Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor debate and public demands intensify as JCIT lays out multimillion-dollar jail-closure plan
Summary
The Jail Closure Implementation Team presented seven 'required actions' and a five-year funding framework to close Men's Central Jail; the plan includes diversion expansions and treatment capacity but supervisors and advocates pressed for immediate year-one funding and clearer court engagement.
The county'led Jail Closure Implementation Team (JCIT) presented a detailed multi-year framework on June 30 designed to enable closure of Men's Central Jail without a replacement facility. JCIT outlined seven priority actions it says are essential to reach that goal within five years, and estimated a multi-year investment scaled to roughly $1.5 billion over five years, with year-one funding priorities the board must consider.
JCIT Executive Director Wilford Pinkney and deputies described required actions that range from expanding law enforcement assisted diversion (LEAD/ODR) and public defender HEAL screening at arraignment to strengthening substance-use paths (SENS), stabilizing residential diversion programs (RDP), maintaining STOP therapeutic beds and expanding ODR housing for higher-acuity populations. JCIT said these expansions build on existing pilots and would reduce inflow and shorten lengths of stay by routing people away from custody into treatment and support.
JCIT presented a five-year funding profile and asked the board to consider a near-term investment to scale programs in year one; JCIT staff and the CEO's office said the initial tranche of implementation requests includes proposals already in departments' unmet-need requests and that failure to fund near-term steps would delay any five-year timetable. "We view this as a single investment across five years," CEO Joseph M. Nikita said, cautioning that budgeting choices affect achievable timelines.
Supervisors probed JCIT on several fronts: the extent to which courts and judicial partners have been engaged (the court submitted a letter noting operational and facility constraints), the feasibility of expanding ODR across multiple municipal police departments, the assumptions behind population impacts, and whether current departmental funding is guaranteed. JCIT acknowledged the numbers are fluid and committed to providing a second report in July with modeled population impacts tied to each required action.
Advocacy groups and family members urged immediate funding of the year-one package (frequently referenced as $24 million in board discussion) and criticized delays given ongoing in-custody deaths. Several advocates said the board has a moral and legal obligation to fund the plan now. The board received the report and directed JCIT to return with a July update showing action-specific population impacts and clarified budget requests.
