Alameda County reparations commission releases recommendations, schedules June 30 board review

The Alameda County Reparations Commission presented its final recommendations on April 8 and said it will deliver the report to the full Board of Supervisors as a set item on June 30 for review.

"We finally have our recommendations," Chair Tara Gore said as she opened the meeting and described a framework built from a harms report, community listening sessions and state and international guidance.

The commission and its consultants summarized outreach and data collection at the meeting. Michael Arnold, executive director of Informing Change, said the project has received more than 400 surveys and that "roughly 83% identify as Black or African American," with about 70% of respondents identifying as women. Arnold said other findings included that 66% of respondents had been stopped, searched or questioned by police at some point in their lives, and that housing instability and economic opportunity were top priorities cited by participants.

Leticia Henderson, principal consultant with Exceptional Community Connections, described the commission's project-management structure and timeline and said commissioners settled on a set of recommendations in March. "We have 10 recommendations," Henderson said (commissioners later discussed a list of 12 priority areas in the meeting).

Vice Chair Larry McClendon reviewed the commission's spending of the $500,000 allocation and said the commission had sought to be conservative. "To date, we still have $192,247.48 left," he said, noting that vendor discounts and donated venue support reduced total outlays but that some invoices required line-item adjustments.

The commission laid out 12 priority areas grouped into short-, medium- and long-term timeframes. Chair Gore described the first five as short-term priorities (1–12 months), including housing and economic opportunity, establishing a funded office to coordinate reparations work, health equity, and targeted supports for youth. Medium-term items (1–3 years) include education, legal supports and public-safety reforms; longer-term items include civic power building and environmental investments.

Board members and commissioners pressed for clarity on the data and its limits. A commissioner asked whether a police-contact item tracked frequency or lifetime occurrence; Arnold clarified the survey asked whether respondents had ever experienced a stop or search. Members also flagged geographic imbalances in participation and recommended the report call out sampling limitations and lessons learned — particularly lower turnout from District 1 and the use of a convenience sample rather than a statistically representative sample.

Commissioners and several supervisors discussed implementation, funding and sequencing. Some supervisors urged the commission to highlight one to three priorities the county could realistically act on in the next fiscal year, while others emphasized the need for a sustainable institutional home to maintain momentum.

With no public speakers on the item, a supervisor moved that the commission's report be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda as a set item on June 30. Another supervisor seconded the motion; the clerk recorded two "aye" votes and the motion passed.

The commission said it will provide a formatted report and recommendations in advance of the June 30 presentation and continue limited outreach to fill noted representation gaps. The meeting concluded after the vote.