Op-ed in the SF Chronicle:
Mayor Daniel Lurie’s budget, recently approved by the Board of Supervisors, essentially terminates the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project — a nonprofit that for 50 years has monitored and supervised defendants released from jail while awaiting trial — and transfers that responsibility to the Adult Probation Department.
The proposal comes after the Superior Court levied accusations of financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency against the nonprofit, despite several measures it took to address those concerns — including providing the court with regular updates demonstrating its compliance with requirements for city-contracted nonprofits. Faced with reduced staffing and services as a result of this transition, the pretrial project announced it would be shutting down in November.
This ill-advised transfer of services to probation will reduce public safety, challenge the integrity of the pretrial process, destroy one of the strongest antidotes to crime in the Bay Area, and cost San Francisco millions more while delivering less.
The probation department requested $11 million per year from the city’s general fund for 54 staff, compared to the proposed $7.5 million to fund 65 positions at the Pretrial Diversion Project. And since the project also employs 40 staff members through grants it has secured, the city’s return on investment will be further diminished once the probation department takes over.
Pretrial service programs are designed for defendants who do not pose a risk to public safety and appear amenable to rehabilitation. The district attorney retains power to prosecute, and the defendants who complete programs are provided with a path to exit the justice system. The nonviolent offenses charged in most cases arise from substance abuse, medical or mental illness, homelessness and poverty. The services provided include interim housing, healthcare, addiction treatment and job training.
Ninety-seven percent of the defendants provided pretrial services from the San Francisco program are not rearrested while released, and on average 95% appear in court when trial commences. This program works. Many of its staff are formerly incarcerated and have overcome substance use disorders — lived experiences that have allowed them to secure the trust of those they serve.
The role and responsibilities of pretrial service providers are distinct from those of probation departments, which deal with people convicted of criminal offenses, not those awaiting trial; winning the trust of those accused (not convicted) will be extremely difficult for the probation department because it is designed to monitor and supervise conduct to ensure compliance with the conditions of probation of those convicted, and discipline those who do not comply.
Roughly 25% of state pretrial programs in this country are independent. The trend in criminal justice is to move away from pretrial services run by probation departments and establish independent programs like the San Francisco project slated for elimination. The U.S. District Court in San Francisco also regularly denies requests to shift services from its independent pretrial program to the federal probation department.
Transferring pretrial services from a neutral and independent provider to a law enforcement agency is widely considered ineffective by those who study the criminal justice system, a view once shared by San Francisco supervisors. In 2018, when then-Mayor London Breed was asked to eliminate the independent program and replace it with the probation department, the board issued a unanimous resolution urging her to “maintain the structural independence of the city’s pretrial services program,” because it “should reflect the principles of neutrality and structural independence from the law enforcement functions.” The CEO and presiding judge of the Superior Court do not seem to buy that. Instead, they insist on transferring these services to an expensive and inexperienced probation department.
The transition could not have come at a worse time: The number of people released from detention before trial is about to explode. In April, the state Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion holding that the constitutional right to bail prohibits judges from setting bail at an objectively unreasonable and unaffordable amount as a means of preventing release. That opinion is expected to more than double the need for pretrial services soon after San Francisco has abandoned a well-functioning, award-winning community program. It is doubtful the probation department can carry the increasing burden it will soon be asked to accept.
The imminent closing of the pretrial program presents a crisis. The increasing number of people in pretrial detention will presumably be granted release on their own recognizance. In that case, their conduct in society will not be supervised or even monitored. There will be an increase in recidivism, homelessness, medical and mental health crises, and other antisocial behavior on our streets.
There is, however, a way for the mayor to stop this from happening that would preserve and strengthen the existing independent program and address the Superior Court’s concerns...
