Alameda County adviser urges jail population review team, data upgrades and 24/7 site‑and‑service centers

Wendy Still, the county’s senior public safety adviser and the lead author of the Reimagine Adult Justice recommendations, used her final Public Protection Committee presentation to urge Alameda County supervisors to activate a jail population review team (JPRT), invest in data systems and create site‑and‑service centers to expand cite‑and‑release alternatives.

Still said the JPRT would convene multidisciplinary justice partners — including the district attorney, public defender and court administration — to identify processing “kink points,” screen cases for early release when safe, and recommend performance standards. She emphasized that no county entity was currently mining cross‑system data to diagnose drivers of the Santa Rita Jail population.

Her presentation cited county booking and release statistics for 2022–mid‑2024 showing high volumes of short stays: in 2022 there were roughly 30,601 bookings with a majority released within 1–24 hours. Still noted that releases within 25–72 hours tended to involve higher counts of pending charges, underscoring different processing needs.

To support a sustained review function, Still recommended the Board pass a resolution directing the JPRT to conduct a one‑year study after activation and to submit results to the Public Protection Committee and the full Board. She also proposed two staff positions reporting to the County Administrator’s Office: a JPRT facilitator to coordinate case reviews and a criminal justice services director to manage data, dashboards and cross‑agency collaboration.

Still recommended a roughly $1,000,000 one‑time upgrade to the sheriff’s jail management system (ATEMs v.1→v.2) to improve reporting and allow county analysts to mine records without costly vendor reports. She suggested AB109 realignment growth funds as a potential source for such a one‑time expenditure.

On Recommendation 49, Still recommended countywide community resource mapping and the establishment, where appropriate, of 24/7 site‑and‑service centers to receive people who would otherwise be booked for low‑level offenses. The centers would provide immediate connections to housing, benefits enrollment, mental‑health and substance‑use treatment, and enhanced case management; she also proposed CRIMS integration and a mobile unit option so law enforcement could deliver people to services without long transports.

Still described several operational gaps: inconsistent cite‑and‑release practices across jurisdictions, shortage of reliable mobile identification devices for field officers, and limited near‑by service capacity that constrains in‑field referrals. She recommended a county executive‑level governance body (including city police chiefs and the sheriff) to assess fiscal and operational impacts and to convene implementation subgroups.

Community commenters largely supported data transparency, resource mapping and the proposed site‑and‑service concept but urged inclusion of non‑justice partners (behavioral health, housing) in mapping and called for concrete deliverables and timelines. Several speakers highlighted the importance of mobile crisis response and warned that implementation must address service capacity and sustainable funding.

The chair, Supervisor Marquez, promised phased implementation, continued updates to the public and follow‑up reporting to the committee and Board. The committee did not take a formal vote during the session; Still’s recommendations were presented for consideration and further action by the Board.