tv Mayors Press Availability SFGTV February 25, 2021 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
inpatient treatment, and we'll standup in court and say, we want drug treatment, but it doesn't exist in any way that we can search. the years of experience that i've had seeing our courts in action, there is a backlog of people that need treatment, particularly if they don't speak english. i'm talking about weeks to months where people are clinically appropriate, the judge, my office, the case manager is saying they are appropriate for treatment, but they aren't beds available. we've got to attempt to fix that. [please stand by]
>> okay. in that 70% or 80%, filing charges, does that include sending it to probation or parole? >> no, we can't send somebody to probation or parole -- >> referring the case, not sending the individual. does that include a disposition to probation or parole? >> i'm not sure i'm understanding your question. let me try to answer and tell me if i'm not addressing your
question. when someone is arrested, they are presumed innocent. we can't punish them if convicted. if convicted, they often go to probation or parole. there's a separate category of cases where we decline to charge a case and refer it to another agency when the individual is already on active supervision. that's a separate category. we didn't report that in these slides. the numbers would have been closer to 100% if we did the referrals to agencies -- >> you don't need to explain the criminal justice system to me. so the 70% or 80%, what -- so you file charges, you file charges. what then is the disposition of those cases and do you have a
breakdown in terms of conviction at trial, how many go to trial, how many were pled out, were they pled out to a lesser offense. drug possession -- do you have a breakdown -- it's one thing to say file charges in whatever percentage you want to say in whatever category you would like to say it in. but the breakdown is important in terms of convictions, pleas, referrals to diversion, dismissal and do you have the capacity to say yes, i'm telling you i filed charges in all of the cases but not all of them were pled out or convicted on the original charges filed. >> sure. so a couple of points.
that's an important issue and i appreciate you raising it. you are absolutely right. there's a big difference between filing charges and the outcome at the end of the case. there's a lot of process and litigation that happens in between. we presented evidence and data based on the questions we received from supervisor safai. we'd be happy to have a report in response to the questions you just asked. we weren't asked to prepare data on those inquiries. but in broad terms i can tell you that when i took office a little over a year ago, the average amount of time that it took a felony case from filing to resolution, whatever that resolution was, trial, dismissal, plea bargain, whatever it was. the average time was roughly a year. so when you ask me about cases i
have filed since i took office, the more than 4500 new criminal cases that my office initiated in 2020, the short answer will likely be most of them are still working through the system. that would be consistent with the average length of time it took cases to settle in 2019. you know, in all likelihood, the average length of time to settle cases in 2020 and 2021 will be much longer because we don't have fully functioning courts right now. we have been shut down. you asked about jury trials. in years past, the san francisco attorney district conducted in the neighborhood of 300 unique jury trials per year. in 2020 we were only able to conduct under 30 jury trials. and most of those occurred in january and february, before the courts shut down. so you're absolutely right. there's a big difference between filing charges and what happened
at the end of the case, we don't have enough time in my tenure or given the pandemic to tell you with any certainty in broad terms what is happening in each case. if you ask about a specific case, we can absolutely give you an update. if you ask about cases resolving in 2020, we can give you numbers on those. but they will likely be cases that were filed before my tenure given how slow the wheels of justice turn, particularly during the pandemic we're all living through right now. >> okay. through the chair, one more question to the district attorney. we don't have to go to the end of the case or the final disposition for this question. so you filed 70%, 80% of say drug charges, whatever the percentage is, then what is happening in the interim between the filing of the charges,
felony charges on cases and the disposition? what's happening is that's where the repeat offenders are. you might file charges but they're still out and offending again. >> in some cases yes, but as you saw from the slides, 56% of people presented to our office by police in 2020 had not been arrested in the previous three years at all. as a matter of fact, the reality that we see is most people are first time offenders. there are some people of course, often sensationalized in the press who have been arrested multiple times and we see that in some significant numbers but those people are not more likely to be pre-conviction than post-conviction. convicting them doesn't mean they won't do it again. many people, like the man we believe responsible for the
horrible gross vehicular manslaughter -- we have charged with killing three, he was just released from state prison in april of 2020. that was a case, we can tell you the outcome, he was sent to state prison for four years and never got the drug treatment that evidently was well known he needed. i'm not sure this significance between pre-conviction and post-conviction is all that helpful, except if it's post-conviction, there are other agencies involved in the supervision. if someone gets released from custody pending trial, then
usually they will be under the supervision of pre-trial diversion and or the san francisco sheriff's department. when individuals are put under electronic monitoring, they are responsible for the pretrial, sometimes in partnership with pre-trial division. >> the title of the hearing doesn't match the majority of the questions. so i was here to talk about sort of the loopholes in the system and how we're closing the
loopholes. we have focused a lot on drug use and addiction which i obviously have worked quite a 0 lot on with supervisor haney and making me feel we need a hearing on implementation of mental health assess. we meet monthly with dph to talk about the progress we're making on implementing health assessment which is designed to address so many of the issues we have talked about today. i'm realizing that we need to have that public hearing so everyone can hear it. everyone from the district attorney to other supervisors. i promise to bring that hearing
forward. to make sure we stop recidivism and when someone commits a crime and is addicted and that is either mental health or addiction is connected with the crime, which is very often the case, we don't have this hamster wheel from the streets to psych emergency services and jails and back again. we really -- we are working on the solutions here. we're just not doing a great job presenting the progress we're making. i wanted to promise all my colleagues and all of the public safety officials here that we'll
bring that shortly. having said that, i'm still really interested in the title of the hearing which is why i came. and want to hear from you mr. district attorney more about the mou that you talked about. can you describe that in detail and the response of other agencies to the proposal. >> thank you. i agree that we need far more
effective and upstream public health based interventions to prevent the crimes. my office will continue to prosecute but often it is too late for the victims. we would like to intervene before those crimes are committed in the first place. with regard to the conversation we've had around a memorandum of understanding, the goal is to identify all of the different points of contact and communication between my agency and the agencies we have been talking about today. to ensure that collectively we are communicating in ways that have redundancies instead of gaps. we all have people spread thin doing their best under difficult circumstances but we cannot have
situations where we don't know what's going on with someone who may be dangerous. we can't have a situation where parole is not notified of someone on parole just booked into county jail on a felony. that's something i want to take a responsibility. i heard it pointed out there was an oversight in sfp notification and one of my district attorneys e-mailed the police to point that out. going forward, i want to communicate directly with parole as well. we shouldn't simply rely on police. they do it in the vast majority of time, consistent with their general order and if we notice as we did in that case, rather than e-mailing the police department, we should reach out to parole directly and we should know what parole knows. we should know if the individual is employed or housed or reporting regularly to their
parole officer if instructed. it could be a critical piece of evidence in our prosecution. the probation or parole possesses, the interventions that they may have detected short of jail time. again, going back to deputy chief's comments, as she pointed out, we see the jail stay if someone has violated parole or probation. we don't see -- into other interventions, drug testing and job training, things like home visits. that parole and probation officers can and often do as a regular part of their hands-on supervision. i read an article about the
mcalister case citing unnamed sources in the division of parole, saying there was a significant policy change this past year during the covid pandemic in which parole officers were instructed to stop doing a lot of those kinds of things. no one told us that. no one told us they were no longer doing the kind of lower level interventions that we don't have a way of seeing when they are occurring. and that's an example of policy changes that other justice partners needed to know about. if my assistant district attorneys had known parole wasn't seeking -- or doing home visits as a matter of policy, then we might have approached those bookings very differently. we need to have better communication and more transparency into what is happening in each individual probation or parole's supervision.
those officers on the front lines are interacting and we're just reading a police report. >> two things. one, that's why i'm frustrated parole isn't here. i have tons of questions for them. unfortunately we can't mandate that they're here. in the proposed mou with parole, what are the specific changes, communication systems you're looking to create with them in order to make sure it doesn't happen again? >> it's all still being negotiated. we sent our draft memorandum of understanding out to the other agencies a couple weeks ago. we haven't heard back with changes from any of the other agencies. >> any other agencies -- are
which ones? >> police department, adult probation, sheriff's department and parole. division of parole. i know they received it. i know they're looking at it and i hope and expect they'll provide us with feedback. certainly we want to hear from them, other input and ideas that we can make this comprehensive so we know what exactly we can expect in terms of information from each other. there are basic things. if the police arrest someone and bring them to my intake team to consider filing charges and we see the person is on probation and there's a probation hold, it would be helpful for us to know how that person is performing on probation. is this part of a trend of someone not reporting. for example, mr. lyons, it turns
out he never reported to his probation officer once in his release from the state prison until the tragedy. we didn't know he never reported and the more information we have about that kind of interaction with another law enforcement agency, the more we can do when we see an arrest to intervene effectively. >> and i'm done with my questions for the da and thank you. i'm just wondering if we could hear from chief scott or deputy chief lazar about the mlu and what you think about it and when you plan to respond. >> yeah, that sounds good. chief -- >> i'll answer that. sorry. let me -- hang on a second. i apologize. push we have the mlu from the
da and i have reviewed it and my staff. there's a couple of things we'll send back with recommendations for revisions or at least a discussion for that. in principle, i think it's a step in the right direction. we are happy to do our part to -- i don't think it's anything -- as far as significant though we do have some suggestions we would like to discuss with the da. >> i could ask -- i would ask the sheriff's office and adult probation to also answer that question when they present. and there's two follow up hearings i can see from this hearing. the second is really getting deep with the mlu and understanding after you've had
an opportunity to finalize it, a report back publicly to the board of supervisors and the city what changes are being implemented. i think that these communication problems which by the way, are not unique to law enforcement, this is exactly what supervisor haney and i found being one of the major problems in our broken practically non existent mental health system until we fixed it with mental health sf and probably the most important part is this office of coordinated care. it's that coordination and communication so we don't let anyone fall through the cracks. it's not okay there's these cracks within our public safety system in san francisco, and i'm glad that we are working on fixing them. but sadly, you are not alone. those cracks exist in our mental health system and many other
places. it's incumbent upon all of us to fix them and i'm so glad that we're engaged in that effort. thank you so much. >> thank you. i did want to just thank you for your presentation and engagement in this important discussion and all your work you and your staff have been taking to close the gaps that exist in communication and coordination in our criminal justice system. and i just maybe had one follow up question. the department of corrections and rehabilitation and parole division, i know following public safety realignment initiative in california, the
department of corrections and rehabilitation has requested that your office generally defer cases to them involving parolees or defer them to the parole board for determination. while their office is not here today to answer, i wanted to see if you can provide an explanation on this. >> we talked a little earlier today about realignment and the shift from state prison to local jurisdictions for supervision that started in 2011. one of the changes that happened in 2013 as you point out in your
question, the division of parole asked the san francisco district attorney's office well before my tenure here, district attorney's offices across the state to stop filing their own parole or for parole officers to do it. and they wanted a more centralized, stream lined system and they said to us and other da's offices, let us make the decision. since 2013 it has been the policy and practice of the san francisco da's office not to file what we would call stand alone in parole cases. if the evidence is strong enough and the conduct severe enough, we may file a new criminal case.
it had been the practice until 2020 to file probation violations. when i took office, i met with chief fletcher and in an effort to stream line and make systems more efficient, she requested and it made sense to me that we would allow probation to take the lead of the decision whether or not to file. they have more information and more tools than we do in many regards. we make the decision about a new case. they make a decision about the motion to revoke. we are considering right now whether or not those policies are good. we are taking a closer look at going back to filing our own. one of my hopes and in addition to the mlu we are working on, we announced a series of efforts
yesterday that we're all working on both taking more responsibility for our own wheelhouse and also for the gray areas in between agencies. i want to make sure if we are deferring to other agencies, we know what they're doing and we know we can safely defer to them. and i want to be sure that those agencies can rely on us. and it may be that it is safer to have where we both file and we can file them and probation and parole file them. when it comes to public safety and issues as serious as these, maybe that's the best way to go forward. and we're continuing to work on pinning down exactly where they should be and maybe we should file our own.
>> thanks again for the focused work you are doing right now around coordinating with adult probation and state parole division. supervisor safai do you want to -- >> i appreciate all the questions. supervisor ronen i appreciate you talking about mental health sf. the hearing today was definitely to talk about all of the breakdowns in the system and then narrow it -- i know sometimes it gets lost in the title, but it's fair in the end to say, where are we seeing some of the repeat offenders and the overlap with drug addiction. we sent a series of questions to all of the different presenters. they were very clear on what we were looking for. and i appreciate you engaging on that. and it would be helpful to have an update on mental health sf as it relates to drug treatment but
it kind of still brings me back to the issue and i think we talked about that and i'm glad you brought that up chair mar on what levers are being pushed and we spoke about this in advance, district attorney, when there is someone that is rearrested, what role your office has and what responsibility it has in alerting all of the different agencies. i think you touched on that a little bit. but at the end of the day, if you're not able to track how the cases are as it relates to drugs. if you don't have the technology and you're leaving it up to adult probation to compel for drug treatment, we may not even get to the aspects of mental health sf that works with drug treatment. so we're trying to look for how we can all tighten up.
we appreciate the announcement you made with the mayor yesterday. that was the beginning of the process. we'll continue to talk. we're going to go to the chief of probation. >> super haney -- >> we'll talk to him. i just want to -- if you can stick around. >> of course. >> i'll make it quick. just one question.
thank you for being here to improve coordination and communication is so critical. you did mention it and it's been something that has been so important to me and i think that we need to have a targeted coordinated strategy around it. that's what we're doing to address the fentanyl crisis in our city. we lost 61 people in january to drug overdose. every life lost in our city in whatever way is a tragedy. and -- that is a number that keeps going up. i know that we have talked about this a lot about different strategies and it's not something we asked for data on, but i would like to know if you could share with the committee, particularly because of the intersection of the questions we have been asking and the issues
around drug treatment and rehabilitation and drug issues in general, if you could speak to how you are approaching, addressing the crisis and using the tools that you have at your disposal and coordination with other agencies to help us get ahold of what has been a skyrocketing toll of death and pain and devastate that has come about as a result of the growth of fentanyl in our city which really started mostly here at least in mid 2018 and unfortunately has just continued month over month, if you might speak to what you are thinking and i know we have spoken about this before but particularly in the context of the issues we raised today. >> absolutely supervisor haney and thank you for your attention to this issue. i know you led in the heart of the tenderloin and it's one of
the most diverse neighborhoods and the neighborhood with the highest concentration of families with school-aged children and yet we have a preventable deaths from overdoses every day. and the tenderloin have been ground zero for that for decades and it has gotten worse, not better. i can tell you what we have been doing and why i think we need to do things differently. my office files charges, we file felony criminal charges in the vast majority of arrests that the police present to us is in fact one of the categories of crimes we have the highest filing rate in. and the largest percentage of cases in my general felony team. so we are doing everything we can with did traditional tools. it's not working.
you don't need to walk past more than a block in the tenderloin to see it is not working. we need to think outside the box. what we're proposing going forward, a dedicated fentanyl task force in our office including attorneys who handle the prosecution and focus attention on that. and an attorney to focus on policy work and thinking about what else we need to more effectively address this issue, including partnering with the board around public health responses. it would include investigators who can help work upstream to disrupt the flow of drugs into the tenderloin and san francisco instead of simply prosecuting people who get arrested with low quantities, a couple of grams at a time. to be sure, a couple grams is more than enough for us to file felony charges but not enough to
meaningfully disrupt the access to drugs in your neighborhood. so those are three parts of it. the fourth part are sentencing planners who can dig in on the individuals prosecuted and to supervisor safai's point to make sure we are requesting the kind of conditions on someone's sentence tailored to their needs, residential or substance treatment or something else, we want to have two sentencing planners the look at the cases and look at people we have arrested multiple times and make sure we're not just going around the circle again. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'll just end with this before
we go to chief fletcher. you talk about people being rearrested. when you rearrest and i know deputy chief lazar announced today, you're going to do multiple notifications. is that part of some of the new work you are committing to as part of this new announcement? i think that will be a super helpful piece of the process in terms of the work you're doing. that's one. and then secondly, similar to the conversation about fentanyl and drug possession, we have to begin to track misdemeanor possessions and find a way to make that a part of the work you're doing. i think that then leads to some of the people overdosing, it leads to some of the people who transition into felony possession and in the worst scenarios we have talked about
today, it transitions into a much more devastating impact in terms of whether it is manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter and that's why we try to zero in our questions about the drug possession, drug use, repeat drug offenders and the sentencing and levers you can push. so i just wanted to reiterate that one last time. i'm going to go to chief fletcher to talk about some of the things that we -- >> thank you so much supervisors and thank you for the opportunity to be able to present. this is such an important topic and we certainly as an agency
have a vested interest in outcomes and being able to collaborate with our partners to provide better services and outcomes for the people that we supervise in the community. our research director for adult probation will be presenting some of the data. if you will share your screen. we'll begin. all right. first slide please. wanted to give you just a general high level overview of the legal mandates that are part of our requirements to providing community supervision, sentencing recommendations to the court and evidence-based treatment and services. under community supervision we have for context, three different categories of
individuals we superadvise in the community. those placed on formal probation as a result of the superior court, those placed on mandatory supervision, those sentenced to state prison but serve locally in county jail and are released on a split sentence, which gives them a term of confinement in the county jail as a prison term and also then the balance of that term on mandatory supervision in the community. and then of course, we're all more familiar with the post release supervision. those are the individuals that as a result of realignment were in state prison and being released back to local counties for supervision. instead of going to parole which they would have done historically, they come to
prevention departments for supervision. sentencing recommendations, we make a broad range to the court. motions to revoke when someone has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of their probation grant. supplemental reports and progress reports providing updates to the court. kind of the crux of all this and an important to everything we do, evidence-based treatment and services. that did come out of senate bill 678 in 2009 and ab-109, state realignment in 2011. this gave us the opportunity to build strong partnerships with the department of public health and other community based organizations to provide appropriate services like employment, life skill, mental health treatment, housing and of
course substance use treatment. and out of some of those funds we have been able to secure co-occurring disorder beds, residential treatment beds, detox beds and then outpatient treatment and sober living environment beds in our partnership with department of public health solely funded by adult probation for our clients. next slide please. this is just a general population overview for us. our total client population, you'll see in the left hand corner is just a little over 6100 clients. 82% of the population are on super vision for a felony. 86% are male. the main age is 38 years-old and about 37% of the total population is african american. we did a breakdown to the right
of the supervision types. the vast majority are those individuals placed on formal probation. that is at 89% with 8% on post release community supervision and 3% on mandatory supervision. the grid shows you 79% are moderator high risk with moderator high needs. i can clarify that our population over the last three years has remained fairly constant. it has only fluctuated by a couple of hundred people. so we're remaining the same at about 6100 cases. next slide please. our case management standards
are written in a way that targets case management to address three critical principles. principles of risk, need and response. with risk we look at the individual's risk level to reoffend. their need level linking services that match the actual needs of individuals that contribute to their criminal conduct, whether that is substance abuse, anger management, mental health, all of those factors are considered in those needs. and of course probably most importantly, matching the style or modes of services to the individual, individual's abilities or learning styles to make sure the services we are engaging people in meet their needs and abilities. every client is assessed with a validated assessment tool to
determine their risk to reoffend and identifying their needs. this assessment is done on all felony cases when we write the presentence report. when we get the cases it is upon conviction. there is often a negotiated plea where the district attorney and defense council have come to an agreement on the case which often as you have referred to includes some kind of treatment if appropriate. our assessment tool really digs in and instead of based on the charge or gut level reaction to what we believe should happen in a case, this really is an evidence-based tool that identifies what the need is. once those needs are identified, we are including those in our recommendations to the court for sentencing. so when you talk about being compelled to treatment, really negotiated pleas between attorneys don't compel
treatment. what really compels the treatment is the court order and reinforcement of the court order. so in addition to that, we're looking at the level of services and the level of treatment and then certainly the level of supervision is determined through that assessment tool. every client in addition to that, if they are granted some level of supervision by our department receives an individual treatment and rehabilitation plan. this is a collaborative effort between the probation officer and client to work through the risk and needs identified in the tool that we administer and develop the goals and opportunities and linkages to services in that itrp so that really the client and the probation officer has a road map for individuals to engage in treatment and services.
and of course our clients are -- when someone is booked into custody, we receive an immediate booking notification alerting the booking officer that one of their clients has been arrested and booked. and we receive information through records checks we do on a routine basis on every client on our case load entered into our case management system and we're looking at court data around tracking rearrests and supervised release file throughout california doesn't necessarily obtain information that reflects an arrest.
often times officers from different agencies when they have contact with one of the clients in the community, they will enter that note into the supervised release file. our officers get a hit or notification that something has been entered so we can gage where our clients are interacting with other law enforcement and often in the tracking of rearrests, sfpd in particular, many officers directly reach out to our assigned officers to provide them with information about recent arrests. either requesting a probation hold be placed or having cross communication about the actions or alleged actions of one of the clients in the community. we're going to go into the
specific questions asked of us. >> thank you chief fletcher. we took time to pull together data in response to the questions presented to us. i'm going to take a few minutes to go through data we pulled together. i'm going to give you an overview for the whole time frame, which was 2018 through 2020. i want to talk about the comments you have heard, similar to other departments experience a lot of the same limitations and challenges associated with
old or existing case management systems and many departments are moving toward embarking on new case management systems. the one thing i would add that hasn't previously been said, as part of that conversation, i think it's important to include research individuals within city departments as part of the conversation about what needs to be built out in the new case management systems. it's not just a question of having a new system. it's also about structuring the data in a way that needs to be structured so we can answer the questions like the questions we have been presented for this
hearing. there was focus on identifying individuals with more than one arrest event and we were able to identify there's 105 people who experience five or more bookings over this entire time frame. and so we thought it might be helpful to show a comparison of the artist that was presented previously by the police department with the information we have been able to pull together. as you may recall, they presented information for arrests for all of san francisco. we took a very quick shot at trying to put that in a monthly average number for you and compare it to the data we have for clients on a monthly basis.
that's going to show you of all arrests that happened in san francisco, there's approximately 1400 that occur in a given month and for the clients we have been able to identify in the same time frame, approximately 86% would be for clients. this shows information on number of booking events that have been experienced and the types of booking events. so i'm just going to walk you through a couple of the numbers so you can understand what you're looking at. as an example in 2020, there were 893 individuals who experienced a booking event and that -- those individuals were
responsible or associated with 1475 booking events in that year. so one thing to note with the top part of the data and the numbers you see across each year is that these are unique individuals to that year. they are not unique individuals from the whole time frame. in the previous slide i mentioned the 2113 individuals that were unique over the entire time frame. if you look at the top row, if you sum those, you're going to come up with a larger number and the reason for that, individuals could have been booked in more than one year. so these are yearly totals. if you drop down to the middle of the table, you can see the number of booking events that people experienced. so as an example in 2020, there were 313 individuals who experienced 2-4 booking events.
and similarly, there were 22 individuals, again clients who experienced five or more booking events in 2020 alone. below that we have provided information on charges just to give a picture of the type of charges that were represented across the booking events we have looked at. should note that this is categorized -- not categorized based on the most serious charge. it represents events that would have been included across all types of charges. so as an example, if you look at individuals with bookings for drug related charges in 2020, you see it is 208. then you see for example a 284 numbers of individuals with booking events with violent felony charges. individuals could have had more than one type of charge on the
event for which they were booked for and out of all people with drug related charges in that year, how many we flagged for drug related, felony, violent felony, etc cetera. and i want to note at the bottom, the last row, you can see a number for individuals that were booked for parole violations. this is going to give you a little bit of a window into individuals that are both on parole and supervision with the adult probation department who would have experienced parole violations as part of a booking event. it is not going to tell you everybody on both forms of those types of supervision but rather show you who is a client that would have been booked on a parole violation. i can tell you for the time frame we're looking at, three years, that represents 91 unique
individuals. so this next slide, we wanted to try to be more specifically answer some of the questions related to drug use and drug use issues. so what we did, we took the individuals that we showed you previously that were in the arrest data and we matched that up with assessment data we have within the department. and what we have presented here is to try to show you the identified needs of individuals, treatment history, desire for treatment and reported substances used. so i should note, this is a different data source but matched to the individuals. what this will show you, 74% of the individuals in that 2,000 number have been identified as having substance use needs.
of those who have been identified with the substance use needs, 1500 plus, you can see the number who have had any type of treatment in their history, the number who want treatment for either alcohol or drugs and then we also pulled out information on the top five substances reported being used by individuals. you can see the percentages for that. that fluctuates from 30-70%. the one thing i wanted to add, as we talk about how we can address the treatment needs of individuals within the system and especially those who are cycling through the system, i just wanted to offer some information on race and ethnicity. don't have a slide for this, but i think it's important we look at this combination of factors with an equity lens and wanted
to offer as the chief showed you previously. 37% for the african american population. if you look at the 2,000 plus individuals who have been rearrested, that racial breakdown for african americans goes from 37 to 48% and if you look at individuals with five or more arrests, that have identified treatment needs or are in assessment file, the percentage goes to 58% african american. so those are just some numbers to provide context and sort of a reminder of the racial equity lens we should be taking as we talk about not just cycling through the criminal justice system but -- this is the last
slide i'll talk about before i hand it back to chief fletcher. for this one, we were trying to provide broad information on case outcomes. similar to the comments that were raised earlier relative to case management system limitations, it is difficult for us to answer specifically the questions related to violations as it relates to drug use. but here is some information that does try to track on some of that and speak to those questions. on the left side of your screen, we have provided data that shows reports submitted motions to revoke to the court. with this, you can see in fiscal year 19-20 there were 885 motions to revoke reports that were submitted and 61% would
have been initiated by the adult probation department and 39% by the district attorney's office. one note on that is that when the adult probation department files a motion to revoke, that is going to be for either -- associated with new alleged law violation or technical violation and when the district attorney is pursuing it, it is limited to new alleged law violations. on the right side of your screen, we have tried to give you a little information on felony conviction out comes for individuals on supervision. as an example in 2020 you can see 3% of the individuals on felony probation had a new felony conviction in that year and you can see the percentages for individuals on mandatory
supervision and post release community supervision. >> thank you. we'll go to the next slide. so the crux of this was certainly about communication. regarding new charges and motions to revoke, which is the violation of supervision. as i mentioned before, we receive booking notifications through justice and we get those directly. when we receive the booking notifications, we are looking at every case individually. so what we are considering when we are reviewing a case for a motion to revoke, we're looking at the seriousness of the new alleged criminal conduct, the seriousness of the underlining offense. their compliance with the terms and conditions of supervision. are they engaging in services. are they reporting as directed.