollars) is recommended in the AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget to fund the provision of employment support and placement services countywide on an annual basis, and the contract period is from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. Funding shall be allocated to services provided in each sub-region of the county based on the most recent data on the location of currently supervised AB 109 clients: West County $600,000; Central County $600,000; and East County $800,000. The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office (CAO) will administer these funds. The contract(s) resulting from this RFP may potentially be renewable at the sole discretion the Board of Supervisors. Agencies may submit proposals individually, or may collaborate and work together to provide services in one or more geographic areas of the county. Respondents may submit a proposal to deliver services in one region of the County or in more than one region, depending on their experience and expertise. If applying collaboratively, only one agency may serve as the lead and will be expected to coordinate all fiscal and administrative duties as needed to meet the contractual obligations. This RFP may result in a single award or multiple awards. VII. Purpose, Services, and Outcomes A. Purpose: “Reentry” is not a specific program, but rather a research-driven process that starts when an individual is initially incarcerated and ends when the person has been successfully reintegrated in his or her community as a law-abiding citizen. The reentry process includes the delivery of a variety of research-informed and evidence-based program services in both pre- and post-release Attachment A Page 261 of 354 2/24/16 Page 11 of 52 Draft RFP settings, designed to ensure that the transition from prison or jail to the community is both safe and successful. Employment support and placement services can be a significant element of a successful reentry strategy. Without the assistance needed to foster successful community reintegration, many formerly incarcerated individuals engage in criminal activity. Employment post-incarceration is an important stabilizing factor that improves a person’s ability to successfully reduce their risk for recidivism. In order to successfully reintegrate into the community, it is essential that formerly incarcerated individuals gain the skills necessary to compete for jobs, and to ultimately sustain employment for substantial lengths of time. B. Employment Support and Placement Services: Employment Support Services: Barriers to work faced by re-entering individuals include the stigma of a criminal record, inconsistent work histories, low levels of educational attainment, limited marketable skills, and physical and mental health problems. Many individuals also lack necessary identification documents, access to transportation, and childcare for dependent children. The County seeks entities to ensure the provision of barrier removal services (acquiring California Driver’s License/CA ID card, Social Security card, birth certificate, and addressing traffic court, child support and other barriers), workforce assessment, job readiness and soft skill training, career exploration, job search assistance, job retention support, resume and cover letter composition services, as well interview training, career mentoring, and other services to support finding, attaining, and keeping a job. Employer Engagement: The County seeks entities with a proven track record of successfully identifying public and private sector employers that are committed to working with individuals with criminal histories. The proposer may describe strategic efforts to educate employers on federal employment discrimination guidelines, applicable federal tax credits, and other benefits of hiring formerly incarcerated individuals. The proposer should consider industry trends, certificate programs of the community colleges, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)-funded job training, other vocational training and apprenticeship opportunities, and how to further strengthen and streamline the pathways between employers and existing training programs. To aid in successful placement, the proposal should include staffing specialists who cultivate employer relationships to identify open positions, develop new vocational opportunities accessible to the reentry population, and connect clients with targeted interviews. The staffing specialists should provide employers with information about various tax incentive programs available for hard-to-employ individuals including people with criminal records. Employers should also be informed about referrals for on-the-job (OJT) training and customized training options available through employment One-Stops throughout the county. Vocational Training: The County seeks entities to directly provide or to provide efficient access to vocational training in specific industries willing to hire formerly incarcerated individual and expects that the proposer will have established or have a plan for establishing relationships with Attachment A Page 262 of 354 2/24/16 Page 12 of 52 Draft RFP associated industry employers so that clients have a clear picture of their pathway from training to employment. The County expects that proposers will have a thorough knowledge of the Workforce Development Board, WIOA and how to streamline eligible client access into available services, and established relationships with the community college district or other higher education gateways for moving disconnected workers into meaningful employment and long-term careers. Subsidized Transitional/Supported Employment: Stable employment is critical for long-term reintegration back into communities. The County seeks to contract with entities to provide or provide access to meaningful transitional employment and subsidized wage opportunities for individuals who have demonstrated work readiness aptitude. The entity may provide transitional employment opportunities through an existing social enterprise or may propose a plan that brokers transitional job placements within public or private business in which employers are committed to working with motivated and work-ready individuals. Specific employment placement and support services may include: • Orientation and assessment of new participants; • Employment preparation and job placement, retention and advancement services, including assistance obtaining documents necessary for employment; • English as a Second Language training; • Assistance with job applications and job search; • Soft skills training regarding punctuality, reliability, conflict resolution, appropriate dress and attitude, understanding workplace etiquette, and effective interviewing skills; • Job referrals; • Working with potential employers to overcome barriers to occupations created by specific convictions; • Employer education initiatives to increase employer willingness to employ formerly incarcerated; • Tattoo removal; • Post-release job readiness workshops; • Transitional employment; • On-the-Job training or subsidized employment; • Education and Training; • Case management including assistance connecting to supportive services such as housing, substance abuse programs and health services. C. Outcomes: The County seeks expert entities to provide employment services that consider a wide range of academic and vocational experiences and skill sets, and which are dynamic enough to engage individuals who have a broad range of employment needs. The services may be provided in custody (depending on availability of space and access, provided by the Sheriff’s Office) and/or in the community. Attachment A Page 263 of 354 2/24/16 Page 13 of 52 Draft RFP Proposers should describe a services delivery continuum that integrates all of the services sub-categories. The continuum may describe how the proposer can deliver on all sub- components, or it may describe how a collaboration of partners will work together seamlessly to coordinate the parallel delivery of the sub-components services. VIII. Minimum Organizational Requirements 1. Service History: A documented history of similar or equivalent service delivery to high risk criminal justice populations, including successful completion of contract deliverables and participation in outcome evaluation. 2. Justice System Collaboration: A history of prior successful collaboration with Probation, corrections, local law enforcement or other justice system stakeholders. Knowledge of and participation in “jail to community” service delivery models is preferred, including demonstrated history of working effectively within a correctional setting and maintaining staff with jail clearances. 3. Evidence-Based Practices: Demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to implement evidence-based practices related to successful engagement and recidivism reduction with high-risk criminal offenders. 4. Risk-Needs-Responsivity: Demonstrated understanding of criminogenic needs and the recidivism reduction strategies that rely on effectively responding to these needs. An effective response often requires proper intervention dosage and duration levels 5. Staff Training: Bidder’s staff must be qualified and adequately trained to provide services and able to maintain confidential offender record information (CORI). Staff must commit to full participation in trainings provided through the County, including trauma-informed practices among other topics. County has the discretion to approve or disapprove the qualifications/training level of bidder’s staff working with Probation clients. 6. Cultural Competency: Demonstrated understanding and capacity to deliver gender responsive services, in appropriate languages, at appropriate educational and literacy levels, that are within the context of an individual’s cultural identity. To do this requires a demonstrated awareness, respect, and dynamic appreciation of the beliefs, practices, traditions, religions, personal history, and in the case of this RFP, criminal histories of individuals whom reside in the diverse local communities of Contra Costa. 7. Interagency Collaboration: Demonstrated interest and intent to collaborate with local county and non-profit service providers to obtain multi-disciplinary service delivery. A documented history of successful collaboration including shared case management and blended funding preferred. Staff must attend regular coordination meetings and collaborate with AB 109 partner agencies. Attachment A Page 264 of 354 2/24/16 Page 14 of 52 Draft RFP 8. Data Collection and Reporting: Demonstrated capacity and commitment to collecting and reporting all required data including service delivery statistics (number served, units of service, dosage by client), and program-related impact and outcome measures. Commitment to program changes and improvements based upon outcome data, including willingness to reconfigure services to enhance effective coordination through the AB109 service provider network. 9. Matching Resources: Current or potential sources of matching resources to supplement direct funding including leveraged funding or services, and volunteer hours. Since the available funding is not adequate to meet the anticipated level of need, qualified organizations that demonstrate the capacity to access additional resources may be prioritized. 10. Licensing/Certification Requirements: Successful bidders must have and maintain all appropriate licenses, permits, and certifications as required by the laws of the United States, State of California, Contra Costa County, and all other appropriate governmental agencies. 11. Trauma-Informed Principles and Practices: Demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to implement trauma-informed principles and practices in service delivery to ensure a focus on personal safety to help clients develop effective coping skills, build health relationships that foster growth, and develop strong, positive interpersonal support networks. IX. Contract Monitoring and Evaluation The County Administrator’s Office will actively monitor services provided through these contracts and will: a. Monitor subcontracts written by and entered into by the contractor; b. Provide information to contractors concerning additional State or County data requirements not provided herein. At a minimum, contractors will be expected to: a. Be able to enter into contract and begin service delivery within 2 months of award; b. Perform all services without material deviation from an agreed-upon Service Plan; c. Complete quarterly progress reports and monthly data reports on templates supplied by County; d. Maintain adequate records of service provision to document compliance with Service Plan and complete forms supplied; and e. Cooperate with the collection of other fiscal/administrative/service data as requested by the County. Attachment A Page 265 of 354 2/24/16 Page 15 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM RFP Requirements and Instructions for Bidders Attachment A Page 266 of 354 2/24/16 Page 16 of 52 Draft RFP RFP REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR BIDDERS The bidder requirements in this section are mandatory. Contra Costa County reserves the right to waive any nonmaterial variation. 1. All bidders shall submit one original proposal package and eight (8) complete copies of the proposal, under sealed cover, by mail or hand-delivery to the CAO at 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 to be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 2016. Each submission must be marked on the outside with the Agency's name and RFP No. 1602-167. Any proposal received after the deadline will be rejected. Postmarks and faxed submissions are not acceptable. 2. A copy of a recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement must be attached to the original copy of the proposal. (If a proposer is submitting proposals for multiple RFPs offered through the AB 109 program, only one copy is required.) If the organization has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and the agency accountant that the information accurately reflects the agency’s current financial status. 3. The CAO will review all received proposals to make sure they are technically compliant with formatting and submission guidelines as per the RFP and will conduct a review of the Minimum Organizational Requirements. Proposers that are non-compliant with technical and Minimum Organizational Requirements will not move forward to the Review Panel. 4. Proposals and required attachments shall be submitted as specified and must be signed by officials authorized to bind the bidder to the provisions of the RFP. All costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal will be the responsibility of the bidder and will not be reimbursed by the County. 5. A proposal may be withdrawn in person by a bidder's authorized representative prior to 12:00 p.m. on April 4, 2016. If withdrawing a proposal, the bidder’s authorized representative must provide appropriate identification (i.e. driver’s license) and sign a receipt attesting to his/her withdrawal of the proposal. 6. A mandatory conference for prospective bidders will be held on the following dates/times at the following locations: March 7, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the Pittsburg City Council Chambers; March 8 from 10:00 a.m. to noon in the Zoning Administrator’s Room at 30 Muir Road in Martinez; or March 9 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Richmond City Council Chambers. For a proposal to receive consideration by the CAO, bidders must attend this conference—at any of the locations. Attachment A Page 267 of 354 2/24/16 Page 17 of 52 Draft RFP 7. Prospective proposers are requested to return the Bidders Conference RSVP on page 31. 8. Any questions regarding this RFP should be emailed to Lara.DeLaney@cao.cccounty.us on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2016. Please include RFP #1602-167 in the subject line. 9. The CAO may amend this RFP, if needed, to make changes or corrections to specifications or provide additional data. Amendments will be posted at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2366 or, if after the bidders conference, emailed to all those attending. The CAO may extend the RFP submission date, if necessary, to allow bidders adequate time to consider additional information and submit required data. 10. The RFP process may be canceled in writing by the CAO prior to awards if the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors determines that cancellation is in the best interest of the County. 11. With respect to this RFP, the County reserves the right to reject any, some, or all bids and proposals. The County reserves the right to negotiate separately in any manner to serve the best interests of the County. All proposals become property of the County, without obligation to any bidder. 12. Proposals will be judged on overall quality of content and responsiveness to the purpose and specifications of this RFP. Proposals should be without expensive artwork, unusual printing, or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the proposal. Evaluation criteria and weight factors are described below. 13. A Review Panel will evaluate all compliant proposals. The panel will be composed of the Chief Probation Officer (or designee), CAO staff, a Reentry Coordinator, a member of the Community Advisory Board, a formerly incarcerated person, and a professional in the area of employment, housing, mentoring or family reunification (as applicable to the RFP). On the basis of panel ratings recommendations, the Public Protection Committee will make recommendations to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Bidders will be notified of this recommendation in writing. Award of a contract by the Board of Supervisors will constitute acceptance of a proposal. 14. Only bidders submitting a proposal in accordance with RFP No. 1602-167 may appeal the RFP process. Appeals must be submitted in writing and should be addressed to Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator; County Administrator’s Office and received at 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 no later than 5:00 PM on Friday, April 22, 2016. Notification of a final decision on the appeal shall be made in writing to the bidder. When submitting, an appellant must clearly state the action appealed, the harm to the appellant, and the action sought. Appeals shall be limited to the following grounds: Attachment A Page 268 of 354 2/24/16 Page 18 of 52 Draft RFP • Failure of the County to follow the selection procedures and adhere to requirements specified in the RFP or any addenda or amendments. • There has been a violation of conflict of interest as provided by California Government Code Section 87100 et seq. • A violation of State or Federal law. Notification of a final decision on the appeal by the CAO shall be made in writing to the bidder within five (5) days, and the decision of the CAO shall be final and not subject to further review. 15. Successful bidders will be expected to promptly enter contract negotiation with the CAO and begin service delivery within two months of contract award. This may result in mutually agreed upon changes in plans or activities identified in the proposal. As a result of this negotiation, actual contract(s) may include other agreements and clarifications of activities, consistent with the intent of this RFP. 16. Services will begin upon the signing of a contract according to a mutually agreed upon start-up schedule. The County is not liable for any cost incurred by the contractor prior to the effective date of any contract. 17. Selected contractor(s) will be responsible for all services offered in their proposal, whether or not contractor(s) perform them directly or through subcontractors in multiple agency collaboration. 18. The CAO will actively monitor service implementation and delivery and provide contract monitoring. Any material breach of contract requirements will constitute grounds for terminating the contract. 19. All contracted parties must agree to implement the County's alcohol/drug abuse prevention/treatment policy and comply with related monitoring and evaluation procedures. Attachment A Page 269 of 354 2/24/16 Page 19 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Proposal Preparation Instructions Attachment A Page 270 of 354 2/24/16 Page 20 of 52 Draft RFP PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Responses must be in the form of a proposal package containing a complete proposal and all required supporting information and documents. 2. Each bidder must submit one (1) original proposal package and eight (8) complete copies with attachments included, unless otherwise noted on Respondent's Checklist. 3. All narrative materials are to be single-spaced on 8 1/2" x 11" paper (recycled preferred) with no less than 1" margins on each side of paper. Use an easy to read 12-point font. Total proposal should not exceed 16 pages excluding cover sheet, table of contents, budget, budget narrative and required attachments. 4. Pages must be stapled together and numbered consecutively with each section identified by an appropriate Roman numeral. 5. Forms 1-4 (attached to this RFP) are to be fully completed and attached in the order indicated on the Respondent's Checklist. 6. All information in the proposal package must be presented in the following sequence. PROPOSAL OUTLINE SECTION I - INTRODUCTION I.1 Proposal Cover Statement (Form #1) The Proposal Cover Statement with original signatures, in blue ink, of the bidder's Board of Directors' President and Executive Director attached to the original of the proposal must precede the narrative. Copies of the form must also serve as a cover page to the remaining eight (8) proposal copies submitted. I.2 Table of Contents Include a table of contents using Attachment A as your guide. Attachment A Page 271 of 354 2/24/16 Page 21 of 52 Draft RFP SECTION II—PROGRAM NARRATIVE II.1 Agency Overview (1-2 pages for each agency/party) (Submit an agency overview for each party in a collaborative.) A. State your agency's mission and its overall service philosophy. B. Describe briefly: 1. Your agency's primary program services; 2. Agency’s years in operation and number of years providing services described in this RFP; 3. Agency’s experience and capabilities as they relate to the scope of services described in this RFP; 4. Current service population(s): number of clients, demographic and geographic information; 5. Staffing pattern (size, composition, education level); 6. Location of administrative and program office(s); 7. History of collaboration with other service providers; 8. Other partner agencies involved in provision of services. II.2 Program Proposal (8 pages or fewer) A. Describe the program of service delivery for which AB 109 funds are requested. For each program, address the following, and specifically identify the incorporation of evidence-based practices in your program: 1. Program Design, Methodology & Goals a. What are the goals of the program? b. What is the approach employed by the program to meet the goals? Provide a detailed description of the program model including any tailoring of the program to meet the needs of the individual receiving services. c. Who is the target population for your program? Provide details on demographics of the target population, including number of clients to be served, age range of clients to be served, and geographic location. d. What services will be provided to this population and who will provide Attachment A Page 272 of 354 2/24/16 Page 22 of 52 Draft RFP the services? e. Where and how will the services be offered? Indicate the days and hours services will be offered, languages in which services will be provided, any costs to be incurred by the clients, and service delivery methods, including how accessible services are to public transportation, etc. f. Demonstrate your organization’s knowledge of and commitment to implement evidence-based practices related to successful programmatic engagement and recidivism reduction strategies, including the appropriate use of Risk-Needs-Responsivity principles. Where your services are research-informed, describe why such practices are promising and likely to produce the desired outcomes and impact with the target population. 2. Program evaluation and outcomes Describe in specific detail how you will determine the success of the program and the quality of the services provided. a. How will service delivery be monitored and evaluated? b. What data will you collect and report? c. How will you use collected data for program improvement? d. What are your program outcome measures and how will you track them? Discuss specific outcomes that measure the impact or results for each service component. 3. Collaboration and Coordination a. Collaboration: If this proposal is a collaborative effort, describe the primary activities and responsibilities of each collaborator. Indicate how resources will be shared, how funds will be leveraged and blended, and how service duplication will be avoided. b. Coordination: Indicate how this program will interface with other public and private agencies serving the same target populations or providing related services. Specifically indicate how this program will interface with the Reentry Network, the Reentry Success Center, and the Workforce Development Board. Please include memorandums of support and/or memorandums of understanding. 4. Community Resources: Describe how you will: Attachment A Page 273 of 354 2/24/16 Page 23 of 52 Draft RFP • Build community resources • Use existing community resources • Complement and strengthen existing resources. II.3 Program Implementation and Oversight (4 pages or fewer) 1. Describe the process goals and timeline for implementation of the service plan. Process goals describe the action-steps that the agency or collaborative will take in order to implement the service plan. If the proposal is a collaborative effort, describe each agency’s specific responsibilities and timelines, and the respective primary roles of staff in each agency in completing the action-steps. 2. Describe how you will ensure fidelity of your program to evidence-based practices. 3. Submit a staffing plan for all staff working directly or indirectly in this program, including: staff name and job title; time allocated to program; duties/activities; language/cultural competence. Describe briefly how the staffing plan meets the needs of the program. Clearly indicate positions you will need to hire. 4. Describe the agency’s use of local resources in the design, implementation and evaluation of the proposed program. Include the use of local residents and consumers, if applicable. 5. Submit job descriptions and resumes of Executive Director and key program staff. 6. Submit agency organizational chart. II.4 Bidder’s Experience (up to 1 page) Describe your agency's current or past experience in providing the proposed services, including length of time your agency has been providing these services. Indicate staff experience with methodologies to be used. Note any other relevant aspects of your agency's service history that demonstrate capacity to provide the proposed services. II.5 Cultural Competency (up to 1 page) Describe strategies and processes you will use to assure that services are responsive and relevant to the identified population. Demonstrate your organization’s understanding and capacity to deliver responsive services, including cultural and linguistic competency, ties to the local community, field-based service delivery, gender-specific programming, targeting of multiple learning styles at varied literacy levels and effective client engagement and retention strategies. Attachment A Page 274 of 354 2/24/16 Page 24 of 52 Draft RFP SECTION III. - PROGRAM BUDGET INFORMATION III.1 Fiscal Management Information Narrative A. Provide a brief description of the lead agency's accounting system and internal controls. Include the following as appropriate: 1. Overall system (accrual, double-entry, automated or manual) 2. Timekeeping system 3. Inventory system 4. Payroll system 5. Cost allocation plan and methodology 6. Ledger system for receivables, payables, expenses, disbursements, petty cash B. Explain how your fiscal system is administered and by whom. Include responsibilities of Board of Directors, Executive Director and fiscal staff in fiscal management. Describe experience and qualifications of fiscal staff. C. Describe fiscal procedures and policies or attach a manual of fiscal procedures and policies. III.2 Program Budget/Narrative A. Complete a line-item budget for all programs, showing all costs, for three years. Program Budget should include a breakdown of all costs that demonstrates computations for each budget category (i.e., Personnel, Benefits, Supplies, Local Travel, etc.) Proposed budgets are expected to be complete, reasonable, cost effective, and necessary for proposed activities across the three contract years. B. Program Budget Narrative Each budget cost item must be detailed in the narrative section and should reflect the basis for the computations. Every item must be completed, if applicable. Minimal narrative requirements are described below: 1. Administration and Support Include supervisors, directors, clerical support staff, and administrative staff with no service delivery responsibilities. Divide the salaries of staff with both "Service Delivery" and "Administration" responsibilities in proportion to the time allotted for each activity. List such staff in both categories. Indicate titles, rate of pay, time allotted to program and full-time equivalent positions (FTEs). Explain in Attachment A Page 275 of 354 2/24/16 Page 25 of 52 Draft RFP narrative. Administrative costs should not exceed 15% of total request. 2. Program Staff Include all staff involved in service delivery. Indicate titles, rate of pay, time allotted to program and FTEs. 3. Payroll Fringe Benefits Report estimated costs of benefits, vacations, sick leave and training days on the line-item budget. Narrative shall list staff by title, FTEs, pay rate and amount of time allocated. Include for each staff title by type (FICA, SUI, FUTA, Worker's Compensation, leave and health and other insurance), applicable rates or basis. 4. Operations a. Occupancy Describe all applicable factors (e.g. rent/leases) and basis for allocating cost to program. b. Utilities Describe all applicable factors and basis for allocating cost to program. c. Telephone, Postage, Insurance, Equipment List by type, justification of cost and basis for allocating cost to program. d. Printing/Photocopying List cost by type and describe justification for cost and basis for allocating costs to program. e. Materials List by type and describe justification of cost. f. Travel Describe type, justification, and basis of cost. Include service delivery, administration mileage and transportation costs for clients. g. Miscellaneous Indicate kinds of anticipated miscellaneous costs, such as childcare for clients while receiving services. Each item over $100 should be explained individually. Attachment A Page 276 of 354 2/24/16 Page 26 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Proposal Review and Selection Attachment A Page 277 of 354 2/24/16 Page 27 of 52 Draft RFP PROPOSAL REVIEW AND SELECTION All proposals submitted in compliance with the RFP requirements will be eligible for review and selection. Proposals will be evaluated in two distinct areas: A. Service proposal and bidder's implementation capability. B. Fiscal proposal and bidder's fiscal management capability. Proposal Selection Methodology: A. Only those proposals from respondents who attended the Mandatory Bidders Conference will be forwarded for review. B. CAO staff will review each proposal's adherence to RFP specifications, including: • Proposal Cover Statement • Proposal Narrative • Agency Information (including required attachments) • Budget forms • Other fiscal information (including required attachments) 1. All proposals deemed responsive will be referred to the RFP Review Panel. 2. The panel will be composed of the Chief Probation Officer (or designee), CAO staff, a Reentry Coordinator, a member of the Community Advisory Board, a formerly incarcerated person, and a professional in the area of employment, housing, mentoring or family reunification (as applicable to the RFP). Members of the Review Panel will be required to sign an impartiality statement. C. The Review Panel will review all qualified proposals and evaluate and score all service elements utilizing the evaluation criteria outlined on page 29. D. The Public Protection Committee will make recommendations for contract awards to the Board of Supervisors after considering the recommendations of the Review Panel. Attachment A Page 278 of 354 2/24/16 Page 28 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Rating Sheet Attachment A Page 279 of 354 2/24/16 Page 29 of 52 Draft RFP RATING SHEET Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100: Program Elements and Possible Score I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted II.1. Agency Overview 1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.) 2. Administrative and program offices locally based (3 pts.) 3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 0-8 II.2. Program Proposal 1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.) 2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.) 3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 0-40 II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight 1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an evidence-based model (8 pts.) 2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and management (5 pts.) 3. Knowledge of and use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 0-15 II.4 Bidder’s Experience Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified. 0-12 II.5 Cultural Competency Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of services in the clients’ primary language. (10 pts.) 0-10 III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5 III.2 Program Budget/Narrative Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries, benefits and operation. 0-10 Total 100 pts. Attachment A Page 280 of 354 2/24/16 Page 30 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Bidders Conference RSVP Form Attachment A Page 281 of 354 2/24/16 Page 31 of 52 Draft RFP RE: Attendance of Bidders Conference for RFP #1602-167 Bidders Conference RSVP Form To: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator County Administrator’s Office Attention: RFP #1602-167 Lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez, California 94553 I/we plan to attend the Bidders Conference in: Name: _____________________________________________ Organization:_____________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Phone: _____________________________________________ I / we will be bringing (#)_______ of people. I / we are most interested in learning about (check all that apply): ____More details regarding AB 109 ____Budget Preparation ____Evaluation ____Designated Funding Areas ____Other_____________________________________________________________ Please return completed form to the above address or email it to vana.tran@cao.cccounty.us by 5:00 pm, Friday, March 4, 2016. Attachment A Page 282 of 354 2/24/16 Page 32 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM FORM 1 Proposal Cover Statement Attachment A Page 283 of 354 2/24/16 Page 33 of 52 Draft RFP FORM 1 PROPOSAL COVER STATEMENT EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Applicant Organization____________________________________________________________ Business Address________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Phone_______________ email:_____________ Year Organization Founded________ Contact Person & Title___________________________________________________ 501(c)3 ___ yes Exemption Expiration Date ___ no Other (explain):________________________________________ Federal Employer Number: List Collaborative Partners, if applicable: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ We submit the attached proposal and attachments in response to Contra Costa County’s Request for Proposals # 1602-167, and declare that: If the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County accepts this proposal, we will enter into a standard contract with Contra Costa County to provide all work specified herein as proposed or in accordance with modifications required by Contra Costa County. Funds obtained through this contract will not be used for other programs operated by the bidder/contractor unless stipulated within the proposal and accepted by the County. Authorized representatives: (two signatures required) Name:_____________________________________________ Date:___________ Signature:__________________________________________ Executive Director Name:______________________________________________ Signature:________________________________________ Date:___________ Board President This form must accompany the proposal package when submitted. Only one copy with original signatures is required. Attachment A Page 284 of 354 2/24/16 Page 34 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM FORM 2 Current Board of Directors Attachment A Page 285 of 354 2/24/16 Page 35 of 52 Draft RFP FORM #2 CURRENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1. Number of Board members required by agency's bylaws: _____ 2. Number of members on current Board: __________ 3. When and how often does the Board meet: ____________________ 4. List current Board members below (or attach Board List in this format): Name of Member City of Residence Occupation/Affiliation Board Position 5. Describe key roles and responsibilities of the Board: Attachment A Page 286 of 354 2/24/16 Page 36 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM FORM 3 Bidder’s Statement of Qualifications Attachment A Page 287 of 354 2/24/16 Page 37 of 52 Draft RFP FORM #3 BIDDER'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 1. List any licenses or certifications held by the agency, with expiration dates. 2 (a) Who administers your agency's fiscal system? Name: Phone: Title: Work Schedule: (b) What CPA firm maintains or reviews the agency's financial records and annual audit, if applicable? Name: Phone: Address: 3. Number of years bidder operated under the present business name. ____ List related prior business names, if any, and timeframe for each. 4. Number of years bidder has provided the services described in this proposal or related services. ____ 5. Has bidder failed or refused to complete any contract? Yes No If yes, briefly explain: 6. Is there any past, present, or pending litigation in connection with contracts for services involving the bidder or any principal officer of the agency? Yes No If yes, briefly explain. Attachment A Page 288 of 354 2/24/16 Page 38 of 52 Draft RFP FORM #3, Cont. 7. Does bidder have a controlling interest in any other firm(s)? Yes No If yes, please list below. 8. Does bidder have commitments or potential commitments that may impact assets, lines of credit or otherwise affect agency's ability to fulfill this RFP? Yes No If yes, specify below. Bidder attests, under penalty of perjury, that all information provided herein is complete and accurate. Bidder agrees to provide to County other information the County may request as necessary for an accurate determination of bidder's qualifications to perform proposed services. _____________________________________________________ ______________ Name and Title Date (Executive Director) _____________________________________________________ ______________ Name and Title Date (Board President) Note: When more than one agency will collaborate in providing services(s), each agency involved must complete this form. Attachment A Page 289 of 354 2/24/16 Page 39 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM FORM 4 Contracts and Grants Attachment A Page 290 of 354 2/24/16 Page 40 of 52 Draft RFP FORM #4 CONTRACTS AND GRANTS 1. List current contracts and subcontracts including government contracts and/or grants: Contact Name/Phone # Services Provided Contract of Contractor/Grantor Under Contract Dates 2. List key contracts/grants completed in the last five years, including government contracts/grants: 3. Bidder agrees to allow County to contact contractors for information relative to bidder's performance. (Sign below) ______________________________________________________ ________ Name and Title Date (Executive Director) _____________________________________________________ ______________ Name and Title Date (Board President) Note: When more than one agency will collaborate in providing services(s), each agency involved must complete this form. Attachment A Page 291 of 354 2/24/16 Page 41 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Attachment A Required Attachments and Respondent Checklist Attachment A Page 292 of 354 2/24/16 Page 42 of 52 Draft RFP REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS & RESPONDENT CHECKLIST Each respondent must submit a proposal in the following order with documents as described (unless otherwise noted). Duplicate enclosed forms as necessary. A. Proposal Cover Statement (Form #1) attached as cover to each proposal B. Table of Contents C. Program Narrative D. Program Budget Information E. List of Agency Board of Directors (Form #2) F. Agency Organizational Chart indicating how proposed project relates with other agency projects and programs. G. Job Descriptions and Resumes of Executive Director and key program staff H. Bidder's Statement of Qualifications (Form #3), completed and signed by Agency Executive Director and President of Agency Board of Directors. (Form #3 with original signatures must accompany original proposal.) I. Bidder's Contracts and Grants (Form #4), completed and signed by the Agency Executive Director and the President of the Board of Directors. (Form #4 with original signatures must accompany original proposal.) J. Fiscal Attachments (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re-submit.) Non-profit proposers must provide a copy of: 1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the original copy of the proposal. If the organization has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and the agency accountant that the information accurately reflects the agency’s current financial status. Also submit: 2. Current agency-wide Budget 3. Balance Sheet 4. Profit and Loss Statement 5. Manual of Fiscal Procedures and Policies, if available 6. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws 7. Roster of the organization’s Board of Directors including the directors’ names, titles, phone numbers, and email addresses. 8. 501(c) 3 Letter. For profit proposers must provide a copy of: 1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the original copy of the proposal. If the company has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons Attachment A Page 293 of 354 2/24/16 Page 43 of 52 Draft RFP for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, C.E.O., and the company accountant that the information accurately reflects the company’s current financial status. Also submit: 2. Most recent company Annual Report 3. Current company Budget 4. Balance Sheet 5. Profit and Loss Statement 6. Manual of fiscal procedures and policies, if available 7. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws K. Agency Brochure (as available) (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re- submit.) L. Other Relevant Attachments Attachment A Page 294 of 354 2/24/16 Page 44 of 52 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 1602-167 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Attachment B County Contract Requirements and General Conditions Attachment A Page 295 of 354 2/24/16 Page 1 of 54 Draft RFP Interested parties are required to attend a MANDATORY Bidders Conference At any of the following dates/times/locations: March 7 from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in the Pittsburg City Council Chambers, 65 Civic Ave., Pittsburg March 8 from 10:00 a.m. to noon in the Zoning Administrator Room, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez March 9 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Richmond City Council Chambers, 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond Attendance at this mandatory Bidders Conference is a requirement for submitting a proposal. The Bidders Conference is an opportunity to ask questions about the RFP and to receive technical assistance. Final proposals will be due at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, Martinez CA 94553 by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 2016. Written questions about the RFP can be submitted to lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us by 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2016. Questions received after the Bidders Conference will be answered and made available at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2366. Thank you in advance for your efforts in preparing your response. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1602-166 Short and Long-Term Housing Access for AB 109 Program The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office is pleased to announce, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the availability of up to $1,180,000 on an annual basis for “Short and Long-Term Housing Access” to be provided to formerly incarcerated individuals for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. Of this amount, $150,000 is specifically designated to serve clients in the Central-East Reentry Network. This RFP is a process by which the County solicits proposals of qualified bidders that may be selected to enter into a contract with the County. Please read this entire packet carefully. Contra Costa County Attachment B Page 296 of 354 2/24/16 Page 2 of 54 Draft RFP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. RFP Timeline 3 Project Description 5 RFP Requirements and Instructions for Bidders 16 Proposal Preparation Instructions 20 Program Narrative 21 Program Budget Information 24 Proposal Review and Selection 27 Rating Sheet 29 Bidders Conference RSVP Form 31 Forms 1-4 (to be completed by all bidders) 33-40 Required Attachments and Respondent Checklist ~ Attachment A 42 County Contract Requirements and General Contract Conditions ~ Attachment B 45 Attachment B Page 297 of 354 2/24/16 Page 4 of 54 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-166 SHORT AND LONG-TERM HOUSING ACCESS FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Project Description Attachment B Page 298 of 354 2/24/16 Page 10 of 54 Draft RFP 26-35 32% 37% 34% 36-45 32% 31% 31% 46-55 21% 19% 20% 56-65 6% 6% 6% 66+ 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% Race/Ethnicity White 34% 44% 38% Black 44% 34% 40% Hispanic 19% 19% 19% Asian 0.8% 1.1% 1% Pacific Islander NA 0.3% 0.1% Filipino 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% Samoan 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Native American 0.1% NA 0.1% Other 0.2% NA 0.1% Unknown 0.7% 1.1% 0.9% VI. Funding Up to $1,180,000 (one million one hundred-eighty thousand dollars) is recommended in the AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget to fund the provision of Short and Long-Term Housing Access on an annual basis, and the contract period is from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office (CAO) will administer these funds. The contract(s) resulting from this RFP may potentially be renewable at the sole discretion the Board of Supervisors. $1,030,000 of the funding shall be allocated to housing services provided in each subregion of the county based on the most recent data on the location of currently supervised AB 109 clients: West County $309,000; Central County $309,000; and East County $412,000. $150,000 of the funding shall be allocated specifically to serve clients in the Central and East County Reentry Network. Agencies may submit proposals individually, or may collaborate and work together to provide services in one or more geographic areas of the county. Respondents may submit a proposal to deliver services in one region of the County or in more than one region, depending on their experience and expertise. If applying collaboratively, only one agency may serve as the lead and will be expected to coordinate all fiscal and administrative duties as needed to meet the contractual obligations. This RFP may result in a single award or multiple awards. VII. Purpose, Services, and Outcomes Attachment B Page 299 of 354 2/24/16 Page 11 of 54 Draft RFP A. Purpose: “Reentry” is not a specific program, but rather a process that starts when an individual is initially incarcerated and ends when the person has been successfully reintegrated in his or her community as a law-abiding citizen. The reentry process includes the delivery of a variety of research- and evidence-based program services in both pre- and post-release settings, designed to ensure that the transition from prison or jail to the community is safe and successful. Short and long-term housing access and housing support, in general, can be a significant element of a successful reentry strategy. While incarcerated, most individuals plan to move in with family members to provide a stable living situation upon release. However, formerly incarcerated individuals are often barred from joining a stable family living situation because they cannot be added to the lease or housing agreement. Many of these individuals experience rejection from families and friends, refusal by private landlords, and intensive screening (and eviction) from public housing. Despite the numerous challenges, new reentry housing programs are emerging. Yet even within the ones that currently exist, there are numerous differences reflecting the multiple factors to consider in designing such a program. Simply deciding whom the facility will serve can be quite challenging. The history of low-income and special needs housing in the United States has traditionally been one of concentrating large numbers of units in a small number of disadvantaged communities. This approach is no longer considered viable and has been supplanted by a scattered site model supporting low density, low profile developments. Centralized facilities may be easier to operate and supervise, but are both highly visible and difficult to finance and develop. However, it can be more difficult to provide services, supervision and structure to a more dispersed population. Determining what type of reentry housing to provide is another factor to consider, as many of these programs operate with varying levels of structure and flexibility. Emergency housing is for individuals who have no place to go upon their release and is mostly provided by an overburdened shelter system. Transitional housing, also called “phased permanent,” or “interim” housing, provides short-term residence and treatment services. Permanent housing teaches complete self-sufficiency and provides a permanent supportive environment for those who need lifelong care. Some reentry housing models have successfully incorporated more than one type of housing within the same facility or program. In 2011, The Pacific Institute’s Safe Return Team, comprised of formerly incarcerated County residents, completed a survey of recently-released, adult Richmond area residents to assess service needs. 78% of respondents were unemployed, more than four times the overall Richmond unemployment rate and six times the California unemployment rate; 70% were technically homeless, staying with family or friends, short-term shelters or halfway houses; and more than half received no pre-release services or information about community reintegration resources. These findings illustrate the need for the housing support, pre-release case management, and vocational services. Attachment B Page 300 of 354 2/24/16 Page 12 of 54 Draft RFP The Safe Return report also found that the most common challenge recently released individuals face in accessing housing is financial: six out of ten could not afford the cost of entry into permanent housing (deposit and first and last month’s rent) or to pay market rate rent in the community. In addition, many do not have sufficient credit history to meet private landlord screening. Increases in rent and in the use of tenant screening protocols have only exacerbated the problems faced by formerly incarcerated individuals seeking housing in the County. B. Services and Desired Outcomes: Housing assistance/support services includes services that assist an individual to secure short- term or intermediate-term transitional housing, leading ultimately to long-term permanent housing. These services can include conducting a personalized needs assessment and developing a plan with the client to work through housing barriers, including developing a “tenant resume.” They can also include referring clients to additional services to address credit or budget issues, or services to address other barriers to maintaining stable housing. Other services may include providing clients with education regarding tenant rights and responsibilities. Housing access can include facilitating access to low-cost and/or subsidized housing options including sober living environment (SLE) and other transitional housing; working with a local housing authority to foster access to public subsidies and remove potential barriers; and addressing legal barriers to accessing housing. This may take the form of short-term emergency shelter, intermediate term (2-6 month) fully or partially subsidized housing and/or move-in assistance, and assistance with long-term affordable housing. SLE housing are safe, clean, sober, residential environments that promote individual recovery through positive peer group interactions among house members and staff. Sober living housing is affordable, alcohol and drug-free and allows the house members or residents to continue to develop their individual recovery plans and to become self-supporting. The SLE must co-exist in a respectful, lawful, non-threatening manner within residential communities in Contra Costa County. Currently SLE’s are not required nor are they able to be licensed by the State of California. They are, however, subject to landlord/tenant laws in California and zoning and other requirements of their local jurisdiction. Supportive housing programs might be transitional or permanent, generally geared toward those with histories of mental illnesses, physical illnesses, substance abuse disorders, or chronic homelessness/residential instability. In addition to the affordable housing unit, supportive housing services typically include coordinated case management, health and mental health services, substance abuse treatment, vocational and employment services, tenant advocacy, and life skills training. In general, supportive housing is appropriate for individuals who have a high need for these supportive services, who generally do not have strong work histories or the ability to work due to physical and/or mental health issues, substance abuse histories, or other disabilities. Central-East Reentry Network Services: Responders to the availability of the $150,000 for Central-East housing services should provide housing access by means of SLEs or supportive Attachment B Page 301 of 354 2/24/16 Page 13 of 54 Draft RFP housing, with on-site supervision, specifically in locations throughout the Central and East regions of the county. Short and Long-Term Housing Access services may include: • The provision of short-term emergency shelter; • The provision of intermediate-term fully or partially subsidized housing; • Master leasing to provide sub-leases; • Identifying local housing resources and gaps (low-cost private market housing and subsidized housing); • Case managers to navigate access to existing, low-income and subsidized housing; • Identifying landlords willing to provide housing to individuals with criminal records; • Coordinating shared housing among multiple tenants; • Assistance with rental agreements and application forms; • Credit counseling and credit repair services; • Education and advice on the rights/responsibilities of tenancy; • Assistance with security and utility deposits. Attachment B Page 302 of 354 2/24/16 Page 20 of 54 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-166 SHORT AND LONG-TERM HOUSING ACCESS FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Proposal Preparation Instructions Attachment B Page 303 of 354 2/24/16 Page 22 of 54 Draft RFP SECTION II—PROGRAM NARRATIVE II.1 Agency Overview (1-2 pages for each agency) (Submit an agency overview for each party in a collaborative.) A. State your agency's mission and its overall service philosophy. B. Describe briefly: 1. Your agency's primary program services; 2. Agency’s years in operation and number of years providing services described in this RFP; 3. Agency’s experience and capabilities as they relate to the scope of services described in this RFP; 4. Current service population(s): number of clients, demographic and geographic information; 5. Staffing pattern (size, composition, education level); 6. Location of administrative and program office(s); 7. History of collaboration with other service providers; 8. Other partner agencies involved in provision of services. II.2 Program Proposal (8 pages or fewer) A. Describe the program of service delivery for which AB 109 funds are requested. For each program, address the following, and specifically identify the incorporation of evidence-based practices in your program: 1. Program Design, Methodology & Goals a. What are the goals of the program? b. What is the approach employed by the program to meet the goals? Provide a detailed description of the program model including any tailoring of the program to meet the needs of the individual receiving services. Include criteria describing client eligibility for residence, as applicable. c. Who is the target population for your program? Provide details on demographics of the target population, including number of clients to be served, gender, and geographic location. Attachment B Page 304 of 354 2/24/16 Page 23 of 54 Draft RFP d. What specific services will be provided to this population and who will provide the services? e. Where and how will the services be offered? Indicate the specific locations of proposed housing site(s); proximity of housing site(s) to public transportation; the zoning of the proposed housing site(s); and duration, dosage, and frequency of housing related activities and services. f. Demonstrate your organization’s knowledge of and commitment to implement evidence-based practices related to successful programmatic engagement and recidivism reduction strategies, including the appropriate use of Risk-Needs-Responsivity principles. Where your services are research-informed, describe why such practices are promising and likely to produce the desired outcomes and impact with the target population. 2. Program evaluation – outcomes Describe in specific detail how you will determine the success of the program and the quality of the services provided. a. How will service delivery be monitored and evaluated? b. What data will you collect and report? c. How will you use that data for program improvement? d. What are your program outcome measures and how will you track them? Discuss specific outcomes that measure the impact or results for each service component. 3. Collaboration and Coordination a. Indicate how this program will interface with the Reentry Network and the Reentry Success Center, and other public and private agencies serving the same target populations or providing related services. b. Articulate strategic partnerships with a range of reentry service providers, so that clients have efficient access to relevant treatment, financial literacy/money management, mental health, education, employment and other personal development opportunities in addition to sober, safe and dignified housing. c. If this proposal is a collaborative effort, describe the primary activities and responsibilities of each collaborator. Indicate how resources will be shared, how funds will be leveraged and blended, and how service duplication will be avoided. Attachment B Page 305 of 354 2/24/16 Page 24 of 54 Draft RFP d. Describe your knowledge of and experience collaborating and/or making/receiving referrals with community-based service partners, such as community-based organizations, County departments, criminal justice systems and other relevant agencies/organizations. Please include memorandums of support and/or memorandums of understanding. 4. If proposing to provide SLE housing or supportive housing, describe your experience in the operation of an SLE or supportive housing site. a. Include an overview of your housing services such as how long the house has been in operation; b. Include history of providing such services to the target population; c. Include the level of on-site management; d. Include any existing contractual agreements with other governmental agencies. e. Provide a copy of your Policies & Procedures Manual which should establish the rules, regulations, expectations, governance and grievance procedures of the house. II.3 Program Implementation and Oversight (4 pages or fewer) 1. Describe the process goals and timeline for implementation of the service plan. Process goals describe the action-steps that the agency or collaborative will take in order to implement the service plan. If the proposal is a collaborative effort, describe each agency’s specific responsibilities and timelines, and the respective primary roles of staff in each agency in completing the action-steps. 2. Describe how you will ensure the fidelity of your program to evidence- based practices. 3. Describe how you will maintain a “Good Neighbor Policy” with the direct neighbors of any proposed housing site. 4. Submit a staffing plan for all staff working directly or indirectly in this program, including: staff name and job title; time allocated to program; duties/activities; language/cultural competence. Describe briefly how the staffing plan meets the needs of the program. Clearly indicate positions you will need to hire. 5. Submit job descriptions and resumes of Executive Director and key program staff. Attachment B Page 306 of 354 2/24/16 Page 31 of 54 Draft RFP RATING SHEET Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100: Program Elements and Possible Score I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted II.1. Agency Overview 1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.) 2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.) 3. Demonstrated history of collaboration to deliver services (2 pts.) 0-8 II.2. Program Proposal 1. Program design/methodology and use of EBP and RNR (20 pts.) 2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.) 3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 0-40 II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight 1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary roles and responsibilities, and ensuring fidelity to an evidence-based model (8pts.) 2. Program staffing (FTEs, responsibilities, experience) and management (5pts.) 3. Knowledge & use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 0-15 II.4 Bidder’s Experience Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities as specified. 0-12 II.5 Cultural Competency Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10 III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5 III.2 Program Budget/Narrative Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries, benefits and operation. 0-10 Total 100 pts. Attachment B Page 307 of 354 2/24/16 Page 43 of 54 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-166 SHORT AND LONG-TERM HOUSING ACCESS FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Attachment A Required Attachments and Respondent Checklist Attachment B Page 308 of 354 2/24/16 Page 44 of 54 Draft RFP REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS & RESPONDENT CHECKLIST Each respondent must submit a proposal in the following order with documents as described (unless otherwise noted). Duplicate enclosed forms as necessary. A. Proposal Cover Statement (Form #1) attached as cover to each proposal B. Table of Contents C. Program Narrative D. Program Budget Information E. List of Agency Board of Directors (Form #2) F. Agency Organizational Chart indicating how proposed project relates with other agency projects and programs. G. Job Descriptions and Resumes of Executive Director and key program staff H. Bidder's Statement of Qualifications (Form #3), completed and signed by Agency Executive Director and President of Agency Board of Directors. (Form #3 with original signatures must accompany original proposal.) I. Bidder's Contracts and Grants (Form #4), completed and signed by the Agency Executive Director and the President of the Board of Directors. (Form #4 with original signatures must accompany original proposal.) J. Fiscal Attachments (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re-submit.) Non-profit proposers must provide a copy of: 1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the original copy of the proposal. If the organization has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and the agency accountant that the information accurately reflects the agency’s current financial status. Also submit: 2. Current agency-wide Budget 3. Balance Sheet 4. Profit and Loss Statement 5. Manual of Fiscal Procedures and Policies, if available 6. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws 7. Roster of the organization’s Board of Directors including the directors’ names, titles, phone numbers, and email addresses. 8. 501(c) 3 Letter. For profit proposers must provide a copy of: 1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the original copy of the proposal. If the company has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons Attachment B Page 309 of 354 2/24/16 Page 45 of 54 Draft RFP for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, C.E.O., and the company accountant that the information accurately reflects the company’s current financial status. Also submit: 2. Most recent company Annual Report 3. Current company Budget 4. Balance Sheet 5. Profit and Loss Statement 6. Manual of fiscal procedures and policies, if available 7. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws K. Agency Brochure (as available) (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re- submit.) L. City of Antioch Compliance: Note: Contractors seeking to provide services located in the City of Antioch must demonstrate compliance with Ordinance No. 2066-C-S amending Section 9-5.203 and adding Section 9-5.3836 to the Antioch Municipal Code, including providing proof of a valid use permit issued by the City of Antioch. Attachment B Page 310 of 354 2/24/16 Page 1 of 54 Draft RFP Interested parties are required to attend a MANDATORY Bidders Conference At any of the following dates/times/locations: March 7 from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in the Pittsburg City Council Chambers, 65 Civic Ave., Pittsburg March 8 from 10:00 a.m. to noon in the Zoning Administrator Room, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez March 9 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Richmond City Council Chambers, 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond Attendance at this mandatory Bidders Conference is a requirement for submitting a proposal. The Bidders Conference is an opportunity to ask questions about the RFP and to receive technical assistance. Final proposals will be due at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, Martinez CA 94553 by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 2016. Written questions about the RFP can be submitted to lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us by 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2016. Questions received after the Bidders Conference will be answered and made available at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2366. Thank you in advance for your efforts in preparing your response. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) #1602-168 Peer Mentoring and Family Reunification for AB 109 Program The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office is pleased to announce, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the availability of up to $200,000 on an annual basis for “Peer Mentoring and Family Reunification Services” to be provided to formerly incarcerated individuals in Contra Costa County for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. This RFP is a process by which the County solicits proposals of qualified bidders that may be selected to enter into a contract with the County. Please read this entire packet carefully. Contra Costa County Attachment C Page 311 of 354 2/24/16 Page 2 of 54 Draft RFP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. RFP Timeline 3 Project Description 5 RFP Requirements and Instructions for Bidders 17 Proposal Preparation Instructions 21 Program Narrative 22 Program Budget Information 25 Proposal Review and Selection 27 Rating Sheet 31 Bidders Conference RSVP Form 33 Forms 1-4 35-40 Required Attachments and Respondent Checklist ~ Attachment A 44 County Contract Requirements and General Contract Conditions ~ Attachment B 47 Attachment C Page 312 of 354 2/24/16 Page 4 of 54 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-168 PEER MENTORING AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Project Description Attachment C Page 313 of 354 2/24/16 Page 10 of 54 Draft RFP 36-45 32% 31% 31% 46-55 21% 19% 20% 56-65 6% 6% 6% 66+ 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% Race/Ethnicity White 34% 44% 38% Black 44% 34% 40% Hispanic 19% 19% 19% Asian 0.8% 1.1% 1% Pacific Islander NA 0.3% 0.1% Filipino 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% Samoan 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Native American 0.1% NA 0.1% Other 0.2% NA 0.1% Unknown 0.7% 1.1% 0.9% VI. Funding Up to $200,000 (two hundred thousand dollars) is recommended in the AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget to fund the provision of Peer Mentoring and Family Reunification Services, on an annual basis, and the contract period is from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office (CAO) will administer these funds. The contract(s) resulting from this RFP may potentially be renewable at the sole discretion the Board of Supervisors. Of the $200,000 recommended in the AB 109 Budget, $110,000 is allocated to Peer Mentoring programs serving clients in West County and $90,000 is allocated to Family Reunification programs serving clients countywide. Agencies may submit proposals individually, or may collaborate and work together to provide services in one or more geographic areas of the county. Respondents may submit a proposal to deliver services in one region of the County or in more than one region, depending on their experience and expertise. If applying collaboratively, only one agency may serve as the lead and will be expected to coordinate all fiscal and administrative duties as needed to meet the contractual obligations. This RFP may result in a single award or multiple awards. VII. Purpose, Services, and Outcomes A. Purpose: “Reentry” is not a specific program, but rather a research-driven process that starts when an Attachment C Page 314 of 354 2/24/16 Page 11 of 54 Draft RFP individual is initially incarcerated and ends when the person has been successfully reintegrated in his or her community as a law-abiding citizen. The reentry process includes the delivery of a variety of research-informed and evidence-based program services in both pre- and post-release settings, designed to ensure that the transition from prison or jail to the community is both safe and successful. Mentoring of justice-involved individuals can be a significant element of a successful reentry strategy, as can be family reunification. This solicitation is aimed at promoting more effective and successful reentry through the establishment and maintenance of pre- and post-release mentoring relationships and family reunification services. B. Peer and Mentoring Services: The specific objective of the Peer Mentoring program is to recruit and train individuals as mentors and match them with participants in pre- and post-release services. “Mentoring” refers to a developmental relationship in which a more experienced person helps a less experienced person develop an enhanced sense of self-worth and specific knowledge and skills to increase their chance of successful reentry. Mentoring is a process for the informal transmission of knowledge, social capital, and the psychosocial support perceived by the recipient as relevant to work, career, or professional and personal development with the primary goal of preparing an individual (pre-release) for reentry and supporting him/her during the reentry process to enhance success. Most importantly, mentoring facilitates connections to pro-social networks and role models within the community that can facilitate new ways of thinking and reduce the risk for anti-social behavior. Mentoring involves communication, is relationship-based, and can take many forms. It may consist of a one-to-one relationship or it can also occur in a small group setting. Mentoring also includes support with family reunification including fostering family readiness, health, safety, and receptivity during reentry and reintegration. All AB 109 funded mentoring programs must include the evidence-based practice of connecting with individuals pre-release with continuity post-release. Responders should propose mentor training programs that address the unique needs of justice-involved individuals as well as supports for mentors. Proposers must also demonstrate connections to the community and specific methodologies for connecting with and improving outcomes for participants in the mentoring program. Training and program models should incorporate the perspectives of formerly incarcerated individuals who have achieved successful reintegration. While mentoring will not look the same across all programs, there are some underlying principles of quality mentoring that provide the foundation around which effective mentoring systems are built, and which proposals should demonstrate. These principles include: a. Strong partnership between the mentoring organization and the AB 109 partners; b. A reasonably intensive process for the careful selection and retention of qualified mentors, and detailed processes to successfully match mentors and mentees; Attachment C Page 315 of 354 2/24/16 Page 12 of 54 Draft RFP c. Training for mentors that is informed by the needs of adults reentering the community, and seeks to promote effective mentoring methods; d. Mentoring content (i.e., resources, materials, training, etc.) based on recognized adult basic education instructional skills and knowledge, and content and strategies individualized to the needs of formerly incarcerated participants with special attention paid to the provision of post-matching support; e. Effective program management including detailed plans for management of program information, mentee/mentor relationship monitoring, strategies for ongoing mentor evaluation and development f. A robust and well communicated grievance process for mentees Peer mentoring services may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Pre-release relationship building; • One-to-One mentoring support; • Peer mentoring groups; • Post-release reentry aftercare sessions/drop-in support; • Transportation of clients and families to appointments and meetings; • Service advocacy to address barriers to successful reentry; • Services to support development of healthy, safe relationships with intimate partners and family members; • Social events and service projects to build relationships and increase positive engagement with the community. C. Family Reunification Services: Formerly incarcerated individuals who have effective social support systems are more likely to successfully reenter society. Family members can provide formerly incarcerated individuals with financial and emotional support when needed. The term “family” should not be narrowly restricted to blood relatives; it can apply to any individuals with whom the formerly incarcerated individuals have strong ties. Responders should also address the needs of children with incarcerated parents. The evidence suggests children of incarcerated parents are also in need of support; they are less likely to do well in school, more likely have behavior problems, more likely to have substance abuse problems, and more likely to suffer from depression. Moreover, the lack of contact with their parents can cause them to have low self-esteem (Bushfield, 2004). All of these factors place these children at higher risk of becoming incarcerated themselves; therefore, helping the family reunify is a way to address the generational effects of incarceration. While it is important to try to build on family strengths, it is also important to recognize that family reunification is not always possible or advisable. For some clients, family ties may act as a conduit to risky behavior such as violence, drug use and criminal activity, rather than an insulator from these negative influences. Conversely, for some families, relationships that are steeped in histories of victimization or disappointment can mean that families will not be ready or willing to work at repairing a relationship or providing support to an individual when she or Attachment C Page 316 of 354 2/24/16 Page 13 of 54 Draft RFP he is released (Travis, 2003). In these cases, it is important to identify other sources of social support, whether that means tapping into existing relationships or helping establish new ones. Objectives 1. Strengthen social support systems for clients to help reduce the risk of future incarceration. 2. Enhance communication skills through hands-on training sessions in order to foster a creative atmosphere for trust. 3. Provide tools to equip family members and other supporters with an ability overcome the challenges of everyday life events. 4. Provide parenting and childhood developmental education. 5. When proper to do so, facilitate a process to repair harm done to pro-social relationships. VIII. Minimum Organizational Requirements 1. Service History: A documented history of similar or equivalent service delivery to high risk criminal justice populations, including successful completion of contract deliverables and participation in outcome evaluation. 2. Justice System Collaboration: A history of prior successful collaboration with Probation, corrections, local law enforcement or other justice system stakeholders. Knowledge of and participation in “jail to community” service delivery models is preferred, including demonstrated history of working effectively within a correctional setting and maintaining staff with jail clearances. 3. Evidence-Based Practices: Demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to implement evidence-based practices related to successful engagement and recidivism reduction with high-risk criminal offenders. 4. Risk-Needs-Responsivity: Demonstrated understanding of criminogenic needs and the recidivism reduction strategies that rely on effectively responding to these needs. An effective response often requires proper intervention dosage and duration levels 5. Staff Training: Bidder’s staff must be qualified and adequately trained to provide services and able to maintain confidential offender record information (CORI). Staff must commit to full participation in trainings provided through the County, including trauma-informed practices among other topics. County has the discretion to approve or disapprove the qualifications/training level of bidder’s staff working with Probation clients. 6. Cultural Competency: Demonstrated understanding and capacity to deliver gender responsive services, in appropriate languages, at appropriate educational and literacy levels, that are within the context of an individual’s cultural identity. To do this requires a demonstrated awareness, respect, and dynamic appreciation of the beliefs, practices, Attachment C Page 317 of 354 2/24/16 Page 20 of 54 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-168 PEER MENTORING AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Proposal Preparation Instructions Attachment C Page 318 of 354 2/24/16 Page 22 of 54 Draft RFP SECTION II—PROGRAM NARRATIVE II.1 Agency Overview (1-2 pages for each agency) (Submit an agency overview for each party in a collaborative.) A. State your agency's mission and its overall service philosophy. B. Describe briefly: 1. Your agency's primary program services; 2. Agency’s years in operation and number of years providing services described herein; 3. Agency’s experience and capabilities as they relate to the scope of services described herein; 4. Current service population(s): number of clients, demographic and geographic information, and types of services provided; 5. Staffing pattern (size, composition, education level); 6. Location of administrative and program office(s); 7. History of collaboration with other service providers; 8. Other partner agencies involved in provision of services. II.2 Program Proposal (8 pages or fewer) A. Describe the program of service delivery for which AB 109 funds are requested. For each program, address the following, and specifically identify the incorporation of evidence-based practices in your program: 1. Program Design, Methodology & Goals a. What are the goals of the program? b. What is the approach employed by the program to meet the goals? Provide a detailed description of the program model including any tailoring of the program to meet the needs of the individual receiving services. c. Who is the target population for your program? Provide details on demographics of the target population, including number of clients to be served, gender, and geographic location. d. What specific services will be provided to this population and who will provide the services? Attachment C Page 319 of 354 2/24/16 Page 23 of 54 Draft RFP e. Where and how will the services be offered? Indicate the location, duration, dosage, and frequency of mentoring or family reunification activities and services. f. Demonstrate your organization’s knowledge of and commitment to implement evidence-based practices related to successful programmatic engagement and recidivism reduction strategies, including the appropriate use of Risk-Needs-Responsivity principles. Where your services are research-informed, describe why such practices are promising and likely to produce the desired outcomes and impact with the target population. g. For Peer Mentoring programs, identify the target number of mentors who will be recruited and list the community partners the applicant will engage in recruiting mentors. h. For Peer Mentoring programs, identify and define the population of people that will serve as mentors. i. For Peer Mentoring programs, provide an outline of the training curriculum that will be provided to all mentors. j. For Family Reunification programs, provide an outline of any parenting and childhood development curriculum that will be provided to clients. 2. Program evaluation – outcomes Describe in specific detail how you will determine the success of the program and the quality of the services provided. a. How will service delivery be monitored and evaluated? b. What data will you collect and report? c. How will you use that data for program improvement? d. What are your program outcome measures and how will you track them? Discuss specific outcomes that measure the impact or results for each service component. 3. Collaboration and Coordination a. Indicate how this program will interface with the Reentry Network and the Reentry Success Center, and other public and private agencies serving the same target populations or providing related services. Attachment C Page 320 of 354 2/24/16 Page 24 of 54 Draft RFP b. Articulate strategic partnerships with a range of reentry service providers, so that clients have efficient access to relevant treatment, financial literacy/money management, mental health, education, employment and other personal development opportunities in addition to sober, safe and dignified housing. c. If this proposal is a collaborative effort, describe the primary activities and responsibilities of each collaborator. Indicate how resources will be shared, how funds will be leveraged and blended, and how service duplication will be avoided. d. Describe your knowledge of and experience collaborating and/or making/receiving referrals with community-based service partners, such as community-based organizations, County departments, criminal justice systems and other relevant agencies/organizations. Please include memorandums of support and/or memorandums of understanding. II.3 Program Implementation and Oversight (4 pages or fewer) 1. Describe the process goals and timeline for implementation of the service plan. Process goals describe the action-steps that the agency or collaborative will take in order to implement the service plan. If the proposal is a collaborative effort, describe each agency’s specific responsibilities and timelines, and the respective primary roles of staff in each agency in completing the action-steps. 2. Describe how you will ensure the fidelity of your program to evidence- based practices. 3. Submit a staffing plan for all staff working directly or indirectly in this program, including: staff name and job title; time allocated to program; duties/activities; language/cultural competence. Describe briefly how the staffing plan meets the needs of the program. Clearly indicate positions you will need to hire. 4. Submit job descriptions and resumes of Executive Director and key program staff. 5. Submit agency organizational chart. II.4 Bidder’s Experience (up to 1 page) Describe your agency's current or past experience in providing the proposed services, including length of time your agency has been providing these services. Indicate staff experience with methodologies to be used. Note any other relevant aspects of your agency's service history that demonstrate capacity to provide the proposed services. Attachment C Page 321 of 354 2/24/16 Page 43 of 54 Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1602-168 PEER MENTORING AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Attachment A Required Attachments and Respondent Checklist Attachment C Page 322 of 354 2/24/16 Page 44 of 54 Draft RFP REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS & RESPONDENT CHECKLIST Each respondent must submit a proposal in the following order with documents as described (unless otherwise noted). Duplicate enclosed forms as necessary. A. Proposal Cover Statement (Form #1) attached as cover to each proposal B. Table of Contents C. Program Narrative D. Program Budget Information E. List of Agency Board of Directors (Form #2) F. Agency Organizational Chart indicating how proposed project relates with other agency projects and programs. G. Job Descriptions and Resumes of Executive Director and key program staff H. Bidder's Statement of Qualifications (Form #3), completed and signed by Agency Executive Director and President of Agency Board of Directors. (Form #3 with original signatures must accompany original proposal.) I. Bidder's Contracts and Grants (Form #4), completed and signed by the Agency Executive Director and the President of the Board of Directors. (Form #4 with original signatures must accompany original proposal.) J. Fiscal Attachments (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re-submit.) Non-profit proposers must provide a copy of: 1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the original copy of the proposal. If the organization has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and the agency accountant that the information accurately reflects the agency’s current financial status. Also submit: 2. Current agency-wide Budget 3. Balance Sheet 4. Profit and Loss Statement 5. Manual of Fiscal Procedures and Policies, if available 6. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws 7. Roster of the organization’s Board of Directors including the directors’ names, titles, phone numbers, and email addresses. 8. 501(c) 3 Letter. For-profit proposers must provide a copy of: 1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the original copy of the proposal. If the company has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons Attachment C Page 323 of 354 2/24/16 Page 45 of 54 Draft RFP for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, C.E.O., and the company accountant that the information accurately reflects the company’s current financial status. Also submit: 2. Most recent company Annual Report 3. Current company Budget 4. Balance Sheet 5. Profit and Loss Statement 6. Manual of fiscal procedures and policies, if available 7. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws K. Agency Brochure (as available) (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re- submit.) L. Curriculum Attachment C Page 324 of 354 2/24/16 Page 1 of 44 Draft RFQ Final responses will be due at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, Martinez CA 94553 by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 2016. Written questions about the RFQ can be submitted to lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us by 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2016. Questions received after the Bidders Conference will be answered and made available at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2366. Thank you in advance for your efforts in preparing your response. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) #1602-169 Civil Legal Services for AB 109 Program The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office is pleased to announce, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the availability of up to $150,000 (annually) for “Civil Legal Services” to be provided to formerly incarcerated individuals in Contra Costa County for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. This RFQ is a process by which the County solicits responses of qualified bidders that may be selected to enter into a contract with the County. Please read this entire packet carefully. Contra Costa County Attachment D Page 325 of 354 2/24/16 Page 2 of 44 Draft RFQ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. RFQ Timeline 3 Project Description 5 RFQ Requirements and Instructions for Bidders 16 Response Preparation Instructions 20 Response Review and Selection 24 Rating Sheet 26 Forms 1-3 28-33 Required Attachments and Respondent Checklist ~ Attachment A 35 County Contract Requirements and General Contract Conditions ~ Attachment B 37 Attachment D Page 326 of 354 2/24/16 Page 3 of 44 Draft RFQ RFQ TIMELINE 1. RFQ announced Tues., March 1, 2016 2. Written Questions Due from Responders 5:00 p.m., Mon., Mar. 14, 2016 3. Addendum Issued Tues., Mar. 16, 2016 4. Response Submission Deadline 5:00 p.m., Fri., April 1, 2016 County Administrator’s Office 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 No response will be accepted after this date and time. Postmarked, facsimiled, or e-mailed submissions will not be accepted. 5. Review, rating, and interview process April 4-15, 2016 6. Notification of award recommendations Fri., April 15, 2016 7. Appeal period April 18-22, 2016 8. Deadline to submit appeal letters 5:00 p.m., April 22, 2016 9. Public Protection Committee Review Mon., April 25, 2016 10. Community Corrections Partnership Review Fri., May 6, 2016 Board of Supervisors approval and authorization to award contracts is tentatively scheduled for the May 10, 2016 Board of Supervisors’ agenda Attachment D Page 327 of 354 2/24/16 Page 4 of 44 Draft RFQ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS # 1602-169 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Project Description Attachment D Page 328 of 354 2/24/16 Page 10 of 44 Draft RFQ 26-35 32% 37% 34% 36-45 32% 31% 31% 46-55 21% 19% 20% 56-65 6% 6% 6% 66+ 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% Race/Ethnicity White 34% 44% 38% Black 44% 34% 40% Hispanic 19% 19% 19% Asian 0.8% 1.1% 1% Pacific Islander NA 0.3% 0.1% Filipino 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% Samoan 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Native American 0.1% NA 0.1% Other 0.2% NA 0.1% Unknown 0.7% 1.1% 0.9% VI. Funding Up to $150,000 (one hundred fifty thousand dollars) is recommended in the AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget to fund the provision of Civil Legal Services on an annual basis, and the contract period is from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office (CAO) will administer these funds. The contract(s) resulting from this RFQ may potentially be renewable at the sole discretion the Board of Supervisors. Agencies may submit responses individually, or may collaborate and work together to provide services in one or more geographic areas of the county. Respondents may submit a response to deliver services in one region of the County or in more than one region, depending on their experience and expertise. If applying collaboratively, only one agency may serve as the lead and will be expected to coordinate all fiscal and administrative duties as needed to meet the contractual obligations. This RFQ may result in a single award or multiple awards. VII. Purpose, Services, and Outcomes A. Purpose The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors has directed the County Administrator’s Office to issue this Request for Qualifications to identify outstanding candidates to provide reentry legal services to AB 109 clients residing in Contra Costa County in order to break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety, and help local government better address the growing population of offenders who return to their communities. Attachment D Page 329 of 354 2/24/16 Page 11 of 44 Draft RFQ Each firm, person, or not-for-profit entity that is awarded a contract under this RFQ shall agree to provide to AB 109 clients residing in Contra Costa County the scope of legal advice and only the limited legal representation outlined in this RFQ. The contractor may not use funds under this RFQ: (1) to provide any advice not specified herein; or (2) to provide any services to anyone other than the AB 109 population. All services must be provided at no charge to the client. Also, any contractor should not use this program as a method to advertise, recruit, solicit, or in any way seek paying clients. Each firm or person awarded a contract under this RFQ also shall agree not to represent any reentrant in any administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial proceeding against Contra Costa County, except as specified herein. Legal issues faced by the formerly incarcerated cut across many different practice areas. For example, civil legal issues, such as child support, fall within the practice of family law, while other issues, such as those relating to occupational licensing, fall within the domain of employment law. Moreover, outstanding warrants for failure to appear in court for traffic violations or unpaid fines have a quasi-criminal element to them due to the possible existence of a warrant, the potential for arrest and a sentence of incarceration, and the same burden of proof (reasonable doubt) that is employed in criminal cases. For this reason, legal services providers may find themselves in a domain that is neither purely civil nor purely criminal. Because the legal issues faced by the formerly incarcerated require a level of expertise in many different types of law, legal commentators have argued that an entity providing reentry legal services should eschew the legal practice paradigm of specialization in specific areas and instead develop a broad range of expertise, much as a lawyer who considers himself a general practitioner. Civil legal assistance can often play a critical role in addressing barriers to successful reintegration into the community. Assistance in securing an occupational or driver’s license, expunging criminal records, resolving inappropriate denials of housing or employment, resolving violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its California law counterparts, and advising regarding creating and/or modifying child support orders are among the legal services that can help stabilize the lives of individuals and families. Who is eligible for services? The AB 109 population being served by CCC Probation is eligible for services. These individuals can qualify regardless of how much time has passed since their release. The contractor can also provide services to other formerly incarcerated persons but shall ensure the use of AB 109 funds are prioritized to those designated AB 109. B. Services and Desired Outcomes: The successful contractor will provide limited legal services beginning with a post-release legal check-up to identify legal barriers that can be reduced or eliminated with limited legal interventions. These barriers include barriers to employment due to criminal history; issues related to credit repair; fines and fees related to traffic and quality of life citations; child support issues; and housing and public benefits issues. Legal services may include assisting, advising, and limited representation of individual Attachment D Page 330 of 354 2/24/16 Page 12 of 44 Draft RFQ clients in the following areas: • How to seek early termination of probation; • Criminal record remedies (“expungement”); • Removing or minimizing barriers to obtaining professional licensing and other certifications, including representation in administrative hearings; • Assisting the client with obtaining driver’s licenses, child support modifications, employment or housing applications and denials, and other matters directly impacting employment and housing opportunities; • Providing full representation and assistance to obtain public benefits, but not representation in any litigation against the County; • Providing full representation and assistance to obtain or retain housing, but not representation in any litigation against the County; • Family law matters, including custody, visitation, minor guardianship, orders of protection, and divorce when special circumstances are present; • Providing full representation and assistance to re-claim forfeited property, but not representation in any litigation against the County; • Providing advice and/or representation on criminal record employment discrimination cases, other than any case against the County; • Challenges to State Department of Justice determinations that require persons to register as sex offenders; • Determining a client’s outstanding debts (e.g. child support) or warrants and qualifications for a modification that can reduce overall debt; • Educating clients about their other rights and responsibilities. Legal services funded by this RFQ may not include client representation in any administrative, quasi-judicial, or judicial proceedings, other than those specifically identified above. VIII. Preferred Organizational Characteristics 1. Service History: A documented history of similar or equivalent service delivery to high risk criminal justice populations, including successful completion of contract deliverables and participation in outcome evaluation. 2. Justice System Collaboration: A history of prior successful collaboration with Probation, corrections, local law enforcement or other justice system stakeholders. Knowledge of and participation in “jail to community” service delivery models is preferred, including demonstrated history of working effectively within a correctional Attachment D Page 331 of 354 2/24/16 Page 13 of 44 Draft RFQ setting and maintaining staff with jail clearances. 3. Evidence-Based Practices: Demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to implement evidence-based practices related to successful engagement and recidivism reduction with high-risk criminal offenders. 4. Risk-Needs-Responsivity: Demonstrated understanding of criminogenic needs and the recidivism reduction strategies that rely on effectively responding to these needs. An effective response often requires proper intervention dosage and duration levels 5. Staff Training: Bidder’s staff must be qualified and adequately trained to provide services and able to maintain confidential offender record information (CORI). Staff must commit to full participation in trainings provided through the County, including trauma-informed practices among other topics. County has the discretion to approve or disapprove the qualifications/training level of bidder’s staff working with Probation clients. 6. Cultural Competency: Demonstrated understanding and capacity to deliver gender responsive services, in appropriate languages, at appropriate educational and literacy levels, that are within the context of an individual’s cultural identity. To do this requires a demonstrated awareness, respect, and dynamic appreciation of the beliefs, practices, traditions, religions, personal history, and in the case of this RFP, criminal histories of individuals whom reside in the diverse local communities of Contra Costa. 7. Interagency Collaboration: Demonstrated interest and intent to collaborate with local county and non-profit service providers to obtain multi-disciplinary service delivery. A documented history of successful collaboration including shared case management and blended funding preferred. Staff must attend regular coordination meetings and collaborate with AB 109 partner agencies. 8. Data Collection and Reporting: Demonstrated capacity and commitment to collecting and reporting all required data including service delivery statistics (number served, units of service, dosage by client), and program-related impact and outcome measures. Commitment to program changes and improvements based upon outcome data, including willingness to reconfigure services to enhance effective coordination through the AB109 service provider network. 9. Matching Resources: Current or potential sources of matching resources to supplement direct funding including leveraged funding or services, and volunteer hours. Since the available funding is not adequate to meet the anticipated level of need, qualified organizations that demonstrate the capacity to access additional resources may be prioritized. 10. Licensing/Certification Requirements: Successful bidders must have and maintain all appropriate licenses, permits, and certifications as required by the laws of the United Attachment D Page 332 of 354 2/24/16 Page 14 of 44 Draft RFQ States, State of California, Contra Costa County, and all other appropriate governmental agencies. 11. Trauma-Informed Principles and Practices: Demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to implement trauma-informed principles and practices in service delivery to ensure a focus on personal safety to help clients develop effective coping skills, build health relationships that foster growth, and develop strong, positive interpersonal support networks. IX. Contract Monitoring and Evaluation The County Administrator’s Office will actively monitor services provided through these contracts and will: a. Monitor subcontracts written by and entered into by the contractor; b. Provide information to contractors concerning additional State or County data requirements not provided herein. At a minimum, contractors will be expected to: a. Be able to enter into contract and begin service delivery within 2 months of award; b. Perform all services without material deviation from an agreed-upon Service Plan; c. Complete quarterly progress reports on templates supplied by County as well as monthly data reports; d. Maintain adequate records of service provision to document compliance with Service Plan and complete forms supplied; and e. Cooperate with the collection of other fiscal/administrative/service data as requested by the County. Attachment D Page 333 of 354 2/24/16 Page 15 of 44 Draft RFQ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS # 1602-169 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM RFQ Requirements and Instructions for Bidders Attachment D Page 334 of 354 2/24/16 Page 16 of 44 Draft RFQ RFQ REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR BIDDERS The bidder requirements in this section are mandatory. Contra Costa County reserves the right to waive any nonmaterial variation. 1. All bidders shall submit one original response package and eight (8) complete copies of the response, under sealed cover, by mail or hand-delivery to the CAO at 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 to be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 2016. Each submission must be marked on the outside with the Agency's name and RFQ No. 1602-169. Any response received after the deadline will be rejected. Postmarks and faxed submissions are not acceptable. 2. The CAO will review all received responses to make sure they are technically compliant with formatting and submission guidelines as per the RFQ and will conduct a review of the Preferred Organizational Characteristics. Proposers that are non-compliant will not move forward to the Review Panel. 3. Responses and required attachments shall be submitted as specified and must be signed by officials authorized to bind the bidder to the provisions of the RFQ. All costs incurred in the preparation of a response will be the responsibility of the bidder and will not be reimbursed by the County. 4. A response may be withdrawn in person by a bidder's authorized representative prior to 12:00 p.m. on April 4, 2016. If withdrawing a response, the bidder’s authorized representative must provide appropriate identification (i.e. driver’s license) and sign a receipt attesting to his/her withdrawal of the response. 5. Any questions regarding this RFQ should be emailed to Lara.DeLaney@cao.cccounty.us on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2016. Please include RFQ #1602-169 in the subject line. 6. The CAO may amend this RFQ, if needed, to make changes or corrections to specifications or provide additional data. Amendments will be posted at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2366 or, if after the bidders conference, emailed to all those attending. The CAO may extend the RFQ submission date, if necessary, to allow bidders adequate time to consider additional information and submit required data. 7. The RFQ process may be canceled in writing by the CAO prior to awards if the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors determines that cancellation is in the best interest of the County. 8. With respect to this RFQ, the County reserves the right to reject any, some, or all Attachment D Page 335 of 354 2/24/16 Page 17 of 44 Draft RFQ responses. The County reserves the right to negotiate separately in any manner to serve the best interests of the County. All responses become property of the County, without obligation to any responder. 9. Responses will be judged on overall quality of content and responsiveness to the purpose and specifications of this RFQ. Responses should be without expensive artwork, unusual printing, or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the response. Evaluation criteria are described below. 10. A Review Panel will evaluate all compliant responses. The panel will be composed of the Chief Probation Officer (or designee), CAO staff, a Reentry Coordinator, a member of the Community Advisory Board, a formerly incarcerated person, and a professional in the area of legal services. On the basis of panel ratings recommendations, the Public Protection Committee will make recommendations to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Bidders will be notified of this recommendation in writing. Award of a contract by the Board of Supervisors will constitute acceptance of a response. 11. Only bidders submitting a response in accordance with RFQ No. 1602-169 may appeal the RFQ process. Appeals must be submitted in writing and should be addressed to Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator; County Administrator’s Office and received at 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 no later than 5:00 PM on Friday, April 22, 2016. Notification of a final decision on the appeal shall be made in writing to the bidder. When submitting, an appellant must clearly state the action appealed, the harm to the appellant, and the action sought. Appeals shall be limited to the following grounds: • Failure of the County to follow the selection procedures and adhere to requirements specified in the RFQ or any addenda or amendments. • There has been a violation of conflict of interest as provided by California Government Code Section 87100 et seq. • A violation of State or Federal law. Notification of a final decision on the appeal by the CAO shall be made in writing to the bidder within five (5) days, and the decision of the CAO shall be final and not subject to further review. Attachment D Page 336 of 354 2/24/16 Page 19 of 44 Draft RFQ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONSS # 1602-169 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Response Preparation Instructions Attachment D Page 337 of 354 2/24/16 Page 20 of 44 Draft RFQ RESPONSE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS 1. Responses must be in the form of a response package containing a complete response and all required supporting information and documents. 2. Each bidder must submit one (1) original response package and eight (8) complete copies with attachments included, unless otherwise noted on Respondent's Checklist. 3. All narrative materials are to be single-spaced on 8 1/2" x 11" paper (recycled preferred) with no less than 1" margins on each side of paper. Use an easy to read 12-point font. Total response should not exceed 12 pages excluding cover sheet, table of contents, and required attachments. 4. Pages must be stapled together and numbered consecutively with each section identified by an appropriate Roman numeral. 5. Forms 1-3 (attached to this RFQ) are to be fully completed and attached in the order indicated on the Respondent's Checklist. 6. All information in the response package must be presented in the following sequence. RESPONSE OUTLINE I. Cover Statement (Form #1) The Cover Statement with original signatures, in blue ink, of the responder's Authorized Representative attached to the original of the response must precede the narrative. Copies of the form must also serve as a cover page to the remaining six (6) response copies submitted. II. Responder Overview (up to 2 pages) A. Responder’s history, years in operation, and number of years providing services described herein. B. Responder’s primary areas of expertise and current core services. C. Responder’s qualifications (including resources and capabilities) as they relate to the scope of services described herein. Attachment D Page 338 of 354 2/24/16 Page 21 of 44 Draft RFQ III. Approach to the Scope of Services (up to 4 pages) A. Describe your approach to accomplishing the legal services described herein. B. Describe proposed staffing for this project, including their roles on this project, their qualifications and their credentials (Resumes or CVs may be included as an attachment that will not count against the page limit). Please also include a printout from the State Bar website for each attorney that will work on this project, to demonstrate the attorney is an active member of, and in good standing with, the State Bar of California. C. Detail past experience serving the reentry population including experience serving low-income individuals. Address efforts to attain cultural competency to more effectively provide legal services to the reentry population. D. Describe the key challenges likely to emerge and identify potential solutions to address such challenges. E. Discuss experience working in collaboration with other partners. The AB 109 service delivery model involves intensive collaboration with relevant stakeholders including Probation and other County agency and community based service providers. Include who needs to be involved, what types of involvement is required, and what mechanisms you would employ to foster collaboration. IV. Technical Expertise (up to 4 pages) A. Discuss and provide evidence of your subject-matter expertise and knowledge as it relates to: 1. Fields of Criminal law that are specifically relevant to the reentry population including petitions for expungement, early termination of probation and other criminal record remedies. 2. Fields of Civil law that are specifically relevant to this population including consumer law. 3. Housing and landlord/tenant law. 4. Public benefits law. 5. Employment law. 6. Family law, including child support, child custody, guardianship and divorce law. Attachment D Page 339 of 354 2/24/16 Page 22 of 44 Draft RFQ V. Experience with Similar Programs (up to 1 page) A. Describe any similar past work including the scope of the project, relevance, stakeholders, and a brief summary of the approach and services provided. If relevant, indicate any collaborative partners engaged to complete the project. In addition, indicate any challenges encountered and how they were addressed. VI. Estimated Cost (1 page) A. Outline your cost structure and how funds will be allocated to provide the services under this RFQ. Include the compensation rates and hours/FTEs of proposed personnel. B. If you anticipate using subcontractors or partners, explain the proposed scope and costs anticipated for their services. Attachment D Page 340 of 354 2/24/16 Page 23 of 44 Draft RFQ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONSS # 1602-169 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Response Review and Selection Attachment D Page 341 of 354 2/24/16 Page 24 of 44 Draft RFQ RESPONSE REVIEW AND SELECTION All responses submitted in compliance with the RFQ requirements will be eligible for review and selection. Responses will be evaluated in two distinct areas: A. Service response and bidder's implementation capability. B. Fiscal response and bidder's fiscal management capability. Response Selection Methodology: A. Only those responses from respondents who attended the Mandatory Bidders Conference will be forwarded for review. B. CAO staff will review each response's adherence to RFQ specifications, including: • Response Cover Statement • Response Narrative • Agency Information (including required attachments) • Other fiscal information (including required attachments) 1. All responses deemed responsive will be referred to the RFQ Review Panel. 2. The panel will be composed of the Chief Probation Officer (or designee), CAO staff, a Reentry Coordinator, a member of the Community Advisory Board, a formerly incarcerated person, and a professional in the area of legal services. Members of the Review Panel will be required to sign an impartiality statement. A. The Review Panel will review all qualified responses and evaluate and score all service elements utilizing the evaluation criteria outlined on page 26. B. The Public Protection Committee will make recommendations for contract awards to the Board of Supervisors after considering the recommendations of the Review Panel. Attachment D Page 342 of 354 2/24/16 Page 25 of 44 Draft RFQ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONSS # 1602-169 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM Rating Sheet Attachment D Page 343 of 354 2/24/16 Page 26 of 44 Draft RFQ RATING SHEET Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100: Program Elements and Possible Score I. Response Cover Statement - required but not weighted II. Responder Overview 1. Relevancy of responder’s overall services/history (3 pts.) 2. Responder’s qualifications as they relate to scope of work (3 pts.) 3. Overall agency and specified staff with relevant experience and expertise (4 pts.) 0-10 III. Approach to the Scope 1. Service design/methodology (10 pts.) 2. Cultural Competency/past experience with reentry population (10 pts.) 3. Program action-steps and timeline for implementation (5 pts.) 4. Collaboration with stakeholders and other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.) 0-30 IV. Technical Expertise Depth and relevance of subject-matter expertise (30 pts.) 0-30 V. Responder’s Experience with Similar Projects Responder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability of applicant to deliver specified services. 0-20 VI. Cost Estimate Project costs are reasonable for proposed scope of services. Cost explanations are clear and demonstrate roles of proposed staffing. 0- 10 Total 100 pts. Attachment D Page 344 of 354 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 0. Meeting Date:02/29/2016 Subject:CY2015 Annual Report and CY2016 Workplan Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: CY2015 Annual Report and CY2016 Workplan Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff (5-1036) Referral History: Each year, the Committee reviews its prior year activities and submits an annual report to the Board of Supervisors. As part of that process, existing referrals are assessed as to whether they should be continued to the next year, referred to a different Standing Committee or discontinued. Referral Update: Attached is a draft of the CY 2015 Public Protection Committee Draft Annual Report put together by staff for review by the Committee. Based on the active referrals identified in the CY 2015 Annual Report staff has assembled a proposed work plan for CY 2016 taking into account the schedules of the Committee members and county staff responsible for reporting on each referral to the Committee. Staff requests that the Committee review the attached documents and provide comments, amendments and additional direction as necessary. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. APPROVE calendar year 2015 Public Protection Committee Annual Report for submission to the Board of Supervisors; 2. APPROVE calendar year 2016 Public Protection Committee work plan; 3. PROVIDE direction to staff as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments CY 2015 Public Protection Committee Draft Annual Report Page 345 of 354 CY 2015 Public Protection Committee Draft Annual Report CY 2016 Public Protection Committee Draft Workplan Page 346 of 354 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Board of Supervisors referred (9) nine issues to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) for its review and consideration during 2015. 2. FIND that the 2015 PPC convened ten (10) meetings, worked through and provided an opportunity for public input on a number of significant Countywide issues. 3. RECOGNIZE the excellent work of the County department staff who provided the requisite information to the PPC in a timely and professional manner, and members of the Contra Costa community and other public agencies who, through their interest in improving the quality of life in Contra Costa County, provided valuable insight into our discussions, and feedback that helped us to formulate our policy recommendations. 4. ACCEPT year-end productivity report and APPROVE recommended disposition of PPC referrals described at the end of this report. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. This is an informational report only. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/08/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 8, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 99 To:Board of Supervisors From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date:March 8, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2015 YEAR-END REPORT ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND DISPOSITION OF REMAINING REFERRALS TO THE PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Page 347 of 354 BACKGROUND: The Public Protection Committee (PPC) was established on January 8, 2008 to study criminal justice and public protection issues and formulate recommendations for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. At the February 29, 2016 meeting, the Committee discussed all issues currently on referral and has made the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the 2016 PPC work-plan: 1. Opportunities to Improve Coordination of Response to Disasters and Other Public Emergencies. Approximately three weeks following the November 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill, the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) presented to the Board of Supervisors its assessment of the emergency response efforts, including what worked well and didn’t work well, and what lessons were learned through those experiences. At the conclusion of the Board discussion, Supervisor Gioia introduced five recommendations that were approved by the Board. On February 5, 2008 the Board of Supervisors referred this matter to the PPC for continuing development and oversight. PPC received a status report from the Office of the Sheriff and Health Services Department in February 2009 and requested the Hazardous Materials Program Manager to report back to the PPC on the development of mutual aid agreements from local oil refineries. Following a second briefing to the PPC by the Office of the Sheriff, the PPC reported out to the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2009 with recommendations for follow-up by the Sheriff and Human Resources departments. The Health Services Department made a report to the PPC on April 19, 2010 regarding the resources and connections available to respond to hazardous materials emergencies and, again, on October 18, 2010 regarding who determines which local official participates in incident command if an event is in Contra Costa County. On December 5, 2011, Health Services reported to our Committee regarding training and deployment of community volunteers. In January 2008, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC the matter of improving public response to emergency instructions and protocols through broader and better education, which had previously been on referral to the IOC. The Board suggested that the PPC work with the Office of the Sheriff, the Health Services Department, and the CAER (Community Awareness & Emergency Response) Program to determine what educational efforts are being made and what additional efforts may be undertaken to improve public response and safety during an emergency. In April 2011, the PPC met with CAER (Community Awareness Emergency Response) Executive Director Tony Semenza and staff from the Office of the Sheriff and Health Services to discuss what has been done to better inform the public and what more can be done to improve public response to emergency warnings. CAER provided a thorough report on its countywide community fairs, and programs targeted at the education system and non-English speaking populations. The PPC asked CAER to provide a written outreach strategy that describes how new homeowners are educated about emergency awareness. The Sheriff's Office of Emergency Services provided an update to the Committee at the April 13, 2015 meeting. In addition, the draft update of the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was reviewed and forwarded to the BOS for review and approval. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC 2. Welfare Fraud Investigation and Prosecution. In September 2006, the Employment and Human Services (EHS) Department updated the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) on its efforts to improve internal security and loss prevention activities. The IOC had requested the department to report back in nine months on any tools and procedures that have been developed and implemented to detect changes in income eligibility for welfare benefits. The EHS Director made follow-up reports to IOC in May and October 2007, describing what policies, procedures, and practices are employed by the Department to ensure that public benefits are provided only to those who continue to meet income eligibility requirements, explaining the complaint and follow-through process, and providing statistical data for 2005/06, 2006/07, and for the first quarter of 2007/08. Upon creation of the PPC in January 2008, this matter was reassigned from the IOC to the PPC. PPC has received status reports on this referral in October 2008, June and October 2010, November 2011, November 2012 and, most recently, in December 2013. The Committee has reviewed the transition of welfare fraud collections from the former Page 348 of 354 Office of Revenue Collection to the Employment and Human Services Department; the fraud caseload and percentage of fraud findings; fraud prosecutions and the number of convictions; and the amounts recovered. As the PPC wishes to monitor performance of the welfare fraud program annually, it is recommended that this matter be retained on referral. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC 3. Multi-Language Capability of the Telephone Emergency Notification System. This matter had been on referral to the IOC since 2000 and was reassigned to the PPC in January 2008. The PPC met with Sheriff and Health Services Department staff in March 2008 to receive an update on the County’s efforts to implement multilingual emergency telephone messaging. The Committee learned that the Federal Communications Commission has before it two rulemaking proceedings that may directly affect practices and technology for multilingual alerting and public notification. Additionally, the federally-funded Bay Area “Super Urban Area Safety Initiative” (SUASI) has selected a contractor undertake an assessment and develop a five-year strategic plan on notification of public emergencies, with an emphasis on special needs populations. The Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services reported to the PPC in April 2009 that little has changed since the March 2008 report. On October 18, 2010, the PPC received a report from the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services on the Community Warning and Telephone Emergency Notification systems, and on developments at the federal level that impact those systems and related technology. Sheriff staff concluded that multi-lingual public emergency messaging is too complex to be implemented at the local level and should be initiated at the state and federal levels. New federal protocols are now being established to provide the framework within which the technological industries and local agencies can work to develop these capabilities. In 2011, the Office of the Sheriff has advised staff that a recent conference on emergency notification systems unveiled nothing extraordinary in terms of language translation. The SUASI project had just commenced and Sheriff staff have been on the contact list for a workgroup that will be developing a gap analysis, needs assessment, and five-year strategic plan. This matter has been on committee referral for more than ten years and technology has yet to provide a feasible solution for multilingual public emergency messaging. On September 18, 2012, following the Richmond Chevron refinery fire, the Board of Supervisors established an ad hoc committee to discuss the Community Warning System and Industrial Safety Ordinance. Since that committee is ad hoc in nature, we recommend that this issue remain on referral to the PPC. The PPC received two updates on this issue in CY 2015; one on April 13, 2015 and one on November 9, 2015. The Committee continues to have interest in monitoring the implementation of a multi-lingual telephone ring down system for emergencies. This issue show remain on referral to the Committee in 2016. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC 4. County support and coordination of non-profit organization resources to provide prisoner re-entry services, implementation of AB 109 Public Safety Realignment, and appointment recommendations to the Community Corrections Partnership . On August 25, 2009, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC a presentation by the Urban Strategies Council on how the County might support and coordinate County and local non-profit organization resources to create a network of re-entry services for individuals who are leaving jail or prison and are re-integrating in local communities. On September 14, 2009, the PPC invited the Sheriff-Coroner, County Probation Officer, District Attorney, Public Defender, Health Services Director, and Employment and Human Services Director to hear a presentation by the Urban Strategies Council. The PPC encouraged County departments to participate convene a task force to work develop a network for prisoner re-entry services, which has been meeting independently from the PPC. The PPC received a status report from County departments in April 2010. The Employment and Human Services department reported on its efforts to weave together a network of services, utilizing ARRA funding for the New Start Program and on the role of One-Stop Centers in finding jobs for state parolees. Probation reported on the impacts of Page 349 of 354 the anticipated flood of state parolees into the county. The Sheriff reported on the costs for expanding local jail capacity and possible expanded use of GPS (global positioning systems) use in monitoring state parolees released back to our county. The Health Services Department reported on its Healthcare for the Homeless Program as a means to get parolees into the healthcare system and on its development of cross-divisional teams on anti-violence. The Public Defender reported on its Clean State Program, which has since been discontinued. Supervisors Glover and Gioia indicated that their staff would continue to coordinate this local initiative when the Urban Strategies Council exhausts its grant funding from the California Endowment. The PPC continued to monitor progress on the initiative and, on February 7, 2011, received a presentation of the completed strategic plan and recommendations. In response to public testimony at the PPC meeting regarding concerns over the "Ban the Box" element of the plan, the plan recommendations were modified to exclude from the "Ban the Box" requirement certain identified sensitive positions in public safety and children’s services or as determined by the agency. On March 22, 2011, representatives from the Urban Strategies Council presented the completed Contra Costa County Re-entry Strategic Plan (100 pages), an Executive Summary (6 pages) of the plan, and a slide show to the Board of Supervisors, which approved the strategic plan and implementation recommendations with one modification: rather than adopt a 'Ban the Box' policy as recommended, which would have removed the question about criminal records from county employment applications during the initial application, the Board agreed to consider adopting such a policy at a future date. The Board directed the County Administrator to work with the offices of Supervisors Glover and Gioia to identify the resources needed to implement the strategic plan and to report back to the Board with his findings and recommendations. Later in 2011, the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bills 109), which transfers responsibility for supervising specific low-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) takes effect October 1, 2011 and realigns three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation: • Transfers the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders; • Transfers responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS); • Transfers the housing responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail custody AB 109 also tasked the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) with recommending to the County Board of Supervisors a plan for implementing the criminal justice realignment, which shall be deemed accepted by the Board unless rejected by a 4/5th vote. The Executive Committee of the CCP is composed of the County Probation Officer (Chair), Sheriff-Coroner, a Chief of Police (represented by the Concord Police Chief in 2014), District Attorney, Public Defender, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court or designee, and the Behavioral Health Director. On October 4, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the CCP Realignment Implementation Plan, including budget recommendations for fiscal year 2011/12. Throughout 2012, the PPC received regular status updated from county staff on the implementation of public safety realignment, including recommendations from the CCP-Executive Committee for 2012/13 budget planning. On January 15, 2013 the Board of Supervisors approved a 2012/13 budget for continuing implementation of public safety realignment programming. The Committee received several reentry/AB 109 related presentations and updates throughout 2014, including program updates, review of the proposed fiscal year 2014/15 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment budget and made appointment recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the CY 2015 Community Corrections Partnership. In addition, the Committee evaluated the feasibility of submitting a grant proposal for the 2014 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) released by the California Board of State and Community Corrections. As public safety realignment is a work in progress and continues to make up a substantial part of the Committee's time. In 2015, the Committee reviewed the FY 2015/16 AB 109 budget proposed by the CCP, made appointment Page 350 of 354 recommendations for the CY2016 CCP and CCP-Executive Committee to the Board of Supervisors and advised on grant programs that tie into AB 109 programming infrastructure, such as the Community Recidivism Reduction Grant (CRRG). It is recommended that this matter remain on referral to the 2016 PPC. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC 5. Countywide 9-1-1 Wireless Capability. On December 14, 2010, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC a letter from the Emergency Medical Care Committee regarding the transmission of 9-1-1 emergency calls from cellular phones to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Our Committee met with representatives from the Office of the Sheriff on April 4 to discuss the status of establishing Sheriff's Dispatch as the PSAP for county unincorporated area wireless emergency calls. Sheriff Department staff advised that the County is not accepting wireless 9-1-1 calls at this time. Staff explained that the GPS (global positioning system) technology exists to enable Sheriff's Dispatch to receive 9-1-1 system emergency calls from cellular phones and to locate the emergency location within some degree of precision. However, due to several years of tight budgets, Sheriff's Dispatch is not currently staffed at a level that is adequate to respond to the call volume associated with the wireless 9-1-1 calls, which are currently routed to the appropriate PSAP by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). While our committee believes that transferring responsibility for handling wireless 9-1-1 calls from the CHP to Sheriff's Dispatch would be more efficient and would improve response time, it is unlikely that the County will be in a position, fiscally, to assume this responsibility in the next year. The PPC reported on April 12, 2011 to the Board of Supervisors and requested the Office of the Sheriff to provide a status report to the PPC in the spring of 2012 to advise if any outside funding becomes available to support such a transition of responsibility. On April 2, 2012, the PPC (Supervisor Glover only; Supervisor Uilkema was absent) received a status report prepared by the Office of the Sheriff on the process that has been initiated to make the partial or full transition of 9-1-1 dispatching from the CHP to the Sheriff a reality within funding constraints. The Sheriff reports that if fully implemented, the call volume for Sheriff’s Dispatch is projected to nearly double (from 56,000 calls to about 100,000 calls annually). Since the County can expect no additional outside revenue or other resources to support the increased call volume, the Sheriff is planning a phased implementation at a rate and call volume that current resources will permit. The phased implementation beginning with smaller carriers will provide the necessary experience and feedback to inform future implementation phases. New carriers will not be added unless the previous carrier can be effectively managed. On April 17, 2012, the PPC provided an update to the Board of Supervisors on this topic and recommended continued monitoring of this referral. The issue will only be scheduled at the request of the Sheriff-Coroner. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC but only schedule at the request of the Sheriff 6. Civil gang injunctions. This matter was referred to the PPC on May 12, 2011 at the request of the District Attorney, who suggested under Public Comment at the April 4, 2011 PPC meeting that the Committee consider the use of gang injunctions to help prevent gang violence. The District Attorney has advised committee staff that he is currently focusing on implementing a Ceasefire Program with Richmond Police Department and has requested that this referral be postponed until further notice. The referral will only be scheduled at the request of the District Attorney. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC, but schedule only upon the request of the District Attorney 7. Report on Emergency Gas Shut Off Valves for various structures in Unincorporated Contra Costa County. On September 25, during a presentation on Emergency Preparedness within Contra Costa County, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a report on the county Gas Shut-Off valve ordinance (Ordinance Code § 718-8 et seq.). Originally, the former Building Inspection Department was responsible for regulation related to the Ordinance, now the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) provides oversight through its Building Inspection Division. On November 5, 2012, the Conservation and Development Page 351 of 354 Department provided a review of the program. The Committee requested additional information from staff at the February 2013 regular meeting. The Department returned to the Committee in February 2013 and presented the requested information. The Committee accepted the staff report and recommended no further action. On May 11, 2015, the Department provided an update to the Committee on the status of the ordinance. Following the presentation and discussion, the Committee had no further direction for staff, but indicated that the referral should remain with the Committee. For this reason, we believe that this issue should remain on referral to the PPC. Recommendation: REFER TO 2016 PPC 8. Inmate Welfare Fund/Telecommunications/Visitation Issues. On July 16, 2013, the Board of Supervisors referred a review of the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) and inmate visitation policies to the Public Protection Committee for review. The Inmate Welfare Fund is authorized by Penal Code § 4025 for the “…benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail.” The statute also mandates that an itemized accounting of IWF expenditures must be submitted annually to the County Board of Supervisors. The Sheriff's Office has made several reports to the Committee throughout 2013 and 2014 regarding funding of IWF programs, visitation/communication policies and an upcoming RFP for inmate telecommunications services. The referral was placed on hold pending further discussion and outcomes of state and federal level changes to statute or rulemaking that could curtail the collection of telephone commissions individuals contacting inmates and wards housed in county adult and juvenile detention facilities normally pay. Such changes could potentially impact programming provided within the County's detention facilities. In late 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued new regulations significantly curtailing the costs charged to inmates or the families of inmates for use of a jail or prison telecommunications system. This rulemaking process will have an impact on the Sheriff's Office and Probation Department beginning in CY 2016. For this reason, this issue should remain on referral to the Committee in 2016. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC 9. Review of County Service Area (CSA) P-6 Zones. On June 2, 1987, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County Administrator to develop a plan to fund additional Police Services in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Subsequent to that decision, various Zones within the existing County Service Area P-6 were authorized. According to the Ordinances, each July the Board of Supervisors shall determine the amount of taxes to be levied upon the parcels in each Zone. That amount is, also according to the Ordinances, to be adjusted annually based upon the consumer price index. As of July 2014, there are 116 authorized Zones in County Service Area P-6. On October 7, 2014, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC a review of CSA P-6 zones. Following the referral to Committee, staff prepared a comprehensive staff report and presentation for the PPC, which was provided on March 9, 2015. The Committee reported out to the full Board on May 5, 2015 in a workshop format, with the Sheriff in attendance, to discuss the CSA P-6 program more in depth. Following a request for additional information, the Board ultimately approved a spending plan for unallocated CSA P-6 funding at the July 7, 2015 meeting. For this reason, the referral should be discontinued for CY 2016. Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL 10. Racial Justice Coalition of Contra Costa County. On April 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors received a letter (attached) from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition requesting review of topics within the local criminal justice system. The PPC generally hears all matters related to public safety within the County. On July 6, 2015, the Committee initiated discussion regarding this referral and directed staff to research certain items identified in the Coalition's letter to the Board of Supervisors and return to the Committee in September 2015. On September 14, 2015, the Committee received a comprehensive report from staff on current data related to race in the Contra Costa County criminal justice system, information regarding the County's Workplace Diversity Training Page 352 of 354 and information regarding diversity and implicit bias trainings and presentations from across the country. Following discussion at the meeting the District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation Department were asked to discuss the issue of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) further and report back to the Committee on a proposal for updating a county study on the topic that was released in 2008. On December 14, 2015, the Committee received an update from the departments listed above and determined the potential composition of a Task Force to assist with the update of the 2008 study. Staff was directed to return to the Committee with final recommendations for a proposed work plan to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for review and discussion. For this reason, the issue should remain on referral to the PPC in 2016. Recommendation: REFER to the 2016 PPC LIST OF REFERRALS TO BE TERMINATED Report on County Service Area P-6 Zones LIST OF ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO THE 2016 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Welfare fraud investigation and prosecution Multilingual capabilities of the telephone emergency notification system County support and coordination of non-profit organization resources to provide prisoner re-entry services and implementation of AB109 public safety realignment Directing 9-1-1 emergency calls to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (schedule at the request of the Sheriff) Civil gang injunctions (schedule at the request of the District Attorney) Inmate Welfare Fund/Telecommunications/Visitation Issues Opportunities to improve coordination of response to disasters and other public emergencies Report on Emergency Gas Shut Off Valves for various structures in unincorporated Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition of Contra Costa County CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not receive the annual report from the 2015 Public Protection Committee. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. Page 353 of 354 2016 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE WORK PLAN & DISCUSSION SCHEDULE As of February 24, 2016 Meeting Date Discussion Item Responsible Department February 29th 1. FY 2016/17 CCP Budget/ RFP/CAB Allocations 2. Racial Justice Coalition Update 3. CAO CAO/PD/PROB/DA March 28th 1. FY 2014/15 Welfare Fraud Report 2. Racial Justice Coalition Update DA/EHSD CAO/PD/PROB/DA April 25th 1. AB 109 CCP Annual Report Presentation 2. Inmate Welfare Fund Update? 3. AB 109 Community Programs RFP CAO/Resource Development Associates SO CAO May 23rd 1. Telephone Emergency Notification System (TENS) 2. Coordination of Disaster Response 3. Racial Justice Coalition Update SO-OES SO-OES/CAER/HSD CAO/PD/PROB/DA June 27th 1. Civil Gang Injunctions Update? 2. Sheriff’s 911 PSAP Update? DA SO July 25th CANCELED – NACo Conference August 22nd 1. AB 109 Strategic Planning 2. Reentry Strategic Planning CAO CAO September 26th 1. TBD October 24th 1. Inmate Welfare Fund Update? 2. Gas Shut Off Valve Ordinance Update SO DCD November 28th 1. CY2017 Community Corrections Partnership Appointments CAO December 26th CANCELED Page 354 of 354