Tierra Simms has walked the two blocks from her SoMa workplace to the 7th Street jail countless times. After each visit, the 37-year-old returns with one or a handful of people just released from jail. Many lug their belongings in transparent plastic bags as they follow her back to her office.
Her job — and the bulk of the work at the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (opens in new tab) — is ensuring that those released from jail during their legal proceedings return for court hearings and stay out of trouble in the meantime.
By most accounts, the nationally recognized nonprofit has been living up to its responsibilities. A recent report (opens in new tab) found that an average of 95% of the organization’s clients returned to court as scheduled in 2025. An even higher number — 97% — were not rearrested or charged while awaiting trial.
But a year-old squabble with the San Francisco Superior Court may lead to the dissolution of the nearly 50-year-old nonprofit.
For decades, SF Pretrial, and then Santa Clara County, were the only counties with such programs. Since its founding, the nonprofit has expanded to more than 100 employees who at any time serve roughly 1,800 clients. The organization has an annual budget of roughly $16 million, funded by city contracts, grants, and donations. In addition to making sure clients return to court, SF Pretrial helps them find housing and treatment for drug and mental health issues, among other services. There is even a hotel near the office, with which the group contracts for clients with no place to go.
In 2018, when California passed a law reforming the money bail system, it authorized county probation departments to operate pretrial services. That led to most counties adopting a pretrial system run by law enforcement agencies. But the law had a carve-out for SF Pretrial due to its success and long-standing relationship with the courts.
San Francisco Superior Court said it has asked the city’s Adult
ProbationDepartment to take over pretrial services to centralize its control over released defendants. The court cited financial issues and a lack of transparency by the nonprofit as the reasons.
‘This decision is not based on sound public policy or what’s best for San Francisco and public safety.’
SF Pretrial CEO David Mauroff
If Mayor Daniel Lurie’s budget, to be worked out by the end of June, allocates the necessary funds to the Probation Department for a new pretrial services program, the move will be final.
SF Pretrial leaders — who include a former San Francisco Police Department chief — say they don’t understand why an organization that has had success for decades is being dismantled. They warn that a law enforcement agency tasked with tracking people who have not yet been convicted of a crime is problematic and that a ham-fisted transition could create chaos for courts already plagued by backlogs and lawyer shortages.
They contend that the court’s mismanagement claims have been rectified and that the transparency allegations are unfounded, while stating that the Probation Department has its own troubled history.
“This decision is not based on sound public policy or what’s best for San Francisco and public safety,” said SF Pretrial CEO David Mauroff. “The goal is to consolidate power and control between the superior court and adult probation, which is under the court’s authority.”
The population of those awaiting trial outside of county jail has been
a central focus (opens in new tab)of debates around public safety. The group is likely to grow following a state
Supreme Court ruling (opens in new tab)on bail reform, clarifying that only people who pose a danger to the public can be held without bail — everyone else must be charged bail they can afford.
‘When I call them by their names, they are always surprised.’
Reyna Serrano, SF Pretrial
A years-long battle
Efforts to move pretrial services under the Probation Department go back years.
In 2019, the department tried to take over SF Pretrial’s work (opens in new tab) by applying for a state pretrial pilot program. It failed to be selected.
But in March 2025, SF Pretrial got into hot water over mismanagement of its retirement fund (opens in new tab). This led to an investigation by the district attorney and a city review into the nonprofit’s compliance with contracting rules. The upheaval prompted the court to begin its own inquiry into the organization.
On June 18, 2025, SF Superior Court CEO Brandon Riley notified Mauroff that the court had filed a Public Records Act request seeking documents about SF Pretrial’s contracts and internal finances.
As Mauroff conferred with the nonprofit’s board, he was rebuffed from participating in the court’s investigation. “Hello, Mr. Mauroff. The Court is currently investigating more serious issues regarding San Francisco Pretrial and exploring potential solutions. We respectfully decline your offer to participate,” Riley wrote in an email.
‘Most of the time they are people of color. It feels like they have fallen through the gaps.’
Ruben Marquez Jimenez, SF Pretrial
Weeks later, Mauroff sent a follow-up notifying the court that the city no longer viewed SF Pretrial as a seriously problematic nonprofit and that the DA’s investigation had been closed.
When the nonprofit refused to hand over the documents, citing the limits of public records laws over nongovernment entities, Riley responded that the court would begin the search for a replacement: “Great! I figured it would come to this.”
In October, Riley wrote to the state’s judicial council about his plan to move pretrial work to the Probation Department. Still, the nonprofit continued to inform the court about its improved oversight program for defendants and updates on how it was living up to requirements for city-contracted nonprofits.
As the months ticked by, SF Pretrial remained unsure of its future. The nonprofit responded to a Request for Proposals from the SF Sheriff’s Office for the same services it has provided the court, and was awarded the contract.
In March, the Probation Department requested $12.8 million (opens in new tab)from the mayor to stand up its own pretrial unit, saying it was prepared to begin operations July 1, 2026, and would hire nearly 30 new staffers.
The issue bubbled to the surface at a hearing last week of the Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Finance Committee, at which members of the Sheriff’s Office, the ACLU, and dozens of other public commenters spoke in support of SF Pretrial as the panel weighed approval of the sheriff’s contract.
‘I was in the Probation Department. This is not what we did. Here, it’s “How can we help you not go back into custody?”’
Elston Mallory, SF Pretrial
“It is a challenging process, and one that we feel would take, at minimum, a year,” Sheriff Paul Miyamoto said. “We just had our first meeting with the Probation Department in terms of talking about what their plan is.”
Anya Worley-Ziegmann, a coordinator with citizen watchdog group the People’s Budget Coalition, decried the switch to the Probation Department. “No other agency is hiring new positions,” Worley-Ziegmann said. “They are ramming this through and steering us toward a collapse of our pretrial system.”
Supervisor Connie Chan said she had questions about the decision, but no representative of the court was present to answer them. The three-member body ultimately forwarded SF Pretrial’s$22.5 million, three-year contract with the Sheriff’s Office to the full board for approval.
The court justified its actions, claiming the Probation Department will be more accountable and transparent and will improve public safety.
“SF Pretrial refused to provide the records requested by the court, leading to the court’s decision to discontinue its partnership,” a statement said. “The fiscal implications, along with reporting inaccuracies and limited information to judges, demonstrated the urgency of the court’s decision to move forward.
The court claimed the nonprofit’s work was shoddy and unaccountable but did not provide data to support its claims.
‘I’ve been homeless before. I can relate to them. When I tell my clients that, they are able to open up.’
Teresa Perryman, SF Pretrial
No one from the court agreed to an interview to explain its course of action.
SF Pretrial responded by pointing out that it handles nearly 40,000 client check-ins each quarter, and occasional discrepancies are addressed in real time.
The Adult Probation Department has been planning a takeover since the court reached out last year — yet none of the pretrial services positions have been filled, and no launch is expected until 2027.
‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’
Numerous former judges and lawyers, and the San Francisco Bar Association, oppose the court’s decision to cut ties with the nonprofit.
Defense attorney David Rizk called the move “ridiculous” and “foolhardy,” contending that the court, which falls under the state’s judicial branch, has no legal authority to tell the city how to spend its funds.
A retired Superior Court judge, who asked to remain anonymous, said she doesn’t understand why the court is playing hardball.
“My experience with Pretrial has been, they go the extra mile,” she said. “They go and find the people, look in encampments. They do the kinds of things adult probation’s not going to do. It’s just not in their DNA.”
‘We are not here to put you in jail.’
La’Teisha Brathwaite, SF Pretrial
Elston Mallory, an SF Pretrial case manager and former Marin County probation officer, said the Probation Department’s message will be “Show up or go back to jail,” while the nonprofit’s message is “How can we help you not go back into custody?”
SF Pretrial board member Toney Chaplin has been on both sides. A retired Hayward police chief who served in SFPD’s ranks for nearly 30 years, Chaplin said this work has gone under the radar for years. But as a cop, he saw the way that the nonprofit’s employees built trust and relationships in a way that law enforcement simply can’t.
“Those people come to court because we make sure they do,” he said of the nonprofit. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Additionally, transitioning pretrial services to probation could negatively impact public safety, said retired appeals court Judge Anthony Kline, noting that it could lead to fewer people showing up to court.
“It’s a huge mistake,” Kline said. “The public safety of San Francisco, which is pretty high right now, is heavily attributable to this pretrial project.”
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。