AGENDA
Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:00 a.m. Milton Marks Auditorium California State Building 455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA
Note: Each member of the public will be allotted no more than 3 minutes to speak on each item.
1. Call to Order and Introductions.
2. Public Comment on Any Item Listed Below as for “Discussion Only.”
3. Review and Adoption of Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2015 (discussion & possible action).
4. Staff Report on Activities of the Reentry Council and its Subcommittees (discussion & possible action). a. Staff updates b. Subcommittee updates
5. Regular Update on Legislation and Funding Related to Reentry (discussion only).
6. Regular Update on Activities of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Sentencing Commission, Collaborative Courts, and Community Corrections Partnership (discussion only).
7. Follow-Up on Justice Reinvestment Initiative (discussion & possible action). a. Lore Joplin, Consultant to Crime and Justice Institute: San Francisco’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative Phase II close out process and next steps b. Martin Krizay, Chief Deputy Adult Probation Officer: Risk-Based Probation Sentencing c. Lt. Dave Hardy, Unit Commander, and Ali Riker, Director of Programs, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department; and Will Leong, Executive Director, PreTrial Diversion Project: Microstrategies Data Bridge d. James Bell, Executive Director, W. Haywood Burns Institute: Next Steps on Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Across the San Francisco Criminal Justice System
8. Council Members’ Comments, Questions, and Requests for Future Agenda Items (discussion only).
9. Public Comment on Any Item Listed Above, as well as Items not Listed on the Agenda.
10. Adjournment.
Page 1 SUBMITTING WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE REENTRY COUNCIL Persons who are unable to attend the public meeting may submit to the Reentry Council, by the time the proceedings begin, written comments regarding the subject of the meeting. These comments will be made a part of the official public record, and brought to the attention of the Reentry Council. Written comments should be submitted to: Karen Shain, Reentry Policy Planner, Adult Probation Department, 880 Bryant Street, Room 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, or via email: [email protected].
MEETING MATERIALS Copies of agendas, minutes, and explanatory documents are available through the Reentry Council’s website at http://sfreentry.com or by calling Karen Shain at (415) 553-1047 during normal business hours. The material can be FAXed or mailed to you upon request.
ACCOMMODATIONS To obtain a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in the meeting, please contact Karen Shain at [email protected] or (415) 553-1047 at least two business days before the meeting.
TRANSLATION Interpreters for languages other than English are available on request. Sign language interpreters are also available on request. For either accommodation, please contact Karen Shain at [email protected] or (415) 553-1047 at least two business days before the meeting.
CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES To assist the City in its efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at: www.sfgov.org/sunshine.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE: Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force City Hall, Room 244 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102-4683. Telephone: (415) 554-7724 E-Mail: [email protected]
CELL PHONES The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Co-Chairs may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices.
LOBBYIST ORDINANCE
Individuals and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action may be required by San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 2.100-2.160) to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact the Ethics Commission at 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3900, San Francisco CA 94102, telephone (415) 581-2300, FAX (415) 581-2317, and web site http://www.sfgov.org/ethics/
Page 2
DRAFT MINUTES
Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:00 a.m. Milton Marks Auditorium California State Building 455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA
Members in Attendance: Public Defender Jeff Adachi (co-chair), Cristine Soto DeBerry (alternate for District Attorney George Gascón, co-chair), Chief Karen Fletcher (co-chair), Paul Henderson (alternate for Mayor Edwin Lee, co-chair), Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, (co-chair), Greg Asay (alternate for Michael Carr), Noel Belton (alternate for Chief Yador Harrell), Joseph Calderon, Kim Courtney, Joyce Crum (alternate for Trent Rhorer), Armel Farnsworth (alternate for Steve Lin), Omorede Rico Hamilton, Paula Hernandez (alternate for Chief Allen Nance), Ernest Kirkwood, Commander Robert Moser (alternate for Chief Gregory Suhr), Craig Murdock (alternate for Jo Robinson), Maria Su
Members Absent: Dominique Leslie, Leslie Levitas, Keenia Williams
1. Call to Order and Introductions. At 10:06 am, Jeff Adachi called the meeting to order and welcomed the public and the Council. He acknowledged the co-chairs and asked other members to introduce themselves.
2. Public Comment on Any Item Listed Below as for “Discussion Only.” Mr. Adachi invited members of the public to review the agenda and speak on any agenda item. There were no comments.
3. Review and Adoption of Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2015 (discussion & possible action). Mr. Adachi asked members to review the minutes from the last meeting. He asked for any comments from council members and upon hearing none, asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Ross Mirkarimi motioned, Kim Courtney seconded. There was no public comment and the motion carried at 10:13.
4. Staff Report on Activities of the Reentry Council and its Subcommittees (discussion & possible action). Mr. Adachi asked Karen Shain of the Adult Probation Department to provide an update on the activities of the Council and its subcommittees.
Karen introduced Lore Joplin, who is the technical assistant for the current Justice Reinvestment Initiative project. Lore took the Council through an overview of the three strategies and explained them as: (1) Elimination of racial and ethnic disparities, (2) Early termination of probation supervision terms, and (3) Expansion of pretrial strategies.
Ms. Joplin introduced Jessie Warner who offered an update to the Council on probation terms. She explained that substantial progress has been made to use a risk-based probation sentencing protocol. Beginning May 4, 2015, the new protocol ties probation terms to risk assessment, using COMPAS. Currently, meetings are being held with the hope of extending early termination to current probationers. She acknowledged the interagency work group consisting of the courts, Adult Probation, district attorney,
Page 3 public defender, and members of the defense panel, which have been working to develop and roll out the protocol. Beyond this, the group is looking at possible changes to misdemeanor sentencing.
Nancy Campbell, from Justice System Partners spoke about pretrial and the pretrial safety assessment (PSA). She explained that they have been looking at developing tools which use risk to determine outcomes. The Arnold Foundation has agreed to look at San Francisco and answer the question: Is change needed? She explained that they found it is not only needed but would be extremely beneficial to the city. San Francisco is known to be complex, highly collaborative, and innovative. PSA is a non-interview, highly predictive tool and by using it in San Francisco, the city could potentially double number of defendants reviewed for OR. It would be a more efficient way to screen and allow access for more people to be released pretrial. Furthermore, PSA will tell judges the potential risk of failure to appear and commission of a new crime, and then combined with decision making framework will allow the courts to consider changes. Next steps: work group to help us proceed. Providing technical assistance for OR.
Karen Shain then reiterated that there is a pending JRI application for Phase III and the current JRI comes to an end at the end of August. She stated that the Reentry Council has applied for a Phase III grant and further reminded the audience of the overall purpose of JRI – which is to identify the drivers of disproportionality and to reinvest cost savings in systems and services that cost less.
Karen announced that the next Reentry Council meeting will be August 6th (not September 15th as originally scheduled): Reentry Council August 6 Milton Marks Auditorium CCP meeting will be Sept 15, location TBD
The Zellerbach Family Foundation has awarded a grant in the amount of $50,000 to fund a project called Forging Gender-Responsive Pathways out of San Francisco's Criminal Justice System. This grant is intended to further the work started through the SFSD and SFAPD Women's Community Justice Reform Blueprint. This award is an outcome of the meeting of the Women's Community Justice Advisory Group in May 2014 when the Advisory Group was reconvened, and there was a request made to the Foundation for resources to help move the initiative forward. The grant was awarded to the Center for Young Women's Development, and the project will be led by Jessica Flintoft, in partnership with Katie Kramer of The Bridging Group, Asian Women's Shelter, Dr. Barbara Bloom, and a Researcher/Organizer from the Center for Young Women's Development. The project will begin in July, and the Reentry Council will be engaged in and apprised of developments.
The Visions of Justice held its second event on June 4th—a showing of Crime After Crime, a film about a woman who was incarcerated following the death of her abusive partner. It was a great event and many people attended. The next film is Just Us, featuring Joanna Hernandez whom the Reentry Council recently appointed to the Sentencing Commission. That film will be shown on July 15th at the main branch of the Public Library. This project is a joint effort of the Reentry Council and the Bridge at Main.
Subcommittee updates were given by their chairs: Assessment and Connections: Goal is to establish plans and vision for providing better services for those individuals who are returning to community, focused on identifying housing for the reentry population. Policy and Operational Practices–Reviewed legislation and reviewed specific bills related to reentry population. Support and Opportunity–Has been focused on the Reentry guide, Getting Out and Staying Out. Steve Adami from the Reentry Division indicated they are working on periodic electronic updates to the guide, and the collaboration with Code for America.
Page 4 5. Report on Racial and Ethnic Disparities Across the San Francisco Criminal Justice System by the W. Haywood Burns Institute (discussion & possible action). Karen Shain explained that through JRI, the Reentry Council commissioned the Burns Institute to look at citywide data and the intersection of disproportionality at certain decision points, the goal being to eliminate racial disproportionality. Laura Ridolfi, Director of Policy at the Haywood Burns Institute (BI) provided this analysis of main decision points in order to determine if there is unfair bias in decision making.
Laura explained that BI was contracted to do decision point analyses—arrest, bookings to jail, release to pretrial, sentencing, and motions to revoke probation. She explained that the analysis was limited by data restrictions. She acknowledged the need to develop a more data driven protocol and a clear call for action. Despite the data limitations, she indicated that this work is an important first step, with disparities being stark.
BI strategy for reducing disparities: 1. Identify disparities. 2. Identify target populations for reform. 3. Measure progress and outcomes.
1. Identify disparities—Problems are highlighted, now it is up to the departments and the Council to have discussions and prioritize reform efforts. Latino adults appear to be undercounted. Lack of data regarding Latinos is problematic. Previously, Latinos have been counted as white, which means that disparity between Black and white adults is even greater than what is stated in the report. Black adults are overrepresented in each decision point. 2. Arrest data—The Police Department did not have capacity to extract demographics of arrests. There has been an overall reduction in arrests across the last 20 years. Despite this reduction in arrests overall, the disparity between black adults and white adults has increased. And the disparity gap in San Francisco is increasing while the disparity gap in California overall is decreasing. 3. Overview of booking data—Data was very restricted due to data limitations. 4. Vast majority of bookings to jail were residents of SF, which discredits the thought that those people committing crimes live outside the city. 5. Khalid Samarrae from BI presented findings for pretrial release. Limited data on Latinos so they focused on black and white adults. The data shows that booked black adults are more likely to be eligible for release but whites are more likely to be released. 6. Anna Wong from BI presented on convictions and sentencing. She explained that they examined the types of sentences, length of sentence, charges for convictions looking at convictions in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Results showed that for every 1 white adult convicted, over 10 black adults were convicted. Most frequently used sentence is jail/probation. Out of all the convicted adults, black adults receive more restrictive sentences.
As for lengths of sentences, of all individuals convicted of DUI, 18% were white and 5% were Black but Black adults and Latinos had longer sentences to county jail.
Finally, use of state prison as sentencing is decreasing. Currently there are about 300,000 bed days in San Francisco sentences as a result. Black adults account for half of those bed days.
Next steps and recommendations: Intentional effort to build data capacity. Improving data is an ongoing effort. Where should SF start? 1. Disparities at every decision point. 2. Identify target populations and look at these places. What are the booking criteria? Who gets cited and released? When is bail set? Who is being dismissed and on what charges? Diversion?
Page 5 3. Develop system to report on key indicators on a regular basis. What types of data do organizations need to collect? Work to understand the impacts and decision making. 4. As data capacity is built, someone needs to review and use the data and inform decision making.
Council comment: Sheriff Mirkarimi wished to underscore his deep appreciation to Burns Institute. He agreed that the data validates what we already know. He stated that the Council must call out the current budgeting process and make sure that budgets are enhanced to make sure that solutions are being implemented. He stated that there can be no delay. Implementation should not be stalled because this is an issue that the County has been dealing with for years, with very little solution.
Joyce Crum asked why gender was not looked at. It was indicated that the disparities remain the same for women and for men.
Armel Farnsworth asked if there was any information for gathering and collecting socioeconomic data, which would allow for preventative measures. He explained the need to develop programs to target neighborhoods and services before individuals contact the criminal justice systems. In current data, that analysis is not possible. He believes in the importance of alternatives, regardless of socioeconomic status. He wants to ensure positive outcomes for everyone. Invest in those neighborhoods where services are needed.
Ernest Kirkwood stated that this research is focused on the symptom and there must be focus on the cause.
Cristine DeBerry reminded the Council of the urgent need to identify the cause and role within individual agencies. She explained that the DA has been looking at this and having discussions about how to do more within his own department. She said that we need to be held and hold each other accountable. Aside from individual departments who must take responsibility for their actions, if SF wants to continue to be at the forefront, it’s the responsibility of criminal justice partners to be honest and brave about what is happening. She concluded by stating that the biggest policy document is the city budget–with dollars telling everyone what we really care about. There is money to be spent. She wants to make sure that money is spent in elimination of disparities rather than in continuing the same patterns.
Joe Calderon stated that more questions need to be centered on what we can do. This is a time to ask each department to identify what they are doing. It’s imperative to find new solutions and to work collaboratively.
Jeff Adachi asked what the Reentry Council can do. He indicated that there is funding available to bring in a professional to facilitate a discussion about what actions the Council could take. He suggested that a comprehensive action plan be prepared. Supervisor Malia Cohen, he explained, was introducing legislation that would require the Police Department to report data on all police contact.
Commander Moser indicated that the study tells us what is going on but does not tell us why. Explained that it is important to understand what each department can do within its own means–investment in communities where we see higher arrests. Police Department has been committed to this investment and is trying to develop community trust. Traffic stops and data collection is a big piece in respect to implicit bias. The Police Department will continue to collect data and analyze results until we get answers.
Paul Henderson moved that Reentry Council staff form a working group to begin the work on prevention and intervention now. He asked for a formal authorization for a working group to regularly report out on issues, specifically focused on collective data collection, intervention, and prevention.
Page 6
Ernest Kirkwood stated that he wants the community to be involved in this working group. The motion was amended to make sure that community members have input into the work of the working group.
Public Comment: Frank Williams thanked all of the departments for their work and stated that he is very proud to say that San Francisco is in the forefront of change for reentry. Having said this, he is still astounded about how scared people are to have this discussion but still expect to see change. Why has it taken so long? He asked why the City keeps outsourcing to bring people in when the community knows best about its neighborhoods.
George Bracey introduced herself as the voice of trans community and called for the investment in CBOs who are actually doing the work.
Marilyn Barnes began by stating that SF is one of the most racist cities in America and pointed out that there are no more Black men left in the city. She asked the Council why they keep counting, stating that high cost research studies are nothing but counts when data is not the most important strategy. She encouraged the Council to take the money spent on counting and reinvest in people and neighborhoods. She said that laws and economics make it impossible for blacks to move out of the projects. She stated that Blacks are not protected or treated the same as white people and that it is imperative that something happen right now.
Gaylon Logan began by thanking members for their commitment and then stated that as a Black man, as a Black father, he is extremely concerned and disturbed by what is happening in this country. He stated that if these things weren’t happening to Blacks, this would be a state of emergency. He referred to it as a state of white supremacy. He said that jails and prisons are incubators for criminality while communities and families are incubators for love and hope. He urged San Francisco to take a stand and show the nation how it can be done.
Michael Red began by stating that he has been working with reentry populations for a very long time and he is angry. He explained that two years ago his stepson was killed by police and what he learned is that everyone is a victim and this is policy. There was no formal apology for the homicide of his son. He stated that people elect politicians to protect and help them but those same people become victimized again. He stated that the real challenge is for those in power to make better decisions. He acknowledged that the data presented is not new information, but now is the time to talk about the problems and how to address them. He feels a sense of urgency because opportunities are dwindling for young Black men.
Kevin Henley oversees some transitional housing and stated that when he began work, the first thing he noticed was it appeared to be a high school reunion in jail and it was heart breaking. He recalled that in 2008, Sheriff Hennessey came out with his own study and the statistics have not changed. He called for the Mayor’s office to take more responsibility, especially when it has brought in people with pockets full of disposable cash. He believes the biggest problem is that no one is reaching out and no one is spending money in the community. He suggested that tax breaks for corporations be reinvested in services and housing for reentry.
James Robinson thanked the programs and stated that he has been enlightened and is proud to be here.
Roma Guy stated that she wants to be part of the discussions. She stated that land policy and construction drive decisions in San Francisco. Land policy is driving social policy. She advocated finding alternatives to jail construction, stating that the mentally ill do not need to be in jail to get treatment. She believes that there is a great deal of bias in San Francisco, and that racism is at the core.
Page 7
Rijo Trejo said he recently discharged parole and is a representative of changed lives. Currently living at Walden House, he said that Hispanics and whites should be counted separately and the City needs to spend more on programs.
Cedric Akbar explained that he is upset because it does not seem like anyone is appalled. He said that the problem is systematic and that the entire system must change. He explained that most police live outside the community, the DA doesn’t drop charges or reduce charges and the entire system is set up for African Americans to fail – it is set up around disparities. He also stated that the RFP process in the City is unfair and that the people who are doing the work get nothing. He said that the same people are getting all the money and are keeping this process going. He believes the programs continue to handicap African Americans instead of teaching people to stand up on their own.
Montrell Dorsey explained that he is a returning citizen. He asked how soon and is there a concrete plan for law enforcement (beat officers) to receive training on bias. Commander Moser said that it is currently part of the academy training.
Public Comment concluded at 12:25. Jeff Adachi asked for a motion authorizing Reentry Council staff to create a working group, with a plan to include the community in planning next steps.
Sheriff Mirkirarimi stated that the courts need to be part of this plan and that it is a real problem that the courts have chosen not to be present for this discussion. He said that the courts must be part of the conversation. And if not, then everyone else is driving a three wheel car. He also noted that a limitation of the Reentry Council is that it does not have budgetary authority and it must gain political will to compel some sort of fiscal response that elevates the importance of this group. He suggested that the Reentry Council might consider becoming a commission. He also stated that there needs to be a member of the Board of Supervisors on the Reentry Council. The Reentry Council needs to add muscle, which might mean going to the ballot and making the Reentry Council a full-fledged commission.
Ernest Kirkwood followed and showed his support by saying that he thinks the Council can make it happen. The council needs to come together as a collective of department heads and make it happen.
Jeff Adachi asked for a vote to create the working group, while stating that the Council must develop a plan to work towards. Paul Henderson offered to oversee the working group.
With no further public comment, the motion passed unanimously.
Jeff Adachi asked if there was any objection to continuing the rest of the meeting in the interest of time and then asked for a motion to adjourn. Ernest Kirkwood so moved and Paul Henderson seconded. With no public comment the motion passed and the meeting was adjourned at 12:34.
Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Legislative and Policy Update Reentry Council August 18, 2014
I. Statewide Legislation and/or Policy to Watch The following legislation has been identified by Reentry Council staff and Policy and Operational Practices Subcommittee as items of interest to Reentry Council members.
Proposed State AB 46 (Lackey and Melendez) Controlled substances. Legislation: This bill is an amendment to Proposition 47 and would amend it so that Background: possession of “date rape drugs” (Ketamin, GHT or flunitrazepam) would be a wobbler rather than a misdemeanor. Needs 2/3 majority for passage. (Identical to SB 333). Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges an oppose position. Amended to restrict to use of such drugs with intent to commit sexual assault. Needs a majority for passage. Status: Asm Approps Suspense—held in suspense
Proposed State AB 84 (Gatto) Forensic testing: DNA samples. Legislation: Requires DNA be given by anyone convicted of Proposition 47 Background: misdemeanors. Amended. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges an oppose position. Status: Asm Approps Suspense—held in suspense
Proposed State AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer) Criminal procedure: disclosure: felony Legislation: conviction consequences Requires the court on arraignment of a felony charge to inform defendant of Background: consequences of accepting a plea agreement or being convicted, including loss of certain professional licenses, prohibitions against owning or possessing a firearm, and ineligibility for enlisting in the military. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges a support position. Status: Senate 3rd Reading
Page 11
Proposed State AB 324 (Jones-Sawyer) Trial jurors: eligibility Legislation: Eliminates exclusion of a felon from jury duty whose civil rights have not Background: been restored unless conviction is for bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crimes. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges a support position. Status: Asm Judiciary 5/12—hearing cancelled at request of author
Proposed State AB 390 (Cooper) DNA evidence for misdemeanors Legislation: Requires people who are convicted of Prop 47 misdemeanors with prior Prop Background: 47 convictions to provide DNA samples. Status: Failed in Senate Public Safety
Proposed State AB 396 (Jones-Sawyer) Housing discrimination: criminal record Legislation: Existing law generally prohibits housing discrimination with respect to the Background: personal characteristics of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information.
Existing law includes within this prohibition, in addition to the sale or rental of housing accommodation, related activities such as housing finance and real estate transaction services. This bill would include a criminal record as a basis upon which housing discrimination is prohibited. The bill would specify that the prohibition is qualified by a requirement to the contrary in federal law. The bill would provide that criminal record includes a record regarding arrests and detentions that did not result in a conviction, as specified. The bill makes technical, correctional changes. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges support so long as it does not preempt Fair Chance Ordinance. Amended:
• Prohibits housing providers from requesting a criminal background check during their initial screening process • Allows people an opportunity to contest or dispute the inaccuracy of a criminal background check if one is completed • Prohibits housing providers from inquiring about or deny housing based on arrests that did not lead to conviction; convictions that have been expunged; participation in a diversion or deferral of judgment
Page 12 program; or adjudications incurred in the juvenile justice system • Allows people an opportunity to present evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating factors after an initial denial
Status: Withdrawn by author
Proposed State AB 512 (Stone) Corrections: program credit reductions Legislation: Extends amount of time credit a prisoner can get for successful completion of Background: approved rehabilitation programming program from 6 to 18 weeks. Subject to restrictions determined by crime and length of sentence. Status: Asm Approps Suspense—held in suspense
Proposed State AB 741 (Williams) Medi-Cal: comprehensive mental health crisis services Legislation: For juveniles, adds comprehensive mental health crisis services, including Background: crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, crisis residential treatment, rehabilitative mental health services, and mobile crisis support teams to Medi-Cal coverage, to the extent that federal financial participation is available and federal approvals have been obtained. Brings juvenile services in line with adults. Amended: This bill would expand the definition of a social rehabilitation facility to include a residential facility that provides social rehabilitation services in a group setting to children, adolescents, or adults recovering from mental illness or in a mental health crisis. By expanding the types of facilities that are regulated as a community care facility, this bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, thus creating a state-mandated local program. Status: Failed Senate Human Services
Page 13
Proposed State AB 1036 (Quirk) Notaries public: acceptance of identification Legislation: Existing law relating to property transfers specifies certain documents as Background: allowable forms of identification for a credible witness, who, by oath or affirmation, attests to the identity of an individual executing a written instrument in the presence of, and acknowledged by, a notary public. Existing law specifies that an inmate identification card that is current or has been issued within 5 years by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation if the inmate is in custody in prison is an allowable form of identification, for purposes of these provisions. This bill would also make an inmate identification card that is current or has been issued within 5 years by a sheriff’s department, if the inmate is in custody in a local detention facility, an allowable form of identification for a credible witness to prove the identity of an individual who executes a written instrument. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges a support position. Amended to cover any form of identification provided by sheriff. Reentry Council votes to support 3/24/15. SF supports. Status: CHAPTERED 7/2/15
Proposed State AB 1056 (Atkins) Housing assistance: formerly incarcerated tenants. Legislation: Amended to be titled: Second chance program Requires BSCC to use 33% of Proposition 47 dollars to go to Housing Background: Authorities for housing purposes. Amended to create a Second Chance Fund. No longer a housing bill. Outlines a restorative justice approach for use of the funds. Requires 2/3 majority. (SF Supports)
Status: Senate Suspense
Page 14
Proposed State AB 1156 (Brown) Imprisonment in county jail Legislation: AB 109 clean up, conforming several prison requirements to county jails. Background: These include: (1) Recall of sentence, including recall for medical reasons (2) Imposition of lower, middle or upper terms (3) Filing of petition for certificate of rehabilitation (4) Prohibition against prosecution for nonfelony motor vehicle offense pending at time of commitment Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges a support position. Reentry Council votes to support 3/24/15. SF supports. Status: Senate Appropriations 8/17
Proposed State AB 1351 (Eggman) Legislation: AB 1351 will amend Penal Code 1000 et seq. to allow courts to order pretrial Background: diversion, rather than require a guilty plea. This was the way that PC 1000 worked until 1997. Because there will be no guilty plea, there will be no "conviction" for federal immigration purposes. For any person who fails to adhere to conditions of a pre-trial diversion program, the court could reinstate the charges and schedule proceedings pursuant to existing law. Diversion will not be allowed for any person charged with drug sale, or possession for sale, nor will be allowed for persons who involve minors in drug sales or provide drugs to minors. Amended to exclude people with serious or violent felony convictions within 5 years prior to offense.
Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges a support position. Reentry Council votes to support 3/24/15. DA withdrew support. SF declines to support. Status: Senate Appropriations 8/17
Page 15
Proposed State AB 1352 (Eggman) Legislation: AB 1352 offers an expungement provision to assist the thousands of Background: nonviolent defendants who pled guilty and successfully completed court ordered drug programs. The expungement provision will permit them to withdraw their plea in a manner that immigration authorities will accept — and move on with their lives. This was the original, central intent of the DEJ provisions. This expungement will not retroactively change the effect of California DEJ dispositions because under state law, the person already is deemed to have no conviction or even arrest. Instead, this bill provides a technical withdrawal of plea to meet federal standards, in order to prevent the needless and unfair destruction of California families. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges a support position. Reentry Council votes to support 3/24/15. City/County supports. Status: Senate Appropriations 8/17
Proposed State SB 224 (Liu) Elderly Parole Program Legislation: This bill would establish the Elderly Parole Program, for prisoners who are Background: 50 years of age or older, who have served 15 years of their sentence, and who have a reentry plan identifying residential, financial, and social integration plans. When considering the release of an inmate who meets this criteria, the bill would require the board to consider whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the elderly prisoner’s risk for future violence. The bill would also require the Board of Parole Hearings to consider whether a prisoner will qualify for the program when determining the prisoner’s next parole suitability hearing. Status: Senate Inactive File
Proposed State SB 333 (Galiani) Controlled Substances. Legislation: This bill is an amendment to Proposition 47 and would amend it so that Background: possession of “date rape drugs” (Ketamin, GHT or flunitrazepam) would be a wobbler rather than a misdemeanor. Needs 2/3 majority for passage. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges an oppose position. Bill amended to limit to intent of sexual assault only. Status: Assembly Suspense
Page 16
Proposed State SB 405 (Hertzberg) Vehicles: failure to appear or pay fine: suspension of Legislation: driving privilege. Declares intent of Legislature is to enact legislature that reduced number of Background: people who have their driver’s license suspended and establishes a process to get driving privileges restores without having to pay all court-ordered debt. Policy & Operational Practices Subcommittee urges a support position. Amended to allow amnesty that would allow a person to pay ½ of fine for certain infractions. Status: Assembly Appropriations
Proposed State SB 517 (Monning) Supervised persons: release. Legislation: Background: After realignment of the criminal justice system under Assembly Bill 109, the courts did not receive the specific statutory authority to release a supervised individual in custody on a parole hold. This bill clarifies that the courts have the discretion to release a supervised individual in custody in a county jail, as long as the person is not detained on a flash incarceration imposed by a probation officer. Status: CHAPTERED 7/6/15
Proposed State SB 527 (Liu). Education finance: Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund Legislation: Grant Program. Background: This bill would express findings and declarations of the Legislature with respect to the purposes of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. The bill would specify the administrative duties and responsibilities of the State Department of Education with respect to the administration, commencing with the 2016–17 fiscal year, of a Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund Grant Program, pursuant to which the department would issue a request for proposal to school districts local educational agencies, as defined, each fiscal year and would make grants to applicant school districts local 98 educational agencies. The bill would set forth criteria to guide the department in awarding grants under the program Status: Senate Appropriations Suspense—Held
Page 17
Proposed State SB 621 (Herzberg). Mentally ill offender crime reduction grants Legislation: Background: Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections to administer mentally ill offender crime reduction grants on a competitive basis to counties that expand or establish a continuum of timely and effective responses to reduce crime and criminal justice costs related to mentally ill juvenile and adult offenders. Existing law requires an application for a mentally ill offender crime reduction grant to describe a 4-year plan for the programs, services, or strategies to be provided under the grant, and authorizes the funds from a mentally ill offender crime reduction grant to be used to fund specialized alternative custody programs that offer appropriate mental health and treatment services. This bill would additionally authorize the funds from a mentally ill offender crime reduction grant to be used to fund specialized diversion programs that offer appropriate mental health and treatment services. Status: Assembly Appropriations 8/19
For questions or comments about this memo, please contact Karen Shain,Reentry Policy Planner, at [email protected] or (415) 553-1047.
Page 18 Regular Update on Reentry-Related Funding Reentry Council August 18, 2015
I. Active Reentry-Related Funding As a regular informational update to the full Reentry Council, staff compiles a list of active state and federal funding that will be used to provide in-custody or out-of-custody services to the adult reentry population (identified below as FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, or JJOHP [Juvenile Justice Out of Home Placement]). Agencies represented on the Council were asked to report on any relevant grants or earmarks currently in progress. Staff will maintain this list and present it to the full Reentry Council at each meeting as an informational update. The information provided below may not be complete, but is that which was reported by agencies to staff as of August 17, 2015.
Funding Source: California Board of State and Community Corrections Funding Program: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program Amount and Term $950,000 of Grant: July 1, 2015-June 30, 2018 Grantee: San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Fund transitional housing and peer specialist support for low-level offenders suffering from mental illness. Goal is to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes Activities: for misdemeanor offenders with mental health service needs—providing much needed support for one of the most troubled populations in the county’s criminal justice system. Population Served: COUNTY: Adults with low-level offense suffering from mental illness.
Funding Source: California Board of State and Community Corrections Funding Program: Proud Parenting Program Amount and Term $119,285 of Grant: July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016 Grantee: San Francisco Adult Probation Department Use evidence-based practices for strengthening families headed by transitional- Activities: aged youth Population Served: COUNTY: Transitional aged youth on probation
Funding Source: California Board of State and Community Corrections Funding Program: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Amount and Term $1,045,626 (first year) of Grant: Grantee: Department of Children, Youth and Their Families Development of Young Adult Court Model, which is a Problem Solving Courts Model. Funds will be used to support a multi-disciplinary partnership made up of Activities: SF Police Department, District Attorney’s Office, Superior Courts, Sheriff’s Department, Public Defender’s Office, and Adult Probation Department. Population Served: COUNTY: Transitional aged youth
Page 19 Funding Source: Judicial Council of California Funding Program: Recidivism Reduction Fund Court Grant Amount and Term $599,687 of Grant: April 1, 2014-March 31, 2017 Grantee: San Francisco Collaborative Courts The grant will support the Courts to implement a transitional housing program for high risk/high need mentally ill and substance addicted offenders in Behavioral Health Court (BHC); Adult Drug Court (DC); Intensive Supervision Court (ISC); and the Community Justice Center (CJC). The Courts will work with the Activities: Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC), who will ‘block rent’ 16 single room occupancy (SRO) housing units to provide an average of 6 months (and a maximum of 12 months of supported transitional housing. Participants will meet with THC’s Housing Specialist to generate a plan for securing permanent housing. Population Served: COUNTY: Adults who qualify for collaborative court jurisdiction
Funding Source: US Department of Justice Funding Program: Smart Prosecution Initiative Amount and Term $435,253 of Grant: October 1, 2014-September 30, 2016 Grantee: San Francisco District Attorney Us statistical tools to identify chronic, hot spot locations of crime, chronic offenders, and chronic victims of crime. These tools will assist the Crime Activities: Strategies Unit in prioritizing locations, offenders, and victims for prosecutor-led interventions. Research partner, Justice & Security Strategies will develop a predictive prosecution tool to prevent crime and victimization. Population Served: COUNTY: San Francisco populace
Funding Source: US Department of Justice Funding Program: Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program Amount and Term $350,000 of Grant: October 1, 2014-September 30, 2016 Grantee: San Francisco Veterans Justice Court Implementation grant will fund a case manager position for clients who are Activities: ineligible for VA services in addition to housing and payee management services. These funds will enable the Veterans Justice Court to expand the clients served. Population Served: COUNTY: San Francisco Veterans involved in the justice system
Funding Source: City and County of San Francisco Funding Program: State AB109 (Realignment) Allocation Amount and Term $2,795,325 of Grant: July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016 Grantee: San Francisco Criminal Justice Partners Activities: Population Served: COUNTY: All people impacted by adult criminal justice system
Page 20
US Department of Justice Via California Emergency Management Agency Funding Source: (CalEMA) Stop Violence Against Women Act Formula Grant Program; Probation Funding Program: Specialized Supervision Program Amount and Term $100,000/year of Grant: October 1, 2014-September 30, 2015; plus $33,000 matching Grantee: San Francisco Adult Probation Department The San Francisco Adult Probation Department Domestic Violence Program will increase field supervision and enhance the outreach services to domestic violence victims. The Probation Specialized Supervision Program will reduce violence of Activities: domestic violence probationers by exercising principles of evidence-based probation practices; adopt a victim-centered approach; revise the certification process for the 52 Weeks Batterers Intervention Programs; and implement performance measures. COUNTY: Adult probationers on the Domestic Violence caseload who reside in Population Served: the Bayview/Hunters Point District
Funding Source: US Department of Justice Funding Program: Justice Reinvestment Initiative Amount and Term Technical assistance grant during Phase II for 6-8 months of Grant: $326,500 Grantee: Reentry Council of San Francisco Three strategies: develop risk-based sentencing and probation supervision, Activities: implement evidence-based pretrial assessments, address racial disproportionality in the county criminal justice system Population Served: COUNTY: All individuals involved in San Francisco’s criminal justice system
Funding Source: Zellerbach Family Foundation Funding Program: None Specified Amount and Term $60,000 of Grant: Grantee: San Francisco Adult Probation Department Conduct an independent review of 400-600 pre-sentence investigations that Activities: include the Family Impact Statement to determine if the recommendations effectively address the needs of minor children and other family members. COUNTY, STATE: All individuals with minor children and their families who Population Served: are facing a jail or prison commitment.
Funding Source: US Department of Justice Second Chance Act Reentry Program for Adult Offenders with Co-Occurring Funding Program: Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders Amount and Term $599,894 of Grant: October 1, 2012-September 30, 2014 Grantee: San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Keys to Freedom: Case management, trauma-informed services, groups, risk/need Activities: assessments, referrals and other services for women in county jail. Population Served: COUNTY: Women and transgender women in San Francisco County Jail.
Page 21
US Department of Justice Via National Council on Crime and Delinquency Funding Source: (NCCD) Funding Program: Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Training and Technical Assistance Amount and Term $200,000 of Grant: April 1, 2013-March 31, 2014 San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (San Francisco Juvenile Probation Grantee: Department as sub-grantee) Provide staff training and related activities to achieve full PREA-compliance Activities: throughout all local detention facilities; education and services to those at-risk for or those who have been a victim of sexual assault within a correctional facility. Population Served: COUNTY: Adults and youth in custody in San Francisco.
Funding Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Funding Program: Parolee Services Network (BASN) Amount and Term $1,223,227 of Grant: FY 2013-2014 Grantee: San Francisco Department of Public Health Provide a spectrum of treatment services for parolees under the supervision of Activities: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation COUNTY: Adult parolees residing in San Francisco referred from Parole and Population Served: Community Services Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Funding Source: US Department of Justice Funding Program: Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP) Amount and Term $280,000 of Grant: October 1, 2012-September 30, 2014 Grantee: San Francisco Collaborative Courts Housing and Employment for Recovery Outcomes (HERO) program; Integrated supportive housing and employment to groups of 13 Behavioral Health Court Activities: clients at a time over six month intervals. Supported employment services will commence in jail and continue on-site for the duration of the client’s stay in transitional housing. Population Served: COUNTY: Clients of the Behavioral Health Court
Funding Source: US Department of Justice Funding Program: Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Amount and Term $997,217 of Grant: October 1, 2013-September 30, 2016 Grantee: San Francisco District Attorney’s Office Reduce crime in Bayview/Hunters Point by providing critical services to victims Activities: of crime, and also by supporting and increasing community engagement. Population Served: COUNTY: Victims of crime in the Bayview/Hunters Point Communities.
Page 22
Funding Source: US Department of Justice Funding Program: Encouraging Innovation Amount and Term $395,231 of Grant: October 1, 2013-September 30, 2016 San Francisco Public Defender’s Office in partnership with Center for Court Grantee: Innovation Checklists for Defense: A Training Strategy for Public Defenders Project: Program will create the first-ever local and nationally-applicable checklist system for public defenders. Checklists will include topics such as Trial Objections, Jury Activities: Selection, and The First 30 Days of a Homicide Case. The goal of the checklists will be efficiently and substantively improve the effectiveness of indigent defense providers and thereby enhance the delivery of justice to low-income clients. Population Served: Not a direct service application
Page 23 Regular Updates on Activities of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Sentencing Commission, Collaborativie Courts, and Community Corrections Partnership
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (“JJCC”)
Coordinated by the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department (“JPD”), and co-Chaired by Chief Allen Nance and Laura Moyé from the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (“DCYF”), the last quarterly meeting of San Francisco’s Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (“JJCC”) took place on May 19, 2015.
Minutes were approved from the February 17, 2015 meeting and are now available on the JPD website. Additionally, the following presentations were given:
The Effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences (“ACE’s”) Dr. Kimberg from the University of California Medical Center explained that trauma can actually change the biochemistry of the human brain. Dr. Kimberg talked about how childhood experiences affect health later in life and mentioned adverse behaviors. She spoke about how trauma-informed systems of care, if understood by service providers, can minimize traumatic long term consequences of adversity and can create opportunities for growth and healing.
Resources, Strategies and Networks for Transitional Age Youth Jose-Luis Tekun Mejia, TAY SF Associate Director, gave an overview of TAYSF, which he explained is housed within the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (“DCYF”). He explained how this collaborative network of city departments, service providers and young people strives to improve outcomes for transitional age young people in San Francisco through outreach, education, health coverage and access to other life services and jobs.
Anne Romero from the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (“MOHCD”) stated that they had over 8,000 units of affordable housing in the project pipeline with a goal for the TAY Housing Plan to create 400 new supportive housing units by 2015. Ms. Romero stated that their workgroup concluded that there is no “best model” of housing for youth, but a range of models is needed for different populations, however, TAY did emerge as a priority population for affordable housing.
She gave an overview of recently completed TAY Projects: Edward II, 1100 Ocean, Bayview Hill Gardens at 3rd & Le Conte, John Burton Foundation Housing Complex and new Booker T. Washington Community Center. She also stated that a Request for proposals had gone out for a project at 17th & Folsom Street.
Ms. Romero also spoke about the recent TAY Housing Assessment done to assess how efficient and effective the City’s current system of housing and supportive services are in meeting the needs of TAY; the resulting report will inform future projects.
Overview of the AIIM Higher Program (Assess Youth Identify Needs Integrate Information Match to Services)
Emily Gerber from the Department of Public Health (“DPH”) explained that AIIM Higher, founded in 2009, is a program created to identify youth with behavioral health needs and engage them and their families and caregivers in appropriate and effective services. She stated that there is a “sense of urgency
Page 24 about an epidemic” of youth in contact with the juvenile justice system having diagnosable mental health disorders (65-70%). AIIM Higher seeks to help both youths and their families to succeed.
The next public meeting of the JJCC shall take place on September 15, 2015 at JPD.
San Francisco Sentencing Commission (Administrative Code 5.250 through 5.250-3)
The San Francisco Sentencing Commission met on June 10, 2015. Members and the public heard testimony on the following matters: • Young Adult Court by the Honorable Bruce Chan, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco • Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report by Dr. Susan Collins, University of Washington. • Recidivism Workgroup Update by Dr. Steven Raphael, Mayoral Appointee and Professor Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley On July 27th the Sentencing Commission submitted letters to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to urge San Francisco to implement a law enforcement assisted pre-booking diversion pilot program for individuals engaging in illegal drug activity. The LEAD Program is a pre-booking diversion program that identifies low-level drug and prostitution offenders for whom probable cause exists for an arrest, and redirects them from jail and prosecution by providing linkages to community-based treatment and support services. Formalized law enforcement assisted pre-booking diversion is an evidence based and fiscally prudent alternative. Two recently released University of Washington studies on the LEAD Program found statistically significant reductions in recidivism, mostly notably LEAD participants showed significant reductions in new felony cases. The evaluation team also found that the program resulted in reduced participant jail bookings, on average 39 fewer jail bed days per participant, a 87% decrease in subsequent state prison incarceration and overall substantial reductions in criminal justice costs. The next meeting is on September 23, 2015 10am-12pm at 850 Bryant, Rm 322- Law Library. All agendas meeting materials reports and relevant publications are available at http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/index.aspx?page=308
Young Adult Court
The Young Adult Court is a new collaborative court for transitional aged adult youth. The program started August 7th and will meet once per week, serving clients between the ages of 18-25. The pilot will work with current Back on Track and probation clients initially and will increase accordingly. The case load in the first year will serve approximately 60-80 clients. This court, which will handle a range of nonviolent and violent cases, will be the first of its kind nationwide. Partner agencies include the Superior Court, Office of the District Attorney, Office of the Public Defender, the Department of Public Health, Adult Probation Department, Department of Children, Youth and their Families and the San Francisco Police Department. A Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) is supporting the launch of the program.
Community Corrections Partnership
At the last CCP meeting, May 7, 2015, members received updates on the numbers of AB109 and 1170(h) clients that were served during the first 1st quarter of 2015, as well as funding awarded to San Francisco by the Board of State and Community Corrections for community recidivism reduction. This $250,000 grant will be awarded to reentry service providers based on gaps identified in the Risk-Needs-
Page 25 Responsivity study of Adult Probation services. A maximum of $50,000 will be awarded to each individual provider.
At the next meeting, Jim Austin from JFA Institute will be presenting the results of his COMPAS validation study. Hilary Blount from Californians for Safety and Justice will speak about implementation of Proposition 47 and how counties around the state are addressing the issue of reclassifications of people’s records as they move from felonies to misdemeanors.
The next meeting of the CCP will be on September 15, 2015, at the San Francisco Civic Center Courthouse, 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, 6th Floor.
Page 26
PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT 2014
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COLLABORATIVE COURTS DIVISION
Lisa Lightman, Director Jennifer Pasinosky, Program & Policy Analyst August 2015
Page 27 INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Superior Court delivers high quality collaborative justice programs that address addiction, mental health, and other social service needs. The Collaborative Courts Division oversees program operations with the vision of “contributing to a safe and just San Francisco for all.” Along with our partners, we change lives by demonstrating our Core Values in everything we do:
• High quality and culturally competent services • Non-adversarial adjudication • Procedural fairness • Cross system collaboration • Personal accountability • Respectful, compassionate, kind, and supportive interactions
Collaborative courts depend on the dedication of our public and non-profit partner agencies. These include: the Department of Public Health, Office of the District Attorney, Office of the Public Defender, Adult and Juvenile Probation Departments, Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, Human Services Agency, Veterans Administration, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, San Francisco Police Department, and a myriad of community-based service providers.
All of our programs follow the key components of problem-solving courts, including early identification and engagement of eligible participants, access to a continuum of treatment and other services, and ongoing judicial interaction, among others. Each participant receives an initial assessment that informs the Court about substance use, mental health, and other social service needs, followed by individualized treatment planning and Court-monitored accountability. Collaborative court team members guide participants towards recovery and self-sufficiency, thereby reducing recidivism and its associated costs.
The purpose of this report is to provide the San Francisco community with a snapshot of achievements and program operations across all collaborative courts in the previous calendar year. The statistics presented in this report vary between programs, largely based on length of time in operation and the availability of data. We are open to feedback about your agency’s informational needs, which will help enhance future reports.
Lisa Lightman Director, San Francisco Collaborative Courts
Page 28 ADULT PROGRAMS
Page 29 ADULT DRUG COURT
OVERVIEW
Drug Court is a felony court that provides intensive judicial supervision and case management to non-violent offenders with substance use disorders. Drug Court has its own treatment clinic, the Drug Court Treatment Center, located one block from the criminal court. Drug Court is a 10-to-12 month program that includes regular court appearances, outpatient and residential treatment, and regular drug testing. Since its inception in 1995, Drug Court has worked with nearly 5,000 defendants.
NEW PROGRAM INFORMATION
Over the past five years, the Court has seen a significant decrease in its felony caseload. In 2014, there were 3,435 felony complaints filed in San Francisco, less than half the number filed in 2008 (7,459). The monthly average for active drug-related felony cases fell by 77% over the same five year period – from 1,738 at the end of 2008 to 409 at the end of 2014.
In November, California voters passed Proposition 47, “Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative,” which mandates misdemeanors instead of felonies for “non-serious, nonviolent crimes," unless the defendant has prior disqualifying convictions. Proposition 47 caused a sea change in the number of defendants considered eligible for and who opt to participate in Drug Court. Presented with this challenge, Drug Court has maintained its caseload by ensuring all eligible defendants are identified as early as possible. The passage of Proposition 47 has also led Drug Court stakeholders to develop alternative protocols for misdemeanor defendants.
In 2013, Drug Court’s retention and graduate rates were below the national average. While San Francisco’s program works with harder to serve clients with complex social service needs, the decrease in retention motivated the Court to seek technical assistance from the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) in New York. Throughout the year, the Court completed all sixteen recommendations detailed in CCI’s final report. Here are a few highlights:
• Revised guidelines to expand legal eligibility criteria to enter Drug Court; • Implemented a new training program to educate Drug Court team members and partner agencies about updates to clinical and criminal justice policies; • Established a Drug Court-dedicated Probation Officer position to provide the team with a summary of COMPAS risk/needs assessments; • Developed a Drug Court Participant Handbook that outlines our sanctions and incentives guidelines and includes a four-phase system protocol.
Page 30 PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Clients Served
In 2014, 189 clients entered Drug Court, the same as the previous year. Overall, 296 clients had at least one court date scheduled in Drug Court in 2014. Drug Court has served 1,561 clients since 2009.
DRUG COURT: ENTERING CLIENT VOLUME
DRUG COURT: PRIMARY DRUG OF CHOICE
Primary Drug of Choice
In 2014, there was an 85% increase in the number of entering Drug Court clients reporting heroin as their primary drug of choice. This reflects the nationwide spike in opiate use. For the first time since 2008, there was a decrease in the percentage of clients reporting methamphetamine as their primary drug of choice.
Page 31
DRUG COURT: DRUG OF CHOICE TRENDS
DRUG COURT: INCOME SOURCE AT ENTRY (N=189)
Income Source
The majority (63%) of clients reported having no income upon entering Drug Court. Only 7% of entering Drug Court clients report employment as their primary income source.
Page 32 DRUG COURT: LIVING SITUATION AT ENRTY (N=189)
Living Situation
Fifty-two percent of clients report being homeless or living in a hotel/SRO upon entering Drug Court.
DRUG COURT: PRIMARY CHARGE (N=189)
Legal Characteristics
Forty-seven percent of entering clients had a theft-related primary charge (e.g. Penal Code sections 459, 487 and 496 or Vehicle Code section 10851). Seventy-seven percent of Drug Court clients entered with a “pre-plea” status, while 8% entered with a “deferred entry of judgement.” (Entry status is missing for 15% of entering clients.) Eighty-four percent of Drug Court clients are incarcerated at entry. Forty percent of entering clients faced a “motion to revoke” probation, while 6% were on parole.
Page 33
DRUG COURT: CLIENTS BY EXIT TYPE (N=185)
Exiting Clients
Thirty-one clients graduated from Drug Court in 2014. Another 154 clients exited Drug Court unsuccessfully throughout the year. Sixty-eight of those clients “self-terminated,” or opted out of Drug Court services.
Page 34 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COURT
OVERVIEW
Established in 2003, the San Francisco Behavioral Health Court (BHC) addresses the complex needs of mentally ill defendants, including those with co-occurring substance use disorders. An individualized treatment plan is developed for each client, including psychiatric rehabilitation services, medication management, supportive living arrangements, substance use treatment, supported employment, and intensive case management services. Participation is voluntary.
NEW PROGRAM INFORMATION
In 2013, BHC received a $250,000 grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance to implement the Housing and Employment for Recovery Outcomes (HERO) program. HERO provides transitional housing and supported employment services to qualifying BHC clients with the eventual goal of permanent housing and employment based on interest or former work experience. Employment counseling begins while clients are in jail and continues for the duration of the client’s participation in the HERO program. Recognizing the importance of housing and employment for collaborative court clients, the Court is focused on developing a sustainability plan and expanding the reach of this innovative program. By the end of 2014, the HERO program had served 40 clients.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Assessments
In 2014, Jail Health Reentry Services administered 350 clinical assessments1 on 274 defendants. Following the initial clinical assessment, 76 defendants were referred to BHC for legal eligibility assessments.
198 defendants were denied BHC services based on clinical assessment results. The most common reasons for clinical denial were: defendant not diagnostically appropriate (52%); defendant not amenable to services (17%); and defendant resides out of county (8%).
DENIAL REASON PERCENT Not diagnostically appropriate 52% Not amenable 17% Out of county resident 8% Too decompensated 5% Noncompliant with in-custody treatment plan 1% Impairment level doesn't warrant BHC 2% Other 14% Missing 1%
1 These figures do not include assessment appointments that were inconclusive and required an additional assessment.
Page 35 Clients Served
In 2014, 46 clients were found legally eligible to participate in BHC. Throughout the year, 188 defendants had at least one court date scheduled in BHC.
Mental Health Diagnosis
To be eligible for BHC, a defendant must present with an Axis I diagnosis per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Of the 46 clients who entered the program, the most common primary diagnoses were Schizophrenia (50%) and Schizoaffective Disorder (26%). Thirty-nine entering clients (78%) were diagnosed with co-occurring substance use disorder.
DIAGNOSIS PERCENT
Schizophrenia, Paranoid type 41% Schizoaffective Disorder 13% Psychotic Disorder NOS 11% Bipolar Disorder 9% Major Depressive Disorder 6% Other 11% Missing 9%
Exiting Clients
In 2014, 39 clients exited BHC. Forty two percent of clients completed the program in full and graduated, 30% of clients “opted out” or self terminated, 13% of client’s participation was terminated by the court, 10% of clients had their criminal case resolved, and 5% of clients successfully completed their probation.
BHC: CLIENTS BY EXIT TYPE (N=39)
Exiting Clients
Clients participating in BHC have unique needs and personalized treatment plans; officially graduating doesn’t necessarily define whether or not a client has achieved success in the program. For example, a client who has successfully completed their probation or has credit for time served may voluntarily exit the program before becoming eligible for graduation.
Page 36 COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTER
OVERVIEW
Established in 2009, the Community Justice Center (CJC) is a criminal court and social service center that serves San Francisco’s Tenderloin, Civic Center, Union Square, and South of Market neighborhoods. Clinical staff are available onsite to assess social service needs related to defendants’ underlying offenses and to develop individualized treatment plans for defendants determined eligible for CJC services. CJC clients are connected with treatment for substance use, mental health, or primary health issues. CJC includes a restorative justice program that allows CJC clients to complete community service hours (voluntary or Court- ordered) and give back to the community. CJC clients have completed 10,605 community service hours since 2011.
Staff from the Superior Court, Department of Public Health, Office of the Public Defender, Office of the District Attorney, and Adult Probation have offices in the CJC’s Service Center.
NEW PROGRAM INFORMATION
In 2014, the RAND Corporation published a report on the San Francisco Community Justice Center (CJC) regarding whether or not the CJC reduces the risk of criminal recidivism. RAND examined one year arrest rates of individuals arrested for eligible offenses both inside and outside CJC’s designated geographic area (the Tenderloin, South of Market, Union Square, and Civic Center neighborhoods), both before and after the CJC became active as a community court. Analysis of this data concluded that the probability of re-arrest for those originally arrested within the CJC catchment area decreased over time, compared to those that were arrested outside of the area, whose probability of being rearrested increased over time. Furthermore, there was an 8.9% to 10.3% reduction in the probability of being rearrested within one year, supporting the hypothesis that the CJC reduces criminal recidivism.
The CJC received a grant from the Judicial Council of California to serve parolees in need of services. Identified as the CJC-Parolee Court, services include case management and housing for parolees in the CJC geographic area.
In September 2014, the Center for Court Innovation, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, chose San Francisco as one of four mentor courts for jurisdictions seeking to enhance procedural justice and promote the use of alternatives to jail.
The CJC completed a new database to improve the program’s ability to track client progress and analyze program activity.
The waiting area in the CJC Service Center at 555 Polk Street received a complete renovation through the city’s First Impressions Program. First Impressions help consumers to learn basic construction and remodeling skills, receive on‐the‐job training and mentoring and secure meaningful employment opportunities.
Page 37
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
In 2014, a total of 1,642 defendants had at least one court date scheduled in the CJC, representing a volume of approximately 2,108 cases. Between the years of 2011 and 2014, CJC served a total of 10,877 clients.
CJC: TOTAL CLIENTS SERVED CJC: COMMUNITY SERVICE HOURS
Page 38 INTENSIVE SUPERVISION COURT
OVERVIEW
The Intensive Supervision Court (ISC) (originally called the Probation Alternatives Court) began in October 2010. ISC was created by the Adult Probation Department as a voluntary court-based intensive supervision program with the goals of reducing recidivism, improving public safety, reducing state prison commitments, minimizing incarceration, and improving probation supervision completions.
ISC’s target population is high-risk, high-needs probation clients who are facing a state prison commitment as a result of probation violations. ISC essentially provides this challenging population with another opportunity for supervision in the community as an alternative to state prison. The ISC is unique from other treatment courts with a collaborative approach in that it targets clients who have been terminated from other treatment courts or who would be considered ineligible or unsuitable for other treatment courts due to their extensive criminal records, histories of unsuccessful performance on probation, and high risk for probation revocation and state prison commitment.
ISC clients receive a COMPAS risk and needs assessment, case management based on assessment results, extensive wraparound support services, electronic monitoring when appropriate, and close judicial monitoring. The court utilizes a multidisciplinary treatment team approach and provides services such as housing, employment, education, family reunification support, substance abuse, health, and mental health programs.
NEW PROGRAM INFORMATION STATISTICS: • ISC clients continue to access mental health and substance abuse assessment, treatment plans, and • Number of clients served since program referrals through the Behavioral Health Access Center. inception: 120 • The ISC makes case management referrals to the Community Service and Assessment Center (CASC), • Number of active participants in 2014: Citywide Case Management, and the Senior Ex- 64, including 56 male, 6 female, and 2 Offender Program. ISC staff participate in monthly transgender clients interdisciplinary conferences with CASC staff to manage clients’ intensive case management plans. • IN 2014, clients had an average of 4.1 prior felonies and collectively faced an • The ISC makes referrals to the Reentry Pod for intensive estimated 241 years in state prison. in-custody programming. The Pod is now an integral part of ISC’s rewards and responses options for client behavioral management.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Clients Served
Overall, 64 clients received services through ISC in 2014, including both entering and continuing clients. By the end of the year, 33 remained in the program, one transferred to another county, 12 graduated, one was deceased, and 16 terminated unsuccessfully.
Page 39 ISC: CLIENTS BY STATUS AT ISC: CLIENTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, YEAR END, 2014 (N=64) 2014 (N=64)
New Criminal Activity
Forty eight percent of clients (31) had no new arrests in 2014, 92% (59) had no new violent arrests, and 95% (61) had no new convictions.
ISC: NEW ARREST ACTIVITY 2014 (N=64)
Criminal Justice Factors
ISC clients have extensive criminal histories. The majority (80%) had between one and six prior felonies, while 17% had between 7 and 10 prior felonies. On average, clients were facing an estimated 3.8 years of state prison time, with 10 clients facing five or more years of prison.
ISC: YEARS OF STATE PRISON (N=64)
Page 40 VETERANS JUSTICE COURT
OVERVIEW
The Veterans Justice Court (VJC) – established in April, 2013 and expanded as a stand-alone court in January, 2015 – is for military veterans charged with criminal offenses. The court’s objective is to provide substance abuse and mental health treatment, as well as academic, vocational, or skills improvement leading to job placement and retention. To participate, the defendant must meet VJC legal eligibility and clinical suitability criteria.
NEW PROGRAM INFORMATION
With the 2015 move and expansion, Veterans Justice Court (VJC) serves persons charged with misdemeanors and most felonies in San Francisco who served in the military (including those with less than honorable discharges). Veterans Justice Court now serves veterans beyond the CJC boundaries.
The Superior Court was the recipient of a $350,000 Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grant under the 2014 Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program to allow for additional case management services. The BJA received more than 200 applications nationwide and funded fewer than 15 programs. San Francisco’s 3-year grant will pay for a case manager who will help clients not eligible for VA healthcare services to access other services. This position will allow the VJC to help eligible veterans regardless of their service or discharge status. Initially, the VJC caseload is expected to increase from 35 to an estimated 50 clients.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Thirty-eight clients entered VJC in 2014. Forty-five percent of entering clients were Black/African American, 33% were White, and 9% were Latino/Hispanic. Of the 41 clients who exited VJC in 2014, 37% (15) successfully completed the program.
VJC: ETHNICITY (N=38) VJC: EXITS BY TYPE, 2014 (N=41)
Page 41
YOUTH AND FAMILY PROGRAMS
Page 42 DEPENDENCY DRUG COURT
OVERVIEW
The San Francisco Dependency Drug Court (DDC) is a court-supervised family support program serving families involved in the juvenile dependency (child welfare) system that have been impacted by parental substance use. DDC uses a multidisciplinary team approach to develop family-focused, trauma informed treatment plans that address the needs of each family member.
DDC seeks to enhance permanency outcomes for children – with the preferred outcome of family reunification – by offering coordinated treatment planning. Services include: judicial monitoring, substance use assessment and treatment, mental health services, parenting education, intensive case management, drug testing, priority referrals to transitional housing, and other family support services.
DDC’S GOALS ARE TO: • Increase reunification rate among families involved in the juvenile dependency system that are impacted by parental substance use; • Increase placement stability and reduce children’s re-entry into foster care after reunification; • Provide highly coordinated and clinically-focused substance use treatment and ancillary service planning, while ensuring that parents have a voice in the decision making process; • Increase inter-agency collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and cross-systems efficiencies; • Promote early bonding and attachment; • Improve developmental outcomes for children.
NEW PROGRAM INFORMATION
In 2014, DDC began implementing the Prevention and Family Recovery (PFR) program, an initiative funded by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and overseen by Children and Family Futures. PFR seeks to promote child well-being by implementing evidence-based parent education and increasing access to children’s therapeutic services. Using grant funds, DDC added two new members to its multidisciplinary team: a full-tom Public Health Nurse and a part-time Children’s Services Coordinator. Both positions were implemented through the San Francisco Department of Public Health. DDC also began offering SafeCare, an evidence-based home visitation program that has been shown to reduce child maltreatment among families in the child welfare system. All DDC participating families with children 0-5 years old are eligible to receive SafeCare services.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
In 2014, 114 parents were referred to DDC; 74 parents and 99 children entered DDC. Thirty-nine percent of entering parents were African American, 26% were White, 23% were Latino, 9% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 3% were Native American.
In all, 111 parents and 158 children participated in DDC during the year, including both entering and continuing families. Twenty-one parents successfully terminated or graduated from the program.
Page 43 JUVENILE REENTRY COURT
OVERVIEW
The Juvenile Reentry Court (JRC) was established in 2009 by the Juvenile Probation Department and the Office of the Public Defender to provide coordinated and comprehensive reentry case planning and aftercare services for high needs foster youth in the juvenile delinquency system. The model establishes a collaborative team approach in the development and implementation of reentry plans for youth returning home from out- of-home placement. Three months prior to completion of out-of-home placement, the plan is finalized and may include housing, vocational training, education, therapy and/or drug treatment, and any other services needed to ensure the minor’s success. JRC employs evidence-based practices (motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy) and utilizes risk-needs assessment tools that further enhance the appropriate treatment plan.
NEW PROGRAM INFORMATION
JRC expanded into a specialized Girls Court, a one-day per month calendar to provide gender-specific services to increase the program retention and success of this target population. Girls are often traumatized sexually and are abused in ways that are different than boys. Two leading community providers, Huckleberry House and the Center for Young Women’s Development (CYWD) are present during Girls Court and in pre court meetings to share their expertise and to advise the team. Because immediacy of program delivery is critical to program success, Girls Court has been referring girls directly to CYWD and Huckleberry House during the court session. Girls Court is committed to working with at-risk girls and will continue to build their community connections and partnerships to advance the provision of out of custody services.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
In 2014, 110 youth were served in the Juvenile Reentry Program. The vast majority (59%) were African American, followed by Latino (28%). Fifty-two percent of youth were minors, while the remaining 48% were over 18 years old. Finally, 64% of youth were violent offenders and 21% were repeat offenders.
JRC: ETHNICITY (N=110) JRC: BY OFFENDER TYPE, 2014 (N=110)
Page 44 SAN FRANCISCO ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORTIVE TEAM (SF-ACT)
OVERVIEW
The San Francisco Achievement Collaborative Team (SF-ACT) is a joint educational and behavioral health program for substance using youth at the Civic Center Secondary School. This juvenile drug court program was restructured in September 2013 to provide multi-phased evidence-based treatment and court supervision for probation-involved youth in a school setting.
SF-ACT offers individual and family therapy, home visits, substance abuse counseling, case management and academic support. The program is a partnership between the San Francisco Unified School District, the San Francisco Superior Court, the Department of Public Health, the Juvenile Probation Department, the Office of the District Attorney, the Office of the Public Defender, the Department of Children, Youth and Families, Catholic Charities, and Richmond Area Multi-Services. A Wellness Center at the Civic Center School is the central hub for all additional health and wellness services.
SF-ACT targets juvenile offenders (ages 14-17 years) whose delinquent behavior is connected to the ongoing chronic and habitual abuse of substances. Typically, youth enrolled in SF-ACT will have social histories marked by prior contacts with law enforcement, previous exposure to addiction treatment programs and a history of relapse into substance abuse. SF-ACT also provides voluntary aftercare services, including monthly check-ins with client and family, and linkages to community-based organizations. Furthermore, youth who successfully finish the program can choose to participate in alumni groups, or become mentors for current SF-ACT clients.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
There were 15 youth served by the SF-ACT program in 2014. Forty percent of clients completed SF-ACT in good standing, 40% failed to comply with their residential treatment placement and were taken into custody, 13% were taken into custody prior to completion due to a probation violation, and one client was still enrolled in SA-ACT (7%) at the end of 2014.
SF_ACT: CLIENTS BY EXIT TYPE (N=15)
PROGRAM COMPLETIONS
Eighty three percent of youth that finished SF-ACT in 2014 demonstrated between 30% and 100% reduction in drug use by the time of completion. Two-thirds of clients who completed SF- ACT continued to engage in aftercare “alumni” services.
Page 45 TRUANCY COURT
OVERVIEW
Truancy Court was developed as part of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Truancy Intervention Program (SFTIP), established in 2006 through the joint efforts of San Francisco’s District Attorney’s Office, Mayor’s Office, Superior Court, and Unified School District. Since that time, SFTIP has also incorporated additional public agencies, charter schools, and community-based service providers from across the city with an eye towards reducing absenteeism in our schools. This goal of reducing truancy not only gets our children back in school and on the path to success, but also saves billions of dollars in public resources and improves public safety.
Statistics show that there is a relationship between school attendance and public safety. In San Francisco, 94% of homicide victims under the age of 25 dropped out of high school and nationally, 68% of our state prison inmates are dropouts. Studies indicate that, on average, one additional year of schooling corresponds to a 20 percent decrease in the likelihood that a juvenile will steal a car and a 30% decrease in the likelihood that they will commit murder or assault. *Therefore, by keeping our children in school and off the streets, SFTIP hopes to keep students away from victimization and crime.
PROGRAM INFORMATION
Truancy intervention begins at the school level. As mandated by the California Education Code, schools carry out a seven-step truancy process. Parents are notified in person, by telephone and by mail, attend conferences with school officials, and are offered services to assist them in getting their children to school. If all else fails in rectifying the truancy, the schools refer the cases to the District Attorney’s office Truancy Intervention Program.
Our model employs a three-pronged approach to combat truancy:
Stage 1: Education. The District Attorney’s Office engages in public education and outreach. This involves meeting with schools and families and taking part in events within the education community with the goal of spreading the word about truancy, its consequences and how the school district, District Attorney’s Office and our other partners can help. In addition, each public school parent receives a letter from the DA at the outset of every school year describing the problem of truancy and the consequences, and urging parents to keep children in school. SFTIP has also used billboards, media and district-wide forums to educate parents about truancy and encourage students to stay in school.
Stage 2: Intervention. When children become habitually truant, parents are asked to attend school attendance review board (SARB) meetings. We also host school-based parent group sessions to outline the steps parents must take to get their children in school and avoid more serious consequences. The DA’s Office also hosts collaborative meetings with various city agencies and service providers to address the needs of individual habitually truant students and their families.
Stage 3: Prosecution. Parents of truant children who do not change course in Stage 2 are subject to prosecution. Students themselves, who are over the age of 13, can also be subject to prosecution for their own truancy if they are the cause of their absenteeism. Truant families must report to a specialized Truancy Court that combines close court monitoring with tailored family services. In this court, SFUSD and the Truancy Assessment and Resource Center (TARC) – funded by the City and operated by Urban Services YMCA – are on hand to resolve underlying issues such as transportation, unstable housing, substance abuse, mental health, neglect or unresolved special education needs. Those families who are continually reluctant to send their children to school are subject to fine. Students who remain truant may face community service and suspension of their driver’s license.
Page 46 SCHOOL-SITE ACTIVITY
ACTIVITIES FOCUSED ON PRE-PROSECUTION INTERVENTION:
As part of SFTIP, in 2012 the District Attorney’s Office began funding a case manager on-site at Burton High School to work with entering ninth-graders on the school district’s “Early Warning List” – those students who had experienced high truancy and low academic performance in eighth grade. In 2013, San Francisco Supervisors Cohen and Breed provided funds to expand the program to Ida B. Wells Continuation School. Ongoing funding is now provided by the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families. Run by the YMCA’s Truancy Assessment Resource Center (TARC), this funding pays for case managers to work at the school sites themselves – providing intensive support and supervision for students beginning at the start of the school year, before they become truant, and helping them to make a successful transition to high school.
2013-2014 SCHOOL YEAR:
During the 2013-2014 school year, TARC was able to work with 25 students at both Ida B. Wells Continuation and Burton High School, for a total of 50 students served. TARC intervention for these students can involve everything from home visits and school-site meetings to other types of intervention, such as tutoring.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
The facts are disturbingly simple: Today’s truant is tomorrow’s dropout. And tomorrow’s dropout is all too likely to find trouble and end up in our criminal justice system. In order to prevent this, SFTIP has over 60 pending cases with more interventions and referrals from the School District every year.
In 2014, SFTIP filed 37 new cases against truant students and/or parents of truant students to be heard in court. Every one of the families that appeared in court agreed to receive services and work with the court, the school district, TARC, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s office to improve their truancy. In addition to this, a number of these families agreed to work with TARC or were already working with TARC. Each TARC caseworker typically has a rotating caseload of about 12-15 students. These caseworkers supplement and enhance the work in the courtroom done by SFTIP.
*Statistics provided by the Office of the District Attorney.
Page 47 Agenda Item 7(a)
San Francisco Reentry Council Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI)
Status Update: August 18, 2015
JRI Purpose: Justice reinvestment is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, examine corrections and related criminal justice spending, manage and allocate criminal justice populations in a more cost-effective manner, and reinvest savings in strategies that can hold offenders accountable, decrease crime, and strengthen neighborhoods.
JRI Phase I: 5/1/11 – 9/30/14 • data analysis to explore drivers of jail bed use • conduct cost analysis to review potential savings for reductions of jail bed use • identify strategies for reinvesting these potential savings • develop and submit for approval an implementation plan for each strategy (Phase II)
JRI Phase II: 10/1/14 – 9/11/15 • Implement strategies A, B, and C • Monitor outcomes, cost savings, and reinvestment
Strategy A: Eliminate Racial Disproportionality Task Lead Output/Outcome Timeline 1. Coordinate data sharing agreements SF Reentry Contracts and data October 2014 between W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI), Council Staff and sharing agreements COMPLETED CJI, and San Francisco partners. CJI TA staff NOVEMBER 2014 2. Conduct decision point analysis of data from W. Haywood Decision point March 2015 San Francisco criminal justice partners to Burns Institute analysis report COMPLETED identify drivers of racial disproportionality in JUNE 2015 San Francisco. 3. Present analysis findings and final report to W. Haywood Presentation to April 2015 Reentry Council. Burns Institute Reentry Council COMPLETED JUNE 2015 4. Conduct interviews with and convene key SF Reentry Staff Plan for addressing May-August 2015 partners to examine data and develop plan & Urban Peace disproportionality IN PROCESS for addressing racial disproportionality Institute across the San Francisco criminal justice system, with substantial input from the public.
1 Page 48 Agenda Item 7(a)
Strategy B: Create a Uniform Early Termination Protocol for Probation Task Lead Output/Outcome Timeline 1. Identify and contract with a contracted SFAPD Contract with December 2014 consultant to coordinate implementation consultant COMPLETE and policy development. Jessie Warner NOVEMBER 2014 2. Finalize and execute partner agreement SFAPD and DA’s Eligibility criteria December 2014 regarding eligibility criteria for early Office and protocol and COMPLETE termination and prospective risk-based executed partner MARCH 2015 sentencing protocol. agreement 3. Develop metrics for ongoing fiscal and SFAPD Framework, December 2014 outcome analysis, as well as caseload including metrics, IN PROCESS redistribution data. format, and data collection and analysis protocol 4. Present final eligibility criteria and protocol SFAPD Presentation to January 2015 to the Reentry Council Reentry Council COMPLETE MARCH 2015 5. Develop partner agency policies and INTERAGENCY Agency policies and January – procedures for early termination, train staff, WORKGROUP procedures, eligible September 2015 and implement new practices. cases subject to IN PROCESS risk-based sentencing protocol & early termination protocol 6. Collect data on early termination, cost SFAPD Data collection and February – June avoidance and caseload statistics analysis and 2015 ongoing reporting IN PROCESS schedule 7. Data presented to Reentry Council. SFAPD Presentation to July, 2015 • Prospective sentences Reentry Council • August 2015 • Early terminations • IN PROCESS 8. SFAPD conducts initial caseload SFAPD Caseload August 2015 redistribution & reentry service prioritization redistribution IN PROCESS to address high risk/high needs clients
2 Page 49 Agenda Item 7(a)
Strategy C: Expand Pretrial Alternatives to Detention Task Lead Output/Outcome Timeline 1. Recruit and hire additional staffing SF Pretrial Staffing October 2014 Diversion hired/reassigned COMPLETE 2. Conduct analysis of existing pretrial risk Contracted Analysis and report November assessment data to revalidate tool. Consultant: 2014 Brian Lovins COMPLETE DECEMBER 2014 3. Analysis and report presented to SF Contracted Presentation to Reentry December partners, including Sheriff, DA, PD, and Consultant: Council 2014 Superior Court. Brian Lovins COMPLETE 4. Purchase and implement Microstrategies Sheriff’s Office Presentation to Reentry August 2015 bridge software to link PDP and Sheriff’s Council on initial data COMPLETE office’s databases. Present data linkage linkage report report to Reentry Council. 5. Explore and commit to implement the SF Reentry MOUs with Superior August 2015 Arnold Foundation Public Safety Assessment Council and Staff Court and Sheriff’s COMPLETE (PSA) and execute memorandum of Office understanding 6. Review data specifications and integrate into Arnold, PSA database September database(s) Sheriff’s integration 2015 Office/PDP 7. Convene partner workgroup to develop Courts & Interagency workgroup August- decision matrix and determine other local- Sheriff’s convened, policy and October 2015 policy/practice decisions Office/PDP decision matrix 8. Conduct trainings (judges, partner staff, Arnold Conduct trainings November pretrial staff, etc.) 2015-January 2016 9. Implement PSA tool Courts & PSA implemented and January 2016 Sheriff’s used to inform release Office/PDP decisions 10. Monitor implementation and performance Arnold, Courts & Regular reports August 2015- data Sheriff’s provided to Reentry February 2016 Office/PDP Council
3 Page 50 Agenda Item 7(b) JRI Risk-Based Sentencing Report, May - July 2015
Probation Sentences Given Per Risk-Based Sentencing Protocol
Sentence Length May June July Total 18 months 4 2 4 10 24 months 4 4 14 22 36 months with 24 month review 10 13 13 36 Total 18 19 31 68
Total Sentences Given per Protocol Compared to all Probation Sentences Given
May June July Total Risk Based Sentences Given 18 19 31 68 Total Sentences Given* 111 87 132 330 % of Total 16% 22% 23% 21%
* Includes all probation sentences given within month, including those not eligible for risk-based sentencing
PSR Recommendations per Risk-Based Sentencing Protocol
Recommended Disposition May June July Total Probation-18 months 1 4 2 7 Probation-24 months 1 9 10 20 Probation-36M with 24M Review 18 28 46 Grand Total 2 31 40 73
Total PSRs Submitted to Court 86 95 114 295
JRI Risk-Based Sentencing, May - July 2015 Page 51 Page 1 Justice Reinvestment Initiative Sheriff’s JMS / SF Pretrial Diversion Project Data Collaboration
Ali Riker, SFSD Programs Sheriff’s Tech Services Lt. Dave Hardy SFSD IT (415)575-4445 Sgt. Linda Bui SFSD IT
Amina Khan SFSF IT Page 52
SFSD/SFPDP DATA COLLABORATION August 10, 2015 Snapshot
Total Population August 10, 2015 - (1246)
Other, 303, 24%
Holds,Warrants, 943, 76%
Page 53 SFSD/SFPDP DATA COLLABORATION August 10, 2015 Snapshot
Total Population Gender (1246) In-Custody - Reviewed Population Gender (303) Female Female 9% 7%
Male Male 93% 91%
Notes for Reviewed Population: -Average Length of stay: 273 days -1/3 in jail for over 1 year -Over 10 individuals with more than 1000 days in custody -Longest 2260 days
Page 54 SFSD/SFPDP DATA COLLABORATION August 10, 2015 Snapshot
Ethnicity – Total In-custody Population Ethnicity – Reviewed In-custody Population (1246) (303)
White White 25% 25%
Black 48%
Black Samoan Samoan 2% 51% Other 2% Other 5%NULL 5% NULL 0% 1%
Hispanic 14% Hispanic FilipinoChinese 16% Filipino Chinese 2% 1% 2% 1%
Page 55 SFSD/SFPDP DATA COLLABORATION August 10, 2015 Snapshot
Crime Category (as booked)- In-custody Reviewed Population
Weapons, 4, 1% Drugs, 5, 2% Other, 9, 3%Property, 13, 4% Crimes against Public Order, 1, 0%
Crimes against People, 271, 90%
Page 56 Process of Pretrial Supervision Agenda Item 7(c)
San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 1 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 57 August 18, 2015 People on Pretrial Supervision Agenda Item 7(c) on Monday August 10th
424 People were on Pretrial Supervision on August 10th
CAHS, 39
OR Project, 216
SPR, 169
San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 2 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 58 August 18, 2015 People on Pretrial Supervision Agenda Item 7(c) on Monday August 10th
Age Distribu on of the 424 People on SFPDP Supervision as of August 10th
Female Male 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 18-24 year olds 25-34 year olds 35-44 year olds 45-54 year olds 55-64 year olds 65+ years old
Data Note: based on 415 records with complete data, San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 3 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 59 August 18, 2015 People on Pretrial Supervision Agenda Item 7(c) on Monday August 10th
Race/Ethnicity of People Gender of People on Pretrial Supervision on August 10th on Pretrial Asian/P.I. Supervision on 4% August 10th
22% of all people on pretrial White supervision on 40% Black th 36% August 10 were iden fied as female.
30% of black people on pretrial supervision were female. Other Hispanic 12% 8% Data Note: based on 415 records with complete data, San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 4 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 60 August 18, 2015 People on Pretrial Supervision Agenda Item 7(c) on Monday August 10th
Most People on Pretrial Supervision have been charged with multiple offenses and with a crime against a person 250 229
200
150 109 100
Number of People 50 23 15 13 11 4 2 0 Multiple: Crimes Multiple: no Other Drugs Property Crimes Weapons includes against Crimes against Crimes People against Public against People Order People
Crimes against People Other Crimes
Data Note: based on 406 records with complete data. San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 5 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 61 August 18, 2015 People on Pretrial Supervision Agenda Item 7(c) on Monday August 10th
144 Days on Pretrial Supervision since Release from Jail
Type of Median Fewest Days Pretrial Number of Most Days on on Supervision Days Supervision Supervision
OR Project 168 3160 2
SPR 117 925 6
CAHS 110 406 7
Data Note: based on 383 records with complete data. San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 6 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 62 August 18, 2015 Pretrial Release Decisions in 2014 and 2015 Agenda Item 7(c)
Point of Release of Pretrial Detainees to Pretrial Supervision 100%
90%
80% 41% 44% 70%
60%
50%
40% 42% 33% 30%
20% Por on of Decisions to Release
10% 17% 23% 0% 2014 Jan-July 2015 a er Arraignment 575 299 at Arraignment 578 219 Duty Judge 238 154
San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 7 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 63 August 18, 2015 Court Appearances by People on Pretrial Supervision in 2015 Agenda Item 7(c)
Rates of Court Appearance of People on Pretrial Supervision, Year to Date
Project OR SPR FTA rate 9%
FTA rate 13%
Appearance Appearance rate rate 91% 87%
San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 8 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 64 August 18, 2015 Safety Rates of People on Pretrial Supervision FY2014-15 Agenda Item 7(c)
Safety Rates of People on Pretrial Supervision
Type of Pretrial Supervision Safety Rate
OR Project 95%
SPR 93%
Court OR to SPR 94%
CAHS 84%
San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project Slide 9 Presentation to Reentry Council Page 65 August 18, 2015 SAN FRANCISCO RE-ENTRY COUNCIL UPDATE
AUGUST 18, 2015
Page 66 Decision Points for Analysis
Arrest Booking to Jail Pretrial Release Convictions Motions To Revoke Probation
Page 67 Key Findings
Ability to gather and analyze data is woefully inadequate across justice agencies Better protocols for identifying ethnicity Disparities existed at all decision points Data too weak to give data driven explanations Thus left with hypothesis and point of view
Page 68 Since June Meeting
Contacted by System and Community Stakeholders Individual Meetings are okay but collaboration between agencies most productive
Page 69 Recommendations for Council
Engage TA with Urban Peace Institute Engage and Adopt Relevant Recommendations from Brennan Center Report Create Collaboration with Stakeholders and Communities Most Impacted
Page 70