Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Data Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madera County approves $150,000 analytics contract after debate over state racial-bias reporting law
Summary
The Board of Supervisors approved a contract to hire a vendor to perform prosecutorial data analysis required by state law AB 254; the district attorney and several supervisors criticized the mandate but the board voted 5-0 to proceed using AB109/reentry funds.
The Madera County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 on June 10 to approve a contract for prosecutorial data analysis intended to comply with California Assembly Bill 254.
District Attorney Sally Moreno told the board the law effectively presumes prosecutors are biased and requires counties to “go back through all of our data and, prove that we’re not.” Moreno said the county found $150,000 from AB109 funding (community corrections partnership funds) to pay a vendor identified in briefing materials as Securo and that the county would not use general-fund dollars for the work.
The measure’s supporters said complying with the state’s reporting requirements is necessary despite objections. Board members across the political spectrum voiced frustration with the statute. Supervisor Warmhoff called the law “insulting” and said, “This law specifically says you’re guilty until you prove you’re innocent. Oh, and by the way, you have to foot the bill to prove that.” Supervisor Rogers and Supervisor McCauley raised statistical and practical concerns about measuring prosecutorial decisions by race.
County counsel and staff said the contract is a response to state law, and that funding for the contract was identified by the county’s Community Corrections Partnership so the expense would not come from the general fund. Moreno said the work will help the office respond to the state’s requirements and argued the analytics could also support public-safety decision-making.
Action on the item was taken on the consent calendar after a short public discussion; the motion to approve carried on a 5-0 roll call. The board did not amend the contract language in open session. Staff said the contract will be used to analyze prosecutorial filing and charging decisions by race and ethnicity in order to produce the reports outlined by AB 254.
The board’s action directs the District Attorney’s Office to proceed with the vendor engagement. Staff indicated Community Corrections Partnership and AB109 funds will cover the contract and that the county will require vendor deliverables that meet the state’s reporting standards.
Votes at a glance: motion to approve — passed 5-0.
The board did not set any additional policy changes on the reporting requirement; supervisors said they expect future opportunities to review reporting outputs when those are available.
