Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards Sheriff—s electronic monitoring rules, administrator—s financial proof to full Board
Summary
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee voted to send two resolutions approving the Sheriff—s home-detention/electronic monitoring rules and the program administrator—s proof of financial responsibility to the full Board with a positive recommendation; the Sheriff—s Department said the program averaged 53 participants per month in 2015.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted on April 21 to forward two resolutions to the full Board recommending approval of the San Francisco Sheriff—s Department—s home detention and electronic monitoring rules and the program administrator—s evidence of financial responsibility.
Captain Kevin Paulson of the San Francisco Sheriff—s Department, who presented the program to the committee, said the monitoring initiative is intended as an alternative to secure incarceration for low-risk offenders and that the California Penal Code requires Board review of the rules. "The objective of electronic monitoring primarily is a tool of public safety," Paulson said during his presentation.
Paulson described the technologies the department uses: GPS anklets (sometimes augmented with beacons to improve signal where reception is poor) and two alcohol-monitoring options, a camera-equipped portable breathalyzer and a transdermal ankle device that measures alcohol through perspiration. He said participants are screened by a sworn community-programs supervisor who reviews criminal history, current charges and police reports, and that courts coordinate with the department on placement decisions.
On program size and outcomes, Paulson told the committee the department averaged about 53 people per month on electronic monitoring in 2015 and enrolled 187 people during that year. He said 34 participants had major compliance failures in the prior year but that "93 percent of the people who complete the program, by our calculations and the numbers we report to the mayor, do not recidivate within 12 months of completion of the program." He also explained operational features such as automatic low-battery alerts and staff-initiated reminders for participants to recharge devices.
Supervisor Breed asked whether capacity or funding constraints limited expansion; Paulson said the department conducts risk assessments and defers to court orders but is actively reviewing jail caseloads to place more eligible individuals on monitoring where appropriate.
No members of the public testified on the two items. Supervisor Breed moved to excuse Supervisor Norman Yee from the votes and then moved to forward the two resolutions to the full Board with a positive recommendation; the Chair stated the items were sent forward. The clerk noted that items acted on that day will appear on the Board—s May 3 agenda.
The forwarded resolutions request Board approval of the program rules and acceptance of the contractor—s proof of financial responsibility; they will now be considered by the full Board on the May 3 docket.
