Alameda County officials seek funding to expand community-based pretrial services, arguing savings and fairness

Court and county officials on the Alameda County Public Protection Committee on July 25 urged supervisors to fund Phase 2 of a pretrial services expansion aimed at reducing time spent in custody and addressing racial inequities in pretrial outcomes.

Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon said changes in California law after the Humphrey decision have made pretrial release the default and that "for most of our criminal defendants, that amount is 0." He told the committee that "we can tailor pretrial release reports directly to address the specific needs of the individual" and that the proposed program would help judges and defendants access services without waiting until a case is resolved.

Judge Elena Condes described how limited contact between the court and people in custody has left many without the housing, mental-health or substance-use connections they need. "What the recommendations from pretrial services do is give the bench officer resources that are available and targeted to that person to make sure that they have the best chance of success to come back to court," she said.

Corey Jacobs, pretrial program manager for the Alameda Superior Court, reviewed results from Phase 1, a pretrial referral system launched at Santa Rita Jail in April and now in several housing units. Jacobs said clinicians now complete assessments soon after booking and, with consent, send summaries to pretrial staff so judges have service recommendations at arraignment. "To witness this happening — to see a service plan essentially being created at someone's initial court appearance — was monumental," he said.

Jacobs outlined the Phase 2 proposal: 12 new positions across two community-based treatment teams (one based in Oakland and one in Dublin), each team to include a treatment manager and counselors, plus a program administrator to oversee implementation. He said the goal is to complete assessments, initiate care plans and connect people with community providers within the first 60 days after release.

The presenters cited quantitative findings and early qualitative examples indicating the system currently favors people with stronger community supports. Jacobs said at any given time between "2,500 to 3,000" people are awaiting trial in the community after release on their own recognizance; of those, only about 100 can receive probation supervision today. He said the county's "moderate risk" population — roughly 1,400 to 1,900 people at any given time — is the Phase 2 target, and that moderate-risk individuals account for an outsized share of jail days and costs.

Presenters provided cost estimates and potential savings. Jacobs said the county could fully implement the model for less than $2,000,000 per year and that reducing recidivism for the moderate-risk group by 50 percent could cut jail-bed costs by roughly $5.5 million a year. Wendy Still, a county public-safety advisor, said funding sources could include AB 109 allocations, uncommitted local dollars and mental-health program funds, and noted the county would also pursue grants.

Supervisors pressed for balanced analysis and evidence. One supervisor said she had "never seen cost savings actually occur" and called the projections optimistic. In response, Still described the estimates as conservative and pointed to ongoing, pro bono evaluation support from the Harvard Government Performance Lab; staff said preliminary data should be available by January with more robust analysis after a year.

Public commenters generally supported the expansion but asked the county to build clear accountability and outcome measures. Richard Spiegelman, who chairs the Interfaith Coalition for Justice in Our Jails, said the program "gets to the revolving door in a way that I haven't really heard about before." Other callers urged strong metrics tied to funding and independent evaluation.

The committee chair said she is committed to working with the county administrator to identify an initial $755,000 to start implementation and noted the committee will continue to seek additional funding. The presenters said implementation would be phased: onboard leadership and classifications within the first 90 days of funding, the first treatment team within 180 days and full two-team operation within about a year.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the Phase 2 funding request at the meeting; presenters and supervisors said they will continue to work on the proposal and evaluation plan and to bring back budget recommendations.