cou v60 in. City and County of San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department ALLEN A. NANCE 375 WOODSIDE AVENUE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94127 (415) 753-7556 May 14, 2019 The Honorable Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: Sandra Fewer District 1 Norman Yee District 7 Catherine Stefani District 2 Rafael Mandelman District 8 Aaron Peskin District 3 Hillary Ronen District 9 Gordon Mar District 4 Shamann Walton District 10 Vallie Brown District 5 Ahsha Safai District 11 Matt Haney District 6 San Francisco City Hall 1 Dr Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Board File No. 190392 Administrative Code - Juvenile Hall Closure Dear Honorable Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: I write to express my views, concerns, and recommendations regarding Board File No. 190392 Administrative Code Juvenile Hall Closure, its impact on youths served byjuvenile hall and the juvenile justice system, if passed. The currentjuvenile hall (JH) is located at 375 Woodside Avenue and is annexed to the Juvenile Justice Administration building which houses the Superior Court and Juvenile delinquency courtrooms, offices of Juvenile Probation, District Attorney, Public Defender, San Francisco Unified School District, Department of Public Health, San Francisco Public Library, and non-profit agencies. Each entity supports the delivery of service to detained youths. If the existing facility is closed in favor of creating an alternative in a separate location, the benefits associated with the services provided by these various offices in close proximity to the current facility would be compromised. In the absence of a clearly articulated plan to replace the existing structure, I am concerned that dismantling juvenile hall could serve to destabilize and adversely impact overall juvenile justice system operations. Juvenile Hall is more than a secure detention facility. The existing 150-bed facility opened in 2006 at a construction cost of $42 million. It was built in accordance with state regulations for such facilities as a modern and spacious detention setting. Since that time, programs, staffing, and priorities of the detention facility have evolved as reflected by the youth and family centered, trauma?informed, and goal?oriented, services and resources provided within its walls. Youth who arrive in crisis are stabilized, assessed and treated with care. In 2008, the average daily population (ADP) in JH was 123 youths. That same year, the facility exceeded its 150- bed capacity. Notwithstanding the rated capacity, the facility design consists of 40 double-occupancy rooms, and 70 single-occupancy rooms. The rooms designed for two youths can hardly be characterized as ideally suited for two teens given their size and the presence of a toilet which the youths would be expected to use in the presence of their peers. For the past five years, all youth in SF?sjuveniIe hall are on single room status. The following photo shows a double-occupancy room in juvenile hall (vacant room without mattresses and bedding): Juvenile Hall 2?person room without mattresses and bedding. A dedicated focus on the use of alternatives to detention, diversion, and community program investments resulted in reduced reliance on secure detention, improved conditions of confinement, and fewer bookings into the facility. In 20132018 it further declined to 44. More importantly, in 2018, 695 teens were booked in juvenile hall. The average length of stay was approximately 23 days. Juvenile detention is generally designed to be temporary. The dramatic decline ofjuvenile crime in San Francisco is a cause to celebrate. Even still, there is more work to be done. Most youths involved in San Francisco?sjuvenile justice system do not require secure custody. However, for the approximately 40 youths housed at JH on any given day, the facility represents a safe, secure, nurturing and necessary environment where their needs can be assessed, and a plan for their return to the community can be developed, meeting their best interests and in the furtherance of public safety. As such, judges, probation officers, and other practitioners must weigh the benefits and consequences of its use. The highest JH census thus far this year was on 01/22/2019. There were 56 youths in custody. An analysis of the race and ethnicity of the detainees determined the following: Single Day - Juvenile Hall Ethm'c Breakdown on Jan. 22, 2019 (n 56) Other (see Filipino, 2, 4% below), 4, 8% White. 3. 5% . . African Hispanic, 12, American, 35, 21% 62% Asian Other I Pacific Islander I Samoan 2 6 Closing the existing facility without a clear alternative denies these marginalized, disenfranchised, and vulnerable youths, the very interventions collectively designed to meet their needs. African American and LatinX youth would be impacted the most. The more than two-thirds reduction in juvenile court referrals is a clear indication that our youth are better off today, than a decade ago. Since closing the current Juvenile Hall does not eliminate the county?s obligation to detain juveniles, we can ill?afford to suffer a gap between the closure of the existing facility and the creation of an equally effective alternative. It has been discussed that the need would not exceed 15 beds. It is unclear how this number was determined, nor is there clarity as to the manner in which youth classification and housing requirements will be met as promulgated by the Board of State and Community Corrections in state regulations Title 15 and Title 24. There has been much discussion regarding the offense types for detained youths in San Francisco?s JH including the presumption that large numbers of youths are in custody on misdemeanor offenses. For the past 21 years, the Community Assessment and Resource Center (CARC) has served as the City?s diversion resource for almost all youths arrested for misdemeanor offenses and infractions. Some non-violent felonies are also diverted to CARC instead of being referred to juvenile court. At the same time, probation and judicial decisions regarding detention extend beyond the offense for which the minor has been charged. The safety of the youth and other factors related to their community adjustment, including pending court matters, also drive these important custody decisions. However, a recent analysis of the offense distributions for detained youths at the end ofJanuary, February, and March 2019 shows that the percentage of youths in custody on misdemeanor offenses was 4% or less. The maximum number of youths detained on misdemeanor offenses for any of the dates included in the snapshots was 1 or 2 as indicated in the following charts: TABLES: JUVENILE HALL BOOKINGS BY OFFENSE TYPE 8: CHARGE BOOKING REASONS FOR YOUTH IN JUVENILE HALL BY OFFENSE TYPE Youth in Juvenile Hall on: 1/31/2019 2/ 28/ 2019 3/ 31/2019 2:2:(gi2g Offense Type 8: Felony Offenses 28 61% 27 73% 30 60% Warrants Violations 16 35% 9 24% 19 38% Misdemeanor Offenses 2 4% 1 3% 1 2% Grand Total 46 100% 37 100% 50 100% BOOKING REASONS FOR YOUTH IN JUVENILE HALL BY DATE: 3/31/2019 Snapshot Booking Offense Type Charge Felony Offenses Robbery Assault Great Bodily Injury Burglary Possession of a Controlled Substance Concealed Firearm in a Vehicle Murder Street Gang Grand Theft Person Grand Theft Over $950 Use of Tear Gas Firearm at School Battery against Person Assault Deadly Weapon Warrants Violations WRNT602 Home Supervision Violation of Probation CTORD WKND BENCH WRNT Misdemeanor Offenses Battery Grand Total No of Youth 30 16 19 11 50 of Youth 60100% 2/28/2019 Snapshot Booking Offense Type Charge Felony Offenses Robbery Assault Great Bodily Injury Conspiracy to Commit Theft Burglary Cannabis for Sale Assault Deadly Weapon Sale of Controlled Substance Rape of Disabled Person Street Gang Grand Theft Over 5950 Murder Cocaine Base for Sale Stolen Auto Warrants 8: Violations Home Supervision WRNT602 Placement Failure BENCH WRNT Misdemeanor Offenses Battery Grand Total No. of of Youth Youth 100% 1/31/2019 Snapshot Booking Offense Type 8: Charge Felony Offenses Robbery Burglary Cocaine Base for Sale Assault Great Bodily Injury Burglary 2nd Degree Street Gang Sale of Controlled Substance Lewd Lascivious Acts Child under 14 Murder Grand Theft Over $950 Stolen Auto Assault Deadly Weapon Warrants 8: Violations WRNT502 Home Supervision BENCH WRNT Placement Failure WI WRNT HOLD Misdemeanor Offenses Escape False Information to Police Officer Grand Total No of Youth Youth 61100% The ordinance as proposed, calls for the closure ofjuvenile hall by December 2021, even though no alternative to the existing facility is identified. No jurisdiction the size of San Francisco or larger has taken the drastic step to close theirjuvenile detention facility. There is no national model for a shift of this magnitude. Therefore, the focus of the ordinance and its deadline should be redirected to prioritize the development of a plan for a viable alternative. If no plan is developed prior to the deadline, the closure ofjuvenile hall could place the county in the position of being required to develop an agreement with another county to house San Francisco Youth (Welfare and institutions Code Section 872). While the closure ofjuvenile hall as it is known today is an aspirational goal, the reality of creating the alternative requires a series of concrete considerations that must be managed within the context ofvarious administrative processes, which can often be complicated and protracted. Respectfully, I offer the following amendments to the current ordinance: 1. Strike the juvenile hall closure date of December 31, 2021. Instead, include language that calls for the development of recommendations that could serve as alternatives to the existingjuvenile hall facility. This deadline could coincide with such plan being delivered no later than, December 31, 2021. 2. Alternatively, language should be included to restrict the closing of the existing juvenile hall unless and until the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court has approved an alternative detention facility in place of the existing juvenile hall located at 375 Woodside Avenue. 3. The 305 should fund the exploration and creation of modifications of existing vacant space within juvenile hall to serve juveniles who require inpatient care, inpatient medical detoxification, and short?term crisis stabilization for chronically homeless teens who require clinical interventions. 4. The 305 should call for a full needs analysis of existing youth investments funded by the City for youths ?at risk? of or involved in the juvenile justice system to include an outcomes study. Such analysis should be conducted prior to the authorization of a Youth Justice Reinvestment Fund. 5. The 305 and the Mayor should combine and coordinate the membership and priorities of the "Working Group? with those of the Mayor?s Blue?Ribbon Panel on Juvenile Justice Reform. 6. Future amendments to the ordinance or new legislation will require a legislative framework and plan to support the implementation of any alternative to the existing juvenile hall structure, and should include capital investments, employee retraining and transition to new employment, and a fiscal plan and budget to support programming for any such alternative. The Juvenile Probation Department is invested in continuing the longstanding tradition of San Francisco as an innovative, creative, and reform-minded community. We wholly support efforts to explore evidence?based and promising practices to reduce the risk factors that drive youth to crime, and are fully committed to efforts to improve the systems designed to respond to their evolving needs. We look forward to working with Mayor Breed, the Board of Supervisors, juvenile justice stakeholders and the public as we seek to adopt policies and practices that further reduce youth involvement with the justice system, advance principles of restorative justice, contribute to community safety, and advance the best interests of the youths we serve. HOnorable Mayor London N. Breed Honorable Judge Garrett Wong, Presiding Judge, Superior Court Honorable Judge Monica Wiley, Supervising Judge, Unified Family Court, Superior Court George Gascon, District Attorney Vicki Hennessy, Sheriff Naomi Kelly, City Administrator Manohar Raju, Public Defender William Scott, Chief Police Department Angela Calyillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Joe Arellano, President, Juvenile Probation Commission Angel Carrion, Chair, Juvenile Justice Commission Kasey Lee, Bar Association of San Francisco Mawuli Tugbenyoh, Advisor, Criminal Justice and Public Safety Kelly Kirkpatrick, Budget Director Sophia Kittler, Mayor?s Liaison to the Board ofSuperyisors Paula Hernandez, Assistant Chief Probation Officer Sandra Dalida, Deputy Director of Administrative Services