We are on the brink of real criminal justice reform in Travis County. On Tuesday, May 7 the County Commissioners Court will vote on whether to create a public defender's office. But just as important as whether is how: Commissioners need to adopt a proposal that includes independent oversight, accountability and the voices of public defender experts and those who would be directly impacted by the office.

Austin is known as a progressive mecca in Texas. This reputation fuels our growth and tourism industry. But there is a mark on our community of racism, oppression and exclusion. The city is segregated, the result of historical racist zoning laws. The percentage of our city's black population is dwindling, forced out by gentrification and a white “progressive” culture that displaces non-white cultural institutions. ICE patrols our courthouses and jails to intimidate, detain and deport our immigrant neighbors. When compared with their white neighbors, black and brown people are disproportionately policed, jailed and sentenced to prison.

Recent research into racial disparities in the Travis County jail population isolated one factor causing these disparities: whether a person was represented by appointed counsel. People charged with drug possession who were appointed counsel were more likely than people with retained counsel to be detained during pretrial, convicted, and sentenced more harshly. Black and brown people disproportionately needed appointed counsel: 77% for black people and 63% for Hispanic/Latino, compared with 55% of whites.

Last year, Travis County convened the Indigent Legal Services work group to examine our public defense system and to offer recommendations to improve the quality of defense. We have delivered a proposal for a public defender's office and other public defense improvements that would bring much-needed relief to our community’s most oppressed residents.

The proposal would create a holistic defender's office where lawyers and staff respond to the criminal legal needs of the client as well as other impacts of criminal charges, such as immigration status. The proposal largely mirrors a planning study by the Texas Indigent Defense Commission last fall. Our deliberations have been public and attended by county and court staff.

In developing the proposal, we engaged with and received support from local, state and national experts on public defense. We reviewed research studies, combed through data, brought in national experts, debated and reached compromise, to arrive at the recommendations we put forth. Most importantly, we have listened to the voices of people who have been through the criminal legal system, to determine the structure and oversight that will benefit them and their families.

The proposal created by this group would create a different kind of office in Travis County. This would be an office led by evidence-based research, nationally accepted principles and best practices, and, most importantly, the value of putting people before the needs of the lawyers. It is an office that could live up to our progressive reputation.

Travis County stands now at a significant crossroads. The county annually spends more than $160 million on the sheriff’s office and $30 million on its prosecutor offices. It is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in new courthouses and jail facilities. At the same time, the county annually spends only $12 million on indigent defense.

We can choose to live up to our progressive reputation by investing in institutions to dismantle oppressive systems, or we can keep the current route of investing in systems that uphold mass incarceration. We strongly urge our elected officials to adopt the proposal we put forward, which includes independent oversight from public defense experts and directly impacted people. We believe it will be a significant step forward in aligning our public institutions with our community values.

Woog is is executive director of the Texas Fair Defense Project and chair of the Indigent Legal Services work group. This op-ed was signed by 22 other members of the work group.