Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, i think its commendable that the Sheriffs Department is looking at alternatives to electronic monitoring and that maybe i think its a system we had for a while now. When i am asking for the data about efficacy an efficiency. I think the data is missing. So i think we have been asking every chief, what is the data on this . There is an awareness that there needs to be data but we dont have it. I want to say that i think this is a real positive step for the sheriff to be looking at sort of an informal contact list of folks. That would be more effective and efficient and what is the efficacy of both sort of strategies . Thank you. I appreciate it. I see no other hands so im going to go to the next person, which is executive officer mike from the superior court. Hi, good to see you again. Hi, good to see you. Good morning chair fewer and supervisors. Thank you first of all for inviting the court to participate in your hearing today. Its always good to share inc e insight from our branch of government with yours and we appreciate being part of the discussion. Part of the electronic monitoring and court orders are during the pretrial process. The courts role in the pretrial process is to evaluate defendants and then decide if they can be released prior to trial. Electronic monitoring is a tool that allows the court to do this. So a little bit of history here. Two things happened back in 2018 that have made a big impact on the usage of electronic monitoring in San Francisco. In january of 2018, the First District court of appeals made a decision that held californias money bail system violated due process and equal protection. Thats the humphrey decision. It required Trial Court Judges to consider a defendants ability to pay, as well as nonmonetary options to release, when determining sale or release. One month later in february of 2018, then chair eliminated electronic monitoring fees. That opened up electronic monitoring to everyone for free. So together these events have led to an increase in usage of electronic monitoring and ordering by the court. It is part of the overall shift away from money bail and towards consideration of alternative means for release rather than incarceration. The primary factor for judges when considering potential release of a pretrial defendant is twofold. Its Public Safety and whether or not the defendant will return for a future court date. So as you heard earlier from mr. Holland, the court order electronic monitoring is for defendants whose assessment result is in the release not recommended category. Electronic monitoring allows for the defendants to be released with some measure of ensuring their return to court and that is an example of how electronic monitoring is a tool for Public Safety and future Court Appearances to be met. So, supervisor mandelman, you talked a little bit about data just a few moments ago. So, what we seen, there is a Public SafetyAssessment Working Group. The Public Safety assessment is the Risk Assessment that we have been using here in San Francisco for about five years now. During the last update of the working group, we saw some data presented by the california policy land that saw that since january of 2018, safety rates have increased. In january of 2018, the appearance rates were depending on which program folks were in and predominate these folks are predominately on electronic monitoring, those rates range from the low 70s to mid80s. As of the Second Quarter of 2020, those rates are in the mid90s. For safety rates, these are the percentage of folks who do not pick up another charge while they are out in the community. In january of 2018, they were in the low to high 80s in the Second Quarter of 2020, those rates were also in the mid90s. So, i think there is no golden rule that says thats because of electronic monitoring, but for us, those are the best data that we have that kind of inform us whether electronic monitoring is working and is doing what it is intended to do, which again is to allow defendants to be released rather than be placed in custody. So with that being said, i do want to make clear to all of you that we are open to further discussion, further consideration of other policy measures, of course based on data and the best course of action for defendants. Im happy to take any questions you have. Any comments or questions from my colleagues . I think one question i have for you is whether or not were looking at electronic monitoring or are we looking at other conditions of release . So when you so given the data, its just people on electronic monitoring, but is it also in conjunction with the other criteria for release too . So i think that when we look at these numbers, it is employed, housing, you know, all these other factors. Are we factoring in all of those too . I actually think that yes, this is evidence to the courts to say the numbers were getting and were examining the other conditions that could be due to the same success. Supervisor fewer, thats an excellent point. Youre right, we dont have the data in that granular level but we need to dive deeper. That would help inform this decision everyone mo even mor also, an interesting thing would be that these people on electronic monitoring, sort of what is their network of support around it, right . Are we including or are the people that are handed over to the Sheriffs Department, are they also including a spouse . A child . I mean, an adult child, right . To help monitor. These supports that i think we have heard a lot about, and thats a hard and fast thing you can hold on to and say these other things that are peripheral and so much more important there their lives could be even more commanding to you than just an ankle bracelet that determines our lives and our happiness and success in life. Those factors are softer, you know. We never really capture that full data of what were doing in conjunction with. So i just do you think that the courts will go down, dig deeper to analyze some of the data and the conditions of maybe a sampling of these people that are on electronics monitoring . So at the court, we value data quite a bit. I think the entire Public SafetyAssessment Working Group would be willing to dive deeper, working with the california policy lab. These are the things we need to look at more. From our persons perspective, we want to see defendants appear and not pick up new cases while theyre released. The only data we have right now is the data we just mentioned. If we could get deeper data that is more granular to be able to help inform the measures that you just talked about chair fewer, that will definitely help us make better decisions. I obviously cant speak to all 52 judges, but i think the more data we have, the better decisions our judges can make. Got it. Any questions from my colleagues at all . I understand the situation that the courts are in and i can see the judges hesitant to release some of these people not recommended for release. They put them on electronic monitoring and received the data for electronic monitoring. The data is good and showing us that they can make that decision and they feel confident of the decision they made. I just think that probably we dont have enough data and discussion for them to give confidence in Something Else or an alternative that might work even better. We just dont have the program or we dont have the data that can show it. Thank you very much. Okay, so interesting. Now were going to go on to pretrial diversion project. Hi. Good morning. Im going to be sharing a brief Powerpoint Presentation so i need to share my screen. I believe linda has it. Are you able to see what is up . No. Okay. Perfect, excellent. Good morning chair fewer and supervisors. Were so glad to be here in conjunction with our colleagues and were here to identify and answer questions around pretrial tools in our e. M. Process and what that looks like under scoring what the office of the sheriff has shared, as well as the courts and our probation partners. So ill be speaking first and then pass it to matt miller, our director of policy and evaluation for our brief presentation. So there are two points where there are electronic monitoring decision points and based on the judicial decision that is stipulated upon release, our San Francisco pretrial case march our clients to sentinel to place and activate the device. Our role is to direct the client to where they will get the bracelet. Then as this sheriff described, there are Different Levels of supervision, going from less intensive to more intensive. Now ill pass it over to matt miller, our director of policy and evaluation to review some of our practitioner perspective and answer a lot of the questions that the supervisors have had regarding the impact in some antidotal information. Thank you. So, earlier this year, they developed and administered a survey for our staff at San Francisco pretrial. So the staff who work closely with pretrial clients on electronic monitoring responded to questions about both the perceived benefits and the limitati limitations of e. M. We think its important to get the perspective of those who on a daily basis have firsthand experience working with e. M. Participants. So in those responses, we saw that in the perspective of the staff, electronic monitoring can have benefits, including promoting core compliance. We also saw broad concerns about the personal challenges that an e. M. Device can introduce. So that includes barriers to employment, in terms of both obtaining and sustaining a job, social stigma and psychological effects for the stress that continued surveillance can induce. So in addition, staff pointed to the exacerbated quality that those barriers can have on the pandemic. We are aware of the Economic Hardship that has befallen the communities in San Francisco. That can be compound with the introduction of an electronic monitoring device. So, we also wanted to share some recommendations that we have regarding the future of e. M. In San Francisco. So, i think largely well be interested in seeing the finding of california policy labs, electronic monitoring study. Based on those findings, we would like to work with Justice System partners in a data driven approach to identify whether there are particular cases or circumstances where electronic monitoring would be the most effective in the interest of Public Safety and conversely, other interventions in the community outside of electronic monitoring, which would suffice in securing those Public Safety interest. This group could reevaluate how electronic monitoring has been working in terms of process. I think one priority would be looking at amendment waivers and reevaluating whether the broad waiver of privacy rights is absolutely necessary for those ordered to the e. M. Conditions. Thats what we have for you all. Okay, any questions or comments from my colleagues . Seeing none, so pretrial diversion, you are housed under the Sheriffs Department, is that correct . Thats correct. Okay, you walk, you escort the individuals to the Sheriffs Department to get the monitor placed on them, is that right . Thats correct. Do you monitor with the Sheriffs Department . I mean do you have services that complement also the electronic monitoring and what are those services and what is your average activity in one case . Yes, with the approach. We have Case Management that supplements a client on electronic monitoring. Each client depending on the situation has a distinct treatment plan or treatment they may do. We offer them support in terms of charging the device or if theyre having a problem with the device if the client has removed the device and needs intervention to get it back on and things like that. You have clients that are not on electronic monitoring, is that correct . That is correct. How many cases do you on average have on electronic monitoring and how many do you have that are not on electronic monitoring . Do you know the exact number . Yeah, the largest share are within the assertive Case Management program. So the month of november this year, we had 500 on a daily basis, an average of 500 clients, and around 130 on electronic monitoring concurrently. The more light touch supervision, we see substantially fewer e. M. Clients, on minimum supervision or on daily average of 6. Out of around 130. For no active supervision, around 50 electronic monitoring clients out of 360. You have a huge case load here, you have a lot of clients. How is it different than Case Management with electronic monitoring and when someone is off electronic monitoring . So there are some nuances on the instake of the client, but in terms of our intensive treatment plan, and a. C. M. , it does depend. There are shades of gray in terms of increased calls, we may be doing incommunity visits. A lot of our case managers are in the community looking for clients out in the community, making sure theyre court compliant and they remember their court date and theyre aware of any changes that have happened, especially during these last eight months. We made sure to continue to remind clients of any changes in the court. Its also screening for Mental Health supports they need and increased communication with the court and the sheriff and the sheriff sergeants at Community Programs, as well as the Community Program director and mr. Holland, their c. F. O. To ensure that we are prioritizing Public Safety and the clients success. So these are clients that are not electronic monitoring . Thats correct. So this would happen and they would have an electronic monitor on them . Thats correct. And im sure mr. Holland spoke about it, what the office of the sheriff provides in sentinel. Can you also tell me, i guess that from the perspective of your staff, from i guess the viewpoint of a promotion of compliance, that you see the electronic monitoring can be beneficial, can you tell me and shed light on that conversation . Yeah, absolutely. I think again reiterating what chief miller said. Based on the antidotes that we can provide and not completely want to build our policy around that, but our staff had shared mixed opinions in terms of where the research has been. Its really split. I wish there was more clear directives. I know being a part of this conversation today we did a lot of research and dug to see if we could find some really clear outcomes about whether it was much more impactful as mr. Ewing said in terms of appearances and failure to appear and how that supported it. Its really split. We do see challenges around clients with e. M. And we see benefits, whether thats correlated directly with the monitor is really hard to tell. I wish i had a better answer but even antidotally it really does fall in the middle way. I would assume so because were dealing with humans and not robots. Theyre unpredictable and were all different. We all react differently given our make up and our own experiences. That makes sense. There are people that say they dont want any electronic monitoring. In certain cases, its effective and helpful. In terms of compliance. I think that its also what im hearing from adult supervision that only in those cases we have tried and we cant do it. In the case of electronic monitoring in your case, you dont make that decision. The courts make that decision for you to say whether or not there should be electronic monitoring. The courts want confident and we dont have the data. It shows that the more electronic monitoring, a job is actually. This is the thing. So what are those types of things [inaudibl [inaudible] you have so many clients and variety of clients also and you understand the nuances that its interesting. The conversation even among your staff and first line providers split, right . So we also dont have all the data with us that we can analyze. Even to analyze it as a program, right . Also, i just wanted to say if we funded it to an extent, that we could hire more people, would we have the same result . Would we have comparable result . I dont think we discovered that. Any questions or comments from my colleagues at all . Seeing none, okay, thank you very much. Let us move on to the last speaker, the public defenders office. If matthew yes, its pronounced sotorosen. Sorry. I got that wrong. Im the deputy public defender. I have been a public defender for 21 years, 14 in San Francisco. Our office is very glad to see this item before the committee today. Were very grateful for supervisor fewer and supervisor waltons leadership on this issue. I think at the crux of this discussion, and ive been listening to everyones comments all morning is really whether electronic monitoring harms more than it helps and to what cost to our city. I think there there is a real question of causation to correlation. We dont have certain data. Is electronic monitoring providing the effects that we wanted to have. At the public defenders office, as a public defender ourselves, we seen firsthand the lost opportuni opportunities and wasted resources and lot of unnecessary pain and incarceration brought about by the Electronic Monitoring Program as it now currently exists. In fact, in my experience, and my colleagues experience that the Electronic Monitoring Program as its formulated is providing more barriers to folks who are trying to successfully reintegrate into our community, which is the exact opposite outcome that everybody wants. So we would like to ask that this board consider making at a minimum three changes to the sheriffs pretrial release rules and of course penal code 120216 can prescribe rules and regulations regarding electronic monitoring and also perhaps this board may be able to change stop of the some of the regulations on their probationers. I just overheard the chief talk about that as well. Before i get to the proposed rule changes, i would like to point out a couple of underline principles that can help guide you in making your decisions going forward. In some of these topics, they have been brought out by earlier speakers, but nonetheless, i dont think there is any empirical evidence that electronic monitoring ensures Public Safety. Its not really an alternative to incar incarceration. Its another form of incarceration. Someone talked about a jail without walls, that was the chief of the juvenile incarceration department. I think we should explore different possibilities of release and consider electronic monitoring as a last resort. Also, were spending thousands of taxpayer dollars dealing with technical violations and reincarcerating folks. At the public defenders office, we see this weekly, if not daily where folks are being rearrested on warrants. Despite what mr. Holland said, there are occasions where the sheriffs work with one of our clients but if the battery dies on the device, if the device malfunctions for some reason and the Sheriffs Department cannot reach the person, they are getting rearrested and were spending thousands of dollars to have people reincarcerated and bruth back to court. We can invest in programs and tools that can help support Court Attendance and successful reentry into our community. In fact, there was a study related to ucla that talked about alternative means to electronic monitoring as a way to ensure Court Attendance. The third prici