CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Members September 21, 2020 Nikuyah Walker, Mayor Sena Magill, Vice Mayor Heather D. Hill Michael K. Payne J.Lloyd Snook, III 5:00 p.m. Closed session as provided by Sections 2.2­3711 and 2.2­3712 of the Virginia Code (Boards and Commissions appointments; legal consultation regarding disposition of real property) Virtual/electronic meeting 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting Virtual/electronic meeting. Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom CALL TO ORDER MOMENT OF SILENCE ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL ANNOUNCEMENTS RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS BOARD/COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS 1. Report: Boards & Commissions (oral report from City Council) CONSENT AGENDA* 2. Minutes: August 17 closed and regular meetings, August 25 special meeting, August 27 special meeting 3. Appropriation: Charlottesville­Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award ­ $240,000 (2nd reading) 4. Appropriation: Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award ­ $539,333 (2nd reading) 5. Appropriation: Virginia Behavioral Health Docket Grant Award ­ $40,000 (1st of 2 readings) 6. Appropriation: Fiscal Year 2021 Fire Programs Aid to Locality Funding (Firefund) ­ $165,628.00 (1st of 2 readings) 7. Appropriation: Urban and Community Forestry Grant ­ $20,000.00 (1st of 2 readings) 8. Appropriation: Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS/HIV (H.O.P.W.A.) ­ $288,172 (1st of 2 readings) CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) COMMUNITY MATTERS Public comment for up to 16 speakers (limit 3 minutes per speaker). Preregistration available for up to 8 spaces; preregistered speakers announced by Noon the day of the meeting. Additional public comment period at end of meeting. Public comment will be conducted through electronic participation as City Hall is closed to the public. Participants can register in advance at www.charlottesville.org/zoom. ACTION ITEMS 9. Public CARES Act Funding appropriation ­ $4.1M (1st of 2 readings) Hearing/App.: 10. Public Program Year July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 Consolidated Annual Hearing/Res.: Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) (1 reading) Page 1 of 249 11. Ordinance*: Extension of Ordinance for COVID­19 approved July 27, 2020 (may pass on 1 reading with 4/5 vote) GENERAL BUSINESS 12. Public Council Strategic Plan Update ­ public input Comment: 13. Report: Disproportionate Minority Contact Report Recommendations Follow­up 14. Discussion: Discussion of Honorary Street Designation process 15. Report: City Financial Report for August 2020 OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC *Action Needed NOTE: Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970­3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. Page 2 of 249 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL August 17, 2020 Minutes Virtual/electronic meeting 5:30 PM CLOSED MEETING The Charlottesville City Council met electronically on Monday, August 17, 2020. Mayor Nikuyah Walker called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, Mr. Michael Payne and Mr. Lloyd Snook. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council voted 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none) to meet in closed session as authorized by Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2-3712, specifically: - as authorized by authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel from the Charlottesville City Attorney’s Office regarding legal advice about contracts related to housing and public works; and - as authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) for the discussion and consideration of appointments to the Planning Commission and the Police Civilian Review Board. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council certified by the following vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. Mayor Walker adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council 6:30 REGULAR MEETING The Charlottesville City Council met in regular session on August 17, 2020, with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, Mr. Michael Payne, and Mr. Lloyd Snook. Mayor Walker called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council unanimously approved the meeting agenda. Page 3 of 249 Council observed a moment of silence. CONSENT AGENDA* Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas read the following Consent Agenda items into the record: 1. APPROPRIATION: Belmont Bridge Replacement Project – $15,263,257.41 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Belmont Bridge Replacement Project – $15,263,257.41 WHEREAS, a total of $3,163,920.41 in federal funds for the Belmont Bridge Replacement project requires appropriation; WHEREAS, a total of $12,099,337 in state funds for the Belmont Bridge Replacement project requires appropriation; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $3,163,920.41 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00436 G/L Account: 430120 $12,099,337 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00436 G/L Account: 430080 Expenditures $3,163,920.41 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00436 G/L Account: 599999 $12,099,337 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00436 G/L Account: 599999 2. APPROPRIATION: Appropriation of funds received for reimbursement for Crescent Halls driveway repair - $18,483.73 (Carried) 3. APPROPRIATION: Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Grant Award - $95,000 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) Non-Infrastructure Grants - $95,000 WHEREAS, the Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) non-infrastructure grant, Page 4 of 249 providing Federal payments for education, encouragement, evaluation and enforcement programs to promote safe walking and bicycling to school has been awarded the City of Charlottesville, in the amount of $76,000; WHEREAS, the SRTS program is a 80% reimbursement program requiring a 20% match from the City, of which $15,400 will come from Public Works and the remainder will be in-kind contributions; REVENUE $76,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3901008000 G/L Account: 430120 $15,400 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3901008000 G/L Account: 498010 EXPENDITURES $67,400 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3901008000 G/L Account: 519999 $24,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3901008000 G/L Account: 599999 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following is hereby appropriated in the following manner: TRANSFER FROM $15,400 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2401003000 G/L Account: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $76,000 from the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4. APPROPRIATION: Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) Funding, FY 20-21 - $246,699 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE'S 2020-2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CORONAVIRUS - $246,699 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been advised of the approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of a Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to respond to the growing effects of the historic public health crisis for the fiscal year in the total amount of $246,699. Page 5 of 249 WHEREAS, City Council has received recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the CDBG/HOME Task Force, the Strategic Action Team (SAT), and the Planning Commission; and has conducted a public hearing thereon as provided by law; now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sums hereinafter set forth are hereby appropriated from funds received from the aforesaid grant to the following individual expenditure accounts in the Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus Fund for the respective purposes set forth; provided, however, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds between and among such individual accounts as circumstances may require, to the extent permitted by applicable federal grant regulations. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Community Investment Collaborative – COVID-19 Grants $98,679.60 PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS TJACH – COVID-19 Homeless Prevention Response $49,017.82 Thomas Jefferson Health District – COVID-19 Outreach $49,661.78 ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: Admin and Planning $49,017.82 TOTAL $246,699 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $246,699 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development authorized by the CARES Act. Funds authorized will be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus (COVID-19). The amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (sub-recipients) are for the sole purpose stated. The City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with those agencies and organizations as he may deem advisable to ensure that the grants are expended for the intended purposes, and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations; and The City Manager, the Directors of Finance or Neighborhood Development Services, and staff are authorized to establish administrative procedures and provide for mutual assistance in the execution of the programs. 5. APPROPRIATION: Office of the Registrar CARES funding for 2020 Presidential election - $64,229 (2nd reading) Page 6 of 249 APPROPRATION Office of Voter Registration CARES ACT funding for 2020 Presidential Election $64,229 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Office of Voter Registration and Elections has received award approval for $64,229 from the CARES ACT from the Virginia Department of Elections to use to help offset the costs associated with the 2020 Presidential Election; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $64,229 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue-$64,229 Fund 208 Cost Center: 2301001000 I/O: 1900368 G/L Account: 430127 Expenditures $11,634 Fund 208 Cost Center: 2301001000 I/O: 1900368 G/L Account: 599999 $7,700 Fund 208 Cost Center: 2301001000 I/O: 1900368 G/L Account: 520030 $6,450 Fund 208 Cost Center: 2301001000 I/O: 1900368 G/L Account: 520900 $12,535 Fund 208 Cost Center: 2301001000 I/O: 1900368 G/L Account: 520990 $3,481 Fund 208 Cost Center: 2301001000 I/O: 1900368 G/L Account: 530210 $22,429 Fund 208 Cost Center: 2301001000 I/O: 1900368 G/L Account: 541050 6. APPROPRIATION: BAMA Works Grant for Supporting Aspirations-Improving Resiliency for Vulnerable Families - $6,000 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Supporting Aspirations-Improving Resiliency for Vulnerable Families - $6,000 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Department of Social Services has received $6,000 from the BAMA Works Fund to implement supporting aspirations initiative for vulnerable families. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $6,000 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue - $6,000 Fund 212 Cost Center: 9900000000 G/L Account: 451022 Page 7 of 249 Expenditures - $6,000 Fund 212 Cost Center: 3343011000 G/L Account: 540060 7. ORDINANCE: Approving CitySpace as Central Absentee Precinct for November 3, 2020 General Election (2nd reading waived) ORDINANCE APPROVING CITYSPACE AS CENTRAL ABSENTEE PRECINCT FOR NOVEMBER 3, 2020 GENERAL ELECTION WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, Governor Ralph S. Northam issued Executive Order 51 declaring a state of emergency for the Commonwealth of Virginia due to the potential spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, Governor Northam’s March 12, 2020 declaration found that the anticipated effects of COVID-19 constitute a disaster pursuant to Virginia Code Section 44- 146.16; and WHEREAS, City Manager and Director of Emergency Management, Dr. Tarron J. Richardson, declared the potential spread of COVID-19 an emergency on March 12, 2020 pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the Charlottesville City Council; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1413 provides that a locality may, by ordinance, provide a method to assure continuity in government in the event of a disaster “notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, general or special”; and WHEREAS, the conduct of elections is necessary to assure continuity in government; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 24.2-310 provides that if an emergency makes a polling place unusable, the Director of Elections and General Registrar shall provide an alternative polling place; WHEREAS, Charlottesville City Code Section 9-31 establishes City Hall as the polling place for the City of Charlottesville’s Central Absentee Precinct; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Electoral Board and the Charlottesville Director of Elections and General Registrar have determined that the use of City Space as the polling place for the City of Charlottesville’s Central Absentee Precinct may assist the City’s efforts Page 8 of 249 to avoid the spread of COVID-19 and that the continued use of City Hall as the Central Absentee Precinct polling place may contribute to the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the potential spread of COVID-19 is a rare and unforeseen circumstance necessitating the movement of the Central Absentee Precinct polling place. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that for the November 3, 2020 general election, the City of Charlottesville’s Central Absentee Precinct shall be located at City Space located at 100 5th Street NE, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. BE IF FURTHER ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that this ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1413 and 24.2-310. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that this polling place change shall be advertised in the Daily Progress and on the City of Charlottesville’s web site. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that this ordinance shall be effective on September 8, 2020 and shall expire on November 10, 2020. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that this ordinance is passed with the votes of four-fifths of the City Council and that the second reading of this ordinance shall not be required. Mayor Walker opened the floor for comment from the public on the consent agenda. There were no speakers. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council by the following vote APPROVED the Consent Agenda: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none). CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) City Manager Tarron Richardson provided a response to the following items from the August 3, 2020, City Council meeting: 1. Regarding the speed limit on Cherry Avenue, he advised that this issue would be revisited at the September 8th City Council meeting as he gathers more information. Page 9 of 249 2. Regarding the Eviction Moratorium, he advised that Council would be voting on a resolution at this meeting. COMMUNITY MATTERS Ms. Marta Keane, CEO of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), shared an update on JABA services. Mr. Brad Slocum, City resident, spoke about what appear to be cameras installed near downtown parks. Ms. Elizabeth Stark spoke about the eviction crisis and the rent and mortgage relief hotline. Ms. Tanesha Hudson spoke about the use of Parks and Recreation buildings for helping children during the first nine weeks of virtual school. She also spoke about the eviction moratorium and the mortgage relief program, suggesting an online process to accompany the hotline. Mr. Don Gathers spoke about moving forward with honorary street designation requests as presented at a recent City Council meeting rather than awaiting the conclusion of the current process. Ms. Walker expressed a desire to review honorary street designation requests at the September 8 City Council meeting. Ms. Robin Huffman spoke about using the York Place television studio to advertise and provide educational opportunities. She also spoke about Coronavirus and testing concerns. Ms. Nancy Carpenter spoke about the community resource line and challenges with the volume of calls. She asked about emergency shelters for the increase in people becoming homeless. Ms. Jojo Robertson spoke about support for people who are homeless. She spoke about Section 8 housing requirements and made a recommendation for appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board. She spoke in support of the City Manager. The meeting recessed at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:53 p.m. ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: Public hearing and ordinance for granting permanent and temporary easements to the Rivanna Water Services Authority for the installation of water line facilities in Ragged Mountain Natural Area (Carried) Ms. Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities, presented the item report. Page 10 of 249 Ms. Walker asked about the timeline between the vote and when the project begins. Ms. Hildebrand advised that there is a lengthy timeline. Ms. Magill acknowledged a concern expressed by a citizen regarding the project cost. Ms. Hildebrand shared background information. Mr. Snook shared additional information about water conservation efforts and the need to take action now. Mr. Payne shared projections of potential drought in years to come and the need for conservation. Ms. Walker opened the public hearing. The following people spoke: - Ms. Dede Smith spoke in opposition to the ordinance. - Mr. Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum, spoke in support of the ordinance. - Mr. Jake Gold asked how much the project would affect water bills. - Mr. Rory Stolzenberg shared background information about the pipeline. After discussion by Council, Mayor Walker closed the public hearing. Council unanimously agreed to move the item to the September 8, 2020 Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: Public hearing and Ordinance for the sale of a 0.13 acre portion of Northeast Park (Carried) City Attorney John Blair provided background information on a policy adopted in 2005 regarding the sale of City land, amended in 2009. He advised Council that if it is their preference, he would add wording to the policy to expressly identify the sale of park land. Mr. Payne expressed a desire to add wording to the policy regarding the sale of City- owned land. Ms. Magill agreed, as well as the staff time required to prepare for such considerations. Mr. Snook shared thoughts on uses of park space. Ms. Hill expressed support for amending the policy. Ms. Walker agreed. Mayor Walker opened the floor for public input. The following people spoke: - Mr. Dan Katz spoke on behalf of himself and his wife, as the couple who requested to purchase the land. He advised that the land floods and they would be willing to remediate the area to prevent the flooding. - Mr. John Hossack spoke in support of the City maintaining ownership of the park. Mr. Chris Gensic, Park and Trails Planner, answered questions about accessibility. The item did not move forward. Page 11 of 249 PUBLIC HEARING/RESOLUTION: Public hearing and resolution endorsing the submission of three SmartScale (HB2) applications requesting transportation funding by Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Organization – Hydraulic/29 Intersection Improvements; Hillsdale Avenue South Extension; Fifth Street Hub and Trails Mr. Chip Boyles, Executive Director for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) made the presentation. He advised that the projects are for the statewide Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) competition. Mr. Boyles answered specific project questions for Council. Mayor Walker opened the public hearing. The following people spoke: - Ms. Cecelia Mills, City resident, asked about the US29/Hydraulic Road intersection. With no other speakers coming forward, Mayor Walker closed the public hearing. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution endorsing the submission of Smart Scale (HB2) applications requesting transportation funding by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Organization: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none): RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE SUBMISSION OF SMART SCALE (HB2) APPLICATIONS REQUESTING TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE METROPOLITAN ORGANIZATION WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, completed a comprehensive Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in May, 2019; and WHEREAS, the 2045 LRTP includes the following transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, the Hydraulic Small Area Plan was adopted as an amendment to the Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan on May 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Board has identified transportation projects which are critical to improve safe and efficient movement of people and goods along public roadways in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan area; and Page 12 of 249 WHEREAS, during its 2014 session, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation in the form of House Bill 2 (“HB2”) now titled “Smart Scale”, which established new criteria for the allocation of transportation funding for projects within the state; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) during its board meeting of June 17, 2015 approved the Policy and Guidelines for Implementation of a Project Prioritization Process in accordance with Smart Scale; and WHEREAS, many of the transportation projects identified by the MPO meet the eligibility criteria for funding under Smart Scale; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Area of Charlottesville-Albemarle, for the MPO, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to submit HB2 applications requesting state funding for eligible transportation projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Charlottesville fully endorses the submission of a Smart Scale application by the MPO requesting funding for the following transportation projects: Being Submitted by the CA-MPO within the City of Charlottesville 1. Hillsdale Drive South Extension 2. Hydraulic Road and US 29 ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2020 by the Charlottesville City Council being duly assembled. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Payne, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution endorsing the submission of Smart Scale (HB2) applications requesting transportation funding by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none): RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE SUBMISSION OF SMART SCALE (HB2) APPLICATIONS REQUESTING TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BY THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, completed a comprehensive Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in May, 2019; and Page 13 of 249 WHEREAS, the 2045 LRTP includes the following transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, completed the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in early 2019 after a multi-year process that relied heavily on public engagement; and WHEREAS, the 2019 Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes the following transportation improvement; and WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Board has identified transportation projects which are critical to improve safe and efficient movement of people and goods along public roadways in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, during its 2014 session, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation in the form of House Bill 2 (“HB2”) now titled “Smart Scale”, which established new criteria for the allocation of transportation funding for projects within the state; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) during its board meeting of June 17, 2015 approved the Policy and Guidelines for Implementation of a Project Prioritization Process in accordance with Smart Scale; and WHEREAS, many of the transportation projects identified by the MPO meet the eligibility criteria for funding under Smart Scale; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Area of Charlottesville-Albemarle, for the MPO, the PDC, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to submit HB2 applications requesting state funding for eligible transportation projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Charlottesville fully endorses the submission of a Smart Scale application by the MPO requesting funding for the following transportation projects: Being Submitted by the CA-MPO within the City of Charlottesville 1. Fifth Street Hub and Trails ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2020 by the Charlottesville City Council being duly assembled. Page 14 of 249 GENERAL BUSINESS RESOLUTION*: Consideration of support for the Frontline Workers Fair Treatment Charter Dr. Richardson shared an update regarding practices mentioned in the Charter and the City's response. Mr. Ben Allen, Executive Director of The Equity Center at the University of Virginia shared regional information and answered questions from Council. On motion by Mr. Payne, seconded by Ms. Hill, Council by the following vote expressed support for the Frontline Workers Fair Treatment Charter to provide a basis for regional collaboration, with the exception of Item 3 regarding Robust Premium Compensation, and Item 6 regarding Open Hiring Practices, for further study by a regional committee with representatives from the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle and University of Virginia: 4-1 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook. Noes: Walker, who voiced support for Item #12 regarding Creating a Regional Frontline Worker Rights Commission). Ms. Walker asked for a monthly update on status of items in the Charter. Mr. Allen advised that a workgroup will be formed. The meeting recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:26 p.m. REPORT: Social Services - Family Services Report (oral report) Ms. Diane Kuknyo, Director of Social Services, and Ms. Jenny Jones, Chief of Family Services, made the presentation sharing information about how the Family Services program works and about the current status of children in foster care and kinship placements. REPORT: City Financial Report for July 2020 (oral report) Dr. Richardson introduced the report and Mr. Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst, presented details about General Fund revenues and expenditures through July 31, 2020, as compared to year-to-date projections. DISCUSSION: Boards and commissions meetings discussion and guidance Dr. Richardson advised that staff could possibly handle boards and commissions meeting once per month, given staff capacity. Staff shared input on capacity based resources available to make meetings publicly accessible during the Covid-19 pandemic. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council unanimously added the Sister Cities Commission, Ridge Street Task Force, Social Services Advisory Board, PLACE Design Task force to the approved meeting list for one meeting per month, including subcommittees, for Page 15 of 249 a maximum of two hours, with the Sister Cities Commission retreat approved for up to three hours. Council acknowledge that certain meetings could not be limited to a two-hour meeting such as the Planning Commission, Board of Architectural Review, and Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Ms. Walker asked that Mr. Payne be an unofficial representative for Council to the Police Civilian Review Board. Mr. Payne agreed. OTHER BUSINESS On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Payne, Council by the following vote APPROVED a resolution requesting Delegate Hudson and Senator Deeds to support an eviction moratorium during the August 2020 special session of the Virginia General Assembly: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none). RESOLUTION REQUESTING DELEGATE HUDSON AND SENATOR DEEDS TO SUPPORT AN EVICTION MORATORIUM DURING THE AUGUST 2020 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHEREAS, on August 7, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a declaration of judicial emergency suspending the issuance of writs of eviction pursuant to unlawful detainer actions from August 10, 2020 to September 7, 2020 (hereinafter “eviction moratorium”); and WHEREAS, Governor Ralph S. Northam is requesting that the Virginia General Assembly enact legislation extending the eviction moratorium until April 2021; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council supports the extension of the eviction moratorium until April 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that it is requesting that Delegate Sally L. Hudson and Senator R. Creigh Deeds support legislation during the August 2020 Special Session of the Virginia General Assembly to extend the eviction moratorium until April 2021. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council will send a letter to Delegate Hudson and Senator Deeds requesting the extension of the eviction moratorium. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Ms. Robin Hoffman shared that the Post Office is having issues. She also spoke about health insurance billing. Page 16 of 249 Ms. Rosia Parker, City resident, asked about her application for the Police Civilian Review Board. Ms. Dede Smith spoke about comments made after her input earlier in the meeting. Ms. Walker asked about signage at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Dr. Richardson advised that he would follow up. The meeting adjourned at 12:03 a.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 17 of 249 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL August 25, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING Virtual/electronic meeting 3:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING and CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3712, the Charlottesville City Council met on Tuesday, August 25, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, and Mr. Michael Payne. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council voted 4-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Walker; Noes: none; Absent: Snook) to meet in closed session: - as authorized by authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel from the Charlottesville City Attorney’s Office regarding legal advice about contracts related to housing and bonds and special event permits; and - as authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) for the discussion and consideration of appointments to the Charlottesville Planning Commission and the Police Civilian Review Board. Mr. Snook joined the closed meeting On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Payne, Council certified by the following vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. Ms. Hill announced the appointment of Ms. Latita Talbert to the Police Civilian Review Board. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 18 of 249 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL August 27, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING Virtual/electronic meeting 1:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING and CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3712, the Charlottesville City Council met on Thursday, August 27, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. for a special meeting. The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Ms. Heather Hill, and Mr. Michael Payne. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Magill, Council voted 4-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Walker. Noes: none) to meet in closed session as authorized by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) for the discussion and consideration of appointments to the Police Civilian Review Board and performance of appointees to the Police Civilian Review Board. Mr. Snook joined the closed meeting at 1:12 p.m. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Payne, Council certified by the following vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote rescinded the appointment of Ms. Latita Talbert to the Police Civilian Review Board: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker. Noes: none). On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Snook, Council by the following vote appointed Mr. Bellamy Brown to the PCRB: 4-1 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook; Noes: Walker). The meeting adjourned at 2:12 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 19 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Approve and appropriate grant funds Presenter: Jodi Jackson, Offender Aid and Restoration Staff Contact: Jodi Jackson, Offender Aid and Restoration Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst Title: Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award - $240,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville, on behalf of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court, has received a Supreme Court of Virginia Drug Treatment Court Docket Grant in the amount of $240,000 for operations of the drug court program, which is operated by Offender Aid and Restoration (O.A.R.). The City of Charlottesville serves as fiscal agent for the Supreme Court of Virginia Drug Treatment Court Docket Grant. Discussion: In its twenty-third year of operation, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court is a supervised 12 month drug treatment program that serves as an alternative to incarceration for offenders. Drug Court is a specialized docket within the existing structure of the court system given the responsibility to handle cases involving non-violent adult felony offenders who are addicted to drugs. The program uses the power of the court to assist non-violent offenders to achieve recovery through a combined system of intensive supervision, drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and regular court appearances. The total program budget is $364,725 and includes three funding sources: Supreme Court of V.A.: $240,000 City of Charlottesville: $68,352, which has already been appropriated Albemarle County: $56,373, which has already been appropriated Page 20 of 249 Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: This relates to providing support for persons interacting with the legal or criminal justice system and the City of Charlottesville’s priority Safety/Criminal Justice. Drug Court directly affects the community by reducing recidivism among Drug Court participants and graduates. Additionally, Drug Court mitigates risk by reducing drug and alcohol use among program participants and graduates. Reduction of drug and alcohol use fosters participant rehabilitation, public safety, and participant accountability; all of which are factors in helping the community achieve its stated goals. Reduced recidivism results in reduced public cost associated with re-arrest and incarceration, a reduction in potential victims of crime, and overall enhanced quality of life for community residents. As the writers of the Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards state, “Drug Courts improve communities by successfully getting justice-involved individuals clean and sober, stopping drug-related crime, reuniting broken families, … and preventing impaired driving” Not only is Drug Court an effective agent of change, it is an extremely cost effective approach. Numerous meta-analyses have concluded that Drug Courts produce an average return on investment of $2 to $4 for every $1 invested. Because of the above, ensuring that the 23 year old Drug Court program remains available to residents of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County will help the community achieve its goals. Community Engagement: The Drug Treatment Court is a direct service provider and is engaged daily with non- violent criminal offenders with drug driven crimes who are at a high level of risk for reoffending due to active addictions and long standing patterns of criminal behavior. By collaborating with the Court system, Region Ten Community Services Board, and the Sheriff’s department, the Drug Treatment Court provides these offenders with a highly structured, rigorously supervised system of treatment and criminal case processing that results in a significant reduction in recidivism rates for program participants and graduates. Participants gain access to the Drug Treatment Court through referrals from police, probation, magistrates, defense attorneys and other local stakeholders. Participants have active criminal cases pending in the Circuit Court. If they successfully complete the program which takes a minimum of 12 months, participants may have their pending charges reduced or dismissed. If participants are unsuccessful and have to be terminated from the program, they return to court to face their original charges. Successful Drug Treatment Court participants return the community’s investment in them by maintaining full time, tax paying employment, providing for and taking care of their children and families including paying off back child support, behaving as good role models in the community, and supporting the recovery community in Charlottesville. Page 21 of 249 Budgetary Impact: No additional City funding is required as the City’s match for this grant, $68,352, was appropriated as part of the F.Y. 2021 Council Approved Budget as part of the City’s contribution to Offender Aid and Restoration. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation. Attachments: Appropriation Page 22 of 249 APPROPRIATION Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award $240,000 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Virginia awarded the Supreme Court of Virginia Drug Treatment Court Docket Grant in the amount of $240,000 for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Drug Court Treatment Court in order to fund salaries, benefits, and operating expenses; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville serves as the fiscal agent for this grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County both have dedicated local matches to this grant, totaling $124,725; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $240,000, received as a grant from the Supreme Court of Virginia, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $240,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900369 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures $240,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900369 G/L Account: 530550 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $240,000 from the Supreme Court of Virginia. Page 23 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 8, 2020 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Title: Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award ($539,333) Background: The Department of Human Services in coordination with the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (T.J.A.C.H.) and the Service Provider Council (S.P.C.), applied for and received a grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. The Virginia Housing Solutions Program award is $539,333 and is a renewal contract for the program for July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville has staff from the departments of Human Services and Social Services taking leadership roles in the governance of T.J.A.C.H. V.H.S.P. is an important resource in our community’s efforts to end homelessness. The grant provides services in several points along the local continuum of services: 1. Coordinated Assessment: The Haven serves as the physical front door to the homelessness system of care, using an evidence-based tool for determining priority access to available resources. 2. Emergency Low Barrier Shelter P.A.C.E.M. provides a low-barrier shelter for adults using rotating local churches for support. 3. Rapid Re-Housing & Housing Navigation: The Haven screens and administers rapid re-housing assistance and housing navigation to households experiencing homelessness. 4. Case Management: The Haven provides supportive services including crisis intervention, case management and service referrals. 5. Homeless Management Information System(H.M.I.S.): The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient will ensure that H.M.I.S. data is complete through an agreement with T.J.A.C.H. to have the Executive Director ensure data quality. Our Continuum of Care(C.O.C.) has a well-populated database for individuals experiencing homelessness. HMIS collaboration provides real-time monitoring of the needs and progress of individuals and households facing homelessness. Collaborative use of H.M.I.S. among T.J.A.C.H. Continium of Care Service Providers expedites communication and reduces Page 24 of 249 the need to interface disparate documentation systems. 6. Coalition Coordination: The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless provides leadership and coordination for the required local homelessness continuum of care. 7. Administration: The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient is eligible for an administrative fee. Staff proposes that we pass these dollars through to T.J.A.C.H. in recognition of staff time spent processing checks and managing this grant process. Community Engagement: This grant and plan are the product of extensive engagement of the service provider community for persons experiencing homelessness. This partnership is reflective of the new governance model for T.J.A.C.H. and the priority requests of the Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together (IMPACT). Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This grant advances the City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Plan Goal #1 of an inclusive community of self-sufficient residents. Specifically, it will facilitate the objective of increasing affordable housing options. Budgetary Impact: This grant will be entirely State, and Federal pass-through funds. No local match is required. There is no budget impact for the City of Charlottesville. All funds will be distributed to sub- recipients for service provision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: Council may elect to not accept the funds and the community will not have the capacity to administer the following services to persons experiencing a housing crisis:. Emergemcy low- barrier shelter, coordinated assessment, rapid rehousing, H.M.I.S., coalition coordination and administration. Attachments: Sub Grant agreement and amendment are attached. Page 25 of 249 APPROPRIATION Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award $539,333 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the V.H.S.P. Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $539,333. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville,Virginia that the sum of $539,333 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $455,982 Fund: 209 IO: 1900370 G/L: 430110 State Grant $83,218 Fund: 209 IO: 1900370 G/L: 430120 Federal Pass-Thru State Expenditures $539,333 Fund: 209 IO: 1900370 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $539,333 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Page 26 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 21, 2020 Action Required: Appropriation of grant funds Presenter: Susan Morrow, Offender Aid and Restoration Staff Contact: Susan Morrow, Offender Aid and Restoration Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst Title: Virginia Behavioral Health Docket Grant - $40,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville, on behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Therapeutic Docket program, has received a Supreme Court of Virginia Behavioral Health Docket Grant in the amount of $40,000 for operations of the therapeutic docket program, which is operated by Offender Aid and Restoration (O.A.R.). The City of Charlottesville serves as fiscal agent for the Supreme Court of Virginia Behavioral Health Docket Grant. Discussion: In its third year of operation, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Therapeutic Docket program is a supervised 6 to 12 month treatment program that serves as an alternative to incarceration for offenders. The Therapeutic Docket is a specialized docket within the existing structure of the court system given the responsibility to handle cases involving non-violent adult misdemeanor offenders who suffer from serious mental illness. The program uses the power of the court to assist non-violent offenders to achieve wellness and recovery through a combined system of intensive supervision, medication management, mental health treatment, and regular court appearances. The total program budget is $149,450 and includes three funding sources: Supreme Court of V.A.: $40,000 City of Charlottesville: $54,450, (previously appropriated) Albemarle County: $55,000, (previously appropriated) Page 27 of 249 Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: This relates to the City of Charlottesville’s strategic goal to improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources (C8). The Therapeutic Docket is a valuable, less expensive alternative to incarceration for certain criminal offenders with serious mental illness which utilizes a blend of court-ordered supervision, mental health treatment services, court appearances, and behavioral sanctions and incentives to reduce recidivism and enhance personal accountability and mental health and wellness among participants. Community Engagement: The Therapeutic Docket is a direct service provider and is engaged daily with non-violent criminal offenders with serious mental illness who are at a high level of risk for reoffending and have a high level of need due to mental illness. By collaborating with the Court system, Region Ten Community Services Board, Partners for Mental Health, and the Sheriff’s department, the Therapeutic Docket provides these offenders with a highly structured, rigorously supervised system of treatment and criminal case processing that results in a significant reduction in recidivism rates for program participants and graduates. Participants gain access to the Therapeutic Docket through referrals from police, probation, magistrates, defense attorneys and other local stakeholders. Participants have active criminal cases pending in the General District Court. If they successfully complete the program which takes a minimum of 6 months, participants may have their pending charges dismissed. If participants are unsuccessful and have to be terminated from the program, they return to court to face their original charges. Successful Therapeutic Docket participants return the community’s investment in them by improving their mental health status, maintaining compliance with treatment regimens, including medications, and reducing their criminal behaviors in the community. Budgetary Impact: No additional City funding is required as the City’s match for this grant, $54,450, was appropriated within the F.Y. 2021 Council Approved Budget as part of the City’s contribution to Offender Aid and Restoration. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation. Attachments: Appropriation Page 28 of 249 APPROPRIATION Charlottesville - Albemarle Therapeutic Docket Grant Award $40,000 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Virginia awarded the Supreme Court of Virginia Behavioral Health Docket Grant in the amount of $40,000 for the Charlottesville - Albemarle Therapeutic Docket in order to fund salaries, benefits, and operating expenses; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville serves as the fiscal agent for this grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County both have dedicated local matches to this grant, totaling $109,450; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period September 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $40,000, received as a grant from the Supreme Court of Virginia, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $40,000 Fund:209 Internal Order: #1900371 G/L Account: 430110 Expenditures $40,000 Fund:209 Internal Order: #1900371 G/L Account: 530670 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $40,000 from the Supreme Court of Virginia. Page 29 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 21, 2020 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Mike Rogers, Deputy Chief – Business Services, Charlottesville Fire Dept. Staff Contacts: Mike Rogers, Deputy Chief – Business Services, Charlottesville Fire Dept. Fiscal Year 2021 Fire Programs Aid to Locality Funding (Firefund) Title: - $165,628.00 Background: The Code of Virginia provides for the collection of an annual levy each fiscal period from the insurance industry. Such levy is collected by the State Corporation Commission, and the amounts collected are then transferred into the Fire Program Fund (Firefund). These aid to locality monies are then distributed to the jurisdictions to supplement the localities funding for fire service based training, training supplies, training equipment, prevention activities, and some response equipment. This is an annual allotment of funding. All usage and any carryovers are reported out to the Department of Fire Programs at the end of the fiscal period before the next fiscal period monies are granted. The City of Charlottesville has been awarded $165,628.00 in these funds for FY 2021. Discussion: The Aid to Locality monies are distributed annually to aid departments in their training, prevention, and equipment efforts. While the monies cannot be used to directly/indirectly supplant or replace other locality funds, they help us to provide for additional firefighting training resources, logistics, courses, and equipment as outlined in the Department of Fire Programs Aid to Locality allowable uses chart. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The Aid to Locality/Firefund allocation supports the City’s mission “We provide services that promote equity and an excellent quality of life in our community” by providing supplemental training and equipment funding for fire prevention, firefighting, hazardous materials, and technical rescue. With this additional funding being put towards these purposes we are better able to prepare our responders to deliver emergency services and/or information to the citizens, students, business community members, and guests of the City. Page 30 of 249 The assistance from this annual funding allotment also aligns with Goal 2.1, Reduce adverse impact from sudden injury and illness and the effects of chronic disease, as well as the elements within Goal 5 - A Well-managed and Responsive Organization. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: There is no impact to the General Fund, as these are grant funds that do not require a City match. The FY 2021 funds will be budgeted and expensed in the City’s grant fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If Aid to Locality funding is not appropriated, the Fire Department will not be able to utilize this supplemental funding to help support its training, prevention, and equipment efforts. Attachments: N/A Page 31 of 249 APPROPRIATION Fiscal Year 2021 Fire Programs Aid to Locality Funding (Firefund) $165,628.00 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Fire Programs has awarded a grant to the Fire Department, through the City of Charlottesville, specifically for fire service applications; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that a total of $165,628.00 be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $165,628 $165,628 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900010 G/L Account: 430110 Expenditures - $165,628 $165,628 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900010 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $165,628.00 from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs. Page 32 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 21, 2020 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Mike Ronayne, Urban Forester, Parks and Recreation Staff Contacts: Mike Ronayne, Urban Forester, Parks and Recreation Title: Urban and Community Forestry Grant Appropriation - $20,000.00 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through the Parks and Recreation Department, has been awarded a $10,000 grant from Urban and Community Forestry Fund. This grant is administrated through the Virginia Department of Forestry. There is a required local match in the amount of $10,000, for a total grant award of $20,000. Discussion: The grant will assist with undertaking an update to the City Urban Tree Canopy assessment and will assist with the cost of hiring a firm to analyze aerial imagery to determine the extent of forest canopy and to analyze the data in subsets such as entry corridors, watersheds, neighborhoods, etc. This is an update to the same type of study undertaken in 2009 and 2015. The findings from this assessment will help to reevaluate goals, policy and tree planting/maintenance strategies. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s “Green City” vision by providing data to help guide planning and implementation of efforts to preserve and enhance the forested area of the City. It contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan, to be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community, and objective 2.5, to provide natural and historic resources stewardship. This project also aligns with the Urban Forest Management Plan and supports the mission of the Tree Commission. Community Engagement: Charlottesville Parks and Recreation provided opportunities for the public to provide input into Urban forest Management Plan developed in 2010, and the Tree Commission supported this grant application. Page 33 of 249 Budgetary Impact: There is no impact to the General Fund. The total grant appropriation is $20,000 which will be recorded and expensed from a grant fund. The grant requires a 50% City match of $10,000 that will come from funds previously appropriated as part of the FY 2021 Parks and Recreation Operating Budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation of the grant funds. Alternatives: If grants funds are not appropriated, the updated urban tree canopy study will have to be funded entirely with local funds. Attachments: Appropriation Page 34 of 249 APPROPRIATION Urban and Community Forestry Grant $20,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received $10,000 from the Virginia Department of Forestry through the Urban Community Forestry Grant in order to perform an urban tree canopy assessment; and WHEREAS, the City will contribute $10,000 in funds from the previously appropriated Tree Maintenance funds to serve as the required grant match; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $20,000 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue - $20,000 $10,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900375 G/L Code: 430120 $10,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900375 G/L Code: 498010 Expenditures - $20,000 $20,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900375 G/L Code: 599999 Transfer From: $10,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 3671001000 G/L Code: 530600 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $10,000 from the Virginia Department of Forestry. Page 35 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 21, 2020 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Title: Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS/H.I.V. (H.O.P.W.A.): $288,172 Background: The Department of Human Services in coordination with the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (T.J.A.C.H.) and the Service Provider Council (S.P.C.), applied for and received a grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. The Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS/H.I.V. (H.O.P.W.A.) award is $288,172 and is a renewal contract for the program from Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) for July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville has staff from Human Services and Social Services taking leadership roles in the governance of T.J.A.C.H. H.O.P.W.A. is an important resource in our community’s efforts to end homelessness. The grant provides services in four key areas. 1. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA): The Thomas Jefferson Health District (T.J.H.D.) partners with The Haven to provide T.B.R.A. to eligible participants. The T.J.H.D. screens participants for eligibility and inspects the proposed property to ensure that it meets H.U.D. requirements. Upon successful screening, The Haven contacts the landlord to arrange monthly rent payment, similar to rapid re-housing. 2. Short-term Rental, Mortgage and Utility Assistance: T.J.H.D. screens eligible participants for short-term assistance including emergency utility payments to avoid shut- off. . 3. Supportive Services: T.JH.D. provides supportive services including crisis intervention, case management and service referrals. 4. Homeless Management Information System(H.M.I.S.): The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient will ensure that H.M.I.S. data is complete through an agreement with T.J.A.C.H. to have the Executive Director ensure data quality. Our Continuum of Care(C.O.C.) has a well-populated database for individuals experiencing homelessness. HMIS collaboration provides real-time monitoring of the needs and progress of Page 36 of 249 individuals and households facing homelessness. Collaborative use of H.M.I.S. among T.J.A.C.H. C.o.C. Service Providers expedites communication and reduces the need to interface disparate documentation systems. 5. Administration: The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient is eligible for an administrative fee. Staff proposes that we pass these dollars through to T.J.H.D. & The Haven to support the supervision of assigned staff. Community Engagement: This grant and plan are the product of extensive engagement of the service provider community for persons experiencing homelessness. This partnership is reflective of the new governance model for T.J.A.C.H. and the priority requests of the Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together (IMPACT). Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This grant advances the City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Plan Goal #1 of enhancing the self sufficiency of our residents. Specifically, it will facilitate the objective of increasing affordable housing options. This item primarily aligns with Council’s vision for Quality Housing Opportunities for All. Budgetary Impact: This grant will be entirely State, and Federal pass-through funds. No local match is required. There is no budget impact for the City of Charlottesville. All funds will be distributed to sub- recipients for service provision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: Council may elect to not accept the funds and the community will not have the capacity to administer the following services to persons experiencing a housing crisis while managing AIDS/H.I.V:. short-term rental assistance, utility assistance, rapid rehousing, H.M.I.S., and administration. Attachments: Appropriation Page 37 of 249 APPROPRIATION H.O.P.W.A. Grant $288,172 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the H.O.P.W.A. Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $288,172; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville,Virginia that the sum of $288,172 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $288,172 Fund: 209 IO: 1900372 (H.O.P.W.A.) G/L: 430120 Federal Pass-Thru State Expenditures $288,172 Fund: 209 IO: 1900372 (H.O.P.W.A.) G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $288,172 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Page 38 of 249 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT PLACEHOLDER CARES Act funding public hearing and appropriation (1st of 2 readings) Page 39 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 21, 2020 Action Required: Public Hearing and Approval Staff Contacts: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator Presenter: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator Title: Review of Program Performance and Setting Priorities for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds for Program Year 21-22 (Public Hearing) Background: This public hearing is intended to serve as a forum for public comment on the Program Year (PY) 19 (July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020) Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) and to aid City Council and staff in gathering information about the City's needs. Goals and priorities determined as a result of this public hearing will be the framework for funding recommendations made by the CDBG Task Force for funding available after July 2021. Based on current projections, the City can expect CDBG funding amounts similar to funds received in PY 20 or about $419,367. The City can expect HOME funding to be similar or less than that received in FY 19 which is about $80,594 per locality, or $644,752 total for the HOME consortium. Discussion FY 19-20 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS In FY 19, CDBG projects benefited 570 people. Projects included technical assistance for microenterprises and entrepreneurs, homelessness re-entry services, and workforce development programs (support for programs that aid in self-sufficiency, including but not limited to quality childcare). For economic development projects, it is important to note that businesses will have successes and growth far after FY 19. Some infrastructure improvements have been completed within the Belmont neighborhood; however, project outcomes cannot be reported until the project activities are fully complete. Due to the global health pandemic, COVID-19, several CDBG and HOME projects experienced delays throughout the region. Projects that are continuing into FY20 will have their outcomes reported in next year’s CAPER (FY 20-21). 1 Page 40 of 249 CDBG Activities – Program Year 2019 Goal Actual Support Job Improvement through Microenterprise Assistance Business 25 23 Assisted Support Homeless and Transition to Independence Persons 150 570 Assisted Conduct Public Services Employment Training Persons 28 26 Assisted Conduct Employment Training Sessions through Technical Persons 25 23 Assistance Assisted Enhance & Improve Access to Neighborhood Amenities Persons 3800 3700 Assisted For the Program Year 2019 (July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020), the City completed 2 homeowner rental rehabilitation projects, compared to the goal of 3. Region-wide, HOME Consortium projects also included four new affordable rental units, and ten (10) homeowner rehabilitation projects, and one homebuyer assistance project, for an overall regional total of 15 units. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of CDBG beneficiaries and fifty-six percent (56%) of HOME beneficiaries were minorities. Note, for CDBG, the count breakdown for Race data equals the count breakdown for Ethnicity. Low to moderate area (LMA) projects, such as the 10th & Page infrastructure project, does not include race/ethnicity data in outcomes. HOME figures are based on head of household only. The table below outlines the activities, goals, and outcomes for the Program Year 19 HOME program. HOME Consortium Activities - Program Year 2019 Project Type Goal Actual Homeowner Rehab for Substandard Houses 3 2 TOTAL 3 2 Geographic Distribution and Location of Investments Target Area Planned Actual Narrative Description Percentage Percentage of Allocation of Allocation 3 Homeowner Rehabilitation project completed, and 5 Albemarle County 8% 21% underway CDBG dollars, plus 2 HOME projects –2 homeowner City of rehabilitation completed and 9 down payment assistance Charlottesville 44% 35% underway Fluvanna County 9% 21% Completed two new rental units Work on the FTHB program has progressed with acquisition Greene County 11% 4% of land for the two new rental homes Louisa County 18% 12% One homeowner rehab and one new rental completed 4 Homeowner rehabilitation and one new rental unit completed and one down payment assistance for a FTHB Nelson County 9% 7% assisted 2 Page 41 of 249 Through CDBG, HOME, and local housing programs, much has been done over the last fiscal year to maintain and grow affordable housing across in the City and across the HOME Consortium. The full FY 19 CAPER Draft Report can be found on the City’s website by clicking here under the resources tab. SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FY 20-21 Current Year's Plan: The priorities set by Council for FY 20, as determined at the September 16, 2019 public hearing, were access to affordable housing (including but not limited to low income housing redevelopment), workforce development (including but not limited to low income housing redevelopment), workforce development (including but not limited to efforts to bolster Section 3 training opportunities and partnerships with the City’s GO programs) microenterprise assistance, access to quality childcare, homeowner rehabilitation, and down payment assistance. For FY 20, 20% of the CDBG entitlement was allocated to Administration and Planning, which pays for the Grants Coordinator position and other grant support fees (i.e., Environmental Review Records, citizen participation, Davis Bacon, Section 3 requirements, etc.), and 15% of the balance was devoted to public service activities. The remaining funds were set-aside for economic development projects and for the Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood. The current fiscal year’s adopted budget is attached to show how funding has been allocated to the different funding categories. Following the public hearing, staff is asking Council to provide the following direction: 1. Set priorities for CDBG & HOME Programs – Council is asked to determine what the priorities are for FY 21-22 CDBG and HOME Programs. Having specific priorities helps the CDBG Task Force ensure that the diminishing funds are targeted towards projects that meet the goals of Council, the Consolidated Plan and the Growing Opportunities Report. The high priority needs identified in the Consolidated Plan include: risk of homelessness, lack of jobs that pay a sufficient wage, rental cost-burden, lack of training needed by employers, high cost home purchase, transportation access barriers, housing options for special needs, lack of childcare options, and lack of shelter for homeless. An emphasis on workforce development, access to quality childcare, microenterprise assistance, homeowner rehab and down payment assistance helps to meet these goals and needs and are consistent with Council goals, the Consolidated Plan, and the Growing Opportunities Report. 2. Confirm Priority Neighborhood - Last year, Council designated Ridge as the Priority Neighborhood for FY 20-21 and approved Ridge Street as the Priority Neighborhood for the upcoming 3-year cycle with funds being targeted in income eligible service areas as Belmont completed the three year cycle rotation. Ridge Street and Belmont are located within the Strategic Investment Area (SIA). Historically, Priority Neighborhoods receive three fiscal years of funding. In the past, priority neighborhood funds were set at $200,000, however, reduced entitlement amounts would make this amount more than 50% of the anticipated budget. As a result of program income received and reprogramming of funds 3 Page 42 of 249 from closed projects, about $13,324 was applied to the Priority Neighborhood this fiscal year. Council normally names only one Priority Neighborhood at a time. In order to ensure plenty of time for citizen engagement and coordination with the various City committees, staff will need to confirm if Council would like to move forward with the previously designated Priority Neighborhood, choose to not designate a Priority Neighborhood, or change the Priority Neighborhood. Each year the total grant funding has decreased, though the Priority neighborhood allocation has remained the same. Council has allocated $200,000 towards the Priority Neighborhood since the 1990’s and it has now become more than 50% of the grant allocation. During the September 16, 2019 Council Meeting, this amount was lowered to $150,000. This will allow for the overall allocation to be spent down in a manner that meets HUD Timeliness requirements. Ridge Street is planned to undergo two additional fiscal years of CDBG funding as the next Priority Neighborhoods in rotation, as approved previously by City Council. 3. Determine if CDBG funds should be set aside for Economic Development – Last year, Council set aside 11% of the entitlement amount for Economic Development activities or about $45,000; however, only $15,000 in eligible projects were funded. These funds are used to help qualified entrepreneurs start businesses as well as help existing businesses improve their capacity and increase profit. 4. Determine the percentage for Public Service Projects – The maximum amount of the budget that can be allocated towards Public Service Programs is 15% as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Council can decide to keep the allocation at 15% or designate a lower percentage. The current budget for Public Service projects is about $53,354.58. Examples of previous projects include support for the homeless, child care programs, and education scholarships to increase self-sufficiency. 5. Administration and Planning – This amount is capped by HUD at 20% of the total CDBG budget. The current budget for admin and planning is $83,873.40. Once the City accepts the CDBG and HOME funding, the staffing, grant program reporting, and community engagement requirements are supported with admin and planning dollars as mandated by HUD. 6. Additional Guidelines - Any other guidelines or directions Council may wish to give in determining how CDBG and HOME funds should be spent. Community Engagement: The CDBG Task Force will meet over the winter to review Housing and Public Service projects and make recommendations for funding to Council in spring 2020. The City’s Strategic Action Team will review Economic Development applications. A Ridge Street Task Force was formed to make recommendations that could use all funding available. Funding is allocated for the Ridge Street Taskforce to gather and provide recommendations. Notice of the public hearing for 4 Page 43 of 249 the initial recommendations and notice of a public comment period for the CAPER was advertised in the newspaper on August 26, 2020. The public comment period for the CAPER is open from September 4 to September 18, 2020. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan This agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to have Economic Sustainability, Quality Housing Opportunities for All, and A Connected Community. Projects also have the potential to many of the objectives and goals listed in the City’s Strategic Plan: An Inclusive Community of Self-sufficient Residents, A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, A Strong, Creative and Diversified Economy, and a Healthy and Safe Community. Budgetary Impact: HOME funds will require a 25% local match. In previous years, this match came from the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. There is no impact to the general fund regarding CDBG funds. Recommendations: Staff Recommends: • Council move forward with priorities similar to the priorities outlined last year. • Approving the 15% maximum allocation allowed for Public Service Projects and approving the 20% maximum allocation allowed for Admin and Planning. • Public Service funds remain citywide, Non-profit partners are made aware of the Strategic Investment Area and encouraged to recruit beneficiaries from that area. • Approximately $61,249.28 be set aside for Economic Development Activities. • Approximately $61,249.28 be set aside for Housing Activities • The remaining estimated CDBG budget, $150,000, goes towards Priority Neighborhood funding. • Ridge Street as the next Priority Neighborhood in the rotation, as approved previously by City Council. • Any Public Service, Housing or Economic Development activity must meet the goals and recommendations of the Growing Opportunities report in addition to the Consolidated Plan. • For HOME funds, if there is any program income or reprogramming available, those funds go towards housing activities to support down payment assistance and homeowner rehab. Alternatives: Alternatives include funding the Priority Neighborhood, Economic Development, Public Service, and Housing programs at different percentages or restricting beneficiaries to specific areas of the City. Specifically, Council could choose to fund the Priority Neighborhood at an amount different than the recommended $150,000. 5 Page 44 of 249 Attachments: Proposed Budget Resolution Current Budget Eligible CDBG and HOME Activities – click here to view list CDBG Priority Neighborhoods Map – click here to view map Draft CAPER FY2019-2020 6 Page 45 of 249 Proposed FY 21-22 CDBG & HOME Budget FY 20-21 Funding FY 21-22 Funding Priority $201,912.90 $150,000 (or Neighborhood remaining EN available) Economic $15,000 $61,294.28 Development Public Service 15% EN 15% EN Admin 20% EN 20% EN Housing $78,550.12 $61,294.28 CDBG Entitlement $419,367 $419,367 (EN) HOME Entitlement $100,742.50 $100,742.50 (plus match) Program Income and $13,324 $20,000 Reprogramming Note: As proposed, if CDBG funds are decreased, Priority Neighborhood funding would be decreased. Also, there is no way to predict how much program income will be received during the fiscal year; $20,000 is a conservative estimate based on prior years. 7 Page 46 of 249 A RESOLUTION COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR CDBG and HOME FUNDS FY 21-22 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Entitlement Community for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs and as such expects to receive an award of funding July 1, 2021; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Charlottesville’s Citizen Participation Plan for HUD funding, the CDBG Task Force composed of citizen and community representatives will need to review potential projects and make recommendations for funding in Spring 2021; BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the priorities and spending allowances for FY 2021-2022 shall be as follows:  Council’s priorities for the CDBG and HOME program for FY 21-22 shall be access to affordable housing (including but not limited to low income housing redevelopment), workforce development (including but not limited to efforts to bolster Section 3 training opportunities and partnerships with the City’s GO programs), microenterprise assistance, access to quality childcare, homeowner rehabilitation, and down payment assistance.  For FY 21-22, $61,249.28 CDBG entitlement shall be set aside for Economic Development  For FY 21-22, $61,249.28 CDBG entitlement shall be set aside for Housing Programs.  For FY 21-22, the Priority Neighborhood shall be Ridge Street and the allocation shall be $150,000 of the total CDBG entitlement. If the CDBG entitlement received is less than the estimate amount of $150,000 this amount will be decreased accordingly.  The CDBG Admin and Planning budget shall be set at 20% of the total CDBG entitlement.  The Public Services budget shall be set at 15% of the total CDBG entitlement. Approved by Council September 21, 2020 Kyna Thomas, CMC Clerk of Council 8 Page 47 of 249 2020-2021 CDBG and HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS RECOMMENDED BY CDBG/HOME TASK FORCE and SAT: 3/4/2020, 3/5/2020 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: 5/4/2020 I. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD A. Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $201,912.90* II. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Community Investment Collaborative - Scholarships $15,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $15,000 III. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS A. TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $53,354.58 SOCIAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $53,354.58 (15% EN) IV. HOUSING PROJECTS A. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $78,550.12 HOUSING PROGRAMS TOTAL: $78,550.12 V. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: A. Admin and Planning $83,873.40 (20% EN) GRAND TOTAL: $432,691 ESTIMATED NEW ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $419,367 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $0.00 REPROGRAMMING: $13,324 * Funding includes reprogrammed funds _______________________________________________________________________ 2020-2021 HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS A. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $33,507.84* B. Habitat for Humanity – Down Payment Assistance $47,086.16* TOTAL: $127,210.56 ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $80,594 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $107,062.06 PROGRAM INCOME: $26,468.06 REPROGRAMMING: $0.00 LOCAL MATCH: $20,148.50 * Includes estimated EN available after program income applied 9 Page 48 of 249 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) for the City of Charlottesville and the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Reporting Period: July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020 Draft for Public Comment Comments accepted September 4 – September 18, 2020 Prepared by Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission P.O. Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 979-7310 and the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 970-3182 10 Page 49 of 249 CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a) Goals for the HOME program are focused on assisting first-time homebuyers, preserving existing housing stock by rehabilitating owner-occupied homes, and developing new housing units for home ownership or rental. HOME Consortium activities are carried out through non- profit housing foundations in the region: the Albemarle Home Improvement Program (AHIP), the Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation (F/LHF), the Nelson County Community Development Foundation (NCCDF), and Skyline CAP (serving Greene County). HOME funds are often combined with other funding, extending the reach and effectiveness of the program. The City of Charlottesville (the City) seeks proposals for the use of its HOME funds through a competitive process. City projects in the Program Year 2020 (PY 2020) Action Plan consisted of major housing rehabilitation projects through Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). The HOME CHDO set-aside funds are allocated to a locality on a rotation basis, to provide funding for development of one or more new housing units, either rental units or homes for purchase. For PY19, it was Louisa County’s turn in the rotations. The CHDO project consisted of acquisition of land and construction of a rental of a rental property. Skyline CAP is moving forward with construction of two single-family homes. The environmental review has been completed, including submission of builder plans and elevations to satisfy the condition from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR), since the property is located within the Stanardsville Historic District. Skyline CAP has acquired the land and submitted materials to Greene County to divide the parcel into two building lots. Skyline CAP has been undertaking outreach to identified a potential first-time homebuyer for one of the units. The region has a high level of capacity to carry out these housing projects. HOME funds in turn contribute to the stability and sustainability of the housing foundations in the region. Progress toward goals set forth in the five-year Consolidated Plan and one-year Action Plan has been steady and positive. Overall, HOME funds are meeting critical needs in our region. Goals for the CDBG program are focused on supporting job improvement through job training, providing access to quality childcare, providing technical assistance for microenterprises, supporting homeless persons and their transition to independence through re-entry support, and supporting infrastructure improvements to make public spaces more accessible. Activities for the year included assisting 20 low/moderate income persons with business development (technical assistance) and 20 low/moderate income persons with basic literacy instruction; 1-2 major homeowner rehabilitations (combined with HOME funds); and providing 27-28 homeless persons access to services through a coordinated entry system. Activities were carried out through sub-recipients that serve City residents. CDBG projects are consistent with annual City Council priorities that are established one-year prior to the beginning of the program year. The City seeks proposals for use of its CDBG funds through a competitive request for proposal process. Refer to the CDBG and HOME charts below which outline the PY 19 goals and outcomes of the CDBG and HOME programs. 11 Page 50 of 249 Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified. As identified in the Consolidated Plan, the most prevalent housing problem in the region is high housing cost burden, with more pressures on renters than homeowners. Substandard conditions remain, especially in rural areas, and energy inefficiency add to cost burdens. The HOME program has focused its efforts on substantial rehabilitation of owner-occupied homes, including addressing energy efficiency, and on providing affordable rental units. PY19 HOME projects also included adding a new affordable homeowner unit to assist with the high housing cost burden problems that exist in the region and work toward providing down-payment assistance for first time homebuyers A primary driver of housing need is a lack of jobs in the region that pay sufficient wages to support a family. In the City, there is a large need for job training to match residents with the current and projected skills needed by employers in the region. Microenterprise training is an economic development tool for creating and growing jobs. In addition to job training and microenterprise assistance, there is a large need for quality childcare to be able to retain a job. A review of the PY19 outcomes shows the City and Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium are making good progress towards addressing the objectives identified in the plan. Some projects that were awarded funding in PY19 are still underway, and outcomes will be reported when projects are complete in future program years. For PY19, completed HOME projects included one first-time homebuyer assistance project, development of four new rental units, and ten (10) homeowner rehabilitation projects, for a total of 15 units. For CDBG projects the City worked with sub recipients to implement public service and economic development projects. Economic development accomplishments for microenterprises are expected to have successes and growth far beyond PY17. Public service partners provided workforce development training, re-entry services to persons with criminal background history, as well as childcare subsidies to assist with job retention for persons who are low to moderate income. In addition to public service and economic development activities, through the Belmont Priority neighborhood set-aside, the City also supported infrastructure improvements to enhance sidewalk accessibility by making sidewalks more accessible for pedestrians. CDBG Activities - Program Year 2019 Goal Actual Support Job Improvement Persons Access to Quality Childcare 23 0 Assisted Businesses Microenterprise Assistance 25 23 Assisted Support Homeless and Transition to Independence Persons Re-entry Services 150 89 Assisted Conduct Training Sessions 12 Page 51 of 249 Businesses Technical Assistance for Microenterprises 25 23 Assisted Support Infrastructure Improvements Persons Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities 3800 3700 Assisted Persons & TOTAL Business Assisted 4023 3835 The figures in the table represent CDBG projects completed between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020. As noted, some projects are reported as businesses or individual persons and some of the outcomes share strategic plan goals. The PY 14 10th & Page infrastructure project outcomes are being reported in the PY 17 CAPER because the project was not fully complete in previous program years. PY15, PY16, PY17 funding for the 10th & Page Priority Neighborhood is expected to be completed by the end of PY18 and outcomes will be reported in the PY18 CAPER. 13 Page 52 of 249 HOME Activities - Program Year 2019 Goal Actual Albemarle County Complete 5 housing rehabilitation projects for low and very low- 5 3 income homeowners in substandard housing in Albemarle County. Charlottesville Rehabilitate 3 owner-occupied homes 3 2 Fluvanna Provide down payment assistance to 1 low/moderate income 1 0 family Build two new affordable rental unit in Fluvanna County. 2 2 Rehabilitate 1 owner occupied home 1 0 Greene Develop one new home for purchase (included in DPA category) 0 0 Rehabilitate two owner occupied homes 2 0 Provide down payment assistance to two first time homebuyer 2 0 Louisa Provide down payment assistance to first time homebuyer 1 0 Rehabilitate one owner-occupied home 1 1 Build one new affordable rental unit 1 1 Nelson Provide assistance to 1 First Time Home Buyer 1 1 Build one new affordable rental unit 0 1 Rehabilitate 7 substandard owner-occupied houses 7 4 TOTAL 27 15 Homebuyer Assistance 5 1 Homeowner Rehabilitation 19 10 Rental 3 4 TOTAL 27 15 The totals in the table represent HOME projects completed between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. Five additional activities were initiated during the year and are moving toward completion. The City’s 2017 CHDO project commenced in PY17 and is continuing. The PY18 CHDO project by Skyline CAP, serving Greene County is underway. The PY19 CHDO project began in PY19 and was completed within the year. 14 Page 53 of 249 CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted). 91.520(a) CDBG HOME White 252 11 Black or African American 448 3 Asian 78 American Indian or American Native 8 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 3 Other multi-racial 53 1 Total 791 15 Hispanic 45 0 Not Hispanic 791 15 Table 1 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds Narrative Fifty-eight percent (58%) of CDBG beneficiaries and fifty-six percent (56%) of HOME beneficiaries were minorities. Note, for CDBG, the count breakdown for Race data equals the count breakdown for Ethnicity. Low to moderate area (LMA) projects, such as the 10th & Page infrastructure project, does not include race/ethnicity data in outcomes. HOME figures are based on head of household only. CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a) Identify the resources made available Source of Source Resources Amount Expended Funds Made During Program Available Year Entitlement Funds, Unexpended CDBG Funds, Returns $393,152.00 $232,310.13 HOME Entitlement Funds 588,830 $385,456.61 Other CAHF and Program Income 5,053,325.51 2,235,354.98 Table 2 - Resources Made Available Narrative 408417 The “other” category represents the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) and HOME Program Income (PI). In 2019, CAHF supported activities such as: the City’s free paint program (for income eligible homeowners), permanently supported housing for homeless individuals, down payment assistance, homeowner rehab and emergency repair, new construction of rental housing, new construction of homeowner units, rental assistance/relief and real estate tax relief programs for the elderly and disabled, and veterans, a landlord risk reduction fund, and acquisition for new affordable housing homeowner units. 15 Page 54 of 249 Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Target Area Planned Actual Narrative Description Percentage Percentage of of Allocation Allocation Albemarle 3 Homeowner Rehabilitation project County 8% 21% completed, and 5 underway CDBG plus 2 HOME projects –2 homeowner City of rehabilitation completed and 9 down payment Charlottesville 44% 35% assistance underway Fluvanna County 9% 21% Completed two new rental units Work on the FTHB program has progressed with acquisition of land for the two new rental Greene County 11% 4% homes One homeowner rehab and one new rental Louisa County 18% 12% completed 4 Homeowner rehabilitation and one new rental unit completed and one down payment Nelson County 9% 7% assistance for a FTHB assisted Table 3 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Narrative The HOME entitlement is split evenly amongst the six localities of the HOME Consortium. The planned percentages of allocations above were based on budgeted entitlement amounts, including expected Program Income. The City of Charlottesville receives all CDBG funds. Louisa County was allocated the 15% CHDO set-aside for PY19. Actual percentages of the allocations were based on vouchers processed through IDIS for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, including CDBG, HOME EN and CR, and HOME PI. Leveraging Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan. In addition to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) expenditures described above, leveraged resources include Indoor Plumbing funds, Housing Preservation Grant funds, weatherization funds, and Regional Homeownership Center funds. HOME match is provided through a number of sources. The present value of money of subprime mortgages through Habitat for Humanity constitutes the largest component of match. Though not all HOME‐assisted, all Habitat projects are HOME eligible. For the 2019 program year, match has been calculated for the period from July 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020 to get match calculations aligned with the Federal Fiscal Year. Match in past years has been reported for the Consortium’s HOME program year. Between July 1 and September 2020, Habitat closed on 7 homes providing a total match amount of $327,350. Other local match applied to completed projects included local funds of $1,106, private grants of $80,294, homeowner cash of $500 16 Page 55 of 249 applied to HOME activities. These amounts were drawn from completion report data reported by sub-recipients on an activity basis. Fiscal Year Summary – HOME Match 1. Excess match from prior Federal fiscal year $8,577,845 2. Match contributed during current Federal fiscal year $409,249 3. Total match available for current Federal fiscal year (Line 1 plus Line 2) $8,987,094 4. Match liability for current Federal fiscal year $54,276.28 5. Excess match carried over to next Federal fiscal year (Line 3 minus Line 4) $8,905,195 Program Income Report Program Income – Enter the program amounts for the reporting period Balance on Amount Total amount Amount Balance on hand at received during expended expended for hand at end of beginning of reporting during TBRA reporting reporting period reporting period period $50,828.75 $50,828.75 $44,727.76 $0 $6,100.99 Table 7 – Program Income 17 Page 56 of 249 Minority Business Enterprises and Women Business Enterprises – Indicate the number and dollar value of contracts for HOME projects completed during the reporting period Total Minority Business Enterprises White Alaskan Asian or Black Hispanic Non- Native or Pacific Non- Hispanic American Islander Hispanic Indian Contracts Dollar Amount $560,714 0 0 0 0 $560,714 Number 13 0 0 0 0 13 Sub-Contracts Number 16 0 0 0 0 16 Dollar Amount $65,954 0 0 0 0 $65,954 Total Women Male Business Enterprise s Contracts Dollar Amount $560,714 0 $560,714 Number 13 0 13 Sub-Contracts Number 16 0 16 Dollar Amount $65,954 0 $65,954 Table 4 – Minority Business and Women Business Enterprises CR‐20 ‐ Affordable Housing 91.520(b) Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low‐ income, low‐income, moderate‐income, and middle‐income persons served. Number of Persons Served One-Year Actual Goals Number of Homeless households to be 0 0 provided affordable housing units Number of Non-Homeless households to be 32 16 provided affordable housing units Number of Special-Needs households to be 0 2 provided affordable housing units Total 16 18 Page 57 of 249 Table 11 – Number of Households Number of Persons Served One-Year Actual Goals Number of households supported through 0 Rental Assistance Number of households supported through 5 4 the Production of New Units Number of households supported through 19 10 Rehab of Existing Units Number of households supported through 5 1 Acquisition of Existing Units Total 27 15 Table 12 – Number of Households Supported Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals. The figures in the table represent HOME projects completed between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. Eighteen additional activities were initiated during the year and are moving toward completion. The Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation completed three new HOME rental units and Nelson County Community Foundation completed one new rental during the PY 19 year. AHIP met Albemarle’s County rehabilitation goal of completing five rehabs and is currently working on five more. Four of the other counties had rehabilitation goals. In total, the region localities completed had ten rehabilitation projects completed. None of the four localities with goals for down payment assistance activities met their goals. Challenges that subrecipients reported include sale price limitations, borrowing capacity of clients and issues with clients being outbid in the market. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic much work slowed down for health concerns that cautioned for many safety measures that made work crews smaller. Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans. Some of the PY 19 unmet goals will be met during the PY19 program year. The global health pandemic COVID-19 played a role in delaying several CDBG and HOME activities during program year 2019. Outcomes will not have an impact on future annual action plans, however, they will have an impact on future CAPERs. Number of Persons Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual Extremely Low-Income (less than 30%) 567 5 Low (31- to 50%) 3 5 Moderately-low (51 to 60%) 0 3 19 Page 58 of 249 Moderate-income (61 to 80%) 0 12 Total 570 15 Table 13 – Number of Persons Served The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH) serves as the lead agency for the Continuum of Care. TJACH reports that for the Program Year ending June 30, 2020, 267 people accessed emergency shelter services and 127 people received homeless prevention services (all of which successfully prevented the household from entering homelessness). Additionally, 96 people who were formerly homeless received permanent housing services last year. 552 people received an intake appointment as part of the Coordinated Entry System and referrals for services including but not limited to emergency shelter, job/employment training resources, food, medical care, mental health care, substance use treatment, and housing assistance. HOME figures are based on head of household only, per IDIS report PR 23. For CDBG, 97.36% were extremely low income, 2.64% were low income, and 0% were moderate income. There were an additional 12 individuals from the vulnerable illiterate population served. CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through: Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH) Continuum of Care seeks to establish and maintain a coordinated system of care so that homelessness in our region is rare, brief and nonrecurring. TJACH has adopted a housing first approach to quickly connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment, or service participation requirements. A Community Case Review convenes two times a month to provide a problem-solving body to area providers working with individuals and families experiencing homelessness. The Community Case Review consists of a convener appointed by TJACH and staffed by representatives from anchor agencies, including PACEM, The Haven, Region Ten, On Our Own, and area Departments of Social Services. Each meeting, the Community Case Review works through the community’s By-Name List of everyone known to be experiencing homelessness in the area and documents action steps aimed at quickly resolving homelessness for each person reviewed. Additionally, particularly complex cases are referred to the Community Case Review for solution-focused discussion designed to resolve homelessness quickly and effectively. A coordinated assessment process is used to determine eligibility for available services, collect required data, and develop case plans for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Coordinated assessment is available every day at The Haven and relevant forms are posted to the TJACH website (www.tjach.org) so that service providers outside The Haven may access continuum services. Households can also call the City of Charlottesville Dept. of Human Service’s Community Resource Line to schedule a homeless intake appointment either in-person or via phone. TJACH uses the Vulnerability Index – Service Provision Decision-Making Assessment Tool (VI-SPDAT) as its primary assessment tool for coordinated assessment purposes. Additionally, 20 Page 59 of 249 we collect HUD-required data elements and complete a housing barrier assessment and housing plan during intake appointments. TJACH homelessness service providers collect required data elements and enter data into HMIS on a weekly basis to ensure close to real-time community level data and on-time reporting to local, state and federal stakeholders. Region Ten PATH Program, The Haven, and On Our Own provide street outreach to individuals and families experiencing homelessness, with a focus on those who do not have shelter, to provide them with information and access to services. Region Ten conducts in-reach with Western State Hospital and Haven staff conducts in-reach to the jail to assist with transitions and community reintegration. Region Ten PATH program conducts in-reach at The Haven, Mohr Center and Virginia Supportive Housing to engage guests in mental health treatment and care. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons PACEM provides a seasonal, low-barrier emergency shelter to individuals from late October to mid-April using host church sites for shelter and meals. PACEM provides coordinated assessment services to those individuals and families that seek shelter but have not completed a coordinated assessment at The Haven. Families in Crisis provides emergency hotel/motel vouchers to families experiencing homelessness and complete a coordinated assessment packet. Salvation Army provides high-barrier emergency shelter services year-round for individuals and families experiencing homelessness that can maintain sobriety and are looking for work or are working. Shelter for Help in Emergency provides emergency shelter services year-round for women and children fleeing domestic violence, referred by other emergency shelters and emergency room staff. Monticello Area Community Action Agency Hope House provides transitional housing and supportive services with a preference for households with children where one adult is working. These resources provide adequate shelter services to the community in need during the season in which the low-barrier shelter operates. During the warmer months, there are individuals that struggle to identify adequate resources. A day shelter operates daily to provide basic and respite care to all, regardless of whether they are engaged in other shelter services within the continuum. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. Prevention staff coordinates activities in communication with area emergency assistance providers including Alliance for Interfaith Ministries (AIM), CARES, Love, Inc., departments of social services, and area churches whenever possible. During PY 2020, 111 people across 66 households were supported with homelessness prevention services. 21 Page 60 of 249 The Haven provides prevention services and subsidies to individuals and families in order to avoid the need for emergency shelter stays. Rental subsidies and utility payments are provided to those individuals and families determined eligible through the use of a validated, structured decision-making tool. Priority is given to those households with a previous experience of literal homelessness. The Haven uses a service approach focused on providing the least amount of subsidy necessary to avoid literal homelessness and will make use of all available informal and mainstream resources in this effort. Ongoing eligibility for subsidies will be assessed every 90 days, at a minimum. Monthly case management will be provided to develop and implement a housing stability plan. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again The Haven provides housing navigation services to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness to identify available low-income housing resources and negotiate leases. The Housing Navigator also develops relationships with area landlords and provides education on available rental subsidy programs to housing organizations. The Haven provides rapid re-housing services to quickly connect individuals and families experiencing literal homelessness to permanent housing. Rental arrearages and utility bills may be paid if they represent an actual barrier to permanent housing. Rental subsidies may be provided to ensure housing stability. Ongoing eligibility is determined every 90 days. Monthly case management is provided to develop and implement a housing stability plan. The Community Case Review Team assists in this effort by reviewing, developing, and implementing housing stabilization plans. During PY 2020, 59 people were served through Rapid Re-Housing. The Departments of Social Services (DSS) participate in Community Case Review, Service Provider Council and TJACH Governance Board. Service providers work cooperatively with DSS workers to ensure that households experiencing homelessness have access to case management, adult and child protective services, foster care prevention activities, and mainstream benefits including SNAP, SSI/SSDI and Medicaid. Homelessness Service Providers work collaboratively with area schools, ReadyKids, Jefferson Area Board of Aging, Piedmont Housing Alliance, Habitat for Humanity, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, and other mainstream providers as a matter of course to assist people experiencing homelessness get or remain stably housed. A Community Case Review convenes two times a month to provide a problem-solving body to area providers working with individuals and families experiencing homelessness. The Community Case Review consists of a convener appointed by TJACH and staffed by representatives from anchor agencies, including PACEM, The Haven, Region Ten, On Our Own, and area Departments of Social Services. Each meeting, the Community Case Review works 22 Page 61 of 249 through the community’s By-Name List of everyone known to be experiencing homelessness in the area and documents action steps aimed at quickly resolving homelessness for each person reviewed. Additionally, particularly complex cases are referred to the Community Case Review for solution-focused discussion designed to resolve homelessness quickly and effectively. Region Ten operates a HUD-funded permanent supportive housing program for about 38 chronically homeless individuals. Community Case Review prioritizes the most vulnerable individuals with the longest histories of homelessness for this program when there are openings. Virginia Supportive Housing’s, The Crossings, provides 30 units of permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals in partnership with the Albemarle County Department of Housing and the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. The Continuum of Care now includes 153 Permanent Supportive Housing beds, including 25 units that service Veterans. CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j) For more than 60 years, the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) has taken great pride in being the primary provider of “housing of first opportunity” in the Charlottesville community. As such, the CRHA continues to strive tirelessly and passionately to be a resident-centered organization committed to excellence in providing affordable quality housing, revitalizing communities, and promoting upward mobility and self-sufficiency through partnerships in the public and private sectors. As an organization, the CRHA subscribes to a “Residents First!” philosophy that is grounded on relationships that develop and thrive only when mutual respect, dignity and commitment is afforded one another. CRHA continues to work in partnership with the Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR), the City of Charlottesville and the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation (CACF) through a 3 year, $283,000 CACF “Strengthening Systems” grant designed to improve the capacity, governance, resident engagement and working relationships between PHAR and CRHA. This effort includes cooperative redevelopment planning and implementation through a resident driven approach. In fiscal year 2020, the City Council approved: • Continued funding of $750,000 for the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program. This program, managed and administered by CRHA, provides city-funding for housing vouchers for low-income housing assistance. The City Council has also approved a projected commitment of an additional $3.6 million in funding for this program over the next four fiscal years. • $3,000,000 in funding for Public Housing Redevelopment. This funding is intended to support the capital costs associated with the redevelopment of public housing properties. The City Council has also approved a projected commitment of an additional 23 Page 62 of 249 $12,000,000 in funding over the next four fiscal years for continued redevelopment. CRHA entered into a redevelopment partnership agreement with a development partner and PHAR in fiscal year 2019 with first priority of redevelopment to be the renovation of the 105- unit Crescent Halls and construction of 62 new units on vacant land at South 1st Street. The City’s approval of $3 million in CIP funding in FY20 for public housing redevelopment and a projected commitment of an additional $12 million in CIP funding over the next four fiscal years helped to leverage LIHTC approval of these two projects. Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership The CRHA continues to explore the potential to transition its inventory of individual houses to current occupants or other CRHA residents. Dependent upon funding restrictions and implications for the release of the HUD declaration of trust, CRHA may potentially sell one or more of these units to facilitate homeownership opportunities while also helping stabilize the organization’s financial situation. Public Housing residents continue to be actively engaged in redevelopment planning. The CRHA Board of Commissioners has approved a Redevelopment Committee which includes residents and PHAR staff and board members to guide redevelopment activities and make recommendations to the CRHA Board. CRHA is also looking at the redevelopment potential on various public housing properties to develop mixed-income housing which includes low-income homeownership opportunities. CRHA is also currently undergoing a amendment to the HCV Administrative Plan to revamp the HCV Homeownership program. Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs In December 2018, CRHA was designated Troubled on HUD’s Office of Field Operation’s PHARS Troubled list. In May 2019, the City was notified that HUD would be conducting an independent assessment of CRHA. Eventually the City received a report of the findings dated September 26, 2019. The City is currently in discussions with HUD and CRHA as to the terms of the Recovery Agreement. 35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j) Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI): The AI was updated in 2018, as a 24 Page 63 of 249 supplement to the Consolidated Plan. City - Comprehensive Plan Update/Zoning Ordinance Re-write and Affordable Housing Strategy: On February 4, 2019, the City Council resolved to consolidate the comprehensive plan update, re-write of the Zoning Ordinance and competition of the Affordable Housing Strategy. To this end, Council approved approximately $975,183 to complete the project. In November of 2019, the City executed a contract with Rhodeside and Harwell, Incorporated (RHI) to retain the services of the consulting firm to assist staff in completing the Comprehensive Plan, Affordable Housing Strategy, and rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is currently underway and expected to be completed in late fall of 2021. The resulting document would have recommendations designed to spur development of affordable housing, eliminate existing land use and zoning barriers to development of affordable housing, and encourage mixed-use development supported by public transportation. City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Investment Area Implementation and Form-based Code: The City conducted a public hearing on November 12, 2019 on the draft Form-Based Code; however, on February 3, 2020, the City Council voted to defer action and requested a review by RHI Consultant team hired to update the City’s comprehensive plan, prepare affordable housing strategy and re-write the zoning ordinance. On a related note, the City continues its effort to support development and redevelopment activities in the SIA. More recently, in conjunction with PHAR and a committee of community stakeholders, CRHA has embarked on significant redevelopment planning efforts. In support of these efforts, the City of Charlottesville approved $3 million in 2019/2020 fiscal year to support CRHA’s rehabilitation of the 105 units at Crescent Halls and the development of Phase I of the South 1st Street (62 units). The City also earmarked $1.5 million to support the development of Phase II of South 1st Street that would result in additional 113 affordable units. The City Council also approved $5.9 million for the redevelopment of the Phase I of the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)’s Friendship Court Redevelopment project. The fund will be used to leverage Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project (150 units), and associated infrastructure. Ground breaking is scheduled in fall of 2020. Other assistance included funding to support TING providing free installation of internet services to public housing residents; and miscellaneous redevelopment planning support. The City has also proposed millions in funding over the next five years to continue to support public housing redevelopment efforts. The City continues funds annually to support Supplemental Rental Assistance Program administered by CRHA. This voucher program provides approximately 75 vouchers, annually, for households who are homeless and for Housing Choice Voucher Program eligible households. Albemarle County – Housing Policy: The County is in the process of updating its affordable housing policy, which was adopted in 2004 and tweaked in 2015. Staff is presenting the draft policy and implementation plan to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in August and October 2020. It is anticipated the final draft will be presented to the Board of Supervisors in December 2020 or January 2021 for final approval. Albemarle County – Resolution in Collaboration with Habitat for Humanity: The County of Albemarle is partnering with Habitat for Humanity on phase 1 of the Southwood Mobile 25 Page 64 of 249 Home Park redevelopment project. To support the project, the County has committed $3.4 million in cash contributions and property tax rebates. An additional $1 million in CDBG grant funding is also anticipated. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s Central Virginia Regional Housing Partnership (CVRHP): The CVRHP began convening in January of 2019. In April of 2019, the CVRHP released a Comprehensive Regional Housing Study and Needs Analysis which identified the number of households in the region that were cost-burdened as well as the number of units/interventions that are required to address the needs. Also in April of 2019, the CVRHP hosted the first annual Regional Housing Summit: Opening the Doors. The summit had an attendance of nearly 200 participants and included guest speakers who addressed the pressing housing needs in the region. The TJPDC continues to make progress on a Regional Housing Plan, which will include a draft housing chapter for the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson to consider in their comprehensive plans. The plan is expected to be completed by January of 2021. In the fall of 2019, the CVRHP underwent a strategic planning process to identify priority strategies that the Partnership will initiate to address housing needs in the region. Local Government Processes: Local governments recognize that approval time of permits can increase the cost of a project. They use a variety of methods to mitigate costs for projects that meet the priority needs, including expedited approvals, financial contributions, and keeping fees to a minimum. To incentivize developers to provide new affordable housing units, the City continues to offer reduced water facilities and sewer connection fees. The fee reduction applies to all new housing units affordable to households earning no more than 80% Area Median Income. In June 2017, the Charlottesville City Council approved developer fee waivers for private market developers providing on-site affordable housing units in developments that trigger the City’s Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance requirements. Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City and the HOME Consortium use HUD funds to address the needs of as many individuals as possible. They work with a wide range of community organizations to coordinate and provide services to needy individuals and families. The monthly meetings of the Housing Directors’ Council and the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless address obstacles to meeting underserved needs through cooperation and coordination. As a result of the Department of Justice settlement, Virginia has revised its waivers, which will assist people with developmental disabilities access housing and services in the least restrictive setting. Region Ten, the region’s Community Services Board, manages the waiver waiting list. City of Charlottesville and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PY19 CDBG and HOME funds were used to address various community identified needs outlined within the five-year 2018 Consolidated Plan. City CDBG funds were used to address public service needs including support for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, workforce development and support for programs that aid in self- sufficiency, and workforce development. Funds were also used to support economic development activities to assist entrepreneurs launch their own microenterprises through technical assistance. HOME funds were used to support homeowner rehabilitation within the City of Charlottesville. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission utilized HOME 26 Page 65 of 249 funds The City of Charlottesville has retained the services of RHI consulting team to update its comprehensive plan; re-write the Zoning Ordinance and complete the Affordable Housing Strategy. This consolidated project will have several recommendations designed to address obstacles to meeting the needs of underserved population. The Steering Committee for this project includes representatives from several neighborhood groups, business community, public housing, and housing advocate groups, nonprofit and faith-based organizations, etc. The City of Charlottesville continues to explore ways to meet the needs of underserved populations. The City Council has provided funding to support the redevelopment initiatives by the Charlottesville Redevelopment Housing Authority (CRHA) and the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA). The funds were earmarked for the CRHA’s Crescent Halls rehabilitation and South 1st Street projects; and PHA’s Friendship Court redevelopment initiative. Other actions included Supplemental Rental Assistance Program administered by CRHA, Small Business and Minority Business support and assistance program, down payment assistance, scattered site rehabilitation and emergency repair program/homeownership opportunities and home improvement assistance program administered by the Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) Building inspectors and local housing rehabilitation agencies have received training to allow them to evaluate, treat and/or remove lead paint hazards in our communities. Inspectors evaluate each job before the rehabilitation begins. Grant funding is used to pay for stabilization, interim controls and/or removal of lead-based hazards, which will continue to reduce lead paint concerns. The notification, “Watch Out for Lead-Based Paint Poisoning” is given to all persons assisted, even if the residence was constructed after 1978, since it serves as a good information and educational tool. Detection and remediation of lead-based paint in residences constructed before 1978 is to occur while rehabilitating homes and this is done in compliance with subpart J of 24 CFR Part 35. This can include paint stabilization, interim controls and/or abatement depending upon the circumstances and level of investment. In cases where lead-based paint is suspected, a certified laboratory, Aqua Air Laboratories in Charlottesville, is used to make this determination. Data from the Health Department indicate that reported cases of Elevated Blood Lead Levels of 5 μg/dL or higher for calendar year 2016 totaled 26 cases in children aged 15 or younger throughout the Thomas Jefferson Health District: 8 in Albemarle, 11 in Charlottesville, 1 in Greene, 4 in Louisa and 2 in Nelson. There were no cases of elevated blood lead levels in children reported from Fluvanna County. For 2016, elevated blood lead levels are defined as greater than or equal to 5 μg/dL. Previous years were defined as levels of 10 μg/dL. The change in the standard has resulted in a higher number of cases than in past years. In the last CAPER, 8 total cases were reported from February 2015 through January 2016, which was lower than the previous year’s regional total of 11. All cases are followed to be sure levels are coming down to normal or at least steadily improving. Houses being purchased with the down payment and closing cost assistance program to first-time homebuyers also must be reviewed for lead based 27 Page 66 of 249 paint. Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED) provides staff support for the Piedmont Workforce Network (PWN), including the local Workforce Investment Board and WIA service providers. Network2Work at PVCC, is a job network that connects job seekers to the skills and resources they need to become valued employees and helps employers find the quality employees they need for their companies. The City of Charlottesville, through CDBG economic development funds, supported projects to help low-income entrepreneurs launch their businesses and low-income microenterprises strengthen and grow. Through public services funds, CDBG projects address workforce development directly. The City continues its GO program which is a jobs-driven training program. To expand the training offerings, a GO Skilled Trades Academy was also piloted in January 2018 in order to provide basic foundations in the skilled trades due to all of the upcoming development projects in the area. FY19 funds benefited two training cohorts through the GO Trades program, equipping individuals with the training and education they needed to begin entry level careers in the skilled trades. Also, slightly outside the realm of jobs-driven workforce training, the OED launched GO GED Pathways in November 2017 at the request of City Council. The program is six weeks in length and offers a supportive environment where individuals obtain GED test preparation training, as well as workplace readiness skills/career coaching and a CPR/first aid certification. The goal upon completion of the program is not employment. Instead, the focus is on getting individuals back into the classroom to begin steps towards taking the GED, which is critical to better employment. The lack of transportation can be a serious barrier to employment. The Charlottesville Transit Center is a transit transfer facility just off the downtown mall. Albemarle County launched the 29 Express commuter bus route in May 2016. This service is operated by JAUNT and runs from the Forest Lakes/Hollymead area to UVA and the Downtown Library. UVA employees and students ride free and fares are $1.50 for everyone else. The route begins at 7:00am and 8:00am and returns at 4:40pm and 5:20pm. Charlottesville and Albemarle County, working with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), created the Regional Transit Partnership (RTP), which began meeting in August 2017. The Regional Transit Partnership (RTP) serves as an official advisory board, created by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and JAUNT, in Partnership with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to provide recommendations to decision-makers on transit- related matters. There are four main goals of the Partnership, including: A. Establishing Strong Communication: The Partnership will provide a long-needed venue to exchange information and resolve transit-related matters. 28 Page 67 of 249 B. Ensuring Coordination between Transit Providers: The Partnership will allow transit providers a venue to coordinate services, initiatives and administrative duties of their systems. C. Set the Regions Transit Goals and Vision: The Partnership will allow local officials and transit staff to work together with other stakeholders to craft regional transit goals. The RTP will also provide, through MPO staff and updates of the Transit Development Plans (TDPs), opportunities for regional transit planning. D. Identify Opportunities: The Partnership will assemble decision-makers and stakeholders to identify opportunities for improved transit services and administration, including evaluation of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Formal agreements for specific funding and service responsibilities between CAT, JAUNT, Charlottesville, Albemarle County and UVA are in place. The RTP completed development of a Memorandum of Understanding to serve as the funding formula first formal funding agreement between Charlottesville Area Transit and Albemarle County, adopted in May 2019. The Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) has been serving low-income families since 1965. MACAA serves the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson. MACAA offers a variety of programs and skill development initiatives for families and individuals below 125% of the federal poverty level. Its programs include Head Start for 3 and 4-year-olds, Project Discovery promoting academic achievement in high school, Hope House providing family stabilization for homeless families, Rural Outreach. Rural Outreach offices in Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson Counties provide crisis intervention to families through assistance with food, clothing, and financial help for rent, utilities and other emergencies while assessing their needs and linking them to other resources for in-depth services.” Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The use of HOME funds is coordinated through the monthly meetings of the Housing Directors Council, with projects carried out by non-profit housing foundations or community action agencies. This structure promotes regional cooperation and encourages creative use of the funds and leveraging of other funding to maximize the impact of HOME funds. HOME funds contribute to the capacity and stability of the housing foundations. The City defined non-housing community development needs through the Comprehensive Planning process. The City of Charlottesville has also placed a strong emphasis on citizen participation in the planning process, particularly for affordable housing, neighborhood priorities, and public services. Institutional structure and capacity are also provided through the Thomas Jefferson Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH), the Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust (TJCLT), Habitat for Humanity, and non-profit housing foundations in the 5 counties. Piedmont Housing Alliance has created housing opportunities in the region for more than 30 years, with an award-winning and HUD-approved housing counseling program, financing for home ownership and housing development as a U.S. Treasury-certified Community Development Financial Institution (CFDI), and property management and housing development to create and maintain high-quality affordable housing options, as the only regional CHDO. The City’s Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) also meets to carry out City Council’s charge to further affordable housing within the City. 29 Page 68 of 249 Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) A number of social service and housing agencies are involved in serving special needs populations throughout the region, including the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), the Arc of the Piedmont for people with developmental disabilities, Region Ten Community Services Board for people with mental illness and substance abuse and the Independence Resource Center. As central Virginia’s designated Area Agency on Aging for Planning District 10, JABA provides a wide range of services that support seniors and adults with disabilities so they can stay healthy, safe and independent for as long as possible, preventing or delaying the need for institutionalization in long-term care facilities. JABA partners with senior housing providers in Charlottesville (Timberlake Place, Woods Edge, and Park View Apartments) and in Nelson County (Ryan School Apartments). Regular JABA health screenings and services are provided by JABA nurses at Park View at South Pantops, Ryan School Apartments and Woods Edge Apartments. There are two LIHTC housing projects in Albemarle County that are nearing the end of their 30- year extended use period. The first of these is Wilton Farm Apartments, which has been in service since 1992 and has a total of 144 low-income units. The Region Ten Community Services Board provides comprehensive diagnosis, treatment and training for persons with Serious Mental Illness and chemical dependence for persons within the Planning District. Region Ten administers Continuum of Care (CoC) Permanent Supportive Housing projects, using a scattered site model, serving 30 people. Region Ten also serves 67 people with housing in apartments or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units with funding through the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS). A grant from the City of Charlottesville funds 10 housing slots for people who are homeless. Region Ten administers about 220 Housing Choice Vouchers. Region Ten provides case management services. The Thomas Jefferson Health District administers the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS (HOPWA) program, serving 33 people, with long-term (24 people) or short-term assistance. Qualification for the program is based on a diagnosis of HIV and income. Although this is part of the Continuum of Care, the program does not have a preference for those who are or have been homeless. The Thomas Jefferson Health District provides testing, screening, advocacy, housing assistance and case management for people with HIV or those at high risk for HIV infection. The Health District also houses the SSI/SSDI Outreach Access and Recovery (SOAR) program. SOAR is a national program designed to increase access to the disability income benefit programs administered by the Social Security Administration for eligible adult who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness and have a mental illness, physical impairment or co-occurring substance use disorder. The Thomas Jefferson Health District partnered with TJACH to hire a full time SOAR Benefits Coordinator to work with our local homeless population to obtain their Social Security Benefits. 30 Page 69 of 249 For people with disabilities, housing foundations in the Counties and projects funded through the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) in the City include necessary accessibility features as part of the scope of work for rehabilitation and emergency repair projects. Funds may be drawn from a variety of sources. Agencies such as JABA, Region 10, and Community Services Housing, Inc provide services to the special needs population. Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdiction’s analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a) See also the table included at the end of this report. The City continues its support of affordable housing through the following policies/programs: • Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) –To increase housing choice for the City’s extremely-low and low-income households, the Charlottesville City Council approved the creation of a City-funded rental assistance program. The City allocated $750,000 for the CSRAP which includes funding for administration for CRHA to address concerns identified by HUD. For the CSRAP vouchers, the CRHA continues to administer this program. • The City has approved the creation of a landlord risk mitigation fund to encourage market rate landlords to offer affordable rental housing to low-income households. • The City of Charlottesville has provided several years of funding for five units at The Crossings at Fourth and Preston. . • Design4Life Cville Program • Reduced Water and Sewer Connection Fee Program for affordable housing units. The water facility fee for connecting a unit of affordable housing to the city water system with a 5/8” meter shall be $800.00. The sewer facility fee for connecting a unit of affordable housing to the city sewer system with a 5/8” meter shall be $800.00. An applicant for the reduced water facility fee or sewer facility fee agrees to pay the difference between the reduced water facility fee and the standard water facility fee, or the reduced sewer facility fee and the standard sewer facility fee – so long as the unit is affordable. • Free Paint Program – This program offers paint, primer, and up to 8 tubes of caulk to low-income Charlottesville homeowners who are looking to decorate the exterior of their home, including siding, trim, porches, and roofs. • Real Estate Tax Relief, Tax Exemption, and Rental Relief Programs for the Elderly or Permanently Disabled and/ Veterans • Charlottesville Housing Affordability Tax Grant Program (CHAP) where individuals may qualify for a grant of $500, $750, $1000 or full tax abatement depending on the Federal Adjusted Gross Income. The grant would be applied to the second half real estate tax bill. • City of Charlottesville BankOn Program consists of one-on-one financial counseling, financial literacy seminars, a bank referral network and a microloan program. BankOn has provides financial education to over 200 Charlottesville area residents since its inception, helped over 100 residents open affordable deposit accounts, and provided 31 Page 70 of 249 numerous low-interest loans. • The City of Charlottesville Office of Human Rights has developed a 3-panel brochure on Fair Housing in Charlottesville to help people understand their rights and protect themselves from discrimination. • The City retained the services of the consulting firm to assist staff in completing the Comprehensive Plan, Affordable Housing Strategy, and rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is currently underway and expected to be completed in late fall of 2021. The resulting document would have recommendations designed to spur development of affordable housing, eliminate existing land use and zoning barriers to development of affordable housing, and encourage mixed-use development supported by public transportation. County Housing Programs – • Fluvanna County, Greene County, Nelson County, and Louisa County do not directly administer housing programs, but do support non-profit housing subrecipients: Albemarle Home Improvement Program (AHIP), Skyline Community Action Partnership, Fluvanna/Louisa Community Foundation (FLHF), and the Nelson County Community Foundation NCCDF). These agencies provide down-payment assistance and other housing program to assist persons who are elderly and/or have a disability. Most also provide housing counseling and credit repair programs. • Albemarle County Housing Choice Voucher Program Other Efforts (Not by municipalities) - MACAA provides services including the Hope House, Project Discovery, and Head Start - Financial literacy programs are managed by Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries (CALM) and PHA. - The City of Promise is an initiative based on the Harlem Children’s Zone model that continues to serve City residents living in the 10th & Page Neighborhood. - Habitat for Humanity continues to work with the International Rescue Committee to place refugees in homes as partner families. - The Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust sold 4 units of permanently affordable housing in the Charlottesville area. - Skyline CAP partners with the Greene Chapter of Habitat for Humanity to provide home repairs. The Nelson County Community Development Foundation has secured funding from local churches to serve as the match for home repair projects using Housing Preservation Grant funding. CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the 32 Page 71 of 249 programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements The City of Charlottesville performs on-site monitoring visits on an annual basis for projects that have been completed during the program year with assistance from the finance department. Consistent with previous years, City staff will review sub-recipient program files to ensure compliance with CDBG requirements and to verify that the benefit standard was being met. Projects that are found to be in violation or whose files were missing pertinent information will receive notices from the City and will be provided an opportunity to address and correct any problems. The City will conduct follow-up monitoring visits to ensure corrective actions are carried out. Monitoring results are taking into CDBG/HOME Taskforce consideration during the following years’ CDBG and HOME request for proposals. TJPDC carries out HOME desk reviews throughout the year, with oversight from the Finance Director and Executive Director. On-site monitoring of all sub recipients is done on an annual basis and includes monitoring of program activities and financial management. On-site visits are not required for sub recipients with no staffing changes, with no significant change in the type of projects carried out, and who have no outstanding findings from previous monitoring visits or financial audits. No sub-recipient will go more than three years without an on-site monitoring visit. The only monitoring visits for the PY19 program year ending June 30, 2020 year was with the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA). The City of Charlottesville has new staff on June 2019 filing the Grants Coordinator position; prior City staff was retained on a part-time basis to help with the transition and TJPDC has also worked closely with new staff. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has a new HOME Partnership administrator. Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d) Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports. A public comment period is being held from September 4 to September 18, 2020, advertised in the Daily Progress on September 4, 2020. The draft CAPER was also made available at City Hall, on the City of Charlottesville website and on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) website. The September 16 City Council Meeting also included a virtual public hearing for the CAPER, as well as the September 3rd TJPDC virtual public commission meeting. The Housing Directors discussed sections of the CAPER at their September 15 virtual monthly meeting. Input was requested and received from the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH), the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA), Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), the Thomas Jefferson Health District and Region Ten. 33 Page 72 of 249 CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c) Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences. For PY19, City Council identified the following as CDBG/HOME program priorities based upon Consolidated Plan goal and strategic plan; passed on September 18, 2017: 1. Affordable Housing (priority for households at 0-50% of the area median income) 2. Support for the Homeless and those at risk of homelessness 3. Workforce Development (support for programs that aid in self-sufficiency, including but not limited to quality childcare) 4. Microenterprise Assistance 5. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic No Development Initiative (BEDI) grants? [BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year. CR-50 - HOME 91.520(d) Include the results of on-site inspections of affordable rental housing assisted under the program to determine compliance with housing codes and other applicable regulations Please list those projects that should have been inspected on-site this program year based upon the schedule in §92.504(d). Indicate which of these were inspected and a summary of issues that were detected during the inspection. For those that were not inspected, please indicate the reason and how you will remedy the situation. HOME-assisted rental units are owned and managed by sub-recipients of the Charlottesville HOME Consortium. Sub-recipients share a role in the administration of the HOME program, including inspection of rental units. For units with tenants using Housing Choice Vouchers, which constitute the majority of rental units, Charlottesville HOME Consortium Sub-recipients have reciprocal agreements to perform inspections on units owned and managed by another sub- recipient. For HOME-assisted units with no rental assistance, the sub-recipient performs inspections at least annually to identify any maintenance issues, and to replace smoke detectors and filters. Inspections may be done more frequently, if there is a concern about the tenant. Most HOME assisted rental units are single family homes or duplexes. Some larger rental projects have been undertaken: AHIP rehabilitated an existing apartment building in 2004, with 10 HOME-assisted units. The Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation developed a four-unit rental “Evergreen Place” in 2014, consisting of single-bedroom, handicap-accessible units near the Town of Louisa, with solar-panels to keep utility costs low, and affordable housing opens. Skyline CAP purchased and renovated existing buildings into five rental apartments, with the project completed in May 2013 with 3 units occupied. The last unit was rented in August 2014. Skyline CAP completed an additional acquisition and rehabilitation project in Piedmont Housing Alliance completed the renovation of Crozet Meadows with 27 HOME-assisted units in September 2010 and Monticello Vista Apartments with 5 HOME-assisted units in August 2010, both as Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects. Units are inspected quarterly by PHA staff using the REAC inspection form, with additional inspections by the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA), an independent inspection contractor through the Virginia 34 Page 73 of 249 Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and by HUD. All rental units are inspected annually, including the City - and County-assisted units at the Crossings. Provide an assessment of the jurisdiction's affirmative marketing actions for HOME units. 92.351(b) All HOME projects are carried out by HOME Consortium sub recipients. These organizations have developed extensive networks with agencies and organizations in their localities to create a steady stream of referrals for HOME programs. Public outreach is carried out through a variety of means. The affirmative marketing actions are systematic and effective. Refer to IDIS reports to describe the amount and use of program income for projects, including the number of projects and owner and tenant characteristics Program income was applied to the following projects: Program Income Applied in PY19 IDIS Activity Locality PI Applied 1848 HR ALBEMARLE $1,399.01 1828 HR LOUISA $10,338.75 1845 HR LOUISA $19,000.00 1826 HR NELSON $1,125.00 1833 HB NELSON $5,650.00 1836 HR NELSON $4,209.00 1830 R FLUVANNA $2,000.00 1829 R FLUVANNA $2,000.00 1874 HR NELSON $1,006.00 TOTAL $42,727.76 Table 5 - HOME Program Income applied during PY19 Describe other actions taken to foster and maintain affordable housing. 91.220(k) (STATES ONLY: Including the coordination of LIHTC with the development of affordable housing). 91.320(j) Localities provide annual support to regional non-profits to address affordable housing. In-kind contributions, such as the donation of land and the waiver of local fees, are another way in which localities support affordable housing in the Planning District. Local governments have shown a consistent commitment to affordable housing programs, with an emphasis on the rehabilitation of substandard housing units and promotion of first-time homebuyer programs. The HOME Consortium and the City of Charlottesville partner with many private, non-profit organizations including Habitat for Humanity and private businesses, particularly private lenders including Fannie Mae, Bank of America, and several locally-owned banks. All sub-recipients carry out emergency repairs, drawing on a variety of funding streams. Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) is a regional non-profit organization with a comprehensive menu of affordable housing services. PHA’s mission is to create housing opportunities and build community through education, lending, and development. Certified HUD Housing Counselors 35 Page 74 of 249 provide a continuum of educational services on the road to home ownership, including financial education and financial coaching, pre-purchase and post-purchase counseling and education, credit counseling, mortgage default and foreclosure prevention counseling, along with fair housing education and counseling. PHA also accesses financial resources to support clients’ financial capability and housing they can afford, including lending for down payment assistance for home purchase and for affordable housing development, and providing access to low-cost mortgage financing. Piedmont Housing has provided $9.7 million in down payment assistance, from a variety of sources, to bridge the home ownership affordability gap in our community. In FY20 we have administered over 5.6 million in VHDA’s reduced-interest rate money which reduces a first-time homebuyers VHDA loan interest rate by 1.0%. Piedmont Housing is the only local administrator of those funds. Piedmont Housing also builds and manages affordable housing, currently managing and/or owning rental housing that is affordable for 604 households total. 249 households in the City of Charlottesville, 323 households in Albemarle County and 32 households in Nelson County. PHA provided one on one counseling and group education to over 900 households in FY20. Piedmont Housing is the local administrator of VHDA’s RUAM program which provides funding to make accessibility modifications to their rental homes. Due to the impacts of COVID 19 this program was paused in March of 2020. Every April, Piedmont Housing Alliance provides a free and open to the public training that fills Fair Housing CEU requirements for property managers, in FY20 we had an audience of 36. PHA continues progress towards a transformational redevelopment of Friendship Court Apartments, focused on working with an amazing design team, inclusive of residents and community advocates on the Friendship Court Advisory Committee, to refine, evolve, and implement the plan for redevelopment. With a successful 2019 LIHTC award in hand, preparations are currently under way to start construction on Phase 1 in the fall of 2020. Since May the Advisory Committee has met at least monthly to prepare for the Phase 1 construction start and to kick off the planning process for Phase 2. By the time Phase 1 is complete in early 2022, Phase 2 will be preparing to break ground. In addition, PHA is working on the design of the Friendship Court Community Resource Center (CRC) which will house an early childhood learning center, community center, Piedmont Housing’s permanent headquarters, and office space for nonprofit organizations. The CRC is scheduled to start construction in 2021. Actions to Address Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019 Impediments and Plan of Action Impediment Description Proposed Action Actions in PY19 Lack of rental units affordable Increase the # of FLHF – 2 rental units completed to low income households affordable rental Alb Co – incentivized 96 units at Brookdale Increased competition for units and up to 80 LIHTC units in Southwood limited number of rental units Provide incentives City- provided locally funded vouchers Insufficient rental relief for development of Rental Skyline CAP subsidized rent for 4 households. programs affordable rental Affordability PHA continues to work toward redevelopment units High up-front costs, including of Friendship Court and is working on a application fee, security Provide rental LIHTC development as part of Habitat’s deposit, 1st & last month rent assistance locally Southwood redevelopment plan. NCCDF - purchased another affordable rental unit in 2020 and continues to work to bring 36 Page 75 of 249 more landlords and units into the affordable housing offering. Low wages, and tight credit Provide workforce City - GO Programs continue to provide markets limit HO options for a programs to training and assistance with job placement broad range of households improve job skills PVCC’s Network2Work program has Increases in property taxes & assist in job expanded and added volunteers; have received Homeownershi compromise affordability placement donations of cars to provide transportation to p Affordability Continue & expand workers while they save for their own tax relief programs Albemarle County provided $1.035 million in real estate tax relief for elderly and/or disabled homeowners in FY19/20 Land use codes and ordinances Revise codes & Albemarle County has completed drafting a affect housing location & ordinances new set of housing policy recommendations to affordability Develop definition address the full range of housing needs. Regulatory Lack of clear definition of of aff hsg & The Regional Housing Partnership (RHP) has Barriers and affordable housing articulate begun writing a regional housing plan. Community community NCCDF - strives to be a partner in County Resistance benefits Comprehensive planning efforts to assure Affordable housing is addressed in terminology and in land use codes. Impediment Description Proposed Action Responsible Parties Overt or covert discrimination Eliminate all Non-profit housing counseling programs against renters & homebuyers discrimination in continue to address fair housing. on the basis of race and housing PHA provided one-on-one counseling and ethnicity, family status, and Raise awareness of group education to over 900 households in Discrimination disability fair housing laws PY20. PHA also provided public training to 36 in the Rental Predatory lending practices people that meets the Fair Housing CEU Provide counseling & Homeowner requirement for property managers Lack of reasonable and advocacy Market Skyline CAP conducted workshops and 1:1 accommodations Promote VHDA’s counseling Rental Unit Accessibility Modification Grant Difficulties for families to Credit repair Skyline CAP resolved 3 foreclosures and we High Debt-to- come up with down payment programs have a credit repair program as well. Income Ratios assistance to due credit issues Housing FLHF have provided a credit repair program. and counseling Foreclosures Lease to own options Concentration of low-income Increase transit Local governments, Local school boards, non- and racial minority students option to expand profit organizations Economic and into certain schools and geographic International Rescue Committee Racial districts may compromise opportunities Disparities school quality and exacerbate Educate landlords among Schools housing segregation among Encourage families neighborhood economic and 37 Page 76 of 249 racial integration for families with children, especially in the City of Charlottesville and urbanized Alb County Impediment Description Proposed Action Accomplishments for PY18 Lack of reasonable Renovate existing AHIP Seniors Safe at Home completed 99 accommodations &housing homes rehab and emergency repairs Lack of designed with accessibility Build accessible FLHF worked with local community groups to Housing features, accessible units can be new homes rehab a home for an elder with disabilities Accessible to expensive Provide ramps FLHF completed one housing rehab under the People with Lack of senior housing that is Granting Freedom program Disabilities Identify people income-accessible and People with needs & refer Skyline CAP completed 3 ramps Aging in Place to local programs NCCDF - completed 9 projects to rehab elderly and/or disable housing 7 of which directly addressed accessibility. Language differences can be a Reduce cultural International Rescue Committee means for housing and linguistic Creciendo Juntos & other non-profits discrimination; immigrants barriers to housing Schools Language and may lack knowledge of housing access Cultural and financing options; cultural Engage different Barriers differences yield neighbor and groups in landlord tension conversations Large family size about differences and similarities Lack of financial literacy Financial Local housing counselors, Piedmont Housing Lack of knowledge of fair education & Alliance, other non-profit orgs, Legal Aid housing rights counseling Educational Barriers Provide information and education Access to transportation, Workforce training City GO Programs employment & child care can Expanded transit PVCC’s Network2Work program has limit housing choices in the options expanded and added volunteers; have received Access to City where most services are Services Self-sufficiency donations of cars to provide transportation to available workers while they save for their own training & assistance 38 Page 77 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 21, 2020 Action Required: Ordinance Enactment Staff Contacts: John Blair, City Attorney Presenters: John Blair, City Attorney Title: COVID-19 Ordinance Re-enactment (4/5 Vote Required) Background: On March 12, 2020, Dr. Tarron J. Richardson, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Management, declared the potential spread of COVID-19 an emergency on March 12, 2020 pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the Charlottesville City Council. After Dr. Richardson’s Declaration of Emergency, Virginia Governor, Ralph S. Northam, has issued a number of Executive Orders related to COVID-19. On July 27, 2020, the Charlottesville City Council enacted an ordinance designed to contain the spread of COVID-19. Discussion: The July 27, 2020 ordinance contained an expiration date of September 29, 2020. The ordinance re-enactment before the Council would extend the original ordinance for an additional two month period until 11:59 p.m. on November 30. The proposed ordinance contains three main components that augment the Executive Orders issued by Governor Northam. First, the ordinance limits in-person attendees at gatherings to fifty. Second, the ordinance requires the use of cloth face coverings in public places with several exceptions. Third, the ordinance limits the indoor occupancy limits at food establishments, microbreweries, microdistilleries, microwineries and small breweries. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Page 78 of 249 AN ORDINANCE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, SARS–CoV–2, AND THE DISEASE IT CAUSES, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS COVID-19 WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, SARS–CoV–2, and the disease it causes, commonly referred to as COVID-19, a pandemic (for reference in this ordinance, this virus and the disease that it causes are referred to as “COVID-19”); and WHEREAS, City Manager and Director of Emergency Management, Dr. Tarron J. Richardson, declared the potential spread of COVID-19 an emergency on March 12, 2020 pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the Charlottesville City Council; and WHEREAS, also on March 12, 2020, Governor Ralph S. Northam issued Executive Order Number Fifty-One (“EO 51”) declaring a state of emergency for the Commonwealth of Virginia because of the COVID-19 pandemic; EO 51 acknowledged the existence of a public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and that it constitutes a “disaster” as defined by Virginia Code § 44-146.16 because of the public health threat presented by a communicable disease anticipated to spread; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 spreads person to person and, at this time, it appears that COVID- 19 is spread primarily through respiratory droplets, which can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs; spread is more likely when people are in close contact with one another (within about six feet)i; and. WHEREAS, COVID-19 is extremely easy to transmit, can be transmitted by infected people who show no symptoms, and the population has not developed herd immunityii; and WHEREAS, at this time, there is no known cure, no effective treatment, no vaccine, and because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect othersiii; and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“Centers for Disease Control”) and the Virginia Department of Health have identified several behaviors and practices that are fundamental in controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the community: frequently washing hands, sanitizing frequently touched surfaces, wearing a cloth face covering when in public, maintaining a separation of at least six feet between people (“social distancing” or “physical distancing”), limiting the size of gatherings in public places, and limiting the duration of gatheringsiv; and WHEREAS, with respect to people wearing face coverings when in public, current evidence suggests that transmission of COVID-19 occurs primarily between people through direct, indirect, or close contact with infected people through infected secretions such as saliva and respiratory secretions, or through their respiratory droplets, which are expelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, talks or sings; and some outbreak reports related to indoor crowded spaces have suggested the possibility of aerosol transmission, combined with droplet transmission, for example, during choir practice, in food establishments, or in fitness classesv; and 1 Page 79 of 249 WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, fabric face coverings, “if made and worn properly, can serve as a barrier to droplets expelled from the wearer into the air and environment,” however, these face coverings “must be used as part of a comprehensive package of preventive measures, which includes frequent hand hygiene, physical distancing when possible, respiratory etiquette, environmental cleaning and disinfection,” and recommended precautions also include “avoiding indoor crowded gatherings as much as possible, in particular when physical distancing is not feasible, and ensuring good environmental ventilation in any closed setting”vi; and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization advises that people take a number of precautions, including: (i) maintaining social distancing because when someone coughs, sneezes, or speaks they spray small liquid droplets from their nose or mouth which may contain virus, and if other persons are too close, they can breathe in the droplets, including the COVID-19 virus, if the person coughing, sneezing, or speaking has the disease; and (ii) avoiding crowded places because when people are in crowds, they are more likely to come into close contact with someone that has COVID-19 and it is more difficult to maintain social distancingvii; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control caution that: (i) the more people a person interacts with at a gathering and the longer that interaction lasts, the higher the potential risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 and COVID-19 spreading; (ii) the higher level of community transmission in the area that a gathering is being held, the higher the risk of COVID-19 spreading during the gathering; and (iii) large in-person gatherings where it is difficult for persons to remain spaced at least six feet apart and attendees travel from outside the local area pose the highest risk of COVID-19 spreadingviii; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control state that cloth face coverings are strongly encouraged in settings where persons might raise their voice (e.g., shouting, chanting, singing)ix; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control advise, in restaurants: (i) wearing cloth face coverings when less than six feet apart from other people or indoors; (ii) wearing face coverings as much as possible when not eating; (iii) maintaining a proper social distancing if persons are sitting with others who do not live with the person; and (iv) sitting outside when possiblex; and WHEREAS, for these and related reasons, the Virginia Department of Health has stated that those businesses that operate indoors and at higher capacity, where physical distancing “recommendations” are not observed, sharing objects is permitted, and persons are not wearing cloth face coverings, create higher risk for the transmission of COVID-19xi; and WHEREAS, since Governor Northam issued EO 51 on March 13, 2020, he has issued several more Executive Orders jointly with Orders of Public Health Emergency issued by M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA, State Health Commissioner, pertaining to COVID-19; as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, “Executive Order Number Sixty-Seven (2020) and Order of Public Health Emergency Seven, Phase Three Easing of Certain Temporary Restrictions Due to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)” (collectively referred to as “EO 67”)xii, which became effective at 12:00 a.m. on July 1, 2020, is in effect; and WHEREAS, as of July 21, 2020, the spread of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth, in the Thomas Jefferson Health District of which the City is a member, and in the City itself, has been 2 Page 80 of 249 increasing since late June, shortly before EO 67 moved the Commonwealth into “Phase 3” of its reopening plan, the curve in the positivity rate of persons tested for COVID-19 is no longer flattened, and the community is currently experiencing more transmission of COVID-19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, that: Sec. 1. Purpose For the reasons stated in the recitals, the purpose of this ordinance is to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Sec. 2. Authority This ordinance is authorized by §14 of the Charlottesville City Charter, which enables the City Council to enact ordinances to “prevent the introduction or spreading of contagious or infectious diseases, and prevent and suppress diseases generally.” Sec. 3. Definitions The following definitions apply to this ordinance: A. “Expressive activity” means a non-commercial activity in which a person intends to convey a lawful message through speech or conduct that is likely to be perceived by an observer of the speech or conduct, and includes any lawful public gathering, demonstration, procession, or parade in which the primary purpose is to exercise the rights of free speech or peaceable assembly. B. “Face covering” means an item normally made of cloth or various other materials with elastic bands or cloth ties to secure over the wearer’s nose and mouth in an effort to contain or reduce the spread of potentially infectious respiratory secretions at the source (i.e., the person’s nose and mouth). C. “Food establishment” means a food establishment as defined in 12VAC5-421-10 and the term includes, but is not limited, any place where food is prepared for service to the public on or off the premises, or any place where food is served, including restaurants, lunchrooms, short order places, cafeterias, coffee shops, cafes, taverns, delicatessens, dining accommodations of public or private clubs. For purposes of this ordinance, “food establishment” does not include kitchen facilities of hospitals and nursing homes, dining accommodations of public and private schools and institutions of higher education, and kitchen areas of local correctional facilities subject to standards adopted under Virginia Code § 53.1-68. D. “Gathering” means a planned or spontaneous indoor or outdoor, or both, event with people participating or attending for a common purpose such as a community event, concert, festival, conference, parade, wedding, sporting event, party (including parties at private residences), celebration, and other social events. “Gathering” does not include a place of employment where persons are present to perform their functions of employment, events or activities on the grounds of an institution of higher education- or school-owned property that 3 Page 81 of 249 are institution or school related, or persons engaging in religious exercise at their religious institution or other place of religious significance. E.. “Micro-producers” means the retail shop, bar, tasting room, tap-room, restaurant or other similar facility of a microbrewery, microwinery, or microdistillery, in which twenty-five (25) percent or more of the facility's production is sold directly to the consumer on-site. F. “Public place” means any place other than a person’s residence or personal vehicle that is indoors, or the indoor portion of the place, or outdoors where at least six feet of physical distancing between persons not living in the same household cannot be maintained, and generally open to the public including, but not limited to, retail stores, food establishments, theaters, personal care and personal grooming services, and transportation other than a personal vehicle. “Public place” does not include institutions of higher education and other schools, fitness and other exercise facilities, religious institutions, indoor shooting ranges, and the City courthouse buildings. G. “Small brewery” means the retail shop, bar, tasting room, tap-room, restaurant or other similar facility of the small brewery which sells directly to the consumer. Sec. 4. Limitation on the Number of Persons at Food Establishments A. Indoor occupancy. Indoor occupancy at food establishments, micro-producers, and small breweries must not be more than 50 percent of the lowest occupancy load on the certificate of occupancy issued by the City of Charlottesville. If the building or structure does not have an occupancy load established on a certificate of occupancy issued by the City of Charlottesville, indoor occupancy must not be more than 50 persons. B. Persons at gathering are counted. Persons participating in or attending a gathering who are indoors count towards the occupancy limits established by this section. C. Persons working not counted. The employees or independent contractors of any food establishment, micro-producer, or small brewery do not count towards the occupancy limits established by this section. D. State requirements, recommendations, and guidance. Except as provided in Sections 4(A), (B), and (C), this section does not affect any requirement, recommendation, or guidance including, but not limited to, those requiring or recommending physical distancing that apply to food establishments, micro-producers, or small breweries established in EO 67, or as it may be further amended or superseded, any Order of Public Health Emergency, any workplace safety regulations, or any other state or federal laws related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sec. 5. Limitation of the Number of Attendees at Gatherings 4 Page 82 of 249 A. Gatherings of more than 50 persons prohibited. All public and private in-person gatherings of more than 50 persons are prohibited except as provided in Section 5(B). B. Gatherings not subject to the 50-person limit. Section 5(A) does not apply to the following gatherings and, instead, the maximum size for gatherings established in EO 67, or as it may be further amended or superseded, or any Order of Public Health Emergency, applies: 1. Gatherings for religious exercise including, but not limited to, religious ceremonies. 2. Wedding ceremonies and wedding receptions. 3. Expressive activity on a public street, public sidewalk, spontaneous demonstrations as defined in the City Manager’s standard operating procedures for special events and demonstrations on city property and on other public property as permitted by a special event permit issued by the City Manager. C. Persons working not counted. Persons working at gatherings, either as employees or independent contractors, do not count towards the limit on the number of persons at a gathering. D. State requirements, recommendations, and guidance. Except as provided in Sections 5(A), (B), and (C), this Section does not affect any requirement, recommendation, or guidance including, but not limited to, those requiring or recommending physical distancing, that apply to gatherings established in EO 67, or as it may be further amended or superseded, any Order of Public Health Emergency, any workplace safety regulations, or any other State or federal laws related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sec. 6. Face Coverings A. Face coverings required. Face coverings must be worn by all persons in public places except as provided in Sections 6(B) and (C). B. Persons not required to wear face coverings. Face coverings are not required to be worn by the following persons: 1. Children. Children 10 years of age and under. 2. Wearing face covering poses certain risks. Persons for whom wearing a face covering poses a substantial mental or physical health, safety, or security risk such as persons who have trouble breathing or are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the face covering without assistance. For this exception to apply to any person claiming that wearing a face covering poses a substantial mental or physical health risk: (i) the person must present a valid document from a physician or other health care practitioner licensed, accredited, or certified to perform specified health care services, including mental health services, consistent with State law, specifying the medical necessity for not wearing a face covering and the date on which the person may begin wearing a face covering again; and (ii) the public place is unable to provide goods, services, or activities outdoors to the person or to the adult accompanying a child 10 years of age or under. 5 Page 83 of 249 3. Certain employees. On-duty employees of the public place for which workplace safety regulations promulgated by the State Safety and Health Codes Board, or face covering rules established by an applicable Executive Order of the Governor or an Order of Public Health Emergency by the State Health Commissioner, apply. C. Circumstances when face coverings are not required to be worn by any persons. Face coverings are not required to be worn by persons in the following circumstances: 1. Outdoor activities. While persons are engaged in outdoor activities in public places such as parks and other open spaces, provided that minimum physical distancing established by any applicable Executive Order of the Governor or Order of Public Health Emergency of the State Health Commissioner is maintained. 2. Eating or drinking. While a person is eating food or drinking a beverage. 3. End of waiver of Virginia Code § 18.2-422. When the waiver of Virginia Code § 18.2- 422, currently established in EO 67, Section (C)(3), or as it may be further amended or superseded, ends. D. Responsibility of adults accompanying minors. Adults accompanying minors between the ages of 10 years old and 17 years old must attempt to prompt the minor to wear face coverings while in public places. Sec. 7. Effect of More Restrictive Executive Order or Order of Public Health Emergency Sections 4, 5, or 6 do not apply when a more restrictive requirement in an Executive Order or an Order of Public Health Emergency is in effect. Sec. 8. Penalties A. Penalty for violation of Section 4. A violation of Section 4 by the owner of the food establishment, micro-producer, or small brewery and any manager or assistant manager, however titled, responsible for the operation and management of the food establishment, micro-producer, or small brewery, after first being warned by a law enforcement to lower the establishment’s occupancy, is punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor. Section 4(D) is not enforced pursuant to this ordinance. B. Penalty for violation of Section 5. A violation of Section 5 by the owner or tenant of the private property on which the gathering is located, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer to disperse the gathering, is punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor. A violation of Section 5 by any person attending the gathering, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer to disperse from the gathering because it exceeds the limitation for a gathering and having failed to disperse after a reasonable period of time not to exceed two minutes, is punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. Section 5(D) is not enforced pursuant to this ordinance. C. Penalty for violation of Section 6. A violation of Section 6 by any person subject to its requirements, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer to apply a face covering, 6 Page 84 of 249 is punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. No person under the age of 18 years old is subject to a criminal penalty for failing to wear a face covering. D. Injunctive relief. The City, the City Council, and any City officer authorized by law, may seek to enjoin the continuing violation of any provision of this ordinance by bringing a proceeding for an injunction in any court of competent jurisdiction. Sec 9. Duration This ordinance reenactment is effective 12:00 a.m., September 30, 2020 and expires at 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2020 unless amended by the Charlottesville City Council. Sec. 10. Effect of this Ordinance on the Powers of the Director of Emergency Management This ordinance does not affect the powers of the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Management, pursuant to Virginia Code § 44-146.21 during the COVID-19 disaster. Sec. 11. Severability It is the intention of the City Council that any part of this ordinance is severable. If any part is declared unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, the unconstitutionality or invalidity does not affect any other part of this ordinance. Sec. 12. Waiver of Three Day Intervention This ordinance is adopted with the vote of four-fifths of City Councilors on the date of its introduction. The requirement in Charlottesville City Code Section 2-97 that three days intervene between an ordinance’s introduction and its passage is waived. i Xponential Fitness v. Arizona, No. CV-20-01310-PHX-DJH, 2020 WL 3971908, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2020) and cases and authorities cited therein. ii Xponential Fitness v. Arizona, No. CV-20-01310-PHX-DJH, 2020 WL 3971908, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2020) and cases and authorities cited therein. iii South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (May 29, 2020) (Roberts concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief); on the fact that there is no effective treatment as of the date of this ordinance, see also https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth- busters?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9IvSvJPk6gIVGrbICh2TYw9QEAAYASAAEgKjDfD_BwE#medicines; https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treatments-for-covid-19; https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20479976. iv See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-for-events- gatherings.html and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/business- employers/bars-restaurants.html and links therein; https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/#COVID-19-resources and links therein. v World Health Organization Scientific Brief, July 9, 2020 https://www.who.int/news- room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions. vi World Health Organization Scientific Brief, July 9, 2020 https://www.who.int/news- room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions; see also Statement of Dr. Michael Ryan, World Health Organization COVID-19Virtual Press Conference, transcript page 12, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/covid-19-virtual-press-conference---17- 7 Page 85 of 249 july.pdf?sfvrsn=dd7f91a1_0 (“So it’s all about the setting, it is about the duration you spend in that setting and it’s about the intensity of the activities that you participate in in that setting and when you get into a particular setting, a very overcrowded situation in an indoor environment then effectively all bets are off because so many of the modes of transmission come into play; the aerosol route, the airborne route, the fomite or contamination route. So the more close you are to other people, the more you are inside, the more the activity is intense or involves very close social contact the more that multiple modes of transmission come into play. So in that sense it is about you understanding your risk, it is about you managing that risk and being aware of the situation that you find yourself in personally and reducing that risk for you, for your family, for your children and for your community. It is important, as I've said previously, that governments communicate those risks very, very carefully and it is also important that providers, authorities and others ensure that those environments are as safe as possible and that the risks are also managed.”) vii https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public. viii https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-for-events-gatherings.html; see also https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html. ix https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-for-events-gatherings.html. x https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/personal-social-activities.html. xi https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/schools-workplaces-community-locations/businesses/. xii https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/executive-actions/EO-67-and-Order-of-Public- Health-Emergency-Seven---Phase-Three-Easing-of-Certain-Temporary-Restrictions-Due-to-Novel-Coronavirus- (COVID-19).pdf. 8 Page 86 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 21, 2020 Action Required: Report on Recommendations Presenter: Kaki Dimock, Director Department of Human Services Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Director Department of Human Services Title: Report from the Study of Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Adult Criminal Justice System Background: The City of Charlottesville has a longstanding interest in understanding the extent and causes of disproportionality and disparity in the adult criminal justice system. In 2015, the City Council received a comprehensive report on disproportionality in the juvenile justice system. Council and the City Manager asked staff to look for a way to conduct a similar study for the adult system. In early 2018, The Department of Human Services was awarded a $100,000 grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to launch a study of disproportionate minority contact in the adult criminal justice system in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Council approved an additional $55,400 appropriation from the Department of Human Services Fund Balance in support of the study in July 2019. The City contracted with MGT Consulting Group to conduct the first formal phase of the study. MGT Consultants presented the study report to Council on February 5, 2020. Data Findings: In considering the findings, it is important to understand the definitions of disproportionality and disparity. Racial disproportionality refers to one race being over- or under-represented compared to the racial makeup of the whole community. Racial disparity occurs when individuals in similar situations receive different outcomes based on race. a. The research found racial disproportionality at all points in the adult criminal justice system. Page 87 of 249 b. The research did not find racial disparity at two critical points in the adult criminal justice system: the duration of actual time served for an offense and the duration of the sentence imposed (males only). c. The research did find racial disparity at five other points in the adult criminal justice system: seriousness of charges brought, number of companion charges brought, bail- bond/release decisions, length of stay awaiting trial, and guilty outcomes at trial. Recommendations: The recommendations are: A. Increase and support meaningful re-entry programs (5 strategies underway) B. Increase transparency of City and County police departments (3 strategies underway) C. Develop, encourage, and support special initiative programs (5 strategies underway) D. Increase diversity in law enforcement (2 strategies underway) E. Adopt programs that are alternatives to incarceration (3 strategies underway) F. Provide additional training opportunities for law enforcement and other actors in the criminal justice system (4 strategies underway) G. Review best practices from other communities addressing similar issues H. Increase access to data and increase data collection at each decision point in the criminal justice map I. Conduct additional research and build upon the findings and recommendations of this study On February 5, 2020, Council requested a follow up presentation on next steps for this study process. On September 2, 2020, Council and staff received a formal response from The People’s Coalition1 with proposed action steps for all components of the adult criminal justice system. On September 9, 2020, Mayor Walker and Kaki Dimock met with representatives of The People’s Coalition to discuss their expectations. Discussion: In considering next steps, there are multiple categories of activity for Council to consider, including:  Whether, and how many resources would be required, to focus on solutions identified to respond to, repair and prevent existing inequities in the adult criminal justice system; and,  Whether, and how many resources would be required, to focus on continued examination of the disproportionality and disparity in the adult criminal justice system to understand where and how decisions negatively impact African-Americans; and,  How to engage the community in these processes. Seven of MGT Consulting Group’s recommendations are presented as responses to the study results and are designed to mitigate the system’s impact on African-Americans. It is notable that 1 Per their Facebook page: The People’s Coalition organizes in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area in opposition to our unjust and racist criminal-legal system. Page 88 of 249 this community has initiated many strategies in these areas already and equally notable that none are sufficient to respond to the concern area comprehensively and that none have been formally evaluated to understand their impact. At the Council meeting on February 5, 2020, Council and community members expressed frustration that these recommendations did not focus on preventing disproportionality or disparity. For some, that meant identifying individual bad actors in the adult criminal justice system and holding them accountable; for others, that meant taking steps to avoid initial police contact through a variety of community and individual supports. MGT Consulting Group was limited in its ability to access and analyze data because data is collected and stored in different ways, governed by different authorities, and had significant variances in quality across the multiple system components. MGT recommended increasing data collection activities and data access governance across the system. Finding a way to easily access data on disproportionality and disparity is critical to understanding how and where the system responds to African-Americans differently, and, importantly, to measuring any impact of system changes meant to mitigate or repair these harms. Any comprehensive data collection and keeping method will require significant resources and complex authority and data-sharing agreements, including those across jurisdictional boundaries. Finally, MGT Consulting Group recommended continued research on the disproportionality and disparity in the adult criminal justice system. Staff and community partners within the criminal justice system considered MGT Consulting Group’s recommendations, expectations identified by the People’s Coalition, and priorities of the previously convened research and planning team to identify the extent of alignment between them. Attached is a table detailing these possible next steps with preliminary notes and roughly estimated costs attached to them for Council’s consideration. There are no recommendations in opposition to each other among these three groups and a significant amount of alignment, particularly in the area of research priorities. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The study of disproportionate minority contact in the adult criminal justice system is aligned with City strategic goals # 1.5 An inclusive community of self-sufficient residents – intentionally address issues of race and equity, and #2 a healthy and safe city. Community Engagement: The research and planning team and task force included representatives from City of Charlottesville Department of Human Services, Office of Human Rights, Sheriff, Commonwealth’s Attorney, and Police Department; Albemarle County Police Department, Social Services, Office of Equity, and Commonwealth’s Attorney; Offender Aid and Restoration, Legal Aid Justice Center, Office of the Public Defender, University of Virginia, among others. MGT Consulting Group conducted 35 community stakeholder interviews in addition to five focus groups and four community engagement meetings. Recommendations from The People’s Coalition are incorporated into recommended next steps. Page 89 of 249 Budgetary Impact: Many of the recommended activities involve policy decisions and internal data reviews which will not have a budgetary impact. Continued analysis of disproportionality and disparity in the adult criminal justice system will require additional investment. Estimated costs:  Review of body cam footage and charging language by police officers with the highest disproportionality by an independent auditor: $50,000 - $100,000  Examination of impact of quality and type of legal representation on disproportionality and disparate outcomes for African-Americans: $50,000 - $100,000  File review to examine impact of judicial decision-making in bail and sentencing on disproportionality: $25,000.  Examination of impact of pre-trial detention of disproportionality: $50,000-$100,000 Recommendation: Using the attached table to understand alignment of recommended next steps between MGT Consulting Group, The People’s Coalition and the previously convened research and planning team, staff recommend the following next steps: Recommendations for process consideration: 1) Identify ways to intentionally engage the Charlottesville community in the direction, evaluation, and monitoring of action steps regarding disproportionality and disparity, ensuring that community participation is central and primary by authorizing community members with the power to meaningfully influence the process, and appointing a sufficient number of community members to exercise that influence. 2) Formally convene a Task Force to follow up on Council’s interests and report out to Council on a regular basis. 3) Invest in and encourage all adult criminal justice components to improve quality of data collection activities and ensure ready access to local data to evaluate progress. Recommendations for research consideration: 1) Make formal request to Virginia Department of Corrections to access probation data to understand the impact of probation discretion and decision-making on disproportionality and disparity. Invest in evaluation and analysis of the data, once received. 2) Make formal request of Virginia Supreme Court to access magistrate decision-making data. Invest in evaluation and analysis of the data, once received. 3) Evaluate available data from the Charlottesville Police Department to understand the presence and extent of disproportionality and existence of disparity in arrests. Arrest data should be separated by calls for services and officer-initiated actions to discover any differences in outcome; and arrests for alleged criminal activity should be distinct from arrests for violations of probation and show case matters. Page 90 of 249 4) Invest in an evaluation of the impact of the quality and type of legal representation on disproportionality and disparity in the adult criminal justice system. ($50,000 - $100,000) 5) Conduct file review to understand impact of judicial decision-making on bail and sentencing on disproportionality and disparity. ($25,000) Alternatives: Council may decide to not to convene a formal task force. Council may decide not to invest in any further research activities. Council may decide not to direct staff to make formal data requests of the Virginia Supreme Court or the Virginia Department of Corrections. Attachments: D.M.C. Next Steps Action/Alignment Table Recommendations of The People’s Coalition City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA Disproportionate Minority Study, Final Report, January 20, 2020 Page 91 of 249 Action Step Recommended by Authority over action Cost Notes Improved data keeping People’s Coalition ALL COMPONENTS OF This is very heavy lift. A central data hub MGT Consultants THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE would be required, with one way pushes Research Committee SYSTEM of data from multiple component players; data-sharing agreements among several different governing authorities. Police data reviews: People’s Coalition Police department $50,000 - Would require dedicated social scientist Identity officers with highest $100,000 or auditor to complete. In 2019, there disproportionality in their arrests & were 7.5 arrests per day. monitor body cam footage & review all charging language Establish improved guidelines for People’s Coalition Police department Policy decision officers re: discretion over minor offenses and opportunities for service referrals Call for service analysis – who calls Research Committee Police Cost This would likely require outside support. 911 for police intervention and why department/communic unclear Race of caller is not currently captured by ation center E-911 system making analysis tricky and based on geocoding. Review data on race for officer- Research Committee Police department This research could likely be initiated contact v. call for service MGT Consultants accomplished police department staff and criminal justice planner. Independent auditor for CRB People’s Coalition City council $100,000 Policy decision with budget impact CRB authority to review police People’s Coalition City council Policy decision records, call for testimony and exercise disciplinary authority Make formal request for magistrate’s People’s Coalition Supreme Court Current statute is worded so that E-MAG data MGT Consultants system is not available to the public even Research Committee with a FOIA request. Monitor impact of decisions on People’s Coalition Commonwealth’s $100,000 This would require new data collection practice by commonwealth’s MGT Consultants Attorney system and process with unclear attorney’s office (cash bail, reduction Research Committee development costs. Current available of charges, etc) to determine impact data has 18 month lag time and does not allow for real-time monitoring of impact. Comparison of recommendations for next steps on DMC study, cost, authority, etc. 9-9-2020 – highlighted are areas of priority for People’s Coalition. Page 92 of 249 Monitor charging language, People’s Coalition Commonwealth’s This would likely require additional decisions, history by officers and Attorney resources. Unclear whether this is part of provide feedback to police CA’s public charge. department Consider and discuss whether People’s Coalition Commonwealth’s Policy discussion & decision, previous criminal history should be used in Attorney history is incorporated into almost all charging decisions for African- actuarial decision-making tools and may Americans given system failures be required by statute. Examine the impact of the quality People’s Coalition Public Defender’s $50,000- Ms. Dugger has agreed to file review and type of legal representation MGT Consultants Office $100,000 activities. Sentencing and bail data provided to defendants on DMC Research Committee available has 18 month lag time. May Examine impact of judicial decision- People’s Coalition Supreme Court $25,000 require formal request of Supreme Court. making in bail and sentencing on MGT Consultants DMC Research Committee Examine the impact of probation People’s Coalition Department of Cost Will require formal request for access to discretion and decision-making in MGT Consultants Corrections unclear data from DOC. May benefit from DMC Research Committee legislative support from Ms. Hudson. Analyze arrest data without VOP and People’s Coalition Police Department Likely could be accomplished by PD show cause Research Committee auditor or data analyst with support from criminal justice planner. Analyze assault of law enforcement Commonwealth’s Commonwealth’s Already underway officer charges by mental health Attorney, UVA Attorney diagnosis, race & gender Institute for Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy ; Partner for Mental Health Examine pretrial detention MGT Consultants Multiple System $100,000 Would likely require new data collection People’s Coalition Components system Commonwealth’s Attorney Comparison of recommendations for next steps on DMC study, cost, authority, etc. 9-9-2020 – highlighted are areas of priority for People’s Coalition. Page 93 of 249 STATEMENT FROM THE PEOPLE’S COALITION IN RESPONSE TO THE DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY STUDY1 INTRODUCTION In January of this year MGT Management, a consultant team hired by the City of Charlottesville dropped what should have been a bombshell: scientific proof that the local criminal justice system discriminates against African-Americans to the point that you are more likely to be convicted of a serious crime simply because you are black. This extraordinary study, which many of us have urged for years, found that racism was rampant in the justice system from booking to disposition. There seems no way out for the African-American swept up in the criminal justice system. The fact that African-Americans are given more serious and more charges than comparably situated Whites (Disproportionate Minority Study at 3-11 to 3-13)(hereafter “DMC Study”), means, in part, that they are more likely to be confined prior to trial. (DMC Study at 3- 14). People who are confined before trial are more likely to be convicted, all other things being equal. (https://www.vera.org/ downloads/publications/Justice-Denied-Evidence-Brief.pdf). Since African-Americans are more likely to be convicted in any event simply because of their race (DMC Study at 3-16), pretrial incarceration is a double whammy. The same is true for the fact that African-Americans are given more serious charges than comparably situated Whites. They are, therefore, more likely to be incarcerated prior to trial and subject to the same double whammy. If there are more serious and more charges, the likelihood of pre-trial incarceration increases and the double whammy becomes a triple whammy. Those with more serious and more charges are also likely to receive heavier sentences (DMC Study at 3-19), thus making the quadruple whammy. And the same problem exists with respect to someone’s prior record, a conviction obtained in a system that discriminates against Black people yet results in more likely pre-trial incarceration, more likely conviction and more likely to spend more time in jail or prison . 1 This memo does not address the issue of defunding the police, reallocating resources or reimagining public safety. It is focused only on the findings of the DMC Study of racism in the local criminal justice system(s). Page 94 of 249 One hundred and fifty years since the end of slavery, sixty six years since segregation was ruled unconstitutional, Black people still face the vestiges of hundreds of years of oppression. The promises of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution2 have never been fulfilled. Mass incarceration, including the war on drugs, driven more by politics than public safety, has exacerbated the problem and unnecessarily destroyed the lives of people and their families and devastated communities of color. The most common response to the study, among those in the criminal justice system, as well as the community, is that the study uncovered no surprises.3 Indeed, “study after study over a period of decades have concluded that the race of the defendant influences outcomes at various point along the criminal justice continuum.” (DMC Study at 3-22). That too is extraordinary since we have been relying on that very system to produce justice, even putting “justice” in its name. What are we to do moving forward? The DMC Study identified a number of areas where racism is most profound and most harmful. MGT was also frustrated by the lack of data from key agencies, most notably, the magistrates office and the probation department. Data from the institutions from which it was able to secure data, often wasn’t sufficient to make an analysis or draw conclusions. However, the researchers were able to compare similarly situated White and Black defendants in felony cases to draw significant and provable statistical conclusions. DATA KEEPING: It is obvious from the DMC Study that we need more and better data that can be organized and analyzed across agency lines. We believe that the initial monitoring of this data 2 The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery (except for those convicted of a crime), the 14th Amendment “guaranteed” the equal protection of the law and the 15th Amendment “guaranteed” the right to vote. Collectively these amendments promised equal citizenship to newly free people and an end to the “badges and indicia” of slavery. 3 28 years ago, the Daily Progress published a six-part investigative series entitled “Disparate Justice,” that concluded that black men: (1) are arrested at a significantly higher rate than whites; (2) served an average of 746 more days in jail than white defendants; and (3) defendants with a court appointed lawyer served an average of 396 days longer than those with retained counsel. See htps://www.cvilletomorrow.org/specials/friendship-court/1992#. 2 Page 95 of 249 should be the responsibility of each of the agencies in the criminal justice system to see if it is contributing to the disparities we see in that system. This must be seen as part of their job. Metrics need to be established so that subjective impressions are eliminated and data can be trusted. Agencies need to be transparent so that people can be confident in their practices. Whatever the agencies do (or claim to have done) will also have to be independently and comprehensively evaluated to determine their effectiveness.4 POLICE DEPARTMENT: According to the DMC Study, Black people in Charlottesville, when arrested, are likely to receive more charges and more serious charges than similarly situated Whites. (DMC Study at 3-11 to 3-13). We need to identify the source of this disparity.5 The police department should monitor officers who have greatest racial disproportionality in their arrests and street encounters. That also means reviewing all body cams of those officers (something that is now done at random) and criminal charges to see if they are excessive. In this connection, the department needs to work with the commonwealth attorney to identify and monitor those officers who consistently file more serious or multiple charges against African-Americans than is appropriate. The department needs to establish better guidelines for officers to decide whether and when to exercise their discretion not to arrest for minor offenses. Each month the department identifies encounters in which officers had probable cause to arrest but didn’t arrest. This may be a positive development, but no explanation is given why these cases did not result in arrest. This practice should be institutionalized since allowing unfettered, and therefore subjective discretion 4 This includes diversionary programs, such as the drug court and the therapeutic docket. Many of us believe that these programs have a minimal effect on the issue of race discrimination and mass incarceration. 5 It is not clear from the study how many of the charges studied were as a result of a direct indictment. That needs to be clarified. In addition, cases in which officers have no discretion (e.g. warrants for probation violations, failures to appear) should be eliminated in order to determine what role the discretion of the police plays in the disparities that were identified. 3 Page 96 of 249 may lead to an increase in disproportionality.6 A healthy program of giving warnings or referrals to social service agencies or dispute resolution community groups in lieu of arrest would be welcomed and would likely have a positive effect on disproportionality. Police agencies have been part of the problem of racism in our country. That lesson was not lost on members of the African-American community and as a result there is a huge gap in trust and willingness to see the police as protectors of the community and not oppressors. Meetings about this gap have been held numerous times in the last decade. None resulted in change. Because of that, trust has been even further eroded and few believe that a truly just system can be achieved. It therefore behooves the police department to take action, take action now and be open and transparent about that action. Police often complain that they cannot get the cooperation from the community in solving crimes. The trust gap must be broken by the police before they can expect cooperation from the community. According to the President’s Task Force on Policing in the 21st Century, Recommendation 1.2 : “Law enforcement agencies should acknowledge the role of policing in past and present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust.” Chief Brackney appears to accept that: “To benefit both communities and police, the criminal justice system must acknowledge historical and institutional biases that target, alienate, and punish people of color and other vulnerable populations. See Civil Rights, Law Enforcement Leaders Urge Police to Protect Public Health while Safeguarding Rights by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights May 18, 2020. It is not enough to have a chief of police make these types of (important) statements: line and supervisory officers must share this view and be willing to change institutional culture for it to have an impact on policing. The Civilian Review Board is a crucial component of monitoring misconduct by police officers, including discriminatory policing in individual cases. In addition, its mandate includes reviewing departmental policies and practices, with a focus on policing in minority communities. An independent auditor will greatly enhance the ability of the CRB to identify discriminatory 6 MGT was only able to study felony cases. Nationwide, disparities increase with minor offenses. See https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/study-documents -extreme- racial- disparity-arrests-low- level-offenses. 4 Page 97 of 249 policing issues and to respond to them. Finally, the CRB must be a source that the community can be confident in, thereby increasing trust between the community and the police. As we have noted on other occasions, the CRB needs to be truly independent with the ability to obtain testimony and records and to have some measure of disciplinary authority. MAGISTRATE’S OFFICE: Magistrates make initial bail determinations and, since MGT found that similarly situated African-Americans are more likely than Whites to be held before trial, a study of the bail practices of the magistrate’s office is critical. (Remember that people held pretrial are more likely to be convicted and to receive harsher sentences.). Unfortunately we do not know what data is kept by the magistrate’s office or how it is organized. According to the Study, the lack of access to data in the magistrate’s office “hindered [] efforts at evaluating and presenting a clear picture of disparity and disproportionality in Charlottesville.” (DMC Study at 5-11). The magistrate’s service is directly under the Supreme Court. A request for data access can be made to the Executive Secretary of the Magistrate’s Service but it is likely that permission will have to be sought from the Supreme Court. We suggest that a joint application be made including the city, its police department and its commonwealth attorney. COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY: The Commonwealth Attorney may be the most powerful voice in the local criminal justice system. They are in a position to influence pretrial release decisions, to determine what felony charges will be presented to a grand jury or be downgraded to misdemeanors or not charging offenses with mandatory minimum sentences, to try the case and to influence the court at sentencing. We are fortunate to have a commonwealth attorney who is supportive of efforts to end racial disparities. What is being done by him and the success of those efforts, however, must be analyzed and made available to the public. Charlottesville’s commonwealth attorney says that 5 Page 98 of 249 he opposes cash bail6, his office regularly reduces felony charges to misdemeanors and eliminates overcharges. The commonwealth attorney’s office must maintain a data base on these efforts to determine whether they are having a positive impact on disparity. This must also be transparent with the data available to the public as well as researchers. In addition, the commonwealth attorney must maintain data on which officers regularly file more serious charges and/or more charges against African-Americans than is appropriate. They should then work with the police department and the civilian review board to reverse that pattern. The commonwealth attorney should also review a defendant’s prior history with the system while taking account of the very findings of the DMC Study. Any prior record will be a factor in bail decisions, plea negotiations and at trial and may even prevent a defendant from testifying on his/her own behalf.7 The prior record will also play a significant role in sentencing.8 Imagine someone who was convicted because of his/her race and is now facing further consequences from that unjust conviction should they ever return to court. We need an open discussion of whether it would be most appropriate to not use a prior record against African- American defendants due to the documented history of racial inequality and its continuing effect on Black defendants.9 6 According to the Study, bail no-bail decisions are “significantly” racially skewed. (DMC Study at 3-24). Ending cash bail, while a step in the right direction, does not end racial discrimination in the pretrial detention system. 7 A defendant’s prior record will often be used to undermine the testimony of the defendant. 8 For example, the Study found that there was no disparity in sentencing African-American males although there was a significant disparity for women (DMC Study at 3-26). However, prior record and pretrial detention play a significant role in sentencing and in both race plays a significant role. Thus, it is inevitable that African-Americans will serve more time than their White counterparts. The Study finding appears to indicate that judges are not contributing to disparities in sentencing while not recognizing that Black defendants come before them already prejudiced by a prior record or pretrial detention, which will increase their sentencing guideline range and final sentence. 9 Although generally opposed to “affirmative action” to redress old grievances, the Supreme Court has nonetheless upheld race-based action to redressing the present continuing manifestations of past discrimination. "The State certainly has a legitimate and substantial 6 Page 99 of 249 PUBLIC DEFENDER AND ASSIGNED COUNSEL: Since African-Americans are disproportionately lower income, more will use the services of the public defender or an assigned counsel than White defendants. There is sense among many defendants, as well as the community in general, that public defenders work for the courts and that they are not “real” lawyers. It is certainly true that public defenders carry too many cases, are understaffed and are under paid. The Study noted that “having a negative impact is that public defenders caseload is ‘miserable,’ averaging 150 cases.” (DMC Study at 4-41). A study, such as that published in 1992 (see fn. 2), should be conducted to see whether there is any distinction in rates of conviction or sentencing between those represented by public defenders and those represented by assigned counsel and between both and retained counsel with a breakout by race. The DMC Study found that Black defendants are more likely to be convicted than their white counterparts and the role of defense counsel is a critical element in the trial process. Unfortunately, there are no studies on whether those defendants (and those assigned counsel) are receiving comparable representation to those who are able to hire private counsel. Further, if you are more likely to be convicted or receive a heavier sentence when represented by court appointed counsel, what is causing that phenomena? Resources? Experience of counsel? Support services? This is something that should be monitored by the public defender’s office, but they will probably need additional staff for that purpose. In any event the community needs to know if their public defender’s office (and assigned counsel) provides quality representation that is equal to that provided by private counsel and, if not. to identify and rectify the obstacles. Assigned counsel, with some exceptions, are paid a flat fee of $120 for representing someone in a misdemeanor case and $445 for a felony. Virginia Code § 19.2-163. (Compensation of court-appointed counsel.) This is about 1/10th of what retained counsel interest in ameliorating, or eliminating where feasible, the disabling effects of identified discrimination." University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 (1978), In Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 280 (1986), the Court continued to emphasize that the legitimate objective behind such affirmative action policies is to remedy "the present effects of past discrimination." Given the proof adduced by the Study, a race-based decision to reduce or eliminate the current effects of past discrimination is not only constitutional but required by the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the law. 7 Page 100 of 249 receive, and one of the lowest rates in the country. For contrast, assigned counsel in federal court receive $152.00 an hour, up to $3,400 for a misdemeanor and up to $11, 800 for a felony. https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-2-ss-230- compensation-and-expenses#a230_20. How high do we value the right to counsel and justice? From what is paid to assigned counsel, one could easily conclude that Virginia does not value either. This is not a good recipe for the kind of representation people are entitled to and it does not incentivize to take assigned cases and to spend all the time necessary to prepare a vigorous defense. It may be that the city needs to further supplement our public defender’s office. This is also a statewide issue and should be taken up by the legislature with the support of the city. JUDICIARY: Judges play an essential role in bail decisions, ensuring a fair trial and sentencing. The researchers lacked sufficient data to examine the role of the judiciary in disproportionate bail and sentencing decisions. Some of the information may be gleaned from data in the clerk’s office. Again, the data has to be complete, accurate and capable of analysis along with the other agencies of the criminal justice system. If the clerk cannot open their files due to confidential information, request may have to be made to the Supreme Court. As MGT noted, bail and sentencing decisions are affected by the seriousness of the offense and the prior record of the defendant both of which are skewed due to the past history of racism. As with the commonwealth attorney, judges should review a defendant’s prior history with the justice system while taking account of the very findings of the Study. The right thing to do is to not take account of prior convictions obtained in a discriminatory system. PROBATION AND PAROLE: 38% of people in prison in Virginia were incarcerated for supervision (probation or parole) violations as of 2018. 51% of new prison admissions in 2016 were for supervision violations. See Council of State Governments Justice Center Study, available at https://csgjusticecenter.org/ publications/ confined-costly/?state=VA#primary. Obviously, this is a necessary area of study. Unfortunately, MGT was unable to get access to data on parole and probation violations. Parole and probation are controlled by the Department of Corrections and 8 Page 101 of 249 the request, therefore, may be addressed to them. Since they may not comply, alternative pressure points include the state Public Safety Director, the Attorney General and elected officials. If and when access is allowed and there is sufficient data, we must make a thorough review of probation and parole records doing the same comparative analysis that was done by MGT. However, it is not clear that the probation and parole departments are keeping the kind of statistics in the form needed by researchers. As with other agencies, it must do so. MISCELLANEOUS: Education: One of the extraordinary statistics in the Study relate to the level of education of those incarcerated. Most egregious is that of incarcerated African-American women: 79% did not finish high school compared with only 9.05% of the general population. (DMC Study at 3-5). Similar rates for white women, 75.2% did not graduate high school, strongly support an already recognized relationship between education and criminality and the overwhelming need to address the educational achievement of our community.10 This should include a massive effort to provide education to incarcerated persons and those returning to civilian life. Employment: In Charlottesville, 69.58% of the incarcerated persons were in the labor force compared to 74.2% in the general population. Losing employment is a serious consequences of being locked up. It will also affect the households who have lost bread earners. The lack of employment is also a serious barrier to reentry. This is a strong argument to release as many people as possible pre-trial. Trial Juries: Although not studied as part of the Study, it is common knowledge that Black people are severely underrepresented in the jury pools for felony cases. This may have an affect on the outcome of such cases. We need to examine the reasons for that underrepresentation and make appropriate changes. 10 According to the Study, 59.18% of incarcerated African-Americans did not graduate high school, while 49.85% of white prisoners did not. 9 Page 102 of 249 CONCLUSION The People’s Coalition supports all of the recommendations of the DMC Study. They will, if acted on, make the system better. However, none of them directly impact the racial discrimination faced by African-Americans in our local criminal justice system. We offer our thoughts and suggestions of some steps that we believe are needed to be taken. The fact that serious reform has taken so long cries out for new ideas and new voices, especially those of the community being served. According to the Study, “statements of disparity infer causality, and a causal agent -- for example a judge, a law, a policy, a guideline -- responsible for disparate outcomes.” Unfortunately, the DMC Study did not identify the causal agents for each of their findings of disparity. They did not identity a law or a policy or a guideline or custom responsible for disparate outcomes. We believe it is a combination of the three. We know that “risk assessment tools” are being used in making bail and sentencing determinations and they need to be vetted with a special eye on racial disparity. We also know that there appear to be people within the system making wrong decisions. In each instance we study, we have to look back as well as forward. If Black people have been discriminated in the criminal justice system, and there is little doubt of that, they carry the disabilities of prior records, at which they were treated unfairly. Without dealing with this question we are likely to find ourselves back in the same place. Of course, the city only has control over the police department but it can exert influence on other institutions like the commonwealth attorney. The city has to make a request to the Supreme Court to direct that magistrates maintain better data and that the data be open to the researchers. The city has to request, perhaps through the public safety director, to do the same with the parole and probation departments. The city also has influence over the city clerk and can request that data regarding felony cases be maintained in a certain way and also be made available to the researchers. Some of the preliminary work can be accomplished without funds, e.g. record keeping by the commonwealth attorney, reviews of line officers in the police department, contacting the city clerk, the Supreme Court, etc. Further research to identify (and 10 Page 103 of 249 more importantly to correct) the specific causes of racial disparity is obviously needed as noted here and in the DMC Study. And the community should be active participants in determining whatever next steps are necessary and determining whether the fiscal impact of such plans matches community values. Finally, we need a commitment from the agencies within the system (and perhaps a signed Memorandum of Understanding) that they recognize the problems identified in the Study and will work to eliminate them. However, as noted above, that acknowledgment and the mission to reduce disparity must be shared by all of those who work within the system. There may be various ways of measuring commitment to a mission, but without that commitment little can be accomplished. This is not a hunt for “racists,” or those with a particular political viewpoint, as some will claim, but when you work for an agency of government, the people have a right to expect that you share the mission of that agency and to act accordingly. Victims of discrimination care less about the state of mind of the actors than about the outcome of their conduct. See Woods v. City of Greensboro, 855 F.3d 639, 641 (4th Cir. 2017) (“many studies have shown that most people harbor implicit biases and even well-intentioned people unknowingly act on racist attitudes.”). 11 Page 104 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY STUDY Final Report January 20, 2020 www.mgtconsulting.com Page 105 of 249 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. ES-0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... ES-1 KEY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING RACIAL DISPARITY ......................................................................... ES-1 INCOMPLETE DATA PREVENTED ANALYSIS OF KEY DATA POINTS ...................................................... ES-2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS .............................................................................................. ES-2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1-0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 STUDY TEAM ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 BACKGROUND STUDY CONTEXT ............................................................................................... 1-4 OVERVIEW OF STUDY APPROACH ............................................................................................. 1-4 REPORT ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 1-5 CHAPTER 2. THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES .......................................... 2-0 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 2-1 SAMPLE/POPULATION DATA SOURCES FOR THE STUDY .......................................................... 2-8 VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 2-11 OPERATIONALIZING SYSTEM VARIABLES ................................................................................ 2-11 USING MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS TO ASSESS DISPARITIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................................. 2-17 VARIABLE SPECIFICATION, TRANSFORMATION, CODING AND “CLEANING” .......................... 2-18 HYPOTHESES AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE .............................................................................. 2-19 CHAPTER 3. MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 .................................................................................................................................................... 3-0 DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA, RESIDENTS AND INDIVIDUALS BOOKED AT ACRJ, 2014 THROUGH 2016 ............................................................ 3-2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 3-7 FINDINGS OF DISPARITY AT DISCRETIONARY DECISION POINTS IN THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY/CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: DISCUSSION ........................... 3-20 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 3-27 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | ii Page 106 of 249 TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued CHAPTER 4. COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS ........................................................................................................... 4-30 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 4-31 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 4-32 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSES ............................................................. 4-35 INMATE RESPONSES ............................................................................................................... 4-45 COMMUNITY MEMBER RESPONSES ....................................................................................... 4-46 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 4-52 CHAPTER 5. SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 5-0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5-1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 5-1 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 5-6 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 APPENDIX A: ALBEMARLE COUNTY-CHARLOTTESVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS MAPS ................... 1 APPENDIX B: OAR AND COURT BOND DECISIONS .................................................................................... 6 APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN .......................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE ....................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................................................. 19 APPENDIX F: RESOURCES RELATED TO RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 21 APPENDIX G: BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 25 TABLES TABLE 2-1. VIRGINIA CRIMINAL CODE SENTENCE INTERVAL CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED “SERIOUSNESS” RANKINGS........................................................................................................................ 2-12 TABLE 2-2. FREQUENCY OF CHARGES PER INDIVIDUAL FOR A SINGLE ARREST EVENT ............................. 2-14 TABLE 2-3. FREQUENCY OF CHARGES FOR GENERAL CATEGORIES OF CRIME .......................................... 2-16 TABLE 3-1. WHITE AMERICAN MALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES ................................................................... 3-8 TABLE 3-2. AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES ................................................................ 3-8 TABLE 3-3. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES ............................................................... 3-9 TABLE 3-4. AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES ............................................................ 3-9 TABLE 3-5. EFFECT OF RACE ON SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENSE BOOKED ...................................................... 3-10 TABLE 3-6. PREDICTED SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENSE BOOKED AFRICAN AMERICANS VS. WHITE AMERICANS ............................................................................................................................................... 3-11 TABLE 3-7. SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENSE BOOKED-MEANS .......................................................................... 3-11 TABLE 3-8. EFFECT OF RACE ON TOTAL CHARGES AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-12 TABLE 3-9. PREDICTED TOTAL CHARGES AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES ..... 3-12 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 P a g e | iii Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page 107 of 249 TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued TABLE 3-10. TOTAL CHARGES MEANS ....................................................................................................... 3-13 TABLE 3-11. EFFECT OF RACE ON BOND DENIAL ....................................................................................... 3-13 TABLE 3-12. EFFECT OF RACE ON LENGTH OF STAY .................................................................................. 3-14 TABLE 3-13. PREDICTED LENGTH OF STAY (LOS), AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-15 TABLE 3-14. LENGTH OF STAY-MEANS ...................................................................................................... 3-15 TABLE 3-15. EFFECT OF RACE ON GUILTY DISPOSITION ............................................................................ 3-16 TABLE 3-16. COURT PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................................................... 3-17 TABLE 3-17. EFFECTS OF RACE ON DAYS SENTENCED ............................................................................... 3-17 TABLE 3-18. PREDICTED DAYS SENTENCED AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALES .................................................................................................................................................... 3-18 TABLE 3-19. DAYS SENTENCED-MEANS ..................................................................................................... 3-19 TABLE 3-20. EFFECT OF RACE ON DAYS SERVED........................................................................................ 3-19 TABLE 3-21. EFFECT OF RACE ON DAYS SERVED........................................................................................ 3-20 TABLE 3-22. SUMMARY OF DISPARITY STUDY FINDINGS FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY-CHARLOTTESVILLE – 2014 THROUGH 2016, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ................................................................ 3-22 TABLE 4-1. RECORD OF RESPONSE CATEGORIES PER GROUP ................................................................... 4-34 FIGURES FIGURE 3-1. POPULATION SIZE .................................................................................................................... 3-3 FIGURE 3-2. BOOKINGS BY RACE AND JURISDICATION ............................................................................... 3-4 FIGURE 3-3. POPULATION MEDIAN AGE ..................................................................................................... 3-5 FIGURE 3-4. POPULATION EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ............................................................................ 3-6 FIGURE 3-5. TOTAL POPULATION IN LABOR FORCE .................................................................................... 3-6 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 2-1. EXAMPLE ............................................................................................................................... 2-18 EXHIBIT 2-2. EQUATION 1: THE EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “TOTAL CHARGES AT BOOKING” ............................................................................................................................ 2-20 EXHIBIT 2-3. EQUATION 2: THE EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “TOTAL CHARGES AT BOOKING” ............................................................................................................................ 2-20 EXHIBIT 2-4. EQUATION 3: THE EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON BOND DECISIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 2-21 EXHIBIT 2-5. EQUATION 4: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “LENGTH OF STAY” (ACRJ) .............................................................................................................................................. 2-21 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 P a g e | iv Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page 108 of 249 TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued EXHIBIT 2-6. EQUATION 5: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “GUILTY/NOT GUILTY” COURT OUTCOMES ..................................................................................................................... 2-22 EXHIBIT 2-7. EQUATION 6: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON DURATION OF SENTENCE .................................................................................................................................................. 2-22 EXHIBIT 2-8. EQUATION 6: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON DURATION OF SENTENCE .................................................................................................................................................. 2-23 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Page |v Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page 109 of 249 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Disproportionate Minority Study City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA 0 Page 110 of 249 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last several years, key participants in the criminal justice systems in City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle have expressed interest in analyzing data to better understand what factors may contribute to disproportionate minority contact with the criminal justice system. This joint discussion preceded the events of August 2017. Data shows that African-Americans are represented in the local criminal justice system at a rate higher than that reflected by their share of the overall population. This phenomena is common in localities across the United States. To date, no communities have endeavored to empirically and systemically examine available data to assess the degree to which this principle is effectuated in practice. Until now. Racial disproportionality refers to one race being over- or under-represented compared to the racial makeup of the whole community, while racial disparity is when individuals in similar situations receive different outcomes based on race. With the support of a $100,000 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and additional City funding, the City and County contracted with the MGT Consulting to better understand disproportionality in the local criminal justice system, identify disparities that may exist, and seek solutions to any sources of disparity found. This groundbreaking study reflects a voluntary commitment among all parties to better assess the local criminal justice system. The purpose of the study was to:  Determine the extent of racial disproportionality in the local criminal justice system.  Identify racial disproportionality and disparities.  Analyze the reasons for any disproportionality or disparity.  Map resources and gaps.  Recommend policy and best practices to address disproportionality and disparity.  Work with the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to develop a strategic plan to implement recommendations. KEY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING RACIAL DISPARITY For two individuals, African American and White, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail from 2014 – 2016:  There was disparity between the race of arrestees and the seriousness of the charge, with African American defendants having more serious charges leveled.  There was disparity between the race of arrestees and the seriousness of the charge, with African American defendants having a larger number of total charges.  There was disparity by race in the determination of whether an individual was held with or without bond, with African Americans more likely to be denied release. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | ES-1 Page 111 of 249 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  There was disparity in the length of time a defendant was held in jail prior to trial, with African American males’ length of stay being double that of White American males; this disparity was NOT apparent for females.  Race did NOT impact length of sentence for African American males when compared with white males sentenced in circuit court but sentences for African American women were nearly 213 days longer in duration, on average, than sentences for White American women.  There was NOT a disparate relationship by race in the duration of the actual time served after sentencing.  Regardless of race, males charged with more serious crimes accompanied by a record of prior charges and who spent more days in jail prior to sentencing received longer sentences.  For males in general, for all categories of crime, neither the total number of charges associated with the most serious charge nor jurisdiction—City or County-- played a significant role in time- sentenced.  For African American women, race, crime seriousness, total number of companion charges, a record of prior criminal charges and the time they had spent in jail prior to sentencing were all positively related to sentence duration outcomes.  For African American males charged with drug-related crimes, race was not a significant influence on sentence time decisions but seriousness of offense, the total number of charges associated with the main drug crime charge and the individual’s length of stay prior to sentencing were statistically-significant influences. INCOMPLETE DATA PREVENTED ANALYSIS OF KEY DATA POINTS For now, despite the absence of important information regarding police-suspect interactions, the data for this study nevertheless provided evidence that racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes for African American males particularly are present at various points along the Charlottesville/Albemarle criminal justice continuum. Furthermore, the decision-points at which disparity has been found in the Charlottesville/Albemarle County system mirror findings reported in our review of previous research: that is, that regardless of jurisdiction—municipal, state or federal—study after study over a period of decades have concluded that the race of the defendant influences outcomes at various point along the criminal justice continuum. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS A. Increase and support meaningful re-entry programs B. Increase transparency of City and County Police Departments C. Maintain, develop, encourage and support special initiative programs D. Increase diversity in law enforcement E. Adopt programs that are alternatives to incarceration. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | ES-2 Page 112 of 249 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY F. Provide additional training opportunities G. Review best practices from other communities. H. Conduct additional research and build upon the findings and recommendations of this study. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | ES-3 Page 113 of 249 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Disproportionate Minority Study City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA 1-0 Page 114 of 249 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION MGT of America Consulting, LLC (MGT) is pleased to submit the CHAPTER SECTIONS Disproportionate Minority Study (Study) to the City of  Charlottesville (City) and Albemarle County (County), Virginia. The 1.1 Introduction purpose of this study was to: 1.2 Study Team 1.3 Background Study Context  Determine the extent of racial disproportionality in the 1.4 Overview of Study Approach local criminal justice system 1.5 Report Organization  Identify racial disproportionality and disparities.  Analyze the reasons for any disproportionality or disparity.  Map resources and gaps.  Recommend policy and best practices to address disproportionality and disparity.  Work with the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to develop a strategic plan to implement recommendations. In this report, we discuss disparity and disproportionality. These concepts are similar, but it is important to understand what each is referring to. While disproportionality refers to the state of being out of proportion, disparity refers to a state of being unequal. Disproportionality: not proportionate; out of proportion, as in size or number. Disproportionality for this study, then, is a finding that the ratio of a group of persons processed by the criminal justice system, as measured at a series of decision points, in Charlottesville/Albemarle County is not on proportion to their numbers in the local general population (i.e., the percentage of that groups presence in the criminal justice system is higher than their percentage of the general population). Disparity: a lack of similarity or equality; inequality; difference. Disparity, for this study, is a determination about whether a group of persons receive different treatment and/or different outcomes in the criminal justice system in Charlottesville/Albemarle County when variables other than race and gender (e.g., type of charge, criminal history, seriousness of violation) are held constant. Therefore, when other variables are all similar, if there remains a disparity between the treatment/outcome between groups, the inference is that these differences (disparity) are based solely on race or gender. STUDY TEAM The MGT team who conducted the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Disproportionate Minority Study is highly skilled and experienced in the disparity research study business. MGT staff has extensive social science research experience, particularly as it relates to disparity, diversity, and equity issues. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 1-1 Page 115 of 249 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION experience of our team enables us to navigate the challenges, obstacles, and volatility associated with conducting a study such as this, which can derail even the most well-planned and executed study. 1.2.1 MGT PROJECT TEAM MGT is a Tallahassee-based research and management consulting firm. Since 1990, MGT has conducted over 215 disparity and disparity-related research studies. The team of experts who dedicated their time, attention, and expertise to this study include: Dr. Fred Seamon, Executive Vice President/Qualitative Researcher Dr. Seamon was responsible for ensuring the team had the necessary staff and resources to address the deliverables set forth in the scope of work. Dr. Seamon was also responsible for conducting interviews with the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County officials and stakeholders. Dr. Seamon has over 30 years of consulting, research, and teaching experience. He has been conducting research related to access and equity since he was a graduate student. Dr. Seamon has been involved in over 100 of MGT’s disparity and disparity-related research studies. His disparity study areas of expertise include qualitative research methods, community engagement, and outreach and policy analysis. He has extensive experience analyzing the structure, operations, and processes of public sector organizations and nonprofit agencies, and conducting research studies related to access, equity, and disparities in education, business, and human services. His consulting experience also includes workforce development, organizational development, program evaluation, program auditing, and performance management in workforce development, developmental disabilities, and community philanthropy. Mr. Reggie Smith, Vice President/Project Director Mr. Smith served as project director for this engagement. Mr. Smith is the leader of MGT’s disparity research business unit and is nationally recognized for managing and directing disparity research studies. He plays a key role in developing, refining, and executing MGT’s methodology and quality standards for conducting disparity research studies. Mr. Smith is a highly skilled project manager with the knowledge and skills necessary to manage the complexity of a disparity study. In addition to his disparity study experience, Mr. Smith has extensive experience providing consulting, training, and public relations services to private and public sector agencies, particularly in local government. Mr. Smith also specializes in managing and conducting re-engineering, operational assessments, organizational and performance reviews, and administrative technology projects for city, county, and state government agencies. Ms. Vernetta Mitchell, Disparity Services Manager/Qualitative Research Manager Ms. Mitchell led the qualitative research effort for this study. She has over 20 years of experience in minority business program development, public and private sector SBE and MWBE program administration, construction, and government procurement. She has successfully managed dozens of disparity studies since joining MGT, and has functional knowledge and expertise in project management, project scheduling, analytical reporting, facilitation, and public relations. Ms. Mitchell’s City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 1-2 Page 116 of 249 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION extensive experience in procurement, construction, and program administration has enabled Ms. Mitchell to use her expertise in the development and management of qualitative data collection that has led to more efficient analyses and reporting of business participation. Mr. Andres Bernal, Senior Consultant/Quantitative Data Manager Mr. Bernal was responsible for collecting and analyzing City and County’s data. He has extensive experience in the collection and analysis of large complex data and applying various statistical and mathematical computations to reach reliable and valid conclusions that are used to shape disparity research findings and recommendations. Mr. Bernal has a law degree and an impressive background in economic theories, including Microeconomic Theory, Macroeconomic Theory, Econometrics, Urban Economics, Experimental Economics, Human and Labor Resource Economics, and Regression Analysis. Ms. Kim Stewart, Senior Consultant/Qualitative Research & Analysis Ms. Kim Stewart prepared the qualitative analysis for this report. She has over 10 years of experience managing disparity studies from start to finish and has served as the lead researcher, identifying and preparing data for study evaluation. She has been a lead researcher or project manager on over 40 disparity-related studies and has been a repeat presenter at ACCA for project goal setting, and for contract data collection for disparity studies. She has a MS and BA, summa cum laude, from St. Edwards University School of Management and Business. MGT SUBCONSULTANT Dr. Robert A. Conners, Disproportionate Minority Contact Expert Dr. Conners has more than three decades of experience working for and consulting with numerous public and private sector institutions and agencies in matters ranging from institutional research to diversity and inclusion. During the nineties, he served with Florida State University’s African American Studies faculty, conducting research in race conflict theory, race relations, and multicultural education and curriculum development. From 1991–1993, he served as lead researcher for the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, supervising an OJJDP-sponsored study investigating sources of minority overrepresentation and disproportionate minority contact in Florida’s juvenile justice system. Throughout the nineties, he developed and implemented successful, grant-funded minority youth outreach programs aimed preventing entry into the criminal justice system. He remains an active member of several professional associations, including the Association for Conflict Resolution and the American Educational Research Association. Additional expertise and experience include program development, instructional design, website development, program evaluation, advanced statistical analysis, and survey/test design and analysis for a variety of topical venues. He also serves with the North Florida Regional Domestic Security Task Force as a consultant in bioterrorism response preparedness. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 1-3 Page 117 of 249 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND STUDY CONTEXT As stated in the Request for Proposals, Charlottesville City and Albemarle County incarcerate a disproportionate number of Black residents. This disproportionality has a negative impact on those incarcerated and contributes significantly to the cost of running the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ). It also places a strain on the criminal justice system and erodes trust among Black residents regarding the justice process. Community leaders have made a commitment to gain a greater understanding of disproportionate minority contact (DMC), its causes, and how a community can effectively respond once data is gathered and facts are known. In July 2018, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA contracted with MGT to conduct a Disproportionate Minority Study. MGT collected and analyzed data for the years of 2014 through 2016. OVERVIEW OF STUDY APPROACH MGT followed a carefully designed work plan that allowed study team members to fully analyze available data for years 2014 through 2016 (i.e., the study period). The sources of data analyzed for the Study included:  Police;  Jail;  Courts; and  Local probation; The Disproportionate Minority Study analyzed data in these areas in order to identify and document, with particularity, whether statistical disparity exists. If statistical disparity exists, a comprehensive strategic plan will be developed to address the depth and breadth of disparity, and recommendations for improvement. The work plan consisted of, but was not limited to, the following major tasks:  Finalize the work plan.  Update mapping for Charlottesville and Albemarle County.  Collect, analyze, and track data for the study.  Determine the rate of disparity.  Validate findings with key stakeholders.  Engage key stakeholder groups.  Develop comprehensive strategic plan and report. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 1-4 Page 118 of 249 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  Prepare and present draft and final reports for the study. REPORT ORGANIZATION In addition to this introductory chapter, the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Disproportionate Minority Study report consists of: CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF RESEARCH FINDINGS, PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Chapter 2 presents the research questions and methods, system mapping, data sources and methodology used for data analysis. CHAPTER 3 MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014- 2016 Chapter 3 provides findings from MGT’s analysis of police, court, probation and parole data, and interviews with stakeholders. CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Chapter 4 presents information collected from community forums, common themes and a summary of findings. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 5 provides the summary, recommendations and strategic planning based upon the analyses and conclusions presented in this study. APPENDICES The appendices contain supporting documentation and data. APPENDIX A: Albemarle County Charlottesville Criminal Justice Process Map APPENDIX B: OAR and Court Bond Decisions APPENDIX C: Community Outreach Plan APPENDIX D: Focus Group Guide APPENDIX E: Interview Guide APPENDIX F: Resources for Recommendations APPENDIX G: Bibliography MGT recommends reading the Disproportionate Minority Study in its entirety to understand the basis for the summary and conclusions presented in Chapter 5, Summary of Findings and Recommendations. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 1-5 Page 119 of 249 CHAPTER 2. THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Disproportionate Minority Study City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA 2-0 Page 120 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE CHAPTER SECTIONS AND METHODOLOGY  2.1 Review of Relevant Literature and Methodology Racial disparities exist at every stage of the U.S. criminal justice 2.2 2.3 Sample/Population Data system (Antonovics and Knight, 2009; Fryer, 2018; Starr and Rehavi, Sources for the Study 2014; Anwar, Bayer, and Hjalmarsson, 2012; Abrams, Bertrand, and 2.3 Variables for Analysis Mullainathan, 2012; McIntyre and Baradaran, 2013; Doerner and 2.4 Operationalizing System Variables Demuth, 2010; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer, 1998; Warren, 2.5 Using Multiple Regression Analysis Chiricos, and Bales, 2012; Farrell, Ward and Rousseau, 2009; King, to Assess Disparities in Criminal Justice Outcomes Johnson and McGeever, 2010; Chiricos and Crawford, 1995; Crawford, 2.6 Variable Specification, Chiricos, and Kleck, 1998; Hester and Hartman, 2017). Among Transformation, Coding and criminologists, that race and ethnicity affect one’s chances of going to “Cleaning” prison is a well-established fact (e.g., Steffensmeier, Ulmer and 2.7 Hypotheses and Analysis Painter-Davis, 2009). Four decades ago, more than a decade before Procedure the War on Drugs, Blumstein (1982) reported that African American males in their twenties were 25 times more likely to be incarcerated than members of the general population. “On any given day, one can expect to find over three percent of that group in state prisons. In view of the relatively low likelihood of imprisonment generally (about one person per 800 of the total population is in a state prison on any day), finding as many as one person out of thirty-three from any demographic group in prison is strikingly high and represents a source of considerable concern” (Blumstein, 1982, p. 1281). In a seminal and extensive meta-analysis of race effects on incarceration, Chiricos and Crawford (1995, p.296) reported 38 studies generating 145 estimates of the race/incarceration relationship. Two-thirds found African Americans were more likely to receive harsher outcomes than white counterparts for crimes of similar seriousness and their race placed them at higher risk for incarceration 80 percent of the time, even when crime seriousness and prior record were controlled. They concluded that race had stronger and more consistent direct effects on incarceration decisions and, in the federal system, race, particularly, affected both the decision to incarcerate and sentence duration. 2.1.1 IDENTIFYING VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS 2.1.1.1 CRIMINAL JUSTICE “SYSTEM” VARIABLES Investigations of factors associated with criminal justice outcomes have identified several systemic variables. These are decision-points along the criminal justice continuum, having varying effects on ultimate, and interim, criminal justice outcomes. Although some decisions are guided strictly by legislated directives permitting little discretion on the part of judges and prosecutors, other decision-points permit a greater degree of discretion in determining criminal justice outcomes. Generally, following an arrest for a violation and subsequent booking, a hearing is conducted to consider charges and to determine the release or detention of a defendant, pending further legal action. The defendant may be released with a bond guarantee or on his/her personal recognizance or may be taken into custody without a bond or the prospect of release. In some criminal cases charges are considered to be so serious in nature they require a suspect to be detained in custody (referred to as a “presumptive hold”). A defendant may also be detained based on an evaluation of his/her risk for flight from the jurisdiction or because there is reason City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-1 Page 121 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES to suspect he/she poses a threat to society. As a condition of release, a suspect may be referred to an offender aid or other diversion program. If the case proceeds to court, among other decisions, the prosecutor may reduce the number and severity of charges or reconsider release on bail, among possible decisions. And, of course, there are determinations of guilt or innocence and, for the guilty, determinations of punishment. Additional to the systemic factor is the consideration of the defendant’s prior criminal history, if any. These are the legal and systemic variables pertaining to the crime event, per se, its nature and its severity and are decision-making points in which authorities can exercise varying degrees of personal discretion, with latitude in decision-making potentially susceptible to the influence of personal attitudes and beliefs. The general question in a disparity study is “To what extent, if any, does the race of the suspect/defendant/offender play a role in determining criminal justice outcomes?” Under the U.S. Constitution, the processes and decisions made by authorities are supposed to be race-neutral. Based on research by Harris, et al, “At year-end 2005, African American inmates represented an estimated 40% of all state and federal prisoners, and Hispanics represented about 20% (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2006). These figures far exceed the African American proportion, 12.6%, and the Hispanic proportion, 14.4%, of the entire US population (National Center for Health Statistics 2005). In fact, in 2009, African Americans (577,200) outnumbered whites (465,500) in American prisons and, if incarcerations trends hold going forward, nearly one-third of African American males will be imprisoned at some point in their life, compared with 5% of white males (2009). Although, studies prior to 2000 affirming disproportionality at almost every point along the criminal justice continuum were consistent in their findings that racial/ethnic minorities receive harsher outcomes than whites (Ulmer and Kramer 1996; Petersilia 1983; Spohn, Gruhl, and Welch, 1982; Zatz 1984). Klein, et al (1990) found no race effect and others found that African Americans were treated more leniently for some classes of crime than white offenders (Bernstein, Kelly, and Doyle 1977). Other studies found that race interacts with other variables and affects outcomes only in some types of cases (Spohn and Cederblom 1991), in some settings (Chiricos and Crawford 1995; Kleck 1981; Myers and Talarico 1986) and for some types of defendants (LaFree 1989; Nobiling, Spohn, and DeLone 1998; Peterson and Hagan 1984). Given a growing and compelling body of more contemporary research supporting a race/decision-making relationship, researchers have turned their attention to investigations of the antecedent conditions, decisions and circumstances influencing disparate judicial outcomes (Chiricos & Crawford, 1995; Spohn, 2000; Zatz, 1987; Franklin, 2018; Franklin and Henry 2019; Ulmer, 2012). Compared to similarly-situated white Americans, African Americans are more likely to be searched for contraband (Antonovics and Knight, 2009), more likely to experience police force (Fryer 2018; Bazelon, 2019), more likely to be charged with a serious offense (Starr and Rehavi 2014; Bazelon, 2019), more likely to be convicted (Anwar, Bayer, and Hjalmarsson, 2012), and more likely to be incarcerated (Abrams, Bertrand, and Mullainathan 2012). Arnold, Dobbie and Yang (2018) found that bail judges were racially biased against African American defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges, concluding that racial bias is driven by bail judges’ reliance on inaccurate stereotypes that exaggerate the relative danger of releasing African American defendants. Decades earlier, LaFree (1985) and, Lizotte (1978) had concluded that race influenced sentence severity indirectly through its effect on variables such City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-2 Page 122 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES as bail status. Regarding the setting of bail amounts, African American defendants were more likely to be assigned monetary bail than white defendants and received almost $10,000 in additional bail liability. McIntyre and Baradaran (2013) found that African American felony defendants in state courts were significantly more likely to be detained pre-trial compared to otherwise similar white defendants. In general, harsher punishments and sentences were more likely for younger African American male offenders than others (Doerner and Demuth, 2010; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer, 1998; Warren, Chiricos, and Bales, 2012); for cases adjudicated in jurisdictions with smaller minority populations (Farrell, Ward and Rousseau, 2009; King, Johnson and McGeever, 2010); for individuals hailing from the southeastern US (Chiricos and Crawford, 1995); for cases with lower offense severity (Crawford, Chiricos, and Kleck, 1998; Hester and Hartman, 2017); and, among offenders with extensive criminal histories (Spohn 2000). Frederick and Stemen (2012) state, “In a review of 24 studies of prosecutorial charging decisions and 19 studies of decisions by prosecutors to seek the death penalty, found that race clearly affected the decision to seek the death penalty. However, evidence on the role of race in charging was less clear; 15 of the 24 studies found no effect of race on charging decisions.” In discussing gaps in the literature on prosecutorial discretion under sentencing reforms more research was needed to explore whether race and other extralegal characteristics affect prosecutors’ decisions regarding the application of three strikes and other mandatory minimums, adding that few studies examine “outside” or contextual influences on prosecutorial decision-making—what criminologists refer to as “focal concerns” (Ulmer, Kurlychek & Kramer, 2007). While much has been learned about the circumstances under which race and ethnicity influence discretionary judicial outcomes, Ulmer (2012) concluded that researchers had yet to thoroughly investigate the ancillary effects of legal systemic factors on outcomes relative to personal trait factors of defendants and specific criminal justice system decision-points with regard to race and ethnicity. A frequent refrain of researchers has underscored the need to refine key measures included in analyses— especially criminal history and offense severity— to account for their influence on case-processing outcomes when these variables were included in analyses (Blumstein, Cohen, Martin, and Tonry, 1983; Kleck, 1981; Klepper, Nagin, and Tierney, 1983; Chiricos and Crawford, 1995; Ulmer, 2012; Franklin, 2017; Franklin and Henry, 2019). In examinations of sentencing decisions, researchers found that the direct effects of race were significantly reduced in some studies and insignificant in others when criminal history and offense seriousness were included along with “extra-legal” variables such as age, gender, race, employment status and educational attainment (Hagan, 1973; Kleck, 1981) and even more pronounced in cases with lower offense severity (Crawford, Chiricos, and Kleck, 1998; Hester and Hartman, 2017) and among offenders with extensive criminal histories (Spohn, 2000). 2.1.1.2 “EXTRA-LEGAL” VARIABLES In the review above it was noted that when so-called “extra-legal” variables— individual trait and status factors— were introduced into investigations of the effect of race on criminal justice outcomes, the general effect was to reduce the statistical impact of similarly-situated defendants’ race on criminal justice outcomes. In the current study, in addition to the effect of systemic variables, “extra-legal” variables to be analyzed include race, individuals’ employment status at booking, individuals’ educational attainment, age and sex. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-3 Page 123 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYMENT AND CRIME In studies of the relationship between employment and propensity for criminal behavior, more than two dozen empirical studies among a variety of adult and young adult populations consistently confirmed that labor market success in the form of employment, high wages, job stability, and occupational prestige generally tend to reduce criminal involvement (Crutchfield and Pitchford, 1997; Farrington, Gallagher, Morley, Ledger, and West, 1986; Good, Pirog-Good, and Sickles, 1986; Grogger, 1997; Hagan and McCarthy, 1997; Horney, Osgood, and Marshall, 1995; Sampson & Laub 2003; Laub and Sampson, 1993; Thornberry and Christenson, 1984; Uggen, 1999, 2000). Thornberry and Christenson (1984) found that chronic unemployment increased the number of arrests for crimes of similar seriousness comparing employed and unemployed individuals and increased as a function of economic disadvantage and race (unemployed African Americans had disproportionately higher numbers of arrests). Farrington et al. (1986) also found that rates of conviction were higher during periods of unemployment, moderated by low income, poor parental/child rearing history and parental history of criminal behavior. Findings suggested that among individuals most likely to commit crimes, employment may have the largest crime- preventive benefits when compared with persons at lower risk of criminal behavior. Laub and Sampson (1993) found that job instability during the 17–25 age range was correlated with higher probability, frequency, and liability for arrest in late adolescence and early adulthood. Grogger (1997) reported that higher wages corresponded with a substantially lower probability of criminal participation and that the income gap between African American and White American wage earners accounted for about one quarter of the racial differential in crime participation. “The growth in market opportunities with age”, he observed, “is largely responsible for the concomitant decrease in crime” (p. 786). Uggen (1999) corroborated Grogger’s conclusion finding that work opportunity was associated with rates of arrest, especially for older offenders. In general, empirical studies confirm the expectation from a variety of theories that having a job reduces one’s propensity for criminal behavior. It also appears that having a good job—more stability, higher wages, better quality—is an even greater restraint on criminal behavior than having a bad job (e.g., Hagan & McCarthy, 1997; Uggen, 2000) and that the employment–crime benefit tends to be strongest among older individuals. EDUCATION AND CRIME In 2012, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the average annual income for individuals who fail to earn a high school diploma to be $20,241 annually; $10,000 less than for graduates and $36,000 less than for a college graduate. Historically, the poverty rate for high school dropouts is twice as high as for college graduates, and their unemployment rate is roughly four percentage points higher than the national average for all Americans. Four-fifths, 80 percent, of today’s prison population in the United States did not earn a high school diploma. Lack of education decreases individuals’ employment opportunities and is associated with local crime rates. In recent history, due to extensive automation in U.S. industrial and technological sectors, demand for an educated workforce has increased, decreasing opportunity for lesser educated individuals and propelling a disproportionate number toward illegal activities as sources of income. As with employment and age and their relationship to criminal behavior, the relationship between education and propensity for crime, based on decades of research, is established. That is, jail and prison populations in the U.S. are less educated than the general population of people who are not incarcerated. (U.S. Bureau of Labor City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-4 Page 124 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Statistics, 2016). Over the decades, findings have consistently supported an inverse relationship between high school graduation and the likelihood one will engage in criminal behavior. This trend is even more pronounced for some racial and ethnic minority groups. The problem is exacerbated by a history in which African American and Hispanic Americans, more so than white Americans, are less likely to have access to quality educational opportunities and are more likely to leave school earlier, experiencing disproportionately higher levels of incarceration (Lochner and Moretti, 2004) Machin, Marie, and Vujić (2011) found that increased educational attainment reduces property crime and produces large social benefits over time. Franklin (2017) observed that high school graduates were significantly less likely to be sent to prison and received shorter sentences than similarly situated offenders who did not finish high school. He also observed that any “deleterious” impact of extra-legal factors such as race, ethnicity, age and sex on criminal justice outcomes are reduced as a result of higher levels of education. Criminological theory has offered various explanations for the relationship between education and crime. Strain Theory holds that the problems of adjustment faced by youth in the school setting lead to poor performance and later criminality, emphasizing the role of class in the educational achievement of young people and its effect on self-esteem (Cohen 1955). Jarjoura (1996) suggested that lack of education creates an incongruence between the pressure to succeed and the ability to succeed, leading to unrealistic demands and emotional frustration predictive of criminal behavior. Social Control Theory suggests formal controls such as laws, law enforcement, government, and other groups place parameters around behavior but that the most powerful social control is family-of-origin. Hirschi (1969) explained how these macrosocial and microsocial controls work as formative bonds guiding individual development, the most important of which is attachment to parents. Another significant bond is attachment to school, which when weakened, leads some individuals to reject authority and education toward a greater susceptibility to criminal behavior. In a review of state-level education policy and budgets, the Justice Policy Institute found that states with a greater financial commitment to education resulting in higher levels of per capita educational attainment tend to have lower violent crime rates and lower incarceration rates than the national average. Although crime rates have decreased in the U.S. generally in the past 30 years, States increasing investment in higher education have experienced a significantly greater decrease in violent crime when compared with other states. (FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2000-2005.) The American Economic Review (2016) predicted that a one-year increase in the populations’ average years of schooling completed reduces violent crime by almost one-third and motor vehicle theft by one-fifth. An Alliance for Excellent Education (2006) report estimates that a five percent increase in male high school graduation rates would produce an annual savings of almost $5 billion in crime-related expenses. Lochner and Moretti (2004) proposed that “increasing the high school graduation rate in the United States… would have resulted in nearly 100,000 fewer crimes, providing an annual benefit valued at more than $2 billion. AGE AND CRIME One of the oldest and most widely accepted maxims in criminology, that involvement in crime diminishes with age, was first asserted more than 200 years ago by Belgian scientist Adolphe Quetelet, (Steffensmeier, Allan, Harer, & Streifel, 1989) and has been characterized as a “resilient empirical City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-5 Page 125 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES regularity” (Brame & Piquero, 2003, p. 107) and “one of the brute facts of criminology” (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983, p. 552). The classic “age-crime curve” portrays crime rates rising in adolescence, peaking in the late teens and declining through adulthood (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983). Three major theoretical traditions in criminology have explored age as it relates to propensity for criminal behavior. Strain Theory argues that adolescents and young adults experience higher levels of “status frustration” (i.e., strain)—ostensibly making them more susceptible to improving status through the spoils of crime-- but that it declines with entry into adulthood and legitimate employment (Agnew, 1985). Social Control Theory argues that social bonds are weakened during adolescence and early adulthood but tend to redevelop in adulthood as individuals accumulate conventional ties to jobs and begin to build their own families through marriage and parenthood (Sampson and Laub, 1995). Agnew (1985) suggested both formal and informal social controls vary by age, freeing or constraining an individual to violate social norms. As young people move into adulthood or anticipate entering it, most find their bonds to conventional society strengthening, with expanded access to work or further education and changing peer associations and lifestyle routines that diminish the opportunities for committing these offenses (Warr, 1993). Finally, Differential Association Theory assumes increasing involvement in crime during adolescence is due to association with delinquent peers. Warr (1993) found that more time spent with criminal peers increased criminal behavior and vice versa, concluding that the age–crime relationship may be at least partially explained by changes in peer associations. Stolzenberg and D’Alessio (2008) examined the implications of peer association concluding that criminal behavior during adolescence and early adulthood is largely a group phenomenon. In general, the F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Report Crime Index shows a long-term trend toward increasingly younger age-crime distributions, revealing that the highest age-specific arrest rate is younger than 25 for almost all crimes reported in the F.B.I.'s UCR program and that the median age is younger than thirty for most crimes. These findings were corroborated by Steffensmeier and Allan (1995) who concluded that physical strength, speed, prowess, stamina, and aggression play a role in the successful commission of many crimes. GENDER AND CRIME In the United States, since the 1960s, women have accounted for roughly 20 percent of arrests annually for most crime categories (Steffensmeier and Streifel,1991). In general, men exhibit much higher rates of criminal behavior and account for greater numbers of arrests than do women for all categories of crime (except prostitution). Within-gender comparisons indicate that both males and females have relatively lower rates of arrest for more serious crimes such as felony crimes against persons and property and higher rates of arrest for lesser crimes such as minor property crimes and public misbehavior involving alcohol and/or drugs. Although males are arrested at much higher rates than women generally, male and female arrest trends over time, across groups and geographic regions are similar. That is, decades or groups or regions that have high rates of male crime tend to also have high rates of female crime, and groups or regions that have low rates of male crime also have low rates of female crime. Similarly, states or cities or counties that have comparatively higher than average arrest rates for men also have higher arrest rates for women (Steffensmeier and Streifel, 1991). Both female offenders and male offenders tend to come from impoverished backgrounds marked by considerable disadvantage. However, women City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-6 Page 126 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES who commit crime are somewhat more likely than men to have been abused physically, psychologically, or sexually, both in childhood and as adults. Overall, women account for less than 15 percent of homicide and aggravated assault crimes and for less than 10 percent of the serious crimes of burglary and robbery. Aside from prostitution, female representation has been greatest for minor property crimes such as larceny-theft, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement, rising as high as 30 to 40 percent for some periods since the 1970’s. Theft and fraud committed by women typically involve shoplifting (larceny-theft), "bad checks" (forgery or fraud), and welfare and credit fraud. Although there have been intervals in which female crime has increased faster than male crime for minor property crimes, (e.g., from 1960 and 1975, arrests doubled), the percentage of female arrests has declined for both homicide and prostitution (Steffensmeier, 1993). In general, women's acts of violence, compared to those of men, result in fewer injuries and less serious injuries and women’s property crimes usually result in lesser loss and/or damage. To the extent that age differences between the sexes exist, the tendency is for somewhat lower peak ages of offending among females— apparently because of their earlier physical maturity and the likelihood that young adolescent females might date and associate with older delinquent male peers. But overall, female-to-male relative crime rates remain constant across the life span (Steffensmeier and Streifel, 1991). In general, women are less likely than males to recidivate inasmuch as long-term careers in crime are very rare among women. Some pursue relatively brief careers (in relation to male criminal careers) in prostitution, drug offenses, or minor property crimes like shoplifting or check forging. 2.1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY Historical research indicates a long history of finding that race has an impact on the treatment and outcome of persons in the criminal justice system. Our review indicates that race is a factor in the decision to incarcerate as well as in the severity of the sentence. To begin to craft the methodology that would be used for this study, we first identified decision points along the criminal justice continuum; these are the system variables we discovered in our literature review. The system variables include:  Arrest  Booking  Hearing  Release or detention  Number of charges  Severity of charges  Bail  Sentencing  Severity of sentence City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-7 Page 127 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Our review also identified the “extra-legal” variables that are relevant to this study. These are the individual trait and status factors related to a person. The extra-legal variables identified for this study include:  Employment  Education  Age  Gender Our literature researched informed the creation of the methodology for this study. SAMPLE/POPULATION DATA SOURCES FOR THE STUDY “Is the race of an individual charged with a criminal violation in Charlottesville or Albemarle County, VA, a factor in legal decisions and case dispositions?” The central question guiding this study explored whether or not African American individuals, during the three-year interval of this study, received harsher outcomes when compared with white individuals charged with similar crimes, with similar criminal history and similar demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, level of education and occupational status)? If so, racial disparity can be inferred. The following sections describe the methodology for MGT’s investigation of race in criminal justice decisions and outcomes in the Albemarle County and Charlottesville, VA, jurisdiction. Subjects for the study were individuals booked into the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ) from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2016. Three sets of data were provided for the development of a project database:  Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ) Bookings Data containing records of individuals who were assigned “booking identification numbers”, typically following an arrest or a formal charge or a violation.  Data provided by the Office of Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) Pre-trial Services, containing records for those released on pre-trial supervision.  Circuit Court and General District court records maintained by the Supreme Court of Virginia for each jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. ACRJ bookings data contained 24 data fields and roughly 27,119 duplicated records representing 10,328 unique individuals who were assigned “booking identification numbers” during the study period. OAR Pre- trial data contained 76 data fields and roughly 1800 unduplicated records. Circuit court and General District Court data contained 77,000 unduplicated records and 55 and 47 data fields respectively. From these records, two master data set were created: One for creation of a “Data Dashboard”, an online tool reporting annual crime and arrest data and trends for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-8 Page 128 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES VA, area; the second data set was constructed for statistical analyses of disparity in the criminal justice system from 2014 through 2016. 2.2.1 DATA FOR THE DATA DASHBOARD: SAMPLE/POPULATION The Data Dashboard is an interactive tool that allows the end user the ability to visualize bookings, OAR Pretrial rates, and final court determinations based on demographics, crime categories, jurisdictions, and other variables. It utilizes data from three stages of the criminal justice process.  Bookings data was obtained from the Albemarle County Jail. In the Dashboard a user can see the rates by which Males and Females are booked in Albemarle and Charlottesville throughout various options such as age, length of state, charge category, and felony/misdemeanor.  OAR Pre-trial data was obtained from the OAR Jefferson Area Community Corrections. In the OAR Pretrial tab of the Dashboard a user can see the case rates for Males and Females in Albemarle and Charlottesville across charge severity, criminal history, convictions, recommendations, and court decisions.  Supreme Court outcome data was obtained from the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Court Outcomes tab of the Dashboard a user can see the case rates for Males and Females in Albemarle and Charlottesville across charge classifications, case conclusions, final disposition, and incarceration type. Findings are presented in interactive tables in which a Relative Rate Index (RRI) is calculated for each of the decision and data points along the criminal justice system continuum in the Dashboard for information provided from the three data sets above. The Relative Rate Index enables comparisons among ethnic/gender groups, in this case, to determine if a group or groups is disproportionately represented at a given data/decision-point in the criminal justice process. RRI = “Number of individual events per race or ethnicity and gender for a given year” divided by “Total population for race/ethnicity and gender for a given year”  Number of African American males booked with a felony in Albemarle County in 2014 = 223  Total population of black males in Albemarle County in 2014 = 4,051  RRI = 223/4051 = 0.05 To calculate the Relative Rate Index, population by gender and race was downloaded from the American Community Survey 5-Year Data Profiles. American Community Survey population data separates Albemarle County, Virginia and Charlottesville, Virginia, which is an independent city. The Relative Rate Indices divide the count of individual events for a particular race/ethnicity group and gender by the total population for a race and gender. 2.2.2 DATA FOR DISPARITY ANALYSIS: PREPARING A MASTER DATABASE The Data Dashboard provides a snapshot of racial disproportionality at each discrete stage of the criminal justice process. In the Dashboard, the Relative Rate Indices (RRIs) summarizing data by race tell us City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-9 Page 129 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES whether there is relative parity or disproportionality by race at any given data point for specific categories of violation. From that information alone, however, we cannot make inferences as to the factors influencing decisions or rulings made at any point in the process continuum and how these decisions might influence subsequent decisions or rulings later in the process or, ultimately, judicial outcomes such as guilt/innocence or sentencing decisions. For instance, for two individuals of different race but with otherwise similar characteristics and histories who are charged with the same felony crime, is one more likely to be held without bond pending a court appearance and the other more likely to be released on his/her own recognizance? Do these decisions statistically impact or “bias” subsequent outcomes regarding guilt or innocence? Or how long one is sentenced to serve time in jail or prison? If so, and if the individuals’ race is the only apparent difference between them, we can postulate that the disparity in their outcomes can be attributed to race. THE MASTER DATA SET: “CLEANING” DATA, CREATING A MASTER RECORD One of the major challenges of this project was to find a way to make data intended for record-keeping and administrative purposes amenable to researching disproportionality and disparity. The Albemarle County/Charlottesville Criminal Justice Process Map (Appendix A) is a visual representation of decision points and processes as an individual who has been charged and arrested moves through the criminal justice system. The process begins when an individual is charged with a crime/violation and booked. From booking to bond determination, detention or release, data is captured to chronicle these decisions and outcomes. After booking, if the individual is released to Pre-trial services, data in the separate, OAR Pre- trial Services data base captures subsequent decisions and outcomes influencing the individual’s eligibility for and/or assignment of OAR or other services. Finally, the Court data tells us how the individual’s case is processed or finally disposed—for example, whether he/she was found guilty and sentenced or found not guilty, or otherwise adjudicated. To transform a record-keeping data set into a research database capable of analyzing disproportionality and disparity, the first step was to combine the three disparate data sets—booking, OAR and court data—into one master record. This master data set would provide a chronicle of individual “stories” in the criminal justice system. What do we mean by a master record? And why is it important/necessary? For two of the three data sets provided to MGT initially, many individual cases in those files contained multiple rows of data related to a single arrest event for the same individual. For instance, following an arrest for a burglary, an individual might also be charged with other crimes or violations in addition to a burglary charge, such as breaking and entering, trespassing, damage to property, etc. In the booking data, for an individual facing more than one charge related to the same arrest event, each charge generated its own, separate line of data for the same individual and arrest event. As a practical matter, this posed a problem for analysis inasmuch as the most parsimonious way to analyze data statistically required that data be reported in only one, single row of information for each individual. However, building our master data set from 77,000 lines of duplicated records, collapsing multiple records for the same arrest event manually was impractical in terms of time and resources. 1 1 And even creating a machine-matching protocol that would list every charge associated with every arrest for a single individual for the period of the study, and all of the information associated with each charge, would yield a data file with potentially hundreds of columns of information for one record (e.g., in the booking data set, one individual was booked 69 times in the 36 month interval of the study!) City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-10 Page 130 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES In constructing a master database combining all three original data bases such that duplicated records for each individual were condensed into one unique record, research decisions were made in consultation with knowledgeable research experts and data managers in Charlottesville/Albemarle County criminal justice system to create new variables from old and data elements were transformed into measurement tools without which the study could not have been conducted. VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS From the three databases provided for this study-- in addition to criminal justice system data elements-- data included both personal and demographic information about such as defendant’s age, education level, employment status, sex and, of course, race and ethnicity and. “System data” included:  Charges associated with an arrest and booking (for a given arrest “event”, more than one-third of the study sample were charged with more than one offense).  An individual’s prior criminal history.  The jurisdiction of the offense (City of Charlottesville or Albemarle County).  Bond decisions (released on own recognizance/released with bond versus secured bond/no bond).  Charge/violation “offense category” (e.g., property, weapons, traffic, violence, drug, sex offense).  “Length of stay” associated with an arrest (time/days spent in the Albemarle County/Charlottesville Regional Jail).  A Virginia Criminal Code variable, prescribed in statute, providing a sentencing-time guideline for every state criminal code category (e.g., “Felonious Assault” – 5 years to 20 years). OPERATIONALIZING SYSTEM VARIABLES In a more perfect world, criminal justice decisions and outcomes are based solely on the characteristics of the crime: its nature; its seriousness or “harm to society”; whether multiple, other crimes were committed in the same crime event; as well as considerations such as the individual’s prior criminal history, if any. That is, the “crime event” is the object of analysis—not considerations of race, gender and other individual characteristics of the offender. It was also the central construct around which our master database was organized. Specifically, data related to the individual’s “most serious” charge appearing in the booking data was linked with data related to that same charge in the OAR and Court data sets to create a master data record for each individual booked from 2014 through 2016. In consultation with the study’s project management team, several other enhancements were made to permit a more thorough consideration of the individual’s record and history. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-11 Page 131 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES 2.4.1 DETERMINING THE “MOST SERIOUS” CHARGE For individuals appearing in the jail bookings data set, a research decision was made to choose the “most serious” charge for which an individual was booked as the focal point for analysis regarding arrest. Absent a quantitative scale measuring a crime’s “seriousness”, in relation to all other crimes, many studies of racial disproportionality in criminal justice outcomes have fallen back on the binary misdemeanor/felony categories in an attempt to measure relative seriousness of a crime. But the crudeness and imprecision of a simple “0/1” distinction to measure seriousness does not tell us how much more serious a felony assault may be than, say, a felony larceny, or vice versa. In criminal law, a felony is a more serious category of crime than is a misdemeanor, usually carrying harsher punishments. But some may consider any crime that results in physical harm to a person, misdemeanor or not, to be more serious than many types of property crime, even in the felony category. Which crime is the more serious of the two is a judgment, based at least in part on a value that considers whether physical harm to persons is more egregious than loss of property or property damage. A more differentiated measure of seriousness would be a numerical, whole number ranking scale or an interval level scale where, say, a value of 1 might represent “not at all serious”, increasing in relative seriousness through an end-value of 20, representing a crime that is “extremely serious”. More than a simple two category seriousness “measure”, a scaled system of crime seriousness permits us to distinguish the “magnitude” of the difference between categories of crime and is, therefore, much more informative of the effect of a crime’s seriousness on criminal justice processing and decision-making. A second, even more critical advantage of a ranking or interval level assessment of crime seriousness is that the same scale can be used to compare qualitatively different—even unrelated-- categories of crime. If a felony assault with a deadly weapon and a felony sex offense against a minor both receive a seriousness “score” of 17 on a 20-point scale, it can be asserted that although they are vastly different crimes in nature, their perceived “seriousness” or “harm” to individuals and to society is considered to be roughly the same. Fortunately, the Virginia Criminal Code provided a guide to the Commonwealth’s assessment of “crime seriousness” when it outlined “length of sentence” intervals associated with each category of crime. These categories are presented as sentence-term intervals—for example, “0 to 12 months”; “1 year to 5 years”; “5 years to 10 years”, and so on. The length of the sentence interval and its magnitude increase as a function of the Code’s assessment of the crime’s seriousness. From the Virginia Criminal Code, MGT determined the categories listed in the left column of Table 2-1 below, ordered them by ascending length sentence/interval and assigned ascending ranking values (numbers) to each interval from 1, not at all serious, to 23 “most serious”. TABLE 2-1. VIRGINIA CRIMINAL CODE SENTENCE INTERVAL CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED “SERIOUSNESS” RANKINGS VCC Sentence Code Rank Value Fine 1 0-10DAYS 2 0-30DAYS 3 0-60DAYS 4 0-6MONTHS 5 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-12 Page 132 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES VCC Sentence Code Rank Value 0-12MONTHS 6 1MONTHS-1YEARS 7 30DAYS-12MONTHS 7 1YEARS-5YEARS (II) 8 3YEARS-3YEARS (II) 9 5YEARS-5YEARS (II) 10 1YEARS-10YEARS 11 1YEARS-10YEARS (II) 11 2YEARS-10YEARS 12 2YEARS-10YEARS (II) 12 1YEARS-20YEARS 13 1YEARS-20YEARS (II) 13 2YEARS-20YEARS 14 1YEARS-40YEARS 15 5YEARS-20YEARS (II) 16 5YEARS-30YEARS 17 5YEARS-30YEARS (II) 17 5YEARS-40YEARS 18 5YEARS-40YEARS (I) 18 5YEARS-Life 19 5YEARS-Life (I) 19 10YEARS-Life 20 20YEARS-Life 21 20YEARS-Life (I) 21 Life-Life (I) 22 Life-Death (I) 23 2.4.2 USING THE “CRIME SERIOUSNESS RANKING SCALE” TO SELECT CASES FOR THE MASTER DATABASE Ranks were assigned to each charge associated with an arrest. For individuals with more than one charge associated with the same arrest event (i.e., one line of data for each charge for that individual), only the data record associated with the most serious charge ranking was retained. Furthermore, for individuals with additional but earlier arrests appearing in the data set from 2014 through 2016, the latest arrest event during the study period was considered his/her master record and other records of previous arrest during the study period were deleted from the data set. Instead, two other variables—“total charges” and “prior charges”—were created to represent these elements (Described below). City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-13 Page 133 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES 2.4.3 “TOTAL CHARGES” VARIABLE In our master data set constructed for disparity analyses, nearly two-thirds of individuals booked in the Albemarle County/Charlottesville Regional Jail were booked with only one charge (63.5%) and slightly fewer than one-third received 2 to 5 charges associated with an arrest event. Nearly 6 percent were booked on 6 or more charges related to a single arrest. TABLE 2-2. FREQUENCY OF CHARGES PER INDIVIDUAL FOR A SINGLE ARREST EVENT Charges Frequency Percent 1 3525 63.5 2 887 16.0 3 427 7.7 4 269 4.8 5 133 2.4 >6 311 5.6 Total 5552 100.0 In the individual’s master record, a “total charges” variable was created representing the sum of the number of the charges accompanying the “most serious” charge plus the “most serious” charge itself. So, an individual whose latest arrest included an additional charge associated with a robbery assault using a handgun (“seriousness ranking” = 20) and a “breaking and entering” charge (seriousness ranking” = 11, the master record for that individual would record all of the system information related to the handgun assault and a “total charges” variable would sum the remaining two—but less serious-- charges as part of the same arrest event, generating the number “2” in the total charges column for that case, 2.4.4 PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY A body of criminal justice research tells us that prior criminal history can influence sentencing outcomes for a subsequent crime for which guilt has been determined. The variable “prior criminal history” was operationalized as the sum count of all criminal charges for which the individual had been booked at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail prior to bookings associated with the most current arrest/booking event, from 2007 through 2016. 2.4.5 BOND DECISIONS According to the Virginia Circuit Court Clerks Manual – Criminal (2019), Bail is a means of obtaining the release from jail of a person charged with an offense. It is, more precisely, an agreement between the accused and the state by which the accused guarantees his/her presence at trial and agrees to abide by certain other terms and conditions by a written promise. That promise may be guaranteed by a bond that may be unsecured or secured by cash or a solvent third party (surety). The terms and conditions of bail are set by a judicial officer before the initial court appearance and thereafter by the judge of the court in which the accused is to appear. Release on bail may be revoked for the breach of any term or condition, but the amount of such bond may be forfeited only if the accused fails to appear. The purpose of bail is City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-14 Page 134 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES to provide a strong incentive for the accused to appear in court and to comply with other conditions of release while obviating the need for confinement in jail pending his/her trial” (Manual, 2019, p. 4-1). In data provided for this study, a “bond type” data element recorded 4 categories related to bond decisions: Secured bond, surety bond, unsecured bond and release without bond. Individuals deemed to be little or no risk to flee the area pending hearings and who posed little or no threat to the community were released on their own recognizance (ROR), with no financial liability attached. Following previous studies (e.g., Franklin & Henry, 2019)), MGT reduced these four categories to two to increase their utility as a variable in statistical analysis: (1) Release (with or without bond), coded “0” and (2) “No Bond” (coded “1”), meaning that the defendant and/or the alleged crime was judged either discretionarily or by statutory presumptive hold to be too serious to merit release and/or he/she posed a flight risk. 2.4.6 “LENGTH OF STAY” AND “SENTENCE TIME” VARIABLES “Length of Stay” was a data element in the bookings database that recorded time spent in the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail. Expressed in days, it was referenced to a defendant’s most serious charge, as were all other elements pertaining to the “most serious” charge in the master database. For sentence length data, all dispositions other than Guilty and Sentence Revoked (the only dispositions that would produce a sentence) were eliminated, along with all concurrent sentences and any blank or missing data in the “Sentence Time” column, expressed otherwise as “sentence days”. To determine “Actual Sentence Time to Serve”, for cases in which sentences were suspended or reduced, these “suspended sentence days” were subtracted from the “sentence time/days” values. 2.4.7 ASSIGNING DETAILED CHARGE CODES TO 6 GENERAL CHARGE CATEGORIES If the Crime Seriousness Ranking Scale offers the advantage of standardizing potentially very different crimes with reference to a common ranking scale measuring “crime seriousness”, it is still important to investigate disparity among different categories of crime to determine if there is a relationship between race/ethnicity and some particular categories but not others. The mass incarceration phenomenon popularized in Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow traces much of the source of modern racial disproportionality in U.S. prisons to the advent of the so-called War on Drugs, declared by Congress and the Clinton Administration in the 1990s. Alexander noted that the main battle fronts in that “war” were poor African American communities across the nation dealing with the crack cocaine epidemic. The criminal justice response was to arrest and to incarcerate a disproportionally large population of African American men, in particular, who were in its midst. Consequently, we expect to see racial disproportionality with respect to drug category crimes, especially. A second purpose for collapsing literally scores of criminal charge categories in the Virginia Criminal Code into just six general categories was to address a more practical research concern. With scores of criminal charge categories, regression equations with too many independent variables require increasingly larger sample sizes for a valid analysis. On the other hand, equations with fewer variables can use samples that are smaller in number but still representative of the populations from which they were drawn. Moreover, the larger the number of variables in an equation the greater the likelihood of missing data for one City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-15 Page 135 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES variable or more, automatically excluding these cases from analysis, reducing the number of cases in the sample. 2 For this set of analyses, felony charges adjudicated in Circuit Court were scrutinized one-by-one in a data set of more than 10,000 rows of data and assigned to one of the six more general categories of crime— drug, property, violent, sex offense, weapons offense/violation, and traffic. Cases were selected for which all data fields needed for a disparity analysis were populated. These categories accounted for all but 2.1 percent of charges, assigned to an “Other” category. These charges could not be categorized with accuracy or were otherwise undecipherable. TABLE 2-3. FREQUENCY OF CHARGES FOR GENERAL CATEGORIES OF CRIME DRUG VIOLATIONS African American African American White White Jurisdiction Total Females Males Females Males Charlottesville 18 208 13 75 314 Albemarle County 6 85 36 85 216 Total 24 293 49 160 530 PROPERTY VIOLATIONS African American African American White White Jurisdiction Total Females Males Females Males Charlottesville 51 159 46 123 379 Albemarle County 74 71 131 170 446 Total 125 230 177 293 825 VIOLENT VIOLATIONS African American African American White White Jurisdiction Total Females Males Females Males Charlottesville 24 185 19 95 323 Albemarle County 18 157 25 202 402 Total 42 342 44 297 725 SEX VIOLATIONS African American African American White White Jurisdiction Total Females Males Females Males Charlottesville 0 9 0 11 20 Albemarle County 0 4 0 11 15 Total 0 13 0 22 35 2 Even with six larger categories of charge, sample sizes for regression analyses for cases having no missing data were insufficient in some categories (e.g., sex offenses) to draw valid conclusions. This was particularly true of female samples, with their much lower numbers in the criminal justice population. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-16 Page 136 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES WEAPONS VIOLATIONS African American African American White White Jurisdiction Total Females Males Females Males Charlottesville 2 29 2 11 44 Albemarle County 13 16 16 32 77 Total 15 45 18 43 121 TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS African American African American White White Jurisdiction Total Females Males Females Males Charlottesville 5 17 1 18 41 Albemarle County 0 20 8 88 116 Total 5 37 9 106 157 USING MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS TO ASSESS DISPARITIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUTCOMES Statistics employed to assess disparity included two regression procedures: linear regression and logistical regression. Regression estimates the statistical impact of a series of independent variables on an outcome variable, or the dependent variable. For example, at a bond hearing, the outcome may be a decision to release a defendant on his/her own recognizance with or without a bond, pending future hearings, or to hold him/her in custody with no bond and no opportunity for release prior to further adjudication. The value of the outcome decision—“0”, or “release” or “1”, “no release” (held in custody)-- is dependent on and determined by the statistical effect of independent variables on the release/no release bond decision, including the nature and seriousness of the crime one is charged with, the total number of charges associated with the arrest event, one’s prior criminal history, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level and employment status. Regression permits us to parse out the statistical effect of these individual independent variables on criminal justice decisions, focusing in disparity analysis on the effect of race and ethnicity on those decisions. To the extent that discretionary decision points, such as the total number of charges associated with the arrest (if more than one) or bond decisions are statistically related to later decisions and outcomes, and one racial group tends to be given more charges when booked and/or held without bond more often than others, when all the other independent influences/characteristics (i.e., independent variables) in the equation are equivalent for the same crime(s), we can hypothesize that this disparate treatment is related, statistically, to group race differences. Since cases were finally disposed with reference to the circuit court and general district court data, cases containing the most complete data records in all three data sets—bookings, OAR and court—were selected. And since disparity analyses employed multivariate statistics, a case would be included for analysis if and only if data were available for all variables in the equation. Dependent variables for the study were those elements in the data that recorded some form of decision by an authority in the system affecting an individual who was arrested and booked at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail from City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-17 Page 137 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES 2014 through 2016. These included total number of criminal charges made against an individual associated with the latest booking/arrest event, bond decisions, defendant’s “length of stay” associated with their latest, most serious booking/arrest charge, sentencing decisions and outcomes, decisions to reduce the severity of the most serious charge or to suspend sentence. These variables were also employed variously in regression analyses as independent variables to assess the effect of justice system decisions on subsequent and ultimate outcomes, such as the effect of total number of charges associated with an arrest event and/or bond decisions on adjudications of guilt or innocence or final sentence issued by the courts. An example equation measuring independent variable effects on sentence outcomes (decisions) appears in Exhibit 2-1 below: EXHIBIT 2-1. EXAMPLE Defendant’s most serious crime + total number of charges accompanying most serious charge + total number of prior arrests or bookings (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Bond Decision + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Final Sentence (in Days) Regression analysis can tell us not only which among these variables have statistically significant effect on sentence outcomes, it can also estimate the magnitude of that effect, telling us which variables have the greatest effect on sentencing decisions. VARIABLE SPECIFICATION, TRANSFORMATION, CODING AND “CLEANING” In social science research, usually a researcher does not have access to the detailed information a police officer, magistrate or judge may have at his/her disposal. Typically, data systems are not designed to provide information about the subtleties, nuances and special circumstances that an official might be aware of in making criminal justice decisions. So, the researcher is left to define and sometimes transform data elements for analyses as best he or she can, realizing subtleties, nuance and special circumstances may be blurred or overlooked in the new definition or transformation. We have already defined an analog for “crime seriousness” and created a “total charges” variable to provide more information about an arrest event beyond its most serious charge. In the discussion of hypotheses guiding this study below, other transformations and redefinitions of data elements in the master data set were undertaken to make City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-18 Page 138 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES them amenable to disparity analysis. Once all variables were identified and variable transformations completed, specific hypotheses were generated to guide the analysis. HYPOTHESES AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The general research question guiding this study as stated at the beginning of this chapter was “Is the race of an individual charged with a criminal violation in Charlottesville/Albemarle County, VA, a factor in legal decisions and case dispositions?” In our disparity analysis, research questions were reframed as statistical equations to be solved. These equations contained systemic variables related to a criminal charge and demographic variables describing selected characteristics of the defendant, such as race, age, occupation status and education level. Where samples were sufficient size to permit analysis, each analysis was re- run for six categories of crime: violent, property, traffic, sex offenses, weapons and drug-related to draw conclusions within more specific crime categories. Specific research questions generated from the general hypothesis are presented and discussed below. Question 1: For persons booked in Albemarle County/Charlottesville Regional Jail, was there a relationship between defendant’s race and relative seriousness of the primary charge made against the defendant? Following a crime event in which both a criminal suspect and a law enforcement officer are at the scene, obviously one of the earliest points of discretion is the law enforcement officer’s decision to arrest or to not arrest. None of the three data sets provided for this study captures information of events, actions/interactions and decisions leading up to an arrest decision. However, when a suspect is booked following an arrest and probable cause that a crime was committed has been determined, a prosecutor and a judicial officer may determine the nature, number and severity/seriousness of (a) charge(s) filed following an arrest. Hypothesis 1 explored the effect of systemic/demographic variables—the independent variables-- and their impact on the relative seriousness of the primary charge made against the defendant, the dependent variable. The equation is stated verbally in Exhibit I below. Additional specific hypotheses follow in Exhibits 2-2 through 2-7 below. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-19 Page 139 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES EXHIBIT 2-2. EQUATION 1: THE EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “TOTAL CHARGES AT BOOKING” Total number of charges accompanying most serious charge Total number of prior arrests (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Race + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Seriousness of Primary Charge Question 2: For persons booked in Albemarle County/Charlottesville Regional Jail, was there a relationship between defendant’s race and the total number of companion charges associated with the most serious arrest charge? EXHIBIT 2-3. EQUATION 2: THE EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “TOTAL CHARGES AT BOOKING” Defendant’s most serious crime + total number of prior arrests (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Race + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Total number of charges accompanying most serious charge City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-20 Page 140 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Question 3: For persons booked in Albemarle County/Charlottesville Regional Jail, pending further adjudication of a given case, was there a relationship between a defendant’s race and bail- bond/release decisions and decisions to hold defendants in confinement without bond? EXHIBIT 2-4. EQUATION 3: THE EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON BOND DECISIONS Defendant’s most serious crime + total number of charges accompanying most serious charge + total number of prior arrests (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Race + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Bond decision Question 4: For persons booked in Albemarle County/Charlottesville Regional Jail, was there a relationship between a defendant’s “Length of Stay” in Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and the defendant’s race? EXHIBIT 2-5. EQUATION 4: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “LENGTH OF STAY” (ACRJ) Defendant’s most serious crime + total number of charges accompanying most serious charge + total number of prior arrests (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Bond decision + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Race + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Length of Stay (ACRJ) City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-21 Page 141 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Question 5: For persons booked in Albemarle County/Charlottesville Regional Jail, was there a relationship between a defendant’s race and guilty vs. not-guilty case outcomes? EXHIBIT 2-6. EQUATION 5: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON “GUILTY/NOT GUILTY” COURT OUTCOMES Defendant’s most serious crime + total number of charges accompanying most serious charge + total number of prior arrests (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Bond decision + Length of Stay (ACRJ) + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Race + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Guilty/Not Guilty Verdict Question 6. For individuals who were sentenced for a felony crime, was there a relationship between the defendant’s race and the duration of their sentence? EXHIBIT 2-7. EQUATION 6: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON DURATION OF SENTENCE Defendant’s most serious crime + total number of charges accompanying most serious charge + total number of prior arrests (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Bond decision + Length of Stay (ACRJ) + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Race + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Duration of Sentence City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-22 Page 142 of 249 CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PRESENTATION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Question 7. For individuals who were sentenced for a felony crime, was there a relationship between the defendant’s race and the duration of their actual time-served? EXHIBIT 2-8. EQUATION 6: EFFECT OF “SYSTEMIC” AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON DURATION OF SENTENCE Defendant’s most serious crime + total number of charges accompanying most serious charge + total number of prior arrests (i.e., criminal history, if any) + Bond decision + Length of Stay (ACRJ) + Jurisdiction of Most Serious Crime + Defendant’s Race + Defendant’s Age + Employment Status + Level of Education = Actual Sentence Time Served Results of findings in answer to these questions are reported in the next chapter. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 2-23 Page 143 of 249 CHAPTER 3. MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 Disproportionate Minority Study City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA 3-0 Page 144 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 In an early nationwide review of factors influencing sentencing CHAPTER SECTIONS outcomes in criminal cases, the Panel on Sentencing Research  declared that “disparity [in sentence outcomes] exists when ‘like 3.1 Demographic Context for the cases’ with respect to case attributes—regardless of their Study: A Comparison of Selected legitimacy—are sentenced differently” (Blumstein et al. 1983, 72). Characteristics of Charlottesville/ Disproportionality, on the other hand, is an objective measurement Albemarle County, VA, Residents comparing two or more things of different magnitude relative to one and Individuals Booked at ACRJ, 2014 Through 2016 another. For example, nationwide, African Americans are 3.2 Research Questions and Findings incarcerated at a rate relative to their representation in the nation’s 3.3 Findings of Disparity at population that is disproportionate in comparison to incarcerated Discretionary Decision Points in the White Americans relative to their representation in the nation’s Albemarle County/Charlottesville, population. Disproportionality, therefore, is a mathematical VA Criminal Justice System: comparison of two or more things, making no inference as to why Discussion they are different, or similar—only that, objectively, they are. In the 3.4 Conclusion case of racial disparities in prison sentencing outcomes, disparity is a statement about differences in treatment of two individuals-- who are similar in every way but race--affecting different outcomes for individuals. Unlike statements of disproportionality, statements of disparity infer causality, and a causal agent— for example, a judge, a law, a policy, a guideline—responsible for disparate outcomes. The Panel also distinguished “discrimination” from “disparity” as “a difference in outcome that results from differential treatment based on illegitimate criteria [sic], such as race, gender, social class, or sexual orientation. With respect to sentencing, discrimination exists when some case or personal attribute that is objectionable (typically on moral or legal grounds) can be shown to be associated with sentence outcomes after all other relevant variables are adequately controlled” (Blumstein et al. 1983, p. 72). Discrimination often implies conscious intent and forethought. Disparate treatment may occur as a result of conscious intent or it may occur as an artifact of processes, rules, policies, guidelines and procedures in which there is no conscious intent to discriminate but which may nevertheless yield disproportionate results no different than if conscious discrimination were exerted to achieve the same disproportional outcome. In 2018, MGT Consulting was contracted by the City of Charlottesville to address the question: “In Charlottesville/Albemarle County, VA, are there racial disparities in criminal justice decisions and outcomes?” One of the project tasks was to develop a Data Dashboard that would provide a mathematical snapshot comparison of individuals, based on race and gender, at each discrete stage of the Albemarle/Charlottesville criminal justice process. The purpose of the Dashboard was to assess relative disproportionality/parity among individuals of different races in terms of criminal justice outcomes at any given data point, using a metric called the Relative Rate Index (RRI). As a measure of disproportionality, however, RRIs would tell us nothing about what might “cause” a racially disproportionate outcome. For example, for decisions made to grant or to deny a bail bond to White and African American arrestees who had committed identical crimes, who had identical criminal histories and were the same in age, gender, educational status, employment status, and in other ways—why did one receive bail whilte the other was denied? One of the main tasks of this project was to use available data to design an investigation that would permit such an analysis. The analysis, described in the Methodology section of this report, explored the proposition/hypothesis that individuals’ personal characteristics, such as race and gender, might be associated with differential decision-making as they enter the criminal justice system at arrest and booking and are subject to decisions and rulings along the way, culminating in a final disposition. This section of the report is a summary of research findings from that investigation of racial disparity in criminal justice decision-making in Albemarle County and Charlottesville, VA. A presentation of the results of that City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-1 Page 145 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 analyses is preceded by a brief demographic overview of the Charlottesville/Albemarle County region— as the economic, social, political and geographical context of this study. The chapter concludes with a discussion of findings with reference to previous research. DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA, RESIDENTS AND INDIVIDUALS BOOKED AT ACRJ, 2014 THROUGH 2016 In the review of relevant research literature and the methodology in preparation for this study, criminal justice system variables and “extra-legal” variables used in the analysis were described with reference to their validity and application in previous criminal justice research. Findings related to “system variables” (e.g., charge decisions, bond decisions) are reported in the discussion of disparity outcomes in Section 3 Extra-legal variables included race, age, sex, employment status and educational attainment. Figures 3-1 through 3-7 report characteristics and values for each of these variables for Albemarle County/Charlottesville residents, derived from the American Community Survey data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and individuals booked in Albemarle County Regional Jail (ACRJ) from 2014 through 2016. 3.1.1 POPULATIONS BY RACE AND GENDER Figure 3-1 shows the population of Charlottesville in 2017 was estimated at 46,487. The population of Albemarle County, excluding Charlottesville residents, was estimated at 105,105. The population of African American males in Charlottesville was 3,954 and 4,571 in Albemarle County. The population of African American females was 4,547 in Charlottesville and 5,176 in Albemarle County. For the period of the study, 10,328 individuals were recorded at ACRJ for the database used in the disparity analysis 3. 3 The database included bookings at ACRJ from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Cases that were not “resolved” or otherwise disposed of/concluded, or for which there were blank data elements were excluded from the data set used to calculate disparity. Furthermore, some cases booked in the later months of 2016 remained unresolved by December 31, 2016 and were, thus, excluded. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-2 Page 146 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 FIGURE 3-1. POPULATION SIZE 120,000 105,105 100,000 80,000 60,000 46,487 40,687 44,268 40,000 15,569 16,432 20,000 4,571 3,954 4,688 2,534 5,176 4,547 4,897 2,502 - African Other Males White Males African Other Females White Females Total American American Population Males Females Albemarle County Charlottesville Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. Figure 3-2 illustrates that, overall, African American males represented a larger portion of booked individuals than in the general population. African American males represented 51.47 percent of Charlottesville bookings and 37.56 percent of Albemarle County bookings. African American women represented 6.88 percent of Charlottesville bookings and 6.40 percent of Albemarle County bookings. White American males represented 32.69 percent of Charlottesville bookings and 39.63 percent of Albemarle County bookings and White American women represented 7.42 percent of Charlottesville bookings and 14.55 percent of Albemarle County bookings. Asian American and other ethnicities/races were combined into “Others.” 4 Other Males represented about 1.75 percent of the booking’s population for Albemarle County and 1.44 percent in Charlottesville. Other Females represented 0.10 percent for both Albemarle County and Charlottesville. 4 Although comparisons by race and gender to the ACRJ population for each variable are also made, in our analyses of racial disparity at key decision points along the criminal justice system, findings are reported, by and large, for comparisons between White American males booked at ACRJ for the period of the study and African American males. Findings are also reported for White and African American women when samples were of sufficient size to permit a valid statistical analysis. Analyses for Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and the smaller minority and ethnic groups could not be reported because their numbers in the ACRJ population for a statistical disparity analysis were insufficient to permit a valid analysis. Also, in the case of Hispanic Americans particularly, race/ethnicity data for the same individuals was coded so inconsistently across the three data sets (for example, as “Hispanic” in one of the three data sets and as “White” or “Black” in the other two) such that their ethnicity/race could not be ascertained with sufficient reliability to permit their inclusion in the analyses. Franklin and Henry (2019) point out that disparity analyses comparing groups other than African Americans to White Americans is uncommon in any case, acknowledging, nevertheless, that Hispanic Americans are also egregiously overrepresented in the criminal justice system. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-3 Page 147 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 51.47% FIGURE 3-2. BOOKINGS BY RACE AND JURISDICATION 42.12% 39.63% 38.71% 37.56% 35.35% 33.49% 32.69% 14.55% 9.78% 8.51% 7.42% 6.88% 6.40% 5.45% 5.38% 4.92% 4.66% 4.46% 4.35% 1.75% 1.44% 0.10% 0.10% AFRICAN WHITE OTHER MALE AFRICAN WHITE OTHER FEMALE AMERICAN MALE AMERICAN MALE AMERICAN AMERICAN FEMALE FEMALE Albemarle County-Booked Charlottesville-Booked Albemarle County-Population Charlottesville-Population Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. 3.1.2 AGE BY RACE AND GENDER Figure 3-3 shows that the median age for booked individuals was on average lower than that of the population. The median age of African American males in Albemarle County was 40 and 43 for African American females. The median age of African American males booked in the County was 30 and, for African American females, 32. The median age of White American males in Albemarle County was 40, and 43 for White American females. White American males booked in the County averaged 31 years of age and, for females, 33. In Charlottesville, the median age for both African American males and females was 32. The median age for African American males booked in the City was 35 and for females, 33. The median age of White American males in the City was 40 and 43 for White American females. White American males booked in the City averaged 34 years of age and, for females, 33. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-4 Page 148 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 FIGURE 3-3. POPULATION MEDIAN AGE 50 43 43 40 40 40 35 34 33 33 30 32 31 32 32 31 32 32 30 20 10 0 African American Males- White American Males- African American Females- White American Females- Booked Booked Booked Booked Albemarle County-Booked Charlottesville-Booked Albemarle County-Population Charlottesville-Population Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. 3.1.3 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY RACE AND GENDER In the Charlottesville/Albemarle County region, U.S. Census data indicated that for the area 9.05 percent of adult residents did not complete high school, 18.65 percent earned high school diplomas and 72.30 percent attended college. In the ACRJ booking sample, illustrated in Figure 3-4, education attainment data was recorded for 4,518 of 10,328 individuals who were booked during the period of the study. For African American males, 59.18 percent did not graduate high school; for African American females, 79 percent did not graduate. 41.55 percent of African American males and 21 percent of African American females were high school graduates. Fewer than one percent of African American males and African American females attended college. For White American males in the booking’s population, 49.85 percent did not graduate high school; for White American females, 75.20 percent did not graduate. Nearly half (48.36%) of White American males and 16.67 percent of White American females were high school graduates. Only 1.80 percent of White American males and 8.13 percent of White American females attended college. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-5 Page 149 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 FIGURE 3-4. POPULATION EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 90.00% 79.00% 80.00% 75.20% 72.30% 70.00% 59.18% 60.00% 49.85%48.36% 50.00% 40.55% 40.00% 30.00% 21.00% 16.67% 18.65% 20.00% 8.13% 9.05% 10.00% 0.28% 1.80% 0.00% 0.00% African American White American African American White American Total Population Males-Booked Males-Booked Females-Booked Females-Booked No High School High School Diploma Some College/College Degree Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. 3.1.4 LABOR FORCE EMPLOYMENT In Albemarle County, 79.40 percent of the total population is in the labor force with 84.00 percent of males and 75.30 percent of females being in the labor force. In Charlottesville, 74.20 percent of the total population is in the labor force with 76.70 percent of males and 71.80 percent of females being in the labor force. Among those individuals booked, in Albemarle county 75.90 percent of the total population is in the labor force with 79.12 percent of males and 64.58 percent of females being in the labor force. For those booked in Charlottesville 69.58 percent of the total population is in the labor force with 70.04 percent of males and 66.15 percent of females being in the labor force. FIGURE 3-5. TOTAL POPULATION IN LABOR FORCE 90.00% 84.00% 85.00% 79.40% 79.12% 80.00% 75.90% 76.70% 75.30% 74.20% 75.00% 71.80% 69.58% 70.04% 70.00% 66.15% 64.58% 65.00% 60.00% Albemarle County- Albemarle County-Booked Charlottesville-Population Charlottesville-Booked Population Total Population Males Females Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-6 Page 150 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND FINDINGS This section presents findings in response to seven research questions investigating racial disproportionality and disparity in criminal justice decisions and outcomes in Albemarle County and Charlottesville, VA. Tables 3-1 through 3-4 help to show the disproportional differences between African Americans and their White American counterparts. The disproportionality found in these tables guide the disparity research questions found throughout this section. The findings within each question section will give the reader insight into whether or not there was disparate treatments of individuals due to race. “In Charlottesville/Albemarle County, VA, does race play a role in criminal justice decisions and outcomes?” The sample for this study was 10,348 individuals arrested and booked for law violations into the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. In this case, “racial disparity” refers to findings of statistically significant differences by race in regard to criminal justice decisions made by county and city law enforcement and legal and judicial authorities, as individuals were processed through the criminal justice continuum to final disposition of their cases. Data for this study were employed to examine seven decision points on the criminal justice continuum to determine if racial differences of individuals booked at ACRJ influenced decisions and outcomes: 1. Determination and assignment of the “most serious” charge associated with an individual’s most recent arrest event; 2. The total number of companion charges, if any, associated with the most recent arrest event; 3. Bail and bond decisions made by authorities (release with or without conditions versus no bond/no release); 4. Time spent in Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail; 5. Adjudication decisions (e.g., guilty/not guilty); 6. “Time sentenced/time served” in prison/jail for felony convictions; and 7. “Time served” in incarceration for felony convictions. Specific research questions were formulated addressing each decision-point. It should be noted that if there was no statistically significant race effect it was not shown as an exhibit. Tables 3-1 through 3-4 report sample sizes, mean values, and standard deviations for variables considered in the analyses. These tables are referenced in the following sections in our discussion of these seven decision points. For the purpose of the results discussion the following statistical terms are defined as:  Mean: average that is used to derive the central tendency of the data in question. It is determined by adding all the data points in a population and then dividing the total by the number of points.  Standard Deviation: measures the dispersion of a dataset relative to its mean and is calculated as the square root of the variance.  Regression Coefficient: estimates of the unknown population parameters that describe the relationship between a predictor variable and the response. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-7 Page 151 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016  Statistical Significance: expresses the probability that the result of a given experiment or study could have occurred purely by chance. MGT employs a 95% statistical significance. A 95% statistical significance is a range of values that are 95% certain to contain the true mean of the population. TABLE 3-1. WHITE AMERICAN MALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES WHITE AMERICAN MALE Charlottesville Albemarle County Mean N Std. Deviation Mean N Std. Deviation CRIME SERIOUSNESS RANK 5.12 1411 4.59 7.11 1611 3.92 TOTAL CHARGES 1.94 1576 2.99 1.97 1870 2.03 PRIORS 14.39 1599 34.57 3.66 1879 7.92 LENGTH OF STAY 25.23 1599 70.72 28.80 1879 73.33 AGE 36.83 1599 12.89 34.76 1879 12.39 INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED 494 844 HIGH SCHOOL AND ABOVE 193 319 BOND AMOUNT BOOKING $763.82 633 1459.33 $856.76 377 2482.80 BOND AMOUNT OAR $867.59 1575 2346.40 $1316.47 1870 2973.43 BOND AMOUNT COURT $753.05 656 1440.42 $953.37 386 2753.35 DAYS SENTENCED 601.57 1599 1192.90 623.46 1879 1327.82 DAYS SUSPENDED 461.08 1599 966.54 545.49 1879 1342.64 DAYS SERVED 140.49 1599 345.10 77.97 1879 626.63 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. TABLE 3-2. AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE Charlottesville Albemarle County Mean N Std. Deviation Mean N Std. Deviation CRIME SERIOUSNESS RANK 8.18 1449 5.86 8.74 822 4.88 TOTAL CHARGES 2.51 1780 4.16 2.26 1046 2.43 PRIORS 8.72 1789 9.59 4.47 1054 4.76 LENGTH OF STAY 50.49 1789 104.99 49.19 1054 108.10 AGE 36.87 1789 12.66 33.45 1054 11.54 INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED 420 384 HIGH SCHOOL AND ABOVE 316 227 BOND AMOUNT BOOKING $886.03 1031 2254.09 $890.22 358 1952.50 BOND AMOUNT OAR $1228.85 1780 3666.97 $1101.05 1046 2442.37 BOND AMOUNT COURT $887.02 1040 2246.90 $1000.55 366 2164.18 DAYS SENTENCED 949.86 1789 1433.47 868.32 1054 1474.70 DAYS SUSPENDED 785.95 1789 1192.46 678.53 1054 1229.34 DAYS SERVED 163.91 1789 499.14 189.79 1054 661.81 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-8 Page 152 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 TABLE 3-3. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES 5 WHITE AMERICAN FEMALE Charlottesville Albemarle County Mean N Std. Deviation Mean N Std. Deviation CRIME SERIOUSNESS RANK 6.15 274 5.05 7.71 581 3.87 TOTAL CHARGES 2.02 312 2.42 2.16 652 3.01 PRIORS 7.79 312 10.28 2.66 655 2.41 LENGTH OF STAY 22.17 312 57.93 19.62 655 49.13 AGE 36.30 312 11.59 35.12 655 11.69 INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED 91 223 HIGH SCHOOL AND ABOVE 23 70 BOND AMOUNT BOOKING $1250.00 148 2151.17 $445.65 138 1073.38 BOND AMOUNT OAR $947.84 312 2223.08 $992.33 652 1941.44 BOND AMOUNT COURT $1250.00 148 2151.17 $528.37 141 1337.34 DAYS SENTENCED 583.03 312 796.81 628.15 655 1078.68 DAYS SUSPENDED 426.85 312 664.47 528.89 655 939.32 DAYS SERVED 156.18 312 251.46 99.26 655 206.77 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. TABLE 3-4. AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE Charlottesville Albemarle County Mean N Std. Deviation Mean N Std. Deviation CRIME SERIOUSNESS RANK 8.55 223 4.88 8.97 210 3.71 TOTAL CHARGES 1.88 278 1.85 3.24 240 5.98 PRIORS 5.30 278 5.54 3.85 240 3.13 LENGTH OF STAY 22.03 278 54.75 30.70 240 81.73 AGE 33.75 278 10.90 33.55 240 10.58 INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED 81 87 HIGH SCHOOL AND ABOVE 23 22 BOND AMOUNT BOOKING $670.21 141 1584.33 $750.00 62 1304.94 BOND AMOUNT OAR $1303.24 278 2439.36 $770.83 240 1749.35 BOND AMOUNT COURT $670.21 141 1584.33 $750.00 62 1304.94 DAYS SENTENCED 526.92 278 878.31 927.19 240 1427.70 DAYS SUSPENDED 435.47 278 785.95 737.63 240 1210.97 DAYS SERVED 91.45 278 176.44 189.56 240 475.51 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT. 5For African American Females vs. White American Females disproportionality may be driven by the small sample sizes. It should be noted that the research questions presented in this chapter will help illustrate whether or not the disproportionality is caused by an individual’s race or by any other factors. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-9 Page 153 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 3.2.1 SERIOUSNESS OF PRINCIPAL CRIMINAL CHARGE AND RACE 1. Was there a relationship between race of the arrestee/defendant and the “seriousness” of the “most serious” violation with which he/she was charged? TABLE 3-5. EFFECT OF RACE ON SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENSE BOOKED AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta Sig. African American Males 0.44 0.03 0.24 0.00 ---- Individual's Priors 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.00 3.43 Total Charges 0.10 0.01 0.27 0.00 2.15 Jurisdiction 0.26 0.03 0.15 0.00 ---- AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALES UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta Sig. African American Females 0.28 0.06 0.18 0.00 ---- Individual's Priors 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.13 2.47 Total Charges 0.06 0.01 0.20 0.00 1.87 Jurisdiction 0.20 0.06 0.13 0.00 ---- Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. Note: Bold indicates statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. For two individuals, African American and White, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  On a 23-point scale for ranking crimes, in order of “seriousness,” mean seriousness rank values ranged from 5.1 for White American males charged in Charlottesville to 7.1 for White American males charged in Albemarle County. For African American males charged in Charlottesville, mean seriousness values were 8.2 and 8.7 for those charged in Albemarle County (see Table 3-1 and 3- 2 in previous section).  For African American women charged in Charlottesville, the mean seriousness rank value of their most serious charge was 8.6 compared with 6.1 for White American women; in Albemarle County, the mean seriousness rank value of the most serious charge for African American women was 9.0 compared with 7.7 for White American women (see Table 3-3 and 3-4 in previous section) 6.  Crimes with which African American males were charged were nearly three points greater in “seriousness value” than crimes for which White males were charged (see Table 3-6: White Males – 6.18 points; African American Males – 8.90).  Crimes with which African American women were charged were more than two points greater in “seriousness value” than crimes for which White women were charged (see Table 3-6: White Females – 7.21 points; African American Females – 9.23). 6Although small sample sizes were seen for African American Females vs. White American Females, statistically valid results were generated for this research question. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-10 Page 154 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 TABLE 3-6. PREDICTED SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENSE BOOKED AFRICAN AMERICANS VS. WHITE AMERICANS Actual White Percent for Being Predicted Seriousness Mean African American Rank for African American Male 6.18 0.44 8.90 Female 7.21 0.28 9.23  For African American women, total number of charges did not influence charge seriousness values but jurisdiction (Albemarle County) and prior criminal history did (see Table 3-5).  Individuals with a prior criminal charge history, regardless of race, and who received more charges at booking tended to be charged with crimes of a more serious nature (Table 3-5).  For all categories of crime combined, regardless of race, individuals charged with an Albemarle County violation were charged with more serious offenses, generally, than were individuals arrested in the City of Charlottesville (Table 3-5).  Although seriousness of the main violation was significantly influenced by both the number of additional charges filed and prior criminal history for African American men, of the three variables influencing the seriousness assigned to the main charge, race was a more powerful influence than priors and number of charges, combined (see Table 3-5), .44 for Race.  When the main charge associated with an individual’s arrest was categorized into one of six categories of violation—property, violent, weapons, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— African American males charged in the “violent crimes” category tended to be charged with more serious violent offenses than were White males (see Table 3-7). 7  Differences in age, education level and employment status were tested but had no statistical impact on crime seriousness decisions for men or women (Tables 3-1 through 3-4) 8.  Employment data, on the other hand, was recorded for all but 599 booking events, and is a lot more complete. TABLE 3-7. SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENSE BOOKED-MEANS ETHNICITY DRUG PROPERTY SEX TRAFFIC VIOLENCE WEAPONS Charlottesville 12.32 11.79 13.25 8.29 8.91 8.67 WHITE AMERICAN MALE Albemarle County 12.71 11.73 12.25 8.49 11.64 9.45 Charlottesville 14.86 11.41 13.00 8.13 13.88 13.09 AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE Albemarle County 13.58 11.62 16.00 8.64 13.86 11.00 Charlottesville 14.50 10.00 No Data 8.00 14.00 7.00 WHITE AMERICAN FEMALE Albemarle County 11.32 11.30 No Data 7.50 7.83 11.50 Charlottesville 14.80 11.15 No Data 8.50 13.00 No Data AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE Albemarle County 12.75 11.17 No Data No Data No Data 11.25 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. 7 Of the six general offense categories—property, weapons, violence, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— only crimes of violence were of sufficient sample size for males to permit a valid statistical analysis. For women in the study, sample sizes in the six categories were insufficient for an analysis of trends by category. 8 For African American Females vs. White American Females, this could be due to small sample sizes. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-11 Page 155 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 3.2.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF CHARGES COMPANION TO “MOST SERIOUS” CHARGE AND RACE 2. Was there a relationship between defendant’s race and the total number of companion charges associated with the most serious arrest charge? TABLE 3-8. EFFECT OF RACE ON TOTAL CHARGES AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES TOTAL CHARGES UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta African American Males 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.33 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.06 0.00 0.42 2.47 7.74 Individual's Priors 0.01 0.00 0.08 1.87 3.43 Jurisdiction -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.66 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. Note: Bold indicates statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. For two individuals, African American and White, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016 charged with crimes of similar seriousness:  For African American males, race exerted a greater statistical influence in the assignment of total number of charges associated with an arrest than both seriousness of the violation and prior criminal history, combined (Table 3-8).  African American males received roughly 8 percent more charges associated with the most serious charge than White males (Table 3-9). TABLE 3-9. PREDICTED TOTAL CHARGES AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES Actual White African American Predicted Total Charges Rank American Mean “Effect” for African American Male 1.96 0.08 2.12  For Charlottesville violations, African American males received an average of 2.5 charges compared with 1.9 charges for White American men; in Albemarle County, African American males received an average of 2.3 charges compared with 2.0 charges for White American men (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in the previous section).  Race did not influence total number of charges for women charged with crimes, but women in general received more total charges who were also charged with more serious crimes and who had a record of prior criminal charges.  When the main charge associated with an individual’s arrest was categorized into one of six categories of violation—property, violent, weapons, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-12 Page 156 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 African Americans who were charged with violent crimes were more likely to receive additional charges than were White defendants charged with similarly serious violent crimes (Table 3-10). 9  Differences in jurisdiction, age, education level and employment status were tested but had no statistical impact on total number of charge decisions (Tables 3-1 through 3-4) 10. TABLE 3-10. TOTAL CHARGES MEANS ETHNICITY DRUG PROPERTY SEX TRAFFIC VIOLENCE WEAPONS Charlottesville 2.44 3.52 3.00 3.29 3.09 2.75 WHITE AMERICAN MALE Albemarle County 2.62 2.88 5.50 1.97 2.34 2.00 Charlottesville 3.05 4.15 4.67 2.13 3.82 3.50 AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE Albemarle County 2.98 3.45 2.00 2.33 4.16 2.40 Charlottesville 2.25 3.48 1.00 6.33 2.00 WHITE AMERICAN FEMALE Albemarle County 2.67 2.31 1.40 1.33 2.63 Charlottesville 2.00 2.08 1.00 2.54 2.00 AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE Albemarle County 2.00 2.55 2.50 1.25 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. 3.2.2 BOND/NO BOND DECISIONS AND RACE 3. Pending further adjudication of a given case, was there a relationship between a defendant’s race and bail-bond/release decisions and decisions to hold defendants in confinement without bond? TABLE 3-11. EFFECT OF RACE ON BOND DENIAL AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES Unstandardized Significance Odds Ratio Coefficients B Sig. Exp(B) African American Males 0.37 0.00 1.45 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.10 0.00 1.10 Individual's Priors 0.04 0.00 1.04 Total Charges 0.14 0.00 1.15 Jurisdiction 0.74 0.00 2.10 AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALES Unstandardized Significance Odds Ratio Coefficients B Sig. Exp(B) African American Females 0.42 0.02 1.52 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.07 0.00 1.08 Individual's Priors 0.12 0.00 1.13 Total Charges 0.02 0.57 1.02 Jurisdiction 0.95 0.00 2.58 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. Note: Bold indicates statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. 9 Of the six general offense categories—property, weapons, violence, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— only crimes of violence were of sufficient sample size for males to permit a valid statistical analysis. For women in the study, sample sizes in the six categories were insufficient for an analysis of trends by category. 10 For African American Females vs. White American Females, this could be due to small sample sizes. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-13 Page 157 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 For two individuals, African American and White, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  African Americans, male and female, were one-and-one-half times more likely to be denied release with or without a bond (pending further adjudication) than their White counterparts charged with crimes of similar seriousness, with a similar number of charges and similar prior history (see Odds Ratio in Table 3-11 above).  Although total number of charges filed and the individual’s history of prior charges significantly influenced bond decisions, for African American men, race had the greatest impact on bond denial decisions (Table 3-11, 1.45 odds ratio for race).  Although seriousness of the crime and the individual’s history of prior charges significantly influenced bond decisions, for African American women, race had the greatest impact on bond denial decisions (Table 3-11, 1.52 odds ratio for race).  Individuals charged with violations in Albemarle County, regardless of race, were more than twice as likely to be denied bond than individuals with violations in the City of Charlottesville (Table 3- 11, 2.58 odds ratio for Jurisdiction). 3.2.3 “LENGTH OF STAY” IN ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AND RACE 4. Was there a relationship between a defendant’s “Length of Stay” in Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and the defendant’s race? TABLE 3-12. EFFECT OF RACE ON LENGTH OF STAY AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta Sig. African American Males 0.19 0.08 0.05 0.01 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.16 0.01 0.39 0.00 8.85 Individual's Priors 0.03 0.01 0.10 0.00 3.92 Total Charges 0.25 0.01 0.34 0.00 2.46 Jurisdiction 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.03 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. Note: Bold indicates statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  For violations of similar seriousness, with similar criminal history and total number of charges, mean “length of stay” spent in the ACRJ facility for African Americans (Charlottesville, 50.5 days; Albemarle County, 49.2 days) was roughly double “length of stay” for White male arrestees (Charlottesville, 25.2 days; Albemarle County, 28.8 days). Twenty percent of this difference was City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-14 Page 158 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 attributable to race differences 11: That is, African American males spent roughly five days longer in jail, regardless of jurisdiction, than did White American males with similar attributes. (See Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in previous section).  African American males spent an average of 5.16 days longer (20%) in ACRJ (32.32 days) than did White American males (27.16 days, see Table 3-13 below) TABLE 3-13. PREDICTED LENGTH OF STAY (LOS), AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES White Mean African American Predicted Length of Stay (LOS) “Effect” Rank for African American Male 27.16 0.19 32.32  For African American males, the amount of time one spent in ACRJ was influenced most by the total number of charges associated with the crime, followed in order of magnitude of effect by race, jurisdiction and prior charges in one’s criminal background.  For African American women, there was no “race effect” increasing the number of days spent in ACRJ—which was significantly increased for all women by the seriousness of the main charge, total number of associated charges and a record of prior charges.  Regardless of race, males charged with a crime in Albemarle County were more likely to spend more time in jail than those arrested in Charlottesville for crimes of similar seriousness.  Differences in age, education level and employment status were tested but had no statistical impact on time spent in jail (Tables 3-1 through 3-4) 12.  There were no statistically significant results for any of the tested variables when the main charge associated with an individual’s arrest was categorized into one of six categories of violation— property, violent, weapons, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic (Table 3-14). TABLE 3-14. LENGTH OF STAY-MEANS ETHNICITY DRUG PROPERTY SEX TRAFFIC VIOLENCE WEAPONS WHITE AMERICAN MALE Charlottesville 113.71 82.87 170.29 54.00 110.15 81.38 Albemarle County 103.13 52.73 196.67 107.00 64.39 53.53 AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE Charlottesville 156.56 124.35 130.67 50.00 171.78 152.57 Albemarle County 195.42 100.55 431.00 91.08 156.04 145.90 WHITE AMERICAN FEMALE Charlottesville 85.00 58.17 1.00 9.33 29.00 Albemarle County 39.48 45.91 98.40 9.67 38.38 AFRICAN AMERICAN Charlottesville 46.13 30.63 52.33 69.92 0.00 FEMALE Albemarle County 11.75 77.29 86.50 53.50 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. 11 The remaining factors that influence the outcome are socioeconomic variables of which due to limitations in the data could not be ascertained. 12 For African American Females vs. White American Females, this could be due to small sample sizes. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-15 Page 159 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 5. Was there a relationship between a defendant’s race and guilty vs. not-guilty case outcomes? TABLE 3-15. EFFECT OF RACE ON GUILTY DISPOSITION AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES Unstandardized Significance Odds Ratio Coefficients B Sig. Exp(B) African American Males 0.31 0.01 1.36 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.03 0.01 1.03 Individual's Priors 0.02 0.08 1.02 Total Charges -0.03 0.18 0.97 Jurisdiction 0.39 0.00 1.48 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. Note: Bold indicates statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. For two individuals, African American and White, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  For crimes of similar seriousness, African American males were 31 percent more likely to be found guilty than were White individuals.  For crimes of similar seriousness, for African American women race played no significant role in guilt or innocence outcomes.  When guilty adjudications were compared for African American and White American males, race played a more significant role in guilty convictions than considerations of seriousness of the main violation while number of charges filed and one’s prior history of criminal charges were not statistically significant determinants (Table 3-15).  Individuals charged with crimes of similar seriousness and characteristics, regardless of race, were nearly one-and-one-half times more likely to have been found guilty for crimes committed in Albemarle County than those who were found guilty of committing crimes in the City of Charlottesville (Table 3-15). 3.2.4 SENTENCING OUTCOMES AND RACE The last two research questions examine the relationship between sentencing outcomes and race. Table 3-16 below provides population counts for individuals participating in different categories of court proceedings in Charlottesville Circuit Court and Albemarle County Circuit Court for the period of the study. This table is followed by reports of findings in response to the two questions. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-16 Page 160 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 TABLE 3-16. COURT PROCEEDINGS COURT PROCEEDING CHARLOTTESVILLE CIRCUIT ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT CIRCUIT COURT 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Hearings 849 801 964 1019 1102 1060 Sentencings 596 487 615 690 693 688 Felony Sentencings 273 235 281 385 443 387 Felony Probation Violations 253 185 258 204 139 147 Misdemeanor Sentencings 70 67 76 101 111 154 Violent Felony 50 53 64 29 48 40 Property Felony 104 76 66 192 213 189 Drug Felony 75 79 104 41 81 70 Traffic Felony 14 11 20 39 48 37 Sex Offense Felony 7 3 4 60 24 17 Weapon Felony 14 11 18 24 22 21 Other Felony 9 2 5 0 7 13 Avg Sentence Felony (days) 1899 2315 1850 2177 2250 2140 Avg Suspended Sentence Felony (days) 1552 1885 1504 1853 1923 1830 Felony Avg Time to Serve (days) 347 430 346 324 327 310 PV Avg Sentence Felony (days) 1921 2038 2061 * * * PV Avg Suspended Sentence Felony (days) 1796 1814 1873 * * * Probation Violation Avg Time to Serve (days) 125 224 189 * * * Total Days Sentenced Felony 482540 511820 481115 814290 967545 789829 Total Days Suspended Felony 394260 416604 391046 693130 826929 675432 Total Days To Serve Felony 88280 95216 90069 121160 140616 114397 Total Days Sentenced Felony PV 443873 358790 457729 * * * Total Days Suspended Felony PV 415091 319435 415984 * * * Total Days To Serve Felony PV 28782 39355 41745 * * * Missing Felony Sentencing Info 5 0 0 6 4 14 Missing PV Sentencing Info 13 0 7 78 47 113 Source: Courtesy Neal S. Goodloe, MPA, Criminal Justice Planner, Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board. 6. For individuals who were sentenced for a crime, was there a relationship between the defendant’s race and the duration of their sentence? TABLE 3-17. EFFECTS OF RACE ON DAYS SENTENCED AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALE UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta Sig. African American Males 0.14 0.09 0.04 0.12 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.16 0.01 0.39 0.00 8.84 Individual's Priors 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.00 3.71 Total Charges 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.15 2.33 Length of Stay 0.01 0.00 0.33 0.00 65.69 Jurisdiction 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.77 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-17 Page 161 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE VS. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALE UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta Sig. African American Females 0.33 0.13 0.09 0.02 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.19 0.02 0.41 0.00 8.51 Individual's Priors 0.10 0.02 0.19 0.00 2.53 Total Charges 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.01 1.91 Length of Stay 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.00 32.19 Jurisdiction -0.04 0.15 -0.01 0.78 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. Note: Bold indicates statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. TABLE 3-18. PREDICTED DAYS SENTENCED AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALES Actual White Percent for Being Predicted Length of Stay Mean African American Rank for African American Female 613.59 0.33 816.07 For two individuals, African American and White, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  Race did not impact length of sentence for African American males when compared with white males sentenced in circuit court (Table 3-17) but sentences for African American women were nearly 213 days longer in duration, on average, than sentences for White American women (Table 3-18).  Regardless of race, males charged with more serious crimes accompanied by a record of prior charges and who spent more days in jail prior to sentencing received longer sentences.  For males in general, for all categories of crime, neither the total number of charges associated with the most serious charge nor jurisdiction—City or County-- played a significant role in time- sentenced.  For African American women, race, crime seriousness, total number of companion charges, a record of prior criminal charges and the time they had spent in jail prior to sentencing were all positively related to sentence duration outcomes (Table 3-17).  For African American males charged with drug-related crimes, race was not a significant influence on sentence time decisions (Table 3-19) but seriousness of offense, the total number of charges associated with the main drug crime charge and the individual’s length of stay prior to sentencing were statistically-significant influences (Table 3-17). 13 13Of the six general offense categories—property, weapons, violence, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— for males, only drug-related crimes were of sufficient sample size to permit a valid statistical analysis. Sample sizes for women were insufficient to permit a valid statistical analysis in any category. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-18 Page 162 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 TABLE 3-19. DAYS SENTENCED-MEANS ETHNICITY DRUG PROPERTY SEX TRAFFIC VIOLENCE WEAPONS WHITE MALE Charlottesville 2496.52 1720.27 828.00 1182.50 1501.50 1763.33 Albemarle County 2299.83 1511.67 2920.00 1359.38 1220.76 1744.09 AFRICAN AMERICAN Charlottesville 2596.35 1700.02 1215.00 572.14 2745.45 1763.00 MALE Albemarle County 2848.28 1762.71 3650.00 1543.33 2304.74 1889.29 WHITE FEMALE Charlottesville 1095.00 1085.29 360.00 1095.00 Albemarle County 1991.50 877.87 1040.00 785.00 1563.57 AFRICAN AMERICAN Charlottesville 1341.00 1108.22 1047.50 1424.38 FEMALE Albemarle County 2372.50 1314.63 912.50 2281.25 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. 7. For individuals who were sentenced for a crime, was there a relationship between the defendant’s race and the duration of their actual time-served? TABLE 3-20. EFFECT OF RACE ON DAYS SERVED AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN MALES UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta Sig. African American Males 0.04 0.11 0.01 0.74 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.15 0.01 0.33 0.00 9.23 Individual's Priors 0.03 0.01 0.11 0.00 4.02 Total Charges 0.16 0.03 0.18 0.00 2.34 Length of Stay 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 78.51 Jurisdiction -0.30 0.12 -0.07 0.01 AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES VS. WHITE AMERICAN FEMALES UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED SIGNIFICANCE MEANS COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENTS B Std. Error Beta Sig. African American Females 0.11 0.17 0.03 0.53 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.16 0.02 0.32 0.00 8.75 Individual's Priors 0.12 0.03 0.23 0.00 2.79 Total Charges 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.07 1.96 Length of Stay 0.01 0.00 0.34 0.00 39.39 Jurisdiction -0.40 0.23 -0.08 0.08 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. Note: Bold indicates statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  For males, factors increasing actual time served included crimes of a more serious nature, with a greater number of companion charges, a record of prior charges and a longer “length of stay” in jail prior to sentencing, all of which were statistically significant (Table 3-20). City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-19 Page 163 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016  For crimes of similar seriousness, males with similar records convicted of crimes in Albemarle County tended to serve less actual time in incarceration than those convicted of crimes of similar seriousness and characteristics in the City of Charlottesville.  Race was not a significant influence on sentence time served for property offense convictions (Table 3-21), but the total number of charges associated with the main property crime charge and the individual’s record of prior criminal charges were statistically significant influences. 14 TABLE 3-21. EFFECT OF RACE ON DAYS SERVED ETHNICITY DRUG PROPERTY SEX TRAFFIC VIOLENCE WEAPONS WHITE MALE Charlottesville 545.52 415.38 175.00 880.00 352.17 486.67 Albemarle County 360.95 312.07 1290.00 312.97 302.37 400.00 AFRICAN AMERICAN Charlottesville 555.44 447.42 365.00 145.00 712.95 441.00 MALE Albemarle County 506.69 292.14 730.00 335.00 866.79 688.57 WHITE FEMALE Charlottesville 125.00 264.00 7.00 Albemarle County 293.22 151.78 133.80 77.50 220.00 AFRICAN AMERICAN Charlottesville 156.00 142.50 375.00 109.50 FEMALE Albemarle County 314.70 721.67 Source: Charlottesville/Albemarle County data and MGT, calculations using SPSS Statistics software. FINDINGS OF DISPARITY AT DISCRETIONARY DECISION POINTS IN THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY/CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: DISCUSSION In common criminal justice matters of law enforcement in a potential criminal case, discretion in official decision-making comes into play whenever police make choices to arrest, investigate, search, question, or to use force to control a potentially dangerous situation. A criminal case often begins with an investigation of a crime by law enforcement to gather evidence in support of an arrest. An investigation may require a search of a person or property to determine if there is there is a reasonable link between an individual and a crime—that is, “probable cause”. Once probable cause has been established, an individual may be taken into custody where a magistrate determines a charge or charges, considering the seriousness of an offense and supporting evidence. For more serious cases, a prosecutor may indict a suspect for cases involving crimes punishable by imprisonment. Depending on the seriousness of the offense determined in the charge phase, and any statutory requirements that may apply, an individual may be placed in custody prior to further hearing. One may be held without the prospect of release prior to a trial if the charges against them have been determined to be so serious in nature that they pose a risk to the public or to themselves (and some of these holds are “presumptive”, meaning that the Magistrate is required to detain the defendant based on Subsection B of Va. Code § 19.2-120) -- or if they are at risk for flight. In cases of lesser risk or seriousness, one may be released on their personal recognizance or with a bond guarantee of sufficient monetary value to ensure a defendant will show up for a trial. In determining how a defendant will plead, a defense attorney and prosecutor will sometimes negotiate for a charge or sentence reduction, usually in exchange for a guilty plea. In cases tried in court to adjudicate 14 Of the six general offense categories, for males, only property crimes were of sufficient sample size to permit a valid statistical analysis. Sample sizes for women were insufficient to permit a valid statistical analysis in any category. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-20 Page 164 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 guilt before a judge or a jury, guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, or the person accused can be acquitted. In managing a case, judges use discretion when setting bail, dealing with plea bargains and motions, and, where mandatory sentencing regulations are not in play, in making sentencing decisions. If convicted, a defendant is sentenced with a fine, probation, incarceration and/or some form of community supervision. Most offenders sentenced to terms of incarceration do not serve the complete term and may be released before the expiration of their maximum sentences. The current study included data for a number of these discretionary decision-making points, including charge decisions, the number and seriousness of charges filed, bond decisions and adjudication/sentencing outcomes in felony cases, posing the question: “When discretion is applied, is race of the defendant one of the attributes of the decision?” 3.3.1 DATA GAPS, OMISSIONS AND STUDY VALIDITY Criminal justice processing data for individuals booked in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 was made available to this study for some but not all of these decision-making points along the continuum. Missing from this investigation, most notably, is information about the initial encounter between law enforcement and a suspect, from an initial call for service by police dispatch, or other means of initiating a police call for service. What led to a police officer’s decision to arrest a suspect? How did law enforcement decide to investigate an incident or scene or to search a premises or vehicle or to question a suspect? In instances in which a law enforcement officer felt the necessity to use force to restrain a suspect, were there factors other than those pertaining to the legality or illegality of an act or potential violation that led to the officer’s decision to use or not use force? Given the national attention devoted to several “White-officer-on-Black-suspect” shooting cases, particularly, these are research questions germane to a criminal justice disparity study. Information related to an arrest and an arrest decision is reported in the booking process and some of this information is recorded into the system’s electronic data base. However, the nuances of thought, circumstance and all that goes into decision-making leading up to a decision to arrest are not recorded in any of these data sources-- which were designed not to serve the more stringent informational needs of pristine academic research but for local administrative and reporting purposes and record-keeping. Does the absence of this important information otherwise invalidate a disparity study? If there is a statistical racial disparity in treatment/outcomes at any stage in the criminal process, the answer depends, in part, on how one defines what is and what is not “racism”. If a discriminatory action is accompanied by racial bias and racially discriminatory intent, then information provided for this study will not uncover these instances. Frankly, there is no known record of such information in any administrative data base. However, at key decision points along the criminal justice continuum we can determine if there are “statistical irregularities”. We can identify these decision points, measure the “degree of irregularity” and flag these points for further, detailed investigation—a task for a future study. Such a review may or may not uncover instances of conscious, racially motivated discrimination as described above-- what sociologist Joe Feagin (1986) referred to as “isolate discrimination”. But Feagin also allowed for what he referred to as “indirect institutional discrimination”. According to Feagin, these are laws, public policies and procedures—appearing race-neutral in their language and intended impact but which, nonetheless, have the effect of restricting one racial group more than others. Their effect is “institutional” because they are not necessarily the consciously biased actions or practices of individuals or an isolated group of individuals; rather they are codes and laws enforced by societal institutions such as the police and the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-21 Page 165 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 courts, making no racial distinctions in their application. And they are “indirect” because they have the effect of restricting the rights and privileges of a particular racial or ethnic group by targeting “certain” categories of crime—for example, in the so-called “War on Drugs”, crack cocaine violations-- without directly naming the group they are “intending” to target. According to Ulmer (2012), Alexander (2012) and others, mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines and “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws have reached their peak expression in the War on Drugs, reducing personal judicial and other legal discretion in favor of a national policy to “cleanse” the population of the denizens of a drug culture run amok. Whether disparities found at certain decision points in this study reflect examples of isolate discrimination and/or indirect institutional discrimination would be the subject of a second phase investigation. For now, despite the absence of important information regarding police-suspect interactions, the data for this study nevertheless provided evidence that racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes for African American males particularly are present at various points along the Charlottesville/Albemarle criminal justice continuum. Furthermore, the decision-points at which disparity has been found in the Charlottesville/Albemarle County system mirror findings reported in our review of previous research: that is, that regardless of jurisdiction—municipal, state or federal—study after study over a period of decades have concluded that the race of the defendant influences outcomes at various point along the criminal justice continuum. Table 3-22 restates the research questions examined in this study and summarizes disparity conclusions from findings, followed by a more detailed discussion of results. TABLE 3-22. SUMMARY OF DISPARITY STUDY FINDINGS FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY-CHARLOTTESVILLE – 2014 THROUGH 2016, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EVIDENCE OF RACE- RESEARCH QUESTIONS BASED DISPARITY? Was there a relationship between race of the arrestee/defendant and the 1 Yes “seriousness” of the “most serious” violation with which he/she was charged? Was there a relationship between defendant’s race and the total number of 2 Yes companion charges associated with the most serious arrest charge? Pending further adjudication of a given case, was there a relationship between a 3 defendant’s race and bail-bond/release decisions and decisions to hold Yes defendants in confinement without bond? Was there a relationship between a defendant’s “Length of Stay” in Albemarle- 4 Yes Charlottesville Regional Jail and the defendant’s race? Was there a relationship between a defendant’s race and guilty vs. not guilty 5 Yes case outcomes? For individuals who were sentenced for a crime, was there a relationship 6 Yes* between the defendant’s race and the duration of their sentence? For individuals who were sentenced for a crime, was there a relationship 7 No between the defendant’s race and the duration of their actual time-served? *For African American females. 3.3.2 CHARGE DECISIONS AND DISPARITY The first two hypotheses explored the effect of both systemic variables and demographic variables on the assignment of charges to subjects in our population. Findings for the investigation of the first hypothesis— City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-22 Page 166 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 examining the relationship between race and the seriousness of assigned charges-- indicated that African American males tended to be charged with more serious crimes when booked than others in the cohort. In the study cohort, Relative Rate Indices for African Americans charged with two or more violent crimes during the study period were from five to eight times greater than for White Americans in the Charlottesville/Albemarle jurisdictions. This supports a general finding in the criminology literature over time (e.g., Bazelon, 2019, Starr and Rehavi, 2014) that African American males tend to be charged with more serious crimes than individuals in other demographic groups. Alexander (2012) contended that War on Drugs targeting policing in locales known for drug crime and activity led to a self-fulfilling prophecy that African American males in these communities would be arrested in greater numbers for drug and drug-related offenses, often involving the possession or use of firearms—both representing relatively more serious categories of crime—fueling the popular trope that African Americans commit more crime than others and crimes that are more violent in nature as well. While, objectively, African Americans may be associated with crimes of a more violent nature, the politicization of certain categories of crime characterized as “more” or “less” violent-- coupled with practices such as “carpet-policing” of targeted communities in search of particular categories of criminal behavior that are deemed “more violent in nature” – would logically inflate arrest numbers for more serious crimes in African American communities as well. Some of these same observations also apply to the relationship between race and the number of charges associated with an arrest event, tested in the second hypothesis. When African American males were compared with White American males with similar criminal histories for crimes of similar seriousness, African American males were significantly more likely to receive a greater number of charges associated with the most serious crime. This echoes findings from the Court Statistics Project (2016) and several studies cited by Bazelon (2019) in her volume, Charged, which explored in detail the nature and number of charging decisions made at arrest by authorities. Commenting on the trend over two decades of growing prosecutorial power and influence in decisions that were formerly more the province of magistrates and judges, Keenan, Cooper, Lebowitz and Lerer (2011) cited the practice in some jurisdictions of “overstacking” charges against defendants. In instances in which the most serious charge against a defendant may be difficult to prove, to motivate a defendant to plead to a lesser charge or charges, Keenan et al (2011) reported instances of prosecutors who artificially inflate the number of charges in the hope of “pressuring” a defendant to plead guilty-- even if only to a lesser charge in a plea bargain for the purpose of obtaining a conviction. Bazelon reported that charge inflation is a common practice in an era which has witnessed prosecutors amassing “breathtaking power… more power than our system was designed for” (2019). Reports from the research literature notwithstanding, it must be underscored that there was no evidence in our data of these practices in charging decisions discernible from the data provided for this study. However, in one community forum meeting with Charlottesville residents, a 32-year-old African American male who had served prison time recounted events surrounding his arrest and conviction on drug possession charges—for which he readily accepted both responsibility and guilt. He contended the prosecutor charged him with a more serious “possession with intent to distribute” charge and added several other charges to motivate him to accept guilt for lesser violations for which he contended he was not guilty—simply to assure a conviction. Although there is no way to corroborate this account from City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-23 Page 167 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 available system information, such tactics have been widely reported in the criminal justice literature (e.g., Bazelon’s extensive review of prosecutorial discretion and power, 2019). It must also be noted in the findings that the number of charges assigned in an arrest was also positively related to the seriousness of the main violation and the defendant’s criminal history: That is, individuals charged with more serious crimes and who had a prior criminal history were more likely to receive more charges. This is a logical expectation, given the nature of more serious crimes. However, when African American and White American male defendants with similar criminal histories were charged with crimes of similar seriousness, the defendants’ race had the greatest effect of all influential variables on the number of charges a defendant received. Given this “race effect”, a second-generation study would investigate the nature of proceedings in charging decisions to determine if there are influences—perhaps “extra-legal” elements-- of specific cases that are not collected in administrative data sets that might explain a racial bias in outcomes. In addition to race effects, this study did investigate effects of such extra- legal variables as age, sex, education attainment and employment status. But Miller (1958) also identified a category of extra-legal elements in criminal justice decision-making he referred to as “focal concerns”. In criminal justice decision-making, the term “focal concerns” has evolved to include specifically non-legal, extenuating circumstances or considerations specific to individuals who enter criminal justice decision- making (Johnson and Betsinger, 2009). In reaching sentencing decisions, for example, these may include authorities’ considerations of the health of the defendant, family hardship and other elements of family history. But, according to Bridges and Steen (1998) they may also include a decisionmaker’s susceptibility to negative racial stereotypes entering into criminal justice decisions. Although no such data was available to this study, the finding that African American males are more likely to be assigned a greater number of charges in an arrest event than similarly situated White American defendants for crimes of similar seriousness because of their race and gender begs a more detailed examination of the decisions and dynamics of specific cases at this stage. 3.3.3 BOND DECISIONS AND DISPARITY Having found that African American males were charged with more serious crimes and with a greater number of charges when booked, the third hypothesis/research question assessed the impact of these decisions, and other variables, on individuals’ eligibility for release following arrest with a bond/bail guarantee. DiPietro, Johnson and Kramer (2006) speculated that when charge decisions and crime seriousness were held constant, defendants’ race, in conjunction with “extra legal” factors, will impact bond decisions. Ideally, bond denial decisions are associated solely with the crime’s attributes-- seriousness of the crime and the number of associated charges and prior criminal history. In Charlottesville/Albemarle County, having already determined that race enters into the assignment of these attributes for a given crime, the third hypothesis explored the impact of these prior decisions and extra-legal variables on bond hearing decisions. Two categories of decision were examined: (1) Individuals who were released with or without a bond/bail guarantee and (2) individuals whose crime and/or prior criminal history were so serious in nature they were to be held in custody—without the prospect of release-- as a possible threat to society as a possible flight risk, or as statutorily mandated. Results indicated that African American men and women, when compared with similarly situated White counterparts, were significantly more likely to be denied bond and detained in custody, as a function of their race. This finding comports with earlier findings (e.g., Ulmer et al, 2016; Goldkamp and White, 2006) in which it was found generally that African Americans were denied bond more frequently than others for City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-24 Page 168 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 similar crimes and when bail was set, they were also assessed significantly higher bail amounts. 15 Absent other indicators, Franklin and Henry (2019), Steffenmeister and DeMuth (2000), Ulmer (2012), Johnson and DiPietro (2012) and Spohn and Holleran (2000) report that bond decisions are disproportionately affected by decisionmakers’ negative racial stereotypes of members of some groups. We emphasize that the finding in this analysis of a relationship between bond decisions and race is not based on any evidence that stereotyping or other forms of prejudice entered into bond decisions for the period of this study. However, that race does play a role in these decisions raises questions about the roles of “extra-legal” and “focal concerns” in decision making that call for further scrutiny. Finally, it should be noted that for those who were assigned bail as part of a bond agreement, an analysis to assess a race effect on bail dollar amounts revealed no significant difference in bail amounts by race for similarly situated individuals charged with crimes of similar seriousness and with similar criminal histories 16. With regard to “bond-no bond” decisions, however, the most influential independent variable was jurisdiction of the decision—the City of Charlottesville compared with Albemarle County. A defendant in Albemarle County, regardless of race, was nearly twice as likely to be held without bond as a defendant in the City of Charlottesville charged with similar crimes and a similar number of charges, with similar criminal histories. Drilling further into the data to examine the nuances of decisions for different categories of crime was beyond the scope of this first generation study but findings of factors related to the seriousness of crimes committed by jurisdiction in response to the first hypothesis revealed individuals tended to be charged with more serious crimes in the Albemarle jurisdiction, which would predict a higher rate of bond denial decisions, regardless of race. 3.3.4 ADJUDICATIONS AND DISPARITY As for determinations of guilt or innocence in the courts in response to the fifth research question/hypothesis of this study, again, race played a prominent role. Individuals’ prior criminal history and the total number of associated charges did not influence adjudications of guilt or innocence, but race and jurisdiction did. That is, African American male defendants were more likely to be adjudicated as “guilty” than others who were similarly situated. And individuals with similar histories adjudicated in Albemarle County were more likely to receive guilty verdicts for crimes of similar seriousness than were individuals adjudicated in Charlottesville. The sample for this analysis were individuals who were adjudicated in circuit court and who had been charged with felony crimes only. Although Chircos and Crawford (1995), Ulmer (2012) and countless others have determined racial disparities in adjudications of guilt at every jurisdictional level, researchers who have explored court judgments in light of the “liberation hypothesis” introduced above tell us that racial disparities in adjudications of guilt/innocence are not as common with crimes of a more serious nature. Advocates of this position point to mandatory minimum sentencing requirements and sentencing guidelines, that tend to remove a certain amount of personal discretion in judgments of guilt or innocence, as a possible reason for this apparent lack of disparity in more serious crimes. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that race is a factor in case adjudications in Albemarle County and Charlottesville, suggesting a need for deeper scrutiny of cases, sentencing guidelines and “focal concerns”, beyond what is known from the data provided for this study. 15 In OAR database, OAR staff assessed risk factors and other information for individuals referred to OAR but risk assessment scores were statistically unrelated to final bond decisions and instances in which OAR staff differed in recommendations from ultimate bond decision outcomes revealed no racial disparities. Results for this analysis are reported in Appendix B. 16 See Appendix B. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-25 Page 169 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 3.3.5 SENTENCING AND DISPARITY If the preceding finding determined that race influenced felony adjudications of guilt or innocence for more serious crimes in Albemarle County and Charlottesville, examination of the sixth research question/hypothesis did not find a race effect on length of sentence handed down by judges for men but a race effect was found for women. The finding for males is supported by more contemporary reports of race/sentence duration relationships reflecting contemporary reliance on sentencing guidelines which tend to mute the influence of “focal concerns” and “extra-legal” factors that might enter into sentencing decisions (Franklin & Henry, 2019; Ulmer, 2012). That is, for males in the sample, although race seemed to influence guilty verdicts for African Americans, this disparity did not extend to sentence duration decisions for those adjudicated as guilty. Ulmer (2012) concluded that earlier research asserting sentencing disparities did not include some of the more refined measures employed in recent research, such as more detailed and articulated measures assessing the seriousness of crimes as was employed in this study. Instead, many early studies were tied to a simple binary stratification of a crime’s seriousness reflecting misdemeanor and the more serious felony category that were quite simply ineffective as measures of seriousness. Franklin and Henry (2019) observed that inclusion of measures of prior criminal history, the number of charges associated with an arrest, along with more refined measures of crime seriousness and reliance on sentencing guidelines, have had the effect, in more recent investigations, of reducing the statistical influence of race in sentencing decisions found in earlier research. Indeed, in the current study, when these more articulated measures of seriousness and criminal history were included- - indicating that, for comparisons among males, race was not a factor in felony sentence length decisions- -these two variables did influence length of sentence handed down by the judge, as would be expected in race-neutral proceedings. On the other hand, if race played no role in sentencing decisions for males, it did have an impact on felony sentencing decisions for African American women when compared with similarly situated White American women with similar criminal histories, who were found guilty of crimes of similar seriousness. This result comports with findings from Spohn (2000). Chircos and Crawford (1995) and Ulmer (2012) who found that African American women, over time, were more likely to receive longer prison sentences than white American women for similar crimes. Alexander (2012) and others (e.g., Bazelon, 2019) implicate the race bias associated with the War on Drugs, during which the national female prison population increased nearly eight-fold (from 26,378 in 1980 to 225,060 in 2017; The Sentencing Project, 2017). In 2017, the imprisonment rate for African American women was double the rate for White American women: 92 per 100,000 for African American women compared with 49 per 100,000 for Caucasian women (Sentencing Project, 2017, pp. 2 – 3). Corroborating crime trends reported earlier in our review of current research, crimes committed by women tended to concentrate in the categories of property and drug-related crime, although inadequate sample sizes did not permit a disparity analysis within categories of crime to determine if there was a race effect in sentencing for different categories of crime. In any case, these findings call for a more detailed examination of the dynamics of sentencing decisions involving African American women to determine if there are systemic policies or individual biases in the sentencing process for women that differ, in some way, to their detriment. Finally, it was observed in the introduction to this discussion that most individuals receiving prison sentences for their crimes usually do not serve the term of sentences handed down by the Court. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-26 Page 170 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 seventh hypothesis/research question explored the impact of variables on actual time served by incarcerated individuals in the sample. Specific reasons for sentence adjustments were not included in court data beyond data related to the original charge(s) so when adjustments were made, no themes or patterns could be explored. However, in the statistical analysis examining this decision-making function, race of a convicted felon was ruled out as an influence on sentencing adjustments. Significant influences leading to sentence adjustments included attributes of the original crime—seriousness of the crime, number of companion charges, prior criminal history—and jurisdiction: That is, similarly situated individuals committing crimes of similar seriousness and similar number of companion charges with similar criminal histories charged in Albemarle County tended to served less actual time in prison than individuals charged and adjudicated in Charlottesville. CONCLUSION Following thirteen months of investigation, MGT has concluded that there were racial disparities in official decision-making effecting criminal justice decisions and outcomes unfavorably for African Americans booked into the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. It is noteworthy, based on findings of decades of criminological research findings in literally hundreds of investigations, that this probably makes Albemarle County and Charlottesville no different than any other jurisdiction in America in which there is a modicum of diversity in the local population. What does make these jurisdictions unique is that leadership has taken the initiative to investigate its criminal justice system and processes to determine where racial disparities might be found and, presumably, to address them. Nationwide, this was the first study of its kind undertaken by a municipal jurisdiction to investigate racial disparity in criminal justice and law enforcement. As with any undertaking first of-its-kind, there were many challenges to overcome for which there was no existing guidance or previous experience. Pioneering enterprises are always challenged with dead-ends, false-starts and do-overs and this experience was no different. In addition to patience, tireless support, expert advice, and dedication, city and county officials never hesitated to go above and beyond efforts normally provided by clients to bring this project to completion. Every research study has its limitations. Acknowledging them so that the reader can decide how much confidence to place in the study’s results is a professional obligation in an official report of findings. However, given findings of consistent disparity at discretionary decision-points in the Albemarle County- Charlottesville criminal justice system, despite limitations, we find almost mirror-consistency in our findings when compared with decades of research findings investigating the dynamics of single points of discretionary decision-making in criminal justice systems (e.g., bond decisions only, charging decisions only, sentencing decisions only), whether local, state or federal. Our approach was a comprehensive multi- point analysis that enabled an assessment of the cumulative effect of multiple single point decisions with a statistical race bias (e.g., total number of charges) on subsequent decisions (e.g., adjudications and sentencing). But even this more sophisticated analysis revealed race bias at “expected” decision points, given previous findings in research over a period of decades. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-27 Page 171 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 Nevertheless, if there have been limitations, they have been imposed by the nature and/or absence of certain data elements that would have enhanced the study, had the source data been designed for research purposes and not for administration, management, record-keeping and reporting purposes. For example, the jail data does not capture ethnicity. As such, the study ended up focusing largely on comparisons between African American and White American males, and to a lesser extent, African and White American females, because their samples sizes for most of the analyses were sufficiently large to permit a lengthy multivariate analysis. Numbers for Hispanic and Asian American populations were simply too few to meet sample size requirements for valid disparity analyses, with the additional problem that there was extensive inconsistency in identifying Hispanic Americans, in particular, as such. A similar problem was discovered for criminal charge data. Data entries for the same types of crime were incomplete or inconsistent. An attempt to examine disparity in probation violations-- recognized in criminological research as particularly onerous difficulty for African Americans having a revolving door impact on rates of African American recidivism-- was abandoned because of insufficient instances in the data to permit analysis and because without additional information regarding type and seriousness of the violation, a valid disparity analysis was not possible. Another limitation was that when race/ethnicity could be determined, valid sample sizes were reduced because of missing data in equations with as many as ten independent variables: That is, in a lengthy equation containing, say, ten variables, if only one data field for a variable of ten variables needed for an analysis was not populated (i.e., “blank” or missing), the entire case had to be excluded from the sample used in the analysis. A valid case would require that information for all ten data elements for a given individual be provided but populating all ten elements with data from up to three different agency data sets was a challenge. Beyond limitations imposed by insufficient data or sample sizes, an unfortunate shortcoming of this study was our failed attempt to construct an estimate of individuals’ socioeconomic and/or personal financial background. During the summer of 2018, in the first two face-to-face meetings for this project between city and county officials and the MGT project team-- at some point in conversation with literally every official with whom we met-- each expressed their belief, in one form or another, that the root cause of racial disproportionality in crime and incarceration was “socio-economic”. In our review of the research literature for this study, we cited sources estimating that roughly 80 percent of America’s incarcerated population dropped out of high school prior to graduation and that a near equivalent proportion were either chronically unemployed or underemployed at the time of arrest. Despite general agreement among criminologists and sociologists that socioeconomic disadvantage is, indeed, the major precursor to criminal behavior, modern criminological research continues to tinker around the edges of massive social problems such as mass incarceration and racism in the criminal justice system with investigations focusing on the attributes of crime, individual or group criminality and criminal justice outcomes. Instead, nearly every study generally ignores the “elephant in the room”: Socio-economic inequality among the races that cannot be extricated from its historical link to the uncorrected economic, social and political disadvantages imposed on minority communities, by and large, by societal racism, past and present. For this study, our failure to incorporate this component into our analyses was not for lack of effort by either the City and County or MGT. In fact, an estimate of individuals’ socio-economic status could have been constructed with reference to U.S. Census Bureau’s Geographic Information System (GIS) but for one piece of vital information: home and residential addresses for individuals booked at ACRJ. None of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-28 Page 172 of 249 CHAPTER 3: MAJOR FINDINGS OF A DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF RACE EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY/ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 2014-2016 three data bases used in this study contained defendants’ address information and despite efforts by project staff, it was unobtainable. Using an individual’s address, GIS is able to estimate individuals’ financial status with reference to income and asset data reported to the Census Bureau by all individuals living within a census tract—such as a city block. The resulting variable—called a “proxy variable” because it estimates average financial status of everyone living within a prescribed tract and not for specific individuals, per se—provides a snapshot of the socioeconomic circumstances of an individual’s neighborhood context. In the end, MGT attempted to use individuals’ educational attainment and employment status data reported in the ACRJ bookings data base, but both data fields were extremely unreliable due to missing data and, in too many cases, indecipherable data entries. It is said that Albert Einstein, the noted physicist, was once asked what he would do if he had one hour to save the world from impending destruction. His reply? “I would spend the first 55 minutes defining the problem. And the last five minutes saving the world”. MGT has reported statistical evidence of racial disparities in criminal justice decision-making and outcomes accounting for a portion of the overrepresentation of African Americans in the Albemarle County-Charlottesville criminal justice system. We have identified disparities at specific decision “stages” along the local criminal justice processing continuum from booking to final case adjudication and disposition. According to scores of research studies exploring racial disproportionality in criminal justice systems in a variety of jurisdictions, our findings reveal that the Charlottesville-Albemarle jurisdiction is far from unique in this regard. Our findings have “flagged” specific decision points along the local criminal justice system continuum for deeper scrutiny to determine the dynamics and processes that might be at the root of these disparities. Based on those findings, we have made recommendations to address some of the issues uncovered in our investigation and in several meetings with authorities, inmates, neighborhood and community groups. We believe, however, that as the disparity decision points we have identified are being further researched and issues addressed, any effective remedy must also confront the overarching causal factor on which most scholars, criminal justice professionals and practitioners agree as the primary cause of minority overrepresentation in the criminal justice system—socioeconomic disadvantage as it relates to race. When the problem of racial disparity in criminal justice is viewed through this lens, the most effective remedies for socioeconomic disadvantage and criminality will likely not be found in the criminal justice system, per se, but in remedies that correct the economic crisis in minority communities that remains the disastrous economic legacy of historical racism we have yet to address as a society. As Einstein suggested, “defining the problem”, in this context, will likely require more dedication and effort than solving the “problem”, itself. It will undoubtedly require of many of us greater measures of courage, honesty and self-reflection than any American community has exhibited to date. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 3-29 Page 173 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS CHAPTER 4. COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Disproportionate Minority Study – Local Criminal Justice System City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia  November 8, 2019 P a g e | 4-30 Disproportionate Minority Study – Local Criminal Justice System  Draft Report Page 174 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes qualitative information we obtained CHAPTER SECTIONS regarding potential disproportionate representation of minorities  in the criminal justice system in Charlottesville and Albemarle 4.1 Introduction County. MGT sought to connect with and gather qualitative data 4.2 Methodology from a variety of sources from all points in the system from arrest 4.3 Local Government Representative to incarceration to parole, and from a wide variety of individuals Responses 4.4 Inmate Responses impacted by the criminal justice system. 4.5 Community Member Responses Unlike conclusions derived from other types of analysis in this report, the conclusions derived from qualitative information are based on the lived experiences of those who shared comments regarding the local criminal justice system. Qualitative comments in this chapter detail the perceptions and opinions of individuals, and the evidentiary weight of these opinions depends on how much they are corroborated by statements of others and the quantitative data that has been compiled to substantiate these perceptions. Qualitative information can bolster the quantitative analyses and serve to bring to life statistical data. Often statistical data is laced with terminology that is not typically used by the general populace. Additionally, in studies such as this, there is so much quantitative data to analyze and report on that it can feel overwhelming when reading through it all. Consequently, reading the methods and findings of quantitative data end up being such an intellectual experience that it begins to feel far removed from our personal, and emotional, lives. That is why qualitative evidence is such an important part of studies like this. The collection of qualitative evidence includes anecdotes of people’s experiences; anecdotes – our stories – are what we feel, what we remember, and are also what inspire us to change. They are how we can begin to see from another’s perspective or begin to imagine another way of doing things- how we learn from one another and build a stronger community. And when the qualitative evidence comports with the statistical data, findings are even more valid. Qualitative accounts of disparate treatment can help establish a compelling interest for a local government to evaluate processes, practices, and procedures which may contribute to disproportionality and/or disparate treatment. This topic, disparity and disproportionality in our criminal justice system, is a crucial issue for communities across our nation to begin addressing. If disparity exists, it is no longer a system of “justice.” When this occurs, we are all at risk. The presence of unfair treatment in the criminal justice system negatively impacts the whole community in many ways; it impacts taxes and the use of public monies, education, unemployment, health, hunger, poverty and potentially creates more criminality. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-31 Page 175 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent in Utah v. Strieff, said, “…we must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated.’ They are the canaries in the coalmine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.” 17 METHODOLOGY MGT’s experience has shown that utilizing multiple methods of qualitative data collection provides more comprehensive information than methodologies using a single-pronged approach. For this reason, MGT used a combination of community meetings, focus groups, and interviews to collect qualitative information to identify issues and concerns related to the criminal justice system. We also worked to ensure that we captured information from a variety of people who are impacted by the criminal justice system, including law enforcement personnel; attorneys; City and County representatives; inmates; and community members. It is critical, with a complex and emotionally charged issue such as disparate treatment, that we elicit information from as many different perspectives as possible. 4.2.1 OUTREACH MGT worked with representatives of the City and County to create a Disproportionate Minority Resource Group. This group was instrumental in discussing study methodology, approach, strategy, and community outreach for this study. MGT developed a Community Outreach Plan in order to keep the public informed about the study, gain feedback and receive input from the community on perceptions, experiences, and opinions and general feelings of disproportionality. A copy of the Community Outreach Plan is included as Appendix C. The group discussed various outreach methods to inform and encourage community involvement and engagement for the qualitative data collection activities and served to guide the City in its outreach efforts. All outreach for this portion of the study was conducted by the City and County. Outreach included communication methods for television, radio, printed and digital media, and direct contact with constituents. 4.2.2 FOCUS GROUPS MGT coordinated with the City and County to conduct four focus groups with Albemarle –Charlottesville Regional Jail inmates, attorneys and public defenders, Charlottesville Police, and Albemarle County Police. Facilitated by MGT, the focus groups solicited information from these various groups regarding the criminal justice system. The Focus Group Guide, which lists questions posed to participants, is included in Appendix D. Some of the questions we asked in the focus groups were: Law Enforcement personnel (15)  What are your perceptions about law enforcement, the courts, etc. and whether blacks or other minorities are treated differently? 17Bazelon, Emily. Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration. Random House, New York, 2019, p. 295. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-32 Page 176 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS  When making a stop or arrest, do you have any discretion? If so, what factors influence how discretion is used?  Are there differences in perception about law enforcement in minority and nonminority communities and neighborhoods? Attorneys (3)  What are your perceptions about law enforcement, the courts, etc. and whether blacks or other minorities are treated differently?  Have you had any personal experiences or interactions with law enforcement, the courts, etc. where you feel minorities were treated unfairly because they were minorities?  Do you believe judges should have more discretion in the disposition of cases in their jurisdiction? Or do you feel they should rely on sentencing guidelines? Inmates (12)  What are your perceptions about law enforcement, the courts, etc. and whether blacks or other minorities are treated differently?  If you are stopped by law enforcement in this community what factors influence what happen next and how you are treated by law enforcement?  If you are arrested in this community what are the most important factors that influence what happens after you are arrested? 4.2.3 INTERVIEWS MGT conducted interviews with City and County representatives and stakeholders. The Interview Guide is included as Appendix E. Some of the interview questions asked were:  Do you believe that minorities and non-minorities are treated differently by law enforcement and the criminal justice system in Charlottesville/Albemarle County?  Do you believe some segments in the community are more likely to believe there is disparate treatment of minorities in the local criminal justice system than others?  In this community, are there certain factors external to the criminal justice system that contribute to the prevalence of disproportionality/disparity in the criminal justice system? 4.2.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS We hosted four community meetings at various times and locations. Charlottesville and Albemarle County community members were invited to attend these community meetings. Prior to collecting qualitative comments, attendees were provided a presentation outlining the study’s objectives and major work tasks. Following the presentation, conversation was open, and attendees provided comments that were captured by a court stenographer. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-33 Page 177 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS MGT hosted the following community engagement meetings: April 25, 2019 from 6:30-8:30 pm Jouett Middle Media Room 210 Lambs Ln, Charlottesville April 26, 2019 from 5:30 – 7:30 pm Trinity Episcopal Church 1118 Preston Ave, Charlottesville April 27, 2019 10:30 am – 12:30 pm Carver Recreation Center 233 4th St. NE, Charlottesville April 27, 2019 from 3:00 – 5:00 pm Yancey School Community Center 7625 Porters Rd, Esmont The meetings were held in various parts of the City and County, and at different times to provide community members with options on when and where they could participate. In total, 34 members of the community attended the community engagement meetings. Attendees included African Americans, Caucasians, males, and females. 4.2.5 SUMMARY REGARDING QUALITATIVE RESPONSES In this chapter, we present qualitative evidence related to experiences with the criminal justice system in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Please keep in mind, the information here is not presented as fact; the comments provided in this chapter are opinions and perceptions of the individuals who participated in the data collection events. We are very grateful to every person who was willing to contribute to this community conversation. We identified several themes in the responses; many of them were consistent across groups and data collection methods. The table below provides an overview of the categories we identified and their presence in the discussions related to each group. TABLE 4-1. RECORD OF RESPONSE CATEGORIES PER GROUP LAW PROSECUTORS CITY & COUNTY JAIL COMMUNITY CATEGORY ENFORCEMENT & DEFENSE REPRESENTATIVES INMATES MEMBERS PERSONNEL ATTORNEYS Feelings of fear and   hopelessness Perceptions related to disparate      treatment Biased treatment experienced   by the police City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-34 Page 178 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS LAW PROSECUTORS CITY & COUNTY JAIL COMMUNITY CATEGORY ENFORCEMENT & DEFENSE REPRESENTATIVES INMATES MEMBERS PERSONNEL ATTORNEYS Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice      system Other community-wide factors     impacting disparate treatment Other forces within the community that impact  community relations Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a      positive impact Issues related to trust and a    community that needs to heal Opinions related to this study   Hopes for the future    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSES MGT conducted focus groups and interviews with representatives of the City and County. Individuals who participated in these events included administrative personnel, elected officials, the Mayor’s office, prosecutors and defense attorneys, both police departments, judges, and analysts. Responses below are organized into several categories including:  Feelings of fear and hopelessness;  Perceptions related to disparate treatment;  Biased treatment experienced by police;  Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system;  Other community-wide factors impacting disparate treatment;  Other forces within the community that impact community relations;  Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact;  Issues related to trust and a community that needs to heal;  Opinions related to this study; and  Hopes for the future. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-35 Page 179 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS 4.3.1 LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL Perceptions related to disparate treatment Some officers remarked that they have seen similar cases handled differently, and in some instances were “taken aback by decisions.” Insiders shared statements about their experiences witnessing unfair treatment. Well, in that entire thirty-seven years now [of working in the criminal justice system], I have seen racial inequity in criminal justice that has sickened me. It has made me feel sometimes ashamed to be a white person. It has given me a reason to get up every day and go to work, to try and make it a little bit better, even though you’re fighting an enormous, well-entrenched system… One of the reasons why I left that line of work is because of the disparity and disproportionality that I witnessed, and the fact that my viewpoints were in the extreme minority of my coworkers and my supervisors… [I] saw this kind of thing every day, largely from inside the walls…once people are incarcerated and, in the probation and parole system… Many officers felt that the policing aspect of the system is fair with regard to minorities. So I feel, myself, that I don’t think it [disparate treatment] is as big of an issue. I don’t see it on the patrol level, the street level, I don’t see the difference. I think, you know, at least in my experience, everyone’s treated pretty much the same whether we have discretion or not. In the short time I’ve been here I know Albemarle County doesn’t play around with stuff like that, first of all. Cops being racist or any type of racial profiling. Not going to name any people but I’ve seen some people come and go pretty quick when it comes to stuff like that. I’ve seen it quite fairly across the board and all the way up even to the felony stage. Officers were asked to rate their perception of how fair the system is based on a Likert scale with 1 being completely unfair/totally biased and 10 being completely fair/totally unbiased. Eight. Would be a strong eight. Up close with an eight comfortably. …I would even go so far as to say a nine. Probably eight, nine. If we’re talking in our jurisdiction, then I would weigh in at about a seven. So, for Albemarle County I would give it about a seven. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-36 Page 180 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Biased treatment experienced by police When the discussion is about bias it is not uncommon for both sides to feel like they experience discriminatory treatment. These discussions can be difficult, but they are necessary for communities to grow beyond their current challenges. Individuals in law enforcement feel that “…there is a loud anti-police group in the City...” that makes appearances mostly to “…yell and be loud.” The feeling is that these people hate the police. Officers feel handicapped at times by the bias they feel from the community. They expressed that they need to be able to do their jobs without fear. However, the negative response they get from the community at times leaves them feeling as if there is nothing that they can do to meet the expectations of them. Some felt as if, “…sometimes [we] are called racist if [we] don’t get involved.” They shared that often they no longer do proactive policing; they are aware that this may be misconstrued, and they don’t want to be called racist. In some cases, they have stopped going into the neighborhoods. They feel they get insulted when they are trying to do good. People talk about bias and that it’s a bad word. And it can be but we also, everybody has to realize they all have biases. …when I drove through a neighborhood like I stopped to talk to a child and the parent came running out, don’t talk to the police. I’ve been called some rough things on the streets and especially from my own people. Like as soon as they see me, are you Uncle Tom, this and that. They don’t even know me. They haven’t even had a chance to talk to me yet and I just get judged right off the bat. They think like all cops are just racist or they’re this and that until they actually talk to me and they’re like, oh man you’re a cool cop. I am Hispanic and, you know, [name omitted] said that, you know, he can relate to your culture. Even then just when you’re wearing the uniform, they think I’m a traitor automatically. Just take a little bit of time to talk to somebody and get to know them as a person. Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system Officers feel that much of the system is so highly regulated that they cannot have an individual impact with regard to an arrestee. We’re guided by policy even when bringing a person to a magistrate with a charge. We have very little say in, free say I guess, to add any type of additional information to it. …guidelines such as, you talked about bond hearing. That’s focused, that’s primarily based on their existing criminal history. We have no say into, you know, we can. No additional information can be added. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-37 Page 181 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS A lot of that now is all state guidelines. The magistrate will tell you that looking at a criminal history, it’s all state guidelines. It’s almost like a matrix. This offense and based on past offenses, whether those are checkmarks against you or what, equals this. And there’s no say, there’s no pleading. So for us, a lot of that, it’s all laid out. And once it gets to our commonwealth’s attorney’s office, the prosecutor, all of that decision making after that is out of our hands. Some officers shared information about experiences when they did try to pass on information such as how cooperative the arrestee was being, to impact a case. Even when they ask you it’s kind of like, we’re going to do this either way. We’re just telling you. Some of them don’t even ask. I mean I’ve interjected it, stated it, while I’m reading the criminal complaint afterwards and I’ll say, you know, they’ve been very cooperative with us and helpful, whatever, passing information, whatever the case is, and they’ll just nod their head, okay. Like it means nothing to them. …at least that’s the perception that I get when I say it to some of the magistrates. They’re just kind of like, all right. And, okay, still not going to make any difference to me or anything. Participants reported that the City police department has approximately 10 percent African American officers and that the County has approximately 6 percent African Americans of the force. Several participants did express that there needs to be more diversity in law enforcement. Given the atmosphere and challenges to doing police work some felt it is incredible that people want to do law enforcement. They feel that choosing to serve as a police officer is more a calling than a job, “When people apply, it is because it is a job they want to do, it is not about how much money they will make.” Other community-wide factors impacting disparate treatment Officers discussed the increased calls related to mental health issues. County individuals shared that they receive over 50 calls per month related to mental health issues. Participants also shared that one factor that impacts an arrestee’s experience is related to poverty - specifically whether they can afford an attorney or not. They also feel that disparate treatment manifests in relation to geographic location as opposed to strictly race. And so someone may call and complain about something from the Old Trail area and it seems like depending on who it is or who they know, more effort is supposed to be put into addressing their complaint than in the complaints in the Mallside or Treesdale area, something like that. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-38 Page 182 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS …we had a retreat and it was in a more influential area. No one said anything at the time. I made mention of it. Like our next retreat are we going to have this somewhere like Mallside or somewhere? I mean, because people get wind of us having our meetings there, that’s like we’re too good to have them on Northside and those areas where we probably really should be seen. I think if we’re seen in those areas, you know, who knows how we will connect as leaders of the agency, how we will connect with people in those apartment communities. And there may be something that will draw them to trusting the police more regardless of who it is that responds to a call in their neighborhoods. Other forces within the community that impact community relations A topic that surfaced in the discussions with law enforcement had to do with the challenge officers face in building relationships in communities where there is a strong influence by other actors in the community to discourage relationship building. Communities are influenced by gangs …the police department doesn’t do anything with immigration status or anything like that. But there is constantly false information being pushed out within that community that we are kicking in doors at two in the morning and dragging people out to have deported and we don’t do that. And I think…that’s solely because the illegal gang activity that it’s in there is purposely setting, putting out false information so they can keep a stranglehold on that community. We do a lot of outreach out there trying to bridge those gaps. But that’s a constant battle. One minute…they’re, you know, they like you and the next minute the same people are running from you or they’re scared of you or they’re cursing at you, throwing names, so something has to be going on, you know, to cause a flip flop like that. And a lot of it is that. It’s more evil forces that we’re trying to take, trying to deal with. And I’ve heard from the kids, you know, my brother stated, stay away from you all. Although they show interest in us, they’re too scared. …But the people of the community are too scared to report it because they know that gang activity is there and that we’re just going to automatically assume that they’re illegal and we’re going to take them. Communities are influence by the media The media in the community is perceived by some in law enforcement to be perpetuating the negative opinions in the community about the police. Officers sometimes feel they are, “fighting a propaganda war” and that overwhelmingly in the media, “police are not presented as the good guys.” Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact The police recognize that they need a stronger relationship with the community, that there is a need for a partnership between the department and the community. An opinion was shared about “geopolicing”, City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-39 Page 183 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS that officers should take ownership in areas they patrol. Additionally, it was shared that taking time to interact with individuals would be very helpful, “Take an extra 3 minutes to explain why [they were] pulled over.” Some officers shared that there is a high value to attending events or organizations in the community such as Putt Putt golf, Boys & Girls Clubs, and soccer games. Increased staffing was also mentioned as a need. In particular, it was noted that with increased staff, officers would be able to devote more time to training, reflection and learning new ways to perform their job. Participants also shared that more information, more data would help everyone understand better the issue of disparate treatment in the criminal justice system. It was expressed that there is a need for data and for analysts, both crime analysts and investigative analysts, “Police departments without crime analysts are like a zombie without brains.” Issues related to trust and a community that needs to heal Officers recognize the rift in the community and acknowledge that members of the community are hurting and feel they have not been heard. There is a sense that this community is struggling for an identity. Hopes for the future The police hope that the legitimacy of their departments and work are restored within the community. Many expressed that they hope for procedural justice. There was also support for a warrant search and seizure process; and an end to “stop and frisk.” 4.3.2 ATTORNEYS Prosecutors, defense attorneys and public defenders participated in our events. Perceptions related to disparate treatment …a lot of my clients are not interested in calling the police because they’re afraid they’re going to get hit with the charge because they were defending themselves [from] a white person. They’re afraid they’re going to call the police as a way to try and protect themselves in the community, and they’re the ones that are going to get charged and the white people won’t be. Opinions were shared that people of color are targeted and stopped for questioning. They are very unfairly targeted for driving offenses. License plate tag light, brake light, yea, stuff that nobody else gets pulled over for. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-40 Page 184 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS I had one case where a woman got pulled over. She was moving. Her car was full of stuff and she got pulled over…After pulling out of the apartment she was moving out of and driving down the road, she got pulled over for going 37 in a 35. And her car got turned inside out. So, in the known areas where there is high crime, a high drug distribution, that the suspicion would be just like that. You stop a person and you find evidence that you’re looking for. Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system The perception among attorneys is that the County codes (ordinances) are more restrictive than the City codes. Also having a negative impact on this issue is that the public defenders’ caseload is “miserable,” averaging 150 cases. A view was expressed that there seems to be a “policy” that “if you can charge someone with something, then do it.” This group shared a feeling that the County is, “unreasonable with charges”, that they “pile up charges.” Some shared the opinion that the courts are making more felons than necessary. There is a feeling that winning is valued over taking a human perspective. It was brought up that some actions could be perpetuating criminality. Some feel that there is a tendency toward punitive probation. Opinions were that probation violations are a leading cause for arrests. Some feel when judges load up restriction it becomes very hard for individuals to comply. Concerns were also raised about a perceived culture in police departments that provides incentives for arrests. This was an important topic covered by Alexander, who stated, “All of the financial incentives granted to law enforcement to arrest poor black and brown people for drug offenses must be revoked.” 18 The DA in Brooklyn, Eric Gonzalez, also recognized there was a financial incentive for officers to make certain types of arrests. He initiated a program to send people who were arrested for small amounts of marijuana to treatment without charging them. As a result, “Arrests for marijuana were down by 60% - perhaps in part because the police knew that if the cases wouldn’t be charged, they could no longer collect overtime while they waited for a prosecutor to screen them (‘collars for dollars’, it’s called). 19 Quantity of arrests but not quality of arrests. And a lot of times, you know, promotions and awards and stuff are based on proactive policing tactics. They just, they call these generalizations. I’m likely to get a driving charge or a drunk charge or something at a traffic stop so they are going to be in these high crime areas and these people look to them like they could be committing some level of criminal offense. 18Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press, 2012, p. 232. 19Bazelon, Emily. Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration. Random House, New York, 2019, p. 279. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-41 Page 185 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Like if you look at the police awards banquet and, you know, officer of the year for…you got an award every year for somebody who’s got the most DUI arrests so there are some incidents at least. I mean proactive towards what, right? So if we’re talking about actually proactive policing we’re getting dangerous drivers off the road because they are dangerously impaired or something and I don’t have a problem with that, you know. But if we’re talking about proactive policing because they want to get promoted to the local drug task force, kind of way or something, then they want to rack up drug arrests. Other community-wide factors impacting disparate treatment And, as is reported from other groups, there is the awareness that the issue of criminality does not operate in a vacuum – many societal issues are interwoven and impact each other: poverty, unemployment, education, mental health, etc. Participants felt that people struggling with poverty are “…treated very poorly.” So here it’s poverty…And they’re more likely to be committing a crime. So you have that same kind of target policing of people who just look poor and drive ratty cars and we make them more likely to not have a license or have drugs in their cars. Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact This group feels police could use additional training, especially regarding how to deescalate a situation. Hopes for the future Participants in this group shared the following hopes for the future of the criminal justice system specifically, and the Charlottesville community in general.  That police stops are valid;  That there is sensitivity in police department; and,  The community experiences healing from old wounds. 4.3.3 CITY & COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES MGT met with key stakeholders to gather anecdotal data regarding perceptions and opinions related to disproportionality, disparate minority treatment, dispositions at various points along the law enforcement, legal, judicial and corrections continuum. Major causes and concerns impacting the legal and judicial disposition of minorities were discussed. Interviews were conducted with several representatives of the City and County including City and County officials, administrative and managerial personnel, analysts, judges, board members and data personnel. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-42 Page 186 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Feelings of fear and hopelessness There was some consensus that it feels like the system is a revolving door: that the stages are arrest, court, incarceration, released, return to criminal justice system. One participant stated, “I don’t want people to lose hope.” Perceptions related to disparate treatment There was a general feeling that, “Minorities are treated different, we know that.” One shared the opinion that the reasons for disproportionality are, “…first responders, police; then family dynamics, social setting, education, and economic factors.” Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system This group communicated that the City police force was approximately 10 percent African American and the County police force was approximately 5.9 percent African American. One statement made during one of the meetings was that, “Albemarle Police department only has 3 people of color on staff.” It was shared in one event that wages are low for officers and that there was a feeling that, “All good minority officers were leaving for wages.” Iterated by this group is that there is a need to stop the policy of “stop & frisk.” It was acknowledged that there has been disciplinary action taken against officers who discriminate against offenders. Other community-wide factors impacting disparate treatment Many individuals feel that poverty is a huge issue in the community and has a profound impact on criminality. It was stated that 90 percent of African American children are on the free/reduced lunch program. Statements such as the following were noted in the interviews:  The problem goes deeper than policing; it is an economic issue.  There are large divisions in the community related to class, poverty and race.  There is poverty and racial division in the community.  Work with people, help them with a payment plan for fines and fees.  Issues include transportation, housing, and poverty. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-43 Page 187 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS  Housing, economics; there is a division between wealthy and poor.  Affordable housing is an issue.  Disparity is driven, in part, by the way the community is developed, especially related to public housing.  There are more poor families in the County than in the City. …when a black man or a black woman leaves the jail and is placed on probation, that their barriers to success on probation are a lot more severe in Charlottesville, Virginia, in terms of employment, in terms of housing, in terms of a lot of things that they face…I’ve seen it too many times as a practitioner to know that it’s not real – I know it’s real. Additionally, there is increased gang activity in the County resulting in more gang related calls. The opinion is that, “Gangs, guns and violence are big issues in the County.” Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact Many shared a desire for more and better data related to the criminal justice system, with statements such as “…I am disappointed that the Albemarle Circuit Court data is so poor that it does not allow us to compare the City and County…” There were questions regarding instances of missing data – why is the data missing? Is it simply procedural or accidental, or is there a bias related to entering and maintaining data related to cases? In some areas, the data is, “too incomplete to make any decent judgments from.” This group also expressed a need for a crime analyst and an investigative analyst. Some participants shared the feeling that people who have been in jail should be able to return home and re-enter society successfully. Also, individuals recognize that we all need to be mindful of our thoughts and actions. “When you stop a car, first thing you notice is how different are they from you? You must fight every day to change this mindset.” Issues related to trust and a community that needs to heal Some acknowledge that there is now a tendency to be defensive and that everyone needs to try and be more open. Opinions related to this study This group acknowledges that this study is looking into a complex and emotional issue, but that the community should be at a stage they can objectively receive the data. They want the study to be received well and to have a positive impact on the community. One participant put it as, “Whatever we find, we fix it.” City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-44 Page 188 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Hopes for the future Hopes shared by this group included: For kids to not assume they will be incarcerated. That court decisions and sentencing are reviewed. That the community creates a system that allows people to heal. INMATE RESPONSES MGT hosted a focus group for inmates at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. There were approximately 20 male participants in this session. Every participant was a repeat offender; and approximately 20 percent had also served time in prison. The offenses that participants were charged with included assault, robbery, rape, gun/firearm violations, drugs and domestic violence. We obtained responses in the following categories from this group:  Perceptions related to disparate treatment;  Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system; and,  Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact. Perceptions related to disparate treatment Inmates shared their belief that they were targeted because they were a minority. One person felt that he was, “forced into a plea deal.” Participants felt the criminal justice system was corrupt. One shared that he was charged with assault and battery when he was actually the victim. Some members felt that they were not being listened to with comments such as, “There is no representation for a black male; the judge is not interested.” One participant shared that the officer and the prosecutor involved in his case lied and because of this, he spent 4 months in jail. Then the charges were reduced to misdemeanors and he was released. Many felt that traffic stops are used as a way to get more arrests and that African Americans are targeted for traffic stops. Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system Inmates expressed the opinion that within the criminal justice system, there is a focus on increasing the severity of charges when possible. One individual said that he was arrested for gun possession, which was two misdemeanors, but these were charged up to state felony. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-45 Page 189 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS This population feels strongly that the culture of the criminal justice system is focused of getting as many charges as possible for each case. Some shared the sentiment, “All they want is their numbers.” Traffic stops, in particular, are seen as simply the means by which officers get more arrests and the goal at a stop is to find and add as many charges as possible. Opinions were also shared that probation restrictions are so strict and copious that it is very difficult to successfully serve out a probation. In fact, in this group, approximately half were arrested for probation violations. The participants felt that the County was much more aggressive in these tactics than the City. Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact There was discussion about the need for robust and accessible re-entry programs. Another issue brought up was that they system should stop providing bonuses for convictions. COMMUNITY MEMBER RESPONSES Responses from the community meetings mirrored the categories noted in the previous sections. Responses below are organized into several categories:  Feelings of fear and hopelessness;  Perceptions related to disparate treatment;  Biased treatment experienced by police;  Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system;  Other community-wide factors impacting disparate treatment;  Other forces within the community that impact community relations;  Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact;  Issues related to trust and a community that needs to heal;  Opinions related to this study; and,  Hopes for the future. Feelings of fear and hopelessness There is a genuine sense of fear about disparate treatment by police in the Black community. I think this is kind of one of the situations where I just walked away because I didn't want to be the next Trayvon Martin or whatever. You just don't know. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-46 Page 190 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS What I hear more and more, especially from mothers and grandmothers, is an overwhelming sense of fear for their…children and grandchildren. If you have a young, black child…there’s just a lot of fear surrounding it every day…you have to teach your child [things] that…a white child might not have to be taught. I think it’s really clear here that people don’t show up to meetings like this…because of the fear factor in this town. …the reason why you don’t see a lot of former incarcerated folks here, because they don’t feel like anything can change. …so many of us believe, I’m raised in this ‘hood and I’m going to die in the ‘hood. I’ve been on this corner, I’m going to die on this corner. That’s helplessness. That’s not what they want. They feel they have nowhere to turn and nobody will listen. Perceptions related to disparate treatment This group had strong feelings that there is disparate treatment of minorities in the overall community and in the criminal justice system. Statements were noted such as, “White privilege is very prevalent” and, “Whites know that the color of their skin lets them say and do what they do.” One shared the sentiment that, “This is the most racist town I have lived in.” Additional comments such as, “Racism and white privilege is so blatant” and “Color and race is a major factor” were noted. There was an opinion that, “White got probation; Black got time.” Participants felt that minorities get longer sentences. Also shared was the perception that the system operated such that for a white defendant, the reaction was “[we] don’t want to ruin his life,” but that was not so for the black defendant. I mean, depending on the race, a black man, young man, case would be a lot higher or more years for something that would be less for a white person. Recently, I called the police, myself, but I ended up getting arrested…The whole call went so wrong. And I felt like, Lord, I shouldn't have called the police. If [the police] are so right that your officers did the…correct thing that night, then why won’t you give us any information? My son was not even allowed to touch his police report. He still hasn’t gotten his police report. Nothing…They refused everything to us. But, like I said, [if] it was white on white, they wanted [them] to go to counseling, they offered this this. Black on black, jail. [I am concerned] that when I’m going at night in a particular area, that I may be profiled… Community members also shared opinions that the police treat activists differently, and that activists and events that tend to focus of issues of discrimination receive far more scrutiny than other types of activists and events. They feel there is disparate treatment by police of race activists versus other types of activists that manifests as excessive surveillance and heavy police presence. …if there's something about race, when we're protesting about race, they're all over it. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-47 Page 191 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS They were visiting activists at their homes and places of work, specifically activists of color, asking, what [are] you going to do at the klan rally? Who are you with? Who are you hanging out with? I mean, like, when the white high-school kids are protesting, you know, Earth Day, and you'll have an environmental day walk-out…[or] against gun violence… it's fine…With the black kids, with the BSU, Black Students Union, you know, from the high school…had their walk-out, the police were all over that… Biased treatment experienced by the police Some community members communicated that biased treatment can go both ways, “Overall, there is a lack of respect on both sides, police and community.” Perceived characteristics and culture of the criminal justice system An opinion was expressed that there is still a “good ole boy” network operating in the entire City. An additional comment was that juries are not accurately reflecting the population; they are not a group of peers. There is a perception that County officers are more aggressive. Further, that in the County, you, “don’t stand a chance, that judges are playing with your life.” Participants did express that there is a sense that the City is shifting toward giving individuals opportunities to straighten out their legal issues. Judges in the City were making an effort to work with individuals to help them out, i.e. offering payment plans for court fees and fines, therapeutic docket, etc. This group felt, as others expressed, that there are not enough minorities on the police forces. This group saw a disparity in police departments regarding minority officers, saying that there are, “not enough black police and sheriffs.” Community members felt that intimidation by the police was deliberate: But again, this was the treatment [by the police], like don't you dare hold us accountable, you know. But I'd like to say, the announcement [you just] said, that police were not welcome or people wouldn't come. The [outreach publication] did not say that. I could not talk any of my neighbors into coming. They felt they would be harassed if they came here. People are not going to come because they were concerned that there would be officers here and they didn't want to speak their truth in front of them. That's why you can't get the people mostly affected by these things to come and talk about it, because they come -- in the past, they would come and talk about it, and guess what, police cars are coming by the house, once an hour, every night or, you know, asking questions every time they walk down the street. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-48 Page 192 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Other comments related to perceived culture in the criminal justice system: It's like pulling teeth trying to get data from the…police…about arrest…data, this sort of thing. What I’m saying is that these public defenders do not even represent their clients…they’re not even coming to the jails… If the officers are rewarded for making busts like that (illegal search, entrapment, etc.), then they will continue to make busts like that. Other community-wide factors impacting disparate treatment It was acknowledged that the inability to get work creates repeat offenders. Community members also felt that issues related to disparate treatment start very early in our lives; one participant shared “Disparity begins in elementary school.” I think it's part of a bigger, cultural idea of…Charlottesville…There's such stark contrast between wealth in our community where there are rich, white people and there are poor, black people, and there's very few in between or on the other sides. One of the issues is mental illness or -- because people who tend to use substance abuse - - use alcohol or drugs, self-medicate with alcohol and drugs when maybe they need counseling and so forth. And a lot of that stuff, it has a lot to do with homelessness. There are a lot of people out there mentally ill, probably eighty percent of them that need help and don't know how to get help, and they're using alcohol and other things to try to self-medicate because they don't know how to go up… You know, if you think about people where there's a lot of crime, there's a lot of poverty. That's another area, too, cash available. I mean, the ability to find the resources to pay your bail. If you can't pay, the next thing you know, you've lost your job. Even kids, it has a negative effect on them, and that plays a role in the way that you grow up…again, making society a little bit better for kids, because a broken kid becomes a broken adult. And then that person hurts somebody else. …that’s also a problem when it comes to sentencing folks…if an officer see me in West Haven versus seeing me on University Avenue, he’s not going to pay attention to me on University Avenue…[and I’m] a suspect in West Haven. They [Stay Out of Drug Areas (SODA) zones] were discontinued in fact, but I think his point is well-taken, that they weren’t necessarily discontinued in practice. I just feel like if it was a white woman in a different neighborhood, because I live in [omitted] it would have been handled totally different. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-49 Page 193 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS Perceived needs, changes or actions that could have a positive impact We need to start talking about solutions…it’s got to be more than protesting on the street and then going home…this is something you got to deal with day in and day out. It is the nuance, the details, the stuff that is boring, the going to the PTA, the going to the whatever, the changing the system, it is us. Community members want to see the police interacting within their neighborhoods. …I think that Albemarle County has tried to implement programming where officers become invested in their communities. They become more like the old beat cop…kind of know your officer in your community and you build relationships. And relationships, to me, is very important in making change. I don’t know how often [police officers] circulate through the schools… In the community? Have them come through and circle it. They have a satellite here, which they come in randomly to use… But they’ve got to come in the community, circulate…They need to respond to our events. Community members feel there is a need for increased character and competency in the criminal justice system. Perhaps a need to create criteria that everyone has to meet and consider starting with a strong mission statement. We need somebody outside of the Charlottesville Police Department to come and handle this police department because they’re not going to do this job. They’re not going to investigate their own. So transparency…So right now Charlottesville is working on – they passed a resolution to have a civilian review board…[there’s] some resistance from the police department. Echoed from other groups, there is a need for better standards, training, and leadership. This group wants the personnel in the courts and police departments to more accurately reflect the general population. But if you go into a courtroom, it looks pretty darn white to me most of the time…So I would…like to see programming that encourages…children of color, that they can become a judge. They can become an attorney. They can be a bailiff. They can be in the courtroom and make an impact of their communities. [In my work] I do encounter the police departments, both the City and the County…I feel like there’s not a good reflection of diversity within the departments….it’s primarily white officers…that’s been a downfall in our system for many, many years. Hiring more African American police officers would be a start. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-50 Page 194 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS They expressed the belief that there should be a review into how promotions are given within police departments. And below are a variety of other comments and suggestions from the community. …I think the fatherhood initiative programs, my experience has been that it seems like there are more white men that are reached out to in terms of keeping that dialogue open with their children…I feel very strongly that …programs that help encourage those kind of relationships are very, very important. Neighborhood watch. I even think we tried to do that. They didn’t follow through on that. We did that for a while (Neighborhood Watch). Then they had a police station set up. All of a sudden, they closed that down. But the point I wanted to make about it is, one of the things that has been useful in building some trust is having video cams and so on, the body cams or dash cams, but this particular officer never turns his video on until after he’s done the search. And mentors are hard to come by. That’s a very important area where a lot…of young men, adolescents through young adulthood, would profit from…If you can build that trust and allow these young men to go outside and be mentors, it would be a major, major positive thing for them. Mentoring could help the justice system in getting these young men established. Issues related to trust and a community that needs to heal And going back to the events in 2017: …go back to 2017…Then those fateful days where police didn’t do anything. That’s a heck of a blow to any semblance of trust between the community and police department. Opinions related to this study I'd love to see the County do something with your data, but hopefully, at least it will be something. …see, what also is disturbing is that I don't see a lot of people like me here today. And, importantly: But my fear is, [the Study is] going to be something that’s going to be shelved. They’re going to do a little bit and say we did a lot. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-51 Page 195 of 249 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS CONCLUSION The Charlottesville community is struggling with the perceived divide between law enforcement and community members. Both “sides” clearly want to heal and repair the relationship. What is clear from evaluating the qualitative evidence is that this data comports with our quantitative findings and the conclusion in Chapter 3 – that the disproportionality of minority representation in the criminal justice system in Charlottesville and Albemarle County is impacted by many different factors in the overall society. Participants in these events noted potential causal factors that include poverty, housing, location, education, unemployment, mental health issues and transportation needs. Participants throughout the community are clear that this problem is part of a bigger issue, one that involves the culture of the whole Charlottesville/Albemarle community. Before real change can begin, the community must realize, “The first and arguably most important point is that criminal justice reform efforts – standing alone – are futile.” 20 Alexander also states, “In order to make this point, we need to talk about race openly and honestly. We must stop debating crime policy as though it were purely about crime.” 21 The degree of change takes significant energy, work and attention, summarized by a participant: …it’s got to be more than protesting on the street and then going home…this is something you got to deal with day in and day out. It is the nuance, the details, the stuff that is boring, the going to the PTA, the going to the whatever, the changing the system, it is us. 20 Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press, 2012, p. 230. 21 Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press, 2012, p. 238. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 4-52 Page 196 of 249 CHAPTER 5. SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Disproportionate Minority Study City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA Page 197 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION MGT of America Consulting, LLC (MGT) was contracted in 2018 to conduct a Disproportionate Minority Study (Study) for the City of CHAPTER SECTIONS Charlottesville (City) and Albemarle County (County), Virginia. The  5.1 Introduction purpose of this study was to determine the extent of racial 5.2 Summary of Findings disproportionality in the local criminal justice system; identify 5.3 Recommendations racial disproportionality and disparities; analyze the reasons for any disproportionality or disparity; map resources and gaps; recommend policy and best practices to address disproportionality and disparity; and to work with the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to develop a strategic plan to implement recommendations. The details of the study are presented in Chapters 2 through 4 of this report. This chapter provides a summary of findings and recommendations to address the results of MGT’s analysis of racial disproportionality in criminal justice decision-making in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The findings we present in this section provide summaries of, or are based on, work presented in detail in the previous chapters. The quantitative data reveals racial disparities at official decision-making points affecting criminal justice decisions and outcomes for African Americans booked into the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ) from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2016. Disparities were identified at specific decision points along the local criminal justice processing continuum from booking to final case adjudication and disposition. The findings provide a synopsis of our quantitative data collection and analysis. These findings indicate that there is disproportionality in the percentage of African Americans in the criminal justice system, all along the continuum, in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Information gathered for qualitative analysis supports this conclusion and indicates that members throughout the community, as well as law enforcement personnel all along the continuum, see a need for this to be remedied. Based on our research, Charlottesville and Albemarle County jurisdictions are far from unique in this regard. A note regarding findings: The quantitative analyses were quite detailed, and each topic of inquiry created its own unique results; however, there is a cumulative effect that is not obvious in the individual reporting. For example, when the analysis states, “For African American males charged with drug-related crime, race was not a significant influence on sentence time decisions but seriousness of offense, the total number of charges associated with the main drug crime charge and the individual’s length of stay prior to sentencing were statistically significant influences” it is important to recognize that even though in this isolated analysis of one variable race had no insular impact, that seriousness of offense, the total number of charges, the individual’s length of stay pre-trial were all documented to have been impacted by race. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-1 Page 198 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING A: There is a Relationship Between the Race of the Arrestee/Defendant and the Seriousness of the Violation with Which He or She Was Charged (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.1.) For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  On a 23-point scale for ranking seriousness of crimes, mean seriousness rank values ranged from 5.1 for White American males charged in Charlottesville to 7.1 for White American males charged in Albemarle County. For African American males charged in Charlottesville, mean seriousness values were 8.2 and 8.7 for those charged in Albemarle.  On a 23-point scale for ranking seriousness of crimes, mean seriousness rank values ranged from 6.1 for White American women charged in Charlottesville to 7.7 for White American women charged in Albemarle County. For African American women charged in Charlottesville, mean seriousness values were 8.6 and 9.0 for those charged in Albemarle County.  Crimes with which African American males were charged were nearly three points greater in “seriousness value” than crimes for which White American males were charged.  Crimes with which African American women were charged were more than two points greater in “seriousness value” than crimes for which White American women were charged.  When the main charge associated with an individual’s arrest was categorized into one of six categories of violation—property, violent, weapons, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— African American males charged in the “violent crimes” category tended to be charged with more serious violent offenses than were White American males. 22  Differences in age, education level and employment status had no statistically significant impact on crime seriousness decisions. FINDING B: There is a Relationship Between the Defendant’s Race and the Total Number of Companion Charges Associated with the Most Serious Arrest Charge (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.2.) For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016 charged with crimes of similar seriousness:  For African American males, race exerted a greater statistical influence in the assignment of total number of charges associated with an arrest than both seriousness of the violation and prior criminal history, combined.  African American males received roughly 8 percent more charges associated with the most serious charge than White American males. 22Of the six general offense categories—property, weapons, violence, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— only crimes of violence were of sufficient sample size for males to permit a valid statistical analysis. For women in the study, sample sizes in the six categories were insufficient for an analysis of trends by category. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-2 Page 199 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  For Charlottesville violations, African American males received an average of 2.5 additional charges compared with 1.9 additional charges for White American men; in Albemarle County, African American males received an average of 2.3 additional charges compared with 2.0 additional charges for White American men.  Race did not influence total number of charges for women charged with crimes.  When the main charge associated with an individual’s arrest was categorized into one of six categories of violation—property, violent, weapons, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— African Americans who were charged with violent crimes were more likely to receive additional charges than were White American defendants charged with similarly serious violent crimes. 23  Differences in jurisdiction, age, education level and employment status had no statistical impact on total number of charge decisions. FINDING C: Pending Further Adjudication of a Given Case, There Was a Relationship Between a Defendant’s Race and Bail-Bond/Release Decisions and Decisions to Hold Defendants in Confinement Without Bond (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.3.) For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  African Americans, male and female, were one-and-one-half times more likely to be denied release with or without bond decisions (pending further adjudication) than their White American counterparts charged with crimes of similar seriousness, with a similar number of charges and similar prior history.  Although total number of charges filed and the individual’s history of prior charges significantly influenced bond decisions, for African American men, race had the greatest impact on bond denial decisions.  Although seriousness of the crime and the individual’s history of prior charges significantly influenced bond decisions, for African American women, race had the greatest impact on bond denial decisions.  Individuals charged with violations in Albemarle County, regardless of race, were more than twice as likely to be denied bond than individuals from the City of Charlottesville. 23Of the six general offense categories—property, weapons, violence, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— only crimes of violence were of sufficient sample size for males to permit a valid statistical analysis. For women in the study, sample sizes in the six categories were insufficient for an analysis of trends by category. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-3 Page 200 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING D: There is a Relationship Between a Defendant’s Length of Stay in Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and the Defendant’s Race (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.4.) For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014-2016:  For violations of similar seriousness, with similar criminal history and total number of charges, mean length of stay in the ACRJ facility for African Americans (Charlottesville, 50.5 days; Albemarle County, 49.2 days) was roughly double length of stay for White American male arrestees (Charlottesville, 25.2 days; Albemarle County, 28.8 days). Twenty percent of this difference was attributable to race differences: that is, African American males spent roughly five days longer in jail, regardless of jurisdiction, than did White American males with similar attributes.  For African American males, the amount of time one spent in ACRJ was influenced most by the total number of charges associated with the crime, followed in order of magnitude of effect by race, jurisdiction and prior charges in one’s criminal background.  For African American women, there was no isolated “race effect” increasing the number of days spent in ACRJ However, the length of stay was significantly increased by the seriousness of the main charge.  Regardless of race, males charged with a crime in Albemarle County were more likely to spend more time in jail than those arrested in Charlottesville for crimes of similar seriousness.  Differences in age, education level and employment status had no statistical impact on time spent in jail. FINDING E: There Was a Relationship Between a Defendant’s Race and Guilty Vs. Not-Guilty Case Outcomes (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.5.) For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014-2016:  For crimes of similar seriousness, African American males were 31 percent more likely to be found guilty than were White American individuals.  For crimes of similar seriousness, for African American women, race played no significant role in guilt or innocence outcomes.  When guilty adjudications were compared for African American and White American males, race played a more significant role in guilty convictions than considerations of seriousness of the main violation, number of charges filed and one’s prior history of criminal charges, which were also statistically significant determinants.  Individuals charged with crimes of similar seriousness and characteristics, regardless of race, were nearly one-and-one-half times more likely to have been found guilty for crimes committed in City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-4 Page 201 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Albemarle County than those who were found guilty of committing crimes in the City of Charlottesville. FINDING F: For Female Individuals Who Were Sentenced for a Felony Crime, There Was a Relationship Between the Defendant’s Race and the Duration of Their Sentence (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4.6.) For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  For African American women, race, crime seriousness, total number of companion charges, a record of prior criminal charges and the time they had spent in jail prior to sentencing were all positively related to felony sentence duration outcomes.  For African American males charged with drug-related felony crimes, race was not a significant influence on sentence time decisions but seriousness of offense, the total number of charges associated with the main drug crime charge and the individual’s length of stay prior to sentencing were statistically significant influences. 24  Race did not impact length of felony sentence for African American males when compared with White American males sentenced in circuit court but sentences for African American women were nearly 213 days longer in duration, on average, than sentences for White American women.  Regardless of race, males charged with more serious felony crimes accompanied by a record of prior charges and who spent more days in jail prior to sentencing received longer sentences.  For males in general, for all categories of felony crime, neither the total number of charges associated with the most serious charge nor jurisdiction—City or County-- played a significant role in time-sentenced. FINDING G: For Individuals Who Were Sentenced for a Felony Crime, There Was Not a Relationship Between the Defendant’s Race and the Duration of Their Actual Time Served (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4.7.) For two individuals, African American and White American, of similar background, with similar characteristics and circumstances, who were booked at ACRJ from 2014 – 2016:  For males, factors increasing actual time served on a felony conviction included crimes of a more serious nature, with a greater number of companion charges, a record of prior charges and a longer length of stay in jail prior to sentencing, all of which were statistically significant. 24 Of the six general offense categories—property, weapons, violence, sex offenses, drug-related and traffic— for males, only drug-related crimes were of sufficient sample size to permit a valid statistical analysis. Sample sizes for women were insufficient to permit a valid statistical analysis in any category. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-5 Page 202 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  For crimes of similar seriousness, individuals with similar records convicted of felony crimes in Albemarle County tended to serve less actual time in incarceration than those convicted of felony crimes of similar seriousness and characteristics in the City of Charlottesville.  Race was not a significant influence on sentence time served for felony property offense convictions, but the total number of charges associated with the main property crime charge and the individual’s record of prior criminal charges were statistically significant influences. 25 RECOMMENDATIONS As stated earlier in this report, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County incarcerate a disproportionate number of Black residents. This disproportionality contributes significantly to the cost of running the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ). It also places a strain on the criminal justice system and erodes trust among Black residents regarding the justice process. Most important, damaged law enforcement community relations make it more difficult for officers to execute their most critical responsibility to protect public safety. Repairing poor relations between police and communities of color is a significant challenge which is compounded by enduring systemic factors related to poverty, housing, education, unemployment, and behavioral health. MGT has culled and crafted recommendations from our research and analysis for this study including the literature review and qualitative data collection. The recommendations that follow will position the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to shift from current dynamics to more positive community engagement premised on greater community-police collaborative problem solving. In the section below we provide general information for the recommendations; we also include for this chapter Appendix F which contains a list of resources related to each recommendation for the City and County’s further research and review. Note, however, that MGT is not advocating for any particular program or initiative identified in the Appendix; we are simply providing a pathway for further research. RECOMMENDATION A: INCREASE AND SUPPORT MEANINGFUL RE-ENTRY PROGRAMS Meaningful ex-offender reentry programs are crucial to reducing or eliminating recidivism. Programs should assist ex-offenders with housing, education and job training so those labeled as “criminals” can realistically obtain higher-paying jobs and viable, rewarding career paths. Charlottesville and Albemarle County have existing programs to help with some re-entry issues for offenders. Programs that are currently operating are:  The Charlottesville-Albemarle Reentry Council - the mission is to create lasting solutions and opportunities for people returning from prisons and jails to thrive. Strategies include data analysis, smooth transitions, and multidisciplinary case planning and management. 25 Of the six general offense categories, for males, only property crimes were of sufficient sample size to permit a valid statistical analysis. Sample sizes for women were insufficient to permit a valid statistical analysis in any category. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-6 Page 203 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  Healthy Transitions - assists individuals newly released from jail or prison who have a mental illness and are in need of continued psychiatric and medication support. In addition, case management is provided to assist with the transition back to the community.  Coming Home to Work - a partnership between the City of Charlottesville and OAR which uses wage supplements to reduce barriers to employment.  Home to Hope - provides voluntary peer support to returning City residents with mental health, substance abuse and/or other reentry needs.  Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) Reentry Program - provides a range of programming, both at the regional jail and in the community, to support successful reentry. Programming includes both recidivism-reducing and community stabilization strategies to improve reentry outcomes. Charlottesville issued a resolution in 2010 to be the “City of Second Chances” for offenders. To meet this resolution, we recommend continued and increased support for each of the programs currently operating in the area. We also recommend conducting research or a focused survey/interview type instrument to gather information on each of these entities. It would be very beneficial to conduct research to inventory exactly what services are offered by each program, number of persons served, result of this service, outreach methods and frequency, and identify any gaps in service for ex-offenders. In general, produce a type of report card that identifies exactly what each group is doing, their success, and other issues that need to be addressed for this population. RECOMMENDATION B: INCREASE TRANSPARENCY OF CITY AND COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENTS The City and County should develop policies that will increase the transparency related to the police departments. There are some activities in place that help with transparency.  The Charlottesville Police Department releases arrest data including race on a daily basis (at https://opendata.charlottesville.org/datasets/arrests/data ) and monthly investigative detention data including race (https://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/police-department/crime-statistics). The Department will publish all policies and procedures online by January 1, 2020.  The Albemarle Police Department provides real time information on police activity through its Crime View application.  Charlottesville City Council is in the process of developing and funding an independent Police Civilian Review Board. Community members shared a frustration at not being able to obtain documents related to their charges and arrests from police departments, so perhaps there could be work done to clarify the procedures for processing charges and make those policies abundantly clear to officers and to the public. The City’s move toward establishing a Civilian Review Board (CRB) was mentioned at two community meetings. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-7 Page 204 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS participants very much want the CRB to be established and functioning. One comment indicated that there is a perception that this process is slow to non-existent because the police department is resistant to it: So transparency. Before, I talked about how we can't change the system. Right? So right now, Charlottesville is working on -- they passed a resolution to have a civilian review board. Right? So if you look at it now, it's some resistance from the from the police department. We strongly recommend that the City move forward on establishing a fully functioning, independent Civilian Review Board. The community is paying attention and places a good deal of value on this project. Another step to consider would be to disclose past police misconduct. The vast majority of police officers serving the public are exemplary officers, serving their community in a very difficult job. However, when an officer is not appropriately performing the job that the public entrusts to him, negative consequences directly related to the officer’s actions can result for an arrestee’s experience in the criminal justice system. Bazelon discusses this in Charged (p. 292-284). She also discusses the efforts of the Philadelphia and Texas district attorneys to institute a practice of documenting officers who had a history of being an unreliable witness, civil rights violations, using excessive force, biased behavior, lying on duty, or giving false testimony (p. 283). RECOMMENDATION C: DEVELOP, ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT SPECIAL INITIATIVE PROGRAMS The City and County should develop, encourage and support special initiative programs which will help build trust, hope and new leaders in the community. Our report, and the preponderance of evidence nationally, show clearly that criminality does not operate in a vacuum; it is impacted and increased when poverty and homelessness are high, and education and employment are low. Therefore, the City and County could consider a wide range of programs that would have a positive impact on community members and ultimately serve to decrease criminality.  Mentor programs – Finding and developing mentors for young men and women, adolescents through young adulthood. Overall, mentoring programs, whether initiated within the schools, or in the broader community and related to jobs, continued education, or simple companionship and support have a positive impact on both the mentor and the mentee. In particular, community members mentioned a desire for a mentoring program that exposed youth to the various jobs within the criminal justice system in Charlottesville/Albemarle, where they could meet and talk to judges, attorneys, bailiffs, police officers, etc. and learn about the system, the different jobs and what it took to secure that kind of employment.  Fatherhood initiative programs – these types of programs are growing. Proponents claim that the absence of a father figure in a child’s life have negative consequences related to a wide variety of decision making and impulse control.  Increased Police interaction with the community - Officers and the community shared the desire for increased interaction and relationship building between the police and the community. There City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-8 Page 205 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are many options available to achieve this. The City and Albemarle County could consider creating a Community Affairs department(s) or programs that would work to place officers out in the community more. This department or program could work with the community and the non- profits and maintain a calendar of important events and work with officers to ensure officers attend and support events that are important to the community, such as in the schools, at food drives, National Night Outs, or sports events. Community oriented police services would encourage officers to become invested in the communities that they serve. There are some initiatives currently operating in the area, including: Mentoring for Youth - provided by several local organizations, including Big Brothers/Big Sisters, 100 Black Men, 100 Black Women, the Alliance for Black Male Achievement. The Alliance also provides some mentoring for young black adults. Fatherhood – services are focused on ex-offenders and is available through the Real Dads program at Ready Kids. The Charlottesville Police Department - provides community outreach activities including Cops for Kids, and Ice Cream with a Cop. The Albemarle Police Department - offered 439 outreach activities last year, including the Chief’s Advisory Council, Putt-Putt, Bowling, and Cookies with a Cop, and Citizens Police Academy, Partner for Mental Health provides mental health navigation services for inmates at the regional jail and upon their release back into the community. We recommend further research or a focused survey/interview type instrument to gather information on each of these initiatives. It would be good to clarify exactly what services are being offered, outreach methods and frequency, community participation numbers, and the perception or awareness of the community about these initiatives with a goal to increase participation in these important activities. RECOMMENDATION D: INCREASE DIVERSITY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT The City and County should adopt more aggressive measures to increase diversity in law enforcement. Law enforcement staff should reflect the communities that they serve. This is a fundamental piece for building trust with the community. The City and County do make some efforts toward this: The Charlottesville Police Department actively recruits minority applicants and has African American, Asian, and Latinx officers. The Albemarle Police Department reports strong efforts in this arena including a diverse recruiting team of sworn officers and civilian staff. They focus on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as local institutions of higher education. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-9 Page 206 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend evaluating the current efforts success over time of both of these practices. We also suggest research what, if any, stronger or more focused efforts toward diversity in hiring are available to the City and County. RECOMMENDATION E: ADOPT PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION Alternatives to incarceration are called diversions. A diversion program is designed to enable an offender to effect rehabilitation without incurring a criminal record. Proponents claim that increasing the use of diversions lessens the cost and burden on the criminal justice system while also decreasing recidivism and increasing the success of the offender within the community. The status of current diversion program in the area are: Charlottesville Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court - an alternative to incarceration available to non- violent, substance dependent felony offenders in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The program provides intensive supervision and outpatient substance abuse treatment along with intensive judicial oversight to produce outcomes of reduced recidivism and reduced substance use among program participants and graduates. The Albemarle Charlottesville Therapeutic Docket - a diversion program for those for whom a serious mental illness played a significant part in the crime they committed. It is only open to those charged with misdemeanor offenses. Family Treatment Court - a voluntary diversion program for men and women struggling with substance use issues that ultimately affect their ability to provide safety and stability for their children. We recommend a thorough evaluation of the success of these programs and determining what is working and what isn’t, potentially, working well with these programs. From that investigation, there may emerge a need to other or more robust diversion programs. RECOMMENDATION F: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT STAFF AND OTHER ACTORS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Based on interviews and input from the community and law enforcement personnel, law enforcement staff could benefit from additional training opportunities related to de-escalation of situations, behavioral health issues that impact or cause problems that involve the police, and diversity and sensitivity. Training related to diversity would also be valuable for the other offices involved in the criminal justice system including judges, magistrates and attorneys. Currently the Charlottesville Police Department and The Albemarle Police Department require training for all sworn officers in constitutional law, fair and impartial policing, and implicit/explicit bias, and Strategies for Youth. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-10 Page 207 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend additional training from professionals on the following topics:  Implicit bias.  Mental/Behavioral health issues faced by offenders.  De-escalation techniques. RECOMMENDATION G: REVIEW BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ADDRESSING SIMILAR ISSUES Conduct a review of other municipalities addressing similar issues related to race and the local criminal justice system. For example, meet/talk with police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and community groups from other communities facing similar issues to determine firsthand what they are doing and what’s been effective. Then determine best practices that may be applicable or transferrable to Charlottesville and Albemarle County. RECOMMENDATION H: INCREASE ACCESS TO DATA AND INCREASE DATA COLLECTED AT EACH DECISION POINT IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAP Kim Foxx, the State’s Attorney for Cook County, Illinois, manages the nation’s second largest prosecutor’s office. She has made creating and accessing data a priority in her work. As she pointed out in Charged, “You can’t fix what you can’t measure” (p. 279). Relevant to this study, the lack of access to magistrate’s data and 911 calls for service data hindered our efforts at evaluating and presenting a clear picture of disparity and disproportionality in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Further restrictions to our analysis were due to a lack of accurate race and ethnicity data for all data sets currently being utilized by the jurisdictions. We strongly recommend that this data begin to be collected immediately and accurately. As stated in Recommendation C, evidence is overwhelming nationally that lack of employment and lack of education tend to increase criminality. We recommend the City and County begin to collect data regarding these variables for individuals in the local criminal justice system. RECOMMENDATION I: CONDUCT ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND BUILD UPON THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS STUDY As discussed earlier in this report, there are factors which limited the reach and scope of the analyses, findings, and conclusions of this study. Absence of important data or information was one of those factors. Obtaining access to Magistrate’s data would allow the analysis of whether there’s disparate treatment of individuals at this point in the criminal justice continuum. Exploration of disproportionality in probation violations would also be useful. Additional research could also include trauma and criminality, the linkages between race and trauma, why disparate treatment of individuals occurs once they are in the system, what happens during the initial encounter between law enforcement and a suspect, what led a police officer to arrest a suspect, search a vehicle, and other variables. It would benefit the City and City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-11 Page 208 of 249 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS County to pursue additional research related to the recommendations, too. A more thorough evaluation of programs and initiatives, and any controversy or success achieved would enable a more focused approach to implementing change. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 5-12 Page 209 of 249 APPENDICES Disproportionate Minority Study City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA Page 210 of 249 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: ALBEMARLE COUNTY-CHARLOTTESVILLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS MAPS City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |1 Page 211 of 249 APPENDICES City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |2 Page 212 of 249 APPENDICES City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |3 Page 213 of 249 APPENDICES City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |4 Page 214 of 249 APPENDICES City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |5 Page 215 of 249 APPENDICES APPENDIX B: OAR AND COURT BOND DECISIONS TABLE B-1: OAR BOND DESCISIONS Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 7.00 0.06 112.80 0.00 African American Male 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.89 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.08 0.01 0.45 14.35 0.00 Individual's Priors 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.84 Total Charges 0.08 0.02 0.15 5.03 0.00 Jurisdiction 0.08 0.04 0.05 1.75 0.08 TABLE B-2: COURT BOND DESCISIONS Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 7.37 0.14 50.86 0.00 African American Male 0.14 0.10 0.10 1.47 0.14 Crime Seriousness Rank 0.07 0.01 0.46 6.76 0.00 Individual's Priors -0.02 0.01 -0.17 -2.52 0.01 Total Charges 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.78 Jurisdiction 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.97 0.33 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |6 Page 216 of 249 APPENDICES APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN BACKGROUND In July 2018, MGT Consulting Group (MGT) introduced the Disproportionate Minority Study – Local Criminal Justice System (Study) project plan to determine the extent of racial disproportionality and analyze the reasons for any disproportionality or disparity. The Study will evaluate collect and analyze criminal justice data and determine the extent there may be racial disproportionality and whether there is disparity because of the disproportionality. PLAN OVERVIEW The purpose of this Community Outreach Plan is to keep the public—particularly, interested stakeholders, both internal and external—informed about the Study, gain feedback and receive input from the community on perceptions, experiences, and general feelings of disproportionality. Also, to help develop an understanding of the depth and breadth of disparity, identify areas for improvement, and best practices to address areas for improvement. It is important to the success of the study to maximize participation and reduce rumors in the collection of anecdotal information. To have good communications, it is vital to:  Identify targeted audience and stakeholders for input and potential recommendations.  Use communication methods that adequately disseminate information.  Conduct interviews, focus groups, and community meetings with city and county stakeholders.  Keep the broader community informed. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this Community Outreach Plan are to:  Provide information on actions that may be taken to facilitate the dissemination of information about the project.  Keep stakeholders informed about the project, how it is being conducted, and provide information about opportunities for them to participate.  Encourage stakeholders to participate in the Study by attending events, sharing anecdotes, responding to requests for interviews, and participating in focus groups.  Inform the City and County of the protocol that MGT will use in gathering qualitative and anecdotal data as part of the Study. TARGET MARKET The Community Outreach Plan is designed to reach residents in the City and County who are impacted by the local criminal justice system. Outreach also includes community associations, professional organizations, religious institutions, support centers, and community stakeholders that provide re-entry programs, workforce development. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |7 Page 217 of 249 APPENDICES TARGET CONTACT DEMOGRAPHICS The demographics of stakeholders will include ex-offenders, residents, victims, witnesses, jail staff, trial attorneys, police, etc. BROADER COMMUNIT Y COLLABORATION The broader community to include, but not limited to community advocates, homeowner/resident associations, religious organizations, and public assistance organizations. To maximize the outreach effort, MGT will work with the City and County to distribute all public notices to request their assistance in disseminating pertinent meeting and Study information. COMMUNICATION METHODS The following section contains a communication strategy for contacting and informing the community and stakeholders. The strategy recommends:  Communication channels that will facilitate the broad dissemination of information about the study.  Messaging for each target audience.  Materials to be developed.  Next steps for strategy implementation. MGT will aid the City and County in drafting materials related to the strategies that the City and County desires to implement, and the City and County will have final approval of all written materials. As outlined in in Table C-4 of this plan, the City and County and MGT will have defined responsibilities on the implementation of this plan. COMMUNICATION CHANNELS 1. PERSONAL OUTREACH TO COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS: Contact key representatives of community organizations and stakeholders via phone to provide details about the Study, ask that they share this information with their members, parishioners, clients through their standard communication channels, e.g., social media, events calendars, and newsletters. Send personal follow-up e-mails: a. To contacts who were not able to be reached via phone: Provide details about the study and explain the request to disseminate information. Sending this message will increase the likelihood a contact will return the call and agree to share information. b. To contacts reached via phone and who agree to share information with members: Thank the contact for agreeing to share information with members, provide background notice, and confirm channels where the organization will share information, and/or next steps. Create content that is ready for stakeholders and organizations to share on their social media sites, e.g., “Does the local criminal justice system appear to target minority citizens? If so, the City and County needs your input in a Disproportionate Minority Contact Study to discuss strategies on how to reduce disproportionate minority contact. The first community meeting is on (DATE). See the ? for more information.” City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |8 Page 218 of 249 APPENDICES 2. E-MAIL BLAST: Use e-mail to distribute customized messages to community associations, professional organizations, and community stakeholders who support the community announcing the project and upcoming events related to the study. 3. SOCIAL MEDIA: Use social media sites, e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and NextDoor, to share notices and other relevant information about the Study. Create a hashtag such as #Chltvlcriminaljustice to use in Facebook and Twitter posts. 4. NEWSPAPERS AND NEWSLETTERS: Place cost-free ads in newspapers and newsletters to include minority print and online media, send a letter to the editors discussing the Study, and ask newspapers that they publish news stories about the Study. News stories might include interviews with community leaders or stakeholders about their participation in the study. The following table recommends newspapers where ads and editorial letters might be submitted that reach target audiences in the City and County, as well as the regional area. TABLE C-1: AREA NEWSPAPERS The Daily Progress Cville Weekly Crozet Gazette Richmond Times Dispatch Cavalier Daily 5. TELEVISION: Contact local and public access television stations and request their assistance in disseminating information about the Study, forthcoming community meetings, and other opportunities for public input by: a. Placing public service announcements (PSA). b. Developing news stories about the study. The following table suggests specific stations that might be contacted. TABLE C-2: TELEVISION OUTLETS WVIR CBS19 Charlottesville PEG-TV WTVR WHTJ WHSV Charlottesville TV10 6. RADIO: Contact local and public access radio stations and request their assistance in disseminating information about the Study, to include stations with predominately minority listeners about the forthcoming community engagement meetings, and other opportunities for public input by: a. Placing public service announcements. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report Page |9 Page 219 of 249 APPENDICES b. Developing news stories about the study. Table C-3 suggests specific stations within 20 miles of Charlottesville that might be contacted. TABLE C-3: RADIO STATIONS Call Letters Station Genre WVTW 88.5 Public Radio WVTU 89.3 Public Radio WVTW 89.7 Public Radio WTJU 91.1 Public Radio WNRN 91.9 Variety WXRK 92.3 Variety WCVL 92.7 Country W291AN(WKTR-AM) 93.7 Religious W231AD(WHTE) 94.1 Top 40 WPVC 94.7 talk WQMZ 95.1 Adult Contemporary W240AF (WYFJ) 9509 Religious W242CL(WTTX) 96.3 Gospel Music W285EF(WKAV-AM) 96.7 Christian Contemporary W246DD (WVTW) 97.1 Public Radio WWWV 97.5 Classic Rock WREN 97.9 Oldies WCYK 99.7 Country WXTJ 100.1 College (UVA) WVAI 101.3 Hip Hop WHTE 101.9 Top 40 WZGN 102.3 Classic Hits W275CL (WVAX-AM) 102.9 Sports WMRY 103.5 Public WCNR 106.1 Adult Album Alternative WCHV 107.5 News/Talk 7. INFLUENCERS AND AMBASSADORS: Identify influential community leaders and ask them to provide testimonials about participation in the Study that can be incorporated into materials about the study. Also, approach community leaders who are critical of the City and County’s study and ask for their help recruiting participants to be engaged in the community outreach events. This may: a. Improve their perceptions of the City and County’s efforts. b. Increase the likelihood they will speak favorably about the City and County’s Study publicly and encourage followers to participate. 8. PRESS RELEASE SERVICE: Distribute press releases through a press release service, to connect with targeted media, stakeholders, social networks, and community at-large. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 10 Page 220 of 249 APPENDICES MATERIALS Create materials that incorporate the targeted messages to provide information about and/or notification of the Study. Materials could include: 1. Printed collateral/marketing materials: Create brochures, flyers, and/or postcards. 2. E-mail: Create letters for: a. Community associations, professional organizations, and stakeholders announcing the Study and upcoming community engagement events related to the Study and inviting them to participate. b. Community resources, workforce programs, and community stakeholders that work with ex- offenders, provide back-to-work programs, etc., asking that they share information or community meeting notices with their contacts. 3. Press releases. 4. Social media: Create informative and engaging content (e.g., status updates, blog updates) that can be shared by community associations, professional organizations, stakeholders, and state and local government offices to share on their own social media sites. 5. Print advertisements. NEXT STEPS To facilitate implementation of the plan and ensure outreach efforts are successful, the MGT Study Team recommends the following tasks: 1. Communication Channels and Roles: Review proposed communication channels in Table 4, identify and approve channels to be implemented, and define who will be responsible for carrying out the action items. 2. Communication Calendar: Create a comprehensive communication calendar to plan all outreach efforts. A calendar will: a. Provide clear deadlines for outreach to target audiences around key study milestones, e.g., community engagement meetings. b. Maximize the use of each communication channel and coordinate the timing of each. 3. Metrics: Evaluate the performance and success of all outreach efforts throughout the study period and make adjustments to the communication plan as necessary. Collecting this information will benefit the City and County by: a. Identifying which contacts are engaged in the Study efforts and which are not, making it easier to see where additional outreach is needed to encourage engagement. b. Demonstrating the City and County’s efforts to communicate information to as many businesses as possible to ensure maximum participation. The following table describes actions required for the implementation of each communication channel, responsible parties, and the creation of a communication calendar. MGT will draft written content for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 11 Page 221 of 249 APPENDICES press releases, TV, radio, emails, etc. for the City and County’s review, edits, and approval before distribution to the public. TABLE 4: COMMUNICATION CHANNELS ACTION RESPONSIBLE Completion Date COMMUNICATION CHANNELS Social Media  Post announcements about the mee�ngs on the City/County’s social City/County/MGT March 18, 2019 media sites.  Create a hashtag, such as # Chltvlcriminaljustice, and use in Facebook City/County March 18, 2019 and Twiter posts. Newspaper and Newsletters  Contact newspapers where the City/County would like to place free City/County March 12, 2019 adver�sements.  Confirm newspapers where ads will be placed. City/County March 12, 2019  Dra� and finalize ads. City/County/MGT March 15, 2019  Distribute ads to newspapers. City/County March 18, 2019 News Stories  Dra� and finalize news stories. City/County/MGT March 15, 2019  Iden�fy contacts and send news stories to newspapers. MGT March 18, 2019 Television  Create mee�ng announcements. City/County/MGT March 15, 2019  Send announcements to local television sta�ons. City/County/MGT March 18, 2019  Follow up with television sta�ons to make sure they have received PSAs, MGT March 20, 2019 provide more background about the Study, and find out if they are willing to share the announcements and are interested in producing a news story about the study.  Collaborate with the City/County on all television appearances. MGT TBD Radio  Create mee�ng announcements. City/County/MGT March 15, 2019  Send Announcements to radio sta�ons where the City/County them to MGT March 18, 2019 be aired.  Follow up with radio sta�ons to make sure they have received MGT March 20, 2019 announcements, provide more background about the Study, and find out if they are willing to share announcements and are interested in producing a news story about the study.  Collaborate with City/County on all radio appearances. MGT TBD Press Releases  Dra� and finalize press release(s). City/County/MGT March 15, 2019  Distribute press release(s) to press release service, newspapers, and City/County March 18, 2019 trade journals. Personal Outreach to Stakeholder Organizations  Call key stakeholder organiza�ons and ask them to share informa�on MGT March 18, 2019 about the Study with members.  Send follow-up e-mail(s) to stakeholder organiza�ons with informa�on MGT March 21, 2019 about the Study.  Create content that is ready for stakeholder organiza�ons to share on MGT March 21, 2019 their social media sites. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 12 Page 222 of 249 APPENDICES ANECDOTAL INPUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS, INTERVIEWS, AND FOCUS GROUPS As outlined in MGT’s work plan, MGT will use multiple methods to solicit information, opinions, and perceptions from individuals, community leaders, ex-offenders, residents, and stakeholder groups as part of the Study. A discussion of each method follows: 1. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS: MGT will facilitate five community meetings designed to receive comments from stakeholders and the community-at-large regarding policy changes, recommendations, and strategic plans to reduce disproportionate contact. During the community meetings, MGT will facilitate the meetings and present an overview of the study objectives, work tasks, and timeline to complete the study and address questions from participants. These meetings will include the use of Teletown Halls. Teletown Halls provide a virtual option for participation that allows disabled, elderly and rural residents to listen in and provide feedback remotely. This service comes with Web Registration so that registrants can be called at the time of the meeting and simply answer to join. Additionally, we can add a Web Simulcast that allows participants to join through a web browser. The City and County will:  Identify the locations for each meeting and schedule the dates of meetings.  Arrange for an Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant venue and the necessary logistics to hold the meeting.  Advertise the community engagement meetings using desired communication methods discussed. 3. IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS: MGT will work with the City and County to identify stakeholders to be interviewed. A total of 25 in-depth business interviews will be completed. An interview guide will be developed to ensure continuity of questioning. 4. FOCUS GROUPS: MGT will conduct five focus groups with community stakeholders and project committee members. MGT will facilitate the meetings and present an overview of the study objectives, work tasks, and timeline to complete the study and address questions from participants. The City and County will:  Identify the locations for each focus group and schedule the dates of meetings.  Arrange for an Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant venue and the necessary logistics to hold the meeting. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 13 Page 223 of 249 APPENDICES APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE City of Charlottesville/Albemarle County Focus Group Guide Hello and thank you for coming to this focus group to provide input that will be used as a part of a study of disproportionate minority contact in the local criminal justice system for City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. My name is ____________ with MGT Consulting. We have been asked to gather opinions, perceptions, and input about experiences with the criminal justice system. We are very glad that you are all here and appreciate you taking time to participate in this meeting. We are going to be taking notes throughout the session. In addition, we would like to record this session if there are no objections. The Process The recordings and notes of these focus groups will only be summarized by me as part of the qualitative data collection. Individual names will not be identified nor will remarks or comments be attributed to a specific individual. Once all of the focus groups are completed, the results will be aggregated and incorporated with other data from the study. These findings will be used in developing strategic initiatives for the City and County to address any disproportionality or disparity. We hope that everyone feels free to participate and to add as much insight as possible. We have ample time, so feel free to contribute to the discussion as we go along. A. Welcome and brief background about the purpose of focus groups (see above).  Introductions – have each participate state: o Name o Status as an inmate, ex-offender, victim, resident, jail staff, etc., o Ask about current charge(s), if applicable. Be sure to note ethnicity and gender. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 14 Page 224 of 249 APPENDICES B. Key Points to Discuss  This is an open discussion and invite all to participate. Goal is to have everyone participate in the discussion.  Encourage participants to express thoughts and opinions freely. C. Facilitation Logistics  Facilitators: The facilitator has primary responsibility for working with the group to solicit responses to questions.  Facilitation Time: Approximately 90 minutes.  Major Issues will be recorded by tape recorder (if there are no objections), personal notes, and flipchart pages.  Date, Time, and Location: A. Materials Needed: a) Flip Chart or Easel Paper b) Focus Group Guide (attached) c) List of Participants (sign-in sheet to be provided) d) Markers e) Audio Recorder D. Scope Establish Scope: Spend a few minutes setting the context including what we’re doing and why we’re interested in getting their input. Discussion Questions Inmates and Ex-offenders 1. What are your perceptions about law enforcement, the courts, etc. and whether blacks or other minorities are treated differently? 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being completely unfair/completely bias and 10 being completely fair/completely unbiased, how would you rate the overall fairness of the system in dealing with blacks and other minorities who have been arrested? 3. Have you had any personal experiences or interactions with law enforcement, the courts, etc. and were you treated fairly? City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 15 Page 225 of 249 APPENDICES 4. Have your relatives or close friends had personal experiences with law enforcement, the courts, etc., and do you think they were treated fairly? 5. Assume 2 individuals are arrested for the same misdemeanor offense, it’s the first offense for both, both are employed full-time, both have strong family ties in the community, etc.—the only difference is one individual is white and other is black – at what point in the criminal justice continuum do you feel they are more likely to be treated differently from arrest to court and adjudication? (Ask a similar question based on felony arrest). 6. Have you been arrested more than 2 times as an adult and/or as a juvenile? 7. How long have you been in jail? a. Have you served time in prison? 8. Have you been to court on current charges or have an impending court date? a. Do you have an attorney or are you using the Public Defender? 9. Do you feel that you were treated any differently because you were black (from arrest to whatever point they are now in the process)? 10. If you are stopped by law enforcement in this community what factors influence what happens next and how you are treated by law enforcement? 11. If you are arrested in this community what are the most important factors that influence what happens after you are arrested? 12. Let’s assume that we are meeting 5 years from now—what would you like to be true about the criminal justice system in this community that’s not true today? City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 16 Page 226 of 249 APPENDICES Law Enforcement 1. What are your perceptions about law enforcement, the courts, etc. and whether blacks or other minorities are treated differently. If so, how so? 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being completely unfair/completely biased and 10 being completely fair/completely unbiased, how would you rate the overall fairness of the system in dealing with blacks and other minorities who have been arrested? 3. Have you had personal experiences with minorities where the event was viewed as improper action? 4. Assume 2 individuals are arrested for the same misdemeanor offense, it’s the first offense for both, both are employed full-time, both have strong family ties in the community, etc.—the only difference is one individual is white and other is black – at what point in the criminal justice continuum do you feel they are more likely to be treated differently from arrest to court and adjudication. (Ask a similar question based on felony arrest). 5. When making a stop or arrest, do you have any discretion? If so, what factors influence how discretion is used? 6. Are there differences in perception about law enforcement in minority and nonminority communities and neighborhoods? If so, what are the differences, and what accounts for those differences. 7. Let’s assume that we are meeting 5 years from now—what would you like to be true about the criminal justice system in this community that’s not true today? Attorneys/Public Defenders 1. What are your perceptions about law enforcement, the courts, etc. and whether blacks or other minorities are treated differently. If so, how so? 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being completely unfair/completely biased and 10 being completely fair/completely unbiased, how would you rate the overall fairness of the system in dealing with blacks and other minorities who have been arrested? 3. Have you had any personal experiences or interactions with law enforcement, the courts, etc. and where you feel minorities were treated unfairly because they were minorities? City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 17 Page 227 of 249 APPENDICES 4. Assume 2 individuals are arrested for the same misdemeanor offense, it’s the first offense for both, both are employed full-time, both have strong family ties in the community, etc.—the only difference is one individual is white and other is black – at what point in the criminal justice continuum do you feel they are more likely to be treated differently from arrest to court and adjudication. (Ask a similar question based on felony arrest). 5. Do you believe judges should have more discretion in their adjudication of cases in their jurisdiction? Or do you feel they should rely on sentencing guidelines? 6. Let’s assume that we are meeting 5 years from now—what would you like to be true about the criminal justice system in this community that’s not true today? City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 18 Page 228 of 249 APPENDICES APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW GUIDE __________________________ _________________________ Interviewer Date Hello, my name is ______ and I’m with MGT Consulting. We have been retained by the City of Charlottesville (City) – Albemarle County (County), Virginia to determine if racial minority and non- minority individuals are treated differently in terms of legal and judicial treatment and outcomes in the City and County legal systems. If there is disproportionate treatment, we have been asked to explore the reasons and contributing factors. If our findings indicate racial disparities in treatment and outcomes, we’ll provide policy recommendations and best practices to address this problem and we will develop a plan to implement recommendations. ___________________________________ ________________________________ Name of Interviewee Agency/Department/Division ___________________________________ ________________________________ Current Title Contact Information 1. Do you believe that minorities and non-minorities are treated differently by law enforcement and the criminal justice system in Charlottesville/Albemarle County? If yes, where along the criminal justice continuum are the major points of disproportionate treatment? (Example: arrest decisions? Bail decisions? Etc.). Why do you believe this? If no, why do you believe this? 2. Do you believe some segments in the community are more likely to believe there is disparate treatment of minorities in the local criminal justice system than others? If so, please describe these segments. Do you think their concerns are valid? Why or why not? 3. In this community, if you believe there are different perceptions/viewpoints about the extent or prevalence of disproportionality/disparity the criminal justice system, what do you think contributes to these different viewpoints? 4. In this community, are there certain factors external to the criminal justice system that contribute to the prevalence of disproportionality/disparity in the criminal justice system? (Example: Different employment/unemployment rates for majority and minority groups). 5. If you believe there is majority/minority disproportionality/disparity in treatment and outcomes, do you know of current programs or policies to address this problem? Have they City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 19 Page 229 of 249 APPENDICES been effective or ineffective? Why? Where are the biggest gaps in resources? 6. If you believe disparate treatment of minorities is a valid issue, in regard to the future what strategies/solutions should be considered? What are the two or three most critical priorities that should be addressed in order to reduce/minimize disproportionality/disparity? 7. Is there anyone else you think would be helpful for MGT to speak to regarding disproportionality/disparity in the criminal justice system? Also, is there data, documentation, information you feel we should review as part of our research? On behalf of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, we thank you for your participation. If you have any questions or need more information about this study, please contact Reggie Smith at 850-386- 3191 or rsmith@mgtconsulting.com. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 20 Page 230 of 249 APPENDICES APPENDIX F: RESOURCES RELATED TO RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION A: INCREASE AND SUPPORT MEANINGFUL REENTRY PROGRAMS What Makes a Reentry Program Successful? https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/reentry-programs/ Four Elements of a Successful Reentry Programs for Inmates https://www.socialsolutions.com/blog/4-elements-of-successful-reentry-programs-for-inmates/ Prisoner Reentry Programs: Ensuring Safe and Successful Return to the Community https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/11/30/prisoner-reentry-programs-ensuring-safe- and-successful-return-community RECOMMENDATION B: INCREASE TRANSPARENCY OF CITY AND COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENTS Improving Police Effectiveness and Transparency: National Information Needs on Law Enforcement. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Forst.pdf National Police Accountability Project https://www.nlg-npap.org/ Addressing Police Misconduct https://www.justice.gov/crt/addressing-police-misconduct Program Aims to Stop Police Misconduct https://www.sheppardmullin.com/media/article/1659_Times%20Picayune_Program%20aims% 20to%20stop%20misconduct%206.14.17.pdf RECOMMENDATION C: DEVELOP, ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT SPECIAL INITIATIVE PROGRAMS Mentoring Mentoring Best Practices: Effectiveness of Juvenile Mentoring Programs on Recidivism https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251378.pdf Meaningful Mentoring https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/mm.pdf How Former Offenders Can Make Great Mentors http://theconversation.com/knife-crime-how-former-offenders-can-make-great-mentors-for- at-risk-teens-105880 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 21 Page 231 of 249 APPENDICES Mentoring for Youth Who Have Been Arrested or Incarcerated https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/30-topic-areas/173-mentoring-for- youth-who-have-been-arrested-or-incarcerated.html Mentoring Resources https://www.ncjrs.gov/mentoringresources/ Fatherhood Initiatives The effect of father absence and father alternatives on female and male rates of violence https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/206316.pdf Fatherhood.org https://www.fatherhood.org/about-us Ten Key Findings https://www.urban.org/research/publication/ten-key-findings-responsible-fatherhood- initiatives Police interaction with the community The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is the component of the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation's state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources. https://cops.usdoj.gov/ An Evaluation of Community Oriented Policing Programs https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/161458NCJRS.pdf Practices in Modern Policing: Police-Youth Engagement https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/e121613800_Police-Youth-Engage- Modern-Policing_v9_NoCOPS_508.pdf Police departments use creative approaches to build public trust http://www.westerncity.com/article/police-departments-use-creative-approaches-build-public- trust RECOMMENDATION D: INCREASE DIVERSITY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT Creating a Multicultural Law Enforcement Agency: An Intentional Policy https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/creating-a-multicultural-law-enforcement-agency/ Police officers explain why diversity in law enforcement matters https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/diversity-in-law-enforcement/ City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 22 Page 232 of 249 APPENDICES Advancing Diversity in Law Enforcement https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/900761/download RECOMMENDATION E: ADOPT PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/pu blications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf Diversion and first-offender programs give defendants a way to avoid criminal convictions. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/diversion-programs.html Diversion programs are cheaper and more effective than incarceration. https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/diversion-programs-are-cheaper-and-more-effective- incarceration-prosecutors RECOMMENDATION F: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT STAFF A practical overview of de-escalation skills in law enforcement: helping individuals in crisis while reducing police liability and injury. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15332581003785421?journalCode=wpcn20 Verbal De-Escalation Training for Police https://www.crisisprevention.com/Blog/March-2019/De-Escalation-Training-for-Police Managing implicit bias for law enforcement https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/signature-programs/law-enforcement- training/implicit-bias Cultural diversity and cultural competency for law enforcement https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/cultural-diversity-and-competency/ RECOMMENDATION G: REVIEW BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ADDRESSING SIMILAR ISSUES Reducing Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: A Manual for Practitioners and Policymakers https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Reducing-Racial-Disparity- in-the-Criminal-Justice-System-A-Manual-for-Practitioners-and-Policymakers.pdf Case Studies of Nine Jurisdictions that Reduced Disproportionate Minority Contact in their Juvenile Justice Systems https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250301.pdf City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 23 Page 233 of 249 APPENDICES Reducing Jail Populations by Addressing Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System; prepared for the National Association of Counties https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Reducing-Jail-Populations-by- Addressing-Racial-Disparity-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf Incorporating Racial Equity into Criminal Justice Reform http://www.safetyandjusticechallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/incorporating-racial-equity- into-criminal-justice-reform.pdf How Judges Can Reduce Racial Disparities in the Criminal-Justice System https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alixwinter/files/clair_winter_courtreview_2018.pdf City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 24 Page 234 of 249 APPENDICES APPENDIX G: BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrams, David S., Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?” Journal of Legal Studies, 41, June 2012, 347. Agnew, Robert. “A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.” Social Forces, 64(1), 1985, 151-167. Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Rev. ed. The New Press, 2012. Antonovics, Kate and Brian G. Knight. "A New Look at Racial Profiling: Evidence from the Boston Police Department." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), MIT Press, February 2009, 163-177. Anwar, Shamena, Patrick Bayer, and Randi Hjlamarsson. “The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, May 2012, 1017-1055. Arnold, David, Will Dobbie, and Crystal Yang. “Racial Bias in Bail Decisions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 2018, 1885-1932. Bazelon, Emily. Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration. New York, Random House, 2019. Berstein, I. N., William R. Kelly, and P.A. Doyle. “Societal Reaction to Deviants: The Case of Criminal Defendants.” American Sociological Review, 42, January 1977, 743-755. Blumstein, Alfred. “On the Racial Disproportionality of United States' Prison Populations”. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 73, 1982, 1259. Blumstein, Alfred, J. Cohen, S. E. Martin, and M. H. Tonry. “Research on Sentencing - The Search for Reform.” National Academies Press, 2, 1983. Brame, Robert and Alex R. Piquero. “Selective Attrition and the Age-Crime Relationship.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(2), June 2003, 107-127. Bridges, G. S. and S. Steen. “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review, 63(4), August 1998, 554- 570. Chiricos, Ted and Charles Crawford. “Race and Imprisonment: A Contextual Assessment of the Evidence.” Ethnicity, Race, and Crime: Perspectives Across Time and Place, Editor Darnell F. Hawkins. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995, 281-309. Cohen, A. K. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York, NY, Free Press, 1955. Crawford, Charles, T. Chiricos, and G. Kleck. “Race, Racial Threat, and Sentencing of Habitual Offenders.” Criminology, 36(3), August 1998, 481-511. Crutchfield, R. D., and S. R. Pitchford. “Work and Crime: The Effects of Labor Stratification.” Social Forces, 76(1), 1997, 93-118. DiPietro, Stephanie, Brian Johnson, and John Kramer. “Race, Ethnicity and the Diversion to Intermediate Sanctions under Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Guidelines.” American Society of Criminology, 2006. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 25 Page 235 of 249 APPENDICES Doerner, Jill K., and Stephen Demuth. “The Independent and Joint Effects of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age on Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts.” Justice Quarterly, 27(1), 2010, 1-27. Farrell, Amy, Geoff Ward, and Danielle Rousseau. “Race Effects of Representation Among Federal Court Workers: Does Black Workforce Representation Reduce Sentencing Disparities?” American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), April 2009, 121-133. Farrington, D. P., B. Gallagher, L. Morley, R. J. Ledger, and D. J. West. “Unemployment, School Leaving, and Crime.” British Journal of Criminology, 26(4), October 1986, 335-356. Feagin, Joe. Discrimination American Style: Institutional Racism and Sexism, 2nd edition. Malabar, FL, Robert Krieger Publishing Company. Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program. “State and Local Government Finances by Level of Government and by State, 1998-2017, Table 1.” Web. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the- u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-1 Franklin, Travis W. “The State of Race and Punishment in America: Is Justice Really Blind?” Journal of Criminal Justice, (59), 2018, 18-28. Franklin, Travis W. “Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. District Courts: Can Offenders’ Educational Attainment Guard Against Prevalent Criminal Stereotypes?” Crime and Delinquency, 63(2), 2017. Franklin, Travis W. and Tri Keah S. Henry. “Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing Outcomes: Clarifying the Role of Criminal History.” Crime & Delinquency, February 2019. Frederick, Bruce and Don Stemen. “The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision Making-Technical Report.” U. S. Department of Justice, December 2012. Fryer, Roland G. Jr. “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force.” The Law and Economics Program, NBER Working Paper No. 22399, Rev., January 2018. Goldkamp, John S. and Michael D. White. “Restoring Accountability of Pretrial Release: The Philadelphia Pretrial Release Supervision Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 2006, 143-181. Good, D. H., M. A. Pirog-Good, and R. C. Sickles. “Analysis of Youth Crime and Employment Patterns.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2(3), September 1986, 219-236. Grogger, Jeff. “Market Wages and Youth Crime.” NBER Working Paper 5986, March 1997. Hagan, John L. “Conceptual Deficiencies of an Interactionist Perspective in ‘Deviance’.” Criminology, 11(3), November 1973, 383-404. Hagan, John and Bill McCarthy. Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Harris, Cathy, Darrell Steffensmeier, Jeffrey T. Ulmer, and Noah Painter-Davis. “Are Blacks and Hispanics Disproportionately Incarcerated Relative to Their Arrests? Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality Between Arrest and Incarceration.” Race and Social Problems, 1(87), December 2009. Hester, Rhys, and Todd Hartman. “Conditional Race Disparities in Criminal Sentencing: A Test of the Liberation Hypothesis from a Non-Guidelines State.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33, 2017, 77-100. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 26 Page 236 of 249 APPENDICES Hirschi, Travis. “A Control Theory of Delinquency.” Causes of Delinquency, 1969, 16-34. Hirschi, Travis and Michael Gottfredson. “Age and the Explanation of Crime.” The American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), November 1983, 552-584. Horney, J., D. W. Osgood, and I. H. Marshall. “Criminal Careers in the Short-term: Intra-individual Variability in Crime and its Relation to Local Life Circumstances.” American Sociological Review, 60, 1995, 655-673. Jarjoura, G. Roger. “The Conditional Effect of Social Class on the Dropout-Delinquency Relationship.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(2) May 1996. Johnson, Brian D. and Sara Betsinger. “Punishing the ‘Model Minority’: Asian-American Criminal Sentencing Outcomes in Federal District Courts.” Criminology, 47(4), November 2009, 1045-1090. Johnson, Brian D. and Stephanie M. DiPietro. “The Power of Diversion: Intermediate Sanctions and Sentencing Disparity Under Presumptive Guidelines.” Criminology, 50(3), August 2012, 811-850. Keenan, David, Deborah Jane Cooper, David Lebowitz, and Tamar Lerer. “The Myth of Prosecutorial Accountability After Connick v. Thompson: Why Existing Professional Responsibility Measures Cannot Protect Against Prosecutorial Misconduct.” The Yale Law Journal Online, October 2011. King, Ryan D., Kecia R. Johnson, and Kelly McGeever. “Demography of the Legal Profession and Racial Disparities in Sentencing.” Law & Society Review, 44(1), March 2010, 1-32. Kleck, Gary. “Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty.” American Sociological Review, 46(6), December 1981, 783. Klein, S., J. Petersilia, and S. Turner. “Race and Imprisonment Decisions in California.” Science, 247(4944), February 1990, 812-816. Klepper, S., D. Nagin, and L. Tierney. “Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System – A Critical Appraisal of the Literature.” National Academies Press, 1983. LaFree, Gary D. “Adversarial and Nonadversarial Justice: A Comparison of Guilty Pleas and Trials.” Criminology, 23(2), May 1985, 289-312. LaFree, Gary D. Rape and Criminal Justice: The Social Construction of Sexual Assault. Wadsworth Publishing, 1989. Laub, John H. and Robert J. Sampson. “Turning Points in the Life Course: Why Change Matters to the Study of Crime.” Criminology, 31, 1993, 301-325. Lizotte, Alan J. “Extra-Legal Factors in Chicago’s Criminal Courts: Testing the Conflict Model of Criminal Justice.” Social Problems, 25(5), June 1978, 564-580. Lochner, Lance and Enrico Moretti. “The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports.” American Economic Review, 94(1), March 2004, 155-189. Machin, Stephen, Marie Olivier, and Vujić Sunčica. “The Crime Reducing Effect of Education.” The Economic Journal, 121(551), May 2011, 463-484. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 27 Page 237 of 249 APPENDICES McIntyre, Frank and Shima Baradaran. “Race, Prediction, and Pretrial Detention.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(4), December 2013, 741-770. Miller, Walter B. “Lower-class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.” Journal of Social Science, 14(5), 1958, 5-19. Myers, Martha A. and Susette M. Talarico. “The Social Contexts of Racial Discrimination in Sentencing.” Social Problems, 33(3), 1986, 236-251. Nobiling, Tracy, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam A. Delone. “A Tale of Two Counties: Unemployment and Sentence Severity.” Justice Quarterly, 15, January 1998, 459-485. Petersilia, Joan. “Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System.” National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice, June 1983. Peterson, Ruth D. and John Hagan. “Changing Conceptions of Race: Toward an Account of Anomalous Findings of Sentencing Research.” American Sociological Review, 49(1), February 1984, 56-70. Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Harvard University Press, 1995. Sampson, Robert, J. and John H. Laub. “Desistance from Crime over the Life Course.” In: Mortimer J.T., Shanahan M.J. (eds) Handbook of the Life Course. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Boston, MA, 2003, 295-309. Spohn, Cassia C. Thirty Years of Sentencing Reform: The Quest for a Racially Neutral Sentencing Process. National Institute of Justice, 2000. Spohn, Cassia and David Holleran. “The Imprisonment Penalty Paid by Young, Unemployed Black and Hispanic Male Offenders.” Criminology, 38(1), February 2000, 281-306. Spohn, Cassia and Jerry Cederblom. “Race and Disparities in Sentencing: A Test of the Liberation Hypothesis.” Justice Quarterly, 8(3), 1991, 305-327. Spohn, C., J. Gruhl and S. Welch. “Effect of Race on Sentencing – A Re-examination of an Unsettled Question.” Law and Society Review, 16(1), 1982, 71-88. Starr, Sonja B. and M. Marit Rehavi. “Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences.” Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 2014, 1320-1354. Steffensmeier, Darrell, and Allan, Emilie. "Criminal Behavior: Gender and Age." In Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook. Edited by Joseph Sheley. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1995. Pages 83– 114. Steffensmeier, Darrell, Emilie Andersen Allen, Miles D. Harer, and Cathy Streifel. “Age and the Distribution of Crime.” American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), January 1989, 803-831. Steffensmeier, Darrell and Stephen Demuth. “Ethnicity and Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts: Who is Punished More Harshly?” American Sociological Review, 65(5), October 2000, 705-729. Steffensmeier, Darrell and Cathy Streifel. “Age, Gender, and Crime Across Three Historical Periods: 1935, 1960, and 1985.” Social Forces, 69(3), March 1991, 869-894. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 28 Page 238 of 249 APPENDICES Steffensmeier, Darrell, John Kramer, and Cathy Streifel. “Gender and Imprisonment Decisions.” Criminology, 31(3, August 1993, 411-446. Steffensmeier, Darrell, Jeffrey T. Ulmer, and Noah Painter-Davis. “Are Blacks and Hispanics Disproportionately Incarcerated Relative to Their Arrests? Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality Between Arrest and Incarceration.” Race and Social Problems, 1, 2009, 187. Steffensmeier, Darrell, Jeffrey Ulmer, and John Kramer. “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black and Male.” Criminology, 36(4), November 1998, 763-798. Stolzenberg, Lisa and Stewart J. D’alessio. “Co-offending and the Age-Crime Curve.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(1), February 2008, 65-86. The Sentencing Project Annual Report, 2017. Research and Advocacy. Accessed at https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/sentencing-project-releases-2017-annual- report/ Thornberry, T. P., and R. L. Christenson. “Unemployment and Criminal Involvement: An Investigation of Reciprocal Causal Structures.” American Sociological Review, 49(3), 1984, 398-411. Uggen, C. “Ex-offenders and the Conformist Alternative: A Job Quality Model of Work and Crime.” Social Problems, 46(1), 1999, 127-151. Uggen, C. “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism.” American Sociological Review, 65(4), 2000, 529-546. Ulmer, Jeffrey T. “Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research.” Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 2012, 1-40. Ulmer, J. T., and J. H. Kramer. “Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity.” Criminology, 443(3), August 1996, 383-407. Ulmer, Jeffrey T., Megan C. Kurlychek, and John H. Kramer. “Prosecutorial Discretion and the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 2007, 427-458. Ulmer, Jeffrey T., Noah Painter-Davis, and Leigh Tinik. “Disproportional Imprisonment of Black and Hispanic Males: Sentencing Discretion, Processing Outcomes, and Policy Structures.” Justice Quarterly, 33, 2016, 642-681. Warr, Mark. “Age, Peers, and Delinquency.” Criminology, 31(1), February 1993, 17-40. Warren, Patricia, Ted Chiricos, and William Bales. “The Imprisonment Penalty for Young Black and Hispanic Males: A Crime-Specific Analysis.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 2012, 56- 80. Zatz, Marjorie S. “Race, Ethnicity, and Determinate Sentencing.” Criminology, 22(2), May 1984, 147- 171. Zatz, Marjorie, S. “The Changing Forms of Racial/Ethnic Biases in Sentencing.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(1), 1987, 69-92. City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA  January 20, 2020 Disproportionate Minority Study  Final Report P a g e | 29 Page 239 of 249 Page 240 of 249 City of Charlottesville Request for Honorary Street Name Designation Applicant Name: ______________________________________________ Applicant Address: _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Applicant Telephone: ___________________________________________ (Daytime) (Evening) 1. Honorary Street names are restricted to: Individuals Organizations Entities Events Of local significance to Charlottesville A. For whom/what are you recommending this designation? _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ B. What is the reason for this recommendation? (Applicants should complete a short essay of approximately 500 words that provides justification for the proposed honorary designation. The completed essay should be attached to this application form). _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Page 241 of 249 2. Location of Proposed honorary street name designation: A. Street Name ________________________ (Example: Kirby Avenue) B. Between ____________________ and _________________________ (example: between Neil and Wright) OR All of the street ________________________ C. What is the proposed designation? _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Please complete and mail the attached form to: Clerk of City Council City of Charlottesville P. O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Page 242 of 249 August General Fund Revenue Summary Fiscal Year 2021 Actuals from July 1, 2020 ‐ August 31, 2020 YTD Projected YTD Actual % of YTD Target % of FY21 Budget Major Revenue Streams FY21 Original Budget (through August 31) (through August 31) Attained Collected Real Estate Tax $ 78,353,270 $ 433,284 $ 352,435 81.34% 0.45% County Revenue Sharing $ 14,589,313 $ ‐ $ ‐ N/A 0.00% Meals Tax $ 14,295,064 $ 1,534,823 $ 1,502,346 97.88% 10.51% Sales Tax $ 11,504,331 $ 1,458,865 $ 1,673,552 114.72% 14.55% Personal Property Tax $ 9,800,000 $ 302,423 $ 161,373 53.36% 1.65% Business License $ 6,225,000 $ 147,052 $ 117,907 80.18% 1.89% Lodging Tax $ 6,282,721 $ 825,472 $ 513,171 62.17% 8.17% PILOT: Utilities $ 6,091,667 $ ‐ $ ‐ N/A 0.00% Utility Taxes $ 5,024,112 $ 837,352 $ 715,905 85.50% 14.25% Other Revenue $ 39,030,395 $ 11,782,935 $ 12,060,969 102.36% 30.90% Total $ 191,195,873 $ 17,322,205.76 $ 17,097,658.75 98.70% 8.94% "Big 9" Revenue (revenues exceeding $5 Million) comprise 80% of total City Revenue "Other Revenue" will be irregular due to one‐time and quarterly payments, as well as end‐of ‐year accruals All revenues are compared to a detailed year to date revenue projection August Revenue Summary ‐ FY21 $‐ $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 Real Estate Tax County Revenue Sharing Meals Tax Sales Tax Personal Property Tax Business License Lodging Tax PILOT: Utilities Utility Taxes Other Revenue YTD Projected (through August 31) YTD Actual (through August 31) Page 243 of 249 August General Fund Expenditure Summary Fiscal Year 2020‐21 Actuals through August 31st ‐ Period 2 of 12 or 16.6% of fiscal year. FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available Encumbrances (through Annual Budget (through % of FY21 Budget Major Expenditure Categories FY21 Original Budget FY21 Current Budget August 31st) August 31st) Utilized Contribution to City Schools $ 58,709,623 $ 58,709,623 $ 9,639,104 $ 49,070,519 16.42% Police Department $ 18,017,555 $ 18,254,682 $ 3,285,500 $ 14,969,182 18.00% Outside and Nonprofit Agencies $ 16,798,273 $ 17,048,273 $ 2,913,980 $ 14,134,293 17.09% Fire Department $ 12,539,795 $ 12,724,350 $ 2,132,049 $ 10,592,301 16.76% Public Works $ 12,531,690 $ 12,723,304 $ 2,236,348 $ 10,486,956 17.58% Parks and Recreation $ 11,535,820 $ 11,738,004 $ 1,991,881 $ 9,746,124 16.97% Debt Service $ 11,013,359 $ 11,013,359 $ ‐ $ 11,013,359 0.00% Interfund Transfers $ 10,638,085 $ 10,632,622 $ ‐ $ 10,632,622 0.00% Citywide Reserve $ 250,000 $ 1,238,730 $ 176,184 $ 1,062,546 14.22% Citywide Reserve ‐ COVID Economic Downturn $ 6,674,971 $ 6,674,971 $ ‐ $ 6,674,971 0.00% Tax and Rent Relief Programs $ 1,895,000 $ 1,895,000 $ 8,093 $ 1,886,907 0.43% Internal and Financial Services $ 9,458,988 $ 9,495,351 $ 1,577,659 $ 7,917,693 16.62% School Contractual Services ‐ Pupil Transportation/Building Maintenance $ 6,788,910 $ 6,800,332 $ 1,228,685 $ 5,571,647 18.07% Management $ 5,493,231 $ 6,137,457 $ 836,875 $ 5,300,582 13.64% Public Safety and Justice $ 3,705,176 $ 4,138,742 $ 797,885 $ 3,340,857 19.28% Healthy Families and Community $ 2,650,095 $ 2,847,644 $ 536,539 $ 2,311,105 18.84% Non Departmental Activities $ 2,495,302 $ 2,673,058 $ 18,060 $ 2,654,998 0.68% Total $ 191,195,873.00 $ 194,745,501.78 $ 27,378,840.95 $ 167,366,660.83 14.06% Notes: Current Budget includes the Original FY21 Adopted Budget as well as FY20 preliminary carryovers. August Expenditure Summary ‐ FY21 Contri bution to Ci ty Schools Poli ce Department Outsi de and Nonprofi t Agencies Fire Departmen t Publ ic Works Parks and Recreation Debt Servi ce In ter fund Transfers Citywi de Reserve Citywi de Reserve ‐ C OVID Economic Dow nturn Tax and Rent R el ief Programs In ter nal and Fin ancial Services School Contractual Services ‐ Pupi l Trans portati on/Bu ildi ng Maintenance Management Publ ic Safety and Justi ce Heal thy Famil ies and Community Non Departmental Activities $‐ $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 FY21 Current B udget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumb ran ces (thro ugh August 31st) Page 244 of 249 August General Fund Expenditure Summary Narrative Outside and Nonprofit Agencies includes payments to all Vibrant Community fund Agencies, Arts and Culture Agencies, Contractual Agencies including JAUNT and JMRL, and all Organizational Memberships and Agency dues. Interfund Transfers contains all General Fund transfers to other funds including transfer to Transit, Transfer to Social Services and Human Services, Transfer to Capital Improvement Program, Transfer to Facilities Repair Fund, and Transfer to CSA. Internal and Financial Services includes the General Fund portions of Finance and Information Technology, and the Office of the City Treasurer, Commissioner of Revenue's Office, and Human Resources. School Operations includes the City/Schools contracted services of School Building and Energy Maintenance, and Pupil Transportation. Management includes City Council, Council Strategic Initiatives, City Manager's Office, Redevelopment and Housing, Economic Development, Communications, City Attorney, and the Office of the General Registrar. Public Safety and Justice includes the operations for Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Commonwealth Attorney, and City Sheriff. Healthy Families and Community includes Neighborhood Development Services and Office of Human Rights. Non Departmental Activities include Citizen Engagement, Police Civilian Review Board, Participatory Budgeting, Strategic Planning, Employee Compensation and Training, and grant matches for the Food Equity Program and Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act. Page 245 of 249 Utility Fund Revenue and Expenditure Summary Fiscal Year 2020‐21 Actuals through August 31st ‐ Period 2 of 12 or 16.6% of fiscal year. FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget (through % of FY21 Gas Fund Budget Budget (through August 31st) August 31st) Budget Utilized Gas Fund Revenue $ 27,081,999 $ 27,081,999 $ 1,787,442 $ 25,294,557 6.60% Gas Fund Expenditures $ 27,873,698 $ 29,167,115 $ 4,717,539 $ 23,156,159 16.92% FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget (through % of FY21 Water Fund Budget Budget (through August 31st) August 31st) Budget Utilized Water Fund Revenue $ 18,279,490 $ 18,279,490 $ 2,496,598 $ 15,782,892 13.66% Water Fund Expenditures $ 17,272,327 $ 18,150,914 $ 3,940,500 $ 13,331,827 22.81% FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget (through % of FY21 Wastewater Fund Budget Budget (through August 31st) August 31st) Budget Utilized Wastewater Fund Revenue $ 17,451,758 $ 17,451,758 $ 2,474,125 $ 14,977,633 14.18% Wastewater Fund Expenditures $ 17,203,764 $ 17,864,578 $ 3,143,107 $ 14,060,657 18.27% FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget (through % of FY21 Stormwater Fund Budget Budget (through August 31st) August 31st) Budget Utilized Stormwater Fund Revenue $ 2,894,572 $ 2,894,572 $ 14,780 $ 2,879,792 0.51% Stormwater Fund Expenditures $ 2,794,572 $ 2,834,286 $ 1,229,647 $ 1,564,925 44.00% Notes: Current Budget includes the Original FY21 Adopted Budget as well as FY20 preliminary carryovers Page 246 of 249 July Gas Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Gas Fund Revenue Gas Fund Expenditures $‐ $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through August 31st) July Water Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Water Fund Revenue Water Fund Expenditures $‐ $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through August 31st) Page 247 of 249 July Wastewater Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Wastewater Fund Revenue Wastewater Fund Expenditures $‐ $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through August 31st) July Stormwater Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Stormwater Fund Revenue Stormwater Fund Expenditures $‐ $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through August 31st) Page 248 of 249 CARES Funding Allocations Allocated To Original % Spent Funding Cateogry Use Date Balance Appropriation to Date (9/2/2020) Grants $750,000 Business Support Business Support Advertising 2,800 Commercial corridor support 20,000 Subtotal $825,000 $772,800 $52,200 94% Feeding (Loaves and Fishes, Cultivate Charlottesville, PB&J $90,000 Community Support Fund, Meals on Wheels, Charlottesville Food Hub) Housing (TJACH) 324,000 Economic Support (United Way) 240,000 Subtotal $654,000 $654,000 $0 100% HVAC, Ventilation $330,317 Touchless surfaces 42,720 Cleaning of City facilities/supplies 297,571 Operational Plexiglas/workspace modifications 292,050 Modifications Signage 5,000 Voting equipment sneeze guards 7,950 City Hall Access Control 162,623 Subtotal $1,164,000 $1,138,231 $25,769 98% Employee Support $0 Subtotal $420,000 $0 $420,000 0% Firewall/VPN Capacity $43,786 Technology Cyber security enhancements 92,926 Laptops 49,400 Subtotal $636,000 $186,112 $449,888 29% Contingency Reserve Boys and Girls Club $183,000 Fund YMCA 183,000 Subtotal $424,476 $366,000 $58,476 86% TOTAL $4,123,476 $3,117,143 $1,006,333 76% Page 249 of 249