After the release of a nearly 500-page report detailing a history of discrimination against African Americans from colonial times through the present day, the California Reparations Task Force is now studying how to calculate all that damage.The task force, which has until July 1 for its final report with recommendations for a legislative bill package, has been working on what chairperson Kamilah Moore called the “exploratory phase of our work.”| VIDEO BELOW | California Reparations Task Force chair talks about what the group has been working onIn September, the task force held a meeting in Los Angeles where a team of economic consultants presented for the first time possible monetary figures associated with the impact of years of state-sanctioned harms or atrocities. Moore told KCRA 3 that some reporting about what the economic consultants’ team presented has been misleading and that “the task force has not recommended anything yet.”Moore said that the report by the economics group tasked with calculating California’s harms selected five areas for possible remedies: housing discrimination, unjust property takings, devaluation of Black businesses, health harms and mass incarceration and overpolicing.“So there are different monetary figures that correspond with each of those harms,” she said.| VIDEO BELOW | California Reparations Task Force chairperson talks about work by economic consultantsOne of those figures reported accurately by The New York Times but then mischaracterized by other outlets, Moore said, is an estimated maximum liability from more than four decades of racist redlining housing practices of $569 billion. That would amount to $223,200 per person for each of the state’s 2.5 million Black Californians, the economists noted.But in March the task force decided to go with a lineage-based community of eligibility “so that means that not all Black Californians in the state of California will be eligible for reparations,” Moore said.This means the $569 billion amount represents a “maximum” liability but “in reality that monetary figure for housing discrimination will probably be much lower because again, it’s based on this idea that all Blacks in California in 2021 also resided in the state between 1933 and 1977 or are the legal heirs of eligible recipients, which more than likely is not the case,” Moore said.| VIDEO BELOW | California Reparations Task Force chairperson explains who might be eligibleTo give a sense of the racial wealth gap at issue: A 2019 Federal Reserve study has found that the median net worth for a Black family is $24,100, compared to $188,200 for a white family.Moore said that most studies around the racial wealth gap are estimated from national statistics. In California, figures from the 2014 Color of Wealth study in Los Angeles found that the average African American Los Angelino has liquid assets amounting to $200 compared to $110,000 for the average white Los Angelino, Moore said.| RELATED | Read more analysis from the economic consultant teamNext up for the task force is a public hearing in Oakland on Dec. 14 and 15 where the group will discuss and “refine in more detail” who could be eligible for reparations, including residency requirements, Moore said.Once the group produces its final report it will be up to the Legislature to turn the proposals into a bill package and then up to the governor to enact that into law, Moore said.She acknowledged being disappointed because a bill championed by the task force in its earlier report failed to become law during the most recent legislative session. That bill, ACA-3 would have abolished involuntary servitude in California prisons.“It could be interpreted as a blow to our efforts because if the California state Legislature can’t commit to ending slavery or involuntary servitude in prisons, then how can we really commit to pass a comprehensive reparations bill package?” Moore said. “So I understand the logic behind that.”Still, she said she was optimistic that once the group’s final report was released there would be “necessary groundwork and public education.”