Participating in a meeting remotely. This precaution is taken pursuant to the local, state and federal orders and declarations and directives. The meeting is through video conversation and participate in the meeting as if physically present. Public comment is available on each item on this agenda. And sfgovtv. Org are streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. Comments are opportunities to speak during the Public Comment period and available by calling 1 415 6550001. Again, 1 415 6550001. Meeting i. D. , 1460595898. Again, 1460595898. Then press pound twice. When connected you will hear the meeting discussions but you will be in mute and in this mode only. When your item of interest comes up dial star, 3, to be added to the speaker line. And best practices are to call from a quiet location and speak slowly and clearly and turn down your television ore radio. You can submit Public Comment by emailing to the budget and finance committee clerk, and if you submit Public Comment via email it is forwarded to the supervisors and it will be included as part of the official file. Finally items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of october 20th unless otherwise stated. Chair fewer thank you very much, madam clerk. Call item number 1. Clerk yes, item 1, a resolution approving the sheriff offices home detention and Electronic Monitoring Program rules and regulations and approving the evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by the program administrator, season 10iel Offender Services l. L. C. For fiscal years 20202021. For those to provide Public Comment call 1 415 6550001. Meeting i. D. , 1460595898. Then press pound twice. If you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. A system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. Wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. Chair fewer thank you very much, madam clerk. Colleagues, you may remember that we continued this item from last week. There were some technical difficulties and then we sort of ran out of time for this item. And so i want to thank mr. Holland from the Service Office for returning to present on item 1. We have a guest expert on electronic monitoring, mr. James kilgor. We hear from mr. Holland and i believe that today we have our technical issues resolved. Mr. Holland, the floor is yours. Thank you, supervisors. Thank you, chair fewer. Iis my screen showing . Chair fewer yes, it is, sir. Terrific, okay. Thanks, supervisors, thank you, chair fewer. I am the chief Financial Officer for the Sheriffs Office here in San Francisco. And before i start, i want to just say thank you for your vote a few weeks back to fund our Data Management system that the Sheriffs Office is pursuing as recommended by the reenvisioning the jail working group. In developing this presentation i was given another opportunity to experience the challenges of mining criminal justice data, so i really appreciate your support of this reenvisioning recommendation. So the purpose of todays presentation we come before this body every year because the california appeal code requires that, quote the rules and regulations and administrative policy of the program to be written and reviewed on an annual basis by the county board of supervisors. So thats why were here. And now im going to address a number of the questions that came up when we were here a few weeks ago. So starting with this first slide, which illustrates the general process by which an individual is put on electronic monitoring in San Francisco, and its a process that involves multiple agencies and the multiple agencies who make up the criminal justice system. And the flow chart is to show that most points in the process, particularly the Decision Point be that results in an individual being assigned to electronic monitoring is made by the courts. In making this decision, the court has information regarding the defendant, including information from a Public Safety assessment or p. S. A. Thats highlighted in blue in this process map and the p. S. A. Is described further on the next slide. So, my next slide this shows the Public Safety assessment decisions that have been made from may 2016 to june 2020. Within the Public Safety assessment, there is a decisionmaking framework or d. M. F. , that uses a risk to determine the risk of a person reoffending or not appearing in court. As that table shows weve had about 30,000 p. S. A. S scored over the last 40 years. And then as you can see in the data in the chart in the lower half of the slide, a higher risk score correlates with higher risk of not appearing in court and the higher risk of reoffending during the pretrial period. And the courts use electronic monitoring as a tool to mitigate these risks. And that is further illustrated in the next slide. Now i presented a version of this slide to the board in september 2019 when the board approved the current electronic monitoring contracts. It shows three boxes. Each of which shows for a given date the total justice involved population and how many of those people were in custody on subject dates. So you can see that between september 2016 and 2019, that the incustody population decreased 5 , even though the total justice involved population grew by 27 . I cant speak for why the total population increased, but the decrease in the incustody population correlates with an increase in courtordered electronic monitoring or e. M. As noted in last weeks Public Comment, the e. M. Population during this time grew threefold and today the courts have placed approximately 25 of the outofcustody justice involved population on e. M. E. M. Has played a Critical Role in reducing the population we believe, including the closure of c. J. 4. Now the next slide addresses the questions about who is on e. M. Today. So i looked at it in two ways. So to determine who is on e. M. , we looked at a data set of all persons booked into the San Francisco jail system from january 1 to june 30, 2020. Who are ultimately put on electronic monitoring. We then looked at who is on e. M. As defined by a persons top charge, splitting the data into two buckets as defined by federal guidelines, and part two for nonviolent charges and part one for violent charges. Many jurisdictions in this country restrict electronic monitoring for individuals with part two charges only. However, in San Francisco, being a leader in criminal justice reforms, San Francisco has expanded the use of e. M. For persons with part one charges to keep them out of custody and to reduce the jail population. Its this part one population that accounts for the threefold increase by the courts of people assigned to e. M. , rather than custody, and which in turn has played a Critical Role in reducing the jail population. Now the next slide shows who is on e. M. By demographics. Now this slide has a lot of pie charts and i have broken them down into two groups. The pie chart on the top says race and ethnicity demographics of who is on e. M. And these percentages are reflective of who is arrested in San Francisco. The three pie charts on the bottom show by race and ethnicity the risks from the decisionmaking framework or the d. M. F. To reduce bias, the d. M. F. Process excludes Demographic Data, but for the purposes of todays presentation, Demographic Data was added after the fact using data from other data since linked by a common booking number. Now i show the d. M. F. Score by race and ethnicity, and the bottom three charts highlight that the Court Assigns e. M. Primarily for individuals whose d. M. F. Score results in a release not recommendation. E. M. Allows for a noncustodial sentence, i. E. , release, for individuals who might otherwise be held in custody. And the final slide shows some additional Demographic Data, specifically on age, gender, housing status, for those who are on e. M. And im about to conclude, but before i conclude i want to add that there is a larger question of the effectiveness of electronic monitoring that this department is interested in looking at. And quoting from the report, monitor the release from the safety and justice report on the c. J. 4 closure, quote the city should review the Forthcoming Research on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring and its impacts on the jail population. , again, this office is very interested in doing that research and we have partnered with the california arm from u. C. Berkeley to look at this, and its a strong relationship with the California Department of justice which can provide real data on recidivism across the state. We have been at this a while and the California Policy Lab just received their ethics approval for this study and we invite anyone who is interested to participate in this with us. And with that, i am thats all i have. And im happy to take any questions. Thank you. Chair fewer thank you, mr. Hollands. First lets ask my colleagues, any comments or questions for mr. Hollywoo hollands at this p . Seeing none oh, sorry, chair fewer. Chair fewer supervisor walton. Supervisor walton i did have a few questions for mr. Hollands. Chair fewer would you like to ask them now, or after our expert on electronic monitoring . Supervisor walton in whatever way is easier for you. Chair fewer okay. Why dont we have the other presentation first because some questions may be answered in his presentation and then you can ask then we can ask all of the questions. And also we had, actually, mr. James kilgor here last time and he waited such a long time. So lets have him first. So mr. James kilgor, if you dont mind joining us now and giving us i think that you have a presentation to present to us, is that correct, mr. Kilgor . Yes, yes. Chair fewer you may present it now. Okay, and ill speak probably about five minutes if that is okay. Chair fewer that is perfect. Thank you. So i just want to begin by thanking you all for waiting so long to hear this presentation. And i appreciate you taking an interest in this and taking the policy measure seriously. I want to just talk a little bit about my own experience of electronic monitoring. When i was paroled from prison in 2009 and i came home, the day after my parole agent came and told me that i was going to be on electronic monitor and they would only be allowed out of the house from 6 00 a. M. To 10 00 a. M. , monday through friday. And that sparked a lot of responses from me about what the notion of freedom meant with electronic monitor, but also what was happening with these devices. So thats 2009. Since that time i have been doing a lot of research on electronic monitoring. I gained an open Society Fellowship to develop a campaign on electronic monitoring. And i have been interviewing people, collecting data, doing research, and advising people on policy around electronic monitoring since that time. So i want to talk a little bit about about what the conclusions that i have made about electronic monitoring. The first thing is that i think that we have to stop talking about it as an alternative to incarceration. Its an alternative form of incarceration. The definition of incarceration is depriving people of their liberty. The standard conditions of electronic monitoring is house arrest, and in most instances you have to apply for permission to get movement out of the house and those restrictions place huge burdens on people in terms of accessing employment, in terms of participating in family activities, in terms of participating in religious events. A whole range of freedoms that are seriously restricted by electronic monitoring. Secondly, and i think that this is absolutely crucial as i listened to the presentation before me, there is no body of research that has established that electronic monitoring has a positive impact. Theres no body of research that shows that it has an impact on recidivism, and people showing up for Court Appearances, on people on contributing to Public Safety, there is no body of research that shows any of that. And what is remarkable is that this technology has been implemented for years and years and years, and were doing the research after we implement the Technology Rather than looking back on over 20 years of using electronic monitors and we still havent established that its effective. It reminds me a little bit about with electronic monitoring, it reminds me a little bit about a rush to get a vaccine for covid before we actually properly test it. But we have been doing something similar to that with electronic monitoring ever since the 1980s with these devices. Thirdly, we need to recognize that electronic monitoring disproportionately impacts the same people that it mass incarceration disproportionately impacts. Black people in particular, people of color more broadly, disabled people and people with disabilities and so forth. All of those people are disproportionately impacted by electronic monitoring. Now the problem is that and this is one of the things that im happy that our city is trying to address most jurisdictions dont keep data on this. So we dont really have data that shows that electronic monitoring is racially discriminatory, but we know that it is from the experience of talking to people who have been on electronic monitors, and we also know that every single aspect of the system of mass incarceration diz pr disproporty affects black people and people of color. Why somehow should electronic monitoring be the exception to that . So i think before you embark on this technology you might want to also think about who are the companies that are driving this technology. The companies that are driving this technology are primarily companies that have already benefitted from mass incarceration. The biggest electronic Monitoring Company in the country is b. I. Incorporated and were a subis said area of the Worlds Largest private prison operator. Securest technologies which runs prison phone programs and video visitation programs, runs a large electronic Monitoring Company. And sentinel, the company that you want to that you want to contract with is notorious for charging people for all kinds of things on on pay to be on probation. They have even been taken to court for charging people for probation fees when their probation has already expired. So the last thing i want to say is that electronic monitoring makes life very difficult for people. Somehow people think that its not a bracelet. We refer to it as a shackle. Its a device of incarceration and its a device to control people, and to limit their ability to reintegrate into the community. And we were quite convinced from all of the research that weve done that any jurisdiction can do far better with the funds that they have and the technology that they have, they can do far better than investing in these punitive devices, but, rather, to look for programs and look for opportunities that are going to address the fundamental underlying structural problems that land people in jail in first place. Those are rooted in poverty. Theyre rooted in racism. Theyre rooted in the criminalization of the poor. So take the resources that are going into electronic monitoring and put them into ways to keep people out of jail and ways to build healthy communities, not ways to incarcerate people in their homes with their family members. Thank you. Chair fewer thank you very much. Thank you. Now let me open it up to my colleagues. Supervisor walton. Supervisor walton thank you so much, chair fewer. I appreciate you, and thank you mr. Kilgor and mr. Hollands. My questions are really for the Sheriffs Department at this time. Mr. Kilgor actually answered a lot of the questions that i had for him within his presentation. A couple of things that i just wanted to note, mr. Hollands typically how many people are on electronic monitoring over a course of a month . Today we have approximately 300 people on electronic monitoring and thats been pretty consistent for the last year or so. Supervisor walton and so from yearly data, what would you say, 300 times 12 or what do you think in terms of the year. Last year how many people did we have on electronic monitoring, for instance . You know, i hadnt thought about it necessarily in that way. But that data set that i was presenting in my slideshow where we looked at people who were who were charged between for six months, that had a thousand people in it. So, you know, possibly there are 2,000. And the reason is that it doesnt necessarily add up is that someone may be on electronic monitoring for a very brief period of time, so you could have different names. But that data set that i presented today has 976 individuals who are put on e. M. Over a period of six months. Supervisor walton what is the typical duration of somebody on electronic monitoring . You know, i would need to get back to you on that, but just working out the math in my head i would, you know, less than 30 days would be my guess. Supervisor walton so thats the mean thats the mean but theres a lot of variation in that. Supervisor walton what is the budget cost for electronic monitoring . The budget is the budget that this board authorizes is about a Million Dollars annuall. It used to be a much smaller budget, but the city determined that we would no longer charge any fees for electronic monitoring and so then the budget went from roughly 200,000 to about a million. That was also related to the large increase just ordered by the courts. Supervisor walton from a technological aspect, have there been any