A Report of the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury
For the City and County of San Francisco

San Francisco Jails:
An Investigative Visit

Release date: June 26, 2006

Purpose of the Civil Grand Jury
The purpose of the Civil Grand Jury is to investigate the operations of the various
departments, agencies, and officers of the government of the City and County of San Francisco to
develop constructive recommendations for improving their operations, as required by law.
Each Civil Grand Jury has the opportunity and responsibility to determine which
departments, agencies and officers it will investigate during its one-year term of office. To
accomplish this task, the Civil Grand Jury divides into committees. Each committee conducts its
research by visiting government facilities, meeting with public officials and reviewing
appropriate documents.
The nineteen members of the Civil Grand Jury are selected at random from a pool of
thirty prospective jurors. San Francisco residents are invited to apply. More information can be
found at: http://www.sfgov.org/site/courts_page.asp?id=3680, or by contacting Civil Grand Jury,
400 McAllister Street, Room 008, San Francisco, CA 94102; (415) 551-3605.

State Law Requirement
Pursuant to state law, reports of the Civil Grand Jury do not identify the names or provide
identifying information about individuals who spoke to the Civil Grand Jury.
Departments and agencies identified in the report must respond to the Presiding Judge of
the Superior Court within the number of days specified, with a copy sent to the Board of
Supervisors. For each finding of the Civil Grand Jury, the response must either (1) agree with the
finding, or (2) disagree with it, wholly or partially, and explain why. Further, as to each
recommendation made by the Civil Grand Jury, the responding party must report either (1) that
the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary explanation of how it was
implemented; (2) the recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a time frame for the implementation; (3) the recommendation requires further
analysis, with an explanation of the scope of that analysis and a time frame for the officer or
agency head to be prepared to discuss it (less than six months from the release of this report); or
(4) that recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with
an explanation of why that is. (California Penal Code, sections. 933, 933.05).

Purpose of This Report
Section 919 (b) of the California Penal Code requires that each Civil Grand Jury
inspect jails and prisons within the county during its term of office. While no formal
report is required, the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury is issuing this report to call attention to
some of the problems in the jails and accomplishments of the Sheriff’s Department noted
by the jurors during their visit to the jails in November 2005.

i

San Francisco Jails – An Investigative Visit

He who opens a school door, closes a prison.
- Victor Hugo

SUMMARY
In November 2005, the San Francisco 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury inspected the
jail facilities of the City and County of San Francisco (the City). The jurors found a
number of longstanding problems that still need to be addressed, including limited
budgets, staffing shortages, antiquated facilities, jail overcrowding, and high recidivism
rates.
Although no report is required by the California Penal Code, the 2005-2006 San
Francisco Civil Grand Jury is submitting a written report based on information obtained
during the one-day on-site visit to the jail facilities, from interviews and a review of
materials provided by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and obtained on the
Internet.
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City promptly address the
overcrowding and physical problems in the jail facilities at the Hall of Justice. It also
recommends increased efforts to bring the Sheriff’s Department staffing to authorized
levels, and a coordinated approach to post-release prisoner services to reduce recidivism.

I. INTRODUCTION
The California Penal Code requires that each Civil Grand Jury inspect jails and
prisons within the county during its term of office. 1 On November 18, 2005, members of
the 2005-2006 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury (the Civil Grand Jury or the jurors)
inspected the majority of the jail facilities in San Francisco County.
The 2005-2006 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury is presenting this report of its
findings and recommendations to the Court, the Mayor, the San Francisco Sheriff’s

1

California Penal Code, §919(b)

1

Department (SFSD or the Department) and the Department of Public Works (DPW) for
their information and review.
The San Francisco County jail facilities are short-term holding facilities that
house three types of populations:
•

Individuals who have been arrested and are awaiting arraignment.

•

Criminally charged defendants awaiting trial and those who are being tried or
are awaiting sentencing.

•

Convicted offenders with short-term sentences of no more than 15 months and
state prison prisoners who are brought into the county for trial and other court
appearances.

State prisons, on the other hand, house prisoners who have been convicted of a
felony and sentenced to a year or more, up to life or death. All jails and prisons in the
state of California are regulated by the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation and the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), formerly called the
California Board of Corrections (BOC). 2 No state prisons are located in the County of
San Francisco.
II.

PROCEDURE OR METHODOLOGY

Approximately three-fourths of the members of the 2005-2006 San Francisco
Civil Grand Jury visited the following San Francisco County jails:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2

County Jail #1 - Hall of Justice, 6th Floor, San Francisco (capacity 426 -- 320
men and 66 women)
County Jail #2 - Hall of Justice, 7th Floor, San Francisco (capacity 388 – 330
men and 58 women)
County Jail #3 - San Bruno (capacity 552 men)
County Jail #7 - San Bruno (capacity 372 men)
County Jail #8 - 425 7th Street, San Francisco, near the Hall of Justice
(capacity 392: 248 men and 144 women)
County Jail #9 - intake and release facility at 425 7th Street, San Francisco (no
rated capacity. Can hold up to 301 prisoners)
The newly built county jail in San Bruno, which is not yet operational.
(projected capacity: 768 men)

Name change effective as of July 1, 2005

2

The jail tour began at approximately 8:30 a.m. when the jurors were taken by the
Sheriff’s Department to San Bruno and ended at approximately 4:00 p.m. at the Hall of
Justice. The jurors did not inspect County Jail No. 5 at San Francisco General Hospital.
Prior to the on-site visit, at the request of the Civil Grand Jury, the Sheriff’s
Department submitted a packet of information, including a jail population report, staff
training information, information on outside contracts and grants, a statistical breakdown
of prisoner grievances filed during 2005, meal menus for the month of October, copies of
11 typical grievances filed during 2005, a prisoner orientation handbook, prisoner
training curricula, and other statistical data. SFSD also submitted copies of its reports to
the Board of Supervisors on the Inmate Welfare Fund for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.
In addition to interviews that took place during the on-site visit, the Civil Grand
Jury interviewed representatives of some not-for-profit organizations that are providing
programs for prisoners, ex-offenders, and their families and reviewed documents related
to jail conditions and prisoner treatment.
In the morning portion of the visit, jurors were escorted through the three jail
facilities located in San Bruno: County Jails #3 and #7, and the newly built jail in San
Bruno located across the street from #7. At the time of the jurors’ visit, the new 768-bed
jail was unoccupied but was expected to be ready for occupancy during the first half of
2006.
Various staff members of the Sheriff’s Department escorted the jurors through
representative areas of each jail facility and answered questions. The Sheriff’s
Department representatives were knowledgeable and helpful. They fully answered all
juror questions and provided statistical data to validate statements.
Volunteer prisoner workers served a typical prisoner lunch to the jurors. During
lunch these prisoners and Sheriff’s Department staff answered questions about the food,
programs, and other conditions.
Following lunch at County Jail #7 in San Bruno, jurors were taken back to San
Francisco where they did a walk-through of Jails #1 and # 2 in the Hall of Justice and #8
and #9 adjoining the Hall of Justice at 425 7th Street (commonly referred to as “The
Glamour-Slammer,” in part because of its dramatic architecture).
At Jails #3 and #7 in San Bruno and at the “Glamour-Slammer” in San Francisco,
jurors entered some of the common areas of the jails to inspect the facilities up close and
interview prisoners and staff. Prisoners were informed that Civil Grand Jurors were
visiting the facilities and several of the prisoners voluntarily spoke with one or more
jurors about problems or complaints or to comment on facilities and programs. In
addition, a few prisoners were randomly selected for interviews by some of the jurors.

3

III.

DISCUSSION

In addition to administering the jails, the Sheriff’s Department is responsible for
providing security for City Hall and the courts, administering the Central Warrants
Bureau, and other services. Limited budgets and staffing shortages, jail overcrowding,
costs of prisoner care, and recidivism are among the serious issues faced by the Sheriff’s
Department.
Some of these issues and the jurors’ observations during the on-site visit are
discussed below.
A.

Prisoner Profile

The San Francisco County Jail system houses an average daily population of
2,200 prisoners in five jails, County Jails #1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. The system also includes an
intake and release facility [County Jail #9], and a hospital ward at San Francisco General
Hospital [County Jail #5]. Approximately 55,000 people are booked into the jails
annually. 3
On June 5, 2002, the Sheriff's Department took a “snapshot” of the incarcerated
population, broken down by gender, race and ethnicity. On that date, 55 percent of the
1,995 prisoners were African American, 21 percent were Latino or Hispanic, 19 percent
were Caucasian, 5 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remainder were of
some other race. Eighty-seven percent of the prisoners were male and 13 percent were
female. 4
Approximately 75 percent of the daily prisoner population consists of individuals
who have not yet been sentenced. These include people who have been arrested but not
arraigned, arraigned and awaiting trial, or being tried but not yet sentenced. It should be
noted that approximately half of those booked into the intake facility are released within
96 hours of their arrest, either on their own recognizance, on bail, or because the charges
against them were dropped. The other half of the unsentenced prisoners consists of two
groups of people:
•
•

Serious and/or repeat offenders who were denied bail or who were not
allowed to be released on their own recognizance
Offenders who did not have the funds to make bail or the financial ability to
be released on bond. These prisoners usually spend approximately four or
five months in custody, as their cases move through the courts

The remaining 25 percent of the prison population consists of convicted offenders
serving sentences of less than 15 months.
3
4

From the Sheriff’s Department website, April 2006, http://www.sfsheriff.com/jails.htm
Van de Water, Adam, Office of the Legislative Analyst, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, “Criminal Justice
Offender Profile (File # 021527), ” April 2, 2003

4

In a 2002 Jail Population Analysis study of prisoners in San Francisco jails, the
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice reported that of the 2,052 persons in jail on the
morning of February 18, 2002, 47 percent had been arrested on drug-related charges, 35
percent had been arrested for crimes of violence, and 15 percent had been charged with
crimes against property. The remaining 3 percent had been arrested for other crimes,
such as vehicle code violations and quality of life offenses, (such as public inebriation or
excessive noise). 5

B.

Facilities

Jurors reported that the exterior condition of the jail facilities and grounds was
satisfactory. No graffiti or peeling paint was noted on the exterior of any of the
buildings. All interior portions of the jails viewed by the Civil Grand Jury were very
clean on the day of the visit. Bedding, pillows, and clothing also appeared to be clean.
No graffiti was noted.
County Jail #3 in San Bruno, built in the 1930s, is the oldest structure in the jail
system. In an article about overcrowding in the jails, the San Francisco Examiner
reported in 1999 that this antiquated facility “poses such earthquake and fire hazards to
its 550 inmates that a federal judge has declared it unconstitutional.” 6 As a result of the
court’s ruling, the County began construction of a new state-of-the art jail in San Bruno,
directly across the street from County Jail #7. Departmental management stated that
when the new San Bruno Jail is opened, County Jail #3 will be permanently closed and
the prisoners will be transferred to the new jail.
The new jail was originally scheduled to be completed and ready for occupancy in
early 2004, at which time the old Jail #3 and Jail #7, built in the 1960s, would have been
closed. However, a series of construction and contractual problems have delayed the
opening of the new facility. 7 Departmental officials assured jurors that these problems
are being resolved. The most recent estimate, provided by a Department spokesperson on
May 22, 2006, is that the Department expects the new jail to be ready for occupancy no
later than July 1, 2006.
The Sheriff is quoted in the 1999 Examiner article, headlined “Inmates sleep on
floors in overflowing cell blocks,” as saying “the outdated design [of Jails #1 and #2]
presents even more immediate dangers to inmates.” Six years later, although we did not
observe any prisoners sleeping on the floors, the 2005-06 Civil Grand Jury noted that the
two jails in the Hall of Justice are the most stereotypical and the most unpleasant of all
the jails visited, for both prisoners and the staff. The prisoners were in crowded
5
6

7

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, San Francisco, CA: “Jail Population Analysis.” February 2002
“
Inmates sleep on floors in overflowing cell blocks,” San Francisco Examiner, July 25, 1999.
Matier, Phillip and Andrew Ross, 2005. “Glitches handcuff city’s move to open new jail, “San Francisco Chronicle,
May 18, 2005.

5

conditions, the design is antiquated, the noise level was annoying, with the exception of
the women’s section of Jail #2, there are no windows or natural light. The monotonous
drab-colored walls have an impersonal, institutional feeling and the uncovered hard
surfaces intensify the noise problem.
In Jail #1, on the sixth floor of the Hall of Justice, the most crowded area was the
women’s section. The cells were small and four or more cots were crowded into one cell.
The cots appeared to be only about 24” apart, giving the women prisoners very little
personal space. In the men’s facility, each cellblock had adjacent common space where
the prisoners could sit, eat, read, or socialize. The women did not have any common
areas. In some of the cells, women prisoners were observed eating dinner sitting on their
cots.
Departmental staff said that once the changeover to the new San Bruno jail is
completed, male prisoners will be moved out of Jail #8 at 425 7th Street and the entire
facility will be used by women prisoners. This will alleviate the overcrowding in the
women’s portion of Jail #1.
Jurors found the indoor air quality and temperature of the Hall of Justice jails to
be noticeably uncomfortable. The indoor air problems in the Hall of Justice have been in
existence for the better part of a decade or more. The 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury found
that “County Jails #1 and #2 located at the Hall of Justice have noticeable problems with
ventilation and air flow” and recommended that the “ventilation problem at County Jails
#1 and #2 should be corrected or at least alleviated in some way… The Sheriff's
Department should look into short-term and long-term solutions to improve the
ventilation in these facilities.” 8 Departmental staff said the Hall of Justice HVAC system
replacement project was to be completed in four phases. To date, only three of these
have been completed. The final phase of the project, replacement of the HVAC system
for Jails #1 and #2, although also included in recent budgets, has been delayed several
times.
The 2005-2006 budget includes $600,000 for completion of the Hall of Justice
cooling system. 9 However, as of May 2006, the air quality problems in the Hall of
Justice jails had not yet been addressed. Completion of the cooling system may be
included in the $2.7 million in capital improvements for the Hall of Justice in the
Mayor’s proposed 2006-2007 budget, which was released at the end of May. 10
The Mayor’s proposed 2006-2007 budget also includes $800,000 for pre-planning
for the replacement of the Hall of Justice. It is estimated, however, that it will be at least
10 to 15 years before a replacement Hall of Justice will be completed.

8
9

10

1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Reports – Sheriff’s Department. http://www.sfgov.org/site/courts_page.asp?id=3730
(April 2006)
Mayor’s Office of Budget Policy and Finance, “Budget Summary 2005-2006,” San Francisco, June 6, 2005

Mayor’s Office of Communications. Press Release: “Mayor Newsom Announces Largest General Fund
Capital Budget in City’s History,” May 24, 2006.

6

In contrast to the older jails, the new (but not yet operational) jail in San Bruno
provides a much more pleasant physical environment for staff as well as prisoners. For
example, there were a variety of design colors and ample natural light to offset the
fluorescent lighting system. Artwork was on display in attractive common areas.

C.

Staffing

The jurors’ overall impression of Departmental staff was very favorable. Without
exception, staff interviewed appeared to be knowledgeable and well trained. They were
forthcoming about their job duties and morale appeared to be good despite the
Department’s chronic staff shortages. The officers assigned to work in the jails are
ethnically and gender diverse: approximately 75 percent of the deputies are ethnic
minorities and about 25 percent are women. All officers observed looked sharp and clean;
their uniforms were well pressed and conformed to Departmental requirements.
The Civil Grand Jury did not perceive any relationship problems or tensions
between the prisoners and the staff. With only one exception, prisoners interviewed did
not complain about their treatment. The Jury was impressed by the apparently cordial
relationships among the prisoners and the staff.
At the time of the jail visit, Departmental management reported there were a
sufficient number of budgeted positions to maintain current staffing objectives.
However, there were not a sufficient number of filled positions. In FY 2005, there were
87 vacant positions due to turnover and retirements, with the result that an average of 50
involuntary overtime slots were needed to achieve the minimum levels of staffing
required by the CSA. Moreover, due to cost-cutting measures, there were 11.5 fewer
full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in the FY 05-06 budget, than there were in the FY
04-05 budget. 11
A recent two-year hiring freeze, instituted due to financial constraints, was lifted
in 2005. Since then, however, new hires have just been replacing people who resigned or
retired. Thirty-five new deputies were hired in 2006, of which 31 completed the required
police academy training. However, during this period, the Department lost 27 officers
due to retirement or other reasons. Therefore, in order to ensure that there are a sufficient
number of deputies in the jails at all times, the Department must resort to overtime, either
voluntary or mandatory. Mandatory overtime is instituted when there are an insufficient
number of volunteers for a given shift.
There is an open job announcement for 8302 Deputy Sheriff 1, the entry-level
deputy position. New hires attend an introductory seven-week Department orientation
course, then a six-week jail training Officer program before they are ready to serve at the
jails. Deputies also attend a 20-week California State certified course at the Police

11

Murray, Andrew: Legislative Analyst Memorandum, Re: Sheriff’s Department April 21, 2005 Presentation to the Budget and
Finance Committee, April 20, 2005

7

Academy during the first year of their employment. Upon graduation from the Academy,
deputies are then fully accredited peace officers under California law. 12
Understaffing, together with a high level of dependence upon mandatory
overtime, is detrimental to the safety of both Departmental staff and prisoners in custody.
According to an article in the Contra Costa Times, violence among prisoners in the Los
Angeles County jails has nearly doubled in the past three years, largely due to a funding
crisis and staffing shortages. L.A. County’s inmate-to-deputy ratio is one of the highest
in the country and, as a result, inmate-on-inmate assaults at one L.A. County facility rose
from 351 in 2003 to 614 last year. 13
Because the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department proactively strives to keep such
assaults at a minimum, the prisoner-on-prisoner assault rate is considerably less than in
Los Angeles. Staff reported that the total number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults in all
seven San Francisco County jails was 247 in FY 2005. However, the trend of trimming
the budget of the SFSD that began with the FY 03-04 and FY 04-05 budgets and
continued in the FY 05-06 budget 14 is a major concern.

D.

Nutrition

Civil Grand Jurors were served a prisoner lunch consisting of four slices of whole
wheat bread, four slices of lunch meat, corn chips, an apple, ½ pint of milk, and
condiments (mustard and mayonnaise). Prisoners interviewed said that the food served to
the Grand Jurors was a standard prisoner lunch. The lunch served to prisoners who do
not have special dietary requirements consists of either lunchmeat or peanut butter
sandwiches. No lettuce or other sandwich fillings are offered.
Breakfasts and dinners are more varied and are served warm. Vegetables and
dessert are served with the evening meal. The menus are fixed and do not allow for
individual choices. All prisoners on a particular diet receive the same food on a given
day. The Department submitted a sampling of menus that indicate prisoners are provided
12
13

14

California Penal Code §13510.1, Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) training program certification
“Los Angeles jail riots underscore rising violence among prisoners,” Contra Costa Times, February 6, 2005
Murray, Andrew: Legislative Analyst Memorandum, Re: Sheriff’s Department April 21, 2005 Presentation to the
Budget and Finance Committee, April 20, 2005. The following is an excerpt from page 4 of the report:
The department's FY 05-06 proposed budget totals $144.5M, a reduction of $2.0M over its original FY 0405 budget and $1.3M less than its projected FY 04-05 year-end actual. Notably, the department is budgeting
$1.5M less for programs, $856,787 less for facilities, and $382,942 less for recruitment and training than it
did in its original FY 04-05 budget. It is also budgeting for 11.5 fewer FTE in FY 05-06 than it did in FY
04-05.
Significant cuts (savings) that were implemented in FY 03-04 and FY 04-05 include:
- Closing three dormitories at County Jail No. 7 ($1.5M);
- Eliminating porter services at County Jail No. 7 ($280,000);
- Eliminating post-custody drug rehabilitation beds ($1.7M);
- Eliminating Station Transfer Unit services ($2.0M);
- Reducing hours and staffing at City Hall ($200,000);
- Freezing hiring of new 8302 Deputy Sheriffs for last two fiscal years ($1.5M per year); and
- Laying off 26 8300 cadets ($700,000)

8

balanced 3000-calorie meals. The food, while somewhat monotonous, meets basic dietary
needs.
In addition to the standard food offerings certain dietary needs are accommodated
if requested by the prisoner or medical staff: Special menus include kosher/halal (offered
to both Jews and Muslims), vegan, low salt, or diabetic. Many jurors said it is
commendable that the Department both meets the nutritional needs of prisoners and
provides special menus to meet dietary preferences or needs.

E.

Medical services

Prisoners are given a medical screening and evaluation during their initial
processing. They are provided with basic medical care and receive prescribed
medications during “pill call.” Medical, dental, mental health and social work services
are provided upon request. Mental health services include crisis intervention and
individual therapy.

F.

Inmate Welfare Fund

Each county in the State of California is required by state law to maintain an
Inmate Welfare Fund and the State Penal Code grants the Sheriff the authority to
establish, maintain and operate a store in connection with the county jail. Profits from
the commissary sales and pay phones used by prisoners must be deposited into the Inmate
Welfare Fund, together with 10 percent of all sale proceeds from inmate hobby crafts.
Penal Code Section 4025 (e) states that all profits placed into the Inmate Welfare
Fund shall be expended "primarily for the benefit, education and welfare of the inmates
confined within the jail. Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of the inmates may
be expended for the maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail
facilities may include, but is not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in
the programs to benefit the inmates, including, but not limited to, education, drug and
alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate
by the Sheriff. An annual report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to the
Board of Supervisors."
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the two most recent Inmate Welfare Fund reports
to the Board of Supervisors. Total fund revenues in FY 2004 were $1,316,861, of which
$91,617 (7 percent) was carried over to FY 2005. Expenditures totaled $1,225,245.
Approximately 60-65 percent of the expenditures were for pre-release prisoner programs
and other direct benefits. The remaining 35-40 percent was spent on staff salaries,
benefits and overhead.
In FY 2005, total revenues were $1,210,613, of which $333,903 (27 percent) was
carried over to FY 2006. Expenditures totaled $876,710. Approximately 50 percent of

9

the expenditures were used for pre-release prisoner programs and other direct prisoner
benefits. The other 50 percent were spent on staff salaries, benefits and overhead.
The Civil Grand Jury’s brief examination of the Inmate Welfare Fund revealed no
problems or irregularities.

G.

Pre-Release Rehabilitation Programs

In a study of correctional programs released in January 2006, the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy found that adult education programs, vocational programs
and drug treatment programs for prisoners in jail reduce recidivism rates between 5 and
12 percent. The authors of the study noted that even relatively small reductions in
recidivism rates can be quite cost-beneficial. For example, a 5 percent reduction in the
reconviction rates of high-risk offenders can generate significant benefits for taxpayers
and crime victims. 15
Under the guidance of Sheriff Hennessey, several nontraditional programs for
prisoners in the San Francisco jail system have been instituted, including acupuncture,
high school classes, organic gardening therapy, yoga, and Tree Corps, a project that
offers former prisoners employment planting and tending trees in and around the City.
•

Education
Prisoners without a high school diploma may attend the on-site Charter High
School operated by the San Francisco School District, which has established
the curriculum and the eligibility criteria. Prisoners who participate in the
program receive high school credits for each course satisfactorily completed.
The Five Keys Charter School continues to be a trendsetter in terms of
providing high school classes to the incarcerated. Because a major barrier to
completion of the coursework is the length of time a prisoner is incarcerated,
after their release, students are encouraged to continue their classes at the
school’s campus at 70 Oak Grove, San Francisco. Departmental staff reported
that approximately 35-40 former prisoners are currently enrolled there.
Although not directly funded by the City and County of San Francisco, the
Northern California Service League, a not-for-profit agency, operates various
pre- and post-release programs for prisoners and their families. 16 One of the
League’s programs is the San Francisco Jail Tutoring Project that was created
in the fall of 2003 to assist prisoners in Jails #1, #2, and #8 in their preparation
for the GED examination. The League staffs this program with volunteers
and interns. The League recruits at UC Berkeley and has a recruiting
agreement with the Associated Students of the University of California,

15
16

Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “ Programs: What works and what does not,” January 2006.
Northern California Service League web page at http://www.norcalserviceleague.org/ (April 2006)

10

Berkeley (ASUC), which has recognized the San Francisco Jail Tutoring
Project as a second-year funded Student-Initiated Service Group. 17 While this
program has achieved results, its success is dependent on the recruitment of
volunteers, who are frequently reluctant to work with people incarcerated in
jail. Therefore, the League’s services in the jails are intermittent. The
program is limited to the San Francisco jail sites.
One interviewed prisoner in County Jail #7 said that he tried to enroll in the
Charter High School classes but was unable to because he had a GED and
asked jurors if they could help. This request was brought to the attention of
Departmental management, who said they would look into it, although they
noted it is the charter school that establishes the eligibility criteria. The
request highlights the loss of adult education opportunities.
•

Vocational training
Because of funding and other constraints, the only vocational programs
currently being offered are culinary and arts programs. Vocational training in
the jails had in the past also included the Garden Project/ horticulture, print
shop, landscaping, arts instruction and job readiness.

•

Substance abuse recovery programs
o “Roads to Recovery.” This is a substance abuse program for men
designed to develop strengths and acquire skills for a productive, positive
lifestyle free from substance abuse. In addition to 12-step programs, the
program offers anger management, family issues, life skills, academic
classes, and community planning/recovery process groups. Because of
funding limitations, there is a waiting list for this program. Before the
2003 budget cuts there were three dormitories in Jail #7 for men enrolled
in this program. 18 Now, although demand is still high, there is only one.
o “Sisters in Sober Treatment Empowered in Recovery” (SISTER). In
collaboration with Walden House, the SISTER project provides substance
abuse treatment for women prisoners in Jail #8. The project also
coordinates post-release services for women in recovery.

•

Violence prevention program
“Resolve to Stop the Violence” (RSVP). This violence prevention program
is designed to reduce recidivism and coordinate the re-entry of ex-offenders
as productive members of their respective communities. It is a 16-hour-a-

17
18

The Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley (ASUC), www.asuc.org/documentation/
Murray, Andrew: Legislative Analyst Memorandum, Re: Sheriff’s Department April 21, 2005 Presentation to the Budget and
Finance Committee, April 20, 2005, which included the “Closing of three dormitories at County Jail No. 7.”.

11

day program staffed by deputy sheriffs, community violence counselors,
and staffs from organizations representing victims and survivors of violent
crimes. There is a waiting list for this program.
•

Alternative program
The “Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program” (SWAP). This is an alternative
to general incarceration. Prisoners selected to participate in the program are
assessed according to educational and substance abuse counseling needs
and then assigned to a work detail. Participants receive a combination of
counseling and classes during the last 60 days of their sentence.

H.

Post-Release Programs

According to staff interviewed, the recidivism rate among prisoners is a major
problem. They estimate that more than 40 percent of the prisoners are repeat offenders.
Yet, because of budgetary restraints, the Sheriff’s Department has only a limited number
of post-release programs, some of which have been augmented by a small number of
federal grants. Although prisoners in alternative programs or on parole are required to
participate in certain of the post-release programs, Departmental staff said the
Department has limited jurisdiction over prisoners who have completed their sentences.
Thus, for this latter group, participation would, for the most part, be voluntary.
SFSD staff said that when the Department is given sufficient advance notice of a
prisoner’s release the prisoner is provided with information about available post-release
programs and services. RSVP, SISTER, the Garden Project, Project Rebound at San
Francisco State University, the State of California Department of Rehabilitation, Friends
Outside, the Delancey Street Foundation, Asian Neighborhood Design, the Central City
Hospitality House and the Northern California Service League are among the agencies
that provide services to former jail prisoners.
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy study of corrections programs
found that post-release cognitive behavioral treatment programs can be expected to
reduce recidivism rates by 8.2 percent. 19 Sheriff’s Department management indicated
that an effective coordinated post-release program could be run with a full-time staff of
three to five people, at the cost about $300,000 in salaries and benefits per year.
Staff estimated that each prisoner costs the county about $100 per day and the
average prisoner stays in jail about four months. Thus, the cost to San Francisco
taxpayers averages about $12,000 per year for each person incarcerated. According to
the Sheriff’s website, approximately 55,000 people are booked into the jails each year. 20
19

Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “ Programs: What works and what does not,” January
2006.
20
http://www.sfsheriff.com/jails.htm (May 2006)

12

If the recidivism rate were reduced by a small amount -- only 0.5 percent-- the net
savings could amount to as much as $3 million. Even a one-tenth of 1 percent reduction
in recidivism (only 55 persons) would result in a significant net savings to the taxpayers
of about $660,000. Every additional person who is helped by a program to stay out of jail
would save the city an additional $12,000. There would be related savings in reduced
police, medical, and court costs.
The indirect savings to the taxpayers from this program would be even greater.
Fewer people would be victims of crime. Families of both the ex-offenders and their
potential victims would be immeasurably better off. Productive ex-offenders who stay in
the city could become employed taxpayers.

IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facilities

Finding:
1.1

At the time of the on-site visit, the women’s sections of the jails in the Hall of
Justice were unacceptably crowded. However, the Department is currently
planning to rectify this situation by moving most of the women to Jail #8 at 425
7th Street.

Recommendation:
1.1

Ensure that funds for the transfer of women from Jails #1 and #2 are
included in the 2006-2007 budget in order that the planned move can be
expeditiously carried out.

Required Responses:
Mayor’s Office – 60 days
SFSD – 60 days

13

Finding:
1.2a

There is a pressing need to rectify the ventilation problems in Jails #1 and #2 in
the Hall of Justice. Problems with air quality in the Hall of Justice jails have been
in existence for at least five years, if not longer. The 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury
made the following finding:
County Jails #1 and #2 located at the Hall of Justice have noticeable problems
with ventilation and air flow, which cause great discomfort to staff and inmates,
especially in hot weather.

1.2b

The 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury recommended that the “Sheriff's Department
should look into short-term and long-term solutions to improve the ventilation in
these facilities.” However, during the on-site visit in 2005, Civil Grand Jurors
found similar ventilation and air quality problems; thus, whatever solutions were
devised as a response to the 1999-2000 CGJ findings, if any, have not rectified the
problem.

1.2c

In recent years, funds were budgeted for the replacement of the Hall of Justice
cooling system. This project was to be done in four phases and three phases have
been completed. The final phase, replacement of the cooling system for Jails #1
and #2, although included in the 2005-2006, has not been completed.

1.2d

Various interviewees indicated that the reason the cooling system for the Jails #1
and #2 has not been replaced is because the City is going to construct a new Hall
of Justice. Although a replacement for the Hall of Justice is in the planning stage,
it will be at least 10-15 years before a new facility is completed and ready for
occupancy.

Recommendation:
1.2

The cooling system replacement for Jails #1 and #2 in the Hall of Justice
should not be delayed any longer. The cooling system should be replaced
prior to the end of 2006.

Required Responses:
Mayor’s Office – 60 days
DPW – 60 days
SFSD – 60 days

14

Finding:
1.3

The physical environment of Jails #1 and #2 in the Hall of Justice has not been
updated to conform to newer jail design aesthetics. Drab unadorned walls and
noisy acoustics contribute to the unpleasant atmosphere for both prisoners and
staff.

Recommendations:
1.3

Evaluate the physical environment of Jails #1 and #2 in the Hall of Justice
and, if practical, apply some of the environmental design concepts
incorporated into the new San Bruno Jail, including a variety of colors, noise
reduction techniques, and art. We urge the City to include funds for these
recommended design improvements to the existing Jails #1 and #2 in the
2006-07 budget.
•

Acoustics. With the help of an acoustical expert, develop a design for
reducing the noise level with the objective of producing a quieter and
therefore more calming environment in Jails #1 and #2.
Investigate introducing sound-deadening textures or devices on walls and
ceilings to help reduce the noise level.

•

Colors. When repainting or replacing items, utilize colors from the
overall color master plan of the new San Bruno Jail to replace the beige/
gray blandness in Jails #1 and #2.

•

Art: Consider enhancing the prison environment by displaying
prisoners’ art on some of the walls.

Required Responses:
Mayor’s Office – 60 days
DPW – 60 days
SFSD – 60 days

Staffing
Finding:
2.1

Unfilled SFSD staff positions adversely affect the running of San Francisco jails.

2.2

Although Departmental representatives state the Sheriff’s Department recruits at
job fairs and at the Department’s internet site, the Department does not have a
comprehensive recruitment plan. A recruitment plan is a marketing plan for open

15

positions. Such a plan will coordinate recruitment efforts and maximize the
utilization of time and resources spent on recruitment.
2.3

A Google search in early June for “sheriff recruitment” and “sheriff job openings”
did not result in any links to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department recruitment
website, although there were links to the sheriff’s departments of many other
California counties.

Recommendation
2.1

The continued recruitment and hiring of new deputies should be given top
priority. The Department should develop a coordinated recruitment
outreach plan so that information about the current deputy recruitment
program is disseminated widely to community groups, peace officer
associations, and web sites.
For example, the Department could list Deputy Sheriff positions on Internet sites
such as:

•

Women Peace Officers Association of California at
http://www.wpoaca.com/Job%20Flyers/Cal/cal_jobs.html,

•

Police Officers Research Association of California at
http://www.porac.org/employment.html,

•

Golden State Police Officers Association at http://www.gspoa.com
[Note: The SF Police Department has jobs advertised on this site.],

•

Other Internet job sites such as www.indeed.com, www.usajobs.com,
http://www.deputy.sheriff.jobs.com

2.2

The SFSD should consult with the Department of Telecommunications and
Information Services (DTIS) to determine how to maximize the effectiveness
of the SFSD website and how to ensure that the Department’s recruitment
efforts get maximum exposure on Google and other search engine web sites.

Required Responses:
Mayor’s Office – 60 days
SFSD – 60 days

16

Post-release programs
Finding:
3.1

Post-release programs can contribute to reducing the recidivism rate. Programs
exist in San Francisco, but the funds and organization to help released prisoners
find and connect to them do not exist.

Recommendation:
3.1

It is recommended that the Office of the Mayor provide leadership by issuing
a statement supporting an integrated, multi-agency approach to programs
for prisoners released from custody. This global approach could stretch limited
funding by coordinating existing governmental resources with community
agencies mentioned in the discussion section of the report, as well as such
additional agencies as Walden House, the Northern California Service League and
established drug rehabilitation programs.
It is also recommended that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor follow
up the above statement by funding a pilot project to reduce recidivism. Such
a program, funded at $300,000 a year for five years, could consist of a few staff
either within or in close connection with the SFSD. The program would
coordinate SFSD members or others who would counsel prisoners about available
services prior to release and coordinate access to those services post-release. The
object would be to encourage and facilitate released prisoners to avail themselves
of those existing opportunities.
After four years of operation, the City would be in a position to evaluate such a
program. If it is found that recidivism has been reduced by even one per cent,
enough money will have been saved to cover the cost of the program and the
program should be continued. If the program reduces recidivism by a larger
percentage, it would be a net savings to the City. If it fails to reduce recidivism,
the City should consider what other means to reduce recidivism might be
appropriate.

Required Responses:
Mayor’s Office – 60 days
SFSD – 60 days
Board of Supervisors – 60 days

17

GLOSSARY
CSA

Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), formerly named the California
Board of Corrections (BOC).

DCR

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR). The state of
California agency that regulates jails and prisons throughout the state.

Prisoner:

Although the public commonly refers to incarcerated individuals as
“inmates,” representatives of the Sheriff’s Department informed jurors
that the correct term to use when referring to individuals incarcerated in a
San Francisco county jail facility is “prisoner.” Therefore, the term
prisoner is used throughout this report.

POST

Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification. The training
standard for correctional officers established by the DCR.

SFSD

San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.

18

REFERENCES
1.

1999-2000 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury Jail Report, San Francisco Superior
Court website at http://www.sfgov.org/site/courts_page.asp?id=3730

2.

Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley (ASUC) website at
www.asuc.org/documentation/

3.

Bass, Jr., Gordon. Justice and the Revolving Door: The Jacksonville Experience
in Recidivism Intervention, LJN Exchange, 2005

4.

Benner, Jeffrey, 2000. “Politically correct punishment,” Mother Jones, March 16,
2000.

5.

Budget Analyst, “Recommendations of the Budget Analyst for Amendment of
Budget Items, 2005-2006,” June 28, 2005

6.

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Crime Prevention and Corrections.

7.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: “Minimum Standards
for Local Detention Facilities, Title 15 – Crime Prevention and Corrections,
Division 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter 4, 2005 Programs and Procedures Guidelines.

8.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, “Minimum Standards
for Local Detention Facilities, Title 24, Part 1, Section 12-102 and Part 2, Section
470A, 2005 Regulations.

9.

California Penal Code

10.

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, San Francisco, CA: “Jail Population
Analysis.” February 2002

11.

Contra Costa Times: “Los Angeles jail riots underscore rising violence among
prisoners,” February 6, 2005

12.

Matier, Phillip and Andrew Ross, 2005. “Glitches handcuff city’s move to open
new jail, “San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2005.

13.

Murray, Andrew: Legislative Analyst Memorandum, Re: Sheriff’s Department
April 21, 2005 Presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee, April 20, 2005

14.

Northern California Service League web page at
http://www.norcalserviceleague.org/

15.

Office of the Mayor, “Mayor’s Proposed Budget 2005-2006,” June 6, 2005.

16.

San Francisco Examiner: “Inmates sleep on floors in overflowing cell blocks,”
July 25, 1999.

17.

San Francisco Sheriff’s Department website at http://www.sfsheriff.com

18.

Taqi-Eddin, Khaled and Dan Macallair, Shattering “Broken Windows”: An
Analysis of San Francisco’s Alternative Crime Policies, Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice, San Francisco, CA, June 2001.

19

19.

Van de Water, Adam, Office of the Legislative Analyst, San Francisco Board of
Supervisors, “Criminal Justice Offender Profile (File # 021527), ” April 2, 2003

20.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections
Programs: What works and what does not.” Olympia, WA. January 2006.

20