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