San Francisco supervisors review electronic monitoring rules as experts and public clash

San Francisco’s Budget & Finance Committee on Oct. 7 reviewed the Sheriff’s home-detention and electronic monitoring program rules and the evidence of financial responsibility for the county’s EM contractor. Chair Sandra Lee Feuer opened the meeting by noting the state requires the Board to annually review the program’s rules and regulations.

Crispin Hollins of the Sheriff’s Office told the panel that most EM placement decisions are made by the courts and described the local process, including use of a public safety assessment and Decision Making Framework (DMF). "Today, we have approximately 300 people on electronic monitoring," Hollins said, and he presented summary data showing EM placements and demographic breakdowns. He also said the Sheriff’s Office has partnered with the California Policy Lab to study EM effectiveness.

Guest speaker James Kilgore, who described himself as formerly supervised on EM, urged the board to treat EM "not as an alternative to incarceration but an alternative form of incarceration," saying standard EM conditions amount to house arrest and sharply restrict movement. "There is no body of research that shows [EM] has an impact on recidivism, on people showing up for court appearances," Kilgore said, and he warned about private contractors charging fees and profiting from supervision.

Supervisors pressed department staff for more operational details. Hollins described the city budget for EM as roughly $1 million annually after removing participant fees (previously about $200,000) and estimated typical lengths of stays on EM to be under 30 days on average, while acknowledging wide variation. Chair Feuer and Supervisor Shamann Walton asked for additional data — including the number and types of rule violations on EM, how frequently violations result in reincarceration, and whether judges are hewing to DMF recommendations — before the contract renewal in 2022.

Public comment split sharply. Victims’ advocates told the committee EM can protect public safety and keep potentially dangerous suspects monitored outside jail; as one caller said, "Crime is up, and our public safety is at stake" and urged continued use of ankle monitors. Service providers, reentry organizations and criminal-justice advocates told the committee EM imposes serious burdens on people trying to reenter work and family life, can be technically fragile and may fall disproportionately on communities of color. Wesley Saver of Glide testified, "The program greatly limits the potential success of people who are shackled with these devices and threatened with reincarceration." Carolyn Gerson of the Public Defender’s Office asked to be included in future briefings and said the office has seen clients returned to custody for technical glitches.

After public comment and further questions, Supervisor Walton moved to continue Item 1 to the call of the chair to allow the Sheriff’s Office to compile requested data and to invite additional participants, including court representatives. The committee approved the continuation by roll call.

The committee did not take any final action on the contract itself; Chair Feuer reminded the public the existing contract with Sentinel is not set to expire until July 31, 2022, and that today’s hearing was a state‑mandated review of rules and regulations.