SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju is urging Mayor Daniel Lurie to reject a proposal by the city’s Adult Probation Department to assume control of pretrial release services, arguing the move would undermine a long-standing community-based program, increase costs and jeopardize trust with people awaiting trial.
In a May 26 letter to the mayor, Raju and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office expressed “strong opposition” to the Adult Probation Department’s request for approximately $13 million in funding to absorb services currently provided by the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SF Pretrial), an independent nonprofit organization that has overseen pretrial supervision in the city for five decades.
“The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office writes to urge you to reject the Adult Probation Department’s (APD) $13 million funding request to take over pretrial release services,” Raju wrote. “We stand in support of maintaining the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SF Pretrial) as our city’s independent, neutral, and non-law-enforcement pretrial service provider.”
According to the letter, SF Pretrial currently supervises approximately 70 percent of individuals released from San Francisco County Jail before trial and has operated for 50 years as a community-based organization. Raju argued that replacing the nonprofit with a law enforcement agency responsible for post-conviction supervision would create significant disruptions in the criminal legal system.
The letter states that the Adult Probation Department lacks experience administering complex pretrial operations and would struggle to immediately assume responsibilities currently handled by SF Pretrial.
“Replacing an established 50-year organization and model overnight will inject severe chaos into our criminal legal system,” the letter states. “APD has no operational experience in complex pretrial mechanics and does not currently have the staffing needed to effectively supervise those released from custody.”
Raju also pointed to the California Supreme Court’s April 30 decision in In re Kowalczyk, which significantly reshaped pretrial detention practices statewide. The ruling established that people generally cannot be detained before trial unless charged with certain qualifying violent offenses and held that unaffordable money bail is unconstitutional. The letter argues that the decision increases the need for experienced pretrial service providers capable of developing release plans and connecting people with services.
“In addition to substantially increasing the workload for public defenders, this decision makes effective pretrial services more critical than ever,” the letter states. “Courts will now need individualized, attainable, and less restrictive alternatives to detention in far more cases.”
The Public Defender’s Office further argued that transferring pretrial supervision to probation would damage client relationships and reduce participation in supportive services.
“Successful pretrial supervision relies entirely on trust to create client engagement,” the letter states. “In our experience, many clients deeply distrust APD because it is a law enforcement agency and they have had past negative experiences with probation officers.”
Raju also challenged the proposal on fiscal grounds, contending that probation’s requested funding exceeds the city’s current costs for pretrial services while providing fewer staffing resources.
The letter states that SF Pretrial operates on a budget of approximately $12.8 million with 96 full-time employees and receives substantial philanthropic support, including a recent $7 million contribution from a private funder. According to the Public Defender’s Office, those private funds could disappear if services were transferred to a government agency, placing additional pressure on the city’s general fund.
The Public Defender’s Office additionally argued that pretrial case management differs fundamentally from probation supervision because pretrial clients are presumed innocent and require supportive services rather than enforcement-focused oversight.
“Pretrial case management is a social work function for clients who are presumptively innocent requiring clinical, supportive assessments, cultural competency, and connection to community to help these clients return to court and get the services they need,” the letter states.
The letter notes that SF Pretrial has developed more than 150 community partnerships to assist clients and warns that placing those services within probation risks shifting the focus from support and court appearance to surveillance and punishment before guilt has been established.
Concluding the letter, Raju urged city leaders to preserve the existing model.
“Dismantling this trusted program that is functioning well to fund a far more expensive, punitive agency with zero experience in this complex space serves no rational city interest,” he wrote. “We urge you to reject this proposal and secure the long-term independence of SF Pretrial’s community-based model.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
