THE PEOPLE’S PRIORITIES
Background
The Alameda County District Attorney (ACDA) has historically pursued policies that contribute to mass incarceration by over-criminalizing low-income communities and communities of color. In 2021, ACLU Northern California and Urban Peace Movement published a report called In(Justice) in Alameda County: A Case for Reform and Accountability, which revealed significant failings of the ACDA’s practices and policies that contributed to overcriminalization, wasteful spending of county money, and mass incarceration.
It is time for a new approach. Alameda County voters have given the new DA a mandate called “The Peoples’ Priorities” to proactively address this crisis of mass incarceration by adopting transformative policies and practices that are rooted in prevention, restoration, transparency, and accountability.
The People’s Priorities Agenda
Black and Brown youth make up the vast majority of people youth booked in juvenile hall. Nearly 1 in 3 youth incarcerated in Alameda County are later reconvicted. The County spends about $493,000 per youth per year on incarceration. This is an indication of the failure of probation and incarceration to keep us safe. The average cost per year to place a young person on probation in Alameda County is $23,000 while evidence-based restorative justice practices have a one-time cost of $4,500.
We urge the DA’s office to decline to charge offenses such as: trespassing, disturbing the peace, driving without a valid license, driving with a suspended license, criminal threats, drug & paraphernalia possession, minor in possession of alcohol, drinking in public, being under the influence of a controlled substance, public intoxication, loitering, loitering to commit prostitution, and resisting arrest. Immediately end the DA’s current strategy of targeting the “59” alleged Oakland gangs. Create a moratorium to end the use of life without parole (LWOP) or the death penalty.
We urge the DA’s office to create a clear set of criteria for prosecutors to seek and increase diversion: in particular, pre-plea diversion such as mentor diversion. The DA must remove exceptions that would otherwise make someone eligible for diversion. The DA must eliminate prior convictions as an exclusion criteria for participating in diversion programs.
First Quarter: Designate staff time to create an analysis of Alameda County’s diversion programs. The analysis should include program utilization, program effectiveness, areas for improvement, and opportunities to expand program capacity. The staff designated to assess programs must work with community partners and the Alameda County Public Defender’s office to inform the analysis.
Second Quarter: Share analysis findings with stakeholders and community partners. Establish a task force that can explore opportunities identified to expand programming.
We urge the DA’s office to end the use of all enhancements that have largely impacted the Black and Brown community members such as Gang Enhancements: PC 186.22(b)(1)(B), PC 186.26(d) End all Enhancements for prior felony convictions, PC 1170.12(A):, End all Enhancements for firearms: PC 12022(b)(1), PC 12022(c), PC 12022.53(b). The DA must end the use of two and three strike sentencing.
We urge the DA’s office to collaborate with the Alameda County Superior Court and Public Defender’s Office to set a clear policy for all requests for resentencing of people who are serving previously imposed sentences to receive judicial review, and to only keep people in custody when there is clear evidence they are an immediate threat to public safety. The DA must review cases of all detained people starting with those over the age 50, those that are pregnant, or those with serious health issues for release. The DA must release those who serve weekends.
We urge the DA’s Office to dedicate staff within the department to flag cases for resentencing and to recommend people for resentencing without making any categorical exclusions based on sentence or conviction, and ensure the full implementation of 1172.1. The DA’s office must support the full implementation of RISE SB 483 (Allen), SB 1437 (Skinner), SB 775 (Becker), and other mandatory resentencing laws. The DA’s office must commit to fully supporting the retroactive implementation of the Racial Justice Act to combat bias in decision making including charging decisions, bail recommendations, diversion program placements, and plea bargains.
When individuals bring legal challenges under the AB 256 (Kalra) Racial Justice Act for All, the DA’s office must commit to being proactive about providing access to relevant evidence, carefully consider the allegations raised and take corrective action when the challenges have merit. The DA’s office should ensure agencies understand the barriers people face when they are released and reenter society. The DA’s office must expand the eligibility and access to programs and services to facilitate reentry with AB 109 realignment funds. The DA’s office should have a formal policy of not opposing parole grants.
We urge the DA’s office to commit to participating in monthly meetings open to families who are seeking resentencing for their loved ones and agree to keep an open channel of consistent communication with family members. When a family is denied resentencing, the DA’s Office must provide detailed reasons for the denial and specific information on the criteria that the person seeking resentencing would need to meet in order to qualify. There must be no criteria or limitation for who can file resentencing through the DA and the DA must provide formal opportunity to address concerns before resentencing decision is finalized. Additionally, the DA’s office should not impede someone from being granted parole.
We urge the DA’s office to make certain that potential collateral consequences regarding immigration status are considered when reviewing cases. In 2020, a new policy was adopted by the DA’s office which gives guidance to DA’s Offices to strengthen the consideration of potential immigration consequences when reviewing cases. The DA’s must agree to work actively with the Alameda Public Defender’s immigration unit, other private counsel, and community groups to establish consistent communication in order to ensure that DA’s actively avoid immigration consequences.
We urge the DA’s office to hold police officers accountable for illegal conduct. Police accountability is a crucial part of an anti-racist agenda to dismantle a system of mass incarceration that has targeted poor and working class Black, Indigenous, and people of color for decades. The failure to hold law enforcement accountable for unethical search, seizure, and arrest practices has directly contributed to the rise of criminalization in communities across Alameda County. The DA’s are the only entity within the criminal legal system, outside of police departments themselves, who are responsible for addressing police misconduct.
We urge the DA’s office to use its website to regularly publish up-to-date information and data about its policies and practices and their outcomes. Data should be published in an accessible format that allows members of the public to download and analyze the data (such as Excel or .csv format).
All published data should be disaggregated by date and by demographic information, including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income.
The DA must work quickly to implement AB 2418, the Justice Data Accountability and Transparency Act, which will require state and local prosecutor agencies collect and publish detailed data on cases, including charging decisions, bail, detention, diversion, collaborative courts, and case dispositions.
The DA Accountability Table especially urges the DA to collect and publish data on:
-Whether charges were filed or not filed, including -enhancements
-Charge level
-Specific alleged offense(s), by penal code
-Zip code of the alleged offense(s)
-Custody status at the time of charge
-Demographics of the individual, including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code of residence, housing status, employment status, and income
-Outcomes of decline-to-charge policies (such as change in misdemeanor charges filed or case loads and cost-efficiency evaluations)
Pre-trial detention, disaggregated by:
-Charge decision (whether charges were filed or not filed)
Alleged offense(s)
-Prosecutor’s bail recommendation
-Bail decision
-Amount of bail set
-Whether bail was posted
-If released, terms of release
-The start and end date of every period of pre-trial detention and the reason for that detention
-Demographics, including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income
Diversion program availability and participation, disaggregated by program type, including:
-Number of people offered diversion and the offense category
-Number of people excluded from diversion and the offense category
-Screening/referral decisions (agency or office making the referral, determining eligibility, and/or denying eligibility and whether DA opposed inclusion in diversion program and reason for opposition)
-Eligibility and exclusion criteria, and progress toward expanding eligibility for pre-plea diversion
-Diversion uptake and completion
-Program requirements
-Program capacity
-Program providers and partners
-Demographics of program participants including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income
-Demographics of those excluded from diversion age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income.
Case dispositions and sentences, disaggregated by:
-Charge level
-Specific offense(s), by penal code
-Plea entered
-Plea bargain offered and terms of plea bargain
-Sentence imposed by the court including any restitution, fines, and period of incarceration
-Demographics, including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income.
-Progress toward ending the use of sentencing enhancements
Collaborative courts participation, disaggregated by court and by:
-Number of people eligible for collaborative courts
-Number of people screened for/referred to collaborative courts
-Screening/referral decisions (agency or office making the referral, determining eligibility, and/or denying eligibility and whether DA opposed inclusion in diversion program and reason for opposition)
-Eligibility and exclusion criteria
-Uptake and completion of services
-Court program requirements
-Court program capacity
-Service providers and partners
-Demographics of collaborative court participants including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income
-Demographics of those excluded from collaborative court services age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income.
Resentencing and parole:
-Number of resentencing requests or petitions made to the DA
-Number of resentencing referrals made by the DA
-Number of resentencing requests or petitions denied by the DA, including reason(s) for denial
-Any criteria, guidance, and policies regarding how the DA evaluates resentencing requests
-Whether the DA engaged in any parole proceeding, the formal recommendation of the DA in that proceeding, and the outcome of that proceeding
Juvenile court, including:
-Charging decisions, including progress towards declining to charge youth for typical adolescent behaviors
-Detention
-Dispositions
-Transfer hearings
-Demographics, including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income
Progress toward ending the transfer of youth to adult court
Juvenile diversion, including:
-Number of youth offered diversion
-Number of youth excluded from diversion
-Exclusion criteria
-Diversion uptake and completion
-Program requirements
-Program capacity
-Program providers and partners
-Demographics of program participants including age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income
-Demographics of those excluded from diversion age, race and ethnicity, gender, city/zip code, housing status, employment status, and income.
District Attorney departmental budget