Alameda County Reparations Commission hears survey findings, sets timeline and priority buckets for final plan

The Alameda County Reparations Commission on March 18 reviewed early community survey findings from consultants Informing Change, held a memorial recognition for the late commissioner Jesse Burleson, and narrowed its priorities ahead of a June report to the Board of Supervisors.

Consultant Michael of Informing Change presented preliminary results from the DAR survey and related community listening sessions, telling commissioners the DAR sample was "about 285" initially and later rose toward "330" and that combined listening and paper surveys exceed 400. He said respondents were predominantly Black or African American (about 83 percent), about 70 percent identified as women, and many described themselves as descendants of enslaved persons. "Housing was number one," he said when commissioners asked which reparative measures respondents prioritized, adding that health care, education, debt forgiveness and direct payments were also frequently cited. He said most respondents favored community-led implementation rather than relying solely on county agencies.

The presentation prompted questions about sample size, the cut-off date for including additional paper and youth surveys and logistics for incorporating juvenile-justice feedback. Commissioners reported sessions at Juvenile Hall and Camp Sweeney and agreed staff would ensure youth submissions are tagged and delivered for analysis. Deborah Stack and county staff committed to getting outstanding youth materials to Informing Change by the following Wednesday for inclusion in the final analysis.

Before discussion of recommendations, the commission paused for a moment of silence and read a memorial commendation prepared by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors honoring Jesse Clyde Burleson. Eric Sapp, who identified himself as a friend and former colleague of Burleson, urged the commission to "carry on Mr. Burleson's legacy" by ensuring incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people are meaningfully heard; he specifically suggested jail visits at Santa Rita to gather input from that population.

The meeting then moved to a chaptered review of 43 submitted recommendations organized by category. Commissioners debated how to frame and prioritize those recommendations in the draft action plan and whether to place a permanent Office (or department) of Reparations high on the list. Some members argued the commission should prioritize immediate, county-actionable steps tied to existing departmental budgets and programs; others pressed for a permanent office that would sustain long-term implementation and oversight.

On substance, commissioners discussed: economic opportunity (including support for Black-owned businesses and whether to emphasize cultural corridors or dispersed investment); education (paid apprenticeships, workforce pathways and adding culturally relevant K'12 curriculum); housing (including proposals ranging from return of unjustly taken property to monetary compensation, and discussion of liens or first refusal on redeveloped properties); health and environmental justice; and a legal audit to remove archaic statutes that enable over-enforcement. Commissioners repeatedly noted overlap among categories and agreed the final report-writing process would consolidate and refine language.

The group also agreed on a schedule to prepare a rough draft of the action plan by April (staff described April 8 as a "rough" checkpoint) and to present a final report and action plan to the county's ad hoc committee and community partners by late May in advance of the anticipated June 30 presentation to the Board of Supervisors.

Because of quorum constraints near the meeting's end, commissioners set a short follow-up meeting to complete roll-call votes on prioritized buckets. Staff proposed an in-person meeting Monday at 6:00 p.m. so commissioners could vote on the compiled priorities and any modifications.

The only formal action recorded during the transcript excerpt was approval of the February 11 meeting minutes (the motion passed on roll call, with one commissioner recorded as abstaining); commissioners were otherwise framing and prioritizing recommendations rather than adopting final policy at this session.

What happens next: staff and consultants will incorporate outstanding survey material, present a draft action plan and budget to an ad hoc committee in May, and the commission will reconvene (the follow-up meeting) to complete votes and finalize priorities for the June Board of Supervisors presentation.