Phone script | Talking points | Email template

No New SF Jail Coalition: Talking Points for 10/05 Hearing on Electronic Monitoring

Table of Contents:

  1. Meeting Information
  2. Public Comment Tips
  3. Agenda Items
  4. Our Goals
  5. Written Public Comment Instructions & Template Email
  6. Phone Script
  7. Talking Points and Recommendations

I. Meeting Information:

Budget and Finance Committee

October 5, 2022 | Starting 12:30 PM

City Hall, Legislative Chamber, Room 250

Stream at: www.sfgovtv.org

PUBLIC COMMENT CALL IN: 1 (415) 655-0001 / Meeting ID: 2495 039 9628 # #

Agenda: https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bfc100522_agenda.pdf - includes link for one-click dialing 

Members of Committee: Hillary Ronen, Ahsha Safai, Connie Chan

TO DIAL IN:

  1. Call 1 (415) 655-0001
  2. Enter the meeting ID, 2495 039 9628, then press #
  3. When asked for a participant ID number, just press # again
  4. You’ll hear a beep after you enter the hearing/meeting

TO GET IN LINE (“raise your hand”):

To speak on a particular item, press *3. You’ll hear an automated confirmation that “your hand has been raised to ask a question.” If you don’t, press *3 a few more times. If needed, hang up and call again. If you’re not sure whether you’re in line, press ** and listen to the menu options.

TO SPEAK:

When you hear “your line has been unmuted,” that means it’s your turn to speak. Your time will start immediately, so you should start speaking right away. (You don’t need to ask if people can hear you.) You’ll have 2 minutes to deliver your public comment.

II. Public Comment Tips:

  • Prepare your statement by writing out what you plan to say beforehand. Use our script as a starting point but feel free to prepare your own statement.
  • Call from a quiet location, where you have a strong internet or service connections
  • Speak slowly and clearly
  • Turn down any televisions or background sound
  • Address the committee as a whole; do not address individual Supervisors
  • Be confident in what you’re saying. These are your experiences, your views, and your asks. Believe in them.

III. Agenda Item:

Item #5, File #220701:

Home Detention and Electronic Monitoring Program Rules and Regulations and Program Administrator’s Evidence of Financial Responsibility - FY2022-2023: Resolution approving the Sheriff Office’s home detention and electronic monitoring program in lieu of confinement rules and regulations; and approving evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by program administrator, Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023.

Read the rules for ‘pretrial’ monitoring here and for ‘sentenced’ monitoring here

IV. Our Goals:

  • Voice our opposition to ankle monitors and electronic monitoring;
  • Share stories of personal experiences and hardships while on electronic monitoring;
  • Urge the Supervisors to change how the electronic monitoring program is currently administered while continuing to work toward ending the program when the contract expires;
  • Demand that community input be a part of an ongoing amendment process;
  • Demand public release of data — we need to know who is on electronic monitoring, for how long, and for what reasons; and,
  • Demand changes to electronic monitoring rules. Our recommendations are outlined here. 

V. Written Public Comment Instructions & Template Email:

Written Public Comment Instructions

If you are unable to call in during the public comment period, please email your comments to the committee prior to the meeting. To submit written public comment:

  1. Copy and paste the following subject and template into a new email.
  2. Using a consistent font type and size throughout, fill in the sections highlighted in yellow with the associated information; make sure that it’s no longer highlighted in yellow.

Be sure to send in your comment before the start of the meeting (Wednesday 10/5, 12:30pm).

TO: brent.jalipa@sfgov.org 

CC: hillary.ronen@sfgov.org; ahsha.safai@sfgov.org; connie.chan@sfgov.org; nonewsfjail.outreach@gmail.com

SUBJECT: Public comment for 10/5 Budget & Finance Meeting

My name is [name & organization, if applicable], I [live/work] in San Francisco [or district number, if applicable].

I am writing to voice my opposition to electronic monitoring. Our city’s reliance on electronic monitoring is harmful, and we should instead invest in services that support more opportunities for release, building up our communities in ways that keep us all safe instead of more forms of incarceration.

[Share a personal or organizational experience here related to electronic monitoring. Speak from the heart. Let the committee know that being on electronic monitoring is impactful, more than an inconvenience; it’s prohibitive and harmful.]

Electronic monitoring (EM) is NOT an alternative to incarceration, it is another form of incarceration. It is a punitive sanction that fails to provide the services, support, and opportunities that people need. Electronic monitoring expands jails and policing into the homes and communities of Black, Indigenous, Brown, Trans, and poor people and increases surveillance.

Electronic monitoring is growing along with the jail population instead of reducing it.  Between 2018 and early 2020, the number of people with ankle monitors in San Francisco tripled with bail reform, but the jail population increased. Monitors are being used as an expansion of surveillance rather than as a “replacement for imprisonment.”

Instead of electronic monitoring, we need to do the following:

  • Decriminalize quality of life crimes. EM being used for houseless folks quality-of-life violations for example. Decriminalizing reduces arrests and therefore enrollment in EM.
  • Explore all possibilities for release, including expanding criteria for own-recognizance release and other pretrial diversion and programming. Electronic monitoring and pre-trial detention should be the last option.
  • Invest in services and programs that bolster pretrial support including creative solutions that eliminate barriers and assist folks to attend their pretrial court hearings.
  • Focus on community support rather than pre-conviction shackling, surveillance, and punishment. Let’s take seriously the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Furthermore, Sentinel Offender Services, the private company that the Sheriff contracts with, has been mired in controversy over its predatory practices. It has faced dozens of lawsuits in Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia, and has been sued another 15 times in federal courts in Georgia, Florida, and California. The Southern Center for Human Rights has stated that “Sentinel’s predatory practices have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with turning a profit.” So in addition to electronic monitoring being a fundamentally harmful technology, it would be further shameful for San Francisco to continue doing business with a company that is notorious for its human rights abuses.

Thank you,

[Name]

[Street address, if possible]

VI. Phone Script:

Intro: Hello, Supervisors, my name is [name], I live in [SF district], and I’m part of [organization, if applicable]. We are / I am strongly opposed to the use of electronic monitoring. I’m urging you to end the city’s electronic monitoring program — and to seek meaningful input from the community in the process of incorporating immediate harm reduction measures while working to oppose electronic monitoring on all fronts.

Supporting story: [Share a personal or organizational experience that shows how electronic monitoring is prohibitive and harmful, not just a minor inconvenience. OR share talking points from below that are compelling to you. Be sure to include the closing, immediately below this section, which outlines our specific recommendations.] 

Closing: Again, our city’s reliance on electronic monitoring is harmful, and we must move away from this and all forms of surveillance and incarceration. Please instead invest in support for increasing release and reentry and focus on services that will strengthen community ties. That’s what will truly keep us safe. But as long as we are using electronic monitoring, I ask that you not move forward with approval of these rules and regulations until more information is shared with the public and we work to implement harm reduction recommendations for electronic monitoring as outlined by the No New SF Jail Coalition.

Thank you.

VII. Talking Points and Recommendations:

ELECTRONIC MONITORING RULES & REGULATIONS

Lack of transparency

  • We still do not have complete publicly accessible data on the breakdown of offenses for those on electronic monitoring, how long people are kept on EM, the program violations that people are charged with, consequences of violations, procedures around those violations and how many people are re-incarcerated because of violations.
  • This board has a responsibility to bring this information to light and should hold further hearings where the community can weigh in.
  • Furthermore, these meetings have yet to include a thorough review of the rules outlined on the sheriff’s website — which are imposed in addition to court-mandated terms of pretrial release or probation — or a comprehensive review of the consequences and procedures around all possible violations.

Current electronic monitoring rules violate many civil rights

  • Electronic monitoring starves our access to justice, legal resources, and due process. Just like with pretrial detention, individuals on EM are more likely to take a plea deal to be released from their monitors. Small violations of the rules of the EM program, which may be a result of technical failures like losing signal, can land a person back in jail or impact their final sentencing decisions.
  • Our Fourth Amendment rights should be protected by eliminating unwarranted search and seizure from the rules of San Francisco’s electronic monitoring program. We do not forfeit our civil liberties while incarcerated under electronic monitoring. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff because this is unconstitutional.
  • Please also protect privacy and do not share location data obtained through the monitors with the police unless there is a search warrant.

Movement restrictions and rules of the electronic monitoring program set people up to fail

  • EM devices have GPS tracking and set restrictions on movement, which can affect employment, childcare, family responsibilities, and other prosocial opportunities. Currently, people on electronic monitors must request movement in advance, and the requests are often ignored, denied, or neglected past the point of when someone would need a timely response. Monitors also have to be charged every two to four hours. All this can create complications for accessing employment, particularly jobs with unpredictable hours and non-fixed locations — not to mention challenges when it comes to routine childcare activities and family emergencies.
  • EM rules are also particularly inappropriate for young people being monitored — and are incongruous with what we know about adolescent development.
  • We should design EM rules to facilitate strengthening community ties, including presumptively permitting pro-social and family time (and family care) rather than requiring permission for these activities.

GENERAL ELECTRONIC MONITORING USE AND LACK OF EFFECTIVENESS

Reliance on electronic monitoring is harmful

  • Electronic monitoring (EM) is NOT an alternative to incarceration, it is another form of incarceration. It is a punitive sanction that fails to provide the services, support, and opportunities that people need.
  • Electronic monitoring also reinforces the embedded racism of San Francisco's criminal legal system. It expands jails and policing into the homes and communities of Black, Indigenous, Brown, Trans, and poor people and increases surveillance. Black people make up 44 percent of those on electronic monitoring in San Francisco, despite making up only three percent of our city.
  • Instead of electronic monitoring, we need to explore all possibilities of release and consider electronic monitoring ONLY as a last resort. Recognize EM as the most restrictive form of supervision, short of jail. San Francisco should be e-carcerting the fewest number of people possible. Expand eligibility of Own Recognizance release (pretrial release with written commitment to show up to court hearings). We also need to invest in community support programs that support pretrial diversion, or make OR more accessible.

There is no evidence that electronic monitoring works

  • No data shows that Electronic Monitoring positively impacts court appearances. San Francisco prides itself on implementing evidence-based solutions, but there is no evidence to show that EM achieves what it claims to achieve. After years of usage of electronic monitoring, there have been no reports, assessments or analyses that have shown it to be effective.
  • Data in Alameda County shows that while the juvenile population on electronic monitoring has decreased, so too has the juvenile jail population — showing that e-carceration is not necessary for jail decarceration. In contrast, in San Francisco, the jail population has been growing along with electronic monitoring, with the number of people on electronic monitoring tripling between 2018 and 2020. Monitors are being used as an expansion of surveillance rather than as a “replacement for imprisonment.” We are going in the wrong direction with something that doesn’t work.
  • What DOES work, and what we need to invest in instead, are programs and tools that support court attendance. An October 2020 UCLA Report recommends targeted and tailored programs that address barriers to attending court hearings, including court-date reminders that a New York study found reduced the number of failures to appear by twenty-six percent. We should be redirecting funds to calls, transportation to courthouses, and other ways to support our communities, over continually surveilling them without justification.
  • Rather than 24/7 tech support as the sheriff wants more funding for, we need 24/7 basic needs support. We’re not asking for better devices or more monitoring; we’re asking for more services that help people show up and stay connected.
  • There is now also overwhelming evidence that reducing pretrial populations doesn't hurt public safety. As COVID-19 makes jails more dangerous than ever, people are looking closer at policies and programs that keep people out of jail and in their homes pretrial. There are now four states, as well as nine cities and counties, where there is existing data on public safety from before and after the adoption of pretrial reforms. All but one of these jurisdictions saw decreases or negligible increases in crime after implementing reforms. The one exception is New York State, where the reform law existed for just a few months before it was largely rolled back.

Electronic monitoring is a public health issue

  • Electronic monitoring causes negative health outcomes especially during COVID-19. Due to movement restrictions, people may struggle to access medication, emergency healthcare and medical appointments for themselves and loved ones relying on them for care. This is especially egregious during a global pandemic.
  • Further, there are major mental health impacts from the surveillance and maintenance of electronic monitoring devices. Certain medical procedures like MRIs, X-rays, and CT scans cannot be performed.
  • Transgender people may also be prevented from accessing medication due to movement restrictions.

EM is just another investment in carceral systems

  • Expansion in electronic monitoring has resulted in large increases to the Sheriff’s budget and overtime pay for supervision of folks on electronic monitoring, funneling more resources to incarceration. Proponents of electronic monitoring cite that it is less expensive than incarcerating someone in jail, but without cutting fixed costs in jails such as staffing, electricity and water, electronic monitoring only increases the amount spent on incarceration.  Those resources should be reinvested into communities themselves, where they belong, specifically into life-affirming programs, services and resources that build community self-determination rather than limit or take away community power and agency. We don’t want our homes to turn into prisons.
  • We should not invest in a different type of incarceration instead of preventing people from being booked in the first place. Decriminalizing quality of life crimes will reduce arrests, divest from incarceration, and spare certain houseless/poor folks from being placed on EM, which further exacerbates their poverty and perpetuates the revolving door of hardship.

Sup. Dorsey’s Plan to Use Electronic Monitoring to Address Drug Consumption/Dealing

  • There is no data or scholarship to corroborate that electronic monitoring is an effective use of community resources, let alone useful in addressing drug consumption or sales.
  • Time and again, study after study fails to demonstrate that EM works, this includes a pending California Policy Lab report using the San Francisco Sheriff Department’s own data.
  • Electronic monitoring is a flawed and dysfunctional system, one which is unsupported by any meaningful outcomes or respected evidentiary standard.
  • Electronic monitoring is a costly and counterproductive form of incarceration that merely extends the carceral system’s reach into the homes and communities of Black, Indigenous, Brown, Trans, and poor people and increases carceral surveillance.
  • Electronic monitoring funds should instead be invested in programs that are proven to support court attendance. There is no significant evidence that shows someone is more likely to appear in court when they are on electronic monitoring.
  • An October 2020 UCLA report recommended investing in support over supervision with targeted and tailored programs that address barriers to attending court hearings. Their recommendations include court date reminders, which have been effective, and transportation assistance.
  • A January 2018 report found that reminders reduced the number of failures to appear by 26 percent in New York. Rather than 24/7 tech support, we need 24/7 basic needs support. We are not asking for better devices or more monitoring; we are asking for more services that help people show up and stay connected.
  • A 2022 Harvard report recommended “that San Francisco significantly and substantially scale back its use of pretrial electronic monitoring.”