San Francisco supervisors approve ordinance to close juvenile hall by end of 2021, set oversight and labor protections

San Francisco supervisors voted 10-1 on June 4 to pass on first reading an ordinance requiring the city to close the juvenile hall by Dec. 31, 2021, while adding amendments that set review and labor protections and require the Board of Supervisors to approve the final closure plan by resolution.

The ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Ahsha Safai and carried through debate largely by Supervisor Matt Haney, was the focus of an extended exchange among supervisors, juvenile probation officials and advocates who have for years called for alternatives to secure detention. Supervisor Walton, the ordinance author, said the measure commits the city to develop non‑institutional alternatives and individualized plans for the small number of youth who by state law must be detained.

The board accepted several amendments before the vote. Key changes require the Department of Human Resources to complete meet-and-confer obligations with unions representing affected employees before closure; direct the working group to develop staff transition plans; ask the working group to retain subject matter experts as needed; and require the working group to submit a final plan for the Board of Supervisors to approve by resolution no later than June 1, 2021. The board also added language directing funding for community‑based alternatives and clarifying the ordinance is for the general welfare.

Chief Alan Nance, Chief Probation Officer for the juvenile probation department, told supervisors there are 39 young people in juvenile hall and that the average length of stay last year was 23 days. Nance disputed a claim in the ordinance’s findings that most youth in custody are detained for low‑level offenses, saying snapshot counts show most detained youth are held on violent felony charges such as robbery or aggravated assault and that detention decisions are judicial and multifactorial.

Supervisors who supported the ordinance said its purpose is to replace a “jail‑like” facility with a network of community‑based services, more clinical supports and smaller rehabilitative settings for the limited number of youth who must be detained by law. Supporters emphasized the facility’s low census (about 25 percent capacity was cited in debate), racial disparities in detention, and treatment gaps for youth with mental health needs.

Opponents and several supervisors cautioned that the city must have a concrete, actionable plan and sufficient in‑custody alternatives in place before closure to comply with state law and judicial requirements. Supervisor Walton and others said the amendments were intended to ensure the closure is implemented with labor protections, meaningful consultation with staff, and a verified plan to avoid gaps in capacity.

Roll call on the amended ordinance produced 10 ayes and one no (Supervisor Stephanie in dissent). The ordinance passed on first reading; supervisors will consider the ordinance again in a future reading and the working group must submit the final plan to the board for approval by resolution before closure.

The debate also included a sustained public comment portion, in which dozens of Chinatown residents, Falun Gong practitioners and other community members urged the board on multiple unrelated items to consider community concerns (see separate article on the Chinatown station naming).