|
Return
|
| |
6.
|
| INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE |
|
|
|
| Information |
| 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 Development Associates was engaged 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 and emerging practices to address racial disparities in those systems and processes, and ultimately developed a set of recommendations intended to help the County reduce the identified disparities.
In July 2018, the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Racial Justice Task Force (RJTF) - Final Report and Recommendations", with the exclusion of recommendations #18 and #19 (see Attachments A and B). 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 (PPC) nominated individuals for appointment to the RJOB, and on December 4, 2018, the Board made the appointments.
In February 2022, the PPC received the latest update on the progress and activities of RJOB, presented by the W. Haywood Burns Institute, a consulting agency engaged by Office of Reentry & Justice (ORJ) at the Probation Department to provide technical assistance and meeting facilitation services for the RJOB. During the update, the Burns Institute highlighted several emerging issues hindering the RJOB’s future work to include: changes in leadership and membership resulting in challenges with maintaining quorum, specifically at the Subcommittee levels; ambitious Task Force recommendations that are beyond the capacity and scope of the membership; and limited staffing resources to support the membership’s requests for data collection, management, and analyses necessary to implement the recommendations of the RJOB (see Attachment F).
Based on these highlights, the PPC recommended these matters be referred and reviewed by the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) for further discussion and guidance. |
| Referral Update: |
Building from the emerging issues highlighted by the Burns Institute, the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) met with the Probation Department, including staff from ORJ, and identified areas related to the RJOB’s structure, tasks, and functions that need further review and adjustment.
First, the existing charge of the RJOB is vague, and both the charge and the membership’s role and responsibilities as they relate to the Board approved recommendations founded by the Racial Justice Task Force require clarification (see Attachment C). This would also include clarifying the specific tasks and activities that are deemed appropriate for the RJOB to undertake. For example, in order to accomplish objectives related to Recommendation #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,” members of the RJOB have made multiple requests to retrieve extensive data reports on a quarterly basis from individual County criminal justice agencies, and within forums such as the Mayor’s Conference and Police Chiefs Association meetings from local law enforcement. As a result, the Sheriff’s Office, County Office of Education, and the Probation Department have provided quarterly data reports to the RJOB’s Data Subcommittee. Local law enforcement responses to RJOB’s data requests have been minimal.
This matter was brought before the PPC in May 2022 to discuss the RJOB’s ongoing data collection and analysis needs, and to establish a data request process to be facilitated by the PPC and/or Board of Supervisors. Though this matter is pending a resolution, other RJTF recommendations related to the following categories: “Oversight and Accountability”; “Diversion”; “County Support for Local Agencies”; and “Community Engagement and Services” are all subject to miscellaneous interpretation resulting in RJOB membership (see Attachment D) defining action steps that may fall outside of the scope of expected functions of county advisory bodies.
Secondly, the current level of County staff support is insufficient to respond to the RJOB’s data collection and analyses and to support the tasks and activities undertaken by the RJOB. Currently, ORJ provides staff support in partnership with the Burns Institute for the meetings of RJOB and its Subcommittees, but does not have the capacity to adequately respond to the labor-intensive requests of the membership that are related to specific action items outlined in the RJOB’s and its Subcommittees’ multiple work plans (see Attachment E). Under the auspices of the Probation Department, ORJ is limited in its authority and scope to negotiate agreements across multiple jurisdictions and ensure appropriate actions are taken to support the implementation of the RJTF recommendations.
Thirdly, given RJOB’s membership structure (50% public agency representation and 50% community-based representation), balance of discussion and decision-making is maintained among the leadership and full body membership levels; however, impeded at the Subcommittee level. Because each Subcommittee is self-forming, this may contribute to the overrepresentation of either public agency representative members or community-based representative members and is inconsistent with the overall membership structure.
Finally, in accordance with RJOB’s bylaws, most of the Board-appointed members will have completed their first two-year terms at the end of 2022, and the County will initiate a recruitment for new members to fill all vacant seats. However, the bylaws do not prescribe term limits. Given the overwhelming interest among community members who wish to serve on the RJOB following the County’s most recent spring recruitment to fill two vacant Board-appointed seats, further discussion and evaluation will be needed to ensure fair access and opportunity for engagement among different community interest groups and reduce potential burnout among existing Board Appointed members.
Staff will continue to work to identify the key challenges facing RJOB’s ability to operate at its most optimum level and will collaborate with members of the PPC and the IOC to address these challenges and identify possible solutions. |
| Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): |
| PROVIDE direction to staff following Advisory Body Review of the Racial Justice Oversight Body. |
|
|
|