That compares to fiscal year 2017 and 2018 at 22. 9 million. About an eight district increase. The budget has two and new 37 million a pop i think about 70 positions are Deputy Sheriff his. The department of Public Health provide 17 on an ongoing basis and those are a mix of health professionals, registered nurses , licensed vocational nurses, health clinicians, Behavioral Health specialists and others. The department of Public Health staffing has been the same for the last few years. The share ofs staffing has gone up by 1. 95 positions over the last four years. Theres other staffing costs, but they are in the form of Contract Services for psychiatric costs, which amounted to hundred 41,000 which amount to 141,000. It does not translate into a number of f. T. E. And now there are maintenance staff from the Real Estate Division who provide services at the jail, but arent quantified as positions with a fulltime position. The share ofs department compiles an average daily jail rate which is required by the state. They submit that to the state every year. It is used in some cases for billing other entities that may have people in the jail, in the last ones submitted for fiscal year 2017 and 2018 is 250. 11 per day per incarcerated individual. You can see the total jail costs that were compiled for that year and the average daily population , again, this is systemwide. Was 1,274. Population characteristics, a supervisor haney mentioned from this already, in terms of race and ethnicity, the Largest Group his africanamerican. It is 45point 1 of the population. There were 313 individuals incarcerated on that date and a little under half were africanamerican. Obviously very disproportionate to the population of San Francisco. And then whites and hispanics, those three are combined at over 90 of the population. In terms of crimes committed, what these individuals are booked on, most are crimes against the person, and that can be murder, attempted murder, burglary, strong arm burglary, crimes of that nature, and then property crimes, which are, for example, a residential burglary or commercial burglary as the second group. This set of charts captures the flow of the population through the jail and this is all about county jail number four. For july 31st, 2019, there had been, at that point, 10,920 bookings that had taken place for the calendar year 2018. A number of people are booked multiple times. The number of bookings is actually 17,688, but as you can see, that is because on average theres 1. 6 bookings per individual who come into the system. I thank you mentioned, supervisor haney, the second chart on the top there, the status of the individuals in jail. This is as of july 301st, 2019 almost all 93 were pretrial, awaiting trial. For the custody it level rating, and as i thank you probably all know, the share ofs department classifies all individuals as they come into the system and they are given a rating of needing maximum security, medium security, or minimum security. Based on the standardized system that the Sheriffs Department uses to classify individuals that are incarcerated, over half 172 or 55 are classified at the maximum level. A high propensity for violence or high risk to the department. And then in terms of releases and length of stay, the final lower right chart, there were 17,556 releases in 2018. And what we think is interesting here is the comparison between the average length of stay and the median length of stay for the year. Theres a big jump for the average. The median is only three days. There are many, many people who are in and out pretty quickly, but theres also a segment of the population that stays a long time. That is captured in the average numbers of 26. 3 days versus the median. Finally, some statistics on Behavioral Health services that are offered at county jail number four. This is for september 29 it over 2019 where the population was 322 as you can see on the bottom line there. Over a third of those individuals were under the care of behavioral Behavioral Health services. 118 of the 322, as shown there. The services used most often is it down the list a little bit there, individual therapy sessions. That doesnt mean 220 individuals, but 220 sessions were offered with some people coming for multiple visits. And same with psychiatry visits. Ninetyfour. Again, those can be the same individuals coming for multiple visits. And 42 Mental Health evaluations were given during that month. Those are highlights. Theres a lot more information in the report, and we are here to respond to any questions now are as the hearing continues. Thank you. Colleagues, any questions . You will stick around . Yes. And this is also where people can access the report . Yes the b. L. A. Website. And then there is a page to click through for reports. It is posted there. Great. Thank you. I am going to switch the order a little bit as a result of a request to do so. Is a representative from the District Attorneys Office here . Is it all right if i have you go now . Okay. Thank you. Hello, im tara anderson. Director of policy for the District Attorneys Office and author of the foundation to milliondollar investment in safely reducing the jail population in San Francisco. Today i am joined by the newest tire under the initiative, the project director project director. The grant requires a f. T. E. Because of highvalue investment from the Macarthur Foundation requires a significant amount of High Expectations being met and a lot of coordination. We are grateful to have her on board and join the team. For those who are not familiar with the safety and justice challenge, it is a National Initiative to reduce over incarceration by changing the way america thinks about the use of jail. Today i am providing an overview of the initiative, planned activities, and our accomplishments to date. On the next slide you see the pillars of the initiative. The cello aims to reduce local jail populations and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the Justice System. These goals are supported by Data Collection and strategies that utilize Strong Community engagement for shared problemsolving, information sharing, and stakeholder buyin. The key emphasis is we must monitor the impact of our reduction strategies broken down by race and ethnicity. As you have heard, individuals to occupy the right is number of jail bed days are often 1825 yearold africanamerican males in custody facing a violent felony charges. We cannot address Racial Disparities we do not take a good look at how those are processed through the Justice System. Here you see in our next slide the challenge now work is across the country. It now represents 52 sites across 32 states with countless leaders working tirelessly to implement tracking and adjust strategies to reduce the local jail population. Not only do they vary in geography, but in size and jail capacity and theyre looking at interventions across the Justice System from arrest all the way through sentencing and what happens thereafter as individuals return to community. The counties identified by name here are part of the cohort three that we are a part of. San francisco was originally awarded 50,000 of an innovation granting 2017 to complete what was referred to as a recidivism dashboard. We recently just published this as a justice dashboard that is available on the District Attorneys website and it is the first time that San Francisco has a resource where we can look at recidivism over time. And the Sheriffs Department and the sheriff are a key leader in making sure that that happens. This tool provides Decision Makers with accurate recidivism statistics and can drive policies to meaningfully reduce our jail population. Due to our success completing the Innovation Fund project, we were invited to apply for and receive this implementation grant. Next you see that while the resources that come with this investment from the Macarthur Foundation, they have put a lot behind not just these individual grants that are made in the counties that are funded, but you will see the whos who of criminal justice, research, and information sharing on this list these are resources that San Francisco can leverage as we look at safely closing the jail. The part of the application process where we are required to work with them, which is one of the entities that is listed there and they completed analysis of the key drivers of the jail population. They looked at the twelvemonth priors. In this instance, were looking at april to april 2017 to 2018. The information showed that we have a very low jail incarceration rate when compared to many u. S. Jurisdictions. And when you look relative to crime as reported in our jurisdiction. This low incarceration rate means the county has already implemented many reforms that have lowered the use of jail and that further reductions will require a more assertive action and reforms from us. The analysis found, three key drivers of the population. Those booked within a few hours, and stay for very short terms, three days, this just reiterates what you heard earlier. Those booked and released more than once, and have a short length of stay. Those are repeat folks that we have that come through our jail system in a single year. And then the third area is those who spend many weeks or years in custody as they wait for cases to be resolved. This information combined indicates we need serious, targeted invert intervention that are working at all these different places, and that there is no single solution to safely reducing the jail population. The safety and justice challenge partners are listed here. Some of these agencies have received direct funding as part of the grand. Some just receive support and technical assistance. We have a big Training Fund that my colleague at the Adult Probation Department and i are working on to understand what training takes place and institutional racism, and puts a bias in each of our agencies, and we are leveraging the grant to enhance learning to make sure we are always looking at this work of safely reducing the jail to a racial inequity lens. The Sentencing Commission is the policy body under which the work of the safety and justice challenge operates. That group has largely met, in the District Attorney law library, which we have vacated, and it can be real or perceived as a strong barrier to getting community to engage with understanding the safety in and justice challenge. We have made a commitment to have our december meeting take place in community. The work group that meets as part of the safety and justice challenge meets on a monthly basis and were talking about these strategies to target the key jail drivers. In addition, we meet regularly as part of the criminal justice Racial Equity work group and those meetings take place every other month. So what are we doing . Here we have a list of the key strategies that we are focused on as part of the initiative. Our strategies are targeted to reduce the average daily jail population to 1,044 individuals. This is what would be required to successfully and safely close the jail. We are funded to do decisionmaking. Theres a lot here. I could do a whole other presentation about the different initiatives that are listed here , but i think what is important to understand is how do you reduce the jail population by this 15 to 19 we would need in order to sex with successfully close the jail and meet objectives to the grant are that looking at, how do you reduce reduce repeat bookings in a single year. If we looked at the 12 months prior to the grant award process , we saw that there were 1300 individuals with frequent stays between five contacts and 15 contacts in a single year. We purports that if we just stopped that person coming back just one more time, we would make a dent in the jail beds days and ultimately our reduction in our daily jail population. Another strategy in looking at Case Processing. A lot of discussion has taken place around the volume of the people who are in custody who are awaiting resolution of the case. So key strategy here has been partnering with the San Francisco superior court to look at how do we shift some of our court Case Processing standards around continuances . Kind of notorious here in San Francisco compared to other jurisdictions were taking quite a long time to resolve a case, so making sure that within making sure peoples rights are honoured, but also we are working to expedite a case to resolution and shorten the length of stay, thereby reducing the jail population. The last key strategy is looking at healthy connections. One thing we saw in the b. L. A. Report was that there are some individuals where that legal backandforth has been resolved and there is a patient centred disposition that has indicated someone should go out to treatment. How do we get them out to treatment as soon as possible . That is a key thing we are looking at. How to overcome barriers that sometimes exist within medical for example. When an individual has a Substance Use need, we know that recovery is a process. They can burn their two uses of drug treatment as covered by medical and then be waiting in custody to hit the twelvemonth clock and be eligible to go out to a treatment program. So how are we working within some confines of the law and creatively working to support individuals to get out to treatment in communities. This last slide has an overview of accomplishments. A lot of what we have done to date is understand our problem a little bit better and generate pathways to do better. I make a joke about you got a District Attorney, a public defender, a sheriff, a Public Health representative all walk into a dueling piano bar. If they can come up with a combined recommendation before the board of supervisors saying, we all agree, and this one thing , i certainly hope that you will be able to respond and give us the resources to do that. One such example is a datasharing officer. Someone who can share data better so we know with a high utilizer, the x. Term isnt necessarily appropriate, and individual who has frequent contact with multiple systems touches our jail door, what are we doing to support that individual . And right now we dont have quite the system to be able to communicate and expedite that person to community if they have been prioritized. We are doing the groundwork. We are primed and ready to work with the board of supervisors, the mayor, and any other entities that are deemed appropriate to bring a solution to San Francisco. We have a lot of smart, wonderful people who are very passionate about doing this for San Francisco, and im happy to answer any questions that you may have about the initiative or work more broadly in this area. Thank you. I appreciate that. I see a couple folks who want to ask questions. Just for everybodys clarity right now, i dont mean this facetiously, who is in charge of the District Attorneys Office at this moment . At this moment District Attorney guess borgone. My understanding is tomorrow is when the acting District Attorney takes over. Got it. Thank you. Supervisor stefani . Thank you. Just a quick question based on your presentation. Within the confines of the grant and your goals, i am just wondering how, and again, in context of the grant, what you just presented, this is not a bigger question than that. How do you reduce jail population while maintaining Public Safety . Is this a consideration, and how is Public Safety defined . Excellent question. It has been a key emphasis of making sure that we think about Public Safety. We are including survivor victim voice in that process and making sure that they are part of contributing to feedback on the solutions that are generated. Some of the approaches looking at efficiency. We know that court cases are taking much longer than they should, and so if we didnt change the resolution today, but got to the resolution quicker, we would have individuals who would be released to community, potentially go to state prison, or out on community supervision. I think that what is essential is this will take a lot of small , different interventions in order to safely reduce the jail population. Supervisor fewer . Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I just have some clarifying questions here. So there is this grant. You said for 50,000 . The initial grant was an Innovation Award which we use to create the justice dashboard. The current grant is a 2 milliondollar investment from the Macarthur Foundation. And is this what kind of award . It is initially a onetime award. We are co hard three we are cohort three. Okay. You think there is a possibility that we would be able to continue our work with more money . That is correct. We just had a National Network meeting a week ago, and during that meeting we were informed that if we were making progress, that we would receive a continued investment, likely much smaller. Okay. What you shared with us today is fairly vague and i did not hear about any metrics at all. I am just wondering, are there specific numerical goals associated with this challenge in terms of jail population reduction . Yeah. I will refer back to the comment i made earlier that we are looking to reduce the jail population to 1,400 individuals. This is what actually came through the jail reenvisioning process. That is the number that would be required to safely reduce the jail. The interventions i described earlier, they reduce multiple repeat contacts of someone coming into custody. It could, and these are back of the envelope calculations. And that number was 3,000 that you said were repeat bookings that come back. That was 1,394 individuals. Okay. If we were successful 60 of the time in stopping them coming back, we would realize 154 person reduction in our average daily jail population. Case processing reduction goals, of we just shortened Case Processing timelines, this is the time a case takes to go through the court system by 30 days, we would potentially see a 94 person reduction in the average daily population. Healthy connections and reduction goals, i will say that these arent unique, it cant all be added up together to equal a potential reduction because b. C. Overlap in the populations. So healthy connections, if you look at that comparison of time waiting in custody versus out in community, we could potentially see a reduction in 32 in terms of the average daily population. These are estimates based off of a 12 month prior to the time the grant was submitted. Obviously there have been changes in the jail population associated with Mental Health diversion, busing cases, humphrey case, those are real policy realities that may make these estimates more different today. Okay. What you said to me today is that right now there is approximately about 300 people, individuals. We can reduce the population by about 280, 300 if we were to implement some of these things and be successful at them. Looking at these buckets of people. Is that correct . Looking at the buckets alone, but as i said, summing them up to 300, there is overlap. They are not mutually exclusive. Under this category of repeat bookings we have 1,394 individuals in a single year. We are trying to reduce that. If we are successful, by 60 . This is the largest bucket of individuals we could reduce by 154 arrests, or whatever in a year. Is that correct . With a strategy in place. Yes. My next question is when you are looking at the strategy, are you also looking at the support once they are released from jail because what i am seeing here is nothing about future employment, it is nothing about employment training, and you mentioned yourself, it is about how to get them out of treatment and into programs, but also into community, and i see nothing, i see about how some strategies can be used to reduce the population, but then what happens to this population once we have them out of our jails . I dont see that this grant what this grant is working on with employment or Employment Opportunities while in custody or outside of custody or to prepare for outside of custody. So can you expand on that . Absolutely. The Macarthur Foundation, based on their experience across the country, has restricted jurisdictions to focus on systemic change, and so direct service support, we were not allowed to include in our application. I would also say that part of what we are hoping to do is we leverage the existing resources that exist in the community. I know this from my experience before working in the District Attorneys Office and working with individuals as they transition out of jail and prison back to community. One of the strongest things we can do is enhance those Community Ties and further reduce the reach of the criminal Justice System. I would argue it is potentially inappropriate to have us include those types of services under the scope of this. I will signal and want to acknowledge the work of the Sheriffs Department that have shifted significant resources into discharge planning to having such a robust, in Custody Program portfolio to to the very needs that you have spoken to. Although it may be inappropriate to speak about this in this context of the grant, it is completely inappropriate not to included as include it as part of an Overall Program for success. I just want to emphasize that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Supervisor walton . Thank you for this report. Just a quick question. As we look at bullet number four on page six, or slide six, and we talk about increased jail Health Clinical capacity and linkages to communitybased treatment, how is that going with the actual capacity goal or target . Because after visiting 850, i can tell were definitely missing the mark on that, so how do we get there . As part of the grant, the position that is funded in the department of Public Health is Behavioral Health clinicians. So we are actually that position was posted and it is still active. So any individual that would like to serve the city and the individuals in custody in this capacity is encouraged to apply. Is that enough . One position is enough . That will get us what we need . I would refer back to the hearing called by supervisor mandelman around the Mental Health diversion, specifically, and more broadly where we discuss all the needs relative to Behavioral Health and criminal justice. I think that in that hearing we were asked to come up with a dollar amount, the pie in the sky. It was a very collaborative presentation by all just as partners, and its very difficult to know without going back to my point earlier, our collective ask around data sharing officers to help us best understand our criminal justice involved population. We have priorities that have been said by the city that identify individuals who are on housed, that have been hi prioritized for the resources and are network. We have individuals who have been identified as having frequent contacts with psychiatric emergency or other Services Provided through the department of Public Health. We have yet to have, as a city, a comprehensive look at those individuals that touch our criminal Justice System, our Public Health system, and those are on housed and have our greatest needs. You said something earlier that i 100 agree with in terms of needing this body to make sure that the resources are available to actually do the work and for us to be able to do that, you know, we need to have that information with the what is a capacity in terms of number conditions with the budget meeting . It looks like we need to get this work done together. Initially when we were looking at doing that analysis, it will help us be able to inform f. T. E. And other specific things from the budget process. We were looking at needing approximately 50,000 to help do that analysis. I can go back and get updated on what that could look like, but starting with the data, i know that that is frustrating and infuriating to hear when we have a real problem that we have all seen and want to do in earnest our best to ensure that people are safely out of the jail, but we have a duty to our taxpayers to make sure we are making the right investment and whether or not those investments need to be made in the criminal Justice System or other communitybased places. Thank you. Go ahead. Im going to jump in. Thank you for your presentation and for your work. I have a few comments and questions. One is, i kind of want to echo the question at least that vice chair stefani asked because i think that as we move forward, the goal of reducing the jail population is critically important. It cannot move forward if the public does not believe that that goal and the effectuation of that goal is inconsistent with Public Safety, and increasingly, im hearing from my constituents a real concern that and this is actually not entirely consistent with data, but that San Francisco is becoming more unsafe. We know property crime is high, perhaps the highest in the country, and we know that there is a real experience of on safety in public spaces that is new and changing over the last few years. It is worth pointing out that Violent Crime is down, so i dont think that the evidence is that californias efforts to reform the criminal Justice System are leading to an unsafe place, but i think that we cannot just focus on reducing the numbers of folks in jail. We also need to focus on making our communities safer, and i think those goals can be consistent, but if they are not, in the public doesnt believe that those things are consistent , the goal of reducing the number of folks in jail is not going to be accomplished. I just think it is really important that as we move forward we are mindful that the steps we are taking our, in fact , keeping communities safer. I think there is a good argument around why that is the case, but im not sure the public is believing it right now. I think we have to keep that utmost in our minds. I want to thank you and commend you on identifying this data sharing officer as an important element and one of the terrific frustrations of myself and others on this board is the lack of good data and difficulties it presents to us as we are trying to prioritize resource allocation and new investments when we are having so much trouble and our multiple systems that are interacting with the justice involved population when the data is so bad. More of that, please and thank you. I guess for me, i want to get a little bit clearer on the timeline because we did have that hearing on access to justice, access to Behavioral Health services where the justice involved population. I think it was a little over six months ago. We were asking very similar kinds of questions. I had visited the jails, but also visited the Behavioral Health court and drug court and heard horrific stories about how long people were waiting to get into treatment, evening having a judge and the sheriff and the d. A. And the public defender all trying to get people into the right treatment and it is still taking six weeks or two months. And so i believe that we, as a city, should be making some commitments around getting people into appropriate treatment within a certain number of days of being, at least within one of those programs, but really it ought to be for anyone in the justice involved population. We werent really able, in that hearing, to get to a path to that or a dollar amount or any real specificity around it, which is frustrating, but the answer at the time was, well, we think this work were doing with the macarthur grant will help us get there. And what we talked about doing at that point was a sixmonth update which would be right around now. I may be asking for that and where we have got into and what we have learned. I do think that for our next budget, i hope my colleagues want to make some significant investments and access to Behavioral Health and Treatment Services for the justice involved population with the idea of achieving a particular goal of treatment within a particular number of days. I will advocate for that. I dont think anyone will disagree. But to do that, we will need to answer some of those questions. How do you feel like you are doing in getting there and being able to give us the answers to the questions we were asking six months ago . Because we were not able to secure additional support, the timeline on the analysis i described is actually extended and will likely wont be completed until the first three months of the new year. Obviously that is unsatisfactory , right . We are trying to work within an leverage other initiatives that are aligning within the city. For example, you have the Public Health commission that has passed a resolution indicating that incarceration is a Public Health issue. As a result of that, you have a work group within the department of Public Health actively meeting around what does that mean. Those efforts are aligned with the work of the safety and justice challenge and help inform more broadly what approaches we would recommend to the mayor and the board of supervisors for funding. I am hoping we can get summary reviews of the connectedness that is happening between frequent utilization of psych emergencies, individuals who have been identified as high priority through h. S. H. , and those individuals who are coming into our county jail system. One practical thing that we have Just Launched is jail population review. So this has been done in a couple of other jurisdictions as part of the safety justice challenge. Some use it as an opportunity to review in the last seven days of who has come into custody. Maybe an early resolution calendar might be appropriate. So this is going to be a space after we have identified some of these target populations that are the key drivers of the jail population. Looking at it through the safety lens, and that is why the initiative is framed in terms of safely reducing the jail population to the points that the supervisors have made here, and so i think that theres a lot of great work thats happening and i think we are primed and ready to be included in some conversations that are prioritizing resources and really looking for a place to ensure those that are highest need are continuing to come to the door of the Sheriffs Department, that we are identifying them as soon as possible, connecting them to the great resources, and getting them out to community with their Great Community providers that we know that we have, and having them go through Wraparound Services that they dont have continued engagement with the criminal Justice System. Thank you for that. I think my office, it is about time for us to talk to you again i do want to follow up on that hearing because i think you are all tremendously motivated. This is the work of your lives, and not necessarily needing motivation in the form of us breathing down your neck. On the other hand, this is urgent and we want to be able to move on this. I think the answers we were getting through last years budget processor this years budget process, and in the Behavioral Health hearing werent fully satisfactory from a policy makers perspective. I want to get us as quickly as possible into a place where we can have a more informed conversation and actually be directing resources in the right way. Thank you. We will follow up. Supervisor haney . Thank you. I appreciate all of those questions and the point about how we consider broader Public Safety as an important one. I think a large part of why were having this hearing is because we do not believe that the current approach is supporting broader Public Safety either. Certainly keeping as many people as we are warehoused pretrial in a facility at the hall of justice is not an effective approach to Public Safety. Could you speak there were a lot of good questions about Behavioral Health. The fact that 93 of the people who are in the jail are therefore pretrial is something that i want to ask you about your approaches to currently, in terms of bail reform, and how you assess whether somebody needs to be held pretrial. Is that a big part of how we are going to reduce the jail population . How are you seeing that now, and why do we continue to have such high numbers of the population that is incarcerated there pretrial . I am just riding a couple of notes for myself. So we, as a public we do a Public Safety assessment for any prearraignment release decisions and the framework is laid over that. That is our current alternative to the bail schedule. There is a settlement and some key aspects of that settlement that are before the city to determine whether or not we can put the resources behind ensuring that a Court Decision that is declared the bail schedule and constitutional, does not result in individuals being in custody longer, and that is something that we are facing prearraignment because the p. S. A. And bail, although inequitable for those who have the ability to pay, they are able to get out in a shorter period of time than a nonmonetary review of their release. So those are very real policy matters that are before us, and others actually who will be speaking after me are probably better position to speak to how those are impacting the jail population as it stands currently, but thats important for us to be looking at. Also looking at, we move entirely away from the monetary bail system, and with the passage of s. B. 10 which is currently up for a referendum. So we are not implementing that as of yet. What has developed is San Francisco is a bit farther ahead than our counterpart jurisdictions across the state, and it is if implemented, it could result in more people being detained prearraignment then under our current p. S. A. And decisionmaking framework just because of some of the exclusion criteria that is included in s. B. 10 around previous felonies and how long they were in place. So that is about prearraignment decisionmaking, and then, you know, at arraignment, both Defence Council on the District Attorneys Office present perspectives on whether or not is appropriate for a person to be detained pretrial. The 94 of the pretrial population, as i spoke to earlier, we are notorious for really significant Case Processing times for a case to go through the criminal Justice System here in San Francisco. Often times, if a serious case is resolved, there maybe credit for time served. We also have had the Sheriffs Department who will speak to this and implement milestone credits that give individuals additional credit for any programming they are engaging in during that pretrial time. Our best effort and focusing on after, under the law, a Safety Assessment is considered about whether or not someone should be in custody or not, is shortening the time of their case. Recognizing that very few of our cases are resolved in the system through a jury trial. Most of them are going to be settled through a negotiated agreement and another small proportion are dismissed and released. I know that some other folks asked about specific goals and numbers as a result of this grant. What is possible or likely in this grant . How does that interact with the deadline that the mayor announced mayor announced yesterday around july 2021 to close certain dates . How does that timeline relate to that . The two Year Investment from the Macarthur Foundation we are striving towards that 1,044 daily population goal to have that a year and a half from now. Obviously this is a challenge for a reason. It is ambitious and it will require investments, targeted investment both from the city, but also us being able to collaborate with each other as criminal justice partners in order to achieve that goal. Some think im too much of an optimist, and i accept that criticism and understand that we have a very difficult job ahead of us. It is not just easy enough to say, oh, if we prevent that person from having one subsequent contact through theres a whole lot of Community Work and resources that go into it, and diversion and deflection opportunities that we provide our Police Department that would make that possible. Im not naive to the challenge and how ambitious that timeline is, but that is our grant related timeline. And as a respondent his responded to supervisor fewers question about is their opportunity for continued funding, we will get a nocost extension that would probably bring us somewhere around the mayors identify deadline and then we would have the opportunity for a smaller investment from the Macarthur Foundation thereafter. The key part of this, and this is a big part of the threejudge panel looking at the state correction system. We want to make sure that they werent just approving something because there are a lot of great strategies that reduce populations, reduce certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanours, and we are seeing positive results as part of those initiatives, but what are longterm and sustainable changes . What did those look like . That is what the safety and justice challenge brings to this conversation. What will need to have been is better data sharing. How we are identifying individuals who need our greatest support and are deteriorating in custody. I really see us as a resource to meet that goal, but it will be hard. Thank you. Just one other thing. Where is your staff and your colleagues now and what is the status of where they are . As everyone out of the hall of justice . What is the timeline that you all have . We have moved in phases. Two of our faces have been completed. A large portion of Victim Services division is now at 350 rhode island. As well as our vertical prosecution team, so for those not familiar, that is our child assault, sex assault, gangs, homicide, those units, as well as our crime unit are at the new sight mac. In november, another removal will take place where the general felony team will transition to the new sight. Our misdemeanour team is still slated to remain in the hall of justice for a period of time. That is our greatest they have to show up to court the most so that is why it makes sense for them to remain. They will remain in the court floor arm. I always think about it did not escape me the reality of entering choosing to work in a space every day where there were individuals with Civil Liberties that are compromised. I think about, as an l so the l that includes county jail floors and what was the greatest proportion of the District Attorneys Office or adult probation still resides. That is the portion of my building. My understanding is as it will be seismically safe. Our staff that is remaining behind is in the safer portion of the facility. Thank you, supervisor stefani thank you. You talked about the Public Safety assessment and im wondering what factors go into deciding whether or not someone should be in because custody or released to the Community Based on the Public Safety assessment that is made to the judge. The Public Safety assessment was validated to San Franciscos population. It is based on nine static factors. We also have david moore off here from pretrial. They administer this tool on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco. I would actually defer to them as experts that are implementing this on a regular basis for procedural questions about how it is presented and utilized. Okay. Do you want to bring him up . Yes. Is that your desire . Yes. Sorry. You are the expert. They administered to individuals in the county jail. It looks at age, failures to appear and criminal history. And that information is entered into an algorithm and then it determines the risk level and also sets different boundaries for release. Okay. Do we know how often our judges follow that p. S. A. , whether or not the judges agree or disagree do we have data on that . I dont have it right now, but i can get it to you because there are different phases. I can get you that information. Okay. I would like to know how often that is followed, just based on what we hear anecdotally. I would like to not rely on anecdotal information and rely on all the data necessary out there. Okay. Just related to that data, we are fortunate the sheriff has been in contact with California Policy Lab who has been looking at the p. S. A. Implementation. It is thirdparty validated data that we all use to determine our decisionmaking. Okay. I will stop there for now. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Unless there is anything more that you wanted to share, we will move to the next item. Think for the opportunity to share about the initiative. We look forward to responding to all of your questions that require followup. Thank you. Appreciate it. Next i want to call up representatives from the City Administrators Office. And after that we will hear from the sheriff in the Jail Coalition and then we will have Public Comment after that. Do we have representatives . Good last minutes of morning, supervisors. Thank you for having me. Im the director of Capital Planning and resiliency officer within the office of the city administrator. We have been asked to provide details about the process administrative exit which has been underway and expedited from 2017, but in motion long before that. So i think it is Common Knowledge the background about the hall. Just to provide a little finer point about what it means that this building is a seismic risk, so our city runs they have an analysis, which is a fema approved tool for assessing relative seismic risk in the public portfolio in the most recent run in the most recent run, we reviewed 239 public buildings and it looks at risk across a variety of factors including economic consequences like casualties, vulnerability of the structure itself, and through that analysis on multiple fronts, the hall rises to the top again and again. We have run the analysis four times total and given the number of people in the building, and the structure of the building itself, and all that goes on there, we know we need to prioritize it. We also know from the workforce, and supervisor haney, as you highlighted in opening remarks, this is not a place that is fit to live or a place that is fit to work. The City Administrators Office has received several Union Complaints about the Work Environment and we do want to do everything we can to get folks out of the building. This effort is a longstanding priority of the capital plan. The First Capital plan was published in 2006, before my time, but the Improvement Program was part of it then and it remains a priority. The planning of evolved, but we know that the getting out is the imperative. The admin exit, we are trying to get our City Operations out as soon as possible. The board has already approved a handful of leases and sight acquisitions that will help us to do that. Some of the sites you have already heard of. 350 rhode island where the d. A. Will land. 945 bryant is currently programmed for adult probation. The Space Planning there is being refined and i think that will work out, and then at 777 brannon, we expect to house police and sheriff warrants and records. The board has asked that a presentation on that staffing come in january. You can expect to hear more details once it is ready. The big picture here as just mentioned, the building is an l shape. As you can see here. The longer side, the bryant street side, we are trying to vacate that so we can demolish it. That would give us space to rebuild there and on the harriet street side where we acquired some sights. And then leaving, after the demolition, a smaller and more seismically stable building with the core remaining. That would enable us to adjust the campus for those operations that have been relocated in this interim measure of expedited exit. We were asked to provide a sense of timeline about whats going on. As i mentioned, this has been underway for some time. The Public Safety building, which opened back in 2015, relocated to southern station and headquartered over there. In november 2017, the office of the chief medical examiner took that operation out of the hall as well. Those offices are vacant. In 2019, september the d. A. Began to move and there will be a continued to move over the course of the fiscal year where all staff are expected to be out by the end of june. We also did c. O. P. For the site acquisition for the old mcdonald site as it is commonly known. It will house property, which is a big operation in the basement of the hall. Later this year we hope to seattle probation go to 945 bryant. And then the planning for all of the remaining spots available. There was operational dependence on the hall jail from the sheriffs perspective. Right now all the prisoners both at county jails one and two and county jail four are served by the kitchen at four. We have funded the c. J. Two kitchen renovation so we can divorce that reliance and that contracting is in process and is expected to be delivered by next fall. Next fiscal year, we can expect to see Police Evidence and property to egbert. And also restacking on the port side of the harriet street so we could proceed with demolition. The last piece is that july 2021 move out of traffic companies on the first floor of the bryant street wing. They will be going to 1995 evans as the part of the new Traffic Company and forensics division. We heard the announcement about that target date along the signs so prisoners are not the last ones left behind in a building that is unfit. As far as how this looks in a capital plan, most recently published in spring 2019, approved unanimously at the board on april 30th of this year. There are a handful of certificates of participation projects. The most recently authorized space was for tenant improvements on the sites that we do of that makes. In 2025, we hope to be ready to demolish the building as everybody is out in planning and expeditiously it is conceivable that can move forward in time which would reduce the price of it. The longer we wait, the more it costs. [please stand by]