San Francisco supervisors probe drug court expansion as prosecutors cite rise in violent-offense diversions

Chair Supervisor Matt Dorsey convened a May 14 hearing of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee to review San Francisco's drug court program after reporting that diversion practices and eligibility have changed markedly in recent years.

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told the committee she supports drug court's mission but said the program has broadened through mental health diversion (MHD) petitions into a pipeline that now includes higher‑risk cases. Jenkins said referrals and admissions have climbed sharply 'from roughly 180 cases in 2023 to more than 600 in 2025'and that MHD now accounts for the overwhelming majority of admissions. She also cited termination figures, saying there were 134 program graduations and 259 terminations back into criminal court in 2024. "Drug court should be a ticket that helps people rebuild their lives. Drug court should not be a get-out-of-jail free card," Jenkins said, urging clearer eligibility screening and oversight.

The Public Defender's Office pushed back on the notion that narrowing access is the right remedy. Deputy Public Defender Erin Morgan described drug court as a structured, phased program with case managers, frequent testing and judicial oversight and said it often yields better accountability than a guilty plea. Managing Attorney Anita Naba noted that state changes to the MHD statute expanded access intentionally and argued the salient problem is insufficient treatment capacity and staff. "We need treatment on demand in this city," Naba said, citing long waits and shortages, especially for monolingual Spanish speakers.

Dan Tsai, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and Jose Luis Guzman, director of collaborative courts, told the committee the drug court team is staffed for a 260‑person caseload but is currently serving about 420 clients. They said referrals rose from roughly 120 in 2023 to 328 in 2025 and that participants average about 14 months in the program. DPH recommended hiring additional case managers and expanding program capacity to reduce in‑custody wait times for placements.

Supervisors focused on two threads: whether MHD statutory changes unintentionally expanded drug court eligibility to cases that pose heightened public safety risks, and whether the city can improve outcomes through increased funding, staffing and data transparency. Jenkins said she has spoken with state legislators about tightening MHD boundaries; public defenders said evidence does not show that imposing a guilty plea requirement would improve engagement and instead urged investments in services that make programs "sticky."

A member of ConnectED SF urged the committee to press Sacramento for legislative clarity and to ensure accountability for MHD admissions. After discussion, Chair Dorsey moved that the hearing be "heard and filed." The motion passed on a 3‑0 roll call (Dorsey, Sauter, Wong recorded as ayes).

The committee did not adopt policy changes at the meeting. Members signaled they plan follow‑up work on recommended actions, including developing a set of requests to state lawmakers and exploring city funding priorities to expand treatment capacity and DPH staffing.