deflection, diversion and alternative pretrial incarceration since 1976. what we are speaking about here is a reenvisioning of the jail work group. it has happened since 2016. we had taught what major occurrences that shaped our work volume on the caseload profile. as you can see from the slide, the number of releases have increased dramatically. go to the releases slide. there we go. our number of releases has increased dramatically from 2016 to 2018. there are two reasons for that that we can see. the psa implementation has increased the release right. the right in which the judges or judicial officers make a release decision. when presented with a case whether or not to release an individual. we are using the public safety assessment provided by the laura and jane arnold foundation.

on likelihood of making future scheduled court appearances and not being arrested on any charge we have seen a dramatic increase in pretrial releases. those at the arraignment face and prearrangement face. because of the different levels of supervision that are available to the judges at that prearrangement phase, we are specifically looking at case management in the most intensive management of supervision. that is where we are seeing that increase in releases. the p.s.a. tool also does not require an interview. we are seeing a lot more releases at the arraignment face previously, prior to the p.s.a. implementation, we would have to provide an interview and an assessment to the court after arraignment. we are seeing a lot more releases at arraignment. we are also seeing an increase this year, based on the humphrey decision. was a dramatic increase at the arraignment face and a shift in client profile.

we are dealing with individuals and working with our clients with higher needs in higher risk who are originally booked on some very serious offences. with the support of the sheriff and the board of supervisors, we were able to increase the number of case managers that are available to those clients. not only the number of case managers, with a number of hours that they are available to clients. into the evening, also over the weekend. we are also going to be available to release these individuals over the weekend. lessening the number of bed days that they will be staying in custody. we also provide for these clients more intensive needs, clients, regardless of the p.s.a. or the humphrey changes, they come onto our caseload with limited or separate connections to community services. our job as case managers is to provide quick connections to those community-based services.

there is long-term care in the community for these individuals beyond their time on the caseload. about 37% of those individuals on acm are homeless or unstable he housed. one of our main priorities is to focus on these individuals and get them into some more supportive housing. at times we are the one connection to community services that these individuals have. we provide warm meals, we provide stabilization housing, someone is waiting for a bed in detox but they have a couple days and eat a little bit more support. we can get them stabilization housing so they can successfully enter treatment and hopefully successfully completes treatment as well. we are finding that 85-90% of our clients on the caseload return for their future court appearances and 90% are not re arrested and charged with new criminal activity. so what we are doing is working. but we do have a higher caseload in a different profile of clients.

we are looking forward to continuing to working with those clients and supporting them through that time. >> i actually have a question about that chart. so the number of pretrial releases has gone up significantly. but the jail population has not gone down. >> yes. >> so some number of people are getting repeated pretrial releases over and over again. is that what is going on? >> potentially. we are caliph -- we are partnering with california policy left to do a deep dive into the data. we are doing an analysis from 2014, two years prior to the p.s.a., 22018, two years after the p.s.a. implementation. to take a look at what that driver is. i have a few theories about why those numbers seem a little incongruent. potentially we are looking at a wider universe of individuals

who are released prior to the p.s.a. we were able to document individuals who were released through our program. there are other methods of release for individuals from custody and that his bail, court o.r., the collaborative court. one thing we are working on his eight -- as an agency is coordinating with other service providers to see if we can get a wider universe of all of those releases those outcomes. and working with california policy lab to see exactly what that analysis is. >> thank you. >> can i direct to you to the slide? the one i have on the computer right now. it will give you an idea about the question that you asked. you asked why. even though we have so much increase in pretrial, why the count is remaining the same. if you look at this, you will see we have 468 between two years and then 17 and 18, there

is an additional 468 people that are out on pretrial diversion. but you also see a minus column there and you will see that released on bail, that has gone down by 17%. the pretrial releases went up by 11% and bail release went down by 17%. some of that is due to humphrey because humphrey allowed bail but the court has chosen to use pretrial with certificate -- certified case management. instead of having a bail hearing or going through that process. you also see that charges discharged or dismissed have gone up quite a bit. sixteen% and criminal matters adjudicated have gone down. and sentence served has gone down as well. if you look at this chart, hopefully it is not? to be cumbersome. it does give you an idea and that the main take away i have is that the pretrial diversion

has gone way up but bail as gone down. >> and a couple more points on the pretrial. we are definitely looking at other solutions. there are opportunities to hit that number 300 that you mentioned before. i think looking at repeat offenders, you know there are frequent flyers and pretrial walks people through the process up until their court date when they are dismissed. and we are connected now to community services. we do not have a retention component. it would be great if we could have someone who could follow up and make sure they lose that connection. we want to reinstate that connection as quickly as possible. there is opportunity for expanding a second look past arraignment and get more people to release at that time and bench warrant returns. they make decisions about releasing people at that point. the coordination piece is critical. we have not been that connected to the homelessness piece.

this week they upped our coordination at that level. there is also an opportunity to build an accountability toll. there is a jail countermeasure that you get. we could also put together a tool that looks at the fee from treat -- pretrial release and what decisions that judges are making and which judges are keeping more people in, who is releasing people, and create a much more transparent accountability system so we are all on the same page and looking at the same information. and we mentioned about the police report. we are working with bart raikes now. they are not able to give us police reports over the weekend. if someone gets arrested on a thursday night and gets processed on friday, they may spend a whole weekend in jail. we don't have access to the report. pretrial is unique. we are the only nonprofit community-based organization in this presentation. we maintain this piece of independence and neutrality which is critical and important

as we do our work. we are really there to give information to the judges so they can make the best possible decision about release. one thing we do have to look at going forward is the s.p. tenant registered -- legislation. as it is written, within five years, pretrial will be eliminated for a nonprofit organization. it is something we can explore to make sure these critical services stay in place. >> relative to that last slide, i did not understand the top number. if you could put that last slide back up. there we go. the estimated population without alternatives in incarceration is 1600 individuals higher than the actual jail population. i don't understand that. >> that is telling you that if we didn't have the alternative to incarceration, our jail population would be at 2912. that is as of 2018.

in 2016, it was 2237 because we only had 866 people out on pretrial and now we have 1583 out on pretrial. not just pretrial but also on alternatives. >> does that mean the total population of individuals who were charged and convicted or are awaiting sentencing has gone up between 2016 and 2018? >> it means that, to me, it means we are trying to figure all that out. >> i mean, that is a remarkable jump in two years. >> it is. >> because the jail population stayed flat but your individuals out of custody has doubled. >> right. >> that would mean, to me, you have ended up with twice the number of cases that are pending or have been adjudicated. >> first of all, most of the cases are pretrial. the people in jail are 89% in

pretrial jail for felonies. and because of that, these people wait a long time to go through the system. you will be hearing from the d.a. about that issue about getting through the court system they may stay on pretrial's a radar for quite some time. because of that, that is why you are seeing so many people getting out that our staying on the radar. also, the 1329 are people that are in jail and a lot of them have been in jail for very long time, as you saw from the earlier slides. very few people take up the majority of time. each year, we are going from 2016 to 2018. this is just a snapshot of one day. we sit -- we picked the same day two years apart to show the differences. >> i just noticed this because we get the jail census report. that number seems to have crept up by about 100 over the last few months. >> i would say the average daily

population is now up to 1,342 where the daily population was around 1,282. it has. >> speaker-01: what do you attribute that? >> i attribute that to more enforcement, perhaps. i believe there has been a lot of enforcement going on lately. particularly with people who are selling drugs. not necessarily people who have substance abuse problems themselves but are part of the drug selling group. and i would say that crimes against people are the highest that we have and property crimes you just had a hearing about property crimes. that is also part of it. >> this is our conundrum, isn't it we ? >> ok. >> so the d.a. is next. >> i was going to say good morning but i think it is

afternoon. good afternoon. i want to go over some thoughts here. i think there is a lot to unpack about what is going on in the city. concerning our jail population and the needs to increase custody capacity. i would like to begin by saying i don't think the point of today should be whether we need a new jail or not. i don't think that we are ready to answer that question today. i think there are many things that are occurring in the city, that for the next decade, are likely to alter the landscape. we are getting older as a city and we are getting wealthier in demographics. that would always have an impact in our criminal justice system. i think that we need to look to ensure that we stop trying to offer 20th century solutions to 21st century problems.

we haven't yet gone through a rigourous database, scientific analysis by unbiased third parties to look at this process. you know, we made a tremendous mistake in 2005. and actually earlier in and we took a 1990 solution and built a juvenile hall that was completed in 2005 that eventually was significantly over budget, like most government projects are. we spent about $45.6 million that converted to today's dollars would be roughly about $68 million. >> when it was finished, it turned out he didn't have hot water. >> and -- i have a better one for you. we built capacity for 150 beds and we were consistently -- the population is around 30-40 kids, which is a good thing because we had 100 beds that are vacant now

but the question is, the reality is the facility does not reflect the needs of today in the criminal justice system. as you have heard from many speakers, including the sheriff, the realities are the population is remaining flat for the last three years. charging rates have remained pretty constant. we are charging cases at a higher rate than we did many years ago. but the reality is in the night last three years, it has remained fairly constant. we implemented weekend rebooking and i believe that is fully implementable and will give us a reduction. what the police department was never brought on board in the early conversations and they were not ready because of that or found -- funded appropriately to deal with the weekend rebooking. consequently, that is an area that has not been fully implemented and you heard from our partners indicate that only

a fraction of the cases, 50% of us are being presented. if the department was appropriately resourced, that would increase. i am merely talking about the police department because in san francisco, it is the police department that drives our booking numbers. there are other partners but their numbers are relatively low that could eventually lead to a reduction. however, we still were nibbling around the edges. i think that if you look at the numbers according to the controller's office and the institute, the real drivers of the jail population are not necessarily the quick releases that are driving some numbers. the fact is we still have a lot of folks that are staying there for a short period of time but coming over and over and over

again. which is an indication, in my mind, of implicit failure because we are not providing the right level of resources here. we are talking about people who are mentally ill or have substance abuse and there is -- i don't think i need to bore you with this. you all know this. but jail settings are not a good place for people who are mentally ill or have substance abuse problems. no matter how you dress and dripped -- in jail, it is still a jail. it is a problem for the deputies because they present a problem with controlling them. it is a problem for other inmates in a problem for themselves. also, we have people who are spending way too long, whether it is pretrial or waiting to be transferred to a state facility that may be a health facility or a prison. we need to figure out how to deal with that. what we have done so far is we tinkered around the edges. i'm happy to say that as it was indicated earlier, bail reforms

are very much in forest and that will continue to have an impact and a lot of that we still don't know what it will be but it is likely to be a reduction in custody, mental health diversion will continue to be another factor that we have not fully explored. finally, my office was able to obtain, with the assistance of other partners here today, a $2 million grant with the macarthur foundation that is really intended to take a deep dive into our system and bring us to the 21st century so that we are looking at every component of the system in order to see where all the pressure points are that we can utilize in order to softly reduce our jail population and do so safely and then, after a two-year process, which by the way, will include bringing in experts from around the country and people

from the outside who have no axe to grind. they will need to look and bring everybody together and assess what the needs are and then a conversation as to what kind of facilities do we need in the future to be properly addressed. i just want to make sure we don't get into a place where we go back and make the same mistake that we made with juvenile hall. i think that we are a long way from having sufficient data. good and clean data to understand where we are. one of the major problems that we continue to have his incapacity to deal with the mentally ill in our city. we have to figure out a way to do so. many people that are being held over longer periods of time are because, unfortunately, they are mentally ill and they are not getting the services that they need. so my recommendation to you today would be that we take a pause and allow the macarthur grant to come in and help us. that we bring all the partners

together and do regular and periodic check ins and see after that process, what are the real needs? what are the needs for the next decade and then go from there. i'm not necessarily saying that san francisco will never need a new jail. i think just like facilities deteriorate. they need to be replaced. the question is, when do we need it? what do we need? what should it look like? and how do we provide services that are needed for all the populations that will never be serviced as well by a jail facility. i am here to have to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. questions? >> no questions. thank you for working on and getting that grant. i read the article in the chronicle this morning and i was very excited about it. it is exactly what we need and i really appreciate you going after that and choosing to use

it in this way. >> i want to give a shout out to farah anderson on my staff. she did all the heavy lifting. and to all the other partners. the reality is, our departments, everybody provided meaningful information. we believe that together, we can make a difference. >> i find it tremendous. it makes me sad you are not running for reelection. that are san francisco district attorney's office seeks grants to reduce the jail population. i think it speaks well to san francisco and to you. thank you, very much. >> three years ago, i was the first one saying we don't need a new jail yet. we haven't gotten to where we need to go. >> all right. thank you. next up we have s.f. taxpayers for public safety. >> thank you, everyone. >> that is a great name. >> it is a good name.

i will tell you its history one day. basically, i want to thank you for this. because a year and a half ago, we couldn't have even produced what we produced today. one of my major points is this meets -- this needs to continue at the level we have been working and include the new department on homelessness and supportive housing which did not exist at the time. it is not like we wanted them out. they just didn't exist. you just heard a lot of problem-solving that is now possible that was not possible for even a late 20th century discussion. a year and a half ago. the district attorney and others are correct that we need to move and the numbers are flat and we have a problem. houston, we have a problem. so i do think that this endeavour was over a decade late

so i would agree that a pause or a future investment -- i don't think it is a stop or even a pause. in a sense that there are immediate things that we know that can continue. that should come to the budget next year that have already been recommended. you heard them today. but the point is, we need to make it a whole approach, rather than the d.a. doing this, the p.d. doing this, et cetera. and the police need to be brought in closer. they were brought in but not close. there are some objective -- there is some objective resistance. our recommendation is that you need to take this on because the grp process is over as of today.

we need to keep this at the level of decision-making of our government, our public government. there is no commission that oversees this. we are strong. but you therefore need to keep it up until we find a way to legislate, at some point, which might be next year, to have this overview and public accountability. like all the departments here are saying is necessary. so that is one of the huge takeaways that taxpayers for public safety is advocating for. and others. critical to this overview and accountability that you must insist on and figure out a way, and i am saying to you, in this committee, we need to recommend this to the board and get some legislation about it. and we are willing to work with

you on that. but critical, that hasn't, in my opinion been raised significantly enough, no matter how you cut it, old, young, trams, sick, people of colour who are poor are in the jail. so if we don't dig down on that, we will still be talking -- i don't know. sixteen century solutions. so i really insist that we dig down on that and i have not read the proposal that the d.a. wonderfully received today, but that has to be a component of where we go and you have to take that on as a component. especially african-americans or black people. because no matter when you start looking at the statistics for san francisco or how many people we had in jail, 2300, 1700,

today's numbers, over 50% are african-american. that population disappears in san francisco. so what is this? when are we going to dig down deep and solve this? it is a national problem but we need to take it on as we have taken on other issues. so that's -- let's see. yes. thank you. [laughter] >> so we are saying, even though it is a dilemma, we don't want a new jail character nor do we want san francisco to transfer those 300 people out of the seventh floor and take them to alameda, i.e., santa rita.

that is worse than a disaster. we refuse. and we will really struggle for that not to happen. the last point is no matter what you recommend, we need appropriate treatment slots and an increase in them. substantially. secondly, we need appropriate supportive housing, including co-ops along a continuum and it is not just housing. it is not just supported housing it is appropriate housing for this population. for some of the populations that are also in the health system that are costing thousands and thousands of dollars and we are not paying attention to it. but they have to have a place to go. otherwise, we are building bridges to nowhere. bridges to nowhere and we are

using the jail as a shelter for people of color. not ok. thank you very much and we are very happy to work with you on any legislation if we keep going at this level. >> we have questions for you. >> so it may be just a question for the sheriff and the capital planning folks, but i have been quite concerned with seismic safety issues for a long time and i was involved in the issuance of reports about the safety of tall buildings downtown, of which a.t.p. bryant is not 240 feet tall so it was not. but we all know and the d.a. nose and the inmates know that that is a seismically extremely vulnerable building. i don't want to be a member of the board of supervisors or even a citizen of the city and county of san francisco and go through what happened in 19 -- 1906 when our -- >> fire department and police --

[laughter] >> i was actually talking about the collapse of the mental institution on peninsula or a nap of i guess it was. i can't remember. where hundreds of individuals were crushed to death. i'm not even coming at this from a position of like, what is the legal liability? but i do, every day that we don't have an earthquake and that that building is full of prisoners and city employees, is like another day that we are getting lucky. so i really want to understand, what is the plan for moving folks out of there who are in their -- who are in their? capital plan has money in 2026. it is eight years from now. $48 million for the demolition of that building. i don't know what the increased chances are of a major

earthquake happening in that eight-year period, that keeps me awake at night. >> good. it keeps us all up. we are with you on the tall buildings, et cetera. so i have suggestions, ok? open those safe injection sites asap. >> ok. i will give you jerry brown's cell phone number. >> we have taken those risks before. i know we have to deal with the liability question. we can. stop putting this off. number 2, deal with the bail question. you made those points. that can be hopefully resolved quickly. and 37, we don't know how many police officers are arresting homeless people who they are saying are drug dealers and are not. but what we do know is that 37% of pretrial is homeless. that is the closest we can get

to the number. that is almost 40% of the people in jail. do something. but those homeless people have to have a place to go. right now, some of them are in jail. >> believe me, when i look at the capitol plant and i see $120 million of c.o.p. for jails, a look at that and think it could be $120 million for housing. >> go for it. [laughter] >> i mean, we need leadership. the g.r.p. has set it up for this situation for you all. i wish the numbers were lower. if you look at what other successful programs have started doing, which you have heard today, the numbers would be lower and we would be getting down there. here we are. we decrease here and you fill it up here with other people. so hello, the leadership is

necessary. we are asking you to do it. we elected you to do it and you are right. that is a risk. having people die on the street from addiction instead of opening those sights is more dangerous than providing liability if someone dies at one of those sights. ok? get over that contradiction and solve the problem. there are contradictions around bail and pretrial. you have the authority of bringing us together to solve this problem. that will decrease the population and we will be able to empty the jail and we will be able to dive deeper as the d.a. has totally, correctly, suggested. can we do it yesterday or today or next monday? the answer is no.

>> vice vice chair ronen? >> i almost feel like this hearing should have been entitled why san franciscans need to vote for proposition c., as opposed to work group to re envision the jail report outcomes. because all of the immediate interventions that we need in order to prevent people from dying during a catastrophic earthquake require a stable source of revenue so that we can build the thousands of units of appropriate housing for people with mental illness and severe substance abuse in recovery programs. and every single time i ask the director of the department of homelessness for a specific intervention or threaten to legislate it, he tells me, you can do that but that will mean that will stop serving this other group of people because we don't have the revenue in our budget. so the community develops

proposition c. to create that revenue and i am incredibly disappointed that the mayor has not supported that. everyone has -- as conservative as some senators, they have come out in support of this. we need to pass it by a majority in order to use that money immediately. we need to pass it by two thirds majority. i'm about to get reprimanded. >> the city attorney is concerned. >> ok. i got reprimanded. >> the deputy city attorney -- the hearing, at this hearing, neither supervisors nor members of the public and he had the opportunity to speak can advocate for or against ballot measures. it is prohibited in city hall and in these arrangements. >> thank you. >> i'm glad i got it out before being reprimanded. it is what we need. let me say this -- [laughter] >> thank you for the deputy city attorney for doing his job.

[laughter] >> i did set you up. but i am glad you did. >> it is the only way to solve this problem. the amount we need is to the tune of $300 million a year. and what i also find incredibly frustrating is the fact that we don't have yet that clear number how in 2018 we don't even know how many mental health residential beds we need to service the population is extraordinary. i went on a visit to all of the programs serving people with mental health illnesses in san francisco in january and february of this year. i know other supervisors did something similar. everyone from the public defender, to the d.a., to judges , to the conservatory, to those doctors and nurses as emergency, psych, to the ones to

the acute ward and psych cap to the ones running community based health programs, et cetera, every single person said that the biggest thing that we can do to impact the amount of mentally ill people living in the street and in our jails is to build appropriate residential facilities. everyone. everyone agrees. guess what? we do not have enough revenue to do that right now. that is what we need to. that is what we need desperately it will make a huge impact on the amount of homeless individuals and individuals with mental illness in our jails and it is not rocket science. we know what we need to. so we have an ability to get it and i hope that that will happen >> thank you vice chair. >> i want to make one more comment based on supervisor ronen. thank you, very much. i do want to say that, for example, with hummingbird, the

beds are full. but we don't know how many of them are formerly incarcerated. because the need is so great, you still have to focus on those who go to jail. that will be people of color, primarily black. you have to dig that down. we will go to the health commission. we have already talked to people about that. even at st. mary, or wherever, when you talk to the director on homelessness and supportive housing, he said they were going to relate to that number and data. it is not there. we need that. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> sheriff hennessy? >> thank you, very much. this is my slides now. listening to everything, i have a couple of things to say that i think i need to reemphasize here

too. first of all, i am the elected champ -- sheriff of san francisco. one of my primary job is to keep the county jail. that is what it says in the administrative code. keeping the county jail means keeping people safe and keeping people engaged. i think sometimes that jail gets short shifted on the fact that all of the abundance and programs we have. i am not saying those programs replace programs outside in the community. but i am saying that we have a number -- and we have had for the last 30 years, innovative programs. my predecessor was a visionary and he saw to that. that was michael hennessey hennessy. no relation, again. what i want to say is that as a sheriff, the sheriff has very little effect on who comes to jail. i get who i get. and i have, right now, a lot of people in jail that are still in jail, almost three years after

we voted down a new facility. and $80 million. now, pardon me. the jail replacement project work group, i was very happy to be part of that. i too wanted to say, what can we do? i think i have worked extremely hard on that and trying to get the population down and working with others in this room who do have that capacity. this police department, the district attorney, the court, the public defender, those are people who have an impact on who is in jail. adult probation too. and these are law enforcement around the city. it is not just the police department. in his other agencies. they regularly come and leave people in our jail. making our jail more efficient in making sure that pretrial is working more quickly and making sure the d.a. is getting the

reports he needs to do the rebooking work quickly and working with the police department. these are all things we are focusing on to make sure that happens. in the meantime, we have integrated a number of programs in the jail for release and for social workers for making sure that we have people that are there in discharge planning. but still, the numbers don't lie we are still at 1300. today the count is 13,056 -- 1,356. what keeps me awake at night is the county jail. i appreciate the supervisors that extended invitations to everybody. i really appreciate the fact that many of you took me up on coming toward the jails to see what the seventh floor it looks like compared to the jail at san bruno. jails are a part of what we, as a city, are responsible for. it is part of what i am responsible for. i'm not the person who has the power to get the money. i'm not the person who has the

power to make sure that our people, they are housed appropriately. the jail is an embarrassment. it is an embarrassment to the city. the district attorney will be moving out next year out of 850 bryant street. adult probation will be moving out as well next year. we still don't have a plan to get everyone else out including the jail. so i am stuck between a rock and a hard place. a conundrum, as supervisor peskin said. a dilemma. the controller did a study in 2015 about continued population growth in the city. about additional police officers deployed in the city and a projected jail count of 1,235 to 1,402. we are headed towards that. we propose the following steps

to monitor the impact that the strategy. we were supposed to report the progress to the board of supervisors by december 2017. the board of supervisors was supposed to review the average daily population in september os because -- [laughter] >> the close captioning is over its. begin planning of county jail six to expedite the closure of county jail for in the event that the implemented strategies did not consistently reduce the daily population. we are here now. that is where we are. so i don't have a lot of options to close county jail for. with the concurrence of the mayor's office and the money, we could send people to alameda tomorrow and close county jail. but then they would be in alameda and it would not be the

same people. it would be our poor people it would be our black and brown people being shipped to alameda county. they would not have the programs even at county jail for, they have phone calls that are the lowest in the state. but also, we are planning on lowering them even more. we have child and parent visits. we have behavioural health, sheltered living pods. it is the department of public health that runs that. we have a lot of things going on there that they will not get at alameda county. here i am. immediately begin planning for a portion of replacement bids by renovating county jail six at san bruno. so i know that it is an expensive proposition. it will cost almost as much as a new jail would cost doing this the right way. but we have 18 months to do the planning. i need money to do the planning. the planning is probably around

$9 million to $12 million to just do the planning. and on the estimated time to begin construction would be late 2020. there is an option here of waiting to see how these other options everyone is talking about today at work. if we don't start planning now, we will have nothing. we will have nothing. just -- the planning takes 2-3 years. and the other idea, once again we talked about it already. was sending people to alameda county. bussing them back and forth every day. probably not everyday but often enough. i have to tell you, i have been in the sheriff's department for 14 years. for 40 years, we had an overcrowding problem and we had a consent decree back in the eighties and nineties. i do not want to fight people to get them over to alameda again.

we send 400 people to alameda county and it was horrendous. it was a fight every day with people who didn't want to go. so there you have it. that is what i am left with. i need the support of the legislators and the people who can provide the funds to at least get started on the planning. that is my compromise. i think we need to do something. i can't sit around and do nothing. meanwhile, i want to say something about the macarthur grant. i'm very happy that the city got the macarthur grant. i signed off on it and i'm one of the people who presented information for it. but you asked a question earlier about how many people have out of county zip codes or were from out of town. it is between 22 and 30%. but the other thing that maybe isn't apparent, is in the last

few years, 37% of people are coming to san francisco and getting arrested for the first time in san francisco. we can look at new san francisco numbers that have been given out and figure that out. if you ever get a san francisco number, policy the rest of your life in san francisco. we have 37% of people who are getting new san francisco numbers every year. that goes in line with the controller's. projections about people coming here and our population growing. so we go back to the macarthur report. please remember the population is not static. it is not the same person all the time that is in jail. it is not a group of people that are going to diminish because you do -- you have all these programs. but i understand and i do believe that we do need housing on the outside. we need to mental health facilities and there has to be a priority for some of those beds, at least if not more than half for people that are coming out

of jail. on the other hand, that is a ethical decision. you are thinking about getting people before they go to jail. so they don't even come to jail. that becomes looking at balancing. it is a hard question. once again, any questions for meekly. >> i want to thank you for coming to us today and working with the working group. i also do think that the working group has provided focus around this issue and the fact that we are housing so many homeless, mentally ill folks. folks struggling with substance addiction in the wrong place. so i think in the coming weeks, supervisors are probably going to be looking for ways to have an ongoing way to keep the city focused on this and checking in

on a regular basis and ensuring we are implementing some of the good ideas that are coming forward and have come forward over the last couple of years and still need to come forward. i am struck and i have been struck on my tour. supervisor ronen discussed her tour on how much great stuff is happening in these places and pilot projects an interesting and innovative things happening, but that the city remains, it seems to me, insufficiently focused on getting real care for the population. i am not even entirely sure who in the city thinks bureaucracy is responsible for making this happen. when i cannot identify a person who is responsible for making something happen, and makes me doubtful about whether that thing will happen. so that is not your problem. you did not do that to us. but i am increasingly feeling -- >> i am happy to continue to work with a reformulated g.r.p. that is a very good idea.

we should be looking at this. i want to put a pitch in for justice. our data collection, data analysis, justice has just reset under the department of telecommunications and i think that it has a good future. it certainly will need your budgetary support to make it work and to make sure that all the criminal justice factors, partners, as well as inviting in h.s.a. and d.p.h. and the department of homeless and supportive housing, if you really want to do a good job, i think that making justice by priority, when it comes around budget time, and making sure that we are -- the departments are properly funded in our i.t. areas, that would be very helpful. many of the statistics i presented were from our jms system. a lot of that, we are pulling manually. we are trying to get the best. there is a margin of error.

there is no doubt about that. it is very, very close for the major ones that we presented. i think that we need to drill down on that as well. >> you remain shocking to me how on data savvy the city remains in many areas where we need to be setting an example. >> i would also get -- data s.f. has been very helpful to us in a lot of ways. but not in this particular arena but they are definitely a group that should be looked at as well to help. >> if i could follow up on your excellent point. i was wondering if we could bring the interim director back up. thank you. >> i know you are taking on a new role very recently. but when i -- dealing with the same frustration as supervisors, we asked jeff kaczynski about

the issue of mentally ill and trying to figure out how to solve it. he tells me that is not his job and that is the job of the department of public health. when i have gone to you and the former director and asked about it, she says she doesn't have access to beds. that the department of public health used to have access to hundreds of beds and that you had discretion to work with about where to send people based on the type of illness that they are facing. and that when the department of homelessness and supportive housing was created, all of those beds were taking out of your control. so the right hand is not talking to the left here and i completely agree with supervisors that the abdication of responsibility for the numbey supervisor claims is the number 1 issue, there is not a point person in the city to work

with. i want to hear your perspective on this because it is a major problem. >> yeah. a big conversation, absolutely. a number of elements to do with this and this is something we do talk about regularly and i talked to jeff kaczynski constantly on similar items. so there is a split between the responsibility for the clinical care systems that are under d.p.h. and the homeless department services in the organization chart. we are constantly looking for ways that we can smooth out and interconnect the systems across the department. a couple of things that we are working on, another piece of this is the human services agency. which is getting people connected to a lot of the benefits that are also key support for what this population needs to be successful. a couple of big things that we

are working on collectively at the city level, one of them is the whole person care program. that is a grant program that funds the city to do what you have described. is to create the systems, processes and governance so that we are not approaching things from a department perspective. we are approaching them from a perspective of the person and what the city needs to do to coordinate to provide support to that person. so the whole person care project is underway. we are funded through the medi-cal 1115 waiver to do that program. there are funds in the program that go to the department of public health and the homeless department. but all of that funding is integrated. one of the things that that is allowing us to do is create a data platform that will allow us to share data seamlessly across

those agencies. so the r.f.p. for that is going out in the fiscal year. it is in progress of development that is one of the big efforts where we have an opportunity to solve some of these issues of silo departments. that is one of the ways we talk about it within d.p.h. in one of the ways we talk about it across the city. when that is in place, we will be able to have service providers have access to data coming from throughout the system of care and have quick information about who to contact if you have a client that is flagged in the homeless department or the public health department. we will be able to access each other and make sure we are coordinating care. that is one of the efforts. we also did, adjust within the last six weeks -- six weeks or so, a joint retreat between the two departments to kind of talk through some of these issues of

connection. how we are prioritizing services , and i think we are definitely getting closer on that and trying to -- >> is there a point person here that we are looking for? >> a point person for all aspects? i am not sure. >> my constituents wake up every day and walk out onto the street and they see, on their way to their workplaces, dozens and dozens and dozens of people who know civilized government would allow to be drifting in that way the city has continually failed to address that and it is getting worse. so i don't want to beat up on you, but i think that this is not going to get addressed until and unless there is a person who is responsible for making measurable progress on this problem, month after month, year after year.

i remain unconvinced that that kind of organization is set up. there's a lot of good people talking to a lot of other good people about a lot of good programs but i don't see a way to measure progress on that problem over time. i don't see accountability. >> understood. i am more than happy to continue having that conversation with the members of the board of supervisors about how we can do better from health department perspectives and our accountability does not stop at the borders of our department. >> supervisor peskin? >> to supervisor ronen's earlier question, there are two things that are true. we all embrace the notion of breaking down silos and creating a department of homeless and supportive housing and taking these desperate functions that try to talk to each other but didn't do it well enough, because everyone lives their lives at their desk and does their thing. and we all embrace that.

but it's not just that d.p.h. and d.s.a., the department of housing homelessness and supportive housing, whatever those initials are, aren't working together. it is also that there are larger systemic problems. we actually have a huge drop-off in the number of stabilization beds that the city has, regardless of whether they are at d.p.h. or whether they are in the kaczynski shop. and we found this out. these are actually issues that go to a total other part of the government because they were cannibalized by the academy of art and there are a million different stories. but thank you to dennis, he initiated litigation. i remember that supervisor weiner was supported -- supporting a hearing and we had the hot team. kelly hero moto was here and she said she had 100 stabilization

beds. i scratch my head and said the last time i was on the board of supervisors, didn't you have close to 400? the answer was he asked, about 300 of them had been cannibalized. if you are in a -- if you are a hotel owner and you can lease those for $1,500 a month or mass release them to the safety, which one would you choose? those are things that -- this has got to be a working group of a number of different people who have that commitment over a number of different areas. not just one person, you know,? >> thank you, supervisor peskin. thank you director waggoner. to the sheriff's point, i want to see the work of the working group continue and it is very hard for me to imagine creating 300 new beds in a prison when we need, very clearly, and that we

are hearing from folks at ss general and throughout s.f. public health department, several -- and probably an equivalent new number of long-term care beds. some of those would be serving the same population and may be -- may be keeping them out of jail. i have a lot of trouble, not to reference supervisor ronen's earlier conversation about resources and the need for them, but i have a hard time imagining how we can move forward with that project without significant additional resources, and yet, i also don't think -- i have deep anxiety and concern having visited cj for about the workers at the city and -- and the city employees who we are sending in their day after day, as well as the prisoners themselves who are being kept their -- were being

kept there peerk this conversation has gone for several years. we have to have some kind of endpoint and explanation to our employees. and also to people who may sue us and to prisoners about how we are getting to something better and an unending conversation is not acceptable to me either. i just want to foreshadow for folks who may be here for item for, it is highly likely that we can't take that up yet but it is highly likely that we'll get continue to. there will be opportunity for comment on it but it is likely that item for, in my view, will be getting continue to. i will be asking for a motion to do that when the time comes. for now, if there are no further comments and questions, we should take public comment. so if you have public comment, line up over there