higher than the national average and you have a grossly inproportion ate rate, and african americans, and it is important that we create safe alternatives to safe incarceration for the people who are charged with low level offenses who are waiting to exercise the constitutional rights, the individuals that are supposed to be presumed innocent don't langish in jail because they cannot afford the bail. to allow them to be on the electronic monitoring and that they can provide for their families and not be in danger of losing their housing or their jobs. and more importantly, this allows san francisco to reenvest the savings from

incarceration costs into other evidence-based interventions such as substance abuse and mental health treatment and educational and vocational training and housing. and which research has shown to be effective in reducing recidivism which in turn increases public safety and so we urge, the committee to adopt this and to pass on this legislation to the full board as proposed, and rather than limit eligibility, and preinclude the individuals, from being part of this program, our recommendation, and we urge you to adopt this as proposed, with an aim actually of expanding it in the future. >> why don't we hear from the

adult probation. >> good morning good members and i am the deputy chief of the adult probation department and i am appearing on behalf of the chief probation officer. the chief asked me to express her full support for the ordinance amending the code to expand the category of jail inmates eligible for home detention program. and authorized the sheriff to implement an electronic monitoring program to pretrial detainees being held in lieu of bail, as a public safety agency, adult probation, certainly recognizes the utility of electronic monitoring, as an effective tool for both jail deversion and supervision enhancement and this can lead to more effective reentry into the community and ultimately better out comes for our clients under supervision. and chief still plans to come before this board in the near future to address additional issues related to electronic

monitoring but specific to the adult claim population that we supervise. again, the adult probation department fully supports this ordinance, as currently proposed by the sheriff's department. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and i mean, i have a great deal of respect for the chief and i think that she has been amazing in sort of being a neutral arbitro, in the criminal justice system here in san francisco. and the one question that i want to make sure that i get, you know, your department's perspective on is this issue, of

it and you feel comfortable with that. >> we are in the business of risk assessment and risk management. and whether you work for the sheriff's department, or with the probation department. what we find is that the majority of the clients are high risk and what we are also able to find is if we are able to match services with this individual, and with the right probation officer, and if we are able to have success in our community, which we think enhances our public safety. and it is my understanding that there are safety guards put into place for this particular program, and in which, will be taken into consideration before that, and ultimately, if opposed by the da will go in front of the superior court judge. >> and i think that is a very important note, because i think that to the extent that there

are those concerns i am very appreciative of the fact that the case will be presented to a judge who can ultimately decide what the right course of action is. any colleagues any questions for the adult probation department? >> no. >> great. >> now i want to give our district attorney the opportunity to present on this item and i think that we have a i don't know if it is a school, or a summer program that is here. kids welcome to the board of supervisors chamber. >> thank you. >> and we are joined by the district chief of staff. >> good morning, supervisors. >> kristine, and we are here for the district attorney gascon and i appreciate this committee rehearing this item. we have been in back and forth dialogue with the sheriff's department about the concerns that we reiterated at the first version of this legislation and some of those have been incorporated. we have an outstanding concern that has not been incorporated and i think that it leads us

back to the original concern with the legislation and you heard that the adult probation mention that we are all engaged in a risk assessment management evaluation process in our roles, and what is missing from the process here, on determining who should be on the electronic monitoring in the hands of the sheriff's department is that, some type of a tool that will inform that process. for those of you that don't, regularly participate in the criminal court proceedings or have similarity with them, it is made at arraignment whether someone should be held in custody or released on bail or released on their own, and that is a hearing that takes place with a defense attorney, representing the individual, the district attorney, representing the community, as well as the victim's concerns, and a judge, that makes a determination, based on all of of the information in front of us about the crime at hand, and the individual criminal history, and any information our office may have from a victim in concerns that they may have about their safety. and a determination is made but

if that individual is safe enough to be released and when we set the bail we set it for a lot of reasons, right? we put a million dollars bail on someone accused of murder for a reason because we hope that they will not be able to achieve that and stay in custody and the public will be safe during the interim and so i would be interested to see the statistics of the people that are in because of the risk to the public safety as determined by the judge and in because they can't achieve the bail, i don't have those numbers but perhaps the sheriff's department does and that is part of an evaluation that we want to conduct. 80 percent of the population are there on felony matters and so it is the people that have some serious matters pending, the court has gone through a court proceeding with everybody represented and made a determination that bail is appropriate in those cases. and it has been set. and then to come back in 30 or 60 days with i am not sure what the new information will be to make a new evaluation is less than obvious to our office what that reasoning to be. this will be that the county is

going to undertake should be informed by the risk assessment tool and a process that we can invest in and depend on to tell the community that it is being done in a way that protects the public safety and the concern that we have that was not addressed in the legislation, pardon me. and deals with the individual that they are reviewing and so it indicates that these will be low level offenses but does not indicate that they will be low level offenders and someone could be before the court on a low level offense and have a serious criminal history and that is not contemplated by the legislation and so we will ask the sheriff's office to include that in this version and did not make it into that version and that remains our outstanding concern beyond the larger framework that we are discussing here. >> i guess, you know, i appreciate that miss bary, i am sort of at a loss to understand what actually is happening here, because i am hearing two different things, i mean that i

am hearing from the other criminal justice, and things, including not just the sheriff's office, but adult probation to assess the risks for the offenders is already embedded in this process. and i have no doubt that if our chief of adult probation felt that there was anything missing, insuring that that assessment will be made that she will be the first to advocate for that. and so it just seems like we are hearing two different things and so, my understanding is that there are questions, about whether or not a particular offense in a particular offender is appropriate for this program, that is a matter goes to court is that not the case? >> so, let me address both of those things, i don't think that the adult probation says that they are aware of the assessment that the sheriff's department is going to go through and that they will

sign-off on that and those are the questions you would like to ask them. we have not been shown what that process will look like. and i don't know if this committee has perhaps, you have had an opportunity to review, the process. or the tool that the sheriff's department is going to use to make this determination, but i have not been shown that. to your second question, yes, we requested that there be a hearing placed into this legislation, because we have so many concerns about the fact that there was not a risk assessment tool and that these decisions will be made outside of the court without contemplating the victim's concerns and public safety that we felt that the only thing that we could do was try to interject ourselves in part of that process to be able to raise a flag where we had concerns and that is a policy safe guard and i think that this could be done better, is my point. >> so your ability to go to court is sufficient for you to raise any concerns that you may

have? >> it is creating an additional hearing and without the additional resource and we will do that because we are concerned about the public safety but it is kind of a redundant process that we are going through and we will have already done this process at the arraignment and already had a bail evaluation and in 30 or 60 days, or whatever point the sheriff evaluations this person and decides that something has changed or feel that they are appropriate and be able to go through another hearing. >> i would personally have more than less and even if it turns out that an individual case becomes redundant, i would rather err on the side of caution and has the district attorney met with the sheriff to discuss its concerns as he has to meet with him?

i would encourage you to meet with the sheriff, because if you have a concern of something of this magnitude that that should happen. and at the highest level, and we have been on the police commission and i think that it is important for the staff to communicate. the other question that i want, and i want to hear from the sheriff's department and from the adult probation so that they can respond to the questions that you raised. i share what they have raised and adult probation has raised with the respect of do we need a new jail, i have yet to make a decision on that. but in having that discussion, those of us who have raised

those concerns, with prompted and said, that we need to explore alternatives to incarceration. i will imagine that those have raised the concerns for the need for a new jail will be welcoming this kind of exploration and isn't that a good thing in consistent with the criticism that the da has made, with when it comes to the need of it or for a new jail? i mean that it is like, and it is like, i feel like it is hard to have it both ways, right? you can't say, you don't need a new jail, and yet, criticize when there is an exploration of the alternatives to incarceration, i mean, it just inconsistent to me. >> i would be happy too. >> our currently our jail is half empty and that is making sure that we are only incars rating those where that is the only alternative and our office, precisely to deal with the pretrial population is engaged in a rigorous process

to develop our own risk assessment tools so that we can make more informed decisions at the bail hearing before the court, about whether somebody should or should not be held in custody in the pretrial and that is the way of making risk assessments in a very high stakes game that we are engaged in and we are making important decisions every day about who will or will not be dangerous if we release them and those are hard decisions to make and it is not always immediately obvious based on what you are seeing in a snapshot. and so, the concern is that it be done scientifically and data and the decisions that we are making are informed by something not that we make the decisions one day to the next without that kind of scientific tool in guiding our process, the adult probation department has such a tool and they have the compass tool that is validated to guide the decisions about what type of supervision someone should get

and who should get electronic monitors and who should be in the programs and you go through the evaluation of the individual and the needs. >> simply the sheriff's department could develop a risk assessment tool or adopt one in existence and we are under going that process of under going our own and we have an obligation for dealing with the pretrial population. >> and, it is not be a... your office allows for the monitoring and you are basically able to allow for the individuals to be in the

system, is that true? >> i am not sure that i understand the question. >> let's say now, can, your office offer an individual to be electronically monitored? >> well, in the bail proceedings. >> during the arraignment, the court ultimately makes the decision we make the argument and the defense council makes the argument about what we think is appropriate and you can imagine the scenario where the defense attorney will say this person is safe and he will come back to court and you should release him on the promise. and we might be saying we disagree with that and we think that there is danger or a risk of him not determining and the judge makes a determination of multiple things set, bail and release them on the promise to appear and on supervised promise to appear and go through the pretrial and have a case manager and i believe that in the court electronic monitoring but it will be at the individual's expense.

>> so you make the argument to support having one to be put on the electronic monitoring. and what assessment do you use? >> we don't currently have a tool which is what we are trying to develop. >> and you have made judgments. >> we have to make judgments >> we have to make judgments and how you will... >> sorry? >> has it failed you in determine of the judgments that have you made? >> well... >> the people that are offending were released? yes. >> and how long has this been happening? >> for as long as the criminal justice system has been in existence and that is largely been done without a tool which is why we are pushing so hard on the office in multiple fronts and the scientific measures for how we do our work, rather than relying on human instinct and the years of experience in the office to make those determinations and because you get the different

out comes from that. >> and but you can continue to make those arguments without the tools? >> yes, i mean that it is necessitated by the process, right? >> we can't just say that everybody stays in or gets out. it is in the system that we have a bail hearing at the arraignment to determine if someone liberties should be restrained. and so that is the system that we all function within when the district attorney was elected he said that i would like to have an informed process around that and a tool that my prosecutors in the court can rely on to help them to understand the individual and the circumstances better, rather than making this decision, without that. >> and so we are working wither earnestly on that. >> and thank you. >> that is the sort of development and privacy that i would like to encourage for this process. because it is critical to making the right decision, and those are hard decisions to make but in the courtroom, we have much more information than the sheriff has in the jail.

>> before i want to do a little housekeeping and that is the legislation, that is before you, there were sort of amendments and i think that as i recall from the supervisor days, they and those should be spoken to, so that they are memorialized in the record and i would like to return to answer these questions. >> could we briefly outline the amendments and incorporate them and then we will respond it >> that is right. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors if you look on page 2 of the digest, the last paragraph, indicates when we dealt with, and first of all the people who

are placed on electronic monitoring were limited to those that consented to it and that has been addressed. in addition the committee requested, that the electronic monitoring in lieu of bail be offered only to inmates charged at low level offenses and that has been incorporated. and finally, the committee requested that the ordinance requires that the superior court approve the placement of inmates on the electronic monitoring in lieu of bail in the district attorney objects to the placement, we have incorporated that and if you look at the ordinance itself, on page 3, section 13.63, you will see that we have limited to those who want to do it voluntarily and further down at section 13.64, the paragraph in there does indicate what is defined as a low level offense, and misdemeanors a person in

custody, and 30 days, at least. and those charges of felonies and are those that will be eligible for sentencing pursuant to the section, 1170.h, which will be the regular felonies or not serious or violent. and so those concerns have been met. further there was the added amendment of allowing for once an inmate or a defendant is evaluated pursuant to the sheriff's legislation here that the district attorney will be notified, if there is an objection, that the district attorney would notify us and that it will be calendared and so any decision with regard to placing someone on em will be by the judicial review by the court and so that has been implemented and there was no sole discretion on the sheriff to place someone on em. and in lieu of the bail

pretrial. >> great, could you take a motion to amend the ordinance and on what has been explained and so we have a motion by supervisor yee? and we will take public comment before we act on that, and i just want to make sure that we have that motion on the table. sheriff if you could respond. > really, the contradiction that is outlined by the fact that this is not legislation to initiate the sheriff's department or roles for the detention and we have not been doing this as a cavalier system where we think that this person gets to go on the end or this person does not. we have a well designed, risk

assessment tool, we have a well designed process, that scrutinizes and double and triple scrutinizes our decision to want to advance someone with electronic monitoring earlier in the discussion, i shared with you, i think that the strong results of 2013, and there is no county, board of supervisors in this state that would stand tall and proud to the sheriff's department, and when you are hearing of the results of that staff, about you know, at that level, and as a sheriff i am going to trumpet that, and if we did not have that kind of success rate, then i might be back on my heals thinking, we may not be doing something right. i am not going to preinclude the judge's process and we are not offering to do anything

unlaterally and we are simply recognizing the fact that the da is not in our jail systems and adult probation is not in our jail systems, to create a process that the district attorney and everyone else in the system to then go before the judge. but to be so presumptuous, for anyone to dictate that there should be a one universal risk assessment tool when we use the risk assessment tool i would not say that it is better or worse than adult probation and it is not better or worse than the public defender and the one that is not invented yet by the district attorney and then i would not say that that would be the one that super seeds another one. because, we all should stand

before the judge. and that is exactly, what this process invents in this legislation. >> could i just clarify. supervisor yee, actually and then we will go from supervisor mar. >> and i appreciate your response in regards to the risk assessment to what you may have. and part of this, and i also appreciate your track record at the sheriff's department. and in regards to em. and to me, i am very appreciative of this effort to have another opportunity to look at, and an individual to see if this individual weren't being reunified to the community and their family if they have a family and anything that we can do that i am very

supportive of it. the one thing that is not in this legislation that i would like you to consider and for us to read in and it sounds like you were going to do it any way, is that it be really good for us to because, much of what we are talking about is continuing on the individuals, that you are, and the people that actually do the risk assessment. and they are or it seems like they are well trained to do this. and some point it may fall apart, hopefully not. but, it would be good for us as supervisors to ask for at least annual evaluation of the program, so that we could reassure the public that the things that you are talking about, are being or successful. in i was in your seat would i ask for the same thing. >> i think that level that

transparency and holding us accountable is exactly i think consistent with all of our buy-in to what is working and what may not be, and the ability to bring us altogether to have this discussion, is exactly where i think that the progressive, smart, public safety driven criminal justice system in san francisco needs to go and i think that that is the track that we are on. >> so, i would like to add, on that, some language to it, and to add to your other amendments as part of this amendment of legislation. >> i welcome that. >> great. >> supervisor mar? >> sheriff, thank you, again for explaining the process, and i know that miss foto on behalf of the district attorney office gave an example of low level offenders that, or low level offenses that being considered but, not low level offenders in

this risk management evaluation and i am just wondering how we could be assured that we look at all of the information and not just the offense but also, the record of the offenders, if i was, and if i am understanding correctly what she was saying. >> no, and i think that opens the door for some interesting, analogies and i will give you an example. and these are i think, the representations by the da's office. and with what they are asking, if somebody is charged currently, with a simple possession, of drugs and the offense that the district attorney is now trumpeting for the state wide initiative to have lowered to a misdemeanor defense, this candidate for em would be ineligible for the electronic monitoring because a day, prior conviction that would have existed based on their concerns of this legislation. and so that, in there is an inherit contusion

-contradiction that we do not make a broad stroke of what this does and this is why that i am investing in the power of the da and the judicial system then to referee, and render the decision on whether someone should be on em or not. that is built into the legislation and it is built into the successful history of our departments, and administration of the electronic monitoring. >> thank you. >> i appreciate that and i think that that is, and i think that for me, that is a really important selling point to the extent that there is a difference of opinion whether it is because of the offense or the offender, and that the that each side has the ability to make their case before a judge who can then decide what the right out come is. >> but, one question that i wanted to just get clarity on something is that the district

attorney indicated the office indicated that they don't have an assessment tool for the purposes of dealing with the electronic monitoring cases? do you have an assessment tool that the sheriff department have an assessment tool? >> we do and i think that we should be careful the catch phrase assessment tools, because there are, it is terminology that often is broadly referred to but it is also vendor driven and we have tools that the adult probation uses as known as compass and the sheriff's department and the ones that we are expanding and the current tool that our em unit has been using, has everything to do with the very scrutinized criteria, of looking at history, cleft and ir and f.b.i. national data, and