For staffing this meeting. Machin please ensure youve silenced your cell phones, and your completed speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the october 29thd of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Id like to take item two first and then one and then three. So, mr. Clerk, could you please call item two. Item two is an ordinance amending the health and Business Code to replace the requirement that food preparations and Service Establishments post a symbol issued by the department of Public Health, and a placard indicating whether the establishment has conditionally passed or failed a health inspection. Clarifying some of the terminology pertaining to violations and penalties for same. And increasing permit fees for temporary permits and food vending machines. Thank you, mr. Clerk. This is supervisor peskins legislation, and we have calvin yang from his office to tell us about it. Thank you, chair mandelman. First i want to say my name is calvin, and im the legislative aide to to the supervisor. With an abundance of food options, whether delivered or eating inhouse, the health is up of utmost priorities. Im here to present to you and to seek your support for the proposed revision to the current Food Establishment scoring system. The Current System that San Francisco has been using is misleading and convoluted for the costumers and the Food Establishment operators. Currently local law authorizes d. P. H. To award them at the end of each inspection. And the score can range between 0 to 100. One restaurant can have a score of 95, and another 75, and regardless of the score, both restaurants can be operational, and may not pose any Immediate Health risks. For consumers, this means that it conveys Little Information if it would be safe to eat at a restaurant or not. For Small Businesses, the score misleads the consumer about the quality of food being served. In the Public Health perspective, we want to know if the establishment possess any immediate risk and whether or not anyone can eat there or not. The colorcoded placard uses a very simple red, yellow, green light system. The system is more dynamic, and our focus on enforcing the importance of compliance with the Critical Health risk factors. It focuses on two questions. One, whether a restaurant possess an Immediate Health risk. And two, whether that risk is abated during inspection. This system has been adopted and approved by a number of areas in the bay area. And has been supported by the Small Business commission. We went to the commission twice, and they have both approved it and support it. I do also want to add that this legislation, while working with the department, we have also added into categories of food facilities, and updated fee structures so the department is catch up to the innovative Business Ideas and everchanging landscape of the Food Industry in San Francisco. Before i bring up d. P. H. , i want to think pay tribute to lisa miley, who has retired after 38 years severinserving at d. P. H. She has been a respected and valued member, even as an inspector, and i want to thank lisa for bringing this forward. Right now i have the department of Public Health, patrick fosto, assistant director of environmental branch, terrence hong, and mary fronski from the department, Principal Environmental Health inspector. Thank you. Good morning, members, my name is patrick foson, the assistant director of the Environmental Health branch. We spent a lot of time working with supervisor peskins office, and organizations like the golden gate restaurant associations, to craft some changes, as was mentioned, primarily to the way Food Establishments are scored here in San Francisco. We presented before the Small Business commission, and they applauded the amendments and acknowledged the Health Departments responsiveness to community feedbacks. We believe the proposed changes represent a win win scenario for both Restaurant Owners and the health of the people here in San Francisco. With that, id like to introduce to you terrence hong, who is one of our food district managers, he will give you a brief overview of the changes that were proposing. Good morning, committee members. Ni nammy name is terrence hong, and im weren one of the food Program Managers in San Francisco. Current history in 2004, the Current System was adopted. This system, for the better part of two decades, had served its purpose. Iit has reported to the public a number based score, with both food safety, administrative violations and the structural violations. Unfortunately, the Current System, as mentioned, has outlived its usefulness. To share with you what all food inspectors know were not the most important person in term of food safety. The most important people are the operators. Were just the checkers of the checkers. It pales in comparison to the 365 days a year that the operator is there in his or her facility. Because this scoring system can be too heavily influenced by nonfood safety incidents, i already mentioned the administrative and structural, it doesnt necessarily reflect the current score of the conditions the patron might go into. As a result, too many of the partners, too many of the operators, have lost faith in the system. So the San Francisco department of Public Health is second to none in its commitment to protecting and promoting Public Health. But the danger of being the best is that there comes with it sometimes an overconfidence or stubbornness to change. Fortunately, we also adopt the commitment to staying humble, and humility allows us to disarm any illusions that selfcritique of the Current System or selfimprovement of the currents system cant be attained. We ask, honestly, is anyone doing it better than us . Will we gain to learn and mimic from the success of other counties so not to rein vebt threinvent the wheel. We are actually behind the other bay area counties mentioned, but i think visually for you, and hopefully in the package that you have in front of you and on the screen, youll see all of the other bay area counties use this infinitely more userfriendly and intuitive system. So that just shows you that San Francisco visually is behind the curve. Even though we the forerunners to introducing the system into the nine bay area counties. Okay association this is what we want to present to you, the placarding system, which has a proven track record in all of the bay area. Youre San Francisco inspectors can adopt any system. Were going to provide the exact same food safety inspections. We can adjust to any system. We do it better, in my estimation, than any other county, and we do it well. It is not so much the inspectors of the department that need reevaluation, it is the methodology we currently use to report it to the public that we serve. So this elegant approach gets out of the business of communicating anything other than the current food safety conditions of a restaurant. In short, what im trying to say, less is more. And this is how we win back our partners who many have lost faith in the Current System. So kind of to give you an overview of understanding how it works it is all based in science. So we take our cue from the cbc on the national level. They identified five risk factors that get people sick. Poor employee high jen, improper cooking temperatures, improper holding temperatures, contaminated equipment for food, and unapproved food sources. These are defined as major violations, and we miss any major violation or any condition that causes a major violation is something that would contribute to one of these five factors. So, for example, rodent droppings observed on a kitchen cutting board would obviously fall into a major violation. If you had a cracked tile on your floor, it obviously would not. So how does it work for the actual operator . It is pretty intuitive. In a nutshell, if you have one or fewer violations that can be corrected onsite, which is the vast, vast majority, i would say in the 98 or 99 percentile of places we inspect, you get a green placard. All facilities who have two or more major violations, and you couldnt correct it on site, you would receive the yellow placard. That being said, the department would make arrangements to come back at a time when they could make adjustments to that and potentially give the green placard again. Only if you couldnt abate the major violation on site that the red placard would be issued. The department has always had a good working relationship with the business community, meaning that if, unfortunately, a temporary suspension was made, we come back as quickly as the violation can be corrected. For example, if you had a waterheater that just needed the plumber to adjust it, we could be back that afternoon. If you needed more time to call your pest control operator because you have an infestation, well also accommodate that and we can be out there the next morning if your operator needs that afternoon or night to remedy the problem. Thats sort of the convoluted version of what i just described. So lastly, you see the placards again, which were proud to introduce to you today. I would close by saying it is not enough to maintain excellence, the mindset of complacency. As responsible stewards of special health for this special oneofakind city, we hope you will agree with us we can adopt the placarding system because it is a win win situation. I remain available for any questions, specifically to the clack car placard system, ad the mayor is here to answer any questions that you may have that addresses some of the introduction of different food category restaurants. Thank you. My colleagues appear to be delighted by what they have heard. So we can go to Public Comment. Speakers will have two minutes. You can state your first and last name clearly and speak directly into the microphone. Those with written statements are e encouraged to leave copies for the file. And we encourage speakers to avoid repetition of previous statements. So if there are any folks who would like to speak on item two, come on up. It looks like there are none. So Public Comment is now closed. And. If there are now comments or questions, i will move that we forward this to the full board with positive recommendation, and we can take that without objection. Great. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item one. Agenda item one, a hearing to consider the premises to premises transfer of a type 21, offsawitwill serve its the puc convince or necessity of the city or county. Great, lets hear from the a. L. U. Good morning member, members of the board of supervisors. They have applied for a type 21 licence, and if approved, it will allow them to sale offsale beer and wine and spirits. There are no letters of offense or support. Theyre on census tract 177. The southern station has no opposition. The alcohol Liason Committee approves with the following conditions. Number one, sale and services will be permitted between 7 00 a. M. And 12 00 p. M. Midnight. And theyll prevent the loitering of persons on any property as depected depictd on abc 253. Great. It looks like we dont have any comments or questions. Well invite the applicant up. Good morning. Beth osalopia for target. This is an application for a determination of public convenience or necessity for a small format target store that will be operating on folsom. This store will be similar to the other small Format Target Stores in San Francisco. One in downtown San Francisco on bush, a similar store in oceanview, and one in the stones town galleria. All of those target stores also sell alcoholic beverages with a type 21license. We would like to be able to order those same products to targets of the costf the new target store. The alcohol sales will be incidental, and it will be for those who, along with groceries, would like to pick up alcoholic beverages. Because it is offered at other target stores, it is a product that costumers come to expect from target. So we would like to be able to offer that. We have reached out to some 200 residents, closest residents to the proposed location, with notification of our alcohol license, and there were no objections. We also did reach out to the soma west Community Benefits district, and, again, there were no objections to the alcohol license that weve applied for. As you heard, a. L. U. Is supportive of the request, and we would ask that the committee make a favorable recommendation. Id be happy to answer any questions. And there is also a representative of target here who would have a few comments. Does the representative for target want to come up . Good morning. John dues with target. Im the develop manager for this region. I just wanted to thank you all for this opportunity today. And also just to just reiterate targets commitment to the city of San Francisco the city and county of San Francisco. In terms of what weve done in terms of our Corporate Giving over the years, and what we intend to do here as well. Were working with a number of nonprofit groups, particularly at this store in terms of local hiring for underserved groups within the area, including the San Francisco lgbtq center, the youth services, and the positive resource center. Were working with a number of formally homeless transitional aids youth who identify as lgbtq as part of our hiring process for this store. This goes a along with just our more General Community giving of 5 of our annual profits. Were excited to be here. And we do appreciate a positive vote on this today. Thank you. Now, its my understanding that the District Supervisor has been in communication with you all, and is asking that we continue this to allow you additional time for outreach to the community. Is that your understanding as well . Im sorry, could you repeat that . It is my understanding that the District Supervisor has been in touch with you all and is encouraging you to do some additional outreach to the community, and has asked us to continue this to allow time for that. We feel like weve done all the outreach to the various groups that have been necessary for this, including, as i said, the local hiring that we will be working on. Okay. Anything you want to add to that . Not at this point, no. Great. Well, then, well open this up for Public Comment. Thank you. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. All right, it is my it has been communicated to my office that supervisor haney is requesting that we continue this. The challenge there is that we are up against the 90day deadline, but we are we generally understand that the abc, even if we dont make our determination by public convenience and necessity within the 90day period, it generally defense to our determination, but after that point they do not have to. Based on that and the supervisors request, im going to move that we continue this to our november 8 special meeting. To the november 8 special. Yeah. And we will seeing no objections, well take that without objection. All right. Mr. Clerk, could you please call item three. Item three is a hearing to discuss the closing of county jail number four at 850 bryant. I believe this is supervisor haneys, so we might just recess for a minute to allow him to get here. So well take a five minute recess. Well do a all right, everyone, were going to reconvene. Im going to ask folks to quiet down, sit down. Weve been joined by supervisor haney. And i believe we have already called item three, correct . We have not . We have. Im happy to do it again. No. Once is enough. But since we do have a number of few folks who entered the chamber, perhaps you can say how we work. Please dont stand in the chamber. We should have enough seats for everyone. Please also respect the board rule, 3. 1, prohibition against applause or any other kind of vocal interruption of the meaning today, and any displaying of any signage you have brought in here. And please no eating and drinking here. But can indicate their approval of things said or disapproval of things that have been said, but we ex ask that folks not boo or cheer because this is going to be a long hearing, and we would like to move it along. So with that, supervisor aan ne,haney, this is your item. Thank you, chair mandelman and committee members. I appreciate you all for having this hearing here and for your patience. Im going to provide some opening comments and then we have a number of presenters, and i want to thank them for being here. And ill announce them after my comments. We are holding this hearing, which i called, along with my colleagues president yee, supervisors ronan browning, for a very simple reason we have to close the jail at 850 bryant. It is far past the time for a time and plan to do so. The building has been marked for demolition since 1996, other than 20 years ago. The city administrator called for the jail to be closed by the end of this year, 2019. Despite this, no active plan exists to close the jail. No one believes that this building is safe. I met with the key city officials on this issue, all of whom have spoken out publicly. The sheriff, the city administrators office, superior court judges and now the mayor, and they all agree this building is siseismicly unfit. Everyone who works there will be moved out of the building. The only group we dont have a plan for are the people incarcerated there, and the people who work directly with them. This is unacceptable, it is shameful, and it needs to change. Everyone is in agreement that the jail should close and it will close as soon as possible. One city official actually told me that the building is so obviously unsafe and widely understood to be so, that our own department of Building Inspections could soon red tag it and close it themselves at any moment. A few months ago, i spent the morning at county jail number four, the jail on the seve seventh floor of 850 bryant. I toured the jail with my staff and the sheriff, and the jail is built in a linear style, forcing those incarcerate thered thereo spend most of their day in old, crowded concrete walls. Most jails house individuals in pods with recreational space. Is however, at 850 bryant, they are largely incarcerated thrin their cells for most of the day. People with severe Mental Illness has very little ongoing care, and are not in an environment fit for treatment. Over 90 of people there have actually not been convicted of any crime yet. They are awaiting trial. Many have been awaiting their day in court for months, or even years, and languish there because they cannot afford to pay bail or because of a lack of space in other facilities. Continuing to house people in that facility is also an issue of Public Safety. People housed there need and deserve individualized treatment and rehabilitation, not concrete cell blocks. We are not safer as a community when individuals spend time in this jail without any support or treatment, and then released back on the streets. The jail system also represents the grave racial and economic disparities of our criminal Justice System. 45 of those held are africanamerican. Almost 40 are unhoused. Over 30 are in need of Mental Health care. 25 are under 25, and over 90 are being held pretrial. These statistics should shock our moral conscience. San francisco can and must act to reduce criminalization, divert people from jail, and have more affective approaches to pretrial and diversion. Those on the seventh floor do not supervise themselves. Sheriffs deputies and other employees, including doctors, nurses, and counsellors, and keeping this open is also a violation of workers rights and endangers the safety of staff who work there. Those trapped on the seventh floor in the concrete cells do not get to go home, for the folks who live there, but this is also an incredible danger to the people who work there as well. A recent news article in 2017 alerted the public to the fact that the building would likely crumble in a major earthquake. Just yesterday was an anniversary of one of our earthquakes, and 850 bryant treatmen street is not prepared and we need to act. In 2015, supervisors rejected new jail construction. Since that time, there have been more than 10 hearings here, alternatives to jailing, Mental Health courts behavioral services, along with countless meetings of working groups and associated committees. The clock has been ticking on this unsafe facility for a long time, and now is the time to act. Yesterday mayor breed announced a delayed closure of the jail at 850 bryant that would potentially keep people imprisoned until july 2021. Despite the fact that the mayor announced a closure date of july 2021, which would shockingly mean people would live and work in this facility for another two years, we still dont have any details about how exactly that is going to happen. We dont know how much it is going to cost. We dont know what are options are as a policy body and with regard to the city. The mayor announced a site that would Start Construction in 2028 and presumably open in the 2030s. We dont know much about this facility, whether it would be a sort of replacement jail or what it would be used for, and we need to know those answers so that we can plan ahead and do the right thing for our city. The goal here is not to relitigate past decisions made by this board or others. It is an opportunity to hear what our options are, plans and costs in more detail. The mayor says were going to close this facility in two years, and even if we accepted that timeline, which i have serious concerns about, we have to have a plan in place now. We have heard the possibility that some individuals incarcerated at county jail four would be sent to santa rita jail. I and many others have serious concerns about this approach. These concerns have not been answered or addressed. It would be expensive, burdeburdensome, and would impact rehabilitation and reentry. There are not only concerns about costs and logistics, but most importantly questions about human rights. Santa rita jail has a sketchy track record when it comes to people incarcerated there, and it has approaches that are not compatible with San Francisco values when it comes to cooperation in immigration officials. In july of this year, 93 of the 313 people incarcerated in jail number four were awaiting trial. Many of those were either homeless or experiencing serious Mental Illness or addiction. With the focus that our city has on putting Mental Health care and treatment at the forefront, as well as prioritizing pretrial reform, we should be planning right now for how were going to transition many of piece individuals into Mental Health care, supportive housing, as well as more effective, less costly, more communitybased pretrial services, and i want to hear about our plans to do that. The longer we wait to plan for an affective, smart, and safe San Francisco solution to closing this facility, the more constrained our decisions and options are, and the longer we place people in grave danger in this facility. The time for a plan is now. I want to thank, again, all of the departments. And i want to thank the no new Jail Coalition who was very much involved in partnering with my office, and my staff, abbey river mesa, who did a lot of work on this as well. First wearing going to hear from the budget and legislative analysts. They did a report that was recently released that really broke down what exactly is happening at 850 bryant, what the costs are per individual, the staffing, and some of the things that have been done so far. In analyzing these numbers, im interested in hearing from all of our propertieds opresenters on whaty believe these numbers mean for our jail population and specifically for the closure of the jail. Thank you, supervisor haney. We have been joined by supervisor fewer, and we have comments from supervisor wal toon and supervisor fewer. Supervisor wal ton . I want to thank you for calling this hearing and for everybody who has come up today. We have known for years that 850 bryant is seismicly unfit. Weve had several discussions about how to best shut down this facility and accommodate both populations. The building is unfit for city employees, not just because of the seismicly unsafe conditions, but also due to the dilapidated state and overall wear and tear of a building that needs much attention and needs to be torn down. In addition, the jail is not fit to exist. The old schoolstyle and prisonlike ads fear is noprisonlike atmosphere will never provide an opportunity for true rehabilitation to help individuals reenter society. I, too, visited the jail with my team a couple of months ago and instantly knew this was an inhumane facility. Today were hoping to hear how we will shut down 850 bryant, and make sure all people who use the building have a viable alternative that addresses everyones needs. I want to thank the department, and naomi and her team, and the no new Jail Coalition for all of their work on this and for being here to come and witness this hearing and have the conversation about next steps. But we do need a real plan, a viable plan, that takes into consideration employees, as well as individuals housed in the jail, and how were going to do that thoughtfully and appropriately for all populations. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor walton. Supervisor fewer. Thank you, chair. Good morning, everyone. I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues. I appreciate this hearing and much of our conversation today is about the closure of the hall of justice, specifically about the closure of county jail number four. But the way im looking at this issue is systemwide, and i am looking at the population across the entire jail system. Essentially, i want to avoid a scenario where we have to send any people to santa rita or jails out of the county, which has been emphasized by supervisor haney. My office has talked to many departments, looking for strategies to further reduce the jail population. Thank you, colleagues, for calling this hearing. First of all, cost. That was a primary question that we were asked to address. And specifically the cost of not just the syrup share ofs department but other departments that provide service to county jail number four as well. This table shows for fiscal year 20, the current fiscal year, as well as her 1718, what the budgeted costs are for the sheriff, the Real Estate Division, Capital Spending cost, and the department of Public Health costs. You can see here, for the current year, it is 19. 9 million for just the sheriff, and then the Real Estate Division and Capital Funding adds 755,000, and the department of Public Health, which is both Jail Health Services and Behavioral Health is 4 million. The grand total for the current year is 24. 7 million in costs for the departments involved in county jail number four. 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 conta