auto burglar who targeted strictly tourists, and he is in prison. that's the end of my presentation. i'm happy to take any questions. >> the tourist piece, how does one target the tourists? is it because of the rental cars? and if it's the rental cars, i thought we took care some of that by having them remove the bigger count that indicated they were rental cars. so how are people targeting it? is it just the area where they know they're going to be? is can it be recognized as a rental car? >> i think it's the fact that tourists and visitors are more likely to have valuable goods in their cars. image you're on your way to the -- imagine you're on the way to airport and you have everything

you just bought at your amazing trip to union scare. you don't have anything to stash it. you park at fisherman's wharf to get in the last sightseeing for the day, and those people know they're likely to have goods in their car and where they're likely to go. i think that's where the park smart campaign has been so effective, because it's been an awareness campaign. the idea of providing for opportunities for people to safely store their goods, so i know some hotels are making sure to communicate to their guests that they can leave their stuff there to the extent that there are opportunities to provide storage for tourists in tourists locations. that could be another good idea. but i think it really is people have stuff in their cars and residents know not to and they may not have the ability to get the stuff out. >> so you're saying they have things and it's still visible.

>> it's my understanding that goods are often visible and then often people are able to get into the trucks of cars as well. >> so one of the things that -- at least my residents in district 7 would point out, even though we're arresting people that do these crimes, very few get prosecuted? >> our prosecution rate is 80%. when arrests are made, 80% of the time, the individuals are prosecuted. i think that's successful. as i highlighted in both of my example and the chief highlighted as well, to the extent we can build up good investigations through the close collaborations of our offices. we can have more effective prosecutions and ultimately get

sentences that better match the nature of the crimes. >> about a year and a half ago or two years, maybe, in district 7, i started doing this pilot camera program in which residents could apply for fundi funding. the results of that pilot were that rather than just doing one camera at a time, it's been a neighborhood effort. has that be effective at all? >> i don't know. but i think that's a great thing that we're going to be looking at as new neighborhoods deploy sort of comprehensive camera interventions to look at see whether crime is affected by that. i know if we're looking at the implementation of the parking lot refurbishments, it's looking like we're seeing -- we have not

had enough time for it to be significant, but it looks promising to me, but we can look at that camera as well. >> that would be great. also, the police department, if both departments could look at it together and see if it's effective because the demand for more of this effort in my district is growing. they say, oh, i heard about it. we want to do it in our neighbor. it seems like it's been effective to those neighborhoods that have done it. now there's been interests citywide to maybe expand this pilot program into a citywide effort. >> i have a question. you said out of the arrests or the cases that are presented to you from the police department, you get a stack of cases, you decide what elements of the crime have been met, you say you

file 80% of those cases. is that correct? >> we prosecute 80%. we file charges on 70%. >> so you're prosecuting 80% -- >> that's specific to auto burglar. i think it's comparable for property crime, but i'm happy to send you the specifics. >> do you have the outcome of the issues? whether or not they were resolved in pre-trial diversion or what goes along with those cases? do you have that? >> it depends. then we're dependent on the court system that is old and hard to get data from. supervisor yee knows. they're based on an analysis by the court.

we know our felony conviction rate is 80%, but the specific details of the sentences require using a lot of data from the court's management system. >> any other questions? >> i may have a few. this is for both, possibly the police department and district attorney's office and even more. maybe mike can come back up. to the point of the cameras, i got a great email last night from captain hart in engleside, who is a big -- >> i was going to read that. [ laughter ] >> well, who had, you know -- there had been a package thief on diamond street, and two different sets of neighbors happened to both have cameras, and there was some in connection

-- next-door activity. and with the help of neighbors, captain hart was able to get this person. i think for my constituents who feel nothing is going to happen with property crime and for packages stolen, good luck. they got their stuff back. and i presume this person will be prosecuted. i think that's a great success story. it's important to acknowledge success. i also got an email this week from a woman who lives on chenary street. she reported the fifth car break-in at her home -- or fifth break-in in her car outside her home in 12 months. over $2,000 of costs to her, who knows about how much insurance. that seems like less success. to me, this data seems very mixed. >> yeah. >> particularly at where i look at where property crime is

getting concentrated and we're not having success and i'm getting notice from my constituents, district 8 is not happen with with the state of property crime in san francisco right now. as supervisor ronen was emphasizing, it doesn't seem like an admission, at least, in stations covered by. that i'm course about engleside but we've seen success that we want to see. that's not, i think, for lack of trying or effort on their part. i do want to thank the captain for your responsiveness and for your help on lots of issues. but i also do think that my office in particular is putting a ton of requests in for help around various things, and i do think in general the combination of taking primary responsibility for managing our street population and dealing with property crime and having responsibility for violent crime that happens in the city is a

big, huge burden. all of that being said, we're not making progress, it seems like. and so, i guess, you know, as we go forward and gather more data and try more things, supervisor ronen and i are going to be looking for progress because where we are now is unacceptable. so one question i have is, you know, i think a lot of folks feel that we're a regional draw for property crime, that folks are coming into san francisco to commit crimes for whatever reason. either because they believe they're not going to get caught or they plif -- believe they're not going to get prosecuted or it's not going to be as severe as other places. what percentage of the property crimes are being committed from people coming in from outside of san francisco? >> i don't know an exact percentage. that's probably something we could work on with the burglary unit that does the city work

now. they bring information in from arrests. that's probably something we could provide you on the next one. if you want it before then, that's something -- >> i think it's important. there's a whole bunch of -- you know, we say all sorts of things, that's a pretty incendiary thing to start throwing around, but if it's true, i think we need to know it and think about crafting stat -- strategies. >> one of the things i would like to comment on, we do like to see -- san francisco is definitely a city that attracts that, but through lot of our serial crime investigations, we're seeing other cities affected by this. that's why we're taking a centralized approach. it's more of a bay area strategy, working with our partners. last friday it was up in pittsburg, california, where the suspect was arrested.

they had ties there. they used to live here, families lived here, for some reason they moved out, and they've come back. that's something we're looking as well. >> another question i have is about where we're getting data about how much crime is happening. is this based on someone going down to the station and reporting their bike thefts or is there other ways we're fining out it's happened. >> >> crime data warehouse, when the report gets done, it gets in the data dump. and then we have part of our it and crime analysis unit, they work on pulling the data and analyzing it. we'll work with the analyst at the district attorney's office. >> it depends on victims

reporting their crime? >> correct. >> and for things like bike theft -- i've had my bike stolen many times and haven't reported it. more car break-ins, i've had my car broken in twice. shouldn't be exemplifying that behavior. this is long before i thought about running for board of supervisors. i've had my car broken in and did not report it and i'm not part of the data, but if it doesn't make sense for there to be an app or super easy way in order to track this stuff better for people to report that they've had their bike stolen or that they've had a car break-in. >> you're 100% right. that's a lot of the factors we look at. a lot of stations promote reporting because that's what we look at as far as staffing concerns as well. the department has an online reporting system. they don't have to know what

station and weight. if you're in a busier district, you can go online. the captains push that out. you can go online and make a report. that gets dumped into data warehouse as well just like you were reporting to a police officer. i like the app idea. >> i like the app idea. what do we need to do to make that happen. >> getting it reported is the bottom thing. touching on the cameras real quick, even if it's a hot spot, we've had so much from an egress area. they go out and canvas, and we've made hundreds of cases over just the investigators going out and seeing the car come in. maybe it wasn't an area that had a camera but through working with the da and doing a canvas, we've made a lot of cases with that. we can't stress enough the whole camera thing, and we promote

that a lot. >> one more. my last one relates. i was pleased to see somewhere in there focused on prolific offenders. even for that person who was put away for four years in state prison, i will be course to see what happens with that person in year five and if they're back committing crimes or not. this relates to our conversations we'll be having with the jails. are you finding interesting data about interventions that can sort of address the problem around these prolific offenders? >> we just had a recent case that was in the news with the subject. i think the community did a great job in expressing how this person was affecting multiple communities in san francisco. i think it really has to be a team approach.

i think as a department and as a city, we're all for giving people the benefit of the doubt in some situations, but when we start to see eight, nine, 10 cases, the patterns are there to support that this is a chronic offender, that they're not going to learn. in that recent case, the adult probation did a great job saying through their interview, they didn't see a person that was going to -- if we put them on probation, that they were going to stop doing what they were doing. we've had the recent case at alamo square. we've had an officer run over that has not been back to work. so we see some violent activity related to a lot of the chronic offenders that really needs to be dealt with. we're not seeing a pattern of change there. >> all right. >> i just want to make sure that we give the public a chance. i forget all about it. there's some people from the public that might want to make public comments. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> with that, we will take public comment. i should say a few things about public comment. speakers will have two minutes. please state your first name and last name clearly and speak directly into the microphone. no applause or booing is permitted. in the interest of time, speakers are encouraged to avoid repetition of previous statements. and we like it if folks can line up there and come forward. so let's take some public comment. and seeing none. really? [ laughter ] >> michael lyon. >> obviously, it's very

infuriating to see the windows on your car in pieces all over the street or to have your bicycle stolen, but let's try to get some perspective about whatwha what's happening here. i wanted to quote from a pugh research center report from january 30th, 2018. five facts about crime in the united states. number one, violent crime in the united states has fallen sharply over the last quarter century. two, property crime has decreased significantly over the long-term. three, public perception of crime is at odds with the actual data. number four there's large geographic variations in the crime rates, although san francisco or the bay area is not listed as either an outlier high or low. and, five, most crimes are not

reported to the police, and most reported crimes are not solved. i just want to get some perspective because you listen to this whole hearing, and you get the impression that there's this huge crime wave going on. that's not true. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who like to speak? if not, i'm going to close public comment. oh, come on up. public comment didn't really close there. >> like, one quick question. can the people who sell bikes and the people who presently own bikes, could they attach serial numbers to the bikes? that could be of some help. also, is there a mechanical means other than using extensive man hours, for instance, license plate readers, can those work

with paper plates? can they react to those and send in an alert to the police department? also, is there any way to -- people going into cars and stealing packages, can't you use the existing -- like the basin and the water pump in vehicles, to just use a staining device, just one those tubes through the vents and have the magnets within the door frame when the doors open? i think in finland they're actually doing something along these lines but not with a non-toxic dye but with a kind of fluid that has some kind of odor so it. yeah, that way you may not even have to prosecute them or

whatever. it will just be a dye that stains their hair and skin for a number of days. >> thank you. are there -- oh, there is public comment. >> jackie barshack. i'm opposed to the hiring of more police officers. this actually is just a political act because this is payback to the poa for supporting london breed's mayoral election. i see that nobody that i know who has been a victim of any of the crimes that were spoken about, auto burglary, theft, bike theft, who would call the police? there's nobody that i know who would actually call the police because it is a total waste of

time. the police never investigate these crimes. for them, it is too petty anyway. so i would like to know why there is this -- why the police have been given an audience today to present why they should be increasing in their numbers. also, i would like to question supervisor yee's ordinance that would limit the number of police officers as part of the sf pd that the proportional to the number of citizens in san francisco. i would like to have the supervisor speak to that. >> san francisco, we need less cops.

we don't need more cops. it might curb the problem. it is a bit of a problem, but it's not the main problem. homelessness, gentrification, disparity, those are the problems. we need less cops and use the money for no jail and use the money to fund props -- problems. i'm urging you to not hire more cops. >> thank you. next speaker. hi. i would like to state for the record that i am an intern and the views i express are my own and only my own. i agree with the former speakers that i do not think that the city should be hiring more cops, and i would also like to answer the question as i was homeless for six years on the streets of

san francisco. the reason for crime or the crime drivers, however the other main speakers put it, is usually out of being desperate. they usually commit auto burglars or crimes that involve larceny for food or money to take care of themselves or even their drug habit. i've also been on the other side of where i've had my own things robbed from me, even when i was hopeless. i was robbed when i would sleep on the street. someone would come up to me and take my things. so i think -- i know this is the public and safety committee, but i think this committee and the board of supervisors in general should also focus on the general welfare of the citizens. >> more speakers?

seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor yee? >> i will go ahead and wrap it up from my perspective. i want to thank both departments for presenting today. it seems like at least been some improvement, and i want to acknowledge that. i also want to say that when there's -- the twin peaks situation, that's part of your district also. it went from -- i forget how many -- several thousand car break-ins a day. i'm exaggerating, but there's a lot of them up there. when we deployed the cameras and the officers that are up there

now, it's basically zero. that's what you want to hear, a positive story, that is a positive story. in fact, captain -- there's three i have to remember. captain bailey made the decision to keep that up because it was -- the data was so strong that it indicated that it was affective. the camera piece, i'm hoping to hear more about it. so i'm looking forward to hearing more as the police department deploys the other eight stations, whether or not it's going to be effective for them or not. the more we see in terms of effectiveness, the more i would personally, as a supervisor, want to support that effort.

that's where i leave it for today. thank you once again and thank you for the public comments. >> thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor stefani. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues today for holding this hearing and supervisor yee for working on this. thank you deputy scott and redman and maria. my whole point in calling this hearing is to find out what's working, what's not, what we can do better. i think it's a multipronged approach to our property crime divisions. i think of it in terms of do we have enough resources and what are those resources doing? we have our plain-clothed officers, our beat cops that are effective in district 2. park smart has been wonderful. we've rolled that out in district 2. we've had a drop in car break-ins in district 2. and the security camera registry

program started by our da is amazing. i think the more we let people know that those type of resources exist, the better. and then, of course, the incredible collaboration between our da's office. i look forward to seeing what we can do to invest in the departments so we're making a difference on our property crime levels. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor stefani. are the desires of the sponsors that we keep it in committee and revisit it at some point in time or should we have it filed? >> why don't we keep it open to the call of the chair. there's going to be annual reports. >> all right. so does one of the members want to make that motion?

>> so moved. >> all right. then we'll, without objection, continue this to the call of the chair. >> thank you. >> thanks, everyone. mr. clerk, please call our next item. agenda item no. three, hearing to discuss updates from the work group to re-envision the jail project; >> i would say as people are leaving that we have overflow in the chamber.

so simmer down, everyone. i would like to start this hearing by thanking the 37 members of the jail replacement project working group, especially the co-chairs, sheriff vickie hennessy and the former co-chair barbara garcia for their commitment in addressing one of the most challenging items facing this

board. i know i'm stepping into a conversation that's been going on for a number of years. i'm also aware that three years ago, this body rejected money to build a new jail. >> 80 million. >> 80 million. 80 million. thank you. to embark instead on a path in pursuit of alternatives. in doing so, we, as a city, have said our money and time is better spent elsewhere, like on expanded mental health services, more residential treatment and acute psych beds, reforming the broken bail system. we agree it's not acceptable that people are stuck in our jails waiting on average for 120 days waiting placement in a residential treatment bed. african-americans make up 53% of the jail population, which is over 10 times san francisco's non-incarcerated african-american population. we rejected the status quo of

recidivism that is clogging our jails of people who are sick and in need of intervention. as someone who spends every day thinking about what we can do to end the vicious process that moves our sick from the sidewalks to jail and combinations over and over again, i also believe we can do better, but what is it going to take to get there and what will become of the over 300 individuals in our custody who are currently housed in a seismically unsafe, dilapidated building where living conditions are deteriorating on a daily basis. how can we reduce our jail population and reform our criminal justice system to provide alternatives and opportunities. these are some of the questions that this working group has been tasked with answering. it's been over one year since the jrp reported the board of supervisors on their findings and listed items we must take to get on track to close county

jail 4. where are we now? what have we accomplished on that to-do list? if we haven't accomplished it, what is stopping us? and where do we go next? i called today's hearing to get answers to these questions because doing nothing is an option. we have an obligation to take action and develop a plan moving forward. i look forward to hearing from the jrp group on what work we have left to do. representing the working group is sheriff vickie hennessy and greg wagner and roama guy for public safety. they're joined by others. i want to thank my aid, erin mundy, for countless hours preparing this hearing. i will give the floor to sheriff

hennessy to begin the presentation. >> good morning, thank you. that took care of my first slide. so we can move on from there. there we go. so you talked about the working group. you talked about all the work we did. you asked some very good questions. i would say to you it's almost two years since we made that first presentation, in september of 2016. i just wanted to correct that. so you already talked about this, but i'm just going to go through it very carefully and swiftly. mental health, the highlights of the work group recommendations were around mental health and community alternatives to jail, substance abuse, community treatment alternatives to jail, low-income housing, substance abuse and medical treatment and even those exiting the jail. reduction of racial disparity of those in jail, reduction of youth in jail, more efficient processing of those arrested in order to help them get out of jail more quickly if they are

going to be released. earlier representation by the public defender prior to a defendant's first court appearance and better staffing for a better pre-trial diversion process. so the first person i have here is the mayor's office. kelly kirkpatrick. she's going to talk about the investments the city has made financially. >> back in fiscal year 16-17 when the work group was convened, the budget office conducted a survey of existing spending and justice related and broader kind of service areas that relate to the justice-involved population. back in fiscal year 16-17, we looked at services directly targeted at the justice-involved population, including collaborative courts, pretrial services, just to get a basis of how much we spend.

at this time, we were spending about $120 million per year on targeted justice-involved participation investments. we did a survey for the general population that would also help support those that could be justice involved, including $300 million that year in housing, $275 million on homelessness services, and $370 million in that budget for behavioral health treatment services for nearly a billion dollars worth of those broad service buckets. since then, we have submitted two budgets to the board and just wanted to highlight some very specific diversion spending that we did following up the recommendations of the work group. there's at least eight to a dozen very specific programs that i can -- that i would like to highlight, including weekend rebooking and the da's office. that's the total of the 18.5 million at the top. pre-trial release unit, the public defender's office.

investments and pre-trial diversion project. the behavioral health navigation center, hummingbird place, and additional investments in electronic monitoring. since then, within the larger buckets, broad spending, the city has invested in the two-year budget over -- excuse me. these units include 100% to 120 prosecute ami. additional investment over the homelessness services have included housing support, housing vouchers, shelter beds, new navigation centers, access points for service connection, and, finally, growth in spending since that last survey and behavioral health services for program including harm reduction center and the department of public health will outline some of those specific investments,

but i wanted to get a highlight of how much money we spend in these areas and the investment we've made in the work groups to serve these programs. >> thank you. who is next? greg wagner? >> good morning, chair and members of the committee. greg wagner, acting director of the public health. thanks for the hearing. i want to thank my co-chairs for all the work that's gone into this hearing and this process. so as you mentioned, supervisor mannedalman and the sheriff, one of the themes of this core and process and recommendations, there was a need for increasing behavioral health services so that we can get people into an appropriate care setting where they belong rather than occupying a jail bed, which is, of course, good for their health

outcomes and for driving down the jail population. a number of the recommendations were focused on adding capacity to our system. there are a few listed here. in the prior report, we committed to adding 15 behavioral health beds at hummingbird place. as you know, the program sis up and running. the 15 beds are in use. the respite beds, they're open and in use. another recommendation was to fund 30-plus conservatorship beds. that resulted in 40 dph beds, a little more than the recommended 30 plus at the healing center in st. marys. all of those are filled. also, the prop 47 funds added five detox beds. missing from this slide is an additional 32 residential

treatment beds at salvation army, and those beds are also in use. one of the other recommendations was for a 47-bed psychiatric respite program at zuckerburg general. that program is under development. the trick on that one is that the capital costs are funded by the bond program to renovate building five on the campus. so there's a sequence of construction projects that need to occur before that is ready to be brought online. we are currently, because of the timeline required enabling projects, taking a look at whether or not there are alternative locations we could use that would bring those beds online faster on the current schedule, they would be timed for fiscal year 20-21. so we would like to see if we could make that happen sooner. >> so in terms of what some of these interventions have resulted in for data, we have on

this slide some metrics that were used in the original report on the number of people that are awaiting placement in various types of behavioral health settings. so we have in each of these m metrics which is a baseline included in the report two years ago and then an update for fiscal year 17-18. so jail beds are occupied by those waiting for county-funded locked facilities. an example of that would be the st. marys healing center beds that we opened. in the original report, that was 4,025 bed days. in 17-18, that's down to 1,743. on waiting to transfer to residential health, 10,732 and the update for 17-18 is 6,523

days. it's still work that needs to be done between public health and our partners. >> mr. wagner, can i ask you a question? did you do analysis of how many additional beds it would take to eliminate the bed days in jail? >> yeah. so, as always with behavioral health there's not a simple answer for that one. so there are a number of things going on with the metrics. one of the things we have come across as part of this process that is a follow-through that we need to do is on these met tribes, there are a -- metrics, there are a number of things that can cause a wait for individuals. it could be an issue in resolving the person's case from a legal perspective. it could be that everything is resolved and they truly are ready to go to a bed, but there's not one available for x

number of days. one of the things we need to do is work through the data to really parse out what is driving those timelines and which types of beds in the case where it's availability of a bed, what type of bed is that, and what is the cause of that delay. so we need to look at all of those factors, and for the beds that are a delay, what is in the system of care? where is the bottleneck that's not causing us to make that bed available as quickly as possible. >> and you're looking at that now? >> absolutely. >> when do you expect that data to be available? >> we're actively working toward that. we're working toward the budget process to evaluate where the gaps in the system are. we need to remove those bottlenecks. that's the target to work through that this spring. >> okay. >> do you have data on what the overlap of -- i mean, there's population of folks waiting for services or waiting for drug

treatment. there's also people committing crimes, also going to general, also, you know, a lot going on with them. how multiple services are used. they're on lots of lists and costing a lot of money in lots of way. do you have data on what the list is that you're tracking? that seems like an intervention. i mean, roughly, this is 15,000 bed days if you cleared out the folks who are waiting for treatment or behavioral health services, but there's another population of people who probably you don't have listed as waiting for treatment because they're just there because they were booked for a crime. they will be out tomorrow or the next day, but they are taking up beds, and they are on other lists of the services they're using. do you have a sense of how many services there are? >> we do. we can certainly provide you various aspects of that data, but i think that goes to the point. we'll give you a couple of data

points we have directly related to these interventions from the task force, but that goes to the issue of, as you say, there's a large number of individuals that are interacting with behavioral health and other health services. they have a point of time when they're in the criminal justice system. they're back. the role is both to organize our system of care so that we're creating an exit from jail but that also we're intervening to prevent people from getting back into the criminal justice system. so if you look at, for example, our county-funded locked facilities as a snapshot, about 50% of people in those programs are with a history of being in the health record also.

if you go back further in time, that gets bigger. so we really do need to track it from the exits from the jail but how do we align the behavioral health programs to prevent those who are high probability candidates to end up back in the criminal justice system. >> insofar as we could get a better handle on that -- i mean, you may have a perfectly great handle on it, but i would the course on what the number of people we say got them and off the merry go round, what that number of bed days would look like. >> sure. nothing is perfect when it comes to this type of data, we can prepare some statistics on that and follow-up on that conversation. >> thank you. >> so continuing on, there is another metric on here which is related to the state-funded beds. so those are people waiting

transferred to state-funded beds. that number has not changed significantly. that's at 3,300 till. that's an element that's outside of our direct control since it's the state system. that's a longer conversation between the city and the state in terms of how we improve the flow between entities moving there. i will leave it at that. i'm happy to answer more questions now or as we get further into the hearing. >> i think the controller may be up next. >> good morning. so our office did an analysis back in 2016 -- >> are you michael pearlstein? >> i am michael pearlstein. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> the average daily poppings -- options of san francisco county

jails needs to be at -- to close three and four. for the last fiscal year, it dropped to 2,082. there's a projection that the peak jail population would be just over -- so it's still above the threshold we would need to close the county jails. 1,064 would be the lowest level since 1980, for what that's worth. so a couple of the main takeaways from our analysis. there have been not been changes from the jail analysis from two years ago. as was the case then, it's a very small portion of the population that stays in jail for a long time and takes up the majority of the bed days. we'll take a look at that on the next slide. the number of annual bed days

reduced in 2016 was about 83,000 per year in order to close the jail, and that number has also dropped off significantly. it's now just under 80,000. as i mentioned before, the peak population of the last year was in line with our projections from a couple of years ago. this is a comparison of the share of bed days taken up by long-stay inmates versus short-stay. there's not been significant changes. the blue is the calendar 2015 analysis, and the orange is this year. the only major change is the higher share of the population of san francisco county jails is staying in for one day or less, but that has not translated into many other changes in the rest of the populations. and finally, as you will note, the jail population is predominantly young and black. this is a graph of the percentage of the population that falls under each age and

ethnicity category. that's it for me. >> all right. thank you, mr. pearlstein. >> thank you. >> i butchered your name once. >> chasea boudean from the public defender. we appreciate the opportunity to share the progress our office has made since 2016 and also our perspective on some of the changes to the broader criminal justice landscape since the working group convened back in 2016. first, within our office, we have launched a bail unit dedicated primarily to advocating for reduced bail and release on non-monetary conditions prior to trial. that unit now files over 800 motions per year and has a success rate of approximately 40%, meaning the bail motions

either result in the release of the person that they're advocating on behalf of or a reduction in bail or facilitate a settlement in the case and expedite a resolution and moving people out of the jail. the other thing we've started more recently than the bail unit is a pre-trial release unit which focuses on providing representation to people who have been arrested and booked into jail but not yet formally charged. and we've partnered with the california policy lab out of the u-cal berkley. on an annualized basis, 11,200 jail bed days were saved per year. that's with the staffing of two attorneys in the unit. we're not visiting anywhere near

all of the people who are booked into jail. there's significant opportunities here for expanding those services and then decreasing the number of jail bed days occupied by people who are in for just a short period of time. in addition to those projects, our office has been involved in a wide range of impact litigation around money bail issues. the lian case spending before the california supreme court now is a case by the name of lynn ray humphrey. we won a groundbreaking opinion from the court of appeals. the court of appeals opinions are not in dispute by the attorney general where it's

unconstitutional to use money bail and they must release those accused of crimes on the least -- restrictions, and that has broad, vast implications for this working group and the future of the jail in san francisco. while that litigation is on appeal at the california supreme court as we speak, the real issue before the california supreme court is not either of those holdings that i've just articulated but rather what kinds of people and what categories of cases are eligible for pre-trial detention. the holding that courts must release people on the least restrictive conditions necessary is not in dispute meaningfully. therefore, i expect one the california supreme court issues its opinion, that judges in san francisco and across the state will be required as a matter of

constitutional law to seek alternatives to pre-trial detention. now, to us as taxpayer and politicians, we create those alternatives for judges. now, i want to talk very briefly about some of the changing landscape in the san francisco and california criminal justice system since 2016, which i think provide a window and a window into how we can avoid spending $300 million building the new jail and more cost effectively and quickly reduce the jail population. the public safety assessment tool, which is a pre-trial risk assessment tool was put into practice in san francisco in april of 2016. that tool, that algorithmic tool administered by pre-trial aversion and the courts has produced a 32% decrease in custody prior to the fourth quarter court appearance. that's a significant impact on

people in jail and the number of days people serve in jail. we've heard some reference to the district attorney's weekend booking. i hope we'll hear more about it later this morning, but that has the potential to expedite cases. approximately 50% of people booked into county jail are never charged with a crime. the faster that ire able to make that decision, the faster we're able to get people out of jail beds. the faster people are charged, the faster we get them to court, and the faster we'll know what the least restrictive options are. they've been getting reports in a timely fashion to they can make those decisions. i'm confident if we provide the district attorney with reports that they can substantially

increase the speed of rebookings and reduce jail beds. law enforcement-assisted diversion, it helps get low-level offenders out and reduce jail bed days for people who are other wise eligible for non-criminal justice resolutions to their conduct. similarly, a new state law mental health diversion program was just implemented. it's a way to resolve pending criminal charges, even serious criminal charges. that's at the discretion of the court, and the court is much more likely to exercise its discretion when there's community-based programming available that meets the needs of the people currently housed in jail. simply, proposition 47 has reduced recidivism rates by an

estimated 2%. proposition 57, which changed prison custody credit calculations actually created incentives for some people who were for the outliers that occupied the most jail bed days, been in county jail for the longest periods of time. proposition 57 created incentives for many of those people to expee -- expedite resolution and move them to state prison if that's where they end up. less people are being arrested for marijuana and low-level quality of life, that type of offenses. [ please stand by ]

>> you are giving data in bed days and controller data and averaged out the population.

the average population, we would need to reduce down to 1,064. and is the equivalent in bed days, 83,220, which i found from another presentation that i had. is that right? great. i just wanted to be able to understand. >> i do not want to do mathematics on the fly here. >> the sheriff is nodding from the side. [laughter] >> there is a range in the original report of the number of people that would need to be reduced in terms of average population and depending on whether we use the high end of that range or the low end, we get a very different total of bed date calculation. it is a big enough range that when you multiply it by 365, the numbers are significantly different. >> got it. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. >> do we have david from pretrial diversion?

>> hello, supervisors. i will cast it off to alicia. she will go over stats and then i will do next steps. >> hello. i'm the director programs at pretrial. i just wanted to thank you. wanted to speak a little bit to our program and explain a little bit on the chart that you see on the slideshow here. pretrial has been providing a wide range of fines and fee alternatives alternatives, 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 ama