Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 12022019 - PPC Agenda PktPUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE December 2, 2019 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, 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 November 4, 2019 meeting. (Page 4) 4.CONSIDER the applicants for the vacant victims' representative seat on the Community Corrections Partnership; CONDUCT interviews; and NOMINATE an individual to the Board of Supervisors to fill the vacancy. (Ramsey AlQaisi, Senior Management Analyst) (Page 7) 5.CONSIDER accepting an update on the implementation of the moratorium on the collection of certain criminal justice fees assessed by the County and provide direction to staff regarding next steps. (Paul Reyes, Senior Deputy County Administrator) (Page 35) 6.PROVIDE input and direction to staff on the Draft Racial Equity Action Plan 2019-2024. (Lara DeLaney & Donte Blue, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 83) 7.RECEIVE a presentation on Contra Costa County - A Place to Thrive and PROVIDE direction to staff. (Devorah Levine, EHSD & Ali Saidi, Public Defender's Office) (Page 120) 8.CONSIDER review panel recommendation to award $300,000 to Rubicon Program, Inc. for an innovative reentry program, and PROVIDE direction on the use of Local Innovation Fund revenue. (Donte Blue, ORJ) (Page 147) 9.The next meeting is to be determined. 10.Adjourn The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353 paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:12/02/2019 Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - November 4, 2019 Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - November 4, 2019  Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, (925) 335-1096 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 the Committee's November 4, 2019 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the November 4, 2019 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - Nov 4, 2019 Page 4 of 151 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION FOR November 4, 2019   Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair                   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).    Public comment was received.   3.APPROVE Record of Action from the September 30, 2019 meeting.      Approved as presented.   4.ACCEPT an update on the implementation of a moratorium on the collection and assessment of certain criminal justice fees assessed by the County; and 1. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps.2.       Approved as presented with the following direction provided to staff:  Staff to convene the workgroup to gather known state and local data and put it together into a summary report in preparation of returning to the Board of Supervisors in December 2019. 1. County Administrator's Office to authorize the Court to move forward with the necessary work to identify the impacted accounts if it is within the CAO's authority. 2.   5.The next meeting is currently scheduled for December 2, 2019.   6.Adjourn    Adjourned.     Page 5 of 151    For Additional Information Contact:  Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353 paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us Page 6 of 151 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:12/02/2019   Subject:Community Corrections Partnership Applicants for Victims' Representative Seat  Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.:   Referral Name: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP VICTIMS' REPRESENTATIVE  Presenter: R. AlQaisi, (925) 335-1089 Contact: R. AlQaisi, (925) 335-1089 Referral History: In 2011, the California Legislature passed Realignment legislation addressing public safety (AB 109). This law transferred responsibility for supervising and housing individuals convicted of certain low-level felonies to counties and tasked local county government with developing a new approach to reducing future involvement in criminal activity for this population. Among the major changes to the local criminal justice system created by AB 109: 1) The incarceration of people convicted of certain low-level felonies (specified nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenses) to terms in local county jails, instead of state prisons, possibly followed by a mandatory term of supervision by Probation; 2) the local county supervision by Probation, instead of state parole, of people convicted of certain lower-level felonies (non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) after their release from state prison under a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS); and 3) the incarceration of individuals in local jails, instead of state prison, for violations and revocations of both parole supervision and PRCS. AB 109 also created an Executive Committee of the local Community Corrections Partnership and tasked it with recommending a Realignment Plan to the county Board of Supervisors for implementation of the criminal justice realignment. The Community Corrections Partnership is identified in statute as the following: Community Corrections Partnership 1. Chief Probation Officer (Chair) 2. Presiding Judge (or designee) 3. County supervisor, County Administrative Officer, or a designee of the Board of Supervisors 4. District Attorney 5. Public Defender Page 7 of 151 6. Sheriff 7. Chief of Police 8. Head of the County department of social services 9. Head of the County department of mental health 10.Head of the County department of employment 11.Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs 12.Head of the County Office of Education 13.Community Based Organization representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders 14.Victims’ representative Community Corrections Partnership Victims' Representative Vacancy At the September 30, 2019 PPC meeting, the Board was provided with a report on the victims' representative vacancy on the Community Corrections Partnership board. The PPC then determined to proceed with an 6-week recruitment and selection process for the vacant seat using this timeline:  October 11: issue press release and conduct outreach  November 22: Application Deadline  December 2: PPC Meeting Interviews  December 17: Board of Supervisors' consideration of PPC nominations This appointment, once made by the BOS, will be effective through December 31, 2020. The County Administrator's Office issued a press release for the vacancy.  Referral Update: As of close of business on November 22, 2019, four applications for the victims' representative vacancy have been received. The four (4) applications are included in Attachment B, with all addresses, emails, and signatures of applicants redacted. All applicants were notified about the public interviews with the PPC on November 25, 2019. A summary of the information provided by the applicants is included in Attachment C.  Here are short biographies of the individuals applying to fill the vacant seat: Glenn Bivens is a resident of Pittsburg and works in Martinez. He is currently a Victim/Witness Assistance Program Specialist with the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office. He completed an Associate Degree in Journalism from Los Angeles City College and complete Criminal Justice courses at Diablo Valley College. Recently, he worked as an Exchange Agent for about 3 years at the Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department. He previously worked at the Alameda County Probation Department for around 20 years in roles including Institutional Supervisor and Institutional Officer. Glenn Bivens has volunteer experience with the Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Commissioner, Black Families Association of Central Contra Costa, Richmond Rescue Mission, and the Darius Jones Foundation. Mary Knox is a resident of Contra Costa County District 4 and works in Martinez. She had been a Deputy District Attorney in Contra Costa County for 34 years and has handled thousands of cases. She has experience interacting with crime victims and their families. She has a History degree from UCLA and a Law degree from Pepperdine University. She serves on the Walnut Creek Education Foundation Board.Page 8 of 151 Creek Education Foundation Board. Ana Villalobos is a resident of Pittsburg. She has worked for the Contra Costa County Health Services Department since 2016 as a Health Education Specialist. She has previous experience with Kaiser Permanente in roles including a Healthy Eating and Active Living Manager. This accounts for around 15 years of experience working as a Health Education Specialist supporting and training people to create positive changes in their lives and communities. Ana has a bachelor's degree in Nursing from the University of Mexicali, Baja California. She received her Registered Nurse’s license in 1992.  Shannon Mahoney works and lives in Martinez. She is employed as a Victim Witness Program Manager at the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office. She has worked in the Victim Assistance Program since 2006. She has a bachelor’s degree in Psychology from California State University Chico and master’s degree in Counseling Psychology. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER applications submitted to the Clerk of the Board for the vacant seat on the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP). 1. INTERVIEW applicants for the vacant victims' representative seat on the CCP.2. CONSIDER making nominations to the Board of Supervisors at their December 17, 2019 meeting to fill the vacancy on the CCP. 3. Attachments Attachment A - 2019 CCP Membership Attachment B - CCP Victim Representative Applications Atachment C - CCP Victim Representative Applicant Summary Page 9 of 151 EXHIBIT A - 2019 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP Seat Term Expiration Chief Probation Officer (Chair)ex-officio Presiding Judge (or designee)ex-officio County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS December 31, 2019 District Attorney ex-officio Public Defender ex-officio Sheriff ex-officio Chief of Police December 31, 2019 Head of the County department of social services ex-officio Head of the County department of mental health Appointee Todd Billeci Jim Paulsen (designee of Presiding Judge) David J. Twa, County Administrator Diana Becton Robin Lipetzky David O. Livingston Tamany Brooks, City of Antioch Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director Suzanne Tavano, Director of Behavioral Health Services ex-officio Head of the County department of employment Donna Van Wert, Executive Director-Workforce Development Board ex-officio Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs Fatima Matal Sol, Director of Alcohol and Other Drugs ex-officio Head of the County Office of Education Lynn Mackey, County Superintendent of Schools ex-officio CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders Patrice Guillory December 31, 2019 Victim's Representative Vacant December 31, 2019 Page 10 of 151 EXHIBIT B - 2019 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Seat Appointee Term Expiration Chief Probation Officer (Chair)Todd Billeci ex-officio Presiding Judge (or designee)Jim Paulsen (designee of Presiding Judge)ex-officio District Attorney Diana Becton ex-officio Public Defender Robin Lipetzky ex-officio Sheriff David O. Livingston ex-officio Chief of Police Tamany Brooks, City of Antioch December 31, 2019 Representative approved by BOS from the following CCP members:Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director December 31, 2019 *Head of County department of Social Services *Head of County department of mental health *Head of County department of alcohol and substance abuse programs Page 11 of 151 Page 12 of 151 Page 13 of 151 GLENN I. BIVENS OBJECTIVES I am seeking a career in community support services that would include work with individuals and groups as applicable. I have over 30 years of professional and volunteer experience in corrections, counseling and support services. I also have two years of investigative interviewing for a college newspaper with an All American rating. EDUCATION Los Angeles City College 1978 Associate in Arts Degree in Journalism Recognition: • Journalism Association of Community Colleges Award Winner 1978 • Editor of Los Angeles Collegian Newspaper 1977-1978, All American Status Publication Award • Numerous staff awards for page layout, writing and photography Diablo Valley College 1999 Completed lower division studies Criminal Justice EXPERIENCE Contra Costa County (District Attorney Office) | 900 Ward Street Martinez, CA 94553 Victim/Witness Assistance Program Specialist 02/1/2018 – Present Contact victims and witnesses of crime. Explain the role of the victim/witness advocate. Provide the client with an overview of the prosecution process and their rights under Marsy’s Law. Connect the client with restorative services through State Agencies, Cal Victim Compensation Board, and local non- profit agencies. Duties also include court accompaniment, filing restitution claims, safety planning and Criminal Protective Orders. Position also includes making presentations to law enforcement, community centers, schools, community based, government and private organizations about Victim and Witness Services. Page 14 of 151 GLENN BIVENS Training • CCVAA Entry Level Advocate Training (40 hours) • Completion of 100% of OVC TTAC Online Training • CCVAA Mass Casualty Training • Online Trainings-Safe at Home, • Taking Victim Services to the Next Level • Webinars- Signs of Elder Abuse, Cyberbullying, DV/SA Survivors, Contra Costa County (EHSD) | 40 Douglas Street, Martinez, CA 94553 Exchange agent 1 07/10/2013 – 11/30/2016 Call center customer service representative. Inform and educate California residents about medical benefits mandated by the Federal Affordable Care Act (ACA). Enroll new customers in ACA and Medi-Cal health plans while assisting individuals through the online customer portals. Report and protect Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act information. SKILLS • Microsoft Office software • Softphone Alameda County - Probation | 400 Broadway Oakland, CA 94607 Institutional Supervisor September 2005 – March 2012 Duties include supervision and training of duty peace officers in a custodial institution. Oversee all custodial and educational operations within the 358 bed facility. Job duties included overseeing the intake and releasing process of detainees. I served as juvenile activities program facilitator. Coordinate academics and physical fitness competitions for youth. Developed and co-authored the detention facilities organizational operations manual. SKILLS • Microsoft Office software • Intake (booking) of detained persons • Trained in weapon scanning, processing of evidence, fingerprinting, DNA collection, use of physical and chemical restraints • Transportation of detainees Alameda County (Probation) | 400 Broadway Oakland, CA 94607 Institutional Officer December 1986 – September 2005 Duties included intake and custodial care of juvenile offenders assigned to the facility. I served as a court officer and transporter for Oakland presiding court (5 years) and the Hayward court (3 years). During my period as an institutional officer, I developed and conducted detainee workshops for life skills, citizenship and inter-cultural education. Under direct approval from management, I created a speakers’ bureau which included Tuskegee Airmen, local sports figures and community leaders. Page 15 of 151 GLENN BIVENS VOLUNTEER WORK 1998-2002 Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Commissioner 1996-2002 Black Families Association of Central Contra Costa 2003-2009 Richmond Rescue Mission (Pastor) 2010-current Darius Jones Foundation (Board Member) Page 16 of 151 I Print Form I Please return completed applications to: Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St., Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 or email to : ClerkoITheBoard@cob.cccounty.us BOARDS. COMMITIEES, AND COMMISSIONS APPLICATION First Name Last Name I Mary Elizabeth I Knox Home Address -Street City Zip Code I Martinez lea . Phone (best number to reach you) Email I Resident of Supervisorial District: EDUCATION Check appropria~ox if you possess one of the following: llJ High School Diploma LJCA High School Proficiency Certificate oG.E.D. Certificate Colleges or Universities Attended Course of Study/Major Degree Awarded UCLA History iii Yes D No Pepperdine University School of Law Law iii Yes D No D Yes D No Other Training Completed: I Board, Committee or Commission Name Seat Name I Public Protection Committee .... I V-ic-tim_s_' -R-ep-re-s-en-ta-ti-ve------------- Have you ever attended a meeting of the advisory board for which you are applying? D No iii Yes If yes, how many? l-2----------..... Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, committee, or commission. The CCP is entrusted with making decisions regarding the supervision and rehabilitation of individuals who have been convicted of felonies. These decisions have a significant impact on public safety and on those who have been the victims of the felonious conduct. I would like to ensure that crime victims have a voice in this process Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume with this application) I have been employed as a deputy district attorney in Contra Costa County for 34 years and handled thousands of felony prosecutions. Throughout my years as a prosecutor, I have had direct interaction with crime victims and their families and the issues they have faced in the criminal justice system. I am including my resume with this application: Please check one: D Yes iii No I would like to be considered for appointment to other advisory bodies for which I may be qualified. Please check one: D Yes iii No THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Page 17 of 151 Are you currently or have you ever been appointed to a Contra Costa County advisory board? Please check one: D Yes Iii No List any volunteer and community experience, including any boards on which you have served. I WCEF board , 4 years Do you have a familial relationship with a member of the Board of Supervisors? (Please refer to the relationships listed below or Resolution no. 2011/55) Please check one: D Yes Iii No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Do you have any financial relationships with the county, such as grants, contracts, or other economic relationships? Please check one: Iii Yes D No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: I Employment I CERTIFY that the statements made by me in this application are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I acknowledge and understand that all information in this application is publicly accessible. I understand and agree that misstatements and/or ommissions of material fact may cause forfeiture ~~yrights to serve on a .. b.oardy:omm·.1iite, 31 c~mmission in Contra Costa County. Signed: Date: 11/15/2019 Submit this application to: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St., Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Questions about this application? Contact the Clerk of the Board at {925) 335-1900 or by email at ClerkofTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us Important Information 1. This application and any attachments you provide to it is a public document and is subject to the California Public Records Act (CA Government Code §6250-6270). 2. All members of appointed bodies are required to take the advisory body training provided by Contra Costa County. 3. Members of certain boards, commissions, and committees may be required to: 1) file a Statement of Economic Interest Form also known as a Form 700, and 2) complete the State Ethics Training Course as required by AB 1234. 4. Meetings may be held in various locations and some locations may not be accessible by public transportation. 5. Meeting dates and times are subject to change and may occur up to two (2) days per month. 6. Some boards, committees, or commissions may assign members to subcommittees or work groups which may require an additional commitment of time. 7. As indicated in Board Resolution 2011/55, a person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of Supervisors member in any of the following relationships: mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, granddaughter, great- grandfather, great-grandmother, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, great-grandson, great-granddaughter, first-cousin, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, stepdaughter, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, spouse's grandmother, spouse's grandfather, spouse's granddaughter, and spouses' grandson, registered domestic partner, relatives of a registered domestic partner as listed above. 8. A person will not be eligible to serve if the person shares a financial interest as defined in Government Code §87103 with a Board of Supervisors Member. THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Page 18 of 151 I Print Form I Please return completed applications to: Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St., Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 or email to: ClerkofTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us BOARDS, COMMITIEES, AND COMMISSIONS APPLICATION First Name Last Name I Shannon I Mahoney Home Address -Street City Zip Code I Martinez 194553 Phone (best number to reach you) Email Resident of Supervisorial District: Is EDUCATION Check appropriafe-b,ox if you possess one of the following: lZJ High School Diploma l_JCA High School Proficiency Certificate oG.E.D. Certificate Colleges or Universities Attended Course of Study /Major Degree Awarded Diablo Valley College Associates of Arts Degree Iii Yes D No California State University, Chico Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology Ii! Yes D No John F. Kennedy University Master of Arts Degree in Counseling Psychology Iii Yes D No Other Training Completed: I Board, Committee or Commission Name Seat Name Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership .... 1 V_ic_ti_m_s_' R_e_p_re_s_en_ta_t_iv_e _____________ _, Have you ever attended a meeting of the advisory board for which you are applying? ------------------------. Ii! No D Yes If yes, how many? Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, committee, or commission. As the Victim Witness Program Manager for the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office, I am dedicated to serving victims of all crimes in our community. I constantly work to strengthen the victim services response in our county by advocating for victims' rights and ensuring that crime victims have a voice in the criminal justice process. I believe that my experience as an advocate, combined with my passion to make a difference for crime victims, makes me a good candidate to fill the victims' representative seat on this board. Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume with this application) I hold a bachelor's degree in psychology and a master's degree in counseling psychology. Before coming to the DA's Office, I worked with children and parents involved in the foster care system. I saw the impact that trauma has on families. I began as a victim advocate in 2006, working with victims in all areas of the county. I took over as the interim program manager in 2012 and was placed into the permanent position in 2014. I am fortunate to have incredible advocates that provide invaluable services to the most vulnerable members in our community. I use creative victim centered practices to meet the needs of the people we serve. I collaborate with community and law enforcement partners to provide trauma informed, culturally responsive services to crime victims. I am including my resume with this application: Please check one: Iii Yes D No I would like to be considered for appointment to other advisory bodies for which I may be qualified. Please check one: D Yes Iii No THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Page 19 of 151 Are you currently or have you ever been appointed to a Contra Costa County advisory board? Please check one: D Yes ~ No List any volunteer and community experience, including any boards on which you have served. While I have not served on any boards, I am invested in our community and participate in several meetings and collaborative groups with regard to victim services. I was previously a member of the Contra Costa County Human Trafficking Coalition executive team and served on multiple sub-committees. Do you have a familial relationship with a member of the Board of Supervisors? (Please refer to the relationships listed below or Resolution no. 2011/55) Please check one: D Yes ~ No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Do you have any financial relationships with the county, such as grants, contracts, or other economic relationships? Please check one: ~ Yes D No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: I County employee, CCP funds 3 advocates I CERTIFY that the statements made by me in this application are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I acknowledge and understand that all information in this application is publicly accessible. I understand and agree that misstatements and/or ommissions of material fact may cause for ontra Costa County . Signed: 651 Pin St., Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Questions about this application? Contact the Clerk of the Board at (925) 335-1900 or by email at ClerkofTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us Im p ortant Information 1. This application and any attachments you provide to it is a public document and is subject to the California Public Records Act (CA Government Code §6250-6270). 2. All members of appointed bodies are required to take the advisory body training provided by Contra Costa County. 3. Members of certain boards, commissions, and committees may be required to: 1) file a Statement of Economic Interest Form also known as a Form 700, and 2) complete the State Ethics Training Course as required by AB 1234. 4. Meetings may be held in various locations and some locations may not be accessible by public transportation. 5. Meeting dates and times are subject to change and may occur up to two (2) days per month. 6. Some boards, committees, or commissions may assign members to subcommittees or work groups which may require an additional commitment of time. 7. As indicated in Board Resolution 2011/55, a person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of Supervisors member in any of the following relationships: mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, granddaughter, great- grandfather, great-grandmother, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, great-grandson, great-granddaughter, first-cousin, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, stepdaughter, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, spouse's grandmother, spouse's grandfather, spouse's granddaughter, and spouses' grandson, registered domestic partner, relatives of a registered domestic partner as listed above. 8. A person will not be eligible to serve if the person shares a financial interest as defined in Government Code §87103 with a Board of Supervisors Member. THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Page 20 of 151 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office Victim Assistance Program Victim Witness Program Manager Martinez, CA November 2014 – Present • Manage the day to day operations of the Victim Witness Assistance Program, consisting of multiple grant funding sources. Train and supervise program staff located at sites throughout the county • Provide trauma informed and victim centered services to victims of violent crime; including homicide, sexual assault, domestic violence, human trafficking and elder abuse • Able to adapt to emotionally charged situations and meet the diverse needs of our community. Strong understanding of the dynamics of violence and trauma to support survivors as they heal • Excellent relationships with District Attorney’s Office staff, law enforcement and community organizations to bring together different ideas and approaches • Assist in strengthening collaborative partnerships with community organizations and justice partners to support a successful response to violence as well as strategies regarding prevention and education • Knowledge of current trends, legislation and laws. Assist in budget planning and assessing grant needs while staying current on changing regulations and policies • Program performance evaluation to ensure grant objectives are being met and to address gaps in service delivery • Actively participate in community meetings and coalitions. Complete speaking engagements on a variety of topics at different venues to increase awareness around the dynamics that cri me victims face • Plan and host training opportunities for law enforcement and community partners. Assist with outreach campaigns through public service announcements and written materials. • Compile statistics and grant reports for grant funders and the District Attorney’s Office Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office Victim Assistance Program Victim Witness Interim Pr ogram Manager Martinez, CA December 2012 – November 2014 • Oversee daily program activities and goals to ensure that victims receive a high standard of service while advocating for victims’ rights under Marsy’s Law • Provide direct services to victims including crisis intervention, appropriate referrals, support through the criminal justice system, restitution and victim impact statement assistance • Assist in interviewing, hiring, and evaluation of Victim Witness staff members • Maintain strong relationships with all justice partners and community organizations to assist in providing victim centered services • Utilize case management systems to maintain accurate records of services and provide training to staff members • Create program brochures, pamphlets and training materials to spread awareness about services for crime victims and build relationships within the community • Participate in the evaluation of program goals and staff performance and assist in the disciplinary or corrective process • Complete quarterly reports for the District Attorney’s Office and grant funders as well as to assess program effectiveness Page 21 of 151 Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office Victim Assistance Program Victim Witness Program Specialist Martinez, CA April 2006 – December 2012 • Advocate for crime victims’ constitutional rights while collaborating with Deputy District Attorneys, law enforcement, and other community agencies to aid in the successful prosecution of criminal cases. • Skilled at reading different character and personality traits of individuals while adjusting my approach to better meet the needs of the survivor • Proficient in using Microsoft Office programs and completing administrative duties • Strong organizational skills to effectively manage hundreds of cases a year while meeting deadlines • Show resourcefulness and initiative in working with attorney staff to better support victims. • Network with all staff members involved in the criminal justice system and community agencies to ensure awareness of my mission, so that I may better advocate for victims. • Ability to manage and diffuse emotional reactions of people facing traumatic situations. Family Stress Center Parent Aide Coordinator Antioch, CA July 2003 – April 2006 • Train and supervise Parent Aide staff. • Supervise management of cases and scheduling of parent -child visitations for families whose children have been placed in the foster care system for Central and East Contra Costa County • Supervise visitations for Children and Family Services between biological parents and children placed in the foster care system. • Work alongside Social Workers and foster families to organize and complete visitations. • Compile monthly reports and help facilitate staff meetings. EDUCATION John F. Kennedy University Graduated June 2005 Pleasant Hill, CA • Master of Arts Degree in Counseling Psychology California State University Chico Graduated May 2002 Chico, CA • Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology Diablo Valley College Graduated December 1999 Pleasant Hill, CA • Associate of Arts Degree AWARDS • 2009 Community Violence Solutions Community Champion Award CERTIFICATES • 2006 California Victim Witness Advocate Entry Level Training Certificate • 2007 California Advanced Level Victim Advocate Training Certificate • 2009 NOVA Community Crisis Response Team Training Certificate • 2013 California Victim Witness Program Coordinator Training Certificate References available upon request Page 22 of 151 I Print Form I Please return completed applications to: Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St., Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 or email to: ClerkofTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS APPLICATION First Name Last Name j Ana jvmalobos Home Address -Street City Zip Code j Pittsburg 194565 Phone (best number to reach you) Email Resident of Supervisorial District: EDUCATION Check appropria~ox if you possess one of the following: [{] High School Diploma LJCA High School Proficiency Certificate oG.E.D. Certificate Colleges or Universities Attended Course of Study/Major Degree Awarded University of Baja California, Mexicali, Mexico Register Nurse Ii Yes D No Baja California Education Department BA in Biology-Nursing Ii Yes D No D Yes D No Other Training Completed: I License Certified Cyclist Instructor ( LCI) Board, Committee or Commission Name Seat Name I Concord Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Board-r-1 B-o-a-rd_C_h-ai-r ------------------. Have you ever attended a meeting of the advisory board for which you are applying? D No Ii Yes If yes, how many? .-IM_u_lt-ip-le ________ _ Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, committee, or commission. "He who is sinless to throw the first stone". Life is hard and if we do not contemplate the idea of forgiveness and second chances in certain cases, we run the risk of supporting a social system full of resentment and a legal system unfit to provide and create new opportunities in our lives. Despite what life has given me, I choose to continue fighting to find and highlight the good in humanity. I still believe that in many cases, with the right support system and a little mercy, the world can be a much better place. About 21 years ago, I experienced a tremendous change in my life. In less than 2 months, I was going through a painful divorce and I was suddenly in the need to start my life all over again in a different country, all while raising two children; the oldest one • • • ',.. 11 I • -1 • ..a.l I • -I r r I' I Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume with this application) My experience as a program manager, community outreach coordinator and educator has helped me to open doors that would otherwise not easily open and to create new doors that did not exist before. In the same way, my passion for service helps me to find appropriate forms of communication among Spanish-speaking members. This communication allows for trust in me and the systems in which I work to be able to support them to reach new goals. As a registered nurse, my main goal has always been to serve my community in the best way possible; starting with the main goal to preserve and improve the quality of life of any individual as much as possible. For many years I worked as a nurse in charge of intensive care in my country. After changing my homeland, while waiting for my RN credentials to transfer over, I decided to focus . . . . . . . . I am including my resume with this application: Please check one: ii Yes D No I would like to be considered for appointment to other advisory bodies for which I may be qualified. Please check one: ii Yes D No THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Page 23 of 151 County Victims' Representative Application-Ana Villalobos Com p lete answer to q uestion number one: "He who is sinless to throw the first stone". Life is hard and if we do not contemplate the idea of forgiveness and second chances in certain cases, we run the risk of supporting a social system full of resentment and a legal system unfit to provide and create new opportunities in our lives. Despite what life has given me, I choose to continue fighting to find and highlight the good in humanity. I still believe that in many cases, with the right support system and a little mercy, the world can be a much better place. About 21 years ago, I experienced a tremendous change in my life. In less than 2 months, I was going through a painful divorce and I was suddenly in the need to start .my life all over again in a different country, all while raising two children; the oldest one being autistic. When I arrived in the United States, I found myself, naturally, in a clash of cultures, values and language. I had to start all over and learn a completely new language and way of living for the three of us in the fastest and most Page 24 of 151 productive way possible. I can't imagine what my life and my children's lives would be without the support of a great family and a wonderful group of friends and teachers who have helped me get ahead in life. We all know that life, in general, is hard and that every day may present different, challenging and heartbreaking circumstances. Not everyone has the blessing of being part of an integrated family, society and church group that can bring love, emotional and financial support when you need it while also providing you with ethical and moral values. In the same way, in many circumstances, life offers really hard situations that, as human beings, we are not able to understand nor confront. Four years ago, my only son died at the hands of a distracted driver, who should not have been driving at that time. The driver was a father, attending to his baby in the back seat. When they asked me what I wanted to do, I asked them to please have mercy on him. My son had already left a 1.5-year-old baby without a father and having this individual incarcerated would only increase the number of children without parents. Page 25 of 151 I believe that every human being deserves second and in some cases third chances to change. In my country we have a saying: "If in life we charge every eye with another eye, very soon we will live in a world of the blind!" Com p lete answer for q uestion number 2: My experience as a program manager, community outreach coordinator and educator has helped me to open doors that would otherwise not easily open and to create new doors that did not exist before. In the same way, my passion for service helps me to find appropriate forms of communication among Spanish-speaking members. This communication allows for trust in me and the systems in which I work to be able to support them to reach new goals. As a registered nurse, my main goal has always been to serve my community in the best way possible; starting with the main goal to preserve and improve the quality of life of any individual as much as possible. For many years I worked as a nurse in charge of intensive care in my country. After changing my homeland, while waiting for my RN credentials to transfer over, I decided to focus in Page 26 of 151 the public health arena of which my main job has been to serve communities; especially those most at risk, to help them obtain and create a better standard of living including everything from employment opportunities, opportunities for higher levels of education, food and housing assistance and case management services. For the past 15 years I have been working as a Health Education Specialist supporting and training people to create positive changes in their lives and communities; this work I have also in focused in low-income areas. My job has not only been to educate community members but also to become the necessary bridge between community members, associations and government agencies that promote the well-being and the growth of every individual. Com p lete answer for q uestion number 3: • Healthy Community Manager for Concord • HEAL( Healthy Eating Active Living) Zone grant with Kaiser Permanente for two consecutive sessions of three years each one and an the administration of$ 1,000,000.00 per session. Page 27 of 151 • Concord Bike and Pedestrian Committee-Chair member for the past 3 years • Cultural Adviser for State Assembly Tim Grayson • Bike Concord and Volunteer Board Member • San Francisco Jr. Giants Hall of Fame 2019 and Advisory Member • Women of the year for City of Concord, Soroptimist, and City of Pleasant 2017 As a registered nurse, my main goal has always been to serve my community in the best way possible; starting with the main goal to preserve and improve the quality of life of any individual as much as possible. For many years I worked as a nurse in charge of intensive care in my country. After changing my homeland, while waiting for my RN credentials to transfer over, I decided to focus in the public health arena of which my main job has been to serve communities; especially those most at risk, to help them obtain and create a better standard of living including everything from employment opportunities, opportunities for higher levels of education, food and housing assistance and case management services. Page 28 of 151 Ana Villalobos de McAdoo Summary: Senior Health Education Specialist and Trainer; passionate about promoting safe environment, Routes to schools and healthy and active living with 5 years of experience in program management and 11 years of experience in planning, training, developing, and implementing programs that promote community and individual transformation for all. Objective: To obtain a Public Health position at Contra Costa County Health Services that will give me the opportunity to share my knowledge, experience and expertise in health education promotion, community needs assessments, leadership training, program planning, program development and implementation among community members in disadvantage or at risk to become homeless, and governmental organizations that serve individual transformation and promote well-being. Summary of Qualifications: • Excellent communications skills in both Spanish and English. • Experienced with program management and leadership. • Excellent capability to work independently and as a member of a team. • Experienced in working with Public Health services. • Great experience working with diverse communities. • Capable of working successfully in a multicultural environment. • Experienced working with disadvantaged populations. • Trustworthy and with high ethical principles. • Excellent knowledge of the Monument area. • Passionate about promoting healthy living and community transformation. • Bachelor of Nursing Degree, University of Baja California Mexico; Associate Degree in Biology. • More than 9 years of progressive experience in community development and Public Health services. • Experience in management. • More than 10 years of experience working as a Chef/Health Educator and Trainer for major health systems including Contra Costa County Health Services, Kaiser Permanente and the City of Livermore. Work experience: • February 2019 to present. Senior Health Education Specialist for Contra Costa County Health Services. Work with Nutrition and Physical Activity Project. Work in Page 29 of 151 partnership with community and youth focused organizations, educational institutions, local government agencies to provide nutrition education and physical activity promotion throughout Contra Costa County. In addition, this project also support organizations as they develop and implement changes to improve the nutrition and physical activity environment in ethical and culturally diverse low- income communities thought policy system and environmental change at the same time that supervised nutrition and physical activity programs assign to health education specialist and multiple subcontracting agencies throughout Contra Costa County. • October 2016 – January 2019. Health Education Specialist and Trainer for Contra Costa County Health Services. Work with the Safe Routes to School, Injury Prevention and Physical Activity Promotion Project. This project includes a variety of bilingual activities, such as coordination of community events. Plans, conducts, and evaluates the health education and health prevention aspects of Safe Route to Schools programs and recommends specific polices to protect and promote public health. Meet and confer with parent liaison groups in the coordination of parents and volunteers. Coordination of community leaders and organizers including trainings, data gathering and analysis of data. Maintains and distributes health educational material to school, non-profit organizations, community organizations and government organizations including citizen committees that support community safety and bike and pedestrian’s protection. Represent the department with various civic groups and community organizations. Creation and review of education materials, preparation of visual aids, and display materials. Conduct needs assessments including walkability audits and park community assessments. Publicizes reports on health education services and educational programs that support safe and healthy communities. Evaluation of reports and assessments. Direct and coordinate relevant trainings in collaboration with other community and governmental agencies. Preparation of accurate and concise reports, program creation, community outreach and workshops presentations for students, teachers, principals and community organizations to encourage physical activity promotion, safe communities and walking and bicycling to school and work as a means of everyday physical activity and community building. • October 2012 – June 2018. Chef Educator and Trainer for Kaiser Permanente (contract position). Planning and conducting health education presentations to promote health prevention aspects of departmental programs. Creating recommendations to promote public health and active leaving among individuals. Coordinate and carries out specific phases of healthy eating programs. Coordinate multiple programs among various civic groups, community leaders, community parent liaison and instructors as well as Kaiser Permanente employees and families through schools, community set ups, community centers, health fairs, clinics and groups in Contra Costa County. Creation and review of new healthy recipes and publications for educational sustainability. Maintain and distribute articles and recipes that promote healthy habits. Preparation of visual aids and display materials including recipes, articles, cooking and nutrition classes. Conduct special trainings and education classes that support healthier lifestyles for large and small groups in English and Spanish. Evaluated pre and post surveys to create reports on health education services and cultural and appropriate health promotion including community approach. Direct and coordinate relevant trainings activities for employees, community leaders and community organizations including hands on cooking classes and demonstrations that support healthier lifestyles. Served as an advocate for individuals and communities in disadvantage providing information and referrals regarding county health systems and services available to the public including medical services and CAL FRESH to foster Page 30 of 151 high school students and community members in need. Directing, conducting and creating outreach events that connect, and open opportunities for all to achieve better opportunities and quality of live. • October 2012 - June 2016. Healthy Community- HEAL (Healthy Eating Active Living) Zone Manager. -Healthy Community Manager - HEAL Zone (Healthy Eating Active Living Zone) Manager for KP in Concord, California. The Healthy Living Program Manager served as the point person for the Monument Community Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Zone collaborative sponsored by Kaiser Permanente. Planed, conducted, evaluated and served as an advocator when necessary and conduct outreach to community members in need. Planed, conducted and evaluated the health education and health prevention aspects of departmental programs, community organizations and groups in the community. Coordinated the creation of implementation of agencies healthy policies to protect and promote public health including the promotion of free or low-cost physical activity, and healthy eating in a budget. Coordinated and carried out specific phases of programs including the creation, execution and evaluation of the Healthy and Active living -CAP (Community Action Plan) created with the support of multiple organizations, partners and investors. Coordinated multiple programs, trainings, evaluation reports, community assessments, park assessments and health related events. Confers with and advised staff on health education and preventive health principles and cultural appropriate community teaching techniques to integrate health education materials into the activity plan. Coordinated various civic groups, community agencies, business, schools, organizations and community leaders including Contra Costa County Health Services – Physical Activity Promotion Project, First 5 services, Healthy and Active B4 Five, Clinica la Raza, Health Promoters, Community Parents Liaison, Bike East Bay, Bike Concord, City of Concord Public Works and Parks and Recreation Department, MDUSD- Nutrition Department, Monument Crisis Center and Family Justice Center during the implementation of the CAP and the health community assessments. Represent the Monument HEAL Zone group with various organizations and city committees and at multiple local, county and national public health events including the National Conference of Public Health, Bi-national Childhood and Obesity Prevention Conference, and the HEAL (Healthy Eating Active Leaving) Zone conferences. Created, translated and reviewed public health publications that support health educational sustainability. Created, translated, maintained and distributed health education materials including healthy recipes and articles to staff and general public as need it. Prepared bilingual visual aids and display materials such as the ¨healthy bingo¨ or Loteria Saludable used during community events and presentations to promote healthy habits, activates. Conducted cultural appropriated community needs assessments and reports with specific recommendations on community health needs and services for the community. Organized and arranged for discussion groups on health problems or barriers to support healthier lifestyles including walkability audits, parks assessments and health education presentations among city council representatives and community organizations. Publicized and created health related articles in Spanish and English through various media including radio, television and magazines. Evaluated reports on health education services and educational programs including pre and post community assessments and community surveys. Directed and coordinated relevant training activities to support the CAP implementation. Provided and promoted excellent customer and service to community members and groups to identify short- and long-term needs and the creation of plans to reach goals and maintain quality lifestyle. Created and promoted meetings and special event to support Page 31 of 151 and connect each other and stay committed to a lifelong learning and healthy lifestyle. Services Summary *Full-time duties for 4 years as HEAL Zone Manager* • September 2007- October 2012. Community Health Worker Specialist/Educator for Contra Costa Health Services. Working as a site coordinator and trainer for the “NEW (Nutrition, Exercise and Wellness) Kids” program in the Monument Community in Concord, and in Pittsburg, California. CHW Specialist for the Lead poisoning Prevention Project, doing workshops, community presentations and special follow up with families in our area with identified children with high lead levels, and families with children in need of extra training and support, follow up, case management and care to obtain a better quality of life and stay connected with clinical and medical services available for them. -In this position I also have over 3 years’ experience providing outreach and connecting services to homeless and at-risk communities. I was responsible for providing healthy eating and cooking workshops for homeless and low-income families in Concord and Pittsburg for the Nutrition and Physical Activity Project. As a part of these workshops it was part of my duty to facilitate ongoing relationships with the families, consult with county program staff on homeless relations, coordinate services and refer participants and their families to assist them with low-income housing, homeless services, section 8 applications, medical and social services, employment, health, and other client needs- • October 2004 to present. Chef Educator and Trainer for Kaiser Permanente (contract position). Planning and conducting health education presentations to promote health prevention aspects of departmental programs. Creating recommendations to promote public health and active leaving among individuals. Coordinate and carries out specific phases of healthy eating programs. Coordinate multiple programs among various civic groups, community leaders, community parent liaison and instructors as well as Kaiser Permanente employees and families through schools, community set ups, community centers, health fairs, clinics and groups in Contra Costa County. Creation and review of new healthy recipes and publications for educational sustainability. Maintain and distribute articles and recipes that promote healthy habits. Preparation of visual aids and display materials including recipes, articles, cooking and nutrition classes. Conduct special trainings and education classes that support healthier lifestyles for large and small groups in English and Spanish. Evaluated pre and post surveys to create reports on health education services and cultural and appropriate health promotion including community approach. Direct and coordinate relevant trainings activities for employees, community leaders and community organizations including hands on cooking classes and demonstrations that support healthier lifestyles. Served as an advocate for individuals and communities in disadvantage providing information and referrals regarding county health systems and services available to the public including medical services and CAL FRESH to foster high school students and community members in need. Directing, conducting and creating outreach events that connect, and open opportunities for all to achieve better opportunities and quality of live. • September 2006-October 2012. Chef Educator and Trainer for City of Livermore (under contract). Working with adults, high school students and families in general as a presenter and trainer for the City of Livermore, promoting good nutrition, and Page 32 of 151 healthy and active living. Creator of the new “Promotores” project for the City of Livermore under the Cooking Matters program. • October 2005 to October 2007, Office Manager at Bay Area Carbice Inc. Concord, California. • May 2002 to October 2005, Part owner and operator of Villa’s Mexicatessen Restaurant, Concord, California. • April 2000 to February 2002, C.N.A for We Care of Contra Costa County, Concord, California. • September 1992 to January 1997, Charge Nurse and Nurse Supervisor in a hospital setting in Mexicali, Mexico. Publications: • Created a family game called Healthy Loteria. This game was published by Kaiser Permanente and used as a resource in educational settings. • Families Cooking Together recipe book, published by the City of Livermore, Livermore Unified School District and Kaiser Permanente. • I also developed my own bilingual recipes (Spanish and English) that demonstrate that traditional food can be nutritious and delicious. • Many of my recipes have been printed and published by Kaiser Permanente, City of Livermore, Univision (TV show in Spanish), Contra Costa County Health service; these recipes are also used as “Give away” gift at special events. Education: United States • LCI Trainer Certification under the League of American Bicyclists • RN Certification and validation of RN degree from the National Board of Nursing and CA Board of Nursing. • CPR and First Aid Train the Trainers Certification, by the American Heart Association • Train the Trainers certification from the SF University Research Department under the Positive Mains in Action – Stress Management and prevention of Depression Curriculum. • C.N.A. from California Nurse Institute of San Francisco, June 2000. • High School Diploma from Pittsburg Adult Education Center, June 2001. • Studied English at Pittsburg Adult Education Center, April 1997 – June 2000. Mexico • Associate Degree in Nursing and Biology from the S.E.P. (Department of Education) August 1996. • Bachelor Degree in Nursing from the University of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. • Received R.N. license in June 1992. Page 33 of 151 Languages: Bilingual (English-Spanish) Recognitions and Awards: • SF Giants 2019 Hall of Fame Award in Leadership- March 2019. • California State Senate- 7th. District- Distinction of Honor 2017. • California State Assembly Recognition- Women of Honor 2017- 14th Assembly District. • City of Concord - Woman of Distinction 2017. • City of Pleasant Hill- Women of Distinction Commendation 2017. • Soroptimist International of Diablo Vista- 2017 Woman of Distinction. • Making A Difference Trough Developing Award- 2017 Woman of Distinction. Community activities • Concord Junior Giants Commissioner – with the SF Giants Organization • Chef and Volunteer Trainer and Educator for Cooking Matters in Contra Costa and Alameda County and Share our Straight National level. • Motivational Speaker References: Page 34 of 151 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:12/02/2019 Subject:Criminal Justice Fees Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: Criminal Justice Fees  Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, 925-335-1096 Referral History: On February 26, 2019, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee the topic of criminal justice system fees charged to individuals and a review the current programs, policies and practices related to criminal justice fees. A copy of the referral is included as Attachment A. On April 1, 2019, the Public Protection Committee considered an introductory report on the issue of criminal justice fees assessed in the County. During that meeting, it was noted that momentum to end criminal fees is growing in the state and individual counties have begun to view criminal justice fees as ineffective and have taken steps to eliminate them. In 2017, the County of Los Angeles eliminated its public defender registration fee. In May 2018, San Francisco eliminated all criminal administrative fees under its control, freeing over 21,000 people of more than $32,000,000 in outstanding criminal administrative fees and surcharges. Most recently, in December 2018, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate a host of county-imposed criminal fees. The board voted to eliminate $26,000,000 in fees for tens of thousands of Alameda County residents. A copy of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved ordiance is included as Attachment B.  With the passage of Senate Bill 190 in 2017, the State of California eliminated juvenile justice fees in all counties. In January 2019, Senate Bill (SB) 144 was introduced by Sen. Holly Mitchell and would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system, and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of administrative fees. At the time of the April PPC meeting there had been discussion at the state level about the proposed elimination of specific fees – the probation fee, the public defender fee, and work furlough fee.  Also during the April PPC, general arguments in favor or against continuing criminal justice fees were discussed. It was also noted that analysis of adult criminal justice fees had proven to be complicated. State law dictates a very complex process for the distribution of fine and fee revenue. Per a recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report, state law currently contains at least 215 distinct code sections specifying how individual fines and fees are to be distributed to state and local funds, including additional requirements for when payments are not made in full.  The report provided at the April PPC meeting focused on those fees that had been positively identified as being local and discretionary fees (i.e. not mandated by California law), specifically Probation Fees, Public Defender Fees, and Sheriff Custody Alternative Facility Fees. Further research and analysis will be needed on other fines and fees collected by the Contra Costa Superior Court of California (Court) and remitted to the County. The April staff report included the following infomation on Probation, Public Defender, and work furlough fees: Probation Fees Page 35 of 151 Probation Report Fee - In 2009, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2009-28 authorizing the Probation Department to charge a fee of $176 for the cost of generating a probation report to the Court. This is one-time fee.  Cost of Probation Fee - In 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2010/262 to increase the monthly Cost of Probation Fee from $50 per month to $75 per month (average daily cost of $2.50).  Probation Drug Testing Fee – The Probation Department currently charges $10 per month (average daily cost of $0.33) for drug testing.  Probation Dept. Drug Diversion Fee – The Probation Department currently receives approximately $1,000 per year from this fee.  All adults that have been ordered to formal Probation, which includes mandatory supervision, and ordered to pay Probation fees, drug testing fees and/or the cost of their court report shall be assessed for their ability to pay said fees. The ability-to-pay determination is sent to the Court. The Court will order the amount the probationer is required to pay and refer the probationer to the Court Collections Unit for collection.  The following table illustrates the total amount of probation fees a probationer could hypothetically be charged. This is assuming the probation is placed on 3 years of probation and requires monthly drug testing. Over 3 years, a probationer could be charged up to $3,236 for probation. Example Probationer Cost # of Months Total Supervision $75/month 36 2,700 Drug Testing $10/month 36 360 Report Fee $176 one-time n/a 176 Total Cost of Probation 3,236 Cost of Collection and Revenue The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The Probation fee revenue is used to offset the salaries of adult Deputy Probation Officers.  Fee FY 17/18 Estimated FY 18/19 Collection Cost Revenue Collection Cost Revenue Probation Dept. Drug Diversion Fee (PC 1001.9)143 1,249 10 1,000 Cost of Probation Fee 91,957 475,573 82,000 444,000 Probation Cost of Drug Test Fee (PC 1203.1(ab))12,332 60,638 12,000 61,000 Probation Report Fee (PC 1203.1(b))4,554 27,333 5,000 30,000 Total 108,986 564,793 99,010 536,000 Public Defender Fees Penal Code 987.81 authorizes the Court to consider and make a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay all or a portion of the costs of legal assistance provided through the public defender or private counsel appointed by the court and may order the defendant to pay all or a part of the cost.  Adults charged with capital or homicide cases may have to pay fees ordered by the court at the conclusion of the case to reimburse the County for the cost of outside counsel. The defendant is referred to the Contra Costa Superior Court Collections Unit by the judge who orders the amount to be paid. The Court makes a determination as to how much, if any, of the ordered amount the person can afford to pay. This determination is made on a sliding scale based upon the person's financial resources. The Office of the Public Defender is not involved in the determination of, or collection of fees. Page 36 of 151 Cost of Collection and Revenue The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The Public Defender Fee revenue is used to offset cost of County trial court function, specifically costs associated with capital cases. Fee FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19 Collection Cost Revenue Collection Cost Revenue Public Defender Fee 1,849 26,100 - 121,000 Sheriff Office Custody Alternative Facility Program Fees In 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 2009/435 setting the fees for the Office of the Sheriff custody alternative programs. The current fees for the Custody Alternative Facility programs are provided below. Fee Cost Electronic Home Detention and Alcohol Monitoring: Application fee $125.00 one-time Electronic Home Monitoring Only $20.00 per day Alcohol Monitoring Only $20.00 per day Electronic Home Monitoring and Alcohol Monitoring $23.50 per day Urinalysis Test $6.00 per test Work Alternative Program: Application fee $125.00 one-time Daily Fee $16.00 per day Ability to Pay Process The current Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) procedure provides for the CAF participant to be completely enrolled in a CAF program prior to discussing fees or ability to pay. Participants review and complete the personal budget with their assigned CAF Specialist. The participant will then request a reduction/waiver of fees based on their stated ability to pay. A CAF Sergeant will review and approve the Personal Budget form. A participant's inability to pay all or a portion of any fee(s) will not preclude them from being enrolled or completing any program offered by the Custody Alternative Facility. Process of Collections CAF fees are collected after the participant is enrolled in a CAF program. Fees can be paid in the manner which is most appropriate for the participant. Participants can pay their total program fees at one time or over a pre-determined length of time. There is no process established to collect payment from participants who complete the program, but do not pay. A participant's ability to successfully complete a CAF programs is not impacted by lack of payment. Future Plan for CAF Electronic Home Detention and Work Alternative Prog rams CAF is currently working with representatives from the Office of Re-Entry and Justice, the Public Defender’s Office, and Reentry Solutions Group to present updated Ability to Pay forms. Revenue The following table shows the actual and estimated revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The CAF Fee revenue is used to offset program costs. Program FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19 Work Alternative Program 443,055 423,000 Electronic Home Detention 568,541 12,000 Page 37 of 151 Total 1,011,596 435,000 The PPC accepted the introductory report and directed staff to perform further research on other fees that are collected or remitted to the County and to report back to the Committee with staff's findings. On July 1, 2019, the Public Protection Committee accepted an a follow-up report on this issue which included a review of a wider range of criminal justice fees, including those that are mandated by state legislation. This update included the following information on criminal justice fees and SB 144. Criminal Justice Fees The Legistlative Analyst's Office (LAO) provided a report titled "Overview of State Criminal Fines and Fees and Probation Fees. The report provide background information regarding both cirminal fines and fees and probation fees. This includes an explanation of how cimrinal fines and fees are assessed. A copy of the LAO report is included as Attachment C. Upon the request of the Committee, the analysis of the County's criminal justice fees was expanded beyond the fees charged for Probation, indigent defense, and alternatives-to-incarceration fees. Attachment D summaries the fee analysis performed by staff which includes: fee description, relevant code section, authority, ability-to-pay provision, funded County program or function, and revenue collected. Senate Bill 144 As of July 1, 2019, SB 144 had passed through the California Senate and was in the California Assembly. SB 144 is set to be heard on July 9th in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. SB 144 is currently opposed by Calfiornia State Association of Counties, Urban Counties of California, Rural County Representatives of California, and the Chief Probation Officers of California. These organizations’ opposition is not based on the underlying policy conversation regarding lessening the financial burden associated with fines and fees levied on adults in the criminal justice system, but is based on the fiscal implications and the request for the addition of a sustainable funding source to ensure this does not inadvertently impact the core services, programs and efforts to promote the rehabilitation of offenders. A copy of the amended SB 144 can be found here:  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB144&version=20190SB14497AMD During the July meeting, the Public Protection Committee considered a number of concerns revolving around adult criminal justice fees, including significant concern brought up regarding the ability-to-pay process. The majority of criminal fees include provisions that allow for either a waiver or reduction of the fee based on one’s ability to pay. The Public Protection Committee voted unanimously to refer to the full Board of Supervisors a temporary moratorium on the assessment and collection of criminal justice fees currently authorized by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.  On September 17, 2019, the Board of Supervisors considered adopting Resolution No. 2019/522 to place a moratorium on the assessment and collection of certain criminal justice fees. The Board of Supervisors approved the moratorium and directed the Public Protection Committee to gather additiional data about criminal justice fees in Contra Costa County and to return to the Board of Supervisors before the end of the year. A copy of the Resolution is attached for reference (Attachment E).  Following the adoption of the moratorium by the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator's Office had notified the Sheriff's Office, the Probation Department, and the Superior Court of this moratorium on the assessment and collection of the applicable criminal justice fees. On September 30, 2019, the Public Protection Committee accepted an update on the implementation of the moratorium on the collection of adult criminal justice fee. The Committee directed staff to assemble a small work group to identify and provide to the Committee any additional available and relevant data.  On November 4, 2019, the Committee was updated on the progress the workgroup had made. This update included information on the San Francisco Financial Justice Project, the abiltity-to-pay process of Probation and the Sheriff's Office, local data on race/income, pending data collection efforts, and an update on the Superior Court implementation of the moratorium. The Committee also discussed Additionally, Reentry Solutions Group provided a Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa which provides additional information on the San Francisco Financial Justice Project, the local research process, and local/national research (see Attachment G). Referral Update: Since the November meeting, the workgroup drafted a summary report oultlining the data, policies, and partices related to Page 38 of 151 Since the November meeting, the workgroup drafted a summary report oultlining the data, policies, and partices related to criminal justice fees within Contra Costa County (see Attachment H). Staff is seeking input from the Committee in preparation of bringing the Summary Report to the Board of Supervisor in December 2019.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT an update on the implementation of a moratorium on the collection and assessment of certain criminal justice fees assessed by the County; and 1. CONSIDER directing staff to return to the Board of Supervisors to provide the Summary Report on criminal justice fees, authorize the County Administrator's Office to request the Superior Court to incur the necessary expenses to implement the moratorium, to request direction on backfill funding; and to consider approving a revised the moratorium resolution. 2. Fiscal Impact (if any): Implementation of the moratorium has resulted in a budgetary impact which is illustrated Attachment I. Attachments Attachment A - BOS Referral - Criminal Justice Fees Attachment B - Alameda County Ordinance Eliminating Fees Attachment C - LAO Report Attachment D - Adult Fee Analysis Attachment E - Resolution No. 2019/522 Attachment F - Court Letter Attachment G - RSG Report on CJ Fees In Contra Costa Attachment H - Summary Report Attachment I - Budgetary Impact Page 39 of 151 RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Public Protection Committee the issue of criminal justice system fees charged to individuals. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. This action refers the issue of justice system fees to the Public Protection Committee. BACKGROUND: Existing law allows the County to impose various criminal justice fees for the cost of administering the criminal justice system. This referral is being requested to review the current programs, policies and practices related to criminal justice fees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The issue will not be referred to the Public Protection Committee for review. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/26/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Contact: Paul Reyes, 925-335-1096 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: February 26, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date:February 26, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Criminal Justice Fees Page 40 of 151 ORDINANCE NO. 2018-67 -- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.42.190 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO ELIMINATE PROBATION FEES; REPEALING RESOLUTION 2011-142 REGARDING PUBLIC DEFENDER/CONFLICT COUNSEL FEES FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT ADULTS; AND ELIMINATING SHERIFF'S WORK ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTENDANCE FEES. WHEREAS, criminal justice financial obligations like probation supervision and investigation fees, indigent defense fees, and fees associated with work release programs, can have long-term effects that can undermine successful societal reentry goals of the formerly-incarcerated, such as attaining stable housing, transportation, and employment; and WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors recognizes that criminal justice debt levied against low- income or indigent adults compromises key principles of fairness in the administration of justice in a democratic society and engenders deep distrust of the criminal justice system among those overburdened by such debt; and WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 1203 .1 b authorizes but does not require a county to recover the actual costs for probation services in lieu of incarceration; and WHEREAS, County of Alameda Administrative Code section 2.42.190 establishes probation department fees; and WHEREAS, California Penal Code sections 987 .5 and 987.8 authorizes but does not require the assessment of fees to cover the costs of appointed counsel; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors most recently authorized Indigent Defense Fees in Resolution 2011-142; and WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 4024.2 authorizes but does not require a board of supervisors to assess an administrative fee on inmates of the county jail for costs associated with a county 's work release program; and WHEREAS , the Board of Supervisors has approved the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Work Alternative Program (SWAP) and set administrative and attendance fees for participation in that Program ; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the best interest of the County, justice- involved adults , and the larger community to repeal the above-named adult fees; and WHEREAS, it is also in the best interests of the County and the community that the Auditor- Controller be authorized to write-off all accounts receivable balances and close the associated fee accounts; Page 41 of 151 NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda ordains as follows: SECTION I Section 2.42.190 of the County of Alameda Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows : 2.42.190 Probation Department fees. Notwithstanding any prior County ordinance or resolution of the Board of Supervisors to permit assessment of probation fees and costs under California Penal Code section 1203.1 b, neither the Probation Department nor any other County agency shall assess fees for probation services , or any other fees or costs authorized by Penal Code section 1203.1 b. SECTION II The Public Defender schedule of fees authorized by this Board in Resolution No. 2011-142 on May 1 0, 2011 is hereby repealed. SECTION Ill The Sheriff's Office Alternative Work Program (SWAP) administrat ive fee and attendance fee , authorized by this Board by resolution as permitted by Penal Code section 4024.2 is repealed . Neither the Sheriff's Office or any other County agency shall assess SWAP administration or attendance fees. SECTION IV This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be published once with the ~ names of the members voting for and against 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 4th day of December ,· 2018 , by the following called vote : AYES : Su pervisors Carson, Haggerty, Miley & Preside n t Ch a n NOES : None EXCUSED : Su pervisor V a l le ' ~~/2-- President of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST : Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , Page 42 of 151 \)~ By:. __ ~~~~~~~~----------- Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DONNA R. ZIEGLER, COUNTY COUNSEL By: Assistant County Counsel I -Page 43 of 151 Assembly Committee on Public Safety Hon. Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. PRESENTED TO: LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE Overview of State Criminal Fines and Fees and Probation Fees FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 44 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 1 Introduction In this handout, we provide background information responding to common questions regarding both criminal fines and fees and probation fees. „Criminal Fines and Fees. During court proceedings, trial courts typically levy fines and fees upon individuals convicted of criminal offenses (including traffic violations). „Probation Fees. State law authorizes counties to levy fees on probationers to cover probation-related costs. For example, a probationer who is subject to electronic monitoring—such as being required to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit on his or her ankle—can be charged for its costs. Page 45 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2 How Are Criminal Fines and Fees Assessed? The total amount owed by an individual begins with a base fine set in state law for each criminal offense. State law then requires courts to add certain charges to this fine. On a limited basis, counties and courts can levy additional charges depending on the specific violations and other factors. Statute gives judges some discretion to reduce the total amount owed by waiving or reducing certain charges. Various Fines and Fees Substantially Add to Base Fines As of January 1, 2019 How Charge is Calculated Stop Sign Violation (Infraction) DUI of Alcohol/Drugs (Misdemeanor) Standard Fines and Fees Base Fine Depends on violation $35 $390 State Penalty Assessment $10 for every $10 of a base finea 40 390 County Penalty Assessment $7 for every $10 of a base finea 28 273 Court Construction Penalty Assessment $5 for every $10 of a base finea 20 195 Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment $1 for every $10 of a base finea 4 39 DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment $4 for every $10 of a base finea 16 156 EMS Penalty Assessment $2 for every $10 of a base finea 8 78 EMAT Penalty Assessment $4 per conviction 4 4 State Surcharge 20% of base fine 7 78 Court Operations Assessment $40 per conviction 40 40 Conviction Assessment Fee $35 per infraction conviction and $30 per felony or misdemeanor conviction 35 30 Night Court Fee $1 per fine and fee imposed 1 1 Restitution Fine $150 minimum per misdemeanor conviction and $300 minimum per felony conviction —150 Subtotals ($238)($1,824) Examples of Additional Fines and Fees That Could Apply DUI Lab Test Penalty Assessment Actual costs up to $50 for specif- ic violations —$50 Alcohol Education Penalty Assessment Up to $50 —50 County Alcohol and Drug Program Penalty Assessment Up to $100 —100 Subtotals (—)($200) Totals $238 $2,024 a The base fine is rounded up to the nearest $10 to calculate these additional charges. For example, the $35 base fine for a failure to stop would be rounded up to $40. DUI = Driving Under Influence; EMS = Emergency Medical Services; and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation. Page 46 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 3 How Have Fine and Fee Levels Changed Over Time? Total Fine and Fee Levels Have Increased Significantly. Since 2005, the number and size of charges added to the base fine have increased significantly—resulting in increases in the total amount owed by individuals convicted of criminal offenses. As shown in the above figure, the total penalty for a stop sign violation has increased by 54 percent since 2005. Fine and Fee Levels Set to Serve Multiple Purposes. The state has enacted various fines and fees for various purposes. Some (such as the base fine) are generally tied to the seriousness of the crime. Others (such as the DNA assessments) were enacted to generate revenue to fund specific activities. Finally, some fines and fees were enacted to help offset state or local costs for providing particular services to individuals paying the specific charge. Total Fine and Fee Level for Stop Sign Violation Has Increased Significantly Since 2005a Stop Sign Violation(Infraction) 2005 2019 Change Base Fine $35 $35 State Penalty Assessment 40 40 — County Penalty Assessment 28 28 — Court Construction Penalty Assessment 20 20 — Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment 4 4 — DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment —16 $16 EMS Penalty Assessment —8 8 EMAT Penalty Assessment —4 4 State Surcharge 7 7 — Court Operations Fee 20 40 20 Conviction Assessment Fee —35 35 Night Court Fee 1 1 — Totals $155 $238 $83 a Depending on the specific violation and other factors, additional county or state assessments may apply. EMS = Emergency Medical Services and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation Page 47 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 4 How Is Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed? Numerous Funds Eligible to Receive Fine and Fee Revenue. Over 50 state funds—in addition to many local funds throughout the state—are eligible to receive fine and fee revenue. However, some of these funds receive very little revenue, such as those that only receive revenue from fines and fees for specific offenses that occur infrequently. Complex Process for Distributing Fine and Fee Revenue. State law (and county resolutions for certain local charges) dictate a very complex process for the distribution of fine and fee revenue. State law currently contains at least 215 distinct code sections specifying how individual fines and fees are to be distributed to state and local funds, including additional requirements for when payments are not made in full. In order to comply with these requirements, collection programs must carefully track, distribute, and record the revenue they collect. Page 48 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 5 Who Benefits From Fine and Fee Revenue? State Receives Majority of Revenue. According to available data compiled by the State Controller’s Office and the judicial branch, we estimate that a total of $1.7 billion in fine and fee revenue was distributed to state and local governments in 2015-16. (This is the most recent data that we have analyzed.) As shown in the figure, the state received $881 million (or roughly half) of this revenue. Of this amount, roughly 60 percent went to support trial court operations and construction. Local Governments Receive Most of Remaining Revenue. We estimate that local governments received $707 million (or 42 percent) of the total amount distributed in 2015-16. Of this amount, about 80 percent went to the counties. Majority of Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed to the State 2015-16 a Split between courts (state government) and counties (local government) depending on who is actually collecting the delinquent payments. State Trial Court Operations State Trial Court Construction Other State Programs Collection Programsa Cities Counties Total: $1.7 billion Graphic Sign Off Secretary Analyst MPA DeputyARTWORK #170127 Template_LAOReport_mid.ait Page 49 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 6 (Continued) Collection Programs Receive Share of Revenue. Collection programs received $114 million (or 7 percent) of the total amount distributed in 2015-16 for their operational costs related to the collection of delinquent payments. These funds are split between state trial courts and counties depending on which entity incurred the costs. Who Benefits From Fine and Fee Revenue? Page 50 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 7 How Are Probation Fees Assessed? Fee Levels Vary Between and Within Counties. The above figure shows certain probation fees charged by three selected counties. As shown, the number, type, and level of probation fees varies significantly by county and the specific fee levied. We note that in addition to probation fees, probationers could also be required to pay other government fines and fees, such as the criminal fines and fees assessed by trial courts. Ability to Pay Can Impact Fees Levied. Some probation fees can be adjusted based on a probationer’s ability to pay. In addition, some counties have policies stating that inability to pay shall not prevent a probationer from receiving services such as supervision and electronic monitoring. Examples of Probation Fees for Selected Counties Fee San Luis Obispo County San Diego County Butte County GPS monitoring (daily)$12 $9 $5 to $7 Supervision fees (monthly)$76 $17 to $176 $164 Installment fee (one time)a $75 $75 — Transfer between counties (one time)$148 —$392 Court mandated reports (per report)—Up to $1,433 Up to $1,077 Drug testing fee (per test)$55 —$32 Probation violation (per event)——$109 a Fee charged in exchange for allowing probationers to pay their other fees on an installment plan GPS = Global Position System. Page 51 of 151 Text MarginsLeft align medium figures and tables hereLarge figure margin Large figure margin LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 8 What Is the Total Amount of Probation Fees That Probationers Are Charged? Fees Owed Can Vary Substantially Between Probationers. The figure above provides hypothetical examples of the total probation fees that two probationers might be charged over a three-year period. These examples are intended to demonstrate the magnitude of (1) the fees a probationer can owe and (2) the difference between fee levels for similar probationers in different counties. Level of Supervision Significantly Impacts Fee Amounts. A probationer on low-level supervision (such as someone convicted for a misdemeanor) is generally charged fewer fees compared to a probationer on high-level supervision (such as someone convicted of a felony) who must also follow certain other requirements (such as being on GPS monitoring and receiving random drug tests on a regular basis). Hypothetical Examples of Probation Fees Charged for Three Selected Counties Estimates Over a Three-Year Period Probationer San Luis Obispo County San Diego County Butte County Low supervision and feesa $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 High supervision and feesb 18,000 18,000 16,000 a On probation for a misdemeanor, has one pre-sentence report, is on the lowest level of active supervision, and is on an installment plan, which allows the probationer to pay fees on an installment basisb On probation for a felony, has one pre-sentence report, is on the highest level of active supervision, is on GPS monitoring, receives random drug testing once a month, committed one felony probation violation, and is on an installment plan Page 52 of 151 Contra Costa County Attachment D Crminal Justice Fee Analysis Court Collected Fees: Court Fee Description Code Section Authority Ability to Pay Written in Statute Funded Program FY 17/18 Revenue FY 18/19 Est. Revenue Alcohol Prevention Fee APPA PC 1463.25 State None specified. Alcohol & Other Drugs - SB920 Alcohol Education Program 78,328$ 73,800$ 10% Fee PC 1203.1 (l)County None specified. Trial Court Programs 75,246$ 82,800$ California Fingerprint ID Penalty GC 76102 County None specified. Automated Fingerprint ID 170,986$ 174,300$ Domestic Violence Fee PC 1203.097(a)5 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Domestice Violence Victim Assistance 32,269$ 40,200$ Booking Fee GC 29550.1 County None specified. Sheriff Central Admin 39,464$ 42,300$ Adult DA Diversion Fee PC 1001.16 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Trial Court Programs Drug Diversion Fee PC 1211(c)(3)County Fee exemptions available.Trial Court Programs Alcohol Test Fee PC 1463.14 County Ability to pay determination required.Sheriff - General Lab C.A.P. Fee PC 1463.16 County None specified. Combined with Alchohol Test Fee B&P 7028.2 (Compliants Against Unlicensed Contractors)BPC 7028.2 State None specified. SLESF-Criminal Prosecution 373$ 900$ DNA Penalty Fee GC 76104.6 State Hardship determination by the court.DNA Identification Fund 235,130$ 237,400$ CITE Fee PC 1463.07 State Ability to pay determination by the court. Trial Court Programs * Own Recognizance Fee PC 1463.07 State Ability to pay determination by the court.Trial Court Programs Drug Program Fee H&S 11372.7 State Ability to pay determination by the court.Criminalistics Lab Fund 15,314$ 14,000$ Probation Drug Diversion Fee PC 1001.9 N/A N/A Probation - Adult 1,273$ 1,200$ Probation Supervision Fee PC 1203.1b County Ability to pay determination by the court.Probation - Adult 488,374$ 452,600$ Probation Drug Test Fee PC 1203.1ab County Ability to pay determination required.Probation - Adult 65,921$ 61,400$ Probation Report Fee PC PC 1203.1b County Ability to pay determination by the court.Probation - Adult 27,995$ 28,700$ Alcohol/Drug Assessment Fee PC 1463.13 County Ability to pay determination by the court.Alchohol & Other Drugs - SB921 Drug Abuse Ed 207,529$ 194,300$ Public Defense Fee PC 987.81 County Ability to pay determination by the court.Trial Court Programs 28,499$ 118,200$ Total 2,166,517$ 2,225,100$ * Revenue amounts for CITE and OR Fees are combined with Traffic School Fees (VC 42007) when remitted from the Court. Sheriff Collected Fees: CAF Fee Code Section Authority Ability to Pay Written in Statute Funded Program FY 17/18 Revenue FY 18/19 Est. Revenue Work Alternative PC 4024.2 County Ability to pay program admin. fee.Custody Alternative Facility 443,055 363,000 Electronic Home Detention/Alcohol Monitoring PC 1203.016 County Ability to pay program admin. fee pay.Custody Alternative Facility 568,541 38,000 Total 1,011,596 401,000 111,085$ 117,400$ 462,000$ 458,755.86$ 129,975$ 123,600$ Page 53 of 151 Page 54 of 151 Page 55 of 151 Attachment F Page 56 of 151 Attachment F Page 57 of 151 Attachment F Page 58 of 151 Attachment F Page 59 of 151 Attachment F Page 60 of 151 Attachment F Page 61 of 151 Attachment F Page 62 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 1 of 8 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Member, Contra Costa County Criminal Justice Fees Work Group Presented to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors November 4, 2019 Note: All documents referenced in this report are available upon request. “We found it difficult to access the data we needed to understand the basics of fines and fees and how they impact individuals, as well as our city and county bottom lines. After working diligently with various city and county departments to better understand their fines and fees, we realized that most cities and counties, including San Francisco, lack answers to basic questions, such as how many people receive various fines, fees, tickets; collection and delinquency rates, penalties for nonpayment as well as the cost of collection to the city and county.”1 San Francisco Financial Justice Project 1. Context In Contra Costa County, attention to the use of administrative fees in the adult criminal justice system was preceded by the County’s decision to end such fees in the juvenile justice system. In October 2016, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to impose a moratorium on such fees, which they followed with another unanimous vote in October 2017, permanently repealing these juvenile fees. 2,3 In the aftermath of these historic votes, Contra Costa went on to become the first county in the nation to identify and reimburse families who had been unlawfully charged such fees.4 This interest in juvenile fee reform - both locally and statewide - dovetailed with increasing public attention to the use of similar fees in the adult criminal justice system. Across California, demand has been growing to remedy the disproportionately punitive consequences of money-based sanctions. In July 2018, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco - with the support of the San Francisco Chief of Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, and more than a dozen community organizations - unanimously passed an ordinance to end its adult criminal justice fees, thus eliminating more than $32.7 million in outstanding debt levied against more than 21,000 people. In November 2018, Alameda County also voted to eliminate their county-controlled criminal justice fees. Page 63 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 2 of 8 In January 2019, Senators Mitchell and Hertzberg introduced Senate Bill 144 (SB144), to substantially amend or end the use of state and local justice fees; it has been turned into a two-year bill and will be considered in the 2020 legislative session. In September 2019, Contra Costa County voted to impose a moratorium on the use of locally imposed criminal justice fees, becoming only the third county in the nation to end or suspend such fees. 2. San Francisco Financial Justice Project In late 2016, the City and County of San Francisco established the Financial Justice Project (FJP), housed in the Office of the Treasurer. San Francisco is the first city in the nation to launch such an entity to assess and reform fines, fees, and financial penalties that disproportionately impact low-income people, communities of color, people struggling with homelessness, and people exiting the criminal justice system.5 The FJP is directed by Anne Stuldreher, MBA, who was previously a Senior Program Manager for The California Endowment, Senior Policy Fellow for New America, and Senior Policy Advisor for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The FJP is managed by Christa Brown, who previously served as Director of the SparkPoint Initiative for the United Way of the Bay Area and who holds a Master’s in Public Administration from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. Over the course of its first two years, the FJP convened and facilitated the work of a Fines and Fees Task Force comprised of community members, ten governmental departments, and the courts. With the support of FJP, the Task Force examined best practices, reviewed evidence related to the use and impact of monetary sanctions, and received expert testimony, while the FJP worked with the Budget Office to conduct an audit of San Francisco’s fines and fees. At the conclusion of its work, the Task Force recommended 40 reforms to both policy and process.6 In late 2018, San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project issued a new report, Criminal Justice Administrative Fees: High Pain for People, Low Gain for Government.7 Subtitled A Call to Action for California Counties, the report called on all counties in the state of California to undertake substantial reforms. 3. Summary of Local Research Process In Contra Costa County, much of the original research and analysis into the county’s criminal justice fees was undertaken by Reentry Solutions Group (RSG), working in primary partnership with the UC Berkeley School of Law Policy Advocacy Clinic (UCB), along with other local stakeholders. In December 2017, RSG requested that the Office of the Sheriff establish a work group to remedy the County’s failure to comply with California state statutes regarding the policies and procedures for Electronic Monitoring in Lieu of Bail (California Penal Code 1203.018(e)); Home Detention in Lieu of Confinement (PC 1203.016(b) and 1203.016(d)(1)); and Work Release in Lieu of Confinement (PC 4024.2(c)). Page 64 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 3 of 8 In response to this request, in January 2018 the Office of the Sheriff approved a Work Group proposal submitted by RSG, and a Work Group was formed, comprising representatives of the Sheriff’s Office along with Donté Blue, Deputy Director of the County’s Office of Reentry and Justice; Ellen McDonnell, Chief Assistant Public Defender; and Rebecca Brown, Director of RSG. Over the past 20 months, this Work Group has made incremental progress, and the Sheriff’s Office has largely suspended the use of application or administrative fees for the programs delegated to its administration by the Board of Supervisors. However, new policies have not yet been drafted, reviewed, or approved by the Board of Supervisors, and the County remains out of compliance with state law. In October 2018, in partnership with local Contra Costa stakeholders, UCB submitted a Public Records Act Request to Sharon Anderson, County Counsel for Contra Costa County, seeking information on “how Contra Costa County assesses and collects fees against adults...in the criminal justice system.” In response to this request, Contra Costa County provided a seven (7) page document that included, in its totality, a cover letter, two administrative forms, and one Administrative Bulletin. In the document’s cover letter, Chief Assistant County Administrator Tim Ewell wrote, “We have reviewed the remainder of your request,” deemed it “overly broad,” and requested greater specificity. In November 2018, through a series of emails between UCB and Mr. Ewell, Contra Costa County provided four web addresses that link to webpages offering summary information and various Fee Schedules used by the Office of the Sheriff: Civil Unit fees, Records Unit fees, Custody Alternative Facility fees, and Coroner’s Division fees. It should be noted that three of these web sources do not pertain to criminal justice fees, and that the one that does - for fees related to the Custody Alternative Facility (CAF), operated by the Sheriff’s Office as authorized by the Board of Supervisors – the link simply connects to the CAF handbook, which is substantially out of date. In sum: Contra Costa County provided no administrative data that would have allowed analysis of the County’s use of criminal justice fees. In October 2018, again in partnership with local stakeholders, UCB similarly submitted a Public Records Act Request for fee-related judicial records to Matthew Kitson, Public Information Officer of the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County. In his response of November 2018, Mr. Kitson wrote that the Court: • “does not maintain any non-adjudicative ‘records relating to the demographics of adults in the justice system’” and has “no records responsive” to this request; • “does not track the aggregate number of adults who are assessed and/or charged fees annually [and has] no responsive records”; • “does not track the total amount of adult fees assessed per year, reduced or waived due to inability to pay per year, and/or total amount currently owed [and] no responsive records exist”; • has “no aggregated data concerning” adjudicative records pertaining to individual cases • “keeps no data or records specifically ‘relating to the amount spent on collecting adult fees’ although “the monthly Financial Report spreadsheets may contain relevant information.” Page 65 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 4 of 8 However, to his response Mr. Kitson attached a 362-page PDF document containing hundreds of pages of scanned financial accounting and tracking spreadsheets used by the Court in its role as financial administrator for state and local justice-related fees. It should be noted that these data do not provide information related to individual cases, and the document contained no individual or identifying information. Instead, this document provides a month-by-month financial detail of the funds associated with each criminal justice fee collected by the Court as authorized by either state statutes or local ordinances. In November and December 2018, on behalf of a coalition of stakeholders, Rebecca Brown, Director of RSG, conducted extensive analysis of the data embedded in this document. From it, she produced a comprehensive, month-by-month, item-by-item categorical report on every criminal justice fee collected and distributed by the Courts on Contra Costa County’s behalf in each month throughout from July 2017 through June 2018. Capturing all the Contra Costa County data provided in the Court’s document, this analysis included line-by-line accounting for each fee type, recording Non-delinquent Receipts, Delinquent Receipts, and Net Revenue Distribution, among other data. In December 2018, Ms. Brown, along with Carson Whitelemons from UCB, engaged in a telephone interview with Mr. Kitson and Fae Li, Financial Services Director for the Superior Court, to seek additional information about the document provided by the Court. During this interview, Ms. Li explained various administrative processes as they relate to the tracking, accounting, and distribution of such fees, and the production of the Court’s financial reports. She also discussed the contract with the Court’s debt collector, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (Linebarger). It may be of interest that Linebarger is the subject of multiple class action lawsuits across the United States.8,9,10,11 In December 2018, Ms. Brown obtained a copy of, and closely reviewed, Linebarger’s Master Agreement for Collection Services, which is a contract between Linebarger and the Judicial Council/ Administrative Office of the Courts, effective as of January 1, 2014. Although neither California’s 58 counties nor its 58 Superior Courts is required to enter into this Master Agreement, both Contra Costa County and the Superior Court of Contra Costa County are named as Participating Entities in this Agreement. The Agreement contains provisions for Obligation (Section 2.2), Non-Exclusivity (Section 2.3), Franchise Tax Board Transfer Services (Section 3.7), Termination for Convenience (Section 4.2), and Termination for Cause (Section 4.3). The Statement of Work that accompanies the Master Agreement obligates Linebarger to provide a “list of old cases...annually, or as specified by the Participating Entity. The Participating Entity may request a list of cases…[to] determine eligibility for discharge.” Section 1.5.1 requires Linebarger to “supply an account payment history for each Account on the Participating Entity’s request.” The Fee Schedule that accompanies the Agreement reveals that the bulk of Linebarger’s commissions range from 18% to 25% of all debt collected. The commission percentage rises with the age of the debt, with the maximum percentage charged against debt that is two years old or more. In February 2019, Ms. Brown disseminated the results of her financial and administrative analyses of Contra Costa County’s justice fees and the Linebarger contract (along with her analysis of the Page 66 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 5 of 8 Contra Costa County DA’s civil asset forfeiture practices) at a public meeting of Reentry Solutions Group. Entitled What the Numbers Tell Us: Money and Justice in Contra Costa County, this public presentation was also immediately published on RSG’s website.12 In February 2019, the Board of Supervisors formally referred the matter of criminal justice fees to the Board’s Public Protection Committee (PPC). In its meetings in April and July 2019, the PPC reviewed information provided by RSG and by staff of the CAO, heard public testimony, and considered potential options for action. At its July meeting, the PPC determined to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that it enact a moratorium on adult criminal justice fees heretofore authorized or imposed by Contra Costa County. On September 17, 2019, the Board of Supervisors considered this recommendation, voted to authorize a moratorium, and referred the matter of criminal justice fees to continuing attention by the PPC, requesting that the PPC attempt to identify and provide to the BOS additional available and relevant data. In response to the September 2019 request by the BOS, Rebecca Brown has drafted this report for submission to the PPC to advance its research and for consideration at its meeting on November 4, 2019. (It is our understanding that the County Administrator’s Office is preparing a summary report on the policies and administrative practices of relevant Contra Costa agencies; we encourage the PPC and the Board to review that summary.) On October 21, 2019, the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (Court), provided a letter to the CAO regarding administrative measures related to implementing the moratorium. In the letter, the Court estimates $63,570 as the administrative cost to implement the moratorium. Although in the letter the Court acknowledges its difficulties in providing specific dollar amounts related to any of the outstanding fee amounts, three points of interest are mentioned: • In terms of public defense fees (which, it should be noted, do not contribute to the budget of the Public Defender), it has identified 25,240 accounts with a balance of approximately $5.54 million in collections with Linebarger, and it has notified Linebarger to suspend collections on these accounts. • In terms of booking fees, which may be ordered in the amount of $564, it has identified 3,684 accounts with a balance of $901,092, and it has notified Linebarger to suspend collections on these accounts. • In terms of probation fees – which, by RSG’s analysis, represent 54% of the revenues generated by criminal justice fees in Contra Costa in the year studied – the Court has not yet been able to identify the total amount of unpaid debt and it has not yet suspended collections on such fees, pending an administrative revision to its vendor data system. 4. A Body of Evidence Local and national research has widely and consistently shown that criminal justice fees are harmful, that they undermine successful reentry, and that they increase the chance of recidivism. For those who are convicted in criminal court, fees for probation supervision, drug and alcohol testing, representation by a public defender and non-custodial sentencing options are assessed in addition to Page 67 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 6 of 8 other costs and can quickly add up to thousands of dollars. In Contra Costa County, an individual with a three-year term of supervised probation is assessed $2,700 in Probation supervision fees alone. Research shows that the vast majority of people charged such costs cannot afford to pay them and that counties typically net very little or even lose revenue after accounting for collections costs.13 Fees make reentry harder, hurting credit scores, making it harder for people to find housing or open a bank account, and discouraging people from seeking formal employment out of fear that their wages will be garnished, bank accounts levied, or tax refunds intercepted.”14 National research is unanimous on this point: Given the endemic racial bias present throughout our justice systems, administrative fees are disproportionately imposed on communities of color, who are further disproportionately likely to have difficulty paying them. In California, close to half of Black and Latinx families struggle to put food on the table and pay for housing.15 And research has found that the burden of such fees is typically felt by family members; in a national survey by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, 63% of respondents reported that family members were primarily responsible for covering conviction-related costs, and 83% of those paying such costs are women. Nearly half also reported that their families could not afford to pay these fines and fees, and 1 in 5 families across income levels reported that they had to take out a loan to cover conviction-related costs.16 It should be noted that a report released in May 2019 by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System drives home the devastating havoc that can result from costs such as criminal justice fees. Entitled Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018, the report found that “many adults are financially vulnerable and would have difficulty handling an emergency expense as small as $400.”17 The study found that 17% of adults are forced to leave some bills unpaid each month, while another 12% said that an additional expense of $400 would leave them unable to meet their basic needs. A full 42% of people who have no college education would be pushed into financial hardship by such an expense, with an even higher percentage of African Americans (58%) affected in this way. Even for African Americans with some college or an associate’s degree find significant harm; 46% report that they would not be able to pay their monthly bills if hit with an additional $400 expense. And rather than constituting a one-time expense, criminal justice fees tend to recur - probation fees, drug testing fees, and partial payment fees all accrue month after month. 5. Contra Costa County Implications According to the American Bar Association, the vast majority of people accused in criminal courts are considered indigent, unable to afford their own attorney and eligible therefore for the constitutional protections for public defense. The ABA estimates that 85 to 95 percent of people accused of crimes cannot afford their own lawyer;18 however, Contra Costa County collects no local data on this point. Data provided by the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff can serve as a sufficient proxy for the racial implications of our local criminal justice system; according to the Office of the Sheriff, 71% of people currently incarcerated in our county jails are people of color.19 Page 68 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 7 of 8 In Contra Costa County, the Probation Department, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Courts are authorized to impose local criminal justice fees. Each of these entities is governed by a different set of internal policies and practices with regard to the fees in question, and our research suggests that Contra Costa County has thus far failed to develop consistent, transparent, or equitable practices; has not engaged in meaningful oversight or analyses of the implementation and impacts of these fees; and indeed both expanded and increased these fees in the immediate aftermath of the economic recession of 2007-2009, a time when unemployment was at near record levels and millions of families across the nation found themselves bankrupt, foreclosed on, evicted, and out of work.20 6. Summary The policy implications from national and local research are clear: “We should end the practice of assessing criminal administrative fees. Eliminating administrative fees will allow formerly incarcerated people to devote their limited resources to critical needs like food, education, housing and health insurance. Repealing criminal fees will also result in improved employment prospects for formerly incarcerated people and put more money in the pockets of economically insecure families, aiding successful reentry and reducing California’s recidivism rate.”21 Contra Costa County is not unique in its past practices with criminal justice fees, and there is a way forward. By establishing a governmental entity to recognize and begin to redress this endemic American reality, the Financial Justice Project in San Francisco has been a trailblazer, but the research conducted in Contra Costa County is equally uncommon; we know of no other county in California in which non-governmental agencies have undertaken this level of detailed local analysis. And of course, as the third county in the nation to end or suspend such fees, Contra Costa County now stands as one of the leading lights committed to such opportunities for change. 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gUo96d0Idfa6qdFj5QhGY-cdI61MZ_9q/view 2 http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?dsp=agm&seq=27510&rev=0&id=&form_type=AG_MEMO&beg_meet mth=10&beg_meetyr=2016&end_meetmth=10&end_meetyr=2016&mt=ALL&sstr=juvenile&dept=ALL&hartkeywo rds=&sortby=f.form_num,%20f.rev_num&fp=ADVSRCH&StartRow=1 3 http://reentrysolutionsgroup.org/meeting_materials/Press_release_and_moratorium_letters_10-28- 16_english_and_spanish.pdf 4 https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/01/07/the-check-is-in-the-mail-for-real 5 https://sftreasurer.org/sites/default/files/2019- 08/Overview%20of%20the%20Financial%20Justice%20Project%2012.11.18.pdf Page 69 of 151 Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa County Prepared by Rebecca Brown, Director of Reentry Solutions Group Submitted to the Public Protection Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11/4/19, page 8 of 8 6 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gUo96d0Idfa6qdFj5QhGY-cdI61MZ_9q/view, including: Eliminate all criminal justice administrative fees charged by the City and County of San Francisco. allow lower-income people non- monetary options to clear their Quality of Life citations, reduce or waive fees related to parking tickets and other citations for lower-income people, adopt court reforms to substantially reduce the cost of state-imposed traffic fines and fees for lower-income people, reduce the city’s steep towing and “boot” fees for lower-income San Franciscans, develop a pilot program to relieve parents of debt paid to the government instead of to child support payments, reduce use of money bail 7 http://test-sfttx.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2019-09/Hig%20Pain%20Low%20Gain%20FINAL_04-24- 2019.pdf 8 https://texasmonitor.org/lawsuit-against-collection-firm-raises-questions-on-tax-judgments/ 9 http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/debt_collection_law_firm_to_pay_3.4m_to_settle_class_action/ 10 https://www.classaction.org/media/guerra-v-miami-dade.pdf 11 http://www.hoysettlement.com/media/2115094/stipulation_of_class_action_settlement.pdf 12 http://reentrysolutionsgroup.org/meeting_materials/2_26_19_RSGFinalV2.pdf 13 East Bay Community Law Center, Pay or Prey (2018); Berkeley Law Public Advocacy Clinic, Making Families Pay (2017). 14 https://ebclc.org/cadebtjustice/policy-platform/ 15 Insight Center for Community Economic Development, Cost of Being Californian (2018). 16 Ella Baker Center, Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families (2015). 17 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf 18 Laurence A . Benner, Eliminating Excessive Public Defender Workloads, 2011 A .B .A, Criminal Justice Vol . 2, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjsu11_ benner .authcheckdam .pdf. 19 Assistant Sheriff Mathew Schuler, email communication to Rebecca Brown, October 25, 2019. 20 Contra Costa County Resolutions No. 2010/251, 2010/252, 2010/253, 2010/262. Originally research into bureaucratic and administrative history in Contra Costa County, produced by Reentry Solutions Group in February 2018, unpublished and available upon request. 21 https://ebclc.org/cadebtjustice/policy-platform/ Page 70 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 1 of 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In September 2019, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) voted to impose a moratorium on the use of locally imposed criminal justice fees, becoming only the third county in the nation to end or suspend such fees. The Board also referred this issue to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) to provide the Board with additional data and information. It is important to distinguish the common types of monetary payments in the criminal justice system: • Administrative Fees are imposed to offset the administrative costs of court activities, supervision, or incarceration. • Fines and restitution are monetary punishments for infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fines and restitution are intended to deter crime, punish offenders, and compensate victims for losses. • Bail is a bond payment for a defendant’s release from jail prior to court proceedings, and the majority of a bail payment is returned to a defendant after case disposition. Bail payments are intended to incentivize defendants to appear at court and, in some cases, to reduce the criminal risk of returning a defendant to the community. The moratorium affects only locally-imposed criminal justice administrative fees and excludes fines, restitution, bail and state-imposed administrative fees. Such administrative fees are imposed on individuals who have already faced other consequences for their crime. They have often served time in jail, paid other fines, or are paying victim restitution. The goals of these local criminal justice fees are to generate revenue to cover costs, not create an additional layer of punishment. In regard to criminal justice fees in Contra Costa County, several key findings emerge: • From early 2018 through the present, substantial research and analysis into locally-imposed administrative fees was conducted by Reentry Solutions Group (RSG) in partnership with UC Berkeley School of Law Policy Advocacy Clinic (UCB) and other stakeholders. This comprehensive process included the collection and analysis of all existing and relevant financial records provided by the Superior Court of Contra Costa County. In its scope and depth, this local process was commensurate with similar research undertaken by the City and County of San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project. • Vast majority of criminal-justice involved individuals are indigent. As a proxy method to determine the percentage of justice-involved people in Contra Costa who are legally indigent, the Contra Costa County Probation Department conducted a review of its records and found that 93% of probationers are represented by the Public Defender or the Alternate Defender’s Office. A further review of Probation cases found that approximately 88% of Probationers had income levels below 200% of the federal poverty guideline. • Vast majority of criminal-justice involved individuals are people of color. A snapshot report conducted in October 2019 by the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff found that 71% of the people incarcerated in Contra Costa County’s jails are people of color. • Moratorium’s implementation is incomplete, as the Court awaits further direction from the County. The Court has largely stopped imposing locally-controlled fees on new cases, but it continues to collect and attempt to collect fees previously imposed. Due to limitations with the Attachment H Page 71 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 2 of 11 Court’s current data system the Court cannot fully implement the moratorium. Estimating the cost of such changes as $63,750, the Court is awaiting the County’s direction to undertake necessary data-system changes and incur these expenses on behalf of the County. From our review of national research, our key findings include: • Criminal justice fees disproportionately harm the poor and people of color. African Americans are more likely to be arrested than people from any other racial/ethnic group. Administrative fees are disproportionately imposed on communities of color, who are further disproportionately likely to have difficulty paying them. Demographic analysis confirms that in California, close to half of Black and Latinx families struggle to put food on the table and pay for housing. • Families bear the brunt of the financial costs of justice involvement. A study by the Ella Baker Center found that family members, usually women, often pay criminal justice fines and fees on behalf of their loved ones. • Benefit of collecting these fees is outweighed by the cost of imposing them. Research shows that the vast majority of people charged such costs cannot afford to pay them and that counties typically net very little or even lose revenue after accounting for collections costs. Fees make reentry harder, hurt credit scores, make it harder for people to find housing or open a bank account, and discourage people from seeking formal employment out of fear that their wages will be garnished, bank accounts levied, or tax refunds intercepted. Attachment H Page 72 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 3 of 11 1. INTRODUCTION In September 2019, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) voted to impose a moratorium on the use of locally imposed criminal justice fees, becoming only the third county in the nation to end or suspend such fees. The Board also referred the matter of criminal justice fees to the Public Protection Committee (PPC), requesting that the PPC attempt to identify and provide to the Board additional available and relevant data. On September 30, 2019, the Public Protection Committee accepted an update on the implementation of the moratorium on the collection of adult criminal justice fee. The PPC directed staff to assemble a small work group to identify and provide to the PPC any additional available and relevant data. 2. SAN FRANCISCO FINANCIAL JUSTICE PROJECT In late 2016, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors called for the creation of the Financial Justice Project (FJP) within the Office of The Treasurer and Tax Collector to assess and reform how fines and fees impact low-income San Franciscans and people of color. The Board of Supervisors also initiated a Fines and Fees Task Force, composed of staff from city and county departments and community organization representatives. The Task Force was directed to study the impact of fines, fees, tickets, and various financial penalties that disproportionately impact low-income San Franciscans, and propose reforms. The Board of Supervisors directed the newly-created FJP to staff the Task Force. Since its creation, the FJP has had two full-time staff members, including a Director and a Program Manager. The FJP is directed by Anne Stuldreher, who was previously a Senior Program Manager for The California Endowment, Senior Policy Fellow for New America, and Senior Policy Advisor for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The FJP is managed by Christa Brown, who previously served as Director of the SparkPoint Initiative for the United Way of the Bay Area and who holds a Master’s in Public Administration from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. For approximately one year, the Fines and Fees Task Force held seven meetings researching and discussing the impact of fines and fees on the San Francisco community. The Fines and Fees Task Force was supported by funding partners, including the Citi Community Development and the Walter & Elise Haas Fund. In October of 2017, the FJP released a report on the Task Force’s findings. The report proposed 40 reforms of both policy and practice, including implementing an ability to pay system for court fees, reducing reliance on quality of life crime fines, and decreasing the rate of suspending driver’s licenses. On February 6, 2018, London Breed, the Mayor of San Francisco, announced she was introducing legislation to eliminate all criminal justice administrative fees authorized by local government. In April of 2018, the Financial Justice Project released a report, Criminal Justice Administrative Fees: High Pain for People, Low Gain for Government, detailing the impact of criminal justice administrative fees on the community.1 In the report, the FJP found that approximately 21,000 people owed approximately $32.7 million in outstanding debt. The majority of outstanding debt was for Probation-related fees. The report estimated that the elimination of fees would result in at least $1 million in decreased annual revenue. 1 http://test-sfttx.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2019-09/Hig%20Pain%20Low%20Gain%20FINAL_04-24- 2019.pdf Attachment H Page 73 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 4 of 11 An evaluation of the Public Defender’s Clean Slate Program showed that most of their clients were living in extreme poverty. In June of 2018, legislation eliminating the local administered fees was unanimously passed with support from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Chief of Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender, and the Sheriff. The ordinance was scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2018. While the fees included in the legislation are authorized by the county, the San Francisco Superior Court serves as the financial administrator for collecting fees. Because the courts are independently governed, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to direct the court to clear past judgments. To resolve this issue, the Public Defender’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Financial Justice Project worked to submit a petition to the court to clear all debts associated with the fees included in the legislation, along with a list of associated account numbers. The UC Berkeley Law School Public Advocacy Clinic assisted with the process of collecting information on outstanding debt. Two months later, in August of 2018, the San Francisco Superior Court announced they had eliminated more than $32.7 million in outstanding debt stemming from these fees. 3. SUMMARY OF LOCAL RESEARCH PROCESS Similar research and analysis have been conducted in Contra Costa County over the past two years, largely by Reentry Solutions Group (RSG) in partnership with UC Berkeley School of Law Policy Advocacy Clinic (UCB) and other stakeholders, as follows: In partnership with the Office of the Sheriff, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Office of Reentry and Justice, RSG established a work group to improve the policies and procedures for Electronic Monitoring in Lieu of Bail, Home Detention in Lieu of Confinement, and Work Release in Lieu of Confinement. Over the past 20 months, the Work Group has made incremental progress, and the Sheriff’s Office has largely suspended the use of application or administrative fees for the programs delegated to its administration by the Board of Supervisors. In October 2018, UCB submitted a public records request to County Counsel for Contra Costa County, seeking information on how the County “assesses and collects fees against adults…in the criminal justice system. In response to this request, Contra Costa County provided several procedural forms, with no further administrative data, policy documents, or analyses. In October 2018, UCB submitted to the Superior Court a public records request for fee-related judicial records. The Court replied that it had no responsive records regarding the numbers, demographics, amounts imposed, fees waived, or cost of collections related to such fees. The Court did provide a 362- page PDF of financial accounting and tracking spreadsheets used by the Court in its role as financial administrator for state and local justice-related fees. It should be noted that these data do not provide information related to individual cases, and the document contained no individual or identifying information. Instead, this document provides a month-by-month financial detail of the funds associated with each criminal justice fee collected by the Court as authorized by either state statutes or local ordinances. In November and December 2018, RSG’s Director, Rebecca Brown, conducted an extensive analysis of the data embedded in this document. From it, Ms. Brown produced a comprehensive, month-by-month, item-by-item categorical report on every criminal justice fee collected and distributed by the Courts on Contra Costa County’s behalf in each month throughout from July 2017 through June 2018. Capturing all the Contra Costa County data provided in the Court’s document, this analysis included line-by-line Attachment H Page 74 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 5 of 11 accounting for each fee type, recording Non-delinquent Receipts, Delinquent Receipts, and Net Revenue Distribution, among other data. In December 2018, Ms. Brown and a law student from UCB’s Policy Advocacy Clinic engaged in a telephone interview with the Court to seek additional information related to the financial data provided. Also in December, Ms. Brown obtained a copy of, and closely reviewed, the Master Agreement for Collection Services, which is a contract between the Court and its debt collector, Linebarger Goggan Blair and Sampson, LLP. The Fee Schedule that accompanies the Agreement reveals that the bulk of Linebarger’s commissions range from 18-25% of all debt collected, with financial incentives to collect debt that is at least two years old. In February 2019, RSG disseminated the results of the financial and administrative analyses of Contra Costa County’s justice fees and the Linebarger contract (along with an analysis of the Contra Costa County DA’s civil asset forfeiture practices) at a public meeting. Entitled What the Numbers Tell Us: Money and Justice in Contra Costa County, this public presentation was also published on RSG’s website.2 4. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PROCESSES Each agency that assesses and/or collects adult criminal justice fees– the Probation Department, the Office of the Sheriff, and the Superior Court- is governed by a different set of internal policies and practices. Each of these will be laid out in the following sections: (1) Probation Department, (2) Sheriff’s Office, and (3) the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (Court). A. PROBATION DEPARTMENT In January 2018, the Probation Department updated their ability-to-pay determination process. All adults who have been ordered to formal Probation, which includes mandatory supervision, and who are ordered to pay Probation fees, drug testing fees and/or the cost of their various reports, should be assessed for their ability to pay said fees. However, the Chief Probation Officer has acknowledged that enforcement of this policy is inconsistent, and that requiring Deputy Probation Officers to engage in questions about money and fees is contrary to their mission of rehabilitation. The Probation’s Department’s official fee assessment process is as follows: • Once the probationer has been out of custody for three (3) months, or if the probationer was sentenced from out of custody, the Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) is to provide him or her with the Application for Financial Evaluation. • The probationer is instructed to complete the evaluation form and return it to the DPO within 20 business days or sooner. If the probationer fails to return the completed evaluation or returns an incomplete evaluation form, the DPO is to give the probationer a warning that the evaluation needs to be completed within 10 business days or the amount of fees will be set at the maximum allowed. • Once the probationer returns the completed application, the DPO is to send the application and the order for Probation to the Probation Account Clerk to review the application and determine the probationer's ability to pay based on net income and Probation’s Fee Reduction schedule. 2 http://reentrysolutionsgroup.org/meeting_materials/2_26_19_RSGFinalV2.pdf Attachment H Page 75 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 6 of 11 • Once this determination has been made, the Probation Account Clerk is to respond to the DPO with the total amount the probationer is determined able to pay over the duration of their time on Probation. • Upon receipt of the determination of the probationer's ability to pay, the DPO reviews the ability to pay determination with the probationer; the probationer has the option to agree to the amount or to request a hearing. • If the probationer agrees to the determined amount, the DPO prepares and sends the Determination of Ability to Pay memo to the Court along with a copy of the Ability to Pay Determination/Waiver/Instructions. The DPO also informs the probationer that in the event of changed financial circumstances, the probationer may request an updated Ability to Pay review or may request that the Court modify or vacate an existing court judgement for payment of fees. • If the probationer disagrees with the amount determined by the Probation Department, the DPO is to contact the court clerk and calendar a hearing and to notify the probationer of the hearing date, time and location. The Defense Attorney and the District Attorney shall be notified and provided copies of all documents provided to the Court, including the Determination of Ability to Pay Memo, the Application for Financial Evaluation, the Ability to Pay Determination/ Waiver/ Instructions and any other supporting documentation. B. OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF The Office of the Sheriff is responsible for the administration of Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) programs, which includes Work Alternative Program (WAP), Electronic Home Detention (EHD)/Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM), and County Parole. Assessment and collection of fees is the responsibility of the Office of the Sheriff. With respect to WAP, PC 4024.2(c) authorizes the county’s board of supervisors to “prescribe reasonable rules and regulations under which a work release program is operated.” With respect to EHD, PC 1203.016(d) (1) specifies that the rules, regulations, and administrative policy of the Electronic Home Detention Program shall be written and reviewed on an annual basis by the County Board of Supervisors and the Correctional Administrator. The Board of Supervisors last conducted an annual review of the policies and procedures of the Custody Alternative Facilities programs in 2010. • Office of the Sheriff Ability to Pay Process Beginning in mid-2018, the Office of the Sheriff revised its practices to assess and set application and daily fees for CAF. Under the new guidelines, CAF participants apply to and are enrolled in CAF prior to any discussion of fees or ability to pay. Upon enrollment, participants review and complete the personal budget form with their assigned CAF Specialist. The participant may request a reduction/waiver of fees based on their stated ability to pay. A CAF Sergeant is to review and approve the Personal Budget form. By statute, a participant's inability to pay all or a portion of any fee(s) shall not preclude them from being enrolled or completing any program offered by the Custody Alternative Facility. • Office of the Sheriff Process of Collections CAF fees are collected by CAF staff after participants are enrolled in CAF. Fees can be paid in the manner which is most appropriate for the participant. Participants can pay their total program fees at one time or over a pre-determined length of time. There is no process established to collect payment from participants who complete the program, but do not pay. A participant's ability to Attachment H Page 76 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 7 of 11 successfully complete a CAF programs is not impacted by lack of payment. Because the Sheriff’s Office has historically collected no data on assessments, collections, or ability to pay, it is not possible to provide accurate information regarding these considerations. • Office of the Sheriff CAF Workgroup The Office of the Sheriff has worked with representatives from the Office of Reentry and Justice, the Public Defender’s Office, and Reentry Solutions Group to review the CAF policies and procedures, including develop Ability to Pay processes and forms. • Cross-County Comparison: Work Alternative Program Fees In September 2018, Alameda Sheriff’s Office provided a presentation on their Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program.3 Included in that presentation was a cost comparison of Work Alternative Programs among twelve different counties (see Figure 1). Contra Costa County’s Administrative Fee for the Work Alternative Program was the highest amongst the county’s included in this comparison. Figure 1. Work Alternative Cost Comparison • Superior Court The Court currently collects and distributes eight of the 13 fees and assessments identified in the moratorium. In response to a request made by the County Administrator’s Office, on October 21, 2019, the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (Court) provided a letter summarizing the administrative/technological processes required to suspend collection of past-due fees, as directed by the moratorium. Figure 2 summarizes the Court’s role the imposition and collection of the referenced fees, along with the current status related to moratorium’s implementation. Figure 2. Summary of Court Fees 3 Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP) Presentation, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, September 13, 2018 Attachment H Page 77 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 8 of 11 Name of Fee/Assessment Case Type(s) Affected Court Imposed Court Collected Continued Collection Continued Imposition 10% Fee Criminal Y Y Pending N CA Fingerprint ID Penalty Criminal & Traffic Y Y N/A Y Booking Fee Criminal Y Y N N Drug Diversion Fee Criminal Y Y Pending N Alcohol Test Fee Criminal (DUI & Reckless) N N N/A N/A CAP Fee Criminal (DUI & Reckless) N N N/A N/A Probation Drug Diversion Fee Criminal Y Y Pending N Cost of Probation Criminal N Y Pending N Probation Drug Test Fee Criminal N Y Pending N Probation Report Fee Criminal N Y Pending N Alcohol and Drug Assessment Fee Criminal N N N/A N/A Public Defender Fee Criminal N Y Pending N The Court’s current data system is not sufficient to conduct the data analysis required to enact the moratorium; it estimates that the necessary modifications will cost an estimated $63,750. The Court’s letter also emphasized that the data system does not have the capacity to temporarily suspend fees for potential future reinstatement. Given the cost of technological modifications and the inability to suspend (but not eliminate) unpaid debt, the Court requests further direction from the County. In its letter, the Court reports that its current data system does not allow it to quantify the total unpaid amount for each fee type. However, its letter includes three points of interest: • For public defense fees, the Court has identified 25,240 accounts with a balance of approximately $5.54 million in collections with Linebarger. It has notified Linebarger to suspend collections on these accounts. • For booking fees, the Court has identified 3,684 accounts with a balance of $901,092. It has notified Linebarger to suspend collections on these accounts. • For probation fees – which, by RSG’s analysis, represent 54% of the revenues generated by criminal justice fees in Contra Costa in the year studied – the Court has not yet been able to identify the total amount of unpaid debt. Attachment H Page 78 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 9 of 11 5. AVAILABLE DATA In addition to the body of evidence and contra costa county implications, included in Reentry Solutions Group’s Report on Criminal Justice Fees in Contra Costa, there was limited data provided by the Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Departments on race and income levels. A. RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS Data provided by the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff can serve as a sufficient proxy for the racial implications of our local criminal justice system; according to the Office of the Sheriff, 71% of people currently incarcerated in our county jails are people of color (39% Black, 25% Latino, 7% Other)4 Given that approximately 8.8% of the population in Contra Costa County is Black,5 the per capita incarceration rate for African Americans in Contra Costa County is 4.4 times its overall representation in the larger population.6 According to data from the State of California DOJ CJSC, in both 2013 and 2014, African Americans were more likely to be arrested than individuals from any other racial/ethnic group in all but one city in Contra Costa County. While the specific rate of the disparity varied by city, the disparity tended to be higher in cities with smaller African American populations (see Appendix B for more information). Across the County, African American adults were more than three times more likely to be arrested than adults from any other racial/ethnic group, and African American youth were more than seven times more likely to be arrested than youth from any other racial/ethnic group.7 B. INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS To assess indigency in the county’s criminal justice system, the Probation Department conducted a review of 115 Probation cases from March 2018 to March 2019. It found that approximately 88% of Probationers had income levels below 200% of the federal poverty guideline ($49,200 for a family of four). For reference, the median family income in Contra Costa is $113,973.8 4 Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, email communication to Rebecca Brown, October 25, 2019. 5 2018 American Community Survey, ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=contra%20costa%20&hidePreview=false&table=DP05&tid=ACSDP1Y2018. DP05&g=0500000US06013&vintage=2018&layer=county&cid=DP05_0001E&lastDisplayedRow=93 7 Racial Justice Task Force Final Report, http://64.166.146.245/docs/2018/BOS/20180724_1121/34430_FINAL%20CCC-RJTF_BoS- memo_20180710_STC.pdf 8 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=contra%20costa%20county%20income&hidePreview=false&table=DP03&t id=ACSDP1Y2018.DP03&t=Income%20and%20Earnings&g=0500000US06013&vintage=2018&layer=county&cid=D P03_0001E&lastDisplayedRow=105 Attachment H Page 79 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 10 of 11 Figure 3. Probation Fee Reduction Sample (March 2018 - March 2019) Figure 4. Contra Costa County Probation Fee Reduction Schedule The Probation Department also reviewed 197 cases that were referred to the Probation Department for a probation report. Out of 197 cases, 184 cases were represented by the Public Defender or Alternate Defender Office, meaning that 93% of the people in this sample were legally considered indigent. 6. NATIONAL BODY OF RESEARCH Local and national research has widely and consistently shown that criminal justice fees are harmful, that they undermine successful reentry, and that they increase the chance of recidivism. For those who are convicted in criminal court, fees for probation supervision, drug and alcohol testing, representation by a public defender and non-custodial sentencing options are assessed in addition to other costs and can quickly add up to thousands of dollars. In Contra Costa County, an individual with a three-year term of supervised probation is assessed $2,700 in Probation supervision fees alone. Accounts % of Total Federal Poverty Level Fee Reduction 79 69%At of Below 100%100% 5 4%Up to 125%80% 3 3%Up to 150%60% 11 10%Up to 175%40% 3 3%Up to 200%20% 14 12%Above 200%0% 115 100% Attachment H Page 80 of 151 Contra Costa County Public Protection Committee Update on Criminal Justice Fees Page 11 of 11 Research shows that the vast majority of people charged such costs cannot afford to pay them and that counties typically net very little or even lose revenue after accounting for collections costs.9 Fees make reentry harder, hurting credit scores, making it harder for people to find housing or open a bank account, and discouraging people from seeking formal employment out of fear that their wages will be garnished, bank accounts levied, or tax refunds intercepted.”10 Given the endemic racial bias present throughout our justice systems, administrative fees are disproportionately imposed on communities of color, who are further disproportionately likely to have difficulty paying them. In California, close to half of Black and Latinx families struggle to put food on the table and pay for housing.11 And research has found that the burden of such fees is typically felt by family members; in a national survey by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, 63% of respondents reported that family members were primarily responsible for covering conviction-related costs, and 83% of those paying such costs are women. Nearly half also reported that their families could not afford to pay these fines and fees, and 1 in 5 families across income levels reported that they had to take out a loan to cover conviction-related costs.12 It should be noted that a report released in May 2019 by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System drives home the devastating results from costs such as criminal justice fees. Entitled Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018, the report found that “many adults are financially vulnerable and would have difficulty handling an emergency expense as small as $400.”13 The study found that 17% of adults are forced to leave some bills unpaid each month, while another 12% said that an additional expense of $400 would leave them unable to meet their basic needs. A full 42% of people who have no college education would be pushed into financial hardship by such an expense, with an even higher percentage of African Americans (58%) affected in this way. Even for African Americans with some college or an Associate’s degree find significant harm; 46% report that they would not be able to pay their monthly bills if hit with an additional $400 expense. And rather than constituting a one-time expense, criminal justice fees tend to recur - probation fees, drug testing fees, and partial payment fees all accrue month after month. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the vast majority of people accused in criminal courts are considered indigent, unable to afford their own attorney and eligible therefore for the constitutional protections for public defense. The ABA estimates that 85 to 95 percent of people accused of crimes cannot afford their own lawyer; however, Contra Costa County collects no local data on this point.14 9 East Bay Community Law Center, Pay or Prey (2018); Berkeley Law Public Advocacy Clinic, Making Families Pay (2017). 10 https://ebclc.org/cadebtjustice/policy-platform/ 11 Insight Center for Community Economic Development, Cost of Being Californian (2018). 12 Ella Baker Center, Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families (2015). 13 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf 14 Laurence A . Benner, Eliminating Excessive Public Defender Workloads, 2011 A .B .A, Criminal Justice Vol . 2, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjsu11_ benner .authcheckdam .pdf. Attachment H Page 81 of 151 ATTACHMENT I Fee Description Funded Department/Program FY 19/20 Budgeted Revenue FY 19/20 YTD Revenue Unrealized Revenue 10% Fee Trial Court Programs - 20,651.00 (20,651.00) California Fingerprint ID Penalty Automated Fingerprint ID 158,534.00 42,448.64 116,085.36 Booking Fee Sheriff Central Admin 7,000.00 6,562.67 437.33 Drug Diversion Fee1 Trial Court Programs - 25,548.34 (25,548.34) Alcohol Test Fee2 Sheriff - General Lab 100,000.00 26,237.92 73,762.08 C.A.P. Fee2 Sheriff - General Lab - C.A.P. Fee Alcohol & Other Drugs - 8,882.69 (8,882.69) Probation Drug Diversion Fee Probation - Adult - 388.62 (388.62) Probation Supervision Fee Probation - Adult 88,239.72 (88,239.72) Probation Drug Test Fee Probation - Adult - 10,926.36 (10,926.36) Probation Report Fee Probation - Adult - 5,176.16 (5,176.16) Alcohol/Drug Assessment Fee Alcohol & Other Drugs - 35,009.72 (35,009.72) Public Defense Fee Trial Court Programs 94,000.00 42,666.21 51,333.79 Work Alternative Custody Alternative Facility 350,000.00 55,703.00 294,297.00 Electronic Home Detention/Alcohol Monitoring Custody Alternative Facility 100,000.00 11,622.00 88,378.00 Total 809,534.00 380,063.05 429,470.95 Note: 1 - Drug Diversion Fee YTD Revenue includes other state mandated fee revenue. 2 - The fee revenue for Sheriff-General Lab is made up of both Alcohol Test and 50% of C.A.P. Fee. Page 82 of 151 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:12/02/2019 Subject:Draft Racial Equity Action Plan 2019-2024 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2019-29 Referral Name: Draft Racial Equity Action Plan  Presenter: L. DeLaney and D. Blue Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: At its November 19, 2019 meeting, the Board of Supervisors referred the matter of a Draft Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP) to the Public Protection Committee for their consideration and action, as requested by District I Supervisor John Gioia (C. 56).  Referral Update: Contra Costa County staff in a variety of departments have participated in the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) since 2016, working to develop and achieve racial equity outcomes in Contra Costa County. Racial equity means we eliminate racial disproportionalities so that race can no longer be used to predict success, and we increase the success of all communities. Advancing racial equity is to our collective benefit. GARE is a national network of governments working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. GARE is supported by the Center for Social Inclusion, Race Forward, and funded by the California Endowment/Building Healthy Communities, with technical assistance and academic research from the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society and members of GARE's Technical Assistance Advisory Group. GARE was launched by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at the University of California Berkeley in early 2014. Government agencies participating in GARE were required to establish a "cohort" of six to 15 individuals, which was ideally comprised of staff and leadership committed to advancing racial equity. The cohorts participated in a year-long training of monthly sessions that included skill building and strategy development, an "Advancing Racial Equity" speaker series, and peer-to-peer networking and problem solving opportunities.  In 2016, the Contra Costa County cohort was comprised of:  1. Philip Arnold, Jr., Community Advocate 2. Harlan Grossman, Superior Court Judge (ret.) 3. Ron Martin, contracted Trainer for Risk Management Page 83 of 151 4. Antoine Wilson, Contra Costa County EEO Officer 5. Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender 6. Sharon Hymes-Offord, Director of Risk Management (ret.) 7. Mickey Williams, EHSD Personnel Manager In 2017, the Contra Costa County cohort was comprised of: 1. Philip Arnold, Jr., Team Lead/Community Advocate 2. Elvin Baddley, Probation Manager, Probation Department 3. Donte Blue, Deputy Director, Office of Reentry & Justice 4. Cedrita Claiborne, Contra Costa Health Services 5. Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator, CAO 6. Dianne Dinsmore, Director, Human Resources 7. Michelle Fregoso, Personnel Services Assistant, Employment and Human Services (EHSD) 8. Yolanda Harrell-Jones, Staff Development Specialist, EHSD 9. Connie James, Manager, Health Services (HSD) 10. Jaime Jenett, Planning and Policy Manager, HSD 11. Shannon Ladner-Beasley, Manager, Public Health Solutions Projects, HSD 12. Sharron A. Mackey, Chief Operations Officer, CC Health Plan 13. Daniel Peddycord, Public Health Director, HSD In 2018, the Contra Costa County cohort was comprised of: 1. Brandon Banks, Deputy Public Defender, Public Defender's Office 2. Donte Blue, Deputy Director, Office of Reentry & Justice 3. Illiana Choate, Staff Development Specialist, EHSD 4. Cedrita Claiborne, EHSD 5. Lara DeLaney, acting Director, ORJ 6. John Ebrahimi, Probaton Manager, Probation Department 7. Marta Goc, Senior HR Consultant, Human Resources 8. Michelle Krasowski, Librarian Specialist, Contra Costa County Library 9. Venus Johnson, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney's Office 10. Joshua Sullivan, Health Services Administrator, HSD 11. Melvin Russell, Probation Department As a result of participation in the GARE cohort, each jurisdiction received tools and resources including: A racial equity training curriculum; A Racial Equity Tool to be used in policy, practice, program and budget decisions (see  Attachment B); Example policies and practices that help advance racial equity; and A Racial Equity Action Plan template/framework, and development support. Implementation of these tools and resources varied, depending on the opportunities and resources within individual organizations.  Technical assistance was generously provided to Contra Costa County by Philip Arnold, community advocate and leader; Dwayne Marsh, Vice President of Institutional and Sectoral Change, Race Forward; and Leslie Zeitler, California GARE Project Manager, Race Forward. Page 84 of 151 Contra Costa County's participation in GARE has resulted in the following initiatives: 1. A Draft "Office of Human Rights & Equity" proposal, from the 2016 GARE Cohort 2. A Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors affirming the County's "Commitment to Racial Equity, Diversity, and the GARE Initiative." (Nov. 14, 2017, C. 15) 3. Development and implementation of Implicit Bias and Procedural Justice training programs in the County 4. Participation by Contra Costa County in "United Against Hate Week" in 2018 and 2019 5. Development of a Contra Costa County Position Statement on Racism, offered to the Board of Supervisors from the 2017 GARE Cohort 6. Development of a Draft Racial Equity Action Plan (see Attachment A). The Draft Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP) was developed by GARE Cohort participants, other County staff, and assembled by the staff of the Office of Reentry & Justice (ORJ). GARE Cohort participants from 2016, 2017, and 2018 were invited by the ORJ to form a "Racial Equity Action Leadership (REAL)" Team, to assist in the drafting of the REAP, utilizing the template provided by GARE. Other County staff contributors included: Jody London, County Sustainability Coordinator Ali Saidi, Public Defender's Office/ Stand Together Contra Costa Sonia Bustamante, District I Chief of Staff Devorah Levine, Policy and Planning, EHSD Paul Burgarino, Elections Division The Draft REAP is offered as a framework to continue to advance the development and maintenance of the necessary County infrastructure, policy and resources to ensure racial equity and immigrant inclusion. The Draft REAP recognizes the community engagement process required to inform the infrastructure, policy, and resources, which must be conducted in order for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a Racial Equity Action Plan by 2021. The ORJ will support the community engagement process, as needed. ORJ staff is in the process of identifying resources to translate the Draft REAP into multiple languages for greater language accessibility.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): PROVIDE input and direction to staff on the draft Racial Equity Action Plan. Attachments Attachment A: Draft REAP Attachment B: GARE Racial Equity Toolkit Page 85 of 151 Racial Equity Plan Draft 2019-24– Page 1 November 22, 2019 2019-2024 Racial Equity Action Plan Result Statement for All Outcomes: Racial equity and immigrant inclusion is prioritized in the policies and practices of Contra Costa County to ensure all people in the County are healthy, resilient and experience economic wellbeing. 1. Outcome Statement: Contra Costa County employees and elected officials understand and are committed to achieving racial equity and immigrant inclusion. Community Indicator Outcomes and Actions Timeline Accountability Performance Measure Progress report Race/ethnicity of County Life expectancy Number of insured Infant mortality rate Violent deaths Median earnings Distribution of wealth Housing, home ownership and homelessness Housing burden Market rent Affordable housing production Extreme commuting Neighborhood opportunity A. Contra Costa County employees and elected officials understand and are committed to developing and maintaining the County infrastructure needed to advance and achieve racial equity and immigrant inclusion. 1) Establish a Racial Equity Action Leadership (REAL)Team- Establish a racial equity action team consisting of County Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) Cohort members, supported by leadership and with leadership representation, which is responsible for the development of an organization-wide draft Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP) using the GARE-provided template. The REAL Team will evolve into a cross-departmental networking group to share best practices, equity-related information and experiences. 2) Adopt a Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP) a) Prepare a final draft REAP and distribute to the public and community organizations for input. b) Conduct community engagement on draft REAP; ensure language accessibility. c) The Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopts and maintains a Racial Equity Action Plan that has been developed by the REAL team, vetted by department heads and the County Administrator’s Office, reviewed and informed by the community, and finalized by the Equity & Inclusion Office(r). 1) 2018 to present 2) a) Nov. 2016 to Nov. 2019 b) Jan. to July 1, 2021 c) July 1, 2021 final REAP adoption by BOS. 1) Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) 2) a) REAL team and ORJ b) ORJ or Equity & Inclusion Office(r) c) Board of Supervisors and Equity & Inclusion Office(r) 1) The REAL team is established and conducts regular meetings to achieve its goals. 2) a) A draft REAP is accepted by the BOS on its Dec.17, 2019 agenda. b) Community input is received on the draft REAP in multiple languages. c) A Racial Equity Action Plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 1) Draft REAP to the Public Protection Committee Dec. 2, 2019. 2) Report to BOS or BOS Subcommittee on results of community engagement process. Attachment A Page 86 of 151 Racial Equity Plan Draft 2019-24– Page 2 November 22, 2019 1. Outcome Statement: Contra Costa County employees and elected officials understand and are committed to achieving racial equity and immigrant inclusion. Community Indicator Outcomes and Actions Timeline Accountability Performance Measure Progress report Business ownership Proportion of adults in household with a college degree or better College readiness Educational attainment Police use of force Disconnected youth Language accessibility Nativity and ancestry Census engagement d) Incorporate racial equity and immigrant inclusion outcomes and actions into departmental strategic plans (ex: HSD 2020), equity plans and General Plan Update. 3) Establish an Office of Equity & Immigrant Inclusion or Chief Equity & Inclusion Officer (EIO) Position To ensure Immigrant Inclusion, Community Engagement, Language Accessibility in REAP adoption and implementation. a) Research and develop funding structures [e.g., Medicaid Administrative Activity (MAA), AB 109, Grants, leverage] b) Develop messaging to approach partners and funders c) Engage with partners like the CCP to support this effort d) Develop a position description; identify office space; seek BOS authorization to establish job classification e) Develop a budget and work plan that includes REAP adoption and resource development f) Establish an Equity & Inclusion Commission/Council for the purpose of ensuring on-going community engagement 4) Conduct a Racial Equity Survey – Establish baseline data and conduct periodically to assess knowledge, skills, and experiences of employees and officials related to race and equity. a) Finalize racial equity survey tool developed by the 2017 Contra Costa GARE cohort. Or establish GARE membership and utilize the GARE survey. b) Conduct and analyze a baseline racial equity survey of employees and elected officials in FY 2019-20 to be conducted on a biennial basis thereafter. d) FY2020 -2024 3) a) FY 2019-20 b) FY 2019-20 c) FY 2019-20 d) Nov. 2019 to Feb. 2020 e) FY 2020- 2021 f) FY 2021- 2022 4) 2020 d) County Departments 3) a) REAL team b) REAL team c) REAL team d) ORJ/EHSD e) ORJ, EHSD, Equity & Inclusion Office(r) f) Equity & Inclusion Office(r) 4). a) Equity & Inclusion Office(r) b) Equity & Inclusion Office(r) d) Racial equity and immigrant are incorporated into at least three departmental strategic plans and GP Update. 3) a) Secured funding for at least one FTE by FY 2020-21. b) & c) Number of presentations to partners and to the BOS that clarify the needs. d) BOS establishes Office(r). Office space procured for FY 2020-2024 e) Work Plan developed f) Equity & Inclusion Commission/Council established 4) a) At least two thirds of County employees respond to the survey with at least 3 departments and/or divisions with a 75% response rate. b) Able to establish a useful baseline of data 3) Report to BOS or BOS subcommittee 4) Report to BOS or BOS subcommittee Page 87 of 151 Racial Equity Plan Draft 2019-24– Page 3 November 22, 2019 1. Outcome Statement: Contra Costa County employees and elected officials understand and are committed to achieving racial equity and immigrant inclusion. Community Indicator Outcomes and Actions Timeline Accountability Performance Measure Progress report B. County employees and elected officials understand and act upon the costs of inequity and immigrant exclusion. 1) Analyze financial costs to the County of inequity a) Review grievances, filings, merit board petitions, and other relevant data points to better understand the financial impact of racial inequity within Contra Costa County. b) Use this information to establish a benchmark against which progress can be measured. 2) Analyze societal costs of inequity and immigrant exclusion a) Identify community and academic partners to support an analysis b) Conduct an analysis of the negative impacts of inequity and exclusion (financial, health, community) to communities of the county. 3) Pilot the use of a Racial Equity Tool in 3 to 5 departments (e.g., Public Health, Human Resources, Department of Conservation and Development, Library, Health, Housing, Homelessness Services, Employment & Human Services) a) Departments commit to utilize a Racial Equity Tool. b) Collect and report data on client outcomes by race/ethnicity. c) Develop and implement appropriate policies and procedures to better achieve racial equity. B. 1) FY 2020-21 2) FY 2020-21 3) FY 2020-24 B. 1) Equity & Inclusion Office(r) and REAL team 2) Equity & Inclusion Office(r) and REAL team 3) Equity & Inclusion Office(r) and County Departments B. 1) a) Conduct a case study of a single discrimination grievance from start to finish b) Establish a baseline and benchmarks for the financial cost of race-based grievances to the County. 2) Secure partners to engage in a process to analyze societal costs of inequity. 3) At least 3-5 departments utilize a Racial Equity Tool: a) 100% of participating departments use a Racial Equity Tool to collect data on client outcomes by race/ethnicity. c) There is a reduction of racial inequity as measured by community indicators related to the services provided by the piloting departments. B. Report to BOS or BOS subcommittee and/or Equity & Inclusion Commission/ Council Page 88 of 151 Racial Equity Plan Draft 2019-24– Page 4 November 22, 2019 2. Outcome Statement: Contra Costa County residents are engaged participants in the County’s efforts to improve racial equity and experience improvements in the community. Community Indicator Outcomes and Actions Timeline Accountability Performance Measure Progress report Diversity of Elected Officials Diversity of Candidates Diversity in Voter Registration Diversity in Voter Turnout Number of active civic groups representing the needs of community members most impacted by inequity from government policies Number of active youth groups representing the needs of their community 1) Community Engagement: County departments will work with other community-based agencies, institutions and advocacy groups to strengthen community partnerships and to identify, align, and implement strategies for advancing racial equity and immigrant inclusion. Through partnership, the Equity Office(r) will: a) Research and report on the racial history of Contra Costa County, incorporating results into employee training and advocacy for the need for racial equity measures in the County. b) Create a "State of Equity" map for the County (similar to Bay Area Equity Atlas) c) Create an equity resource list for internal and external audiences d) Create a shared calendar for equity-related events e) Participate in Community Partner equity initiatives and be the convener when appropriate f) Seek grant funding opportunities to support the work 2) County equity related advisory bodies such as the Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) and the Equity Commission/Council will be supported with on-going staff and outreach/engagement resources. 3) The Equity & Inclusion Office(r), RJOB, Equity Commission/Council and County departments will work with community based organizations to: a) Explore ways to get feedback from the community b) Make data accessible and develop an open data portal c) Conduct biennial racial equity community surveys 1) FY 2020-22 2) FY 2019-23 3) FY 2019-23 1) Equity Office(r), County Departments and Equity Commission/ Council 2) Equity & Inclusion Office(r), ORJ, County Departments 3) Equity & Inclusion Office(r), RJOB, Equity & Inclusion Commission, Departments Create equity statement on Board Orders. Complete report on the racial history of Contra Costa County, including redlining, highway development, incarceration, health disparities. Improved Number/Percentage of Residents self-report feelings of trust in County governance. Number of community partners that express the belief that County departments are improving racial equity outcomes & immigrant inclusion. Number of events hosted by the County with opportunities for community members to engage in shared analysis and decision making. Number of departments that solicit community input in recurring decision making processes (budget, hiring, etc.) utilizing a continuum to identify the type of input received, i.e. from listening sessions to shared decision making Number of equity initiatives led by community partners that County departments are engaged in. 1) Report to BOS or BOS subcommitt ee Page 89 of 151 Racial Equity Plan Draft 2019-24– Page 5 November 22, 2019 3. Outcome Statement: Contra Costa County workforce demographics (across the breadth and depth of positions), Board-appointed advisory bodies, and County contractors reflect the demographics of the community. Community Indicator Outcomes and Actions Timeline Accountability Performance Measure Progress report Racial and ethnic demographics of County residents Racial and ethnic demographics of Bay Area region Workforce demographics Income by race and ethnicity 1) The County Equal Employment Opportunity Officer (EEO) will: a) Provide information to departments through the Outreach and Recruitment Report, on a quarterly basis, on the under- representation in the County workforce as compared to the Bay Area region in terms of gender and race by job classification (not occupationally grouped categories) for actionable responses to the underrepresentation. b) Utilize data from the Outreach and Recruitment Report and other data available to HR to create an annual experience report that incorporates measures of equity (e.g., people- centered hiring process, candidate satisfaction, internal promotion tracking, and probation based termination rate). 2) Strengthen personnel policy and practices by using Racial Equity Tool Use a racial equity tool to assess the impact of the Personnel Management Regulations (PMR) 3) Racial Equity & Immigrant Inclusion Training— Implement a countywide mandatory introductory training on racial equity and immigrant inclusion, followed by ongoing training opportunities for all staff and elected officials. The training should include a variety of case studies and examples based on the jobs of those being trained. Training concepts should include: social construction of race, the history of race in government, implicit and explicit bias, institutional and structural racism, and tools and strategies to address bias and improve inclusion. 1) TBD 2) Begin Jan. 2020 3) FY 2020- 2021 1) a) Risk Management b) HR 2) HR 3) Equity & Inclusion Office(r), HR, Risk Management 1) a) Race of applicants by zip code b) Increased candidate satisfaction level c) Employee Diversity in job classifications d) Diversity of management level classifications e) Diversity of employees by job classifications 2) a) Complete report on analysis of current personnel policy and practices having used the Racial Equity Tool, including recommendations for changes to policies and practices that meet the goals of furthering racial equity. b) Implement recommendations of policy and practice analysis using a Racial Equity Tool. 3) a) 80% of training participants report increased awareness of the historic role of government in creating and contributing to present day racial inequities. Report to the Hiring Oversight Committee Page 90 of 151 Racial Equity Plan Draft 2019-24– Page 6 November 22, 2019 3. Outcome Statement: Contra Costa County workforce demographics (across the breadth and depth of positions), Board-appointed advisory bodies, and County contractors reflect the demographics of the community. Community Indicator Outcomes and Actions Timeline Accountability Performance Measure Progress report Additional topic-specific training will include: using the Racial Equity Tool, inclusive outreach and public engagement, and communicating about race. a) Identify what trainings exist in the County: 1) Equal Employment Opportunity 2) Sexual Harassment 3) Civil Rights 4) New Employee Onboarding in NeoGov 5) Procedural Justice and Implicit Bias (ORJ) 6) Sensitivity in the Workplace (EHSD) 7) Building a Culture of Respect (HR) b) Identify standardized content and framework for trainings: 1) Cultural Intelligence 2) Structural Racism 3) Racial Equity Tool 4) Anti-bias 5) How to participate in hiring panel 6) Process-based decision making c) Develop the training curriculum d) Delivery of training 4) County Boards and Commissions have equitable representation representative of the County/community demographics. 5) Promote racial equity in contracting and procurement policies and practices. a) Collect and analyze data to help identify gaps b) Evaluate existing and create new policies 4) FY 2020-24 5) FY 2021-24 c) “Train the Trainer” offered to departments that have training responsibilities 4) Equity Office(r), Clerk of the Board 5) Equity Office(r) and County Departments b) 80% of training participants report an improved understanding of the differences between individual, institutional, and structural racism. c) 80% of training participants report an awareness of the different roles implicit and explicit bias can play in producing racial inequities in the workplace. d) 80% of training participants report an improved understanding of how race neutral policies can produce racial inequities 4) Improved racial equity in the members of Boards and Commissions 5) Improved racial diversity in bidders participating in the contracting and procurement processes Higher percentage of bidders of color awarded with contracts. Page 91 of 151 Racial Equity Toolkit An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity TOOLKIT RACIALEQUITYALLIANCE.ORG Attachment B Page 92 of 151 AUTHORS Julie Nelson, Director, Government Alliance on Race and Equity Lisa Brooks, University of Washington School of Social Work COPYEDITING Ebonye Gussine Wilkins, Haas Institute LAYOUT/PRODUCTION Ebonye Gussine Wilkins and Rachelle Galloway-Popotas, Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society CONTACT INFO Julie Nelson jnelson@thecsi.org 206-816-5104 This toolkit is published by the Government Alliance on Race and Equity, a national network of government working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. GARE IS A JOINT PROJECT OF RACIALEQUITYALLIANCE.ORG UPDATED DEC 2016 Attachment B Page 93 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 3 The Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) is a national network of government working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. Across the country, governmental jurisdictions are: • making a commitment to achieving racial equity; • focusing on the power and influence of their own institutions; and, • working in partnership with others. When this occurs, significant leverage and expansion opportunities emerge, setting the stage for the achievement of racial equity in our communities. GARE provides a multi-layered approach for maximum impact by: • supporting jurisdictions that are at the forefront of work to achieve racial equity. A few jurisdictions have already done substantive work and are poised to be a model for others. Supporting and providing best practices, tools and resources is helping to build and sustain current efforts and build a national movement for racial equity; • developing a “pathway for entry” into racial equity work for new jurisdictions from across the country. Many jurisdictions lack the leadership and/or infrastructure to address issues of racial inequity. Using the learnings and resources from jurisdictions at the forefront will create pathways for the increased engagement of more jurisdictions; and, • supporting and building local and regional collaborations that are broadly inclusive and focused on achieving racial equity. To eliminate racial inequities in our communities, devel- oping a “collective impact” approach firmly grounded in inclusion and equity is necessary. Government can play a key role in collaborations for achieving racial equity, centering community, and leveraging institutional partnerships. To find out more about GARE, visit www.racialequityalliance.org. ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY Attachment B Page 94 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 4 I. What is a Racial Equity Tool? Racial equity tools are designed to integrate explicit consideration of racial equity in decisions, including policies, practices, programs, and budgets. It is both a product and a process. Use of a racial equity tool can help to develop strategies and actions that reduce racial inequities and improve success for all groups. Too often, policies and programs are developed and implemented without thoughtful con- sideration of racial equity. When racial equity is not explicitly brought into operations and decision-making, racial inequities are likely to be perpetuated. Racial equity tools provide a structure for institutionalizing the consideration of racial equity. A racial equity tool: • proactively seeks to eliminate racial inequities and advance equity; • identifies clear goals, objectives and measurable outcomes; • engages community in decision-making processes; • identifies who will benefit or be burdened by a given decision, examines potential unin- tended consequences of a decision, and develops strategies to advance racial equity and mitigate unintended negative consequences; and, • develops mechanisms for successful implementation and evaluation of impact. Use of a racial equity tool is an important step to operationalizing equity. However, it is not sufficient by itself. We must have a much broader vision of the transformation of government in order to advance racial equity. To transform government, we must normalize conversations about race, operationalize new behaviors and policies, and organize to achieve racial equity. For more information on the work of government to advance racial equity, check out GARE’s “Advancing Racial Equity and Transforming Government: A Resource Guide for Putting Ideas into Action” on our website. The Resource Guide provides a comprehensive and holistic ap- proach to advancing racial equity within government. In addition, an overview of key racial equity definitions is contained in Appendix A. II. Why should government use this Racial Equity Tool? From the inception of our country, government at the local, regional, state, and federal level has played a role in creating and maintaining racial inequity. A wide range of laws and policies were passed, including everything from who could vote, who could be a citizen, who could own property, who was property, where one could live, whose land was whose and more. With the Civil Rights movement, laws and policies were passed that helped to create positive changes, including making acts of discrimination illegal. However, despite progress in addressing explicit discrimination, racial inequities continue to be deep, pervasive, and persistent across the country. Racial inequities exist across all indicators for success, including in education, criminal justice, jobs, housing, public infrastructure, and health, regardless of region. Many current inequities are sustained by historical legacies and structures and systems that repeat patterns of exclusion. Institutions and structures have continued to create and per- petuate inequities, despite the lack of explicit intention. Without intentional intervention, institutions and structures will continue to perpetuate racial inequities. Government has the ability to implement policy change at multiple levels and across multiple sectors to drive larger systemic change. Routine use of a racial equity tool explicitly integrates racial equity into gov- ernmental operations. Local and regional governmental jurisdictions that are a part of the GARE are using a racial eq- uity tool. Some, such as the city of Seattle in Washington, Multnomah County in Oregon, and Attachment B Page 95 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 5 the city of Madison in Wisconsin have been doing so for many years: • The Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) is a citywide effort to end institution- alized racism and race-based disparities in City government. The Initiative was launched in 2004. RSJI includes training to all City employees, annual work plans, and change teams in every city department. RSJI first started using its Racial Equity Tool during the budget process in 2007. The following year, in recognition of the fact that the budget process was just the “tip of the ice berg,” use of the tool was expanded to be used in policy and pro- gram decisions. In 2009, Seattle City Council included the use of the Racial Equity Tool in budget, program and policy decisions, including review of existing programs and policies, in a resolution (Resolution 31164) affirming the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative. In 2015, newly elected Mayor Ed Murray issued an Executive Order directing expanded use of the Racial Equity Tool, and requiring measurable outcomes and greater accountability. See Appendix B for examples of how Seattle has used its Racial Equity Tool, including legisla- tion that offers protections for women who are breastfeeding and use of criminal background checks in employment decisions. Multnomah County’s Equity and Empowerment Lens is used to improve planning, deci- sion-making, and resource allocation leading to more racially equitable policies and programs. At its core, it is a set of principles, reflective questions, and processes that focuses at the indi- vidual, institutional, and systemic levels by: • deconstructing what is not working around racial equity; • reconstructing and supporting what is working; • shifting the way we make decisions and think about this work; and, • healing and transforming our structures, our environments, and ourselves. Numerous Multnomah County departments have made commitments to utilizing the Lens, including a health department administrative policy and within strategic plans of specific de- partments. Tools within the Lens are used both to provide analysis and to train employers and partners on how Multnomah County conducts equity analysis. Madison, Wisconsin is implementing a racial equity tool, including both a short version and a more in-depth analysis. See Appendix D for a list of the types of projects on which the city of Madison has used their racial equity tool. For jurisdictions that are considering implementation of a racial equity tool, these jurisdictions examples are powerful. Other great examples of racial equity tools are from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Race Forward. In recognition of the similar ways in which institutional and structural racism have evolved across the country, GARE has developed this Toolkit that captures the field of practice and commonalities across tools. We encourage jurisdictions to begin using our Racial Equity Tool. Based on experience, customization can take place if needed to ensure that it is most relevant to local conditions. Otherwise, there is too great of a likelihood that there will be a significant investment of time, and potentially money, in a lengthy process of customization without experience. It is through the implementation and the experience of learning that leaders and staff will gain experience with use of a tool. After a pilot project trying out this tool, jurisdictions will have a better understanding of how and why it might make sense to customize a tool. For examples of completed racial equity analyses, check out Appendix B and Appendix D, which includes two examples from the city of Seattle, as well as a list of the topics on which the city of Madison has used their racial equity tool. Please note: In this Resource Guide, we include some data from reports that fo- cused on whites and African Americans, but otherwise, pro- vide data for all ra- cial groups analyzed in the research. For consistency, we refer to African Americans and Latinos, although in some of the original research, these groups were referred to as Blacks and Hispanics. Attachment B Page 96 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 6 III. Who should use a racial equity tool? A racial equity tool can be used at multiple levels, and in fact, doing so, will increase effectiveness. • Government staff: The routine use of a racial equity tool by staff provides the opportunity to integrate racial equity across the breadth, meaning all governmental functions, and depth, meaning across hier- archy. For example, policy analysts integrating racial equity into policy development and implementation, and budget analysts integrating racial equity into budget proposals at the earliest possible phase, increases the likelihood of impact. Employees are the ones who know their jobs best and will be best equipped to integrate racial equity into practice and routine operations. • Elected officials: Elected officials have the opportunity to use a racial equity tool to set broad priorities, bringing consistency between values and practice. When our elected officials are integrating racial equity into their jobs, it will be reflected in the priorities of the jurisdiction, in direction provided to department directors, and in the questions asked of staff. By asking simple racial equity tool questions, such as “How does this decision help or hinder racial equity?” or “Who benefits from or is burdened by this decision?” on a routine basis, elected officials have the ability to put theory into action. • Community based organizations: Community based organizations can ask questions of government about use of racial equity tool to ensure accountability. Elected officials and government staff should be easily able to describe the results of their use of a racial equity tool, and should make that information readily available to community members. In addi- tion, community based organizations can use a similar or aligned racial equity tool within their own organizations to also advance racial equity. IV. When should you use a racial equity tool? The earlier you use a racial equity tool, the better. When racial equity is left off the table and not addressed until the last minute, the use of a racial equity tool is less likely to be fruitful. Using a racial equity tool early means that individual decisions can be aligned with organizational racial equity goals and desired outcomes. Using a racial equity tool more than once means that equity is incorporated throughout all phases, from development to implementation and evaluation. V. The Racial Equity Tool The Racial Equity Tool is a simple set of questions: 1. Proposal: What is the policy, program, practice or budget decision under consideration? What are the desired results and outcomes? 2. Data: What’s the data? What does the data tell us? 3. Community engagement: How have communities been engaged? Are there opportunities to expand engagement? 4. Analysis and strategies: Who will benefit from or be burdened by your proposal? What are your strategies for advancing racial equity or mitigating unintended consequences? 5. Implementation: What is your plan for implementation? Attachment B Page 97 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 7 6. Accountability and communication: How will you ensure accountability, communicate, and evaluate results? The following sections provide a description of the overall questions. Once you are ready to jump into action, please check out the worksheet that can be found in Appendix C. STEP #1 What is your proposal and the desired results and outcomes? While it might sound obvious, having a clear description of the policy, program, practice, or budget decision (for the sake of brevity, we refer to this as a “proposal” in the remainder of these steps) at hand is critical. We should also be vigilant in our focus on impact. The terminology for results and outcomes is informed by our relationship with Results Based Accountability™. This approach to measurement clearly delineates between community con- ditions / population accountability and performance accountability / outcomes. These levels share a common systematic approach to measurement. This approach emphasizes the impor- tance of beginning with a focus on the desired “end” condition. • Results are at the community level are the end conditions we are aiming to impact. Com- munity indicators are the means by which we can measure impact in the community. Community indicators should be disaggregated by race. • Outcomes are at the jurisdiction, department, or program level. Appropriate performance measures allow monitoring of the success of implementation of actions that have a rea- sonable chance of influencing indicators and contributing to results. Performance mea- sures respond to three different levels: a. Quantity—how much did we do? b. Quality—how well did we do it? c. Is anyone better off? We encourage you to be clear about the desired end conditions in the community and to emphasize those areas where you have the most direct influence. When you align community indicators, government strategies, and performance measures, you maximize the likelihood for impact. To ultimately impact community conditions, government must partner with other institutions and the community. You should be able to answer the following questions: 1. Describe the policy, program, practice, or budget decision under consideration? 2. What are the intended results (in the community) and outcomes (within your organization)? 3. What does this proposal have an ability to impact? • Children and youth • Community engagement • Contracting equity • Criminal justice • Economic development • Education • Environment • Food access and affordability • Government practices • Health • Housing • Human services • Jobs • Planning and development • Transportation • Utilities • Workforce equity Attachment B Page 98 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 8 STEP #2 What’s the data? What does the data tell us? Measurement matters. When organizations are committed to racial equity, it is not just an as- piration, but there is a clear understanding of racial inequities, and strategies and actions are developed and implemented that align between community conditions, strategies, and actions. Using data appropriately will allow you to assess whether you are achieving desired impacts. Too often data might be available, but is not actually used to inform strategies and track results. The enormity of racial inequities can sometimes feel overwhelming. For us to have impact in the community, we must partner with others for cumulative impact. The work of government to advance racial equity is necessary, but not sufficient. Nevertheless, alignment and clarity will increase potential impact. We must use data at both levels; that is data that clearly states 1) community indicators and desired results, and 2) our specific program or poli- cy outcomes and performance measures. Performance measures allow monitoring of the success of implementation of actions that have a reasonable chance of influencing indicators and contributing to results. As indicated in Step 1, performance measures respond to three different levels: Quantity—how much did we do? Quality—how well did we do it? Is anyone better off? Although measuring whether anyone is actually better off as a result of a decision is highly de- sired, we also know there are inherent measurement challenges. You should assess and collect the best types of performance measures so that you are able to track your progress. In analyzing data, you should think not only about quantitative data, but also qualitative data. Remember that sometimes missing data can speak to the fact that certain communities, issues or inequities have historically been overlooked. Sometimes data sets treat communities as a monolithic group without respect to subpopulations with differing socioeconomic and cultur- al experience. Using this data could perpetuate historic inequities. Using the knowledge and expertise of a diverse set of voices, along with quantitative data is necessary (see Step #3). You should be able to answer the following questions about data: 1. Will the proposal have impacts in specific geographic areas (neighborhoods, areas, or regions)? What are the racial demographics of those living in the area? 2. What does population level data tell you about existing racial inequities? What does it tell you about root causes or factors influencing racial inequities? 3. What performance level data do you have available for your proposal? This should include data associated with existing programs or policies. 4. Are there data gaps? What additional data would be helpful in analyzing the proposal? If so, how can you obtain better data? Data Resources Federal • American FactFinder: The US Census Bureau’s main site for online access to population, housing, economic and geographic data. http://factfinder.census.gov • US Census Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html • Center for Disease Control (CDC) http://wonder.cdc.gov Attachment B Page 99 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 9State • American FactFinder and the US Census website also have state data. http://factfinder.census.gov • Other sources of data vary by state. Many states offer data through the Office of Financial Management. Other places to find data include specific departments and divisions. Local • American FactFinder and the US Census website also have local data. http://factfinder.census.gov • Many jurisdictions have lots of city and county data available. Other places to find data include specific departments and divisions, service providers, community partners, and research literature. STEP #3 How have communities been engaged? Are there opportunities to expand engagement? It is not enough to consult data or literature to assume how a proposal might impact a com- munity. Involving communities impacted by a topic, engaging community throughout all phases of a project, and maintaining clear and transparent communication as the policy or program is implemented will help produce more racially equitable results. It is especially critical to engage communities of color. Due to the historical reality of the role of government in creating and maintaining racial inequities, it is not surprising that commu- nities of color do not always have much trust in government. In addition, there is a likelihood that other barriers exist, such as language, perception of being welcome, and lack of public transportation, or childcare. For communities with limited English language skills, appropriate language materials and translation must be provided. Government sometimes has legal requirements on the holding of public meetings. These are often structured as public hearings, with a limited time for each person to speak and little op- portunity for interaction. It is important to go beyond these minimum requirements by using community meetings, focus groups, and consultations with commissions, advisory boards, and community-based organizations. A few suggestions that are helpful: • When you use smaller groups to feed into a larger process, be transparent about the recommendations and/or thoughts that come out of the small groups (e.g. Have a list of all the groups you met with and a summary of the recommendations from each. That way you have documentation of what came up in each one, and it is easier to demonstrate the process). • When you use large group meetings, provide a mix of different ways for people to engage, such as the hand-held voting devices, written comments that you collect, small groups, etc. It is typical, both because of structure and process, for large group discussions to lead to the participation of fewer voices. Another approach is to use dyads where people “interview” each other, and then report on what their partner shared. Sometimes people are more comfortable sharing other people’s information. • Use trusted advocates/outreach and engagement liaisons to collect information from communities that you know are typically underrepresented in public processes. Again, sharing and reporting that information in a transparent way allows you to share it with Attachment B Page 100 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 10 others. For communities that have concerns about documentation status and interaction with government in general, this can be a particularly useful strategy. Here are a few examples of good resources for community engagement: • The City of Seattle Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement Guide • The City of Portland’s Public Engagement Guide You should be able to answer the following questions about community engagement and in- volving stakeholders: 1. Who are the most affected community members who are concerned with or have expe- rience related to this proposal? How have you involved these community members in the development of this proposal? 2. What has your engagement process told you about the burdens or benefits for different groups? 3. What has your engagement process told you about the factors that produce or perpetuate racial inequity related to this proposal? STEP #4 Who benefits from or will be burdened by your proposal? What are your strategies for advancing racial equity or mitigating unintended consequenc- es? Based on your data and stakeholder input, you should step back and assess your proposal and think about complementary strategies that will help to advance racial equity. Governmental decisions are often complex and nuanced with both intended and unintend- ed impacts. For example, when cities and counties face the necessity of making budget cuts due to revenue shortfalls, the goal is to balance the budget and the unintended consequence is that people and communities suffer the consequences of cut programs. In a situation like this, it is important to explicitly consider the unintended consequences so that impacts can be mitigated to the maximum extent possible. We often tend to view policies, programs, or practices in isolation. Because racial inequities are perpetuated through systems and structures, it is important to also think about comple- mentary approaches that will provide additional leverage to maximize the impact on racial inequity in the community. Expanding your proposal to integrate policy and program strate- gies and broad partnerships will help to increase the likelihood of community impact. Here are some examples: • Many excellent programs have been developed or are being supported through health programs and social services. Good programs and services should continue to be support- ed, however, programs will never be sufficient to ultimately achieve racial equity in the community. If you are working on a program, think about policy and practice changes that can decrease the need for programs. • Many jurisdictions have passed “Ban-the-Box” legislation, putting limitations on the use of criminal background checks in employment and/or housing decisions. While this is a policy that is designed to increase the likelihood of success for people coming out of in- carceration, it is not a singular solution to racial inequities in the criminal justice system. To advance racial equity in the criminal justice system, we need comprehensive strategies that build upon good programs, policies, and partnerships. You should be able to answer the following questions about strategies to advance racial equity: 1. Given what you have learned from the data and stakeholder involvement, how will the Attachment B Page 101 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 11 proposal increase or decrease racial equity? Who would benefit from or be burdened by your proposal? 2. What are potential unintended consequences? What are the ways in which your proposal could be modified to enhance positive impacts or reduce negative impacts? 3. Are there complementary strategies that you can implement? What are ways in which existing partnerships could be strengthened to maximize impact in the community? How will you partner with stakeholders for long-term positive change? 4. Are the impacts aligned with the your community outcomes defined in Step #1? STEP #5 What is your plan for implementation? Now that you know what the unintended consequences, benefits, and impacts of the proposal and have developed strategies to mitigate unintended consequences or expand impact, it is important to focus on thoughtful implementation. You should be able to answer the following about implementation: 1. Describe your plan for implementation. 2. Is your plan: • realistic? • adequately funded? • adequately resourced with personnel?; • adequately resourced with mechanisms to ensure successful implementation and enforcement? • adequately resourced to ensure on-going data collection, public reporting, and community engagement? If the answer to any of these questions is no, what resources or actions are needed? STEP #6 How will you ensure accountability, communicate, and evaluate results? Just as data was critical in analyzing potential impacts of the program or policy, data will be important in seeing whether the program or policy has worked. Developing mechanisms for collecting data and evaluating progress will help measure whether racial equity is being ad- vanced. Accountability entails putting processes, policies, and leadership in place to ensure that pro- gram plans, evaluation recommendations, and actions leading to the identification and elimi- nation of root causes of inequities are actually implemented. How you communicate about your racial equity proposal is also important for your success. Poor communication about race can trigger implicit bias or perpetuate stereotypes, often times unintentionally. Use a communications tool, such as the Center for Social Inclusion’s Talking About Race Right Toolkit to develop messages and a communications strategy. Racial equity tools should be used on an ongoing basis. Using a racial equity tool at different phases of a project will allow now opportunities for advancing racial equity to be identified and implemented. Evaluating results means that you will be able to make any adjustments to maximize impact. You should be able to answer the following questions about accountability and implementation: Attachment B Page 102 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 12 1. How will impacts be documented and evaluated? Are you achieving the anticipated out- comes? Are you having impact in the community? 2. What are your messages and communication strategies that are will help advance racial equity? 3. How will you continue to partner and deepen relationships with communities to make sure your work to advance racial equity is working and sustainable for the long haul? VI. What if you don’t have enough time? The reality of working in government is that there are often unanticipated priorities that are sometimes inserted on a fast track. While it is often tempting to say that there is insufficient time to do a full and complete application of a racial equity tool, it is important to acknowledge that even with a short time frame, asking a few questions relating to racial equity can have a meaningful impact. We suggest that the following questions should be answered for “quick turn around” decisions: • What are the racial equity impacts of this particular decision? • Who will benefit from or be burdened by the particular decision? • Are there strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences? VII. How can you address barriers to successful implementation? You may have heard the phrase, “the system is perfectly designed to get the outcomes it does.” For us to get to racially equitable outcomes, we need to work at the institutional and struc- tural levels. As a part of institutions and systems, it is often a challenge to re-design systems, let alone our own individual jobs. One of the biggest challenges is often a skills gap. Use of a racial equity tool requires skill and competency, so it will be important for jurisdictions to provide training, mentoring, and support for managers and staff who are using the tool. GARE has a training curriculum that supports this Toolkit, as well as a “train-the-trainer” program to increase the capacity of racial equity advocates using the Toolkit. Other barriers to implementation that some jurisdictions have experienced include: • a lack of support from leadership; • a tool being used in isolation; • a lack of support for implementing changes; and, • perfection (which can be the enemy of good). Strategies for addressing these barriers include: • building the capacity of racial equity teams. Training is not just to cultivate skills for indi- vidual employees, but is also to build the skill of teams to create support for group imple- mentation and to create a learning culture; • systematizing the use of the Racial Equity Tool. If the Racial Equity Tool is integrated into routine operations, such as budget proposal forms or policy briefing forms, then manage- ment and staff will know that it is an important priority; • recognizing complexity. In most cases, public policy decisions are complex, and there are numerous pros, cons and trade-offs to be considered. When the Racial Equity Tool is used on an iterative basis, complex nuances can be addressed over time; and, Attachment B Page 103 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 13 • maintaining accountability. Build the expectation that managers and directors routinely use the Racial Equity Tool into job descriptions or performance agreements. Institutionalizing use of a racial equity tool provides the opportunity to develop thoughtful, realistic strategies and timelines that advance racial equity and help to build long-term com- mitment and momentum. VIII. How does use of a racial equity tool fit with other racial equity strategies? Using a racial equity tool is an important step to operationalizing equity. However, it is not sufficient by itself. We must have a much broader vision of the transformation of government in order to advance racial equity. To transform government, we must normalize conversations about race, operationalize new behaviors and policies, and organize to achieve racial equity. GARE is seeing more and more jurisdictions that are making a commitment to achieving racial equity, by focusing on the power and influence of their own institutions, and working in part- nership across sectors and with the community to maximize impact. We urge you to join with others on this work. If you are interested in using a racial equity tool and/or joining local and regional government from across the country to advance racial equity, please let us know. Attachment B Page 104 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 1414 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDICES Attachment B Page 105 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 1515 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX A Glossary of Frequently Used Terms Bias Prejudice toward one group and its members relative to another group. Community Indicator The means by which we can mea- sure socioeconomic conditions in the community. All community indicators should be disaggregated by race, if possible. Contracting Equity Investments in contracting, consult- ing, and procurement should ben- efit the communities a jurisdiction serves, proportionate to the jurisdic- tions demographics. Equity Result The condition we aim to achieve in the community. Explicit Bias Biases that people are aware of and that operate consciously. They are expressed directly. Implicit Bias Biases people are usually unaware of and that operate at the subcon- scious level. Implicit bias is usually expressed indirectly. Individual Racism Pre-judgment, bias, or discrimination based on race by an individual. Institutional Racism Policies, practices, and procedures that work better for white people than for people of color, often unin- tentionally. Performance Measure Performance measures are at the county, department, or program level. Appropriate performance measures allow monitoring of the success of implementation of actions that have a reasonable chance of influencing indicators and contributing to results. Performance measures respond to three different levels: 1) Quantity—how much did we do?; 2) Quality—how well did we do it?; and 3) Is anyone better off? A mix of these types of performance measures is contained within the recommendations. Racial Equity Race can no longer be used to pre- dict life outcomes and outcomes for all groups are improved. Racial Inequity Race can be used to predict life outcomes, e.g., disproportionality in education (high school graduation rates), jobs (unemployment rate), criminal justice (arrest and incarcer- ation rates), etc. Structural Racism A history and current reality of institutional racism across all institu- tions, combining to create a system that negatively impacts communi- ties of color. Workforce Equity The workforce of a jurisdiction reflects the diversity of its residents, including across the breadth (func- tions and departments) and depth (hierarchy) of government. Attachment B Page 106 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 1616 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX B City of Seattle Racial Equity Toolkit On the following pages you will find an excerpt of the racial equity tool used by the City of Seat- tle as an example of what such tools can look like in practice. As discussed in Section 3 of the Resource Guide, the Seattle City Council passed an ordinance in 2009 that directed all City de- partments to use the Racial Equity Toolkit, including in all budget proposals made to the Budget Office. This directive was reaffirmed by an executive order of Mayor Ed Murray in 2014. The Racial Equity Tool is an analysis applied to City of Seattle’s policies, programs, and budget decisions. The City of Seattle has been applying the Racial Equity Toolkit for many years but as the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) becomes increasingly operationalized, the expectation and accountabilities relating to its use are increasing. In 2015, Mayor Murray required departments to carry out four uses of the toolkit annually. This will also become a part of performance measures for department heads. Attachment B Page 107 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 1717 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX B: CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT Attachment B Page 108 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 1818 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX B: CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT Attachment B Page 109 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 1919 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX B: CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT Attachment B Page 110 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 2020 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX B: CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT Attachment B Page 111 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 2121 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX B: CITY OF SEATTLE RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT Attachment B Page 112 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 2222 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity Step #1 What is your proposal and the desired results and outcomes? 1. Describe the policy, program, practice, or budget decision (for the sake of brevity, we refer to this as a “proposal” in the remainder of these steps) 2. What are the intended results (in the community) and outcomes (within your own organi- zation)? 3. What does this proposal have an ability to impact? Children and youth Health Community engagement Housing Contracting equity Human services Criminal justice Jobs Economic development Parks and recreation Education Planning / development Environment Transportation Food access and affordability Utilities Government practices Workforce equity Other _____________________ Step #2 What’s the data? What does the data tell us? 1. Will the proposal have impacts in specific geographic areas (neighborhoods, areas, or re- gions)? What are the racial demographics of those living in the area? 2. What does population level data, including quantitative and qualitative data, tell you about existing racial inequities? What does it tell you about root causes or factors influencing racial inequities? 3. What performance level data do you have available for your proposal? This should include data associated with existing programs or policies. 4. Are there data gaps? What additional data would be helpful in analyzing the proposal? If so, how can you obtain better data? APPENDIX C Racial Equity Tool Worksheet Attachment B Page 113 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 2323 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity APPENDIX C: RACIAL EQUITY TOOL WORKSHEET Step #3 How have communities been engaged? Are there opportunities to expand engagement? 1. Who are the most affected community members who are concerned with or have expe- rience related to this proposal? How have you involved these community members in the development of this proposal? 2. What has your engagement process told you about the burdens or benefits for different groups? 3. What has your engagement process told you about the factors that produce or perpetuate racial inequity related to this proposal? Step #4 What are your strategies for advancing racial equity? 1. Given what you have learned from research and stakeholder involvement, how will the pro- posal increase or decrease racial equity? Who would benefit from or be burdened by your proposal? 2. What are potential unintended consequences? What are the ways in which your proposal could be modified to enhance positive impacts or reduce negative impacts? 3. Are there complementary strategies that you can implement? What are ways in which ex- isting partnerships could be strengthened to maximize impact in the community? How will you partner with stakeholders for long-term positive change? 4. Are the impacts aligned with your community outcomes defined in Step #1? Step #5 What is your plan for implementation? 1. Describe your plan for implementation. 2. Is your plan: Realistic? Adequately funded? Adequately resourced with personnel? Adequately resources with mechanisms to ensure successful implementation and en- forcement? Adequately resourced to ensure on-going data collection, public reporting, and com- munity engagement? If the answer to any of these questions is no, what resources or actions are needed? Attachment B Page 114 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 2424 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity Step #6 How will you ensure accountability, communicate, and evaluate results? 1. How will impacts be documented and evaluated? Are you achieving the anticipated out- comes? Are you having impact in the community? 2. What are your messages and communication strategies that are will help advance racial equity? 3. How will you continue to partner and deepen relationships with communities to make sure your work to advance racial equity is working and sustainable for the long-haul? APPENDIX C: RACIAL EQUITY TOOL WORKSHEET Attachment B Page 115 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 2525 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity Agency/ Organization Project Tool(s) Used Purpose & Outcomes (if applicable) Clerk’s Office 2015–2016 work plan Equity & Em- powerment Lens (Mult. Co.) Adopted new mission, vision, work plan, and evaluation plan with racial equity goals Streets Division Analysis of neigh- borhood trash pickup RESJI analysis (comprehen- sive) Recommendations to adjust large item pickup schedule based on neighbor- hood & seasonal needs Madison Out of School Time (MOST) Coalition Strategic planning RESJI analysis (fast-track) Adopted strategic directions, including target populations, informed by racial equity analysis Public Health Madison & Dane County Dog breeding & li- censing ordinance RESJI analysis (comprehen- sive) Accepted recommendation to table initial legislation & develop better pol- icy through more inclusive outreach; updated policy adopted Fire Department Planning for new fire station RESJI analysis (comprehen- sive) Recommendations for advancing racial equity and inclusive community en- gagement; development scheduled for 2016–2017 Metro Transit Succession plan- ning for manage- ment hires RESJI equi- table hiring checklist First woman of color promoted to Metro management position in over 20 years Human Resources Department 2015 & 2016 work plans RESJI analysis (fast-track & comprehen- sive) 2015 plan reflects staff input; 2016 work plan to include stakeholder input (est. 10/15) Human Resources Department City hiring process RESJI analysis (comprehen- sive) Human Resources 2015 racial equity report: http://racialequityalliance. org/2015/08/14/the-city-of-madi- sons-2015-human-resources-equity- report-advancing-racial-equity-in-the- city-workforce/ Economic Devel- opment Division Public Market District project RESJI analysis (comprehen- sive) 10 recommendations proposed to Local Food Committee for incorporation into larger plan Public Health Madison & Dane County Strategic planning RESJI analysis (fast-track) Incorporation of staff & stakeholder input, racial equity priorities, to guide goals & objectives (est. 11/15) APPENDIX D Applications of a Racial Equity Tool in Madison, WI Attachment B Page 116 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 2626 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity Agency/ Organization Project Tool(s) Used Purpose & Outcomes (if applicable) Planning, Commu- nity & Econ. Devel. Dept. Judge Doyle Square develop- ment (public/pri- vate, TIF-funded) RESJI analysis (fast-track); ongoing con- sultation Highlight opportunities for advance- ment of racial equity; identify potential impacts & unintended consequences; document public-private development for lessons learned and best practices Parks Division Planning for accessible play- ground TBD Ensure full consideration of decisions as informed by community stakehold- ers, with a focus on communities of color and traditionally marginalized communities, including people with disabilities. Fire Department Updates to pro- motional process- es TBD Offer fair and equitable opportunities for advancement (specifically Appara- tus Engineer promotions) APPENDIX D: APPLICATIONS OF A RACIAL EQUITY TOOL IN MADISON, WI Attachment B Page 117 of 151 The Center for Social Inclusion’s mission is to catalyze grassroots community, government, and other institutions to dismantle structural racial inequity. We apply strategies and tools to transform our nation’s policies, practices, and institutional culture in order to ensure equitable outcomes for all. As a national policy strategy organization, CSI works with community advocates, government, local experts, and national leaders to build shared analysis, create policy strategies that engage and build multi-generational, multi-sectoral, and multi-racial alliances, and craft strong communication narratives on how to talk about race effectively in order to shift public discourse to one of equity. CENTERFORSOCIALINCLUSION.ORG / 212.248.2785 © 2015 The Local & Regional Government Alliance on Race and Equity / Published September 2015 The Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at the University of California, Berkeley brings together researchers, community stakeholders, policymakers, and communicators to identify and challenge the barriers to an inclusive, just, and sustainable society and create transformative change. The Institute serves as a national hub of a vibrant network of researchers and community partners and takes a leadership role in translating, communicating, and facilitating research, policy, and strategic engagement. The Haas Institute advances research and policy related to marginalized people while essentially touching all who benefit from a truly diverse, fair, and inclusive society. HAASINSTITUTE.BERKELEY.EDU / 510.642.3011 Attachment B Page 118 of 151 Government Alliance on Race and Equity TOOLKIT Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity 28 RACIALEQUITYALLIANCE.ORG Attachment B Page 119 of 151 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:12/02/2019   Subject:Contra Costa County – A Place to Thrive Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.:   Referral Name: Presenter: Devovah Levine & Ali Saidi Contact: 925-608-4890 Referral History: At its November 19, 2019 meeting, the Board of Supervisors referred the matter of a Draft Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP) to the Public Protection Committee for their consideration and action, as requested by District I Supervisor John Gioia. Referral Update: Part of the discussion on the Racial Equity Action Plan, involves looking at local efforts, such as Contra Costa County - A Place to Thrive, to promote immigration inclusion. Contra Costa County – A Place to Thrive The Zellerbach Family Foundation commissioned a research brief to inform their investments in support of a stronger Contra Costa County. This research featured demographics and the economic contributions of New Americans in Contra Costa County and was launched at a cross-sector event on June 19, 2019 cosponsored by: theY&H Soda Foundation, the Contra Costa Community Colleges District, New American Workforce (a nonprofit that partners with businesses to support immigrant inclusion), The Family Justice Center, First Five of Contra Costa County and Stand Together Contra Costa County. Following up on recommendations made during the launch, County and community leaders came together for a community strategy session on October 2,2019 to learn about: local government and community collaborations supporting immigrant inclusion and equity; and existing efforts in Contra Costa County.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE a presentation on Contra Costa County - A Place to Thrive and PROVIDE direction to staff. Attachments Page 120 of 151 CCC A Place to Thrive Presentation Page 121 of 151 Contra Costa County –A Place to Thrive Public Protection Committee, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors December 2, 2019 Page 122 of 151 Board Welcoming Resolution “… a community is strongest when everyone feels welcomed, and brings immigrants, refugees, and the broader community together to develop policies, programs, and initiatives that build welcoming communities and provide all residents with the knowledge and tools to thrive and fully participate in their communities” Page 123 of 151 Where We are Now Momentum through existing immigrant inclusion and equity efforts in the County Community and philanthropic leaders eager to partner with the County to build a more secure, stronger, thriving Contra Costa County Potential Grant Opportunity understand and effectively address gaps in equitable access promote economic vitality enhance civic participation by all Page 124 of 151 Page 125 of 151 Immigrants in Contra Costa County 25.5 % Foreign Born 47% Children live w/ foreign born parent 64.4% Of FB Homeowners 162,950 Citizens ~45,042 Eligible Page 126 of 151 Immigrants in Contra Costa County $18.5 B GDP Contributions 1.1 Billion State & Local Taxes 31.6% of employed labor force $589M Business Income generated by Immigrant Entrepreneurs Helped create or preserve 13442 Manufacturing jobs 1.1 B to Social Security 354.4 M to Medicare Page 127 of 151 Equity Data in Contra Costa County https://bayareaequityatlas.org 58% POC live in low resource neighborhoods Almost 30% renters are severely burdened (>50% income on housing) 14.1%are Limited English Proficient Highest “extreme commuting”(>90 mins) rates in the 9 county Bay AreaPage 128 of 151 Recommendations from June 19th Launch Disseminate the Data Increase equitable access to & understanding of County resources Enhance civic participation Better coordinate and build on existing County efforts Page 129 of 151 Existing Immigrant Inclusion and Equity Efforts in Contra Costa County include: Board of Supervisors Welcoming Resolution Contra Costa Cares Stand Together Contra Costa Public Charge Efforts through EHSD and Health Services Implicit Bias Trainings Development of a Racial Equity Action Plan Office of New Americans in Pittsburg, Welcoming Proclamation in Concord & “You Me We Oakley” Empowerment & development programs by non-profits & faith communities across the county. Page 130 of 151 Where Do We Go From Here? A coordinated approach that: Understands and effectively addresses the gaps in equitable access Supports economic mobility and maximizes economic contributions Enhances civic participation by all Page 131 of 151 A competitive opportunity for public and private sector organizations to jointly apply for support to facilitate local immigrant inclusion RFP expected Early 2020 Page 132 of 151 Planning Grant –up to10 communities Staff Time Convening Costs Communications Program Development $12,500 – G4G $12,500 – Matching Page 133 of 151 Technical Assistance -Up to 10 communities Coaching Best Practices –regional, national and international Tool Kits –Welcoming Standard, Citizenship, Schools, Well-being, Site visit to support development of strategic plans. Page 134 of 151 Framework Areas ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONNECTED COMMUNITIES SAFE COMMUNITIES EQUITABLE ACCESS GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP EDUCATIONCIVIC ENGAGEMENT Page 135 of 151 Competitive and Resilient Local Economies Cities/Counties are more open and innovative, and better able to attract and retain global talent and investment Stronger Civic Fabric New Americans more active in civic life Equitable Outcomes, Thriving Communities More equitable access to services, educational, and workforce opportunities THE WELCOMING ROI Page 136 of 151 Community Engagement Results Better identification of the public’s values, ideas and recommendations More informed residents -about issues and about local agencies Improved local agency decision - making and actions, with better impacts and outcomes More community buy-in and support, with less contentiousness Faster project implementation with less need to revisit More trust -in each other and in local government Page 137 of 151 Welcoming Communities -+ 200 California Beyond Chula Vista Los Angeles Long Beach Oakley Redwood City San Jose Santa Clara County San Mateo County San Diego San Francisco Allegheny County, PA Kalamazoo County, MI Wayne County, MI Salt Lake County, UT Anchorage, AK Charlottesville, VA Columbus, OH Dallas, TX Knoxville, TN Lincoln, NE Page 138 of 151 Local Government Best Practices Page 139 of 151 Santa Clara County –Results Grantmaking –legal service providers, outreach and education Annual Citizenship Day -14 languages Rapid Response Network Public Charge Resources Navigation Assistance to access safety net systems Page 140 of 151 San Mateo County–Results Navigation Assistance to access safety net systems Bilingual community health workers for isolated coastal communities Sheriff Office’s Community Alliance to Revitalize Our Neighborhood (C.A.R.O.N.) builds trust with law enforcement. Page 141 of 151 City of San Jose Office of Immigrant Affairs Leadership & Communication Vietnamese Language Civic Academy Equitable Access & Engagement Language Access Plan Equity Efforts Education & Economic Opportunity Welcoming Entrepreneur Fund Ethnic Chambers Silicon Valley Leadership Group Safe Healthy & Connected Communities Rapid Response Network Emergency Response Page 142 of 151 “You, Me, We = Oakley!” Know Your Rights, DACA and Citizenship Workshops Spanish Leadership Academy Sixty-five Community Ambassadors Oakley Police mentoring program for high school students. Cultural events, community meals and celebrations Page 143 of 151 Potential Timeline and Process Page 144 of 151 Contra Costa County -A Place To Thrive Momentum through immigrant inclusion and equity efforts in the County Community and philanthropic leaders eager to partner with the County to build a more secure, stronger, thriving Contra Costa County. Page 145 of 151 Page 146 of 151 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:12/02/2019 Subject:USE of the LOCAL INNOVATION FUND BALANCE Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: Donte Blue Contact: (925) 335-1977 Referral History: With the passage of SB 1020 in 2012, the County was required to create a Local Innovation Subaccount intended to promote local innovation and county decision making. Revenue deposited in this “Local Innovation Fund” must be used to support local needs, and the law provides the Board of Supervisors with the authority to fund any activity that is otherwise allowable for any of the underlying accounts that fund the innovation subaccount. Beginning with fiscal year 2015-16, any revenue deposited in the Local Innovation Fund each year will come from transferring 10% of the revenue received from the State in the form of growth allocations for the 1) Community Corrections, 2) Trial Court Security, 3) District Attorney and Public Defender, and 4) Juvenile Justice Subaccounts (these are the four source accounts for the Local Innovation Fund).  Based on an RFP process and recommendations from this Committee in December 2017, the Board of Supervisors awarded contracts for innovative reentry programs to Fast Eddie’s Auto Tech Training for $75,000 and to the Richmond Workforce Development Board for $175,000. Subsequently, after an RFQ process, Jeweld Legacy Group was similarly awarded a $75,000 contract in May 2018 for Capacity Building Services.  In March 2019 this Committee considered this item and directed staff to increase Fast Eddie’s contract by $37,500 so that services could be provided through the end of 2019, and also increase the award to Jeweld Legacy Group by $50,000 so that micro grants could be provided to the agencies participating in the Capacity Building Program. With these changes the programs from Richmond Workforce Board and Fast Eddie’s were set to conclude on December 31, 2019, and the Capacity Building Program led by Jeweld Legacy would be completed by June 30, 2020.  During this Committee’s March 2019 meeting, it also directed staff to develop a procurement process to identify new programs to award with innovation funds. The County Administrator’s Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) subsequently utilized the same process used previously where initial advice was taken from the Community Advisory Board of the Community Corrections Partnership (CAB), and then this advice informed direction from the Community Corrections Page 147 of 151 Partnership (CCP) on how ORJ would procure providers for new innovative reentry programs. Advice was requested from the CAB in June 2019 and in September 2019 CAB provided the following advice to CCP on the use of the County’s Local Innovation Fund: An RFP process be conducted for three $150,000 awards with one award each provided to:  A program for young people up to age 25, An innovative employment program, and A program for at-risk or underserved populations. 1. Remaining money be used to shared learning events with one related to fund two day long symposiums with one related to successful reentry for young people up to age 25, and a second focused on characteristics of effective reentry and diversion programming. 2. After considering advice from the CAB, the CCP determined that the ORJ should release an RFP for no more than $300,000 and simply prioritize the types of programs identified by CAB so that some of the Local Innovation Fund revenue could be used to fund some part of the current innovative programs. The Partnership also agreed that remaining revenue should be used towards shared learning events recommended by CAB. Referral Update: As RFP #1909-365 for Local Innovation Fund Projects was released on October 15, 2019, with a maximum award of $300,000, the County became aware that revenue to be received in FY 19-20 from the state for the Local Innovation Fund was only going to be $160,960 when it was originally projected to be $289,054. This reduction meant there would be a balance of $350,185 in the Local Innovation Fund for the current fiscal year. Because this would only leave about $50,000 to support ongoing programs, Fast Eddie's is the only ongoing program that could reasonably be supported for this amount. Thus, the ORJ has begun the process of increasing Fast Eddie’s contract by $50,000 and extending it to December 31, 2020. Finally, because there is approximately $18,000 left in the agreement with Jeweld Legacy Group for capacity building, the ORJ has also begun negotiations with this organization to extend this contract to December 31, 2020, and redirect the use of these funds for the production of the two shared learning events for 2020 that were endorsed by the CCP. RFP #1909-365 Responses to the RFP were submitted to the ORJ on November 14, 2019, and considered by a review panel the following week. The panel included a member of the CAB and various County staff that work with the reentry population and are familiar with programs that provide services to this population. The panel’s work was facilitated by Donté Blue, Deputy Director, Office of Reentry and Justice, and was comprised of the following representatives: Henrissa Bassey, Community Advisory Board on Public Safety Realignment Member Michael V. Fischer, CORE Program Manager, Health, Housing & Homeless Division Mark Goodwin, Chief of Staff, Office of Supervisor Diane Burgis Marina Kisseleva-Cercone, Probation Supervisor Christopher Pedraza, Program Manager, Alcohol and Other Drug Services The panel considered all six responses that were timely received by the ORJ. After reviewing each proposal, those with the three lowest scores were dropped from further consideration and the remaining responders were invited to an interview by the panel.  The scores for the responses that were not invited to an interview were:  Page 148 of 151 The scores for the responses that were not invited to an interview were:  Responder Program Type Amount Requested Score All Hands on Deck Housing for Transition Age Youth $300,000 62 Leaders in Community Alternatives Cognitive Based Intervention for Transition Age Youth $298,856 71 Lao Family Community Development Employment training and support for Transition Age Youth $299,999 71.5 Below are final scores and a synopsis of the programs proposed by the agencies that interview with the review panel. Community and Youth Outreach (requested $265,551) Score: 79 points Community and Youth Outreach (CYO) proposed an expansion of the County’s current Ceasefire program to reduce gun violence in East County. Currently, AB 109 revenue is used to fund a single coordinator for this program and this proposal sought to augment that investment with direct services to Ceasefire participants. This program would replicate services the agency is current providing in the City of Oakland. Specifically, this would enroll up to 80 participants in services lasting 6 – 12 months where they would be provided with peer-led Intensive Adult Life Coaching and cognitive behavioral services through CYO’s Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise facilitated groups. The program would focus on providing services to young people ages 18 – 25 who have been assessed as high risk by the Probation Department’s risk assessment tool or who exhibit at least three of the following: four or more prior arrests, prior arrest for gun violence, active member of a gang, previously shot, has a close friend of family member who has been shot in the past year. While participating in the program, participants would be provided cash incentives for achieving various benchmarks that could amount to as much as $200 in a month. Shelter Inc. (requested $300,000) Score: 83 points The Bright Futures program by Shelter Inc. sought to provide up to 30 incarcerated young people between the ages of 18 – 25 with reentry planning prior to their release from custody and case management with career coaching upon the person’s release from custody. The program would work with young people during their final month of incarceration in a local jail or juvenile detention facility, and for up to a year after the person’s release from custody. Case management would look to connect the person to needed services with particular attention paid to helping the person meet their transportation needs. The program would have a “flex fund” available for each client that would allow creative remedies to be fashioned for the unique needs and challenges faced by those in the program. Bright Futures would leverage existing employment providers for needed training, and its own internal program for housing resources the population might require. Rubicon Programs (requested $120,000) Score: 87.5 points Page 149 of 151 The Evening Connections Program would extend operating hours for the Reentry Success Center (RSC) in Richmond by providing evening hours from 5:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. each weekday with interest in also opening for a half day on Saturdays. This program is intended to provide services to populations in need of evening services because they are unavailable during the day or released from custody outside of regular business hours and at an increased risk of returning to custody if not quickly engaged in needed supportive services. As part of the evening connections program, individuals would be transported to the RSC directly from custody, even if they will ultimately be returning to the east or central region of the County. The activities to be provided at the center during these extended hours would vary night to night and include support groups, employment readiness support, reentry coaching, triage of needs and referrals to services, and prosocial recreational activities.  Panel Recommendation After conducting interviews, the panel determined that the program proposed by Rubicon would be the best use of the Local Innovation Fund. To ensure that weekend hours and other program enhancements could occur the panel recommends that $150,000 be awarded to Rubicon Programs for FY 2020-21 to provide its Evening Connections Program at the Reentry Success Center in West County. Because the other requests were so much more than the remaining $150,000, the panel didn’t feel it could recommend funding any of the remaining program while still maintaining the character of what was proposed. The panel also recognized that while need for services is steadily increasing in East County, and in some cases already exceeds that of West County, there are generally substantially less services available to the residents of East County. For these reasons, and because they believed the value of what was proposed by Rubicon Programs should also directly benefit East County residents, the panel also recommended funding the remaining $150,000 to Rubicon Programs for FY 2020-21 with the contingency that this additional funding be used to provide an Evening Connections Program in an East County location. If Rubicon is unable or unwilling to provide these services in East County, then the panel would not have a recommendation for the remaining $150,000. It should be noted that during its deliberations the panel was made aware that Rubicon Programs was currently funded for a similar program at the RSC through the Probation Department. They were also made aware that it was the belief of the ORJ that it was very likely Probation would continue to support this program for FY 2020-21, although no decision on this had been made because the County had not yet awarded the FY 2020-21 contract for the RSC. Prior to this Committee’s meeting on December 2, staff plans to discuss the availability of this funding from Probation to support this program during FY 2020-21, so this information can inform the Committee’s decision on this item. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors Award $300,000 from the Local Innovation Fund to Rubicon Programs for an Evening Connections Program, and 2. DIRECT staff to take appropriate action for the use of Local Innovation Fund revenue. Fiscal Impact (if any): 100% Local Innovation Fund. Page 150 of 151 100% Local Innovation Fund. Attachments No file(s) attached. Page 151 of 151