HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 06222020 - PPC Agenda PktPUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
June 22, 2020
10:30 A.M.
Virtual Meeting
The public may observe and participate in the virtual Zoom meeting by using this link:
https://zoom.us/j/93441224218 Or by dailing:
USA 214-765-0478
or USA 888-278-0254 (US Toll Free)
Conference code: 507994
Supervisor Candace Andersen, 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 February 24, 2020 meeting. (Page 4)
4.CONSIDER receiving a report on each fee impacted by the County's moratorium and
provide direction to staff regarding next steps on implementation of the moratorium on
the collection of certain criminal justice fees assessed by the County. (Paul Reyes,
Senior Deputy County Administrator) (Page 7)
5.CONSIDER reviewing and approving a revised fiscal year 2020/21 AB 109 budget
proposal, as recommended by the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive
Committee. (Paul Reyes, Committee Staff) (Page 16)
6.CONSIDER providing direction to staff regarding the recruitment process for the
Community-based Representative Seat 4 on the Contra Costa County Racial Justice
Oversight Body. (Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 22)
7.CONSIDER accepting a report from the W. Hayward Burns Institute detailing the
progress made to date by the County's Racial Justice Oversight Body. (Donte Blue,
Deputy Director, ORJ) (Page 26)
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for July 27, 2020.
9.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
paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us
Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order):
Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of
Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and
written materials associated with Board meetings:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees
AICP American Institute of Certified Planners
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission
BGO Better Government Ordinance
BOS Board of Supervisors
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CalWIN California Works Information Network
CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CCP Community Corrections Partnership
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIO Chief Information Officer
COLA Cost of living adjustment
ConFire Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District
CPA Certified Public Accountant
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
dba doing business as
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EPSDT State Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
treatment Program (Mental Health)
et al. et ali (and others)
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
F&HS Family and Human Services Committee
First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission
(Proposition 10)
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District
GIS Geographic Information System
HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HR Human Resources
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Inc. Incorporated
IOC Internal Operations Committee
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LLC Limited Liability Company
LLP Limited Liability Partnership
Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1
LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
M.D. Medical Doctor
M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist
MIS Management Information System
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology
O.D. Doctor of Optometry
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency
Operations Center
ORJ Office of Reentry & Justice
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology
RDA Redevelopment Agency
RJOB Racial Justice Oversight Body
RJTF Racial Justice Task Force
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposal
RFQ Request For Qualifications
RN Registered Nurse
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TRE or TTE Trustee
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
UCC Urban Counties Caucus
VA Department of Veterans Affairs
vs. versus (against)
WAN Wide Area Network
WBE Women Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:06/22/2020
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - February 24, 2020
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - February 24, 2020
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 February
24, 2020 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the February 24, 2020 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - February 24, 2020
Page 4 of 70
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
February 24, 2020
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
1.Introductions
Convene - 10:30 am
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on
this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public comment.
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the February 3, 2020 meeting.
Approved as presented.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen
Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
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.
CONSIDER directing staff to return to the Board of Supervisors to present
the discharge from accountability for the impacted accounts for approval.
2.
The Committee accepted the update and directed staff to return to
Committee with the following information:
For each fee inlcuded in the moratorium, provide additional
information on where the fee revenue is going, what it is used for, and
how much revenue is actually being earned.
Updated information on the Sheriff's Office ability-to-pay process.
How much the Court has spend so far on implementing the County's
moratorium.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen Page 5 of 70
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen
Vice Chair Federal D. Glover
5.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 23, 2020.
6.Adjourn
Adjourned
For Additional Information Contact:
Paul Reyes, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353
paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us
Page 6 of 70
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:06/22/2020
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, the community impacts of criminal justice fees, local efforts and
legislation (SB 190 & SB 144) to eliminate such fees was discussed. 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.
The PPC requested staff to conduct further research and analysis on other fines and fees collected by the Contra
Costa Superior Court of California (Court) and remitted to the County. The April staff report can be accessed here:
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=PBP&get_month=4&get_year=2019&dsp=ag&seq=1351
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. The PPC 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. The July PPC staff report can be accessed here:
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=PBP&get_month=7&get_year=2019&dsp=ag&seq=1354
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 additional 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 B).
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 PPC 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. The September 2019 staff report can be accessed here:
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=PBP&get_month=9&get_year=2019&dsp=ag&seq=1438
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 ability-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.
Page 7 of 70
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. The
November 2019 staff report can be accessed here:
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=PBP&get_month=11&get_year=2019&dsp=ag&seq=1446
On December 2, 2019, the Committee was provided with a summary report outlining the data, policies, and practices related to
criminal justice fees within Contra Costa County. The Committee directed staff to return to the Board of Supervisors to
continue the moratorium and to request approval to notify the Court to proceed with necessary programming to implement the
moratorium. The full staff report can be accessed here:
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=PBP&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=ag&seq=1447
On December 17, 2019, the Board of Supervisors accepted an update on the moratorium on the assessment and collection of
certain criminal justice fees and authorized the County Administrator to request the Court to incur the necessary expenditures to
fully implement the moratorium. The Board also directed the County Administrator to report back to the Board in 90 days for
an update.
Following the December 17, 2019 Board meeting, the County Administrator's Office contacted the Court to request the Court to
move forward with the programming and other work necessary to identify the accounts and balances impacted by the
moratorium. Since waiving or suspending the impacted fees is irreversible, the waiving or suspending of these fees would be a
discharge from accountability for collection of accounts and will require authorization from the Board of Supervisors before
such fees can be waived or suspended.
On February 24, 2020, the PPC recieved an update on the implementation of the moratorium, which include a review of current
outstanding fee balances from the Court totaling approximately $36 million. Each fee included in the moratorium was discussed
and staff was directed to return to the PPC with addtional information on each fee, including where the funds are going, how
much is collected, costs of collection, and how the funds are used. The staff report can be accessed here:
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=PBP&get_month=2&get_year=2020&dsp=ag&seq=1555
Referral Update:
In May 2020, the Court completed a discharge from accountability of old criminal cases pursuant to GC 25259.7 – 25259.9.
Some of the county moratorium fees met the criteria for discharge under GC 95959.7 and were included in the Court discharge.
The discharge was based on one or both of the following: 1) the amount is too small to justify the cost of collection; and 2) the
likelihood of collection does not warrant the expense involved.
An updated list of current county moratorium fee balances to be considered for discharge by the County Board of Supervisors
has been provided to the County. The total balance outstanding is approximately $26 million. As previously discussed, waiving
or suspending the fees collected by the Court is irreversible and would be considered a discharge from accountability for
collection of accounts and will require authorization from the Board of Supervisors before such fees can be waived or suspended.
The following table shows the balance by fee type:
Fee Balance Owed
Cost of Probation Fee 10,830,659
Drug Diversion Fee 410,001
Probation Drug Test Fee 1,135,254
Probation Report Fee 850,430
Public Defender Fee 5,480,669
Sheriff Booking Fee 421,841
Victim Restitution Admin
Fee
7,159,973
Grand Total 26,288,827
Per the PPC's request, addtional information on cost collections and each fee included in the moratorium is provided below:
Cost of Collections
For court collected fee revenue, the collection cost through the Court Collection Unit is approximately 3% of total revenue
Page 8 of 70
remitted to the County. However, collection costs through the Franchise Tax Board and the Court’s contract collection agency
can range from 12.75% to 15% for delinquent accounts.
With regards to the cost of County staff to process abilty-to-pay determinations (Sheriff's Office and Probation Department) and
collect fee revenue (Sheriff's Office only), staff is unable to provide a cost estimate. The Sheriff's Office and Probation
Department are not currently conducting any cost collection duties and therefore is unable to conduct a time-study to estimate
the cost of collection.
Fees Impacted by Moratorium
10% Fee (Victim Restitution Admin Fee)
The County Board of Supervisors authorized an administrative fee equal to 10% of the victim's restitution ordered pursuant to
PC 1203.1 and by resolution in 1994. This fee was increased to 15% in 2010. The Court currently imposes the 15% fee on any
restitution ordered but not yet paid
at the time of account set-up.
Fiscal Impact: The County receives approximately $80,000 per year from this fee which is used to offset any related collections
costs. This revenue is also utilized to fund the County’s subsidy for Court operations to the State of California. Elimination of
this fee would not impact collection of Victim Restitution but would result in an increased General Fund to backfill the lost
revenue.
California Fingerprint ID Penalty
The California Fingerprint ID Penalty is automatically imposed on all criminal and traffic offenses where a base fine is imposed.
This penalty is calculated as $0.50 per every $10, or part of $10, of base fine imposed on the violation. Since the penalty is not
a standalone flat fee, it is part of the total fine amount imposed on the violation. This penalty is part of a larger local penalty
pursuant to Government Code section 76000(a)(1) which established an additional penalty in each county in the amount of $7
for every $10, or part of $10, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal
offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the
Vehicle Code.
The Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to eliminate this penalty, but does have the authority to direct the into
another local fund authorized under Government Code sections 76100-76110.
Fiscal Impact: The County receives approximately $170,000 per year to support the operation and maintenance of the County’s
automated fingerprint equipment. Since the County does not have the authority to eliminate this fee, the County would either
keep the current funding in place or the County may deposit the funds into another fund authorized under GC section
76100-76110.
Probation Fees
Probation fees include Cost of Probation, Probation drug test fee, and probation report fee. Probation also receives nominal
revenue for a “Probation Drug Diversion Fee” that is an administrative fee ordered for felony drug diversions.
The Court only imposes these probation fees if charged by the County Probation Department. Since County Probation
suspended performing ability to pay evaluations and setting up new accounts to charge these fees earlier this year, the Court has
not imposed these fees since then. The Court still has a number of existing accounts with probation fees ordered, but these
accounts also include other Court-ordered fines and fees, so the Court cannot easily separate out and waive just the balance
owed on probation fees ordered.
Fiscal Impact: The collects approximately $540,000 in total probation fee revenue which is used to offset the cost of adult
probation supervision. Elimination of these fees would require result in additional costs for the County General Fund.
Drug Diversion Fee
The Court imposes a drug diversion administrative fee for cases where the defendant is sentenced to a pre-trial drug diversion
program. This is an administrative fee to cover the costs for processing a defendant on drug diversion.
Fiscal impact: The County collects approximately $110,000 per year in drug diversion fee revenue. This funding does not go to
Page 9 of 70
the County’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Division. Like the Victim Restitution Admin fee, this revenue is utilized to fund the
County’s subsidy for Court operations to the State of California. Elimination of this fee would not impact drug diversion
programs but would result in an increased General Fund to backfill the lost revenue.
Public Defender Fee
The Court imposes a public defender fee for cases where the defendant had a court appointed public defender, and the defendant
either waived the right to an ability to pay evaluation or were determined to have the ability to pay the fee. The amount of the
fee ranges from $200 to $500 and depends on the complexity of the trial.
Fiscal Impact: Last year the County collected approximately $150,000 in public defender fee revenue. This funding does not go
to the Public Defender, but is utilized to fund court related operations, such as capital case costs and certain homicide cases.
Booking Fee
The Court may order an arrestee to pay a booking fee in the amount of $564 as requested by the arresting agency. The Court
collects and distributes these booking fees on behalf of the County and several city arresting agencies. The County moratorium
only impacts the booking fee imposed for Contra Costa County Sheriff and not booking fees imposed for local arresting
agencies, including contract cities.
Fiscal Impact: The Sheriff’s Office earns approximately $20,000 to $40,000 in booking fee revenue. This revenue is to cover
expenses incurred with respect to the processing of persons arrested by the Sheriff’s Office.
Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) Fees
The Sheriff’s Office charges CAF fees to participate in the Custody Alternative Facility Program, as an alternative to
incarceration. These fees are designed to recover the cost of administering the related programs, such as the Work Alternative
Program and Electronic Home Detention.
Fiscal Impact: In FY 18/19 the Sheriff’s Office collected $391,000 in CAF fee revenue. The Sheriff’s Office use the funding
primarily fund programs for incarcerated individuals.
Fees not Impacted by Moratorium
Alcohol Test Fee
The Court does not impose an additional $50 penalty pursuant to Penal Code section 1464.14(b) and BOS resolution 88/28
which was suspended by the County moratorium. The Alcohol Test Fee is distributed by the Court pursuant to PC 1463.14(b)
which authorizes a distribution of $50 of each fine collected for DUI and Reckless Driving violations to the special County
account used for alcohol testing.
Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact as the moratorium does not suspend this fee. The County collects approximately $80,000 per
year in Alcohol Test Fee revenue. This funding is utilized by the Sheriff Office to cover operating and maintenance costs
associated with alcohol lab testing.
CAP Fee
The Court does not impose an additional $50 assessment pursuant to PC 1463.16(c) and resolution 88/28 which was suspended
by the County moratorium. The CAP Fee is distributed by the Court pursuant to PC 1463.16(a) which authorizes a distribution
$50 of each fine collection for DUI and Reckless Driving violations to the County.
Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact as the moratorium does not suspend this fee. The County collects approximately $80,000 per
year in Alcohol Test Fee revenue. This funding is split 50/50 between the Sheriff’s Office and Alcohol and Other Drugs
(AOD). utilized by the Sheriff Office to cover operating and maintenance costs associated with Forensic Services Division’s
laboratories. The funds support AOD’s alcohol abuse programs.
Alcohol and Drug Assessment Fee
The Court does not impose an Alcohol and Drug Assessment Fee of up to $150 for DUI violations pursuant to Penal Code
section 1463.13(d) which was suspended by the County moratorium. The Court imposes an Alcohol Drug Problem Assessment
Fee of $100 for DUI violations pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23649.
Page 10 of 70
Fee of $100 for DUI violations pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23649.
Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact as the moratorium does not suspend this fee. The County does collect approximately $180,000
in revenue from this fee which is utilized by Alcohol and Other Drug to support substance abuse education.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE an report on each fee impacted by the County's moratorium on the collection and assessment of
certain criminal justice fees assessed by the County; and
1.
PROVIDE direction to staff to return to the Board of Supervisors for an update on the moratorium, including
consideration to approve the discharge from accountability for the impacted accounts and to maintain the
existing fund for receiving California Fingerpring ID Penalty revenue.
2.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Implementation of the moratorium will result in a loss of revenue of approximately $1.5 million. A summary of
estimated revenue by fee type is included as Attachment D.
Attachments
Attachment A - BOS Referral on Criminal Justice Fees
Attachment B - Resolution No. 2019/522
Attachment C - Fee Revenue Summary
Page 11 of 70
RECOMMENDATION(S):
REFER to the Public Protection Committee the issue of criminal justice system fees charged to individuals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. This action refers the issue of justice system fees to the Public Protection Committee.
BACKGROUND:
Existing law allows the County to impose various criminal justice fees for the cost of administering the
criminal justice system. This referral is being requested to review the current programs, policies and
practices related to criminal justice fees.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The issue will not be referred to the Public Protection Committee for review.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/26/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Diane Burgis, District III
Supervisor
Contact: Paul Reyes,
925-335-1096
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors
on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 26, 2019
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 83
To:Board of Supervisors
From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Date:February 26, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Criminal Justice Fees
Attachment A
Page 12 of 70
Attachment B
Page 13 of 70
Attachment B
Page 14 of 70
Fees Impacted by County Moratorium
Fee Description
FY 17/18
Revenue
FY 18/19
Revenue
FY 19/20
Projected
10% Fee 75,246$ 82,293$ 76,425$
California Fingerprint ID Penalty 170,986$ 175,248$ 169,622$
Probation Drug Diversion Fee 1,273$ 1,399$ 3,123$
Probation Supervision Fee 488,374$ 431,805$ 419,565$
Probation Drug Test Fee 65,921$ 58,291$ 49,331$
Probation Report Fee PC 27,995$ 27,642$ 22,700$
Drug Diversion Fee 111,085$ 125,448$ 103,931$
Public Defense Fee 28,499$ 149,068$ 177,441$
Booking Fee 39,464$ 41,367$ 19,912$
Work Alternative 443,055$ 355,137$ 55,703$
Electronic Home Detention/Alcohol Monitoring 568,541$ 36,842$ 12,147$
Total 2,020,438$ 1,484,541$ 1,109,901$
Fees Impacted by County Moratorium
Fee Description
FY 17/18
Revenue
FY 18/19
Revenue
FY 19/20
Projected
Alcohol Test Fee 86,306$ 80,138$ 65,011$
C.A.P. Fee 87,338$ 81,891$ 66,675$
Alcohol/Drug Assessment Fee 207,529$ 189,438$ 149,308$
Attachment C
Page 15 of 70
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:06/22/2020
Subject:FY 2020/21 CCP RECOMMENDED BUDGET
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: AB109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT
Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, 925-335-1096
Referral History:
On November 1, 2019, the Community Corrections Partnership held a workshop, giving
departments and funded agencies an opportunity to present and discuss budget proposals.
Subsequently, a final vote of the CCP-Executive Committee was held on December 6, 2019. The
budget approved by the CCP was submitted to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) for review
and approval.
On February 3, 2020, the PPC reviewed and approved a FY 20/21 AB 109 Budget totaling
$31,466,788. A summary of the approved budget is included as Attachment A.
On June 5, 2020, the CCP met to discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and the Governor's May
Revise Budget. It was discussed that the economic impacts of COVID-19 are anticipated to result
in significant reductions in Vehicle License Fee (VLF) and Sales and Use Tax revenue which
funds the statewide 2011 Public Safety Realignment. FY 19/20 will be the first year-over-year
decline in revenue for 2011 Realignment (See Attachment B for historical base and growth
allocations). The updated revenue projections in the Govenor's May Revision were stark,
indicating significant declines in 2011 Realignment revenue in the current year and out years. The
CCP recieved updated revenue projections on 2011 Realignment at both the state and County
level. For FY 2020/21, the statewide Community Corrections Subaccount projections total $1.174
billion, a reduction of $284.5 million compared to the January Governor's Budget projections and
again short of reaching the $1.366 billion base. Addtionally, there will be no FY 2019/20 Growth
revenue to be received in FY 2020/21. At the County-level, the County is projected to receive
$22,077,678 which is a reduction of $7.2 million or 25% from the pre-COVID-19 revenue
projection of $29,272,000. Due to these impacts to 2011 Realignment revenue, the County
Administrator's Office informed the CCP that the budgets developed for FY 20/21 are no longer
viable and a new AB 109 budget recommendation will need to developed.
Referral Update:
On June 19, 2020, the CCP-Executive Committee will have met to approve a revised/reduced 2011 Realignment
Page 16 of 70
On June 19, 2020, the CCP-Executive Committee will have met to approve a revised/reduced 2011 Realignment
(AB 109) budget for consideration by the Public Protection Committee. A summary of the revised CCP approved
FY 20/21 Recommended Budget will be provided.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW and APPROVE a revised fiscal year 2020/21 AB 109 budget proposal, as
recommended by the Community Corrections Partnership - Executive Committee.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
For Fiscal Year 2019/2020, the County began the year with a fund balance of $25,146,371.
Assuming full reimbursement of AB 109 expenses, there will be a net reduction in fund balance of
approximately $8.2 million resulting in an ending fund balance of approximately $17 million.
For FY 2020/21, the County is projected to receive $22,077,678 which is a reduction of $7.2
million or 25% from the pre-COVID-19 revenue projection of $29,272,000. The expenditure
budget approved by the CCP in December 2019 included a baseline budget of $30,631,245 and
program modifications of $835,543 for a total budget of $31,466,788. To fully fund this
appropriation level, would require using $9.4 million in fund balance, while funding just the
baseline budget would require a $8.5 million draw on the fund balance. A 10% to 20% cut to the
total baseline expenditure budget would result in a $5.5 million to $2.4 million draw on fund
balance.
Attachments
Attachment A - Original Approved FY 20/21 AB 109 Budget Summary
Attachment B - Historical Base and Growth
Page 17 of 70
2019/20
ONGOING BASELINE +PROG. MOD.=TOTAL REQUEST
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Sheriff
Salaries & Benefits 7,321,484 7,451,844 291,805 7,743,649
Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp 456,250 456,250 - 456,250
Monitoring Costs 55,000 55,000 - 55,000
IT Support 40,000 40,000 - 40,000
Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs 80,500 80,500 - 80,500
"Jail to Community" Program 243,650 243,650 30,538 274,188
Inmate Welfare Fund re: FCC Ruling 800,000 800,000 197,315 997,315
Sheriff Total 8,996,884 9,127,244 519,658 9,646,902
Probation
Salaries & Benefits 2,794,803 2,932,605 - 2,932,605
Operating Costs 182,896 127,657 - 127,657
Salaries & Benefits-Pre-Trial Services Program 813,314 852,349 - 852,349
Operating Costs-Pre-Trial Services Program 81,083 69,000 - 69,000
Probation Total 3,872,096 3,981,611 - 3,981,611
Behavioral Health
Salaries & Benefits1 1,090,798 1,123,522 227,234 1,350,756
Occupancy Costs 38,752 38,752 38,752
Contracts 1,113,962 1,113,962 (800) 1,113,162
Vehicle Purchase and Maintenance 24,948 24,948 24,948
Travel 9,200 9,200 800 10,000
Behavioral Health Total 2,277,660 2,310,384 227,234 2,537,618
Health Services--Health, Housing, & Homeless
Salaries & Benefits 137,432 141,557 141,557
Operating Costs 116,000 130,130 130,130
Health, Housing & Homeless Total 253,432 271,687 - 271,687
Health Services--Detention Health Services
Sal & Ben-Fam Nurse, WCD/MCD 235,168 282,437 - 282,437
Salaries & Benefits-LVN, WCD 316,673 327,440 327,440
Salaries & Benefits-RN, MCD 534,854 556,848 556,848
Sal & Ben-MH Clinic. Spec., WCD/MCD 134,565 143,177 143,177
Detention Health Services Total 1,221,260 1,309,902 - 1,309,902
Public Defender
Sal & Ben-Clean Slate/Client Support 664,637 691,222 691,222
Sal & Ben-ACER Program 932,866 970,180 970,180
Sal & Ben-Reentry Coordination 368,376 331,236 331,236
Sal & Ben-Failure to Appear (FTA) Program 541,186 767,235 767,235
Sal & Ben-Pre-Trial Services Program 317,084 329,767 329,767
Stand Together CoCo 500,000 500,000 500,000
Operating/Capital Costs 35,011 36,907 28,000 64,907
Public Defender Total2 3,359,160 3,626,547 28,000 3,654,547
District Attorney
Salaries & Benefits-Victim Witness Prgrm 105,452 109,303 - 109,303
Salaries & Benefits-Arraignment Prgrm 703,125 730,149 - 730,149
Salaries & Benefits-Reentry/DV Prgrm 703,934 730,622 - 730,622
Salaries & Benefits-Conviction Integrity - - -
Salaries & Benefits-Neighborhood Courts 90,000 93,233 93,233
Salaries & Benefits-ACER Clerk 69,719 72,141 72,141
Salaries & Benefits-Gen'l Clerk 61,883 63,991 63,991
Salaries & Benefits-Realignment Clerk 24,940 25,808 25,808
Operating Costs 67,006 70,000 70,000
Operating Costs - Neighborhood Courts 60,000 60,000 60,000
District Attorney Total 1,886,059 1,955,246 - 1,955,246
AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM
FY 2020/21 CCP TOTAL REQUEST SUMMARY
AS APPROVED BY PPC ON FEBRUARY 3, 2020
2020/21 BUDGET REQUEST
Attachment A
Page 18 of 70
2019/20
ONGOING BASELINE +PROG. MOD.=TOTAL REQUEST
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
AB 109 PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT PROGRAM
FY 2020/21 CCP TOTAL REQUEST SUMMARY
AS APPROVED BY PPC ON FEBRUARY 3, 2020
2020/21 BUDGET REQUEST
EHSD - Re-Entry Systems
Salaries & Benefits 106,966 110,175 110,175
Operating Costs 37,438 41,866 41,866
EHSD Total 144,404 152,041 - 152,041
EHSD-- Workforce Development Board
Salaries & Benefits 204,000 212,000 - 212,000
Travel 4,000 4,160 - 4,160
EHSD-WDB Total 208,000 216,160 - 216,160
County Administrator/Office of Reentry and Justice
Salaries & Benefits - Prog. Admin 481,832 522,785 7,017 529,802
Salaries & Benefits - Research and Evaluation 189,563 189,563 - 189,563
Ceasefire Program Contract 119,000 119,000 - 119,000
Data Evaluation & Systems Planning - - - -
Operating Costs 47,520 51,020 49,000 100,020
CAO/ORJ Total3 837,915 882,368 56,017 938,385
CCC Police Chief's Association
Salaries and Benefits-AB109 Task Force 587,180 610,667 - 610,667
Salaries and Benefits-MHET Teams (3)440,385 458,000 - 458,000
CCC Police Chiefs' Total 1,027,565 1,068,667 - 1,068,667
Community Programs
Employment Support and Placement Srvcs 2,283,000 2,283,000 2,283,000
Network System of Services 979,000 979,000 979,000
Reentry Success Center 546,335 546,335 33,665 580,000
Short and Long-Term Housing Access 1,322,000 1,272,000 1,272,000
Legal Services 157,000 157,000 157,000
Mentoring and Family Reunification 209,000 209,000 209,000
Connections to Resources 15,000 15,000 5,000 20,000
CAB Support (via ORJ)3,031 3,031 (31) 3,000
Salesforce Licensing 34,000 34,000 (34,000) -
Community Programs Total 5,548,366 5,498,366 4,634 5,503,000
Superior Court
Salaries and Benefits - Pretrial 225,745 231,021 - 231,021
Superior Court Total 225,745 231,021 - 231,021
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 29,858,546 30,631,245 835,543 31,466,788
Notes:
2. Public Defender's original proposal did not include funding for Stand Together Contra Costa (STCC). STCC funding was previously approved by the BOS and FY
19/20 is the last year approved for funding. FY 20/21 funding request in the amount of $500,000 has been is included for STCC
3. ORJ budget as listed includes costs associated with the Community Corrections subaccount only.
1. The CAO added $146,000 to the Behavioral Health budget in order to fund a Mental Health Clinical Specialist to work with the Sheriff's
Office MHET deputies.
Attachment A
Page 19 of 70
2014-15 - 2020-21
Community Corrections Base and Growth Allocations
(As of 2020-21 May Revision)
County 2014-15 Base 2014-15 Growth 2015-16 Base 2015-16 Growth 2016-17 Base 2016-17 Growth 2017-18 Base 2017-18 Growth 2018-19 Base 2018-19 Growth 2019-20 Base* 2020-21 Base*
Alameda $ 31,497,960 $ 4,100,990 $ 40,861,385 1,776,165$ 42,856,842$ 2,422,666$ 45,787,995$ 5,513,055$ 48,375,402$ 1,979,224$ 42,502,109$ 43,306,402$
Alpine $ 167,152 $ 13,366 $ 224,809 3,481$ 235,787$ 4,595$ 251,913$ 5,369$ 266,149$ 11,982$ 233,835$ 238,260$
Amador $ 1,368,104 $ 516,243 $ 1,378,795 382,541$ 1,446,128$ 75,669$ 1,545,035$ 34,647$ 1,632,342$ 124,585$ 1,434,158$ 1,461,298$
Butte $ 6,466,722 $ 1,697,507 $ 6,931,223 219,961$ 7,269,708$ 552,340$ 7,766,913$ 259,439$ 8,205,809$ 280,488$ 7,209,536$ 7,345,966$
Calaveras $ 992,402 $ 255,449 $ 1,114,713 90,663$ 1,169,150$ 54,214$ 1,249,113$ 788,456$ 1,319,699$ 32,586$ 1,159,473$ 1,181,414$
Colusa $ 589,667 $ 243,850 $ 693,231 20,003$ 727,085$ 49,694$ 776,813$ 61,480$ 820,710$ 15,558$ 721,067$ 734,712$
Contra Costa $ 20,669,679 $ 8,765,532 $ 20,831,204 727,382$ 21,848,491$ 1,195,045$ 23,342,798$ 2,375,791$ 24,661,862$ 1,152,872$ 21,667,648$ 22,077,678$
Del Norte $ 721,629 $ 436,564 $ 983,957 47,756$ 1,032,008$ 61,952$ 1,102,591$ 28,279$ 1,164,897$ 20,396$ 1,023,466$ 1,042,833$
El Dorado $ 3,586,615 $ 1,818,367 $ 3,614,643 234,813$ 3,791,163$ 222,252$ 4,050,456$ 172,912$ 4,279,341$ 257,539$ 3,759,783$ 3,830,932$
Fresno $ 24,164,305 $ 2,558,069 $ 32,711,894 941,281$ 34,309,372$ 2,975,703$ 36,655,930$ 1,920,436$ 38,727,298$ 912,709$ 34,025,388$ 34,669,271$
Glenn $ 846,022 $ 134,849 $ 1,153,582 321,454$ 1,209,917$ 100,668$ 1,292,668$ 176,369$ 1,365,715$ 34,461$ 1,199,903$ 1,222,609$
Humboldt $ 3,695,189 $ 806,028 $ 4,330,130 356,079$ 4,541,591$ 140,475$ 4,852,209$ 300,685$ 5,126,400$ 103,323$ 4,504,000$ 4,589,232$
Imperial $ 3,501,228 $ 409,231 $ 4,777,351 218,106$ 5,010,652$ 565,417$ 5,353,350$ 390,492$ 5,655,860$ 424,651$ 4,969,178$ 5,063,212$
Inyo $ 541,209 $ 61,046 $ 691,756 46,526$ 725,537$ 56,564$ 775,160$ 248,762$ 818,963$ 33,376$ 719,532$ 733,148$
Kern $ 31,628,367 $ 4,872,538 $ 36,104,558 3,753,017$ 37,867,716$ 1,399,164$ 40,457,643$ 3,346,246$ 42,743,840$ 1,333,016$ 37,554,279$ 38,264,941$
Kings $ 6,894,852 $ 2,618,439 $ 6,948,733 652,823$ 7,288,072$ 843,929$ 7,786,533$ 278,805$ 8,226,538$ 663,267$ 7,227,748$ 7,364,523$
Lake $ 1,934,887 $ 192,832 $ 2,497,419 105,656$ 2,619,380$ 112,486$ 2,798,530$ 569,592$ 2,956,670$ 56,977$ 2,597,699$ 2,646,857$
Lassen $ 1,080,925 $ 185,516 $ 1,358,884 152,545$ 1,425,245$ 54,397$ 1,522,723$ 220,498$ 1,608,770$ 249,388$ 1,413,448$ 1,440,196$
Los Angeles $ 290,538,549 $ 23,778,008 $ 344,481,162 17,755,186$ 361,303,819$ 22,298,545$ 386,014,858$ 12,317,969$ 407,827,941$ 9,641,642$ 358,313,252$ 365,093,833$
Madera $ 4,087,031 $ 640,018 $ 5,576,210 318,582$ 5,848,523$ 639,914$ 6,248,528$ 602,411$ 6,601,622$ 314,987$ 5,800,114$ 5,909,873$
Marin $ 4,900,330 $ 2,569,053 $ 4,938,624 182,798$ 5,179,800$ 408,743$ 5,534,068$ 260,189$ 5,846,790$ 457,849$ 5,136,927$ 5,234,136$
Mariposa $ 472,956 $ 92,075 $ 566,924 169,734$ 594,610$ 16,152$ 635,278$ 51,140$ 671,176$ 113,240$ 589,688$ 600,847$
Mendocino $ 2,205,821 $ 711,297 $ 2,322,880 156,857$ 2,436,317$ 79,842$ 2,602,947$ 886,932$ 2,750,035$ 137,047$ 2,416,151$ 2,461,874$
Merced $ 5,692,045 $ 1,444,201 $ 7,763,704 539,041$ 8,142,842$ 714,281$ 8,699,764$ 336,045$ 9,191,374$ 262,041$ 8,075,443$ 8,228,259$
Modoc $ 235,208 $ 45,018 $ 321,108 88,070$ 336,789$ 15,502$ 359,823$ 26,290$ 380,156$ 38,251$ 334,001$ 340,322$
Mono $ 428,294 $ 70,606 $ 584,103 44,113$ 612,628$ 64,198$ 654,528$ 37,940$ 691,514$ 26,130$ 607,557$ 619,054$
Monterey $ 8,633,838 $ 844,532 $ 11,159,775 647,463$ 11,704,760$ 756,797$ 12,505,297$ 385,741$ 13,211,951$ 453,955$ 11,607,878$ 11,827,541$
Napa $ 2,673,402 $ 551,811 $ 3,240,370 676,311$ 3,398,613$ 283,400$ 3,631,058$ 185,871$ 3,836,243$ 494,904$ 3,370,482$ 3,434,264$
Nevada $ 1,918,350 $ 783,916 $ 1,933,341 80,310$ 2,027,755$ 194,020$ 2,166,441$ 204,494$ 2,288,864$ 256,550$ 2,010,971$ 2,049,026$
Orange $ 63,045,168 $ 17,399,444 $ 70,813,993 2,931,181$ 74,272,178$ 6,055,331$ 79,351,954$ 4,783,418$ 83,836,006$ 4,943,222$ 73,657,415$ 75,051,280$
Placer $ 6,659,794 $ 1,930,434 $ 7,176,968 259,768$ 7,527,454$ 636,454$ 8,042,287$ 588,898$ 8,496,744$ 252,022$ 7,465,148$ 7,606,415$
Plumas $ 551,023 $ 197,629 $ 609,538 59,307$ 639,305$ 25,139$ 683,029$ 30,491$ 721,626$ 44,947$ 634,013$ 646,011$
Riverside $ 47,744,372 $ 5,381,263 $ 65,141,764 2,142,476$ 68,322,947$ 6,709,911$ 72,995,831$ 2,572,932$ 77,120,709$ 1,975,146$ 67,757,427$ 69,039,643$
Sacramento $ 30,485,341 $ 3,679,007 $ 41,572,174 1,337,531$ 43,602,342$ 2,532,450$ 46,584,483$ 8,597,884$ 49,216,898$ 4,519,457$ 43,241,438$ 44,059,723$
San Benito $ 1,203,382 $ 428,214 $ 1,593,050 203,766$ 1,670,846$ 143,765$ 1,785,122$ 163,847$ 1,885,997$ 143,408$ 1,657,017$ 1,688,373$
San Bernardino $ 68,145,357 $ 12,157,309 $ 83,729,133 4,712,958$ 87,818,026$ 5,398,263$ 93,824,259$ 2,276,500$ 99,126,118$ 1,682,258$ 87,091,143$ 88,739,222$
San Diego $ 63,164,783 $ 16,578,200 $ 68,458,956 1,518,743$ 71,802,133$ 5,740,690$ 76,712,973$ 2,411,562$ 81,047,901$ 1,856,503$ 71,207,816$ 72,555,325$
San Francisco 18,337,440$ 6,285,751$ 20,359,877$ 965,739$ 21,354,147$ 1,240,372$ 22,814,644$ 1,374,521$ 24,103,864$ 2,555,802$ 21,177,396$ 21,578,149$
San Joaquin $ 16,066,726 $ 1,771,257 $ 21,513,379 1,142,909$ 22,563,980$ 989,100$ 24,107,222$ 2,032,188$ 25,469,483$ 1,653,065$ 22,377,214$ 22,800,672$
San Luis Obispo $ 5,644,308 $ 545,788 $ 7,164,312 284,364$ 7,514,180$ 691,713$ 8,028,105$ 288,366$ 8,481,761$ 254,652$ 7,451,984$ 7,593,002$
San Mateo $ 14,450,429 $ 5,863,388 $ 14,563,353 885,694$ 15,274,551$ 956,884$ 16,319,240$ 987,971$ 17,241,414$ 1,654,467$ 15,148,121$ 15,434,778$
Santa Barbara $ 8,657,369 $ 1,118,182 $ 11,078,836 551,843$ 11,619,868$ 993,525$ 12,414,598$ 760,393$ 13,116,127$ 590,980$ 11,523,688$ 11,741,758$
Santa Clara $ 36,404,725 $ 8,409,131 $ 41,313,799 1,543,990$ 43,331,349$ 3,580,025$ 46,294,956$ 3,471,148$ 48,911,010$ 1,593,405$ 42,972,689$ 43,785,887$
Attachment B
Page 20 of 70
2014-15 - 2020-21
Community Corrections Base and Growth Allocations
(As of 2020-21 May Revision)
County 2014-15 Base 2014-15 Growth 2015-16 Base 2015-16 Growth 2016-17 Base 2016-17 Growth 2017-18 Base 2017-18 Growth 2018-19 Base 2018-19 Growth 2019-20 Base* 2020-21 Base*
Santa Cruz $ 5,637,055 $ 748,732 $ 6,832,189 612,916$ 7,165,838$ 764,181$ 7,655,938$ 643,431$ 8,088,563$ 775,738$ 7,106,525$ 7,241,006$
Shasta $ 6,741,871 $ 2,487,750 $ 6,794,556 342,732$ 7,126,367$ 256,950$ 7,613,768$ 1,093,649$ 8,044,010$ 193,179$ 7,067,381$ 7,201,121$
Sierra $ 178,831 $ 91,603 $ 231,033 5,697$ 242,315$ 16,329$ 258,888$ 35,271$ 273,517$ 3,225$ 240,309$ 244,857$
Siskiyou $ 1,110,942 $ 356,271 $ 1,296,058 52,299$ 1,359,351$ 86,398$ 1,452,322$ 427,770$ 1,534,390$ 57,783$ 1,348,099$ 1,373,610$
Solano $ 9,077,651 $ 3,143,755 $ 10,466,801 402,396$ 10,977,944$ 386,517$ 11,728,771$ 297,427$ 12,391,545$ 490,823$ 10,887,078$ 11,093,101$
Sonoma $ 9,657,516 $ 4,530,253 $ 9,732,986 371,092$ 10,208,294$ 604,266$ 10,906,481$ 496,743$ 11,522,789$ 3,457,472$ 10,123,798$ 10,315,377$
Stanislaus $ 13,899,952 $ 1,440,268 $ 17,764,873 1,180,382$ 18,632,416$ 1,530,289$ 19,906,763$ 1,126,729$ 21,031,663$ 512,256$ 18,478,193$ 18,827,867$
Sutter $ 2,692,639 $ 1,024,819 $ 2,713,681 287,448$ 2,846,203$ 161,826$ 3,040,867$ 225,183$ 3,212,701$ 737,851$ 2,822,645$ 2,876,059$
Tehama $ 2,824,325 $ 3,101,850 $ 2,846,396 46,705$ 2,985,399$ 266,558$ 3,189,582$ 1,219,295$ 3,369,821$ 352,296$ 2,960,688$ 3,016,715$
Trinity $ 427,173 $ 220,005 $ 580,154 26,124$ 608,486$ 27,350$ 650,103$ 62,243$ 686,839$ 12,094$ 603,450$ 614,869$
Tulare $ 12,723,594 $ 2,227,867 $ 15,875,860 587,520$ 16,651,153$ 1,502,507$ 17,789,994$ 1,030,339$ 18,795,278$ 1,060,021$ 16,513,329$ 16,825,821$
Tuolumne $ 1,389,149 $ 183,692 $ 1,776,122 133,987$ 1,862,858$ 145,887$ 1,990,266$ 123,527$ 2,102,733$ 676,050$ 1,847,439$ 1,882,399$
Ventura $ 16,115,645 $ 6,183,310 $ 16,300,317 439,395$ 17,096,339$ 931,118$ 18,265,628$ 468,066$ 19,297,789$ 2,647,900$ 16,954,830$ 17,275,677$
Yolo $ 6,506,453 $ 3,279,053 $ 6,689,128 221,316$ 7,015,790$ 644,623$ 7,495,628$ 347,977$ 7,919,194$ 132,618$ 6,957,719$ 7,089,384$
Yuba $ 2,424,248 $ 1,447,764 $ 2,443,192 126,925$ 2,562,505$ 70,526$ 2,737,765$ 206,351$ 2,892,472$ 57,246$ 2,541,295$ 2,589,385$
California $ 934,100,000 $ 173,428,945 $ 1,107,528,945 54,085,919$ 1,161,614,864$ 79,447,570$ 1,241,062,434$ 70,130,455$ 1,311,192,889$ 54,768,879$ 1,152,000,000$ 1,173,800,000$
Note: The 2014-15 growth numbers include an additional $64.8 million per Government Code section 30027.9, subdivision (a), paragraph (3). Although the Governor’s May Revision
realignment estimate displays $998.9 million for base and $108.6 million for growth, this chart reflects the restoration in the growth column as it was distributed using the growth
formula. While the display is different, the total statewide and individual county allocations are the same.
*Estimated as of the 2020-21 May Revision. The May Revision estimates no growth funding for both 2019-20 and 2020-21.
Attachment B
Page 21 of 70
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:06/22/2020
Subject:Racial Justice Oversight Body Vacancy and Recruitment
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Referral on Racial Justice Oversight Body
Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097
Referral History:
In April 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted recommendations from the Public Protection
Committee (PPC) to form a 17-member Racial Justice Task Force and approved its composition
in September 2016. On July 24, 2018, the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Racial Justice Task
Force - Final Report and Recommendations" with the exclusion of recommendations #18 and
#19, which included the recommendation to create a Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB)
composed of the following 18 representatives:
A representative from the Superior Court, as a non-voting member;1.
The Sheriff or his designee;2.
The Chief Probation Officer or his designee;3.
The Public Defender or her designee;4.
The District Attorney or her designee;5.
A representative from a local law enforcement agency, nominated by the Contra Costa
County Police Chiefs’ Association;
6.
A representative from the Contra Costa County Office of Education;7.
A representative from a Local School District;8.
A representative from Contra Costa County Health Services Department; and9.
Nine community-based representatives, including: two members of the Contra Costa Racial
Justice Coalition, two individuals with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system
involvement, three representatives from community-based organizations (CBO) that work
with justice involved populations, including at least one person who works directly with
youth, one representative from a faith-based organization, and one representative that is
either a school age young person, or from a CBO who provides services to school age youth.
10.
On September 18, 2018, a six-week recruitment process was initiated by the County to fill the
seven (7) community-based seats. The Racial Justice Coalition selected their two nominations.
The deadline for submissions was November 2, 2018 and the County received a total of 14
applications.
Page 22 of 70
On November 13, 2018, the PPC approved the nominations for appointment to the Racial Justice
Oversight Body. On December 4, 2018, the Board of Supervisors appointed the individuals
identified in Attachment A to serve on the Racial Justice Oversight Body.
Referral Update:
On May 12, 2020, Ledamien Flowers, the Community Representative (Seat 4), notified staff of
his resignation from the Racial Justice Oversight Body. The Community Seat 4 is defined as a
representative that has prior personal criminal justice or juvenile justice involvement.
On June 16, 2020, the Board of Supervisors accepted the resignation of Ledamien Flowers,
declared a vacancy of the Community Representative Seat 4 on the Racial Justice Oversight
Body, and directed the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.
Staff recommends the following recruitment schedule to fill the vacancy on the RJOB:
6-Week Application Period:
June 26: Issue press release advertising the vacancy
August 7: Application Deadline
August 24: PPC Committee Meeting - Interviews
September 8: Board consideration of PPC nomination
A list of the current RJOB members and their subcommittee membership can be found in
Attachment B .
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
PROVIDE direction to staff regarding the recruitment process for the Community-based
Representative Seat 4 on the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Oversight Body.
Attachments
Attachment A - 2019 RJOB Membership
Attachment B - June 2020 RJOB Roster and Subcommittee Membership
Page 23 of 70
ATTACHMENT A - 2019 RACIAL JUSTICE OVERSIGHT BODY
Seat Appointee Term Expiration
Superior Court representative James Paulsen, Director of Family Law and Probate ex-officio
Sheriff or designee John Lowden, Assistant Sheriff ex-officio
Chief Probation Officer or designee Mike Newton, Probation Director ex-officio
Public Defender or designee Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender ex-officio
District Attorney or disignee Diana Becton, District Attorney ex-officio
Local Law Enforcement representative Bisa French, Interim Chief, Richmond Police Department December 31, 2020
Contra Costa County Office of Education representative Lynn Mackey, Superintendent Elect ex-officio
Local School District representative Debra Mason, Mount Diablo Unified School District December 31, 2020
Health Services Department representative Dr. William Walker ex-officio
CBO representative Seat 1 Tamisha Walker December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 2 Jeff Landau December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 3 Chala Bonner December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 4 Ledamien Flowers December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 5 Stephanie Medley December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 6 Cheryl Sudduth December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 7 Edward Williams December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 8 Jay LeVine December 31, 2020
CBO representative Seat 9 Tammy Appling-Cabading December 31, 2020
Page 24 of 70
Racial Justice Oversight Body Member Roster - June 2020
Seat RJOB Member Subcommittee Membership
Superior Court representative James Paulsen, Director of Family Law and Probate Data Subcommittee
Sheriff or designee John Lowden, Assistant Sheriff Data Subcommittee
Chief Probation Officer or designee Melvin Russell, Assistant Chief Probation Officer Diversion Subcommittee
Public Defender or designee Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Diversion Subcommittee
District Attorney or designee Diana Becton, District Attorney Diversion Subcommittee
Local Law Enforcement representative Bisa French, Interim Chief, Richmond Police Dept.Diversion Subcommittee - Chair
Contra Costa County Office of Education Lynn Mackey, County Superintendent of Schools Data Subcommittee
Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee
Local School District Representative Debra Mason, Mt. Diablo Unified School District Data Subcommittee - Chair
Health Services Department representative Dr. William Walker Data Subcommittee
CBO Representative, Seat 1 Tamisha Walker Diversion Subcommittee
CBO Representative, Seat 2 Jeff Landau Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee - Chair
CBO Representative, Seat 3 Chala Bonner Data Subcommittee
CBO Representative, Seat 4 VACANT
CBO Representative, Seat 5 Stephanie Medley
Diversion Subcommittee
Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee
CBO Representative, Seat 6 Cheryl Sudduth Diversion Subcommittee
CBO Representative, Seat 7 Edward Williams Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee
CBO Representative, Seat 8 Jay LeVine Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee
CBO Representative, Seat 9 Tammy Appling-Cabading Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee
Page 25 of 70
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:06/22/2020
Subject:REPORT on progress of the RACIAL JUSTICE OVERSIGHT BODY
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: Christopher James, W. Hayward Burns
Institute
Contact: Donte Blue, (925)
335-1977
Referral History:
In April 2016, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) accepted recommendations from the Public
Protection Committee to form a 17-member Racial Justice Task Force and then appointed
members to this Task Force in September 2016. After Resource Developments Associates was
awarded a contract by the County in February 2017 to provide facilitation and data analysis
services, the Racial Justice Task Force was convened from April 2017 through June 2018. During
this time the Task Force reviewed data on local criminal and juvenile justice systems and
processes, discussed best practices and emerging practices to address racial disparities in those
systems and processes, and ultimately developed a set of recommendations that would help the
County reduce the identified disparities.
In July 2018, the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Racial Justice Task Force - Final Report and
Recommendations" (see Attachment B) with the exclusion of recommendations #18 and #19. The
first recommendation called for the establishment of a Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) that
would “meet on a quarterly basis” to “oversee the implementation of the recommendations” and
provide the County with a report of its activities “on an annual basis.” Based on this
recommendation, in November 2018 the Public Protection Committee nominated individuals for
appointment to the RJOB, and on December 4, 2018, the Board made the appointments.
Referral Update:
After the Office of Reentry and Justice staff concluded a contractor solicitation process, on April
16, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved the execution of a contract with the W. Hayward
Burns institute (BI) to provide committee consulting and development services for the Racial
Justice Oversight Body (RJOB). A summary of their work is Attachment A.
In this role, BI was contracted to perform the following services:
Develop RJOB bylaws and support meaningful participation by all members and efficient
and effective decision making;
1.
Page 26 of 70
Create a structure that will allow the RJOB to achieve its objectives;2.
Develop a two-year work plan for the RJOB, and facilitate RJOB meetings and activities in a
way that ensures the RJOB makes progress towards its objectives;
3.
Engage and support stakeholders in their efforts to implement recommendations of the
Racial Justice Task Force;
4.
Provide the RJOB with research support and subject-matter expertise in areas related to
racial justice, criminal and juvenile justice reform, data and evaluation, and community
engagement;
5.
Produce and present a final public report detailing the RJOB’s progress in addressing racial
and ethnic disparities of the local criminal and juvenile justice systems.
6.
In July 2019, BI convened the first quarterly RJOB meeting. Since then BI has helped the body
develop Bylaws (Attachment C ), structure itself into three subcommittees that have met monthly,
and helped each subcommittee develop work plans that will guide the RJOB’s work going
forward (Attachments D – G). Additionally, BI has provided a status report detailing the progress
the RJOB has made to date (Attachment H).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT a report from the W. Hayward Burns Institute on the progress and activities of the
County’s Racial Justice Oversight Body, and provide direction to staff as needed.
Attachments
Attachment A - ROJB Progress Report
Attachment B - Racial Justice Task Force Recommendations
Attachment C - RJOB Bylaws
Attachment D - RJOB Work Plan
Attachment E - RJOB Data Subcommittee Work Plan
Attachment F - RJOB Diversion Subcommittee Work Plan
Attachment G - RJOB Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee Work Plan
Attachment H - RJOB Progress Report
Page 27 of 70
RJOB Progress Report
Public Protection Committee Meeting
Monday, June 22nd
ATTACHMENT A
Page 28 of 70
RJOB Timeline
●Kick-Off Meeting -Jun 2019
●Election of Co-Chairs –August 2019
○Approval of Bylaws
○First two subcommittees established –
●Subcommittee meetings begin –October 2019
●Work planning session –November 2019
○Diversion subcommittee discussed
●Work planning session –February 2020
○Diversion subcommittee established
●Activities suspended due to COVID-19 –March/April 2020
●RJOB resumes and work plan approved –May 2020
○Received significant public comment on COVID-19
○Subcommittee meetings resume
ATTACHMENT A
Page 29 of 70
Observations
●The Body is very well constructed○Balance between community and traditional
system stakeholders○Wealth of knowledge and insight○Good mix of personalities
●This kind of work takes a long time, and will likely
be expansive○Appointments expire 12/31/2020○Shouldn’t be limited to RJTF
Recommendations
ATTACHMENT A
Page 30 of 70
Observations
●Work requires more than quarterly meetings○Members came to this conclusion on their own○Subcommittees meet monthly
●There has been significant and consistent
community support○That support seems to have been bolstered by
virtual meetings
ATTACHMENT A
Page 31 of 70
Recommendations
●Consider how structure/membership might best
facilitate equal progress on both youth and adult
matters
●Community engagement○Consider changing days/times/locations of the
meeting for optimal attendance/participation○Consider whether additional feedback
sessions may be needed
●REAP○Coordination to ensure efforts of both REAP
and RJOB are not duplicative
●Resources allocated to support this work are
imperative
ATTACHMENT A
Page 32 of 70
Additional Considerations
●Strive to have all ethnic groups within the County
represented on the Body
●How do we encourage municipal agencies within
the County to participate?
●Clarity on role within government
●Communication with relevant agencies
ATTACHMENT A
Page 33 of 70
Current Events
●Time is now for radical change
●RJOB is poised to be a part of that change
○It must be empowered to do so
○Important to take unprecedented
action to meet unprecedented
demands
●Burns Institute is uniquely positioned to
help
○Structural well-being model
ATTACHMENT A
Page 34 of 70
Contact Information
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
475 14th Street, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
www.burnsinstitute.org
(415) 321-4100
Christopher James, Site Manager, Ext. 103
cjames@burnsinstitute.org
ATTACHMENT A
Page 35 of 70
Contra Costa County
Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations
June 2018 | 1
RJTF Recommendations
Oversight and Accountability
1)The Racial Justice Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a Racial Justice
Oversight Body (RJOB) to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Task
Force, as specified by the Board of Supervisors. The RJOB would meet on a quarterly basis and
report to the Board on an annual basis. The RJOB shall be made up of the following members:
1.A representative from the Superior Court, as a non-voting member
2.The Sheriff or his designee
3.The Chief Probation Officer or his designee
4.The Public Defender or her designee
5.The District Attorney or her designee
6.A representative from a local law enforcement agency, nominated by the Contra Costa
County Police Chiefs’ Association
7.A representative from the Contra Costa County Board of Education
8.A representative from Contra Costa County Health Services
9.Eight community-based representatives, that include at a minimum:
a. Two members of the Racial Justice Coalition,
b. Two individuals with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system
involvement,
c. Three representatives from community-based organizations that work with
individuals in the justice system, including at least one person who works
directly with youth
d. One representative from a faith-based organization
Any individual may meet more than one of these qualifications.
The RJTF further recommends that the work of this body be staffed by the County Office of
Reentry and Justice, and that funds for facilitation be allocated through an RFP process.
1) a. The RJOB should or a subcommittee thereof should review local criminal and juvenile justice data
in order to identify and report on racial disparities. This will include a review of use-of-force data,
as available from the California Department of Justice’s Open Justice data.
Diversion
2)With the goal of reducing racial disparities in the Contra Costa County criminal justice system,
form a committee to recommend countywide criteria and protocols for formal and informal
diversion. The recommendations shall be evidence-based and follow established best practices.
In considering what criteria and protocols to recommend, the committee shall
1.Develop separate recommendations for adult and juvenile populations.
2.Strive to ensure the broadest possible pool of eligible participants.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 36 of 70
Contra Costa County
Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations
June 2018 | 2
3.Strive to ensure that prior criminal justice involvement does not bar a person’s eligibility
for diversion.
4.Ensure that the inability to pay for the costs of diversion will not prohibit participation.
5.Recommend, as appropriate, partnerships between law enforcement agencies and
community-based organizations to provide diversion services and oversight.
This committee may be a subgroup of the Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB) and will report to
the RJOB.
3)Expand the use of crisis intervention teams, mobile crisis teams, and behavioral health assessment
teams so they are available across the County.
4)Local law enforcement agencies shall issue citations and establish non-enforcement diversion
programs as an alternative to arrests.
Data
5)All Contra Costa County criminal justice agencies and local law enforcement agencies shall
collect individual-level data on all individual encounters with criminal and juvenile justice
systems and processes. In so doing, they should consult best practices to balance data needs
with confidentiality regulations.
a.Office of Reentry and Justice shall publish race-specific data online on all of the above to
create greater transparency and accountability of the County criminal justice agencies
and local enforcement agencies.
b.All Contra Costa County criminal justice agencies and local law enforcement agencies shall
improve capacity for data collection and analysis including expanding staff with data
analysis capabilities.
c.Office of Reentry and Justice shall support analysis of interventions implemented
through the RJTF to measure efficacy and assess impact on racial disparities.
County Support for Local Agencies
6)The County shall work with local enforcement agencies to seek funds that support the integration
of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings into local enforcement agency
regional academy and/or department orientations.
a.The County shall work with local enforcement agencies to seek funds to implement
improved procedural justice practices and implicit bias training.
i.Identify funding for procedural justice training utilizing the train the trainer
model.
ii.Work with the Chief’s Association to create a forum to share information and
strengthen promising practices around procedural justice and implicit bias
trainings.
7)In addition, local enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County should:
i.Ensure inclusion of de-escalation and behavioral health intervention trainings
into local enforcement agency regional academy and/or department orientations
ATTACHMENT B
Page 37 of 70
Contra Costa County
Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations
June 2018 | 3
ii.Provide procedural justice and implicit bias training to all staff
8)The County Office of Education shall provide resources to incentivize school districts to explore,
evaluate, implement or expand existing non-punitive discipline practices, such as Positive
Behavioral Interventions Support (PBIS) and Restorative Justice (RJ) practices.
i.Identify funding for continuous training and technical assistance to all schools in
the County to support implementation of PBIS and Restorative Justice, as well as
data collection to assess implementation and impact.
9)The County Office of Education shall work with school districts to provide behavioral health
services such as counseling, peer support, and early intervention services for youth presenting
signs of emotional, mental, and/or behavioral distress.
Community Engagement and Services
10)County criminal justice agencies shall establish formal partnerships with community-based
organizations to provide greater capacity for
i.diversion,
ii.reentry programs,
iii.alternatives to detention
iv.pretrial services
v.in custody programming
All community-based organizations receiving funding from the County shall be evaluated for
efficacy and effectiveness of program goals and objectives to ensure populations are
appropriately served. Community input shall be an integral part of this process.
11)Establish a community capacity fund to build the capacity of community-based organizations –
especially those staffed by formerly incarcerated individuals – to contract with the County and
provide services to reentry clients.
12)The County and/or RJOB shall collaborate with the Community Corrections Partnership- Executive
Committee (CCP-EC) to consider increasing realignment funding for community services.
Practices Related to Trial and Adjudication Processes
13)Encourage the Superior Court to return to the process of jury selection whereby jurors are called
to service to their local branch court for misdemeanor trials.
14)The Public Defender’s Office shall hire social workers who can assess clients’ psychosocial needs
and link them to services.
15)The Public Defender’s Office, either directly or through partnerships with community-based
organizations, should offer civil legal representation to clients. For youth, this should focus on
educational advocacy.
Confinement
16)Expand eligibility for Pre-Trial Services and increase Pre-Trial Services staffing, with a focus on
reducing racial disparities and replacing the money bail system.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 38 of 70
Contra Costa County
Racial Justice Task Force – Final Report and Recommendations
June 2018 | 4
17)Expand the current pre-release pilot to serve all individuals in custody.
18)Establish an independent grievance process for individuals in custody in County adult detention
facilities to report concerns related to conditions of confinement based on gender, race, religion,
and national origin. This process shall not operate via the Sheriff’s Office or require any review by
Sheriff’s Office staff.
19)Establish an independent monitoring body to oversee conditions of confinement in County adult
detention facilities based on gender, race, religion, and national origin and report back to the
Board of Supervisors.
Other
20)All County staff shall participate in and complete implicit bias training.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 39 of 70
1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RACIAL JUSTICE OVERSIGHT BODY
BY-LAWS
(Adopted by the Racial Justice Oversight Body on November 7, 2019)
Article I – Purpose
The Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB or Body) was established by the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Racial Justice Task
Force, and accepted, as specified, by the Board of Supervisors.1
Article II – Membership
A. Composition: The RJOB shall consist of the following 18 members2:
Ex‐Officio Members:
1. The Sheriff or his designee;
2. The Chief Probation Officer or his designee;
3. The Public Defender or her designee;
4. The District Attorney or her designee;
Other Appointed Members:
5. A representative from the Superior Court, as a non-voting member;
6. A representative from a local law enforcement agency, nominated by the Contra
Costa County Police Chiefs’ Association;
7. A representative from the Contra Costa County Office of Education;
8. A representative from a Local School District;
9. A representative from Contra Costa County Health Services Department;
Appointed Members (appointed by the Board of Supervisors):
10. Nine community-based representatives, including:
• two members of the Contra Costa Racial Justice Coalition,
1 Item D.8. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Meeting. December 4, 2018.
Link 1:
http://64.166.146.245/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2018&dsp=agm&seq=35972
&rev=0&ag=1165&ln=71059&nseq=35992&nrev=0&pseq=35929&prev=0#ReturnTo71059
Link 2 (pdf):
http://64.166.146.245/public//print/ag_memo_pdf_popup.cfm?seq=35972&rev_num=0&mode=CUSTOM
2 Racial Justice Oversight Body webpage. https://contra-
costa.granicus.com/boards/w/26cad49fec719903/boards/27221
ATTACHMENT C
Page 40 of 70
2
• two individuals with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system
involvement,
• three representatives from community-based organizations (CBO) that
work with justice involved populations, including at least one person who
works directly with youth,
• one representative from a faith-based organization, and
• one representative that is either a school age young person, or from a
CBO who provides services to school age youth.
B. Terms of Office: Ex‐Officio and Other Appointed members shall serve during their terms of office
or appointment. Members appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall have two-year terms
beginning on the date of appointment by the Board, but shall serve at the pleasure of the Board
of Supervisors and may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors
(See Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2011/497).
C. Resignation: Any appointed member may resign by giving written notice to the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors.
D. Vacancies: The Body shall comply with the system for new appointments, resignations, and
replacements for Appointed Members as specified by the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors. Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs, the Board of Supervisors will fill the
vacancy pursuant to Government Code Section 54974. The term for the incoming member will
be to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the original term.
E. Absences: Members of the Body who have two (2) consecutive unexcused absences from the
scheduled quarterly meetings or who have not fulfilled their duties for a three-month period
may be declared inactive by the Body. This inactive seat may be declared vacant and filled by
the Board of Supervisors.
F. Alternates: Ex-Officio and Other Appointed members of the Body may be represented by an
alternate if the member is: (1) a County (or other public entity) officer; and (2) authorized to
appoint deputies, pursuant to Government Code Section 24101 (or other applicable law). An
alternate has all the duties, rights, and responsibilities of the member they represent.
G. Training Requirements:
1. Members must view the following training videos within 60 days of appointment.
• Brown Act and Better Government Ordinance Training Video3
• Ethics Training4
2. Members must complete “Training Certification for Members of a County Advisory
Body”.5
3. Members must attend any future trainings deemed necessary by the Body or
required by law.
3 Link https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7632/Training-Resources
4 Link https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7632/Training-Resources
5 Contra Costa County Advisory Body Handbook. Contra Costa County Office of the Clerk of the Board. April 2012.
Page 86. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7614/2102MACHandbook?bidId=
ATTACHMENT C
Page 41 of 70
3
Article III – Structure
A. Officers: The Body shall have two co-chairs: one Ex-officio member and one Appointed member.
The Co-chairs shall be elected by the members of the Body. The Co-Chair(s) will preside at all
meetings and proceed with the business of the Body in a manner prescribed in these Bylaws.
The Co-chairs will also decide questions of parliamentary procedure as needed. Co-chairs shall
serve a term of two (2) years.
B. Other Committees: The Body may establish up to three Subcommittees to address specific
issues or concerns.
1. Subcommittees may only be composed of Body members.
2. Subcommittees must report back to the Body at the Body’s regularly scheduled
meetings.
3. Subcommittee decisions shall be made by vote and governed by voting and quorum
rules set forth in these Bylaws. Decisions and voting tallies will be recorded in the
meeting summary report.
4. Subcommittees shall not engage in activities that are not within the purpose and
responsibilities outlined in these Bylaws and the BOS approved recommendations
from the Racial Justice Taskforce.
5. The Subcommittees may recommend policies and decisions falling within their
scope of authority to the full Body for approval, however the Subcommittees have
no authority to establish policy, make decisions, or hold non‐public meetings.
6. Each Subcommittee will function with a Subcommittee Chair(s). The Subcommittees
Chair(s) shall be responsible for conducting the Subcommittee’s meetings,
developing and distributing agendas, convening any necessary working groups, and
ensuring compliance with the Bylaws of the Body. Subcommittee chairs will be
elected by the Subcommittee.
Article IV – Meetings
A. Regular Meetings: Regular meetings of the Body and each Subcommittee shall be held at least
once during each calendar year quarter based on a schedule adopted by the Body and that
schedule may be changed as needed. In addition, regularly scheduled meetings may be canceled
by a majority vote of the Body or, for lack of business or lack of a quorum, by the Chair(s).
B. Special Meetings: Special meetings of the Body or any other committees may be called by the
Chair(s) at any time. Such meetings shall be called in accordance with the provisions of the
Brown Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance.
C. Quorum: A quorum of the Body shall be a majority of the members or their alternates. A
quorum of a Subcommittee shall be a majority of the Body members or alternates assigned to
the Subcommittee. A “majority” of the members means more than half of the authorized
members, including any authorized alternates present for an absent member, whether or not all
of the positions have been filled. No action shall be taken unless a quorum of members is
present for a meeting. If a quorum is not present, the meeting must be adjourned to the next
ATTACHMENT C
Page 42 of 70
4
regular meeting. If a quorum is lost during the course of a meeting, following the loss of the
quorum the remaining members present must adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
D. Voting: Each member of the Body or any Subcommittee has one vote, and a majority vote of the
members present at a meeting is needed to pass a motion. No action can be taken without
quorum.
E. Conflict of Interest: A member of the Body must6
1. Avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
2. Serve the needs and wishes of all citizens equally without regard for wealth.
3. Perform duties fairly, free from bias caused by financial interests of one’s self or
supporters.
4. As a general rule, no member shall participate as a member in any discussion or
voting if doing so would constitute a conflict of interest.
F. Order of Business: The regular order of business of the Body or any other Subcommittee shall
be:
1. Call to order
2. Public comment on unagendized items within the Body’s (or Subcommittee’s)
jurisdiction
3. Approve Record of Action from prior meeting
4. Consideration and action on agenda items
5. Adjournment
G. Public Access: All meetings of the Body and its Subcommittees shall be open and accessible to
the general public and held in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the Contra Costa
County Better Government Ordinance. Opportunity for public comment will be included in each
agenda item. In the interest of facilitating the business of the Body or standing committee, the
Chair(s) may set in advance of the presentation of public input reasonable time limits for oral
presentation.
Article V – Administration
The Body shall obtain staff support from the County Administrator’s Office of Reentry and Justice. The
staff will be responsible for the compilation and distribution of Body and Subcommittee meeting notices
and agendas. All records shall be maintained by appropriate staff.
Members of the Body shall serve without compensation and shall not receive reimbursement for any
expenses incurred while conducting official business.
Article VI – Changes to Bylaws
The provisions of these Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed by the Body, within the limitations
imposed by the Brown Act, the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance and the policies of
6 Resolution No. 2002/376: Board Policies Concerning Conflicts of Interest and Open Meeting Requirements
(Appendix 5 of the Advisory Body Handbook)
ATTACHMENT C
Page 43 of 70
5
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. No such alteration, amendment or repeal shall be
effective unless and until the change has been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 44 of 70
Racial Justice Oversight Body Work Plan
RJOB
Goal: Oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Racial Justice Task Force (RJTF).
Objective Activity Lead & Team Completion
Date
Deliverable
Objective 1: Seek funding to
implement improved
procedural justice practices
and implicit bias training
Objective 2: Ensure inclusion
of de-escalation and
behavioral health
intervention trainings into
local enforcement regional
academy and/or dept.
orientations
1. Identify and apply/ask for
funding for procedural justice
and implicit bias training –
recommendations reported out
to the RJOB and BOS
2. Identify trainers/agencies to
deliver procedural justice and
implicit bias training –
recommendations reported out
to the RJOB and BOS
3. Work with the Chief’s
Association to create a forum to
share information and
strengthen procedural justice
and implicit bias practices
4. Provide procedural justice and
implicit bias training to all staff
1. Identify best de-escalation,
behavioral health intervention
training(s), and similar or
related programs available
within the area
2. Recommend the best training(s)
from this list
RJOB, Office of
Reentry and Justice
(ORJ)
RJOB, ORJ
ORJ has identified
funding and
contractor
(Fogbreak Justice)
to provide
Procedural Justice
and Implicit Bias
trainings for
justice-related
department staff
and RJOB in FY 18-
19, 19-20.
Required Deliverables 1: Agenda item
at RJOB and BOS meetings to discuss
potential sources of funds (including
the county itself); finalized applications
as approved by the BOS for outside
funding sources (grants, etc.); list of
potential trainers and
recommendation on which can deliver
training in the most robust and
impactful way within budget; create a
planned/publicized forum on
improving police practices;
certification from all hired law
enforcement staff that they completed
the training(s)
Required Deliverables 2: List of
possible trainings/trainers;
recommendation selecting a trainer;
contract to provide this training;
agenda item/application for funding
for training; contract with training
organization.
ATTACHMENT D
Page 45 of 70
Objective 3: Provide
resources to
incentivize/provide schools
with non-punitive discipline
practices such as PBIS and RJ
as well as behavioral health
and early intervention
services for youth
Objective 4: County criminal
justice agencies shall
establish formal partnerships
with community-based
organizations to provide
greater capacity for
i. diversion
ii. reentry programs
iii. alternatives to detention
iv. pretrial services
v. in-custody programming
3. Ask/apply for necessary funds
to hire training staff
4. Contract with training
organizations to provide this
training
5. Monitor police contacts for
signs of
effectiveness/improvement
1. Identify funding to provide
resources to schools which are
implementing or expanding
non-punitive discipline practices
2. Apply for identified funding
sources as approved by the BOS
3. Identify and agree upon schools
and programs to be funded
1. Identification of program needs
within the county, including
location needs
2. Identification of community
based organizations with the
potential or capacity to fill the
program needs
3. Identification of county justice
system or enforcement agency
requirements for each type of
program listed in Objective 4
4. Formal recommendations about
changes to agency requirements
as well as trainings, funding, etc.
necessary to support compliant
program development by CBOs.
Diversion
Subcommittee, ORJ
CEF Subcommittee,
Diversion
Subcommittee
Partnerships are
underway in ORJ,
Probation, Public
Defender, Sheriff’s
Office, and the
District Attorney’s
Office.
Required Deliverables 3: List of
identified funding sources; completed
funding applications; funds
delivered/distributed to participating
schools and programs which are highly
publicized
Required Deliverables 4: lists of
identified and demonstrated needs;
lists of identified CBOs/programs to fill
the program needs; lists of criteria and
requirements for programs to partner
with county agencies; list of
recommendations about current
requirements for county partnership
ATTACHMENT D
Page 46 of 70
Objective 5:
The Public Defender’s Office
shall hire social workers who
can assess clients’
psychosocial needs and link
them to services
Objective 6: All CBOs shall be
evaluated for efficacy and
effectiveness of program
goals and objectives to
ensure populations are
appropriately served.
Community input shall be an
integral part of this process
Objective 7: Establish a
community capacity fund to
build the capacity of
community-based
organizations – especially
those staffed by formerly
incarcerated individuals – to
contract with the County and
provide services to reentry
clients
Objective 8: Encourage the
Superior Court to return to
the process of jury selection
whereby jurors are called to
1. Support the data
subcommittee’s work to
evaluate program effectiveness
1. Reach out to the BOS for
funding to help endow/support
the community capacity fund
AND identify and apply for other
funding sources (grants, RFPs,
etc.)
2. Develop list of qualifications and
application process for the fund.
3. Establish meeting structure to
support CBOs and allocate funds
as necessary
1. Review research material done
on the issue by area students
Public Defender’s
Office
ORJ, CEF
Subcommittee
CEF Subcommittee,
ORJ
RJOB, ORJ
Accomplished in
2019
The ORJ has
undertaken
program
evaluation of
reentry programs
since 2014.
A Capacity
Building project
was launched by
the ORJ in FY 18-
19 with one-time
funding of $125k.
Required Deliverable 5: additional
social workers were hired to assess
clients’ psychosocial needs and link
them to services.
Required Deliverables 5: data
template for CBOs; training on data
collection/capacity building; regularly
collected data reports by
race/ethnicity for CBOs
Required Deliverable 6: agenda item
with BOS; list of other sources,
completed applications for funds; list
of qualifications for fund, formalized
application process; calendared
meetings to allocate funds
Required Deliverables 7: Formal
request for agreed upon changes
based on research, potential meeting
with Superior Court to further discuss
ATTACHMENT D
Page 47 of 70
service to their local branch
court for misdemeanor trials
as well as general equitable
jury pool selection/inclusion.
Objective 9:
The Public Defender’s Office,
either directly or through
partnerships with
community-based
organizations, should offer
civil legal representation to
clients as well as immigration
representation and services.
For youth, this should focus
on educational advocacy.
Objective 10:
Expand eligibility for Pre-Trial
Services and increase Pre-
2. Determine/prioritize potential
areas for impact, examples
include:
• Transportation
• Funding
• Childcare
• Parking
1. Exploring partnerships with
community based organizations
to these ends
2. Exploring new positions/staffing
for education advocacy as well
as immigration defense
1. Review current eligibility criteria
for Pre-Trial Services with a
racial equity lens
RJOB, Public
Defender’s Office
RJOB
The Public
Defender has
secured grant
funding to
contract with a
CBO to provide
some civil legal
services to a
limited population.
Stand Together
Contra Costa
provides
immigration
related services.
Public Defender
also has a fulltime
attorney doing
education
advocacy for
juvenile clients,
paid for through
the Juvenile Block
Grant.
the justifications for the proposed
changes
Required Deliverables 8: Meetings
with community based organizations
to discuss partnerships, MOUs
between partner organizations and the
Public Defender’s Office, relevant job
postings
Required Deliverables 9: Formal
written recommendations for Pre-Trial
Services eligibility criteria and for bail
ATTACHMENT D
Page 48 of 70
Trial Services staffing, with a
focus on reducing racial
disparities and replacing the
money bail system
Objective 11: Ensure
collection/reporting of
accurate data in all criminal
justice and law enforcement
agencies countywide
2. Make recommendations for
new eligibility criteria which
reduce racial and ethnic
disparities
3. Review bail policies in
comparison to other
jurisdictions with new
approaches, make
recommendations for new bail
policy
1. Development of excel
spreadsheet to be used as data
template among all criminal
justice and law enforcement
agencies in the county
2. Development of memorandum
of understanding (MOU) setting
forth countywide data collection
and reporting practices to be
agreed upon by all relevant
agencies
3. Supporting development of data
capacity and recommending
practice changes to ensure that
all requested fields and
categories of data are
accurately recorded and
reported by each agency after
the template has been finalized
(reported out to and
approved/supported by the
RJOB)
4. Addressing any and all privacy
concerns and other issues raised
by county agencies through
Data
Subcommittee,
Burns Institute, ORJ
policies/practices, potential meeting
with Pre-Trial Services to present these
recommendations and hear feedback
Required Deliverables 10:
Spreadsheet template with all relevant
fields that will be required to be
reported by each agency; finalized
MOU document signed by agency
executives for each relevant agency in
the county; recommendations for
improving data capacity as necessary;
training materials to support improved
data collection practices as necessary;
data reports from countywide
agencies in compliance with the MOU
and data template
ATTACHMENT D
Page 49 of 70
Objective 12: Provide analysis
of interventions implemented
through the RJTF and RJOB to
measure efficacy and assess
impact on racial disparities
training, recommendations and
negotiations (if necessary) with
county agencies (reported out
to and approved/supported by
the RJOB)
5. Collection/review and
monitoring of data collected via
the processes listed above and
sharing of that data with the
RJOB
6. Development of countywide
training on ethnicity data
collection best practices to
improve the accuracy of data
regarding the Latinx population
1. Assessment of current data
capacity for relevant CBOs and
other agencies to report
relevant data showing impact of
RJTF/RJOB alternatives and
interventions
2. Support of the development of
capacity in relevant agencies to
collect/report relevant data
showing impact of reforms
3. Regular review/monitoring of
that data and the development
of recommendations to improve
programs and/or practices as
necessary
Data
Subcommittee,
Burns Institute, ORJ
Required Deliverable 11: Regular
reports by race/ethnicity measuring
the effectiveness of programs and
interventions; lists of
recommendations from the RJOB to
improve programs and practices as
necessary
ATTACHMENT D
Page 50 of 70
Objective 13: The County
and/or RJOB shall collaborate
with the Community
Corrections Partnership-
Executive Committee (CCP-
EC) to consider increasing
realignment funding for
community services.
Objective 14: Expand the
current pre-release pilot to
serve all individuals in
custody
CEF Subcommittee,
ORJ
County Office of
Education
Already
accomplished in
Sept 2019
Required Deliverable 14: Pre-release
planning programs available at all
detention facilities in the County.
ATTACHMENT D
Page 51 of 70
1
RJOB Data Subcommittee Work Plan
Goal: Improve racial and ethnic equity in justice systems by developing standard practices for data collection and reporting and im proving capacity for county
agencies and programs (including those administered by CBOs) to report accurate individual level data disaggregated by race and ethnicity
Objective Activity Lead & Team Completion
Date
Deliverable
Objective 1: Support the
collection/reporting of
accurate data in all criminal
justice and law enforcement
agencies countywide
1. Provide links to publicly available
data at the national, state and
local level (as available)
surrounding social justice related
factors within the population.
These links would include
demographic data as well as
criminal justice, law enforcement,
education and other data sources
that are relevant to racial
disparities.
2. Identify and disseminate a
prioritized list of additional
countywide and/or agency
specific data that will support
meeting the objectives of the
RJOB and Racial Justice Task
Force.
Activities when additional
resources become available to
the ORJ or a Contra Costa Racial
Equity Office opens:
3. Implement a marketing and
advertising initiative to
acknowledge and publicly praise
Data Subcommittee,
Burns Institute,
Office of Reentry
and Justice
Required Deliverables 1: ORJ or other
county entity identified by the BOS shall
maintain an up-to-date web site or web
page with information about and links to
publicly available data related to the
demographic, criminal justice, law
enforcement, and education patterns
present within the jurisdiction of interest
(local, state, national). These would be
sources of data where data could be
viewed by race/ethnicity.
ATTACHMENT E
Page 52 of 70
2
government agencies (e.g. LEAs,
CBOs) voluntarily collecting and
providing additional requested
data. Initiative can also include
publicizing agencies not collecting
and sharing requested data.
4. Support development of data
capacity and practice changes to
ensure that all requested data
points and categories of data are
accurately recorded and reported
by each participating agency.
5. Respond to any and all privacy
concerns and other issues raised
by county agencies through
training, recommendations and
negotiations (if necessary) with
county agencies (reported out to
and approved/supported by the
RJOB)
6. Provide consultation and
recommendations to law
enforcement and criminal justice
agencies on best practices
surrounding the collection of data
related to ethnicity in an effort to
improve the accuracy of the data
for the Latinx population.
7. Develop a countywide training on
ethnicity data collection best
practices to improve the accuracy
of data regarding the Latinx
population.
ATTACHMENT E
Page 53 of 70
3
Objective 2: In an effort to
create greater transparency
and accountability of County
criminal justice and law
enforcement agencies, the
Office of Reentry and Justice
shall publish data related to
the demographic, criminal
justice, law enforcement,
and education patterns
present within the County
by race/ethnicity.
Objective 3: Office of
Reentry and Justice shall
support analysis of
interventions implemented
through the RJTF to measure
efficacy and assess impact
on racial disparities
All activities under this
objective to be reported to
the RJOB and any other
bodies/collectives identified
by the Board of Supervisors.
Activities when additional
resources become available to
the ORJ or a Contra Costa Racial
Equity Office opens:
1. Develop an online format or
dashboard to be easily accessed
by the public, public agencies and
non-profit organizations.
1. Conduct annual review of
criminal justice and law
enforcement outcomes to assess
the presence of racial disparities.
2. Make recommendations to
improve programs and practices
related to the
elimination/reduction of any
racial disparities.
Activities when additional
resources become available to
the ORJ or a Contra Costa Racial
Equity Office opens:
3. Conduct assessment of any
interventions designed to reduce
racial disparities.
Required Deliverables 2: As resources and
public agency and law enforcement
participation allows, develop local web-
based data dashboards for public access.
Data should be presented by race and
ethnicity, easily accessible to the public and
updated annually.
Required Deliverable 3: As resources
become available, develop annual reports
surrounding criminal justice, law
enforcement, and educational outcomes by
race/ethnicity. Pending data availability,
these reports would also assess
programmatic outcomes and interventions
by race/ethnicity and provide
recommendations to improve programs
and practices, as necessary.
ATTACHMENT E
Page 54 of 70
4
4. Conduct comprehensive
assessment of current data
capacity for relevant CBOs and
other agencies to report data that
allows for an assessment of
impact on RJTF/RJOB alternatives
and interventions
5. Support, through consultation
and training, the development of
capacity in relevant agencies to
collect/report relevant data
showing impact of reforms.
ATTACHMENT E
Page 55 of 70
1
Diversion Subcommittee Work Plan
Goal: Improve racial and ethnic equity in Contra Costa County youth and adult justice systems by developing more diversion opportun ities and monitoring
race/ethnicity data for all current and future diversion programs
Objective Activity Lead & Team Completion
Date
Deliverable
Objective 1: Form a committee
to make diversion
recommendations countywide
Objective 2: Develop separate
recommendations for adult
and youth populations
Objective 3: Strive to ensure
the broadest possible pool of
eligible participants in
diversion
1. Agree upon and formalize
membership of committee
2. Set future committee meeting
dates, frequency, meeting
locations, etc.
3. Develop standing agenda item for
report out to RJOB
1. Review of all existing county
diversion programs/policies for
youth and adults
2. Review of best practices and
successful examples of programs
and policies in other jurisdictions
which may be followed
3. Development/finalization of
recommendations for countywide
changes to diversion
1. Formal request for data from all
county agencies, including law
enforcement, which administer
diversion programs
2. Regular review of race/ethnicity
data in diversion programs to
ensure equity
RJOB Full Body
Diversion
Subcommittee,
Burns Institute,
ORJ
Diversion
Subcommittee,
Burns Institute
Required Deliverable 1: A committee with
members, designated meeting frequency,
location, and other relevant details
Required Deliverables 2: Separate countywide
recommendations for adult and youth
diversion programs and the policies which
govern them
Required Deliverable 3: Recommendations for
policy changes to ensure broadest possible
pool
ATTACHMENT F
Page 56 of 70
2
Objective 4: Strive to ensure
that prior criminal justice
involvement does not bar a
person’s eligibility for diversion
Objective 5: Provide resources
to incentivize/provide schools
with non-punitive discipline
practices such as PBIS and RJ as
well as behavioral health and
early intervention services for
youth
Objective 6: County criminal
justice agencies shall establish
formal partnerships with
community-based
organizations to provide
greater capacity for diversion
3. Development of recommendations
for policy changes to ensure
broadest possible pool of
participants
1. Development of formal
recommendation that prior
involvement does not make a
person ineligible
2. Development and delivery of a
presentation/training on eligibility
criteria for diversion
1. Define “resources” and
“incentivize” as stated in the
objective
2. Identification of training and grant
funding resources for schools
1. Compile a list of community-based
organizations which provide
programming in one of the listed
areas OR which have the potential
to do so with greater capacity
2. Explore what partnerships will look
like between the justice agencies
and CBOs.
Diversion
Subcommittee,
Burns Institute
Diversion
Subcommittee,
Burns Institute
Diversion
Subcommittee,
Burns Institute,
ORJ
Required Deliverable 4: Recommendations for
policy changes to ensure prior involvement
does not bar a person’s eligibility for diversion
Deliverable Required 5: Recommendations for
trainings, grants and other forms of resources
and incentives to be provided to schools for
them to adopt non-punitive discipline practices
such as PBIS and RJ as well as behavioral health
and early intervention services for youth
Deliverable Required 6: Recommendations for
the establishment of formal partnerships
between County criminal justice agencies and
community-based organizations to provide
greater capacity for diversion
ATTACHMENT F
Page 57 of 70
Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee Work Plan DRAFT
Goal: Racial justice reform and reinvestment led by community members most directly impacted by systemic racial injustice in Contra Costa County.
Objective
Activity
Lead & Team
Completion
Date
Deliverable
1
Increased decision-
making accessibility
for persons most
directly impacted
Hold RJOB meetings at more accessible times and
places for impacted community members
Targeted outreach to persons most directly impacted
to participate in RJOB meetings and decisions
• Prioritizing efforts in areas with most persons
of color, poverty, and non-English speakers
• Going to accessible spaces for persons with
disabilities in outreach
Jeff + TBD
TBD
2/29/2020
3/31/2020
8/1/2020
8/1/2020
8/1/2020
6/1/2020
6/1/2020
Specifying relevant accessibility criteria
to be adopted by RJOB
Creating a detailed list of top options
for upcoming RJOB meeting times and
places
Holding an RJOB meeting at a top
option time and place in east county
Holding an RJOB meeting at a top
option time and place in west county
Holding an RJOB meeting at a top
option time and place in central county
Attend local municipal council meetings
and give public comment about RJOB
Attend local community group meetings
and introduce RJOB
ATTACHMENT G
Page 58 of 70
Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee Work Plan DRAFT
Goal: Racial justice reform and reinvestment led by community members most directly impacted by systemic racial injustice in Contra Costa County.
Objective
Activity
Lead & Team
Completion
Date
Deliverable
2
Increased decision-
making transparency
for persons most
directly impacted
Hold pre/post-RJOB meeting welcome and education
sessions
Provide committee chart with decision-making process
and committee members’ authority and responsibilities
Simplified language in RJOB meeting materials and
discussions
Increased opportunities for community questions at
RJOB meetings
Jeff + TBD
2/29/2020
Hold first session at upcoming CEF
subcommittee meeting in February
Increased decision-
making power for
persons most directly
impacted
Additional opportunities for community input and
feedback at RJOB meetings
Adopt diversity representation goals/requirements for
RJOB
Propose diversity representation goals/requirements
for county- appointed committees
Adopt and implement recruitment, retention, and
promotion policies for diversity representation on
county-appointed committees
2/29/2020
Add invitation for public comment after
each agenda item
ATTACHMENT G
Page 59 of 70
Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee Work Plan DRAFT
Goal: Racial justice reform and reinvestment led by community members most directly impacted by systemic racial injustice in Contra Costa County.
Objective
Activity
Lead & Team
Completion
Date
Deliverable
3
County criminal justice
agencies shall establish
formal partnerships
with community-based
organizations to
provide greater
capacity for
i. diversion
ii. reentry programs
iii. alternatives to
detention
iv. pretrial services
v. in-custody
programming
Identification of program needs within the county,
including location needs
• Solicit community and CJ system actor input
regarding existing resources identifying
program needs, as well as program needs
insufficiently addressed by existing resources
Identification of community-based organizations with
the potential or capacity to fill the program needs
CEF SC, Burns
Institute
Including community and CJ system
actor input on program needs as
agenda items at priority time and place
RJOB meetings in east, west, and
central
One-on-one/small group meetings
between CEF members and key
community members on program needs
One-on-one/small group meetings
between CEF members and key CJ
system actors on program needs
Creating lists of identified and
demonstrated needs prioritized by
community and CJ system actor input
Including community and CJ system
actor input on ideal CBOs as agenda
items at priority time and place RJOB
meetings in east, west, and central
One-on-one/small group meetings
between CEF members and key
community members on ideal CBOs
One-on-one/small group meetings
between CEF members and key CJ
system actors on ideal CBOs
ATTACHMENT G
Page 60 of 70
Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee Work Plan DRAFT
Goal: Racial justice reform and reinvestment led by community members most directly impacted by systemic racial injustice in Contra Costa County.
Objective
Activity
Lead & Team
Completion
Date
Deliverable
4
Identification of county justice system or enforcement
agency requirements for each type of program listed i-v
Formal recommendations about changes to agency
requirements as well as trainings, funding, etc.
necessary to support compliant program development
by CBOs
Creating lists of identified CBOs to fill
the program needs
Including CJ system actor info on agency
requirements as agenda items at
priority time and place RJOB meetings
in east, west, and central
Lists of criteria and requirements for
programs to partner with county
agencies
Including community, CBOs, and CJ
system actor input on changes to
support compliant program
development by CBOs as agenda items
at priority time and place RJOB
meetings in east, west, and central
Interviews with key community
members, CBOs, and CJ system actors
regarding necessary changes
Interviews with CJ system actors and
CBOs in other jurisdictions regarding
appropriate requirements and
necessary changes
List of recommendations about current
requirements for county partnership
ATTACHMENT G
Page 61 of 70
Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee Work Plan DRAFT
Goal: Racial justice reform and reinvestment led by community members most directly impacted by systemic racial injustice in Contra Costa County.
Objective
Activity
Lead & Team
Completion
Date
Deliverable
5
All CBOs shall be
evaluated for efficacy
and effectiveness of
program goals and
objectives to ensure
populations are
appropriately served.
Community input shall
be an integral part of
this process
Support the data subcommittee’s work to evaluate
program effectiveness
Data template for CBOs; training on
data collection/capacity building;
regularly collected data reports by
race/ethnicity for CBOs
Establish a community
capacity fund to build
the capacity of CBOs –
especially those
staffed by formerly
incarcerated
individuals – to
contract with the
County and provide
services to reentry
clients
Reach out to the BOS for funding to help
endow/support the community capacity fund AND
identify and apply for other funding sources (grants,
RFPs, etc.)
Develop list of qualifications and application process for
the fund
Establish meeting structure to support CBOs and
allocate funds as necessary
Agenda item with BOS; list of other
sources, completed applications for
funds; list of qualifications for fund,
formalized application process;
calendared meetings to allocate funds
The RJOB shall
collaborate with the
CCP-EC to consider
increasing realignment
funding for community
services.
ATTACHMENT G
Page 62 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
Introduction
The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) was established to provide local jurisdictions with
practical, proven approaches for reducing racial and ethnic disparities (R.E.D.). For over 15
years, the BI has successfully worked with jurisdictions in more than 40 states to reduce R.E.D.
by leading traditional and non-traditional stakeholders through a data-driven, community-
informed, and consensus-based process. It is the BI’s experience that local jurisdictions can
implement successful and sustainable strategies that reduce R.E.D. by examining key decision-
making points within the justice system.
The purpose of this report is to provide feedback on the progress and potential of the Contra
Costa County Racial Justice Oversight Body to promote equity and reduce R.E.D. in Contra
Costa County. This report is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of Contra Costa
County’s racial equity work nor a full assessment of whether and to what extent R.E.D. exists
within the county. Rather, this report is intended to share observations and recommendations
with Contra Costa County to guide the RJOB’s work with an equity lens.
Structure
The Contra Costa County Racial Justice Oversight Body (hereinafter ‘RJOB’ or ‘Body’) is
comprised of 18 members, including nine community representatives from local community
based organizations (CBOs) and nine representatives from specified local justice system
agencies. It is quite rare for the Burns Institute to see such an even representation of system and
community stakeholders, an approach for which we consistently advocate but which is usually
not fully executed.
In keeping with this composition, we encouraged the Body to elect two co-chairs, one a
community stakeholder and one a systems stakeholder. The body duly elected Assistant Sheriff
John Lowden of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and Stephanie Medley of the RYSE
Center as co-chairs. The RJOB has held five quarterly meetings to date: June 6, 2019; August 29,
2019; November 7, 2019; February 6, 2020, and May 14, 2020.
Additionally, the RJOB has established three subcommittees which meet monthly to allow for
more intensive and subject-matter specific action in their respective areas. Those subcommittees
are as follows:
• Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee, chaired by Jeff Landau of the Contra
Costa County Racial Justice Coalition
• Data Subcommittee, chaired by Debra Mason of the Mount Diablo Unified School
District
ATTACHMENT H
Page 63 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
• Diversion Subcommittee, chaired by Interim Chief Bisa French of the Richmond Police
Department
To date, the Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee has met a total of six times since
being approved by the Body, while the Data Subcommittee has met a total of four times. The
difference in number of meetings is primarily because the Data Subcommittee will take the lead
on making data requests, which will be heavily dependent on what data the other subcommittees
may need. Thus, the Data Subcommittee elected to give the other subcommittees time to
determine what their respective data queries may entail before resuming their meetings.
Additionally, the Diversion Committee, which was the final subcommittee to be established, has
met three times over the past two months. This committee was approved by the Body at a later
quarterly meeting than the other two committees, which is why it has not yet had the opportunity
to meet many times.
Observations and Findings
The RJOB was convened to implement the list of recommendations developed by the Racial
Justice Task Force (RJTF) and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The term for some of the
Body’s current members expire on December 31, 2020. However, it is important to note that the
work of reducing and/or eventually eliminating racial and ethnic disparities tends to move along
slowly over the course of many years, and that even some of the recommendations themselves
will take a significant length of time and should be seen as long term projects which will extend
beyond this timeframe.
Furthermore, while the recommendations give the Body purpose, additional issues or action
items which are not included in the list of recommendations should be considered if relevant to
continue the work of equity. Indeed, some of the recommendations themselves may require
additional steps not considered when the recommendations were finalized. An example of this is
that the Community Engagement & Funding subcommittee added some objectives to its work
plan to reflect its desire to engage members of the community in outreach events such as town
hall meetings and other structured dialogues and listening sessions between system stakeholders,
the RJOB, and members of the public. They were supported in doing so, and it is noteworthy to
mention that real-time events, circumstances, or realizations may emerge in such a way that the
Body must act and that these additional projects should continue to be welcomed.
Overall, it is readily apparent that this is a highly competent and engaged roster of members who
seem to be truly committed to this work and very thoughtful in their approach. Again, the equal
representation of community and system stakeholders is a grounding and promising strength in
that regard. Also, several stakeholders have their own lived experiences with the local justice
systems which allows them a unique perspective to bring – and these perspectives are imperative
to the overall success of promoting racial equity. Many of the stakeholders are experienced
ATTACHMENT H
Page 64 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
enough in such settings that they do not hold back from putting forth contested or contradictory
points, and that willingness to engage in direct, respectful confrontation is also extremely
important in terms of reaching actual solutions and creating buy-in for all involved with this
effort. The thoughtfulness in putting this group together and each individual’s potential and
execution to rise to the occasion are crucial and cannot be overstated.
Additionally, the justice agencies represented within the RJOB, including the District Attorney’s
Office, the Public Defender’s Office, Richmond Police Department, Contra Costa County
Sheriff’s Office, among several others and often with the elected official serving on the Body
and attending meetings consistently are of great importance to this overall effort. Executive level
participation from justice agencies endows the Body with the authority, at least within the
respective agencies, to implement the policy and practice changes which may come forth from it.
Furthermore, it is commendable that there has been regular attendance by members of the public
who have not been assigned to the Body, many of whom have shown willingness to speak and a
desire to be heard on various issues or matters which may arise over the course of a meeting. The
Body has done an exemplary job in welcoming and considering these contributions when they
arise, and this type of direct community engagement is an essential component of justice reform
work, which should be invited and encouraged as much as possible. After all, the RJOB is doing
its work on behalf of the County for the purpose of making a positive impact, so citizens of the
County should have ample opportunity to provide feedback and hold its members accountable.
Finally, the body was originally convened to meet on a quarterly basis, and the RJOB will
continue to do this. However, for the many ambitious and important goals the RJTF set forth for
the RJOB to implement, quarterly meetings are not enough. We typically recommend
workgroups to monitor data on a monthly basis to ensure any policy or practice changes enacted
to address racial and ethnic disparities are working properly, and that any negative changes in jail
or detention population trends can be triaged in real time. To the tremendous credit of the RJOB,
its subcommittees which were also originally designed to meet on a quarterly basis have all
committed to meeting monthly– and did so without being prompted by BI or the Office of
Reentry and Justice but because of their own acknowledgment of and dedication to the work they
have been convened to do and the time commitment such an endeavor will take.
However, this change did create a series of scheduling irregularities for BI as technical assistance
providers as well as some among the group, leaving two subcommittee meetings (among the
several which were successfully held) unable to make quorum. The meetings should absolutely
continue on a monthly basis, but this would have been a smoother development as an original
planning concept rather than an ad-hoc development, although that development is deserving of
much applause. It is important to note that the Office of Reentry and Justice has been able to
guide the RJOB to solutions to correct these irregularities.
ATTACHMENT H
Page 65 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
Recommendations
Many of the RJTF’s recommendations thoughtfully require action to be taken among system-
involved youth and adults separately. This distinction’s importance cannot be understated as the
policies, practices, governance, and administration of justice in youth systems are very different
from those within adult systems. The importance of this distinction results in many jurisdictions
across the country electing to have separate committees or working groups for youth and adult
efforts. While BI does not make that recommendation here, BI does recommend paying
attention, over the life of this Body, to how the structure could facilitate or impede progress for
both populations.
Consider whether there are agencies or department heads within agencies which should be
invited to certain meetings based on relevance to the population they serve and whether or not
there is enough representation for each population in the Body as currently constructed.
Additionally, consider the extent to which the Body is properly situated to field input from
youth. Prior to the shelter-in-place order due to the pandemic, meetings have been happening in a
county building on a weekday during school hours. It is not likely that many youth know about
this Body, its work, purpose, or goals, meeting details such as time and whereabouts or that they
have been directly engaged about potentially contributing in some meaningful way. BI
recommends that the RJOB host a series of standing meetings to incorporate youth voice and to
determine what youth need to promote racial equity in the County. This feedback should be used
to build or expand existing programs for youth and to guide recommendations for policy and
practice change in youth systems. This is essential because due to the nature, time, and place of
the RJOB, youth voice must be incorporated ad-hoc. These conversations should be held at
various times and places throughout the county with some regularity and should be scheduled
based on direct feedback from youth about best dates and times for such meetings to be held.
These meetings may also require some level of training for RJOB members on how to talk to,
build rapport with, and extract pertinent information from youths who otherwise may not be
comfortable or interested in speaking with adults candidly about such things.
Similarly, finding ways to engage more adults from the community and garner feedback which
guides recommendations for policy and practice change is highly recommended. While as noted
above, many people do regularly attend the meetings although they are not appointed to the
Body, a great number of these individuals seem to work in some capacity for the county such
that they may be compensated by county agencies for their time. This is not at all negative, it
simply highlights the fact that many of the community members who do not work for the county
but might need to be heard on certain matters discussed before the Body are likely unable to do
so because of work and/or scheduling conflicts, transportation, or other concerns. It is important
to continue to work to make sure the public is aware of this body’s existence, its stated purpose
and goals, and the work to date – and this may require efforts in addition to posting the agenda in
ATTACHMENT H
Page 66 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
public spaces and on the County’s website. It is also important to keep the meeting dates, times,
and locations as flexible as possible to attempt to accommodate more community participation.
Just as with youth, the RJOB has an opportunity to host a series of public discussions with the
community. The Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee of the RJOB has
specifically identified educating and informing the community about how the justice system
works and each individual’s rights as well as hearing from the community on ways that the
justice system could improve and incorporating the feedback into the RJOB’s recommendations
and overall work as objectives moving forward. Those meetings should be held throughout the
County, at various times and places and with some community input about which times and
places might be the most easily accessible, and also might require some level of training on how
to best extract information from such dialogues.
Next, there is a countywide effort underway to create and enact a countywide Racial Equity
Action Plan (REAP), and many of the objectives are similar or fit well together. For instance, it
seems that the Community Engagement & Funding Subcommittee will work alongside those
involved with implementing the REAP to hold some of the community conversations discussed
above. This is a very important opportunity for the RJOB to share potential funding as well as
manpower with those entrusted with the REAP to help ensure a large reach for efforts to improve
racial equity and inclusion throughout Contra Costa County. Thus, diligent efforts should be
undertaken to coordinate and plan for how to maximize this opportunity while meeting the goals
and objectives of both groups and taking advantage of the many individuals and offices involved
as well as any resources either group might bring to the table. Intentional planning and
coordination should also ensure that neither group unnecessarily duplicates or cannibalizes the
other’s work and that they do not end up competing for resources within the county nor from
external sources, such as state or other grants.
Additionally, while the RJOB itself and the recommendations it is tasked with implementing are
great starts toward reaching racial equity, these efforts will inevitably fall short of their goals and
great potential if they are not funded. While funding issues are a necessary part of life at the
county administrative level and budgets are always difficult to develop, the BI would strongly
recommend and encourage that the RJOB be assigned an operating budget each year. From there,
the body can supplement that budget with grants which arise and that they apply for, provided
the body has support with grant writing and with searching for appropriate and relevant grants
based on upcoming projects. The funding should be reserved for the development or expansion
of community based organizations and/or community-led projects which are relevant to the
RJOB’s stated purpose, goals, and objectives. BI also recommends training for all RJOB
members on county budgeting processes, including how to properly request funds from the
Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENT H
Page 67 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
Additional Considerations
Racially proportionate representation – It is important to consider the racial makeup of the Body
and whether or not it is representative of County demographics. If all ethnicities are not
represented, or some are disproportionately underrepresented within the Body in relation to the
overall County population, additional steps may be required to address this issue. No racial or
ethnic group should go without direct representation on the Body where possible, and long-term
outreach and recruitment efforts may need to be undertaken to reach this goal over time.
Other municipal agencies - One of the earliest questions that arose during BI’s engagement with
the RJOB was that of how to invite or require smaller municipal agencies to participate. While
those smaller municipal agencies are within the county, they are not governed by the county in
such a way that participation would be mandated. However, in order to truly ensure that there is
impact on racial and ethnic disparities throughout the county at large, municipal agencies which
are not required to be a part of this work will need to be engaged. This may require a
considerable level of outreach about the work we are doing, why it is important, how it has been
effective, and why it should not be considered threatening.
Clarity on role within county government – In order for the RJOB to be successful, all members
need to feel comfortable understanding their role within the county government structure, what
they may or may not request the Board of Supervisors to do, and how those processes are to be
properly completed. This would likely require some level of training for members on how to
successfully engage county processes to achieve their desired outcomes. It is commendable for
the RJOB to be positioned to leverage the influence and authority of the Board of Supervisors to
have a positive impact on racial and ethnic equity in the County’s justice systems, but it is also
very important that the RJOB be aware of how best to do so.
Attendance – RJOB currently has some members who represent local CBOs who, for scheduling
purposes, have been unable to attend a number of the meetings, as well as others who started out
consistently attending with vocal participation who have not been attending the most recent
meetings. It is important to develop outreach efforts for these participants, including potential
schedule and location changes and/or individual follow-up e-mails and phone calls to attempt to
ensure that all voices are heard and that all members are in attendance, engaged, and
participating.
Recommendations and messaging – the RJOB will make recommendations which are to be
vetted and eventually backed by the Board of Supervisors. Inevitably, in order to successfully do
this and have the recommendations implemented throughout the county as well as within the
agencies implicated, the RJOB will need to communicate with these agencies directly, hopefully
engaging executives as well as frontline staff to understand any and all data, findings, and
research the recommendations are based upon and giving them the opportunity to ask questions
ATTACHMENT H
Page 68 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
for understanding. Messaging why the recommendations exist and what their respective purposes
are will be instrumental in ensuring implementation once the recommendations have been made
and should be planned for accordingly.
Conclusion
This is a highly engaged and well-informed group who all seem to understand the Body’s goals
and objectives and to demonstrate noteworthy commitment to them. This is reflected in the high-
level discussions and ideas which come out of the group on a regular basis. As we pivot from
planning and designing the solutions recommended by the RJTF to implementing them, these
discussions and ideas will make the group’s work all the more promising. That said, by
addressing many of the issues raised above, this group’s potential for impact can be more fully
realized.
We look forward to working with the RJOB to achieve these goals and to the learning that will
come from engaging the various stakeholders involved to promote racial equity in both youth
and adult justice systems in the County. By engaging community directly, maintaining the
attendance and participation of all stakeholders (especially those who are formerly systems
involved), developing a dedicated budget, and coordinating with other local justice agencies to
create accountability and feedback loops between those agencies and the RJOB, this body will be
positioned to make positive changes in Contra Costa County.
These changes never occur as rapidly as we would like, but through a sustained effort of
maintaining focus, diligence, a consistent message, and the power of data as a tool to drive
decision making will develop the momentum over time to create more equitable justice policies
and practices in the County. The work to address structural racism in justice systems is always
evolving and presenting new challenges, and those who engage in that work must continue to
evolve with it, taking on new challenges as they arise and always monitoring data and human
feedback as you strive to meet the underlying needs which often lead to unacceptable acts or
behaviors as opposed to merely punishing the acts themselves. We applaud the RJOB’s efforts so
far and look forward to continuing to support this work going forward.
Addendum
This document was originally drafted and submitted on March 16th, 2020 in anticipation of the
originally scheduled March meeting of the Public Protection Committee. As such, various
notable changes have occurred during the interim period. These changes are presented below:
• After suspending activities due to COVID-19 guidelines and safety concerns, the RJOB
reconvened on May 14th, 2020. The meeting, held virtually, featured an overwhelming
show of community presence and support – and much of the Public Comment section of
the meeting was taken up with discussion of concerns that people who are incarcerated
ATTACHMENT H
Page 69 of 70
THE W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
475 14th Street • Suite 800 • Oakland, CA 94612 Tel • (415) 321-4100 • Fax (415) 321-4140 • www.burnsinstitute.org
may become infected with COVID-19 and potentially spread it amongst the community
when released. The majority of public attendees advocated for emergency release
strategies to decrease this risk, and the RJOB agreed to potentially discuss, vote on, and
adopt a formal resolution based on the concerns discussed.
• RJOB Member Ledamien Flowers announced his resignation from the Body to ORJ staff
on May 12th. The PPC will determine a process by which a new CBO member may be
nominated and, if approved, subsequently appointed to the Body by the Board of
Supervisors.
• Since this document was originally drafted, the Diversion Subcommittee has met three
times with the latest meeting held on June 18th.
• The Data Subcommittee has met and potentially identified a target population for more
intense focus to be discussed at the next RJOB Quarterly Meeting on August 6th.
• The Community Engagement and Funding Subcommittee met on June 11th and decided
to host a virtual town hall/community forum at its next monthly meeting on July 9th to
hear concerns and suggestions from the community in light of the civil unrest.
Finally, in light of the disgraceful actions which led to the death of George Floyd (among
others), massive protests and demonstrations have taken place throughout the County as well as
the rest of the nation. The civil unrest has created a virtually nationwide push for radical change
to justice systems, their accountability to the citizens within the jurisdictions wherein they
operate, and the role they play in racial injustice. The Racial Justice Oversight Body is uniquely
positioned to be a key part of the County’s response to this intense call for change, but only if
joined and supported by the County to take bold and unprecedented action in response to an
unprecedented degree of area and national engagement. It will require courage, creativity, and a
willingness to work with the community to do the deep work of rooting out structural racism. It
is important for the County to strongly consider new ideas and approaches to government which
may appear controversial and uncertain, and to work alongside advocates for change to
powerfully demonstrate its values in developing a system that more holistically responds to the
needs of its citizens. The Burns Institute is committed to supporting this work in a variety of
ways and is hopeful that this watershed moment is the beginning of true structural change.
ATTACHMENT H
Page 70 of 70