Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 09262016 - PPC Agenda Pkt            PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE September 26, 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 August 15, 2016 meeting. (Page 3)   4. CONSIDER recommending the establishment of a County Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) within the County Administrator's Office, as a pilot project to commence January 1, 2017. (Lara DeLaney, County Administrator's Office) (Page 6)   5. CONSIDER accepting an introductory report on the issue of certain fees assessed by the County related to the juvenile justice system and provide direction to staff regarding next steps. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 26)   6. CONSIDER accepting a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment and Human Services Director on Public Assistance Fraud investigation and prosecution efforts within the County. (Mark Peterson, District Attorney & Kathy Gallagher, EHS Director) (Page 42)   7. CONSIDER reviewing and approving the final draft RFP for Facilitation and Data Analysis Services for the Racial Justice Task Force. (Lara DeLaney, County Administrator's Office) (Page 52)   8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for October 24, 2016 at 9:00AM .   9.Adjourn   1 of 90 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 2 of 90 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:09/26/2016   Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - August 15, 2016 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - August 15, 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 August 15, 2016 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the August 15, 2016 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - August 2016 3 of 90 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE *** RECORD OF ACTION*** August 15, 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 Present: Candace Andersen, Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Committee Staff 1. Introductions Convene - 12:00 PM 2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). The Committee received public comment . 3. APPROVE Record of Action from the June 27, 2016 meeting. Approved as presented. Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 4. 1. CONSIDER recommending nominations to the Racial Justice Task Force to the Board of Supervisors for appointment; and, 2. CONSIDER request of the Superior Court to make the Superior Court designee seat a non-voting member of the Task Force; and, 3. PROVIDE any additional direction to staff regarding the Racial Justice Task Force. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Forward to the Board of Supervisors for consideration at the September 13, 2016 regular meeting. Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen 4 of 90 For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia Passed 5. The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM. 6. Adjourn Adjourned - 12:08 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. 5 of 90 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:09/26/2016   Subject:Proposal to Establish a County Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: Proposal to Establish a County Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ)  Presenter: Lara DeLaney, County Administrator's Office Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097 Referral History: At its May 6, 2016 meeting, the CCP received a proposal from its Community Advisory Board (CAB) to establish a County Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) in the Probation Department. The CAO indicated that the proposal for an ORJ was under consideration for establishment in the County Administrator's Office. Over the course of two months, the CAO's office consulted with the CAB in the development of a proposal, which builds on the work of the CAB and provides for a 2.5 year pilot project during which the ORJ will be established and implemented. Referral Update: The CCP considered this matter at its August 5, 2016 meeting. The Executive Committee voted 6-0 (1 absence) to approve the proposal presented by the CAO to establish the Office of Reentry and Justice as a pilot project in the CAO’s office, as described in Attachment A.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. RECOMMEND establishing a County Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) within the County Administrator's Office, as a pilot project to commence January 1, 2017. 2. PROVIDE direction to staff. Fiscal Impact (if any): See attached report which includes a Budget for the ORJ. Attachments Attachment A - Office of Reentry and Justice Pilot Proposal 6 of 90 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF REENTRY & JUSTICE (ORJ) Objective Consistent with the CAB recommendation, establish an Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) in the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) as a 2.5 year pilot project, located in the former Crime Lab building, formally commencing on January 1, 2017. At the conclusion of the pilot, the CAO will evaluate the ORJ functional performance, achievements, and utility as well as resource availability and utilization, and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on its future operations. Scope and Responsibilities The mission of the ORJ will be to build on, align and formalize a cohesive structure for the work currently being provided by the CAO and the contracted Reentry Coordinator in advancement of public safety realignment and justice initiatives. The scope and responsibilities are broadly defined as: • coordinating a broad array of reentry, public safety realignment, and justice-related services; • facilitating collaborative efforts around policy development, operational practices and supportive services; • advancing knowledge of relevant issues, research and best-practices in the fields of reentry and justice; • fostering capacity-building and partnership development; • leading the procurement process and contract management for community-based reentry and justice service providers; • identifying and developing new initiatives and funding opportunities; • supporting legislative advocacy; • managing data and evaluation of funded services; and • conducting public outreach, information sharing and community engagement. Budget The Budget for the ORJ will include AB 109 funding allocated to the CAO and Probation Office (for the contracted Reentry Coordinator), in-kind administrative and clerical support services of the CAO, a portion of the County’s allocation of AB 109 “Planning and Implementation” funding 1, as well as funding from the Local Innovation Subaccount 2. AB 109 funding for the District Attorney’s Ceasefire Program Coordinator allocation may also be included. This 1 $663,716 is the fund balance in the Planning & Implementation fund, pending ServicePoint database funding. 2 The Local Innovation Subaccount exists only at the local level. The subaccount—funded by taking a ten percent share of public safety-related growth accounts—is intended to promote local innovation and County decision making at the Board of Supervisors level. 7 of 90 proposal does not draw down any of the AB 109 fund balance, but rather reallocates existing expenditures already budgeted. Staffing To launch the pilot project, the CAO will recruit and hire an ORJ Program Manager (starting Jan. 1, 2017) at the salary level commensurate with the ADDF classification. The ORJ will be staffed by a Senior Deputy County Administrator (in the role of the Director of ORJ), a Program Manager, a Senior Management Analyst, and clerical support services. The ORJ may also host the AB 109-funded Ceasefire Coordinator 3. The ORJ will develop a fellowship program with UC Berkeley and/or Stanford to provide internship opportunities to graduate students for special projects. In the third year, the ORJ would recruit and hire a Research and Evaluation Manager at the VQHA classification. 1. ORJ Director (0.9 FTE, Senior Deputy County Administrator; 0.5 FTE in year 3) 2. Program Manager (1.0 FTE, ADDF classification) 3. Senior Management Analyst (0.3 FTE, in-kind FY 16-17; 1.0 FTE FYs 17-19) 4. Data Systems Analyst contractor in FY 17-18; 1.0 FTE Research & Evaluation Manager FY 18-19 ) 5. Advanced Level Secretary (0.2 FTE, in-kind FY 16-17; 0.5 FTE FY 17-19 ) 6. Intern/Fellow from UC Berkeley (stipend) 7. Ceasefire Program Coordinator (1.0 FTE, to be determined) Functions 1. Program Management a. Work Plan development and oversight for 2016, FYs 17-19 b. Staff support to Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), Quality Assurance Committee (QAC), and the Community Advisory Board (CAB) c. CBO Procurement Process and Contract Management i. 17 CBO contracts: contract development, billings, over-sight of implementation d. Reentry Network and Reentry Success Center Coordination i. RFP Process for Network Team contract e. Policy and initiative development i. Innovation Fund Program development and implementation ii. Capacity Building Program development and implementation f. Inter-agency, countywide program development, coordination g. Public outreach, information, and engagement h. Grant development/management i. Intern/Fellow Program Development and Management 3 The District Attorney and CAO’s office are currently in discussions about this concept. 8 of 90 2. Program Evaluation, Data Collection, Systems Planning a. Update Reentry Strategic Plan b. Update AB 109 Operations Plan c. Racial Justice Taskforce Facilitation d. AB 109 Annual Report e. AB 109 Quarterly and Monthly Reporting analysis f. ServicePoint and Salesforce information integration (or transition) g. Case management system integration with evaluation and service delivery data h. AB 109 Dashboard maintenance and analysis i. Referral feedback loop with Probation j. Periodic performance evaluation, needs analysis 3. Capacity and Resource development a. CBO and County Department capacity building i. Capacity Assessments ii. Development of Grant Program b. Staff training/professional development c. Grant writing/resource development i. Identification of funding opportunities ii. Technical assistance for applications iii. Grant writer resources The CAO acknowledges the valuable input of the CAB in the development of this Proposal and appreciates the collaborative spirit the CAB has demonstrated in our discussions. The “Deliverables and Outcomes” put forward in the CAB Proposal of 5/6/16 are consistent with the intentions of the CAO in the establishment of the ORJ. The CAO will provide an ORJ Work Plan to the CCP at its October meeting for further consideration. Attachments: Attachment A: CAO Budget for Pilot ORJ Attachment B: CAB Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry & Justice Attachment C: District Attorney’s “Ceasefire, Community and Restorative Justice Project” Attachment D: Local Innovation Fund letter from Dept. of Finance 9 of 90 Attachment A ORJ Pilot Project: Year 1 FTE Jan. 1, 2017 Assumptions Cost to CAO's Office Budget Expenditures Personnel Director of ORJ 0.9 78,326$ Senior Deputy County Administrator, fully-loaded $2,078 Program Manager 1.0 84,887$ ORJ Program Mgr. half year at ADDF classification Senior Management Analyst 0.3 -$ dedicated portion of Vana Tran's time $31,934 Ceasefire Coordinator 1.0 83,000$ to be determined Intern/Fellow 8,000$ Beginning Jan. 2017 Administrative Support 0.2 -$ dedicated portion of Adv. Sect./Exec. Assist. CAO $15,199 Sub-total 3.4 254,261$ $49,211 Data, Evaluation & Systems Planning Annual Report Update -$ On-going; to be performed by CAO staff Ceasefire Program Facilitation 27,000$ FY 16-17 AB 109 budget for District Attorney AB 109 Operations Plan Update RFP One-time: cost proposals to be solicited from contractors Reentry Strategic Plan Update RFP One-time: cost proposals to be solicited from contractors Racial Justice Taskforce Facilitation RFP One-time: cost proposals to be solicited from contractors 259,000$ Operating Costs Office establishment 7,200$ Local transportation 4,000$ Communications 7,200$ website, outreach materials, multi-media Office Supplies 2,400$ Printing 800$ Conferences and travel 8,400$ 30,000$ Capacity Building 120,000$ Assessments, prof. development, convenings, specialized services, micro-grants Innovation Fund Program 239,000$ Grants for reentry and justice initiatives: eg., ID Program, Pre- Release Planning, etc. Total Expenditures 902,261$ Revenues 85,990$ CAO AB 109 Budget: half-year 53,021$ CAO AB 109 Budget: Data Analyst 225,000$ CAO AB 109 Budget, Data-Program Evaluation 69,250$ Probation AB 109 Budget: 50% of Reentry Coordinator contract 120,000$ AB 109 Planning & Implementation Funding* 239,000$ Local Innovation Fund Subaccount 110,000$ DA AB 109 Budget for Ceasefire Coordinator Total Revenues 902,261$ *AB 109 Planning & Implementation fund balance $696,062.63 as of 6/30/16. Commitment of $32,346 to RSC for Restorative Justice Circles. Commitment of $XXX for ServicePoint database administration & training. 10 of 90 Attachment A ORJ Pilot Project: Year 2 FY 2017-18 FTE Assumptions Expenditures Personnel Director of ORJ 156,651$ 0.9 Sr. Deputy CAO Classification ORJ Program Manager 178,016$ 1.0 fully loaded, ADDF salary level Senior Management Analyst 108,502$ 1.0 fully loaded, TBH Ceasefire Coordinator 110,000$ 1.0 TO BE DETERMINED Intern/Fellow 16,000$ 2 intern/fellowships to be granted Administrative Support 39,138$ 0.5 Dedicated portion of Adv. Sect. Subtotal 608,388$ 4.4 Data, Evaluation & Systems Planning Annual Report Update -$ On-going, performed in-house Evaluation 30,000$ Periodic performance measurement reports, analysis Data Systems Administrator, Analyst 54,612$ Contractor for database development, training, maintenance; dashboard maint. 84,612$ Capacity Building 135,000$ Professional development, convenings, specialized contracted services, grant development services Innovation Fund 239,000$ estimate unavailable Operating Costs 20,500$ Conferences, travel, office supplies, printing, communications Total Expenditures 1,087,500$ Revenues 171,979$ CAO AB 109 Budget 53,021$ CAO AB 109 Budget 225,000$ CAO AB 109 Budget 138,500$ Probation AB 109 Budget 150,000$ AB 109 Planning & Implementation Funding 239,000$ Local Innovation Fund Subaccount 110,000$ DA AB 109 Budget for Ceasefire Program Coordinator Total Revenues 1,087,500$ 11 of 90 Attachment A ORJ Pilot Project: Year 3 FY 2018-19 FTE Assumptions Expenditures Personnel Director of ORJ 83,731$ 0.5 Sr. Deputy CAO Classification ORJ Program Manager 173,071$ 1.0 fully loaded, ADDF salary level Research and Evaluation Manager 160,276$ 1.0 fully loaded, VQHA classification Senior Management Analyst 108,502$ 1.0 fully loaded ADTD classification Ceasefire Coordinator 110,000$ 1.0 TO BE DETERMINED Intern/Fellow 8,000$ one stipend Administrative Support 40,312$ 0.5 fully loaded, J3TG; Secretary Adv. Level Subtotal 684,500$ 5.0 Capacity Building 145,000$ Prof development, convenings, specialized contracted services Innovation Fund 239,000$ unknown estimate Operating Costs 19,000$ Conferences, travel, office supplies, printing, communications Total Expenditures 1,087,500$ Revenues 171,979$ CAO AB 109 Budget 698,500$ 53,021$ CAO AB 109 Budget 225,000$ CAO AB 109 Budget 138,500$ Probation AB 109 Budget 150,000$ AB 109 Planning & Implementation Funding 239,000$ Local Innovation Fund Subaccount 110,000$ DA AB 109 Budget for Ceasefire Program Coordinator Total Revenues 1,087,500$ 12 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry & Justice (ORJ) Presented by the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board Submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership July 6, 2016 1. Executive Summary Consistent with the recommendations developed by the Contra Costa County Community Advisory Board (CAB) and submitted to the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and the Public Protection Committee (PPC) from December 2015 through February 2016, the CAB proposes that Contra Costa County establish a County Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ), expanding on and formalizing the role and responsibilities currently under the management of the County’s Reentry Coordinator, a single contracted position. The CAB proposes that the ORJ be established as a three-year pilot project, administratively housed in the County Administrator Office and operating concurrently with the upcoming three-year cycle of AB109-funded contracts and budget allocations. With a staff of 4.25 FTE, the ORJ will further Contra Costa County’s collective efforts to advance the County’s reputation as a national leader in smart justice. The annual budget for the proposed ORJ is estimated at $682,758. However, it is important to note that more than half of this budget could be funded through reallocations of existing line items, with an incremental cost to the County of only $312,958 annually for each of three years. Thus, over the course of the three-year pilot, the total incremental cost would be $938,874. See Section , Staffing and Budget, below. The massive resources and operational changes ushered in by Federal and statewide forces – such as justice reinvestment, prison realignment, Prop 47 sentencing reform, and the deep shifts signaled by California’s Bureau of State and Community Corrections – provide singular opportunities to improve both efficiencies and outcomes in the justice landscape in Contra Costa County. Establishing an expanded and formalized structure to coordinate and align the complex array of local justice initiatives is both necessary and appropriate if the County is to maximize the benefits – operational, fiscal, and social – of these unprecedented investments and shifts in the national, statewide and local criminal justice environment. While Assembly Bill 109 (AB109, or prison realignment) requires that each County establish a Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors, to supervise efforts related specifically to prison realignment, AB109 represents just one element of the tremendously complex operations related to criminal justice in any given County. Further, even within the purview of AB109, the role of the CCP is to provide policy and budget recommendations; it is not intended or equipped to undertake the day-to-day efforts of cross-sector, inter-agency program development, coordination, implementation, evaluation, and modification. Attachment B 13 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 2 of 10 Reflecting and advancing Contra Costa’s reputation as a leader in justice reform and improvement, the ORJ will provide enhanced resources to a very wide array of stakeholders – the Board of Supervisors, the Public Protection Committee, the CCP, the Quality Assurance Committee, and both public and private agencies – serving as a ready source of project management; research capacity, including ready knowledge of best practices; expertise in both law and social service; deep knowledge of local resources, efforts, and challenges; proven subject matter expertise; communications development and management; and in-house, ongoing evaluation services. Furthermore, this reconfiguration will enhance the County’s capacity to identify and effectively compete for prestigious funding opportunities, while also creating the necessary infrastructure to document and communicate successful efforts countywide. 2. Consistency with Existing County Strategies and Policies a. Countywide Reentry Strategic Plan: This proposal is consistent with the Contra Costa County Reentry Strategic Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March 2011. Contra Costa has long been recognized for its prescient leadership in criminal justice reform and improvement; the Reentry Strategic Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March 2011 anticipated prison realignment and the concomitant formation of the CCP, foreshadowing the nation’s increasing commitment to new ways of approaching both justice and public safety. Indeed, the creation of the contracted position of Reentry Coordinator stemmed from that plan’s call for staffing responsible for “establishing a more cohesive and centralized system for providing services, removing policy barriers, increasing community awareness and public safety.” b. AB109 Realignment Implementation Plan: This proposal is consistent with the Contra Costa County 2011/12 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan (adopted September 2011), which writes, “The CCP supports the implementation of County Re-Entry Strategic Plan and will participate in meetings to implement the strategic plan while gathering input on strategies to integrate realignment with broader reentry policies and programs.” The authors of the AB109 Realignment Implementation Plan “recognize that there is an ongoing need to secure funding for the County’s Strategic Reentry Plan separate and apart from the funding allocated for criminal justice realignment.” c. AB109 Operational Plan: This proposal is consistent with the AB109 Operational Plan (November 2012), which includes strategies and activities to “regularly convene county-wide stakeholders for information sharing and professional development,”1 “provide resources, such as a reentry coordinator, to support inter-organizational coordination,”2 “maximize timely and regular analysis to identify areas of strength and/or concern such that early intervention and correction is possible,”3 and “Provide resources, such as a countywide data analyst, to support data collection and analysis.”4 1 AB 109 Operations Plan, November 9, 2012, Objective 6.1.a.ii 2 Ibid, 6.1.d.i 3 Ibid, 6.3.e.i 4 Ibid, 6.3.e.ii Attachment B 14 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 3 of 10 d. Reentry Success Center and Reentry Network: This proposal is consistent with the Implementation Plans for the Reentry Success Center and the Central/East Reentry Network, (adopted March 2014). As explained in a memo submitted by the Public Protection Committee to the Board of Supervisors, “The Center and the Networks will collaborate their work with the Reentry Coordinator, who holds responsibility for all matters related to reentry.”5 3. Justification of Need and Benefit Since AB109 was implemented over four years ago, Contra Costa has had a great shift in how it addresses criminal justice issues in the county. While all of the Contra Costa’s criminal justice stakeholders, both county and community, have strived to cultivate a more collaborative system, there are still challenges and it is important to continue to build and strengthen the system. In Research Development Associates (RDA) report in January of this year, they found that the County is experiencing gaps between in-custody and post-release supervision and services and the County’s data infrastructure is in need of being more thoroughly developed to increase stakeholders’ capacity to communicate, collect and evaluate data. Additionally, RDA stated an importance to , “ Increase the County’s operational capacity for cross-department planning and implementation efforts by adding additional staffing to support this work.”6 Institutionalizing the ORJ and its functions will be essential for enhancing the coordination, integration, and development of the above recommendations to improve the diverse components of the County’s justice and reentry system. With a serious investment in this central and vital role, the County would be able to substantiate any stated intent to pursue an actual integrated strategic approach to its justice and reentry efforts. 4. Scope and Responsibilities As described in greater detail in the accompanying budget narrative, the ORJ would be responsible for supporting individual agencies and countywide initiatives to advance effective and efficient operations while protecting public safety. Within the context of justice and reentry, in service to the Board of Supervisors, and in partnership with CAO, the CCP, the CAB, and public and private stakeholders, the ORJ will hold primary responsibility for the following: advancing knowledge on relevant issues, research, and best practices; developing and stewarding policy recommendations; fostering capacity-building and partnership development; leading Requests for Proposals/Qualifications/Interest processes for justice-related initiatives; managing direct service contracts; identifying and supporting implementation of new initiatives and funding opportunities; managing data and evaluation of AB109-funded services; holding responsibility for public outreach, information, and engagement related to reentry and justice. 5. Deliverables and Outcomes 5 Report submitted by the Public Protection Committee to the Board of Supervisors, entitled “Adoption of the Proposed Plan for an East & Central County Networked System of Services for Returning Citizens,” March 25, 2014. 6 Report submitted by Research Development Associates to the Community Corrections Partnership, entitled “Contra Costa County AB 109 Evaluation:Review of AB 109-Funded Department Performance,” January 15, 2016. Attachment B 15 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 4 of 10 ORJ Functions Deliverables Outcomes ORJ Planning and Management ● Annual ORJ Work Plan ● Annual ORJ Budget ● ORJ Annual Report ● Other County / Agency Required Reports for County Offices Supporting individual agencies and countywide initiatives to advance effective and efficient operations while protecting public safety ● Establish system-wide performance outcomes, develop outcome tracking mechanisms, and conduct periodic performance measurement reports ● Gap/needs analysis reports (e.g., analytical reports on agency and countywide initiatives and operations to identify gaps, needs, areas for improvement or new programs) ● Design and support data-driven pilot projects with agencies / task forces / CBOs ● Assist in drafting/updating tools and templates e.g., pre-release planning template and guidelines ● Organize technical inputs for ad hoc requests from agencies and task forces e.g., assessments of administrative policies and procedures, IT expertise, systems design, process reengineering, training ● Increase in number of persons diverted ● Increase in number of persons enrolled ● Increase in number who complete services/programs ● Reduction in recidivism rates ● Increase in innovative pilot projects implemented in the County ● Reduction in waiting times Advancing knowledge on relevant issues, research, and best practices ● Annual Report on State of Reentry and Justice in Contra Costa County (with reentry/AB 109 performance outcomes) ● Reports documenting effective practices for replication ● Best practice clearinghouse web page (website links) ● Policy recommendations on special issues / innovations ● Report outs from participation in multi- country research initiatives ● Respond to information requests from agencies / CBOs ● Increased in number of evidence-based corrections practices employed in the County ● Increased stakeholder awareness of reentry best practices and research Developing and stewarding policy recommendations ● Implementation plans for policy directives (developed through stakeholder engagement, working groups, etc.) ● Policy directive implementation status reports ● Reduced time for decision on policy recommendations ● Increase in speed and Attachment B 16 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 5 of 10 ● Agendas, research papers, draft outlines, and related secretarial support inputs to working groups tasked with updating County Reentry Strategic Plans, AB 109 plan ● Secretariat and facilitation support to multi- stakeholder working groups for large scale initiatives (e.g., data management system) ● Analytical reports identifying cross-County gaps and inefficiencies (with proposed solutions) ● Written report outs from best practice conferences and other events attended ● Ad hoc analytical reports upon request from agencies (cost/benefit, cost avoidance, trend, legislative/policy analyses) rate of implementation of approved policy and operational recommendations ● Increase in innovations adopted resulting from analytical reports ● Reduction in mentally ill jail population Fostering capacity- building and partnership development ● Capacity building events for public and private entities ● Training of staff/contractors on ORJ and county policies and procedures and requirements ● Establish new reentry service access points ● Inventories of “intercept points” in support of improved processes, partnerships, and referrals ● Instruments to formalize partnerships and referral systems (MOUs, referral protocols, process guidelines, standard forms) ● Referral and placement monitoring reports ● Develop public-private partnerships with the private sector ● Increase in referrals among agencies and CBOs ● Increase in placements ● Increase in number of partnerships in support of effective reentry service delivery ● Increase in private resources applied to reentry ● Increase in # of participants that benefit from pre- release planning ● Improved access to reentry services Leading Requests for Proposals processes for justice-related initiatives ● Community needs assessment reports (prior to each RFP cycle) ● Assessment reports for current contractors ● Proposal of timing, composition of RFPs to be issued ● RFPs drafted and announced ● RFP Q&A sessions ● RFP evaluation panels formed, evaluation results documented, and award recommendations submitted to CCP, PPC, etc. ● Improvement in stakeholder satisfaction with the RFP process and focus areas ● Improvement in quality and number of proposals received ● Increase in contracted services and programs utilized at full capacity Attachment B 17 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 6 of 10 Managing direct service contracts ● Contractor performance evaluation reports with recommendations / improvement plans ● Training and coaching sessions for contractors in targeted areas (e.g., data collection and reporting) ● Authorizations for payment submitted to applicable finance/payment unit based on review/verification of program reports ● Performance improvement plans for contractors issued ● Maintain database of contracts, budget documents, program and financial reports, etc. ● Contractor capacity and service utilization analyses (with solutions e.g., strengthening referral processes, right-sizing programs) ● Improved quality and timeliness of contractor reporting ● Reduction in contracts terminated for cause ● Improved cost- effectiveness of contracted services ● Improved outcomes of contracted services Identifying and supporting implementation of new initiatives and funding opportunities ● Prepare memos of federal, state, foundation funding opportunities and circulate them to appropriate departments ● Technical assistance to grants applications ● Lead grant writing for key multi-stakeholder opportunities ● Proposals for new initiatives within or across agencies, based on data analysis ● Analysis of funding sources to address gaps, e.g., Medicaid ● Increased funding levels from state, federal, and private foundation grants ● Improved success rates on grant proposals ● Increase in cost saving opportunities identified and realized Managing data and evaluation of AB109- funded services ● Data gap analysis reports (identifying where data collection is lacking) ● Database/recordkeeping systems developed and maintained (e.g., Diversion Database to track diversion participants in support of quick referrals) ● Research reports on best practices ● Policy briefs ● Program evaluations (governmental and CBO programs) ● Stakeholder and public survey reports ● Create GIS maps e.g., Prop 47 clients and existing services ● Prepare required reports for SB 678, grants awarded to the county, etc. ● Increase in data collected ● Increase in quality of outcome evaluations ● Increase in number of programs that have been evaluated as effective ● Increase in grants received as a result of improved data included in grants applications ● Increase in stakeholder and public perceptions of transparency/ account-ability within the reentry system Attachment B 18 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 7 of 10 Holding responsibility for public outreach, information, and engagement related to reentry and justice ● FAQs, fact sheets, and other outreach materials ● Regular information sessions in jails ● Success stories ● Educational / Training Videos ● Website news updates (at least monthly) ● Data dashboard for website ● Report outs from community/stakeholder outreach events (e.g., town halls, listening sessions) ● Media outreach / public relations events ● Increased stakeholder and public awareness of the reentry system ● Improved perceptions of the reentry system ● Increased media coverage of the reentry system 6. Staffing The 4.25 FTE staff will include the following positions. Note that each of these positions is consistent with Contra Costa County’s established positions and classifications. The complete project budget, including all line items and additional detail on staff responsibilities and duties, is detailed in the attached budget narrative. Title Salary Benefits@ 70% FTE Class. Code Primary responsibility Director $106,897 $74,827.90 1.0 ADDF Provide project management, coordination, policy analysis, technical assistance, development and evaluation related to reentry and justice in Contra Costa Program Manager $82,516 $57,761.20 1.0 X4SH Support implementation, analysis, policy development, and outreach under direction of Director. Point of contact for service providers. Data Analyst $79,539 $55,677.30 1.0 VCXD Manage ongoing data gathering, synthesis, and analysis, provide specific data and evaluation assistance to agencies as requested Administrative Assistant $53,411 $37,408.70 1.0 JWXD Provide administrative services to ensure efficient operation of the Office Admin Svcs Asst III $20,406 $14,284.2 .25 APTA Manage fiscal responsibilities for contracted services (including service provider contracts) 7. Budget Sources The total budget for the proposed ORJ is estimated at $682,758. However, it is important to note that more than half of this budget could be funded through reallocations of existing line items, with an incremental cost to the County of only $312,958 annually for three years. Over the course of the three- year pilot, the total incremental cost would be $938,874. The proposed funding sources are as follows: Attachment B 19 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 8 of 10 ● $130,000: The current contracted Reentry Coordinator position, along with its associated budget allocation, would be subsumed into this new Office. ● $225,000: Evaluation funds currently housed within the budget of the County Administrator’s Office would be reallocated to this new Office.7 ● $14,800: Approximately $14,800 of indirect costs would be absorbed by the CAO’s existing infrastructure. ● $312,958: Incremental annual cost to the County for each of the three years of the Pilot phase. 8. Statewide Examples Similar Offices or Divisions of Reentry have been established in other California counties. Counties such as Santa Clara, San Francisco, and Los Angeles created county positions that serve as experts. These Division are comprised of individuals with the expertise and knowledge to provide structure related to the implementation of realignment efforts. The counties that have created county office of reentry have streamlined communication and oversight of reentry service delivery, promote sound policy, contract oversight and assist with data collection and program evaluation. Below are three California Counties and one out of state county that have created divisions of Reentry. ● Santa Clara County’s current Office of Reentry Services (ORS) model is slightly different than the ORJ, but holds similar responsibilities. The Santa Clara County’s ORS employs six full time employees funded primarily through AB109 funds. This model differs only in that the ORS also maintains the county’s AB 109 resource center. The ORJ would not have this responsibility as Contra Costa County currently utilizes contracts (The Network) and the Reentry Success center as a hub for reentry services. However, the ORJ would be similar to the ORS in that, the ORJ would streamline efforts by coordinating and performing follow-up in all aspects of future programs and plan, which include budget and fiscal oversight; policy and legislative oversight; departmental coordination and participation on various working groups as well as data and evaluation oversight. 7 To clarify the historical origin of the AB109 funds managed by the County Administrator’s budget, including a total of $696,000 over three years for contracted evaluation services from fiscal years 12/13 through 15/16, we note that AB109 funds were first allocated to the CAO’s budget in fiscal 13/14, in the amount of $252,000. This allocation was explicitly intended to underwrite the costs of “one FTE Senior Management Analyst to provide fiscal and technical support managing the Realignment fund budget and financial transactions, contract administration for CBO contracts, and website development and maintenance [and] one FTE Senior Business Systems Analyst to assist with purchase and implementation of the case management system for the Probation, District Attorney, and Public Defender departments that include an AB109 tracking component. Following implementation, Systems Analyst will convert to programmer/analyst skill set for ongoing support and development.” Still within the 12/13 fiscal year, this amount was increased to $300,000; a public document on the County website, entitled “Dec 7 CCP Approved Budgets,” explains that “Original CAO proposal was $252,000 for 2 FTEs, this motion included an additional $48,000 that is to provide for additional research and analysis of data.” In the three fiscal years since then (13/14 through 15/16), the CAO’s budget allocation was increased from $300,000 to $450,000 annually, specifically to include the costs of evaluation services to be provided by an external evaluator. For 13/14, the contract to the County’s selected contractor, Resource Development Associates (RDA) was $246,000; for 14/15, the contract to RDA was extended at an incremental cost of $225,000; for 15/16, the contract to RDA was once again extended at an incremental cost of $225,000, for a total cost of $696,000 to RDA over its three-year contract. In upcoming fiscal 16/17, the CAO’s budget has again been $450,000. However, the $225,000 allocated to RDA in previous years has not yet been encumbered. Attachment B 20 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 9 of 10 ● San Francisco County has also established a Division Reentry that also operates similar to the ORJ as presented in this proposal. The Division is comprised of five full time county employees that have expertise in policy, criminal justice and data analyst. According to the Overview of the Reentry Division by San Francisco City and County, the Reentry Division will direct collaborative efforts to promote policy and work to effectively to implement Realignment efforts. The Division much like that of the ORS, works to ensure that county agencies, community based agencies and other stakeholders work to provide services to those returning to the community. ● November of 2015, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established the Office of Diversion and Reentry. The county’s Department of Health Services recently ended recruitment efforts for the Director of the Office of Diversion and Reentry. According to Supervisor Mark Ridley- Thomas, the Office of Reentry and Diversion will be mostly funded through Assembly Bill 109 and Senate Bill 678. The unclassified position will report directly to the Deputy Director of Community health and the Board of Supervisor. The Director will be responsible for overseeing the planning, development and implementation of jail diversion projects. The director will utilize subordinate managers to implement reentry efforts that will include development of IT systems, data collections, coordinate the analysis of legislation and policies, track services providers and perform cost/benefit analysis and outcomes. The director will also ensure that the Office of Diversion and Reentry disseminates data that is collected to various departments involved in diversion efforts and community stakeholders. ● Other models Reentry Office or Divisions have been established prior to California's AB 109 went into effect in 2011. Cuyahoga County in Ohio established its Office of Reentry in January of 2009, four years after Cleveland developed it’s reentry strategy. Cuyahoga’s Office of Reentry operates similarly to the ORJ, stated in this proposal. The Office of Reentry is a Division of Cuyahoga County’s Executive Office of Health & Human Services. The Reentry Office is comprised of the Program Director, Social Program Administrator, two Program officers, a fiscal operator and clerical staff. The Office of Reentry collaborates with policymakers, community leaders and service providers to identify reentry challenges and barriers, and work to target resources toward sound comprehensive solutions. The Office of Reentry is responsible for conducting and collection of research as it relates to reentry services and best practices. 9. Local Precedents Contra Costa County has both proven and recent experience in developing successful pilot initiatives to develop and test potential new approaches to meet a recognized Community need. Such initiatives are typically conceived as time-limited, specifically-funded, cross-agency demonstration projects. Local examples include the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence initiative, established at the direction of the County Board of Supervisors; the Youth Justice Initiative, a state-funded three-year project conceived in response to new policy directives by the BSCC; the Family Justice Center, initially a single, fiscally-sponsored location conceived and managed by a cross-sector Advisory Council; and the County’s Forensic Mental Health Services program, funded through AB109. Attachment B 21 of 90 Proposal to Establish a Contra Costa County Office of Reentry and Justice, developed by CAB, submitted to CCP 5/6/16, p. 10 of 10 10. Conclusion The Office of Reentry and Justice proposes a new structure that will better support ongoing reentry efforts Countywide, while simultaneously providing the technical capacity and resources necessary to ensure consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness across programs and sectors. Attachment B 22 of 90 Office of Reentry + Justice: Proposed scope and budget 3/17/16, page 1 Contra Costa County Office of Reentry + Justice: Proposed scope and budget, 3/17/16 Sources Current AB109 allocatoin for evaluation consultants, held in CAO budget 225,000$ Current AB109 allocation for contracted County Reentry Coordinator, held in Probation budget 130,000$ Offset of direct costs with in-kind use of existing Probation infrastructure 14,800$ AB109 unspent funds 312,958$ Total Sources 682,758$ Uses Personnel FTE Class. code Cost Director: Leadership, policy analysis and development related to reentry and justice in Contra Costa 1 ADDF 106,897$ 1. Advance knowledge Produce Annual State of Reentry + Justice in Contra Costa County Produce annual "State of Reentry + Justice in Contra Costa County" 2. Develop and steward policy recommendations Maintain current and informed understanding of emerging trends, best practices, and justice developments, both nationally and locally Identify and propose solutions for cross-county gaps and inefficiencies Ensure easy access to services and information for individuals and service providers 3. Steward implementation of reentry- and justice-related initiatives Hold responsibility for implementation of policy directives, recommendations, and initiatives Steward/guide/manage multi-stakeholder processes and contractors for large-scale initiatives (e.g. reentry strategic plan, AB109 plan, data management systems) 4. Foster capacity-building + partnership development Identify and improve key multi-stakeholder processes (such as referrals) to improve efficiency and effectiveness Convene and advance work groups as appropriate Identify and shepherd capacity-building support opportunities for public and private entities 5. Manage Requests for Proposals processes Assess current contractors, determine when and what type of RFPs to be issued Develop RFPs anage RFP review processes (including seating and serving on review panels) 6. Manage contracted services processes Identify gaps and opportunities for contracted services Manage implementation of contracted reentry + justice services 7. Identify and support implementation of new Initiatives and funding opportunities Identify opportunities for federal and state funding, supply technical assistance and information to appropriate departments Spearhead development of new initiatives 8. Manage public communications Foster ready access to relevant information for local stakeholders Supervise development of FAQs, other informational materials, and outreach and communications efforts to support public understanding and awareness of relevant issues Program Manager 1 X4SH 82,516$ Support implementation, analysis, policy development, and outreach under direction of Director Convene, coordinate, manage efforts directed by the Office Conduct research on best practices, write research and policy briefs Convene and facilitate working groups and communities of practice to advance learning and collective efforts Provide insight and analysis to assess ongoing implementation Identify opportunities for system enhancement, develop recommendations for Director Hold responsibility for ensuring that relevant materials (contracts, budget documents and financial analysis, research briefs, reports) are available and readily accessible Develop and implement outreach (e.g., town halls, listening sessions) to advance the work of the Office Data Analyst 1 VCXD 79,539$ Manage ongoing internal data gathering, synthesis, and analysis Develop recommendations and mechanisms for periodic review of collective outcomes, including recidivism Manage ongoing review of data and reporting from public and contracted agencies Identify and manage opportunities to gather local data on specific issues Serve as primary contact on contracted consultants (periodic external research and evaluation, etc.) Administrative Assistant 1 JWXD 53,441$ Provide administrative services to ensure efficient operation of the Office Provide day to day administrative support to Office personnel Serve as staff support for meetings, work groups managed by the Office Provide logistical and administrative support to organize convenings, trainings, etc. Answer phones, schedule meetings, direct callers to appropriate people and resources Admin Services Assistant III 0.25 APTA 20,406$ Manage fiscal responsibilities for contracted services (including service provider contracts) Total personnel salaries Benefits @ 70%239,959$ Total personnel FTE and costs 4.25 582,758$ Non-personnel costs Direct costs Occupancy 7,200$ Local transportation 4,200$ Communications 7,200$ Office supplies 2,400$ Printing 600$ Conferences and travel 8,400$ Total direct costs 30,000$ Consultants Periodic evaluation (every three years)30,000$ Collective capacity-building Professional development trainings 20,000$ Convenings, work groups, communities of practice 10,000$ Specialized services (eg facilitation, program design, grantwriting, research)10,000$ Total consultant costs 70,000$ Total non-personnel costs 100,000$ Total budget 682,758$ Attachment B 23 of 90 Ceasefire, Community and Restorative Justice Project Project Coordinator: $83,000.00 Facilitator: $27,000.00 Total: $110,000.00 Need: While many gains have been made in recent years, our urban areas are still plagued by violence and mistrust. The city of Richmond has seen a dramatic drop in homicides in the last 7 years, but there are still pockets of violent crime. The Ceasefire Project, which is a form of Group Violence Intervention (GVI) has made a significant contribution to the drop, but needs support in terms of coordination with community members and service providers. In addition, it is time to begin working on a replication in East County. Currently, this burden is shouldered by the Richmond Police Department. In light of the goal of strengthening and expanding the program, this burden needs to shift to a countywide agency. The coordinator will work collaboratively with social service and community constituencies to leverage community resources. Service provision also helps in mobilizing community figures who can influence the behavior of group members. Community members are more willing to deliver the needed moral messages against violence when they know that group members have a standing, genuine offer of help. The coordinator will be responsible for the following steps: 1. Identify providers 2. Bring providers into the strategy. Social service agencies selected for this project must be able to work with law enforcement and have good standing in the community. 3. After identifying a social service the coordinator should get dedicated providers to deliver rapid, priority attention to group members. Upon contacting the social service providers, group members should receive a prompt response. Social services should provide an individualized assessment, backed with case management and follow-up, as soon as possible. 4. The coordinator, in partnership with any other social service agencies to which the Working Group refers group members, should collect and analyze data on all group members who make contact for services. The lead agency then reports information on clients’ progress, process adherence, and program outcomes to the Working Group that defines successful outcomes: e.g., no further involvement in violence. Technical assistance: The National Network for Safe Communities recommends the support of an experienced technical assistance team. During the initial planning period, the National Network recommends that the community interested in launching GVI work with a technical assistance team that can explain, guide, and ensure fidelity in basic implementation. Technical advisers can also provide guidance on a governing structure for the GVI effort and analytical and research capacity. Attachment C 24 of 90 Attachment D25 of 90 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:09/26/2016   Subject:REFERRAL ON JUVENILE FEES CHARGED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: REFERRAL ON JUVENILE FEES CHARGED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT  Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 Referral History: On July 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a review of fees assessed for services provided while a minor is in the custody of the Probation Department. Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides that the County may assess a fee for the provision of services to a minor in the custody of its Probation Department. This request is following a statewide discussion as to whether or not these fees should be imposed by counties on the parents or legal guardians of minors in the custody of the County. For reference, included as an attachment is a survey conducted by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) trying to determine what policies individual counties have put in place related to juvenile fees (Attachment A). In addition, the County of Alameda adopted a resolution in March 2016 imposing a moratorium on juvenile fees and in July 2016 adopted an ordinance to repeal all juvenile fees. Copies of the Board Letter, Resolution and Ordinance are included in the agenda packet for reference (Attachment B). Collection of Fees For several years, the County operated an Office of Revenue Collection (ORC) to centralize the collection of fees, fines and other assessments due to the County. The ORC was discontinued and the responsibility for the collection of fees was returned to the departments that originally imposed the fee. In the case of the Probation Department, the responsibility for both juvenile fees and adult public defense fees were assigned. At the time, it was determined to be inefficient to establish a collection unit in both the Probation Department and Public Defender's Office. Authority for Juvenile Fees California Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides counties the ability to recover costs 26 of 90 California Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides counties the ability to recover costs for the provision of services to juveniles in-custody. In 2003, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 03/591 establishing a fee for reimbursement of the actual cost of care of a minor in detention at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) and Juvenile Hall. The Resolution authorized the Probation Department to collect $17.03 per day, per minor. In 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2010/253 increasing the fee from $17.03 per day to $30.00 per day following legislative action increasing the maximum recovery amount to $30.00 per day. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2009-23 establishing a $17-per-day fee for electronic surveillance of minors who are under Probation supervision.  Probation Collections Unit The fiscal year 2016/17 budget authorizes 4.0 FTE employees to staff the Probation Collections Unit (PCU); (2) two Collections Enforcement Officers, (1) one Accounting Technician and (1) one Clerk-Specialist Level position. A summary of the Recommended Budget is summarized below: Note that the budget plan for PCU anticipates a Net County Cost (NCC) of ($289,938). Since the NCC is a negative number, this should be looked at as a revenue for purposes of analyzing budgetary impacts. PCU Actual Performance Since Inception The table below illustrates actual budget performance of PCU since inception in fiscal year 2010/11. Over the past six years, PCU has generated an between $200k-250k in net collections revenue for the County each year. In fiscal year 2015/16 (shown in the YTD Actuals column) that figure has increased to approximately $374k due to cost savings from a vacancy in the unit and higher than average collection revenue. 27 of 90 * Note that the "YTD Actuals" column reflects the fiscal year 2015/16 unaudited actuals. Composition of Revenues Since the PCU collects revenue for both the Probation and Public Defender departments, it is important to illustrate the revenues generated from each stream of fee recovery revenue. The table below shows the breakdown of Gross Revenue in each fiscal year, by fee type: The most important finding to be made from the information in the table above is that annual fee revenue from each source exceeds the average net collections revenue from year to year discussed earlier in this report. That is to say that discontinuing one of the two fees would result in PCU being unable to cover its annual operating costs from year-to-year. How Does PCU Compare to the Cost of Running Juvenile Hall? The PCU operates in a separate cost center within the Probation Department budget. However, since the PCU currently provides a net collections revenue benefit to the department as a whole, it is important to illustrate the relative costs to the County for operating the Juvenile Hall as an illustration. A summary of the fiscal year 2016/17 Recommended Budget is provided below for reference: Current Status of Accounts Receivable Currently, the PCU has $16.9 million in accounts receivable outstanding through June 30, 2016. A breakdown by fee type and year of assessment is attached to this staff report for reference (Attachment C). In summary, $8.55 million is attributable to Juvenile Fees and $8.34 million is attributable to Public Defender fees with the oldest account dating back to 1990. Referral Update: Committee staff will present this item at the meeting. Representatives from the Probation 28 of 90 Committee staff will present this item at the meeting. Representatives from the Probation Department will be in attendance to assist with any questions that Committee members may have. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. ACCEPT an introductory report on the issue of certain fees assessed by the County related to the juvenile justice system; and, 2. PROVIDE direction to staff regarding next steps Fiscal Impact (if any): No immediate fiscal impact. Attachments Attachment A - CSAC Survey Results - Juvenile Fees Attachment B - County of Alameda Resolution Establishing Moratorium and Ordinance on Juvenile Fees Attachment C - PCU Outstanding Balances through June 30, 2016 29 of 90 CSAC Survey Results  Juvenile Fees  August 2016     Alameda County placed a moratorium on the assessment and collection of fees in March 2016.     Los Angeles County placed a moratorium on the assessment of fees in 2009.     San Francisco County has not charged fees to date for these activities.     Fresno County the $50 juvenile administrative fee is charged to the parents when a juvenile is  cited by law enforcement.     Santa Barbara County does charge administrative fees to juveniles related to community service  work and we charge their parents for basic juvenile hall and camp costs related to their child's  support and enrollment. There is also a 10% restitution collection surcharge.     Santa Cruz County charges a daily juvenile hall charge, which is $ 27 per day. They do not charge  supervision fees, records sealing fees or charge for electronic monitoring.     Kern County does not charge juvenile administration fees.    30 of 90 31 of 90 32 of 90 33 of 90 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-6 6 --- A RESOLUTION PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF ALL JUVENILE PROBATION FEES AND THE JUVENILE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE WHEREAS , the County of Alameda currently charges youth involved in the juvenile justice system and their families six Probation Department fees and a Public Defender fee ; and WHEREAS , the seven fees are as follows : 1) a fee for each night spent in Juvenile Hall , 2) a fee for each night spent at Camp Wilmont Sweeney, 3) a one-time fee for public defender representation, 4) a one-time investigation fee , 5) a daily electronic monitoring fee, 6) a monthly supervision fee , and 7) a fee for drug testing and lab confirmation; and WHEREAS , in 2009 the Alameda County Board of Supervisors increased the two existing detention fees (Juvenile Hall and Camp Sweeney) and added four new fees to the existing fee schedule, and in 2015 , the Board eliminated the juvenile record sealing fee; and WHEREAS , families and advocates in Alameda County have reported that these fees cause financial hardship and disrupt family stability; and WHEREAS , unpaid administrative fees become civil judgments, which can result in referrals to the Franchise Tax Board where parents ' wages can be garnished, their bank accounts can be levied and their tax refunds can be intercepted ; and WHEREAS , it is in the interest of the County, of young people involved in the juvenile justice system and their families , and of the larger community that the County repeal the seven juvenile probation fees and public defender fee; and WHEREAS , it is in the interest of the County to adopt this resolution in order to allow staff to develop a plan to address the effects of the repeal of these juvenile probation fees and to identify funding for the services currently supported with these juvenile probation fees to maintain the fiscal integrity of affected County departments , including , but not limited to , the Probation Department, the Auditor-Controller 's Office, and the Office of the Public Defender; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors as follows: Section 1. A moratorium is imposed on the assessment and collection of juvenile probation and juvenile public defender fees , suspending the assessment and collection of: A. Fees for time juveniles spend in Juvenile Hall ; B. Feed for time juveniles spend at Camp Wilmont Sweeney; C. Fees for the Public Defender 's and court-appointed counsel 's representation of juveniles ; D. Fees for the Probation Department's investigation of juvenile cases; E . Fees for the Probation Department's supervision of juveniles; F. Fees for the electronic (GPS) monitoring of juveniles; and G . Fees for drug testing of juveniles. 34 of 90 Section 2. Unless extended by action of this Board, the moratorium shall expire upon repeal of the fees listed in Section 1. Section 3. For the purpose of implementing this moratorium , no later than June 28, 2016 , County staff is directed to return to the Board of Supervisors with a plan and ordinance for the repeal of fees listed in Section 1. Section 4. That the moratorium imposed by Section 1 ofthis Resolution shall be effective as soon as it is reasonably possible for the County Auditor-Controller to stop collecting the fees. THE FOREGOING WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors this 29th day of March, 2016 , to wit: AYES: Supervisors Carson, Chan, Miley, Valle & President Haggerty NOES: None EXCUSED: None ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: DONN R. ZIEGLER, COUNTY COUNSEL By:~-v-~~~~~----1-:r-~...._~~­ Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel Scott Haggerty, President Board of Supervisors 35 of 90 SUSAN S. MURANISHI COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Honorable Board of Supervisors Administration Building Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Board Members: AGENDA June 28, 2016 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR June 22, 2016 SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 2.42.190 AND THE JUVENILE FEE SCHEDULES FOR PROBATION AND PUBLIC DEFENDER TO REPEAL ALL JUVENILE FEES RECOMMENDATIONS: Consistent with your Board's direction on March 29, 2016: A) Adopt an ordinance amending Section 2.42.190 of the Administrative Code of the County of Alameda to remove the assessment and collection of juvenile probation fees; and B) Amend Resolution No. 2009-468 to repeal juvenile fees collected by the Probation Department in their existing fee schedule for drug or substance abuse testing, laboratory test confirmations and electronic or Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring; and C) Amend Resolution No. 2011-142 to repeal juvenile fees collected by the Public Defender's Office in their existing fee schedule for the Public Defender fee that is assessed for each juvenile case referred to their office. DISCUSSION/SUMMARY: On March 29, 2016, your Board passed and adopted Resolution No. 2016-66, which placed a moratorium on the assessment and collection of all juvenile Probation fees and the juvenile Public Defender fee for Alameda County youth involved in the juvenile justice system. The corresponding board letter requested that the County Administrator's Office, Auditor-Controller's Agency, Probation Department and the Public Defender's Office develop a plan and ordinance to amend Section 2.42.190 of the Administrative Code ("Collection of probation department fees") to repeal the portions related to assessment and collection of juvenile fees, which had been allowed per California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 903 and 904. Per the approved board letter and resolution, the Auditor-Controller's Agency immediately suspended the collection of juvenile probation fees on March 29, 2016. Action was taken to immediately close two financial hearing offices at the Juvenile Justice Center. Written notices regarding the moratorium were sent to all families on April 6, 2016. Every payment that was received after March 29th was returned or refunded, resulting in refunds totaling $4, 700 between March 29 and June 10. Over-the-counter payments, U.S. Postal Service payments and any checks were returned to families immediately. Tax intercepts, wage garnishments and lockbox check deposits were refunded promptly. All collections referred to the Franchise Tax Board were immediately withdrawn, but additional time was required for the State to receive and remit payments to the County. Since May 1, very few payments have been received resulting in fewer refunds processed. 1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 555 • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • 510 272-6984 • FAX 510 272-3784 www.acgov.org SECOND READING - CONTINUED FROM 06/28/2016 36 of 90 Honorable Board of Supervisors June 22, 2016 Page 2 The Probation Department has also reached out to Presiding Judge Charles Smiley of the Juvenile Dependency Court. Judge Smiley will continue to address each case and situation on its own merits, giving careful consideration to the recommendations of probation and its effects on families in the juvenile justice system. County Impacts Juvenile administrative fees paid for specific services provided to those involved in the system as allowed under California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 903 and 904. Services included programs, activities and staffing costs. The repeal of these juvenile fees represents a loss of revenue between $500,000 and $550,000 annually for Alameda County. The Proposed Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget eliminated the collection of juvenile administration fee revenue but expenditures remained in department's operating budgets relying on alternative revenue sources, including the County's General Fund. Additionally, there remains approximately $2 million in outstanding (assessed, but uncollected) fees assessed since. Details on departmental revenue reduction impacts are provided below. Public Defender's Office In Fiscal Year 2014-15, the Public Defender's Office received just over $33,000 in revenue from the juvenile Public Defender fee per Resolution No. 2011-142, which is the estimated annual revenue loss. The fees were used to partially offset the cost of juvenile legal representation and were used to cover cost of telephone charges, equipment supplies and expert witnesses when necessary. These service costs will now be covered by other funding sources, primarily the General Fund, and there are no adjustments needed to continue the same level of service. Probation Department Based on Fiscal Year 2014-15 totals, the Probation Department estimates that $275,000 in revenue for juvenile probation fees will be lost annually due to the amendments to Section 2.42.190 of the Administrative Code and Resolution No. 2009-468. These fees were used to support juvenile life skills and educational programming in Camp Sweeney and Juvenile Hall, which could see a reduction in scope of services, activities or events due to the loss ofrevenue. This includes but is not limited to: Camp Sweeney's Freedom School, Camp Sweeney's Annual Tolerance Tour, Juvenile Hall's Annual Resource Fair and the Destiny Arts Program. Ancillary costs such as special events, bus tickets, payment for bills, etc., are not mandatory but do help youth and families complete their terms and conditions of probation. Other sources of revenue, including the County General Fund, will be needed to continue these services. Juvenile GPS monitoring is court-ordered per California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601. As such, these are mandated services that the County must continue to provide. The estimated annual cost of electronic/GPS monitoring for juveniles is $180,000. Today, there are 69 youth in Probation currently being monitored. Additionally, each lost or damaged device costs over $23,000 to replace. GPS monitoring costs have never been fully offset by juvenile fees, but now the Probation Department, through use of General Funds, will be required to cover the whole cost of these services. While drug testing for juveniles may also be court-ordered, it is also a term of probation and Camp placement. Juvenile drug testing and post-testing laboratory confirmation costs the department approximately $30,000 annually. Drug testing costs have never been fully offset by juvenile fees, but now the Probation Department, through use of General Funds, will be required to cover the whole cost of these services. 37 of 90 Honorable Board of Supervisors June 22, 2016 Page 3 Auditor-Controller's Office The estimated revenue lost by the Auditor-Controller's Office is between $200,000 and $250,000 annually. Staff in the Auditor-Controller's Office is assigned to the collection of a wide variety of fees, including these juvenile fees. This fee revenue was used to support a portion of staff salary and benefits costs. Since the establishment of the moratorium, affected staff has been assigned to other collection activities. Given the steps that have been taken by the Auditor-Controller's Office to halt the assessment and collection of fees and the actions that each affected department has taken to plan and assess how the loss of revenue will affect programs, services and staffing, we ask that your Board approve the attached ordinance to repeal the juvenile probation fees and the juvenile Public Defender fee effective immediately. FINANCING: The repeal of the juvenile fees translates into loss of revenue for the County of up to $558,000 annually in newly assessed fees, which breaks down as follows: Department Annual Revenue Loss* Auditor-Controller $ 200,000 -250,000 Probation 275,000 Public Defender 33,000 Total $ 508,000 -558,000 *Approximate As a result of the Board's action to enact a moratorium on Juvenile Administrative Fees, the FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget reduced revenue collections as indicated above. Department expenses funded previously with fee revenue are budgeted to continue without a specific new revenue source. This revenue loss was part of the FY 2016-17 funding gap and resulted in increased General Fund costs of up to $558,000. Additionally, $2 million in outstanding fees assessed since 2009 will remain uncollected. With service- related expenditures continuing, the net loss to the County is the full amount of revenue that had been generated each year plus any prior year collections that we may have been able to recover. Respectfully submitted, Susan S. Muranishi County Administrator ~~1 ~-w-fi1 rk~.Harris Chief Probation Officer SSM:MLC:mcp cc: County Counsel cYitue-f??~· Steve Manning Auditor/Controller ~ren~<_ Public Defender 38 of 90 ORDINANCE NO. 2016-3 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.42 .190 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCE CODE TO REPEAL JUVENILE PROBATION FEES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO . 2011-142 TO REPEAL THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE FOR REPRESENTATION OF JUVENILES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO . 2009-468 TO REPEAL THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT JUVENILE SUPERVISION , JUVENILE ELECTRONIC AND GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS MONITORING, AND JUVENILE DRUG AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING FEES WHEREAS, on March 29 , 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2016-66 (the Resolution) placing a moratorium on the assessment and collection of seven juvenile probation fees and the Juvenile Public Defender Fee (collectively the Fees); and WHEREAS, the Resolution directed staff to return to the Board of Supervisors no later than June 28 , 2016, with a plan and an ordinance for the repeal of the Fees; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the best interest of the County to repeal the Fees and terminate the moratorium; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda ordains as follows : SECTION I Section 2.42.190 of the Alameda County Administrative Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows : 2.42 .190 -Collection of probation department fees . The following fees and charges shall be paid to the Alameda County probation department or the county of Alameda collection agent: A. Fees for adult investigations and for providing probation supervision of adults, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203 .1 b, as follows : 1. Adult investigations: Seven hundred ten dollars ($710.00) per case . 2. Adult supervision : Ninety dollars ($90 .00) per month . The administrator of the home detention program or his designee, shall have the option to waive the fees for program supervision .when deemed necessary, justified or in the interest of justice. All fees paid for program supervision shall be deposited into the general fund of the county . Inmates involuntarily participating in the home detention program shall not be charged fees or costs for the program. B. Fees for the petition for a change of plea or setting aside of a verdict shall be as follows, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4: 1. Costs of actual services rendered : Not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150 .00) per case. This fee shall be applied to a person whether or not the petition is granted and the records are sealed or expunged. 39 of 90 SECTION II The Probation Department schedule of fees adopted in Resolution No . 2009-468 on December 1 2009 , is amended to repeal the "Juven ile Supervision Fee " of $90 .00 per month, the "Juvenile Electron ic and Global Positioning Systems Monitoring Fee " of $15.00 per day for the cost of electronic surveillance of a minor, and the "Drug and Substance Abuse Testing Fee " of $7 .17 per drug test and $21 .51 per laboratory confirmation for juveniles . The "Drug and Substance Abuse Testing Fee " of $7 .17 per drug test and $21 .51 per laboratory confirmation for adults shall remain in effect. SECTION Ill The Publ ic Defender schedule of fees adopted in Resolution No. 2011-142 on May 10 , 2011 , is amended to repeal the .$300 fee for representation of juveniles established in Section 1.A of the Resolution . SECTION IV This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage and before the expirat ion of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be publ ished once with the names of the members voting for and aga inst the same in the Inter-City Express , a newspaper published in the County of Alameda . Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda , State of California , on the _l_~y of July , 2016 , by the following called vote : AYES : Supervisors Carson, Chan, Miley, Valle & President Haggerty NOES: None EXCUSED : None ATTEST : Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , By :~ DeputY5efl< APPROVED AS TO FORM : ::N_N_A_R._~..._IE_G_L_:_:_· -~-O;z_U-NT-~-CO-UN-S-EL Andrea L. Weddle Ass istant County Counsel 40 of 90 PROBATION COLLECTIONS UNIT OUTSTANDING BALANCES as of June 30, 2016 CLIENT# (FEE TYPE) DATE  ASSIGNED  BALANCE  REMAINING CLIENT# (FEE TYPE) DATE  ASSIGNED  BALANCE  REMAINING  2010 86,408                 1995 765                          2011 306,104               1996 2,125                      2012 482,550               1997 5,207                      2013 325,120               1998 12,805                    2014 269,911               1999 163,701                  2015 316,778               2000 513,914                  2016 148,480               2001 696,337                  TOTAL 1,935,351$         2002 649,684                  2003 638,625                  2009 16,914                 2004 624,632                  2010 697                      2005 567,033                  2011 91,223                 2006 516,570                  2012 102,513               2007 640,562                  2013 107,228               2008 568,781                  2014 86,587                 2009 453,979                  2015 192,691               2010 350,384                  2016 113,138               TOTAL 6,405,105$            TOTAL 710,991$             1990 733                          2010 229,117               1996 305                          2011 560,683               1997 1,668                      2012 377,524               1998 3,344                      2013 467,078               1999 220,336                  2014 486,320               2000 232,546                  2015 615,274               2001 393,006                  2016 301,178               2002 148,942                  TOTAL 3,037,175$         2003 135,039                  2004 120,437                  2010 183,485               2005 129,124                  2011 253,115               2006 246,830                  2012 276,178               2007 459,391                  2013 284,910               2008 419,579                  2014 251,175               2009 311,241                  2015 294,444               2010 282,108                  2016 152,238               2013 626                          TOTAL 1,695,546$         TOTAL 3,105,256$            GRAND TOTAL 16,889,424$          30356  Ranch ‐ Probation 22005 Public Defender ‐  Probation 30305 Juvenile Hall/Ranch ‐  Office of Revenue Collections 20005 & 21005 Public Defender ‐  Office of Revenue Collections 30310 & 30310a Juvenile  Electronic Monitoring ‐ Probation 30355 & 30355a Juvenile Hall ‐  Probation 41 of 90 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:09/26/2016   Subject:STATUS UPDATE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION EFFORTS Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: STATUS UPDATE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FRAUD INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION EFFORTS  Presenter: Mark Peterson, District Attorney & Kathy Gallagher, EHS Director Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 Referral History: This referral began in September 2006, when 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 received a status report on this referral in October 2008 and, again, in June 2010. The Committee requested staff to report back on how the County’s program compares to a statewide fraud rate, if such a rate exists. The Committee also requested a follow-up report on the IHSS fraud program and the transition of welfare fraud collections from the Office of Revenue Collection (now disbanded) to the Employment and Human Services Department. On October 18, 2010, the PPC received a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment and Human Services Director on the Welfare Fraud Investigations and Prosecutions Program, addressing the specific questions of the PPC from the June 21 meeting. As the PPC wishes to monitor performance of the welfare fraud program, it is recommended that this matter be retained on referral with a follow-up report in one year. At the December 2013 meeting, the Committee received an update on CY 2013 Public Assistance 42 of 90 At the December 2013 meeting, the Committee received an update on CY 2013 Public Assistance fraud programs in the County and directed Committee staff to continue this referral to the following year. Due to scheduling, the Committee has not been able to receive a report on CY 2014 programs until today's meeting. At the May 2015 meeting, the Committee received an update on the CY 2014 Public Assistance fraud programs Referral Update: The District Attorney's Office and Employment and Human Services department have submitted a joint report on the status of public assistance fraud in Contra Costa County and will present at today's meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment and Human Services Director on Public Assistance Fraud investigation and prosecution efforts within the County. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. This report is informational only. Attachments Joint Report on Welfare Fraud and Investigation 43 of 90 44 of 90 45 of 90 46 of 90 47 of 90 48 of 90 49 of 90 50 of 90 51 of 90 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:09/26/2016   Subject:RFP for Facilitation and Data Analysis Services for Racial Justice Task Force Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RFP for Facilitation and Data Analysis Services for Racial Justice Task Force  Presenter: Lara DeLaney, Sr. Deputy CAO Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925)335-1097 Referral History: On April 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors received a letter 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 the three departments above to provide a written project scope and task force composition to the Committee for final review.  At the November 9, 2015 meeting, the Committee received a brief presentation reintroducing the referral 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. On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted a report and related recommendations from the Committee resulting in the formation of a 17-member Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force composed of the following:  County Probation Officer Public Defender District Attorney Sheriff-Coroner Health Services Director Superior Court representative County Police Chief’s Association representative Mount Diablo Unified School District representative Antioch Unified School District representative West Contra Costa Unified School District representative (5) Community-based organization (CBO) representatives (at least 1 representative from each region of the County and at least one representative from the faith and family community) Mental Health representative (not a County employee) Public Member – At Large 52 of 90 Subsequently, a 7-week recruitment process was initiated to fill the (5) CBO representative seats, the (1) Mental Health representative seat and the (1) Public Member - At Large seat. The deadline for submissions was June 15, 2016 and the County received a total of 28 applications. On June 27, 2016, the PPC met to consider making appointments to the (5) CBO representative seats, the (1) Mental Health representative seat and the (1) Public Member - At Large seat. The PPC nominated to following individuals to be considered by the full Board of Supervisors: CBO seat 1: Stephanie Medley (RYSE, AB109 CAB) (District I)1. CBO seat 2: Donnell Jones (CCISCO) (District I)2. CBO seat 3: Edith Fajardo (ACCE Institute) (District IV)3. CBO seat 4: My Christian (CCISCO) (District III)4. CBO seat 5: Dennisha Marsh (First Five CCC; City of Pittsburg Community Advisory Council) (District V)5. Mental Health: Christine Gerchow, PhD. (Psychologist, Juvenile Hall-Martinez) (District IV)6. Public (At-Large): Harlan Grossman (Past Chair AB 109 CAB, GARE participant ) (District II) 7. At the conclusion of the of the meeting, the PPC directed staff to set a special meeting for early August to consider the final composition of the entire (17) seventeen member Task Force once all names were received from county departments, school districts, etc. On August 15, 2016, the PPC approved nominations for appointment to all seventeen seats on the Racial Justice Task Force to the full Board of Supervisors. On September 13, 2016, the Board of Supervisors formally appointment members to the Task Force. Referral Update: Over the past two months, the CAO’s office has convened a work group to develop a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit for Facilitation and Data Analysis services for the work of the Racial Justice Task Force. The work group was comprised of representatives of the CAO’s office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition.  The final draft of the RFP is Attachment A. (Please note that the General Conditions of the Contract have been omitted from the RFP draft at this time, but will be included in the final version when issued.) The proposed timeline for the procurement process, which is anticipated to take 10 weeks, is as follows: The timeline includes a mandatory Bidders Conference, which staff is presently working to include remote access capabilities (webinar). The timeline assumes that the Public Protection Committee reviews the recommendation(s) of the Review Panel at its November 28, 2016 meeting. The work group recommends that the Review Panel be composed of an equal number of County representatives and Contra Costa Racial Justice Coalition members. County representatives would include a designated staff person from each of the following:  District Attorney’s Office Probation Department Public Defender’s Office Sheriff’s Office An equal number of representatives from the Coalition would bring the Panel total to 8. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW and APPROVE the final draft RFP for Facilitation and Data Analysis Services for the Racial Justice Task 53 of 90 REVIEW and APPROVE the final draft RFP for Facilitation and Data Analysis Services for the Racial Justice Task Force.  The Public Protection Committee is also requested to provide input and direction to staff on the timeline for the procurement process and the composition of the RFP Review Panel. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments Attachment A - AB 109 RFP Facilitation, Data Analysis for RJTF 54 of 90 9/20/16 Page 1 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) # 1609-196 Facilitation and Data Analysis Services for the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office is pleased to announce, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the solicitation of proposals for “Facilitation and Data Analysis Services” to provide support to the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Task Force for the period December 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. This RFP is a process by which the County solicits proposals of qualified responders who may be selected to enter into a contract with the County for the provision of these services. Please read this entire packet carefully. Final responses will be due at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, Martinez, CA 94553 by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Friday, November 4, 2016. Written questions about the RFP can be submitted to lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 21, 2016. A mandatory Bidders Conference will be conducted on Wednesday, October 5, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at the County Zoning Administrator’s Room, 30 Muir Road, Martinez. Thank you in advance for your efforts in preparing your response. Contra Costa County Attachment A 55 of 90 9/20/16 Page 2 of 44 Final Draft RFP Table of Contents RFP TIMELINE ....................................................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF WORK .......................................................................................................... 5 RFP REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDERS ............................................... 12 RESPONSE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................... 16 RESPONSE REVIEW AND SELECTION .................................................................................... 23 RATING SHEET .................................................................................................................... 25 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS AND RESPONDER CHECKLIST ..................................................... 27 RESPONDERS CONFERENCE RSVP FORM ............................................................................. 28 REQUIRED FORMS 1-3 ................................................................................................... 30-35 GENERAL CONTRACT CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 37 Attachment A 56 of 90 9/20/16 Page 3 of 44 Final Draft RFP RFP Timeline 1. RFP announced Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2016 2. Mandatory Bidders Conference Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2016, 10:00 a.m. 3. Written Questions Due from Responders 12:00 p.m. (noon), Oct. 21, 2016 4. Addendum Issued Oct. 24, 2016 5. Response Submission Deadline 12:00 p.m. (noon), Nov. 4, 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 Nov. 7-10, 2016 7. Notification of recommendations Nov. 10, 2016 8. Appeal period Nov. 14-18, 2016 9. Deadline to submit appeal letters 5:00 p.m., Nov. 18, 2016 10. Public Protection Committee Review Nov. 28, 2016 Board of Supervisors approval and authorization to award contracts is tentatively scheduled for the December 6, 2016 Board of Supervisors’ agenda. Attachment A 57 of 90 9/20/16 Page 4 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE Statement of Work Attachment A 58 of 90 9/20/16 Page 5 of 44 Final Draft RFP I. Introduction The Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office (CAO), on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, is issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) #1609-196 to receive Proposals from qualified contractors to provide facilitation and data analysis services to assist the Racial Justice Taskforce in identifying ways of reducing racial and ethnic disparities (RED) within Contra Costa County’s local justice system. Based on the response to this solicitation for Proposals, Contra Costa County (County) plans to contract with contractors for the period of December 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018. The County will retain the discretion to renew any contract issued, contingent on availability of funding and demonstrated successful performance by funded contractors during the contract period. Private and public not-for-profit organizations and for-profit organizations with experience in providing services in the described areas are invited to submit Responses. If you are interested in and capable of providing the requested services by contract with the County, please carefully review the Request for Proposals (RFP) and submit your response as directed in the "Response 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 response, nor will the County pay for any costs associated with the preparation of any response. II. Synonymous Terms As used throughout this RFP, the following terms are synonymous: A. Supplier, Vendor, Contractor, Successful Responder B. Purchase Order, Contract, Agreement C. Services, Work, Scope, and Project D. Proposer, Responder, Bidder, Organization E. “The County” refers to the County of Contra Costa, California. III. Minimum Organizational Requirements The County seeks to partner with eligible entities that have expertise in performing facilitation and data analysis services on projects related to racial justice. The successful responder must possess and demonstrate the following minimum requirements: 1. Service History: A documented history of similar or equivalent service delivery to public agencies for at least three years, including successful completion of contract deliverables and participation in outcome evaluation. 2. Criminal Justice System Experience: A history of prior successful experience working with a broad spectrum of justice system stakeholders. Attachment A 59 of 90 9/20/16 Page 6 of 44 Final Draft RFP 3. Cultural Competency: Demonstrated understanding and capacity to deliver culturally competent and responsive services. 4. 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. IV. Background Beginning with the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, the federal government mandated that states make efforts to address Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC). An amendment to this law in 1992 changed the language of DMC to Disproportionate Minority Contact to ensure a more holistic view of the entire justice system and various touch points that may contribute to disproportionate outcomes for minority youth. Taking up this mandate, the State of California’s Corrections Standards Authority initiated a multi-pronged effort to address DMC that included the implementation of an Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance Project (DMC-TAP). Along with Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Cruz and Alameda, Contra Costa was among the first five counties awarded a DMC-TAP grant. With this grant, in 2005 Contra Costa convened a workgroup to study DMC in three local areas: Richmond, Bay Point, and the Monument Corridor area of Concord. This project culminated with a December 2008 report that made a number of short to long-term recommendations that were aimed to help the County address the various disparities identified in the study. Currently, the Board of State and Community Corrections continues the state’s work in this area through its support of the Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Subcommittee of the State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In Contra Costa, discussions about the implications of RED in regards to our local justice system have expanded beyond the juvenile justice context. This interest culminated with the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition sending a letter to the County’s Board of Supervisors (Board) in April 2015 requesting review of several matters aimed at identifying and reducing bias towards, and overrepresentation of, minorities in the local criminal justice system. In July 2015, the Board forwarded this matter to its Public Protection Committee (PPC) for further discussion 1. 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. 1 See the report at: http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=7&get_year=2015&dsp=agm&seq=22052&rev=0&ag= 660&ln=43490&nseq=&nrev=&pseq=22038&prev=0#ReturnTo43490 Attachment A 60 of 90 9/20/16 Page 7 of 44 Final Draft RFP 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 country2. At the November 9, 2015 meeting, the Committee received a brief presentation reintroducing the referral 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. These discussions culminated in a joint presentation on December 14, 2015 by the County Public Defender, Chief Probation Officer, and District Attorney that included the following recommendations: (1) the County convene a Task Force to revisit and expand upon the findings of the County’s 2008 DMC-TAP report, (2) the County enter into a contract for a facilitator to help guide the Task Force through this process, and (3) a researcher be paid to help the Task Force collect and analyze data during the process. The Committee directed the three departments above to provide a written project scope and Task Force composition to the Committee for final review. On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted a report and related recommendations from the Committee resulting in the formation of a 17-member Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force composed of the following: • County Probation Officer • Public Defender • District Attorney • Sheriff-Coroner • Health Services Director • Superior Court representative • County Police Chief’s Association representative • Mount Diablo Unified School District representative • Antioch Unified School District representative • West Contra Costa Unified School District representative • (5) Community-based organization (CBO) representatives (at least 1 representative from each region of the County and at least one representative from the faith and family community) • Mental Health representative (not a County employee) • Public Member – At Large 2 See the report at: http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2015&dsp=agm&seq=22947&rev=0&ag= 684&ln=45005&nseq=&nrev=&pseq=22945&prev=0#ReturnTo45005 Attachment A 61 of 90 9/20/16 Page 8 of 44 Final Draft RFP Subsequently, a 7-week recruitment process was initiated to fill the (5) CBO representative seats, the (1) Mental Health representative seat and the (1) Public Member - At Large seat. The deadline for submissions was June 15, 2016 and the County received a total of 28 applications. On June 27, 2016, the PPC met to consider making appointments to the (5) CBO representative seats, the (1) Mental Health representative seat and the (1) Public Member - At Large seat. At the conclusion of the meeting, the PPC directed staff to set a special meeting for early August to consider the final composition of the entire (17) seventeen-member Task Force once all names were received from county departments, school districts, etc. In addition, the Committee recommended changing the title of the Task Force to the "Racial Justice Task Force," which was determined to be more reflective of the current efforts to evaluate racial disparities in the local criminal justice system. On August 15, 2016, the Committee approved the nominations for appointment to the Task Force, including a recommendation that the Superior Court designee seat be a non-voting member of the Task Force at the request of the Superior Court. On September 13, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved the composition of the task force and change of its title. The composition of the Task Force is as follows: Contra Costa County Member Seat Name Title/Affiliation 1.County Probation Officer Todd Billeci County Probation Officer 2.Public Defender Robin Lipetzky Public Defender 3.District Attorney Tom Kensok Assistant District Attorney 4.Sheriff-Coroner John Lowden Captain, Sheriff's Office 5.Health Services Director Dr. William Walker Health Services Director 6.Superior Court Designee* Magda Lopez Director of Court Programs and Services 7.County Police Chief’s Association representative Bisa French Captain, Richmond Police Department 8.Mount Diablo Unified School District representative Debra Mason MDUSD Board Member 9.Antioch Unified School District representative Bob Sanchez AUSD Director of Student Support Services 10.West Contra Costa Unified School District representative Marcus Walton WCCUSD Communications Director 11.CBO seat 1 Stephanie Medley RYSE; AB109 CAB; District I resident 12.CBO seat 2 Donnell Jones CCISCO; District I resident 13.CBO seat 3 Edith Fajardo ACCE Institute; District IV resident 14.CBO seat 4 My Christian CCISCO; District III resident 15.CBO seat 5 Dennisha Marsh First Five CCC; City of Pittsburg Community Advisory Council; District V resident 16.Mental Health representative Christine Gerchow, PhD.Psychologist, Juvenile Hall-Martinez; District IV resident 17.Public Member – At Large Harlan Grossman Past Chair AB 109 CAB; GARE participant; District II resident * Superior Court has requested this seat be non-voting member of the Committee. Racial Justice Task Force, Composition Attachment A 62 of 90 9/20/16 Page 9 of 44 Final Draft RFP V. Funding Up to $225,000 (two hundred twenty five thousand dollars) is allocated in the AB 109 Public Safety Realignment/Community Programs Budget in Fiscal Year 2016-17 to fund data collection, program evaluation and system planning services, to be utilized for projects including an update of the AB 109 Operations Plan, the County’s Reentry Strategic Plan, and the facilitation and data analysis of the Racial Justice Task Force. An RFP is anticipated to be issued in the fall of 2016 for the AB 109 Operations Plan and Reentry Strategic Plan Update. VI. Purpose, Scope of Services of RFP A. Purpose: The County seeks a responder to provide facilitation services for a 17-member Racial Justice Task Force over the course of 18 months, as well as data analysis of the project’s impact. Creation of the Task Force was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2016. The mandate of the Task Force is as follows: 1. Research and identify consensus measures within the County to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system; 2. Plan and oversee 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. The selected contractor for this project will be responsible for ensuring that the Task Force meets these objectives. These facilitation and data analysis services must be independent and objective. In the performance of these services, the successful contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest and all appearances of conflicts of interest. All conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest shall be described in detail in the response with any proposed resolutions to allow the services to be completed objectively. The proposers of the facilitation and data analysis services for the Racial Justice Task Force must demonstrate expertise in racial and criminal justice facilitation as well as the ability to evaluate and analyze the effectiveness and outcomes of reforms recommended by the Task Force. The successful contractor is also expected to facilitate implementation of selected reforms in the County, with emphasis on building community engagement. The successful contractor must collaborate with traditional County criminal justice stakeholders and community representatives to identify appropriate reforms, oversee implementation of those reforms, and design and perform data analysis to assess implementation. Responders should demonstrate past experience with or willingness to collaborate with other research partners that may be engaged by the County. Attachment A 63 of 90 9/20/16 Page 10 of 44 Final Draft RFP B. Scope of Services In responding, responders should indicate how they would address the following areas of work and demonstrate capacity and experience in multiple realms related to this RFP, such as: Facilitation Services 1. Development of group operating guidelines to support meaningful participation by all Task Force members and efficient and effective decision making by the Task Force; 2. Assessments of and recommendations regarding racial and criminal justice reforms; 3. Development of countywide, shared definitions for critical elements of racial and criminal justice reform (e.g., a common definition or set of definitions for disproportionality); 4. Development and production of a public report regarding racial disparities in the criminal justice system and the impacts of implemented reforms selected by the RJTF. 5. Subject-matter research and advice related to racial and criminal justice reform implementation and evaluation strategies in other counties. Data Analysis Services 1. Analysis of existing countywide racial and criminal justice disparities; 2. Development of countywide, shared baseline data sets and common baseline outcome metrics, benchmarks, and comparison sets; 3. Applying mixed-methods designs, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques, in evaluation; 4. Assessment and recommendations related to options for data infrastructures; and Contractor(s) will be expected to appear before and present to the Public Protection Committee periodically throughout the contract period, providing progress reports both orally and written. VII. Contract Monitoring 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 1 month of award; b. Perform all services without material deviation from an agreed-upon Service Plan; c. Complete progress reports in a timely manner; d. Maintain adequate records of service provision to document compliance with Service Plan and complete forms supplied; e. Cooperate with the collection of other data as requested by the County. Attachment A 64 of 90 9/20/16 Page 11 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE RFP Requirements and Instructions Attachment A 65 of 90 9/20/16 Page 12 of 44 Final Draft RFP RFP Requirements and Instructions for Responders The responder requirements in this section are mandatory. Contra Costa County reserves the right to waive any nonmaterial variation. 1. All responders shall submit one (1) 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 12:00 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 4, 2016. Each submission must be marked on the outside with the Responder’s name and RFP #1609-196. Any response received after the deadline will be rejected. Postmarks, faxed and e-mailed 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 RFP. Responders that are non- compliant with technical requirements will not move forward to the Review Panel. 3. All costs incurred in the preparation of a response will be the responsibility of the responder and will not be reimbursed by the County. 4. A response may be withdrawn in person prior to 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Nov. 7, 2016. If withdrawing a response, the responder must provide appropriate identification (i.e. driver’s license) and sign a receipt attesting to his/her withdrawal of the response. 5. A mandatory conference for prospective responders will be held on Oct. 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the County Zoning Administrator’s Room at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, to answer questions about the RFP process. 6. Prospective responders interested in participating in the Bidders Conference are requested to return the Bidders Conference RSVP on page 28 by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 3, 2016. 7. Any questions regarding this RFP should be emailed to Lara.DeLaney@cao.cccounty.us on or before 12:00 p.m. on Oct. 21, 2016. Please include RFP #1609-196 in the subject line. 8. 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/2366/Services-Programs and, if after the optional bidders conference, emailed to all those attending. The CAO may extend the RFP submission date, if necessary, to allow responders adequate time to consider additional information and submit required data. 9. 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. Attachment A 66 of 90 9/20/16 Page 13 of 44 Final Draft RFP 10. With respect to this RFP, the County reserves the right to reject any, some, or all 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. 11. Responses will be judged on overall quality of content and responsiveness to the purpose and specifications of this RFP. Responses should be without expensive artwork, unusual printing, or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the response. Evaluation criteria and scoring factors are described below. 12. A Review Panel will evaluate responses received. The panel may be composed of representatives of the Public Defender’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, the Probation Department, the District Attorney’s Office and members of the Racial Justice Coalition. (Panel composition subject to change depending on availability of participants.) On the basis of panel ratings recommendations, the Public Protection Committee will make recommendations to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Responders will be notified of this recommendation in writing. Award of a contract by the Board of Supervisors will constitute acceptance of a response. 13. Only responders submitting a response in accordance with RFP #1609-196 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 p.m. on Nov. 18, 2016. Notification of a final decision on the appeal shall be made in writing to the responder within five (5) days, and the decision of the CAO shall be final and not subject to further review. 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 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. • . 14. Successful responders will be expected to promptly enter contract negotiation with the CAO. This may result in mutually agreed upon changes in plans or activities identified in the response. As a result of this negotiation, actual contract(s) may include other agreements and clarifications of activities, consistent with the intent of this RFP. 15. 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 Attachment A 67 of 90 9/20/16 Page 14 of 44 Final Draft RFP to the effective date of any contract. 16. 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. 17. The contract from this RFP will be for the Dec. 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 period, with satisfactory performance as a condition of any future contract renewal. 18. Each response to this RFP will be a public record that will be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code, § 6250, et seq.) and the County’s Better Government Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Title 2, Division 25). 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 68 of 90 9/20/16 Page 15 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE RESPONSE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS Attachment A 69 of 90 9/20/16 Page 16 of 44 Final Draft RFP Response Preparation Instructions RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS 1. Responses must be in the form of a package containing a complete response and all required supporting information and documents. Each responder must submit one (1) original package and eight (8) complete copies with attachments included. 3. Response materials are to be double-spaced on 8 1/2" x 11" paper (recycled preferred) with no less than 1" margins on all sides, using an easy to read 12-point font. Total response should not exceed 10 pages excluding cover sheet, table of contents, budget and 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 1-3 (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 response 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. SECTION II—PROGRAM NARRATIVE II.1 Agency Overview (2 pages or less) Information regarding a data analysis partner should be included in this section if Responder intends to work with a separate provider partner for these services. A. State your organization’s mission and its overall service philosophy. B. Describe briefly: Attachment A 70 of 90 9/20/16 Page 17 of 44 Final Draft RFP 1. Responder’s history, years in operation, and number of years providing services described herein. 2. Responder’s primary areas of expertise and current core services. 3. Responder’s qualifications (including resources and capabilities) as they relate to the scope of services described herein. II.2 Approach to Scope of Work (9 pages or fewer) Responses should address the following key concepts and goals: • The County has multiple goals for facilitating and analyzing the data related to the Racial Justice Task Force:  Establish a group process that ensures meaningful participation and equal decision making power to community and government members alike;  Research and identify appropriate reform measures to address racial disparities;  Plan and facilitate implementation of reforms recommended by the Task Force;  Ensure community engagement in the Task Force process and reforms;  Support the development of key definitions (such as shared definitions of disproportionality) and “Learning Questions,” such as, “What factors are most highly correlated with decreased rates of racial disproportionality for individuals in Contra Costa County?” • Facilitation and data analysis for this project may involve several phases of work; these phases may be undertaken by one or more consultants and may be implemented simultaneously or sequentially, as appropriate. • Facilitation and data analysis will involve departments and divisions of multiple County agencies and municipalities; multiple systems (law enforcement, behavioral health, social service, courts, education); private/nonprofit service providers; and community members at large. • The project may require contractors with multiple capacities including:  Assessment of multiple existing racial and criminal justice reform models;  The ability to identify needs, challenges, and potential solutions to enable research, selection, implementation, and analysis of appropriate reforms. • The project may require the utilization of mixed methods, including combined review and analysis of departmental documentation; quantitative data from County and private Attachment A 71 of 90 9/20/16 Page 18 of 44 Final Draft RFP data systems; and qualitative data from interviews with partner agencies, service providers, and community members. • The project may include the development of an interim project evaluation, including key findings and recommendations for next steps or course corrections. 1. Organizational Capacity to Provide Services a. Describe your organizational capacity to perform the facilitation and data analysis services described herein and provide an organizational chart. Organizational chart will not count towards page limit. If you are proposing a partner agency to provide either service, the partner agency’s capacity must also be described. b. Submit a staffing plan for all staff working directly or indirectly on this project, including: staff name and job title; time allocated to project; duties/activities. Attach a current resume or CV for each staff position proposed for this project, and the executive management of the organization. Describe briefly how the staffing plan meets the needs of the project. Clearly indicate positions you will need to hire; any attached resume or CV will not count against page limit. If you are proposing a partner agency, the partner agency plan must also be described. c. Describe your staff’s skills and qualifications to perform the services of facilitation and data analysis. If you are proposing a partner agency, the partner agency’s staff skills and qualifications must also be discussed. d. Describe your staff’s experience and expertise in working with diverse sub- populations. If you are proposing a partner agency, the partner agency’s staff experience and expertise must also be discussed. 2. Technical Expertise A. Discuss your (and/or your partner agency, if need be) subject-matter expertise as it relates to: 1. racial and criminal justice reform facilitation; 2. racial and criminal justice reform implementation; 3. community engagement related to selection, implementation, and assessment of racial and criminal justice reform; 4. public/private multi-stakeholder projects; 5. racial and criminal justice reform data analysis and assessment; 6. public presentation of data. Attachment A 72 of 90 9/20/16 Page 19 of 44 Final Draft RFP B. Discuss your expertise (or that of your partner agency) in group facilitation and project management of multi-stakeholder initiatives that engage public agencies, law enforcement, community-based organizations, and community members, including formerly incarcerated individuals. 3. Experience with Similar Projects a. Describe any similar past projects 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. b. Describe any similar past projects that involved informal or formal collaboration with additional research partners or initiatives. Describe past experience collaborating with research partners and highlight any lessons applicable to this scope of work. 4. Implementation a. Attach a timeline that includes all phases of implementation, project milestones, and key activities of staff. The timeline will not count towards any page limit. b. Discuss how, where, and by whom specific services would be provided. SECTION III. - BUDGET INFORMATION III. Line-Item Budget and Budget Narrative A. Complete a line-item budget for all aspects of the project, showing all costs. The Budget should include a breakdown of all costs that demonstrates computations for each budget category (i.e., Personnel, Benefits, Supplies, Local Travel, etc.) Budgets should also clearly indicate the availability of matching resources and their source for additional points. Proposed budgets are expected to be complete, reasonable, cost effective, and necessary for proposed activities. • Include the compensation rates and hours/FTEs of proposed personnel. • Estimate the cost for the program and or projects undertaken, if a phased approach is utilized. Tie costs to anticipated phases or milestones. B. Program Budget Narrative Each budget cost item must be detailed in the narrative and should reflect the basis for the computations. Attachment A 73 of 90 9/20/16 Page 20 of 44 Final Draft RFP If you anticipate using subcontractors or partners, explain the proposed scope and costs anticipated for their services. 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 narrative. Indirect 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 Attachment A 74 of 90 9/20/16 Page 21 of 44 Final Draft RFP 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. Each item over $100 should be explained individually. IV. Letters of Recommendation Provide no more than three (3) relevant letters of recommendation. These letters should speak specifically to the services you are seeking to provide and your organization’s demonstrated experience and expertise. Attachment A 75 of 90 9/20/16 Page 22 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE RESPONSE REVIEW AND SELECTION Attachment A 76 of 90 9/20/16 Page 23 of 44 Final Draft RFP Response Review and Selection All responses submitted in compliance with the RFP requirements will be eligible for review and selection. Response Selection Methodology: A. CAO staff will review each response's adherence to RFP specifications, including: 1. Forms and Attachments 2. Response Narrative 3. Budget Information B. All responses deemed responsive will be referred to the RFP Review Panel. 1. The panel may be composed of representatives of Probation, Public Defender, the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office and the Racial Justice Coalition. (Panel composition subject to change depending on participant availability.) 2. The Review Panel will review all qualified responses and evaluate and score all responses utilizing the Rating Sheet on page 25. 3. Interviews may be conducted on November 10, 2016, as needed. C. The Public Protection Committee will make recommendations for contract award to the Board of Supervisors after considering the recommendation of the Review Panel. Attachment A 77 of 90 9/20/16 Page 24 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE Rating Sheet Attachment A 78 of 90 9/20/16 Page 25 of 44 Final Draft RFP Rating Sheet Responses will be rated as follows with a maximum score of 100: Program Elements and Possible Score I. Cover Statement and Table of Contents (required but not rated) II.1. Agency Overview 0-10 1. Organization’s overall services/history (10 pts.) II.2. Program Proposal 0-70 1. Capacity to Provide Services (20 pts.) 2. Technical Expertise (20 pts.) 3. Experience with Similar Projects (20 pts.) 4. Program Implementation (10 pts.) III. Program Budget/Narrative 0-20 Budget complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and necessary. (17 pts.) Matching/leveraged resources (3 pts.) Total: 100 pts. Attachment A 79 of 90 9/20/16 Page 26 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE ATTACHMENT A REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS AND CHECKLIST Attachment A 80 of 90 9/20/16 Page 27 of 44 Final Draft RFP Required Attachments and Checklist Each respondent must submit a response 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. Agency Organizational Chart  E. Job Descriptions and Resumes of Executive Director and key program staff  F. Implementation Timeline  G. Budget Information  H. Letters of Recommendation  I. List of Agency Board of Directors (Form #2)  J. 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.) Attachment A 81 of 90 9/20/16 Page 28 of 44 Final Draft RFP Bidders Conference RSVP Form To: Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator County Administrator’s Office Attention: RFP #1609-196 Lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us Re: Attendance at Bidders Conference for RFP #1609-196 I/We plan to participate in the Bidders Conference: Name(s): Organization: Email: Phone: Please return the completed form to the above email address by 5:00 p.m., Monday, Oct. 3, 2016. Attachment A 82 of 90 9/20/16 Page 29 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE FORM 1 Proposal Cover Statement Attachment A 83 of 90 9/20/16 Page 30 of 44 Final Draft RFP FORM #1 PROPOSAL COVER STATEMENT FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS FOR RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE 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: _____________ We submit the attached proposal and attachments in response to Contra Costa County’s Request for Proposals #1609-196, 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 84 of 90 9/20/16 Page 31 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE FORM 2 Current Board of Directors Attachment A 85 of 90 9/20/16 Page 32 of 44 Final 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 86 of 90 9/20/16 Page 33 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE FORM 3 Bidder’s Statement of Qualifications Attachment A 87 of 90 9/20/16 Page 34 of 44 Final 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 88 of 90 9/20/16 Page 35 of 44 Final 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) Attachment A 89 of 90 9/20/16 Page 36 of 44 Final Draft RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #1609-196 “FACILITATION AND DATA ANALYSIS” FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE General Conditions of County Contract Attachment A 90 of 90