tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 15, 2019 2:00am-3:01am PDT
through ab. -71 has a source where you can view this and ab953 helps to substantiate everything we say is true. what we saying last year what sb1421 being passed and how many officers have been wrong. >> thank you. >> good morning. i'm with an organization called the community of justice in oakland and i want to thank the supervisors for letting us speak on this important issue and thank you supervisor haney, for supporting this revolution. revolution.
resolution. the current use of force standards in 1872, during that time it was legal according to california legislato legislatorp california indians and force them into forced servitude, essentially slavery in the state of california. vigilante lynching were common against mexicans, african-americans, chinese immigrants, italian immigrants. this was california 150 years ago. this predates the exclusion act of 1882. this is when it was absolutely illegal for women to vote. women had almost zero rights in the state of california. this is when the california
legislator was exclusively white male privileged property owners. this is the context for which the current law, as it stands, has been set, but that's not who we are any more in california. so we ask san francisco to please provide leadership and pass this resolution and let's bring us up to 2019 and defend human rights in california and pass ab32. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm marlene sanchez and i'm for the restorative justice in oakland and i'm a san francisco native at the bayview hunter's point and i'm here in support of ab-392, changing the language from reasonable to necessary. we know that the police have the training and that they're actually getting funded to
create more training so that they can be able to deescalate situations. we don't see how any police officer can justify putting in some cases up to like 9 99 bulls into somebody who is hiding or running away. i know that there is -- that this will also protect a lot of young people who are scared of police. i think somebody said earlier the relationship isn't one of trust. i have -- i'm raising children in san francisco and i have a teenaged son who at many times has been scared of police and so my fear as a mom and as a resident of san francisco that my kid one day will be scared and the police will deem it reasonable to fire shots into my son. and so i just urge you to please support this bill and yeah, thank you for all the work that you are doing and standing with
families. thank you. >> thank you. , next speaker. >> good afte afternoon. i wanted to say 1872, sit that for a minute and the mindset and what it looked like for black and brown people in california. california. i'm part of california's united for justice and i wanted to say to please support this bill because for cities will be paying another for money and i promise families would rather have their loved one than money and i think economically it is smart to have this make-sense law. we understand that police have the ability to activate their training because they do it every time when there is a white
person. when a white person has an incident, every bit of training comes out for preservation of life. so we are asking you to support bill ab-392 because it is make-sense law and that we should all want accountability for everyone in california in no position or job position or position should allow you to escape law and accountability. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i'm representing hope access. police are killing california ns with frequency. in 2017, police killed 172
californians according to the justice data. of the unarmed people, police killed three out of the four people of colour. of the 172 people killed in 2017, nearly 50% were latinos and 15.1% were blacks. thank you. >> next speaker. i just wanted to come up and -- sorry, i'm kind of nervous, but yeah, even though i'm from oakland and between both cities,
i think would be something good to happen. thank you. >> thank you. networks speaker. next speaker. >> as a young woman of colour, born in the southeast centre of san francisco, i am in deep support of abc 92. as youth, kids, adults and elders, sisters and brothers have lost their life to the law enforcement and it's fearful to have these officers protect the service. we need to do better. this impacts us as a whole. this is a step for californias to act to save our lives. i support ab392.
this updates california's updated use of force standards to ensure that police officers avoid using deadly force. too many families been shatter shattered. police should never take a human life when they alternatives. while this seems like a common sense standard, it isn't the current practice in california. growing up, i witnessed a lot of violence growing up, but one thing that i do now is i practice mashika dancing, indigenous dancing and so many times we've been called to support the families and transitioning with their young people that have been police -- that police have taken their lives. right now this makes me think of the families that are mourning still and still wants answers.
i'm thinking about the families mourning their loss of children and children's lives. >> thank you, next speaker. >> jackie barshak, democratic socialist of america. as you nerd 2017 officers killed 172 people in california. half of whom did not even poe succespossess guns. more people are killed in california by lawsuit than in any other state and that is 37% higher than the national average. even with the now outdated reforms, that were passed out of the department of general orders, the use of force
policies in 2016 which the supervisor mentioned, the san francisco police department continues to kill people even when there are alternatives. right now, san francisco police are allowed to kill people even when there are alternatives. presently officers kill people just to accomplish an arrest regardless of whether use of force was needed to defend against a threat. officers kill people even when it is unnecessary and when there's no threat and no immediate need! people are killed who are running away regardless of whether they pose a threat to another person. the california act to save lives would require law enforcement to deescalate and carry out best
practices. it will save lives. i urge you to support this resolution. >> thank you, networ next speak. >> good morning, supervisors and thank you for hearing this important matter. my name is mark filpart, boys of colour. i would like to introduce a couple of additional points for your consideration as you think about this, supporting this important resolution. one as jose louis spoke to earlier, this law was instituted in 1872 which comes on the heels of the back-lack to reconstruction and when you think about what was happening at that point in our society, many of the things -- many of the atrocities that were underway were highlighted by jose louis. but as a black pen, it's importanperson, it'simportant te
denied the opportunity to deny property. when you think about the end of reconstruction, the beginning of jim crow, this was the height of lynching. as a black person, when there is police violence, it harkens back to that same period. we can't lose a life in a community without thinking about the negative impacts it has on everyone, not just the family but everyone in that community. and so as we think about how to address these issues, it's important to take that into accountant this is thaaccount ae american health association introduced a statement to end police violents an violence as o the important of a community and the community's well-being. so as we're moving forward and thinking about modern-day policies to address these
issues, i want to ensure you that this resolution and the bill that it's associated with would update california to some of the glanc guidance that the a administration has released. so we encourage you to support this. >> thank you. if you love what someone said, show support of hands but if you hate, show a hands down but we ask you do not applaud or boo. >> i'm a mental health advocate in the city. speaking on behalf of the families that have losted loved ones, two officer-involved shootings including my sister was in crisis in 2012 and died
within 12 seconds of visual contact. with a police officer. i'm here today to ask you to support 8392 and to also ask you of two additional requests. history does not have to repeat itself. we have to acknowledge harm that's created when families are impacted by police violence. just recently, the park's commission approved a memorial on behalf of alex nieto on height's hill and i would encourage you to consider talking to the parks and rec commission to establish multiple memorials throughout this city, acknowledging the pain and returning safe space to the families that have lost loved ones. due to police violence. my second request of you, as you continue to advance on reform in this community is to directly involve the families of impacted
families from police violence at the able to convene them in a body that provides meaningful oversight. they have the answers. uncle bobby at the table. >> thank you, next speaker. >> wo duffy. i recently reread the novel serpico which is 60 years ago and at that time patrolmen were expected to hold several people in custody and if someone ran, it was normal to shoot them annual where people have a lower class in this system was cost effective for the police department but tended to reason force a certain kind of class system. i'm thinking about the great irish american sociologist and what he said about the classism. the system is designed for the rich. the middle-class are the workers and the poor are there to scare
the hell out of the rich but unfortunately, it's not that nice they give it to someone to feed their darker side. i'm amazed at how much this issue coincides with the problems we're having at the national level and how much this issue also relates to the one that's following this one about our neighborhood. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. david elliot lewis. since 2013, i've been a mem of the san francisco police department's mental health working group. cit stands for crisis intervention team training programme. i've done training of officers as well as working on this group and we've made progress. i've worked with the deputy
general order, 5.01 on new supports and that formallallized or working group. police note that the use of force policies in san francisco come, yes, from the grant connor supreme court order but more specifically, they come from our own police commission and they have a use of force policy. it's a deputy general order which is law for police officers to have to follow. when susie loftess was there, e got the right for officers to shoot through windows taken out and we've seen a decline. if you want to see further progress, though, on this issue, locally, right in the city, i would suggest you hold a joint hearing with your police commission and a joint hearing that focuses on, maybe, further
updating 5.01, the deputy general order, use of force. i can further be improved. it can further restrict the limits, the areas where deadly force can be applied and that's where you can make a big difference on the joint commission, board of supervisors, maybe public safety committee hearing on this issue. of course, regarding 392, i strongly support it and the resolution but it's only one part of the slews. solution. police commission, they're the ultimate deciders on what cops can do here. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker. if there are other members who would like to speak on this item, we ask that you line up on the right side of the room. go ahead. >> my name is kate robinson and i will be speaking later on the next topic and just wanted to underscore that these topics we're talking about today are not unrelated and i want to
thank you for your leadership on supporting ab3892. 392. we need to undo harmful policies and begin healing and we need to be leaders of this and so, thank you for pushing this and i fully support this resolution. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hellly. my name is wendy hugh. i wanted to relay a story that could have been a potential tragedy. a couple of years ago, i was on a bus, it was the 31 going outbound toward the beach and a man got on to the bus.
there was a man inebriated and he said his mother had died and i called 9-1-1. the police showed up at a bus stop. they came on the bus and they took him off. i followed him off the bus because of what i fear might be a bad interaction and that i might have contributed to it. once he was off the bus, he was instantliaginstant agitated proy because of the blue uniform.
after a time, i was asked to leave the scene because they said, like, we got this. it's ok, you can leave. i went across the street and i kept watch and they asked him, does he want help. he says no, he's clearly agitated. and eventually, they left him in front of a garage door on divisdor. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my name is lucetto. i represent the young women's freedom centre and i'm here to just share that violent crimes are going up and the police killings are -- the violent crimes are going down and the police killings are going up. i also wanted to say that this are enormous racial disparities
in police use of force in getting the use of force standard with racial justice in california. when police use take ticks to slow down es is a allegation, it saves community lives and increases the safety for officers. i want to say again the violent crimes are going down and the police killings are going up and i want to share that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, i'm a long-time resident of the tenderloin. i'll try to say this without crying. you know that song,. ♪ same as it ever was,. ♪ same as it ever was. i've stood here before. i've protested before, many times, same issues. everybody in this room knows how
to heal themselves, what the problems are. my friends, with privilege, this has gone on long enough. you have your stadiums. you have your billion-dollar projects. you have your tax incentives. my heart is beating because i'm scared you'll let us down again. i'm so grateful to you that we finally have a supervisor in our district. it would be nice if -- i'm so proud that you're here. but i really have to ask, this is about reallocating priorities. this is not about getting
educated people who know. they've told you about. we've been here before! i now have a 7-year-old son that i'm raising in the tenderloin. we live in 480 square feet, the three of us, in a queen sized bed and i'm one of the lucky ones. i'm a lucky one. my windows are double paned. i don't hear the sirens running through the neighborhood at all hours of the day because of this lack of -- >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item before i close public comment? seeing none. public comment is now closed. >> wait, one more. >> public comment is reopened. [ laughter ]
>> it amazes me there is more superversion osupervision of a d worker than the police and i would like us to think about that. and seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is finally clos closed. supervisor haney, did you want to say anything -- oh, supervisor walton. >> thank you, chair. i wanted to make a couple of statements. one of the things that is very oevident and should resonate tht current law was created in 1872
and i know donald trump wishes that we still lived in 1872, but the reality of it is, we are so overdue for the law to reflect the realities of today and more importantly making sure that we continue to focus on saving lives. and like supervisor haney stated, we cannot erase the past and bring back the lives that have been lost. but we can protect all of us for the future. so we have to be very clear about when use of force can be administered and is necessary. this has to be clearly and universally defined so there are to grey areas. without social media, the heightened incidents of police killings would still be a secret, at least to a lot of those unaffected and complicit
because a lot of us have felt and experienced this for a very long time. but now that we know with evidence where everyone can clearly see and everyone can clearly acknowledge that it happens and not swept under the rug, we must have laws on our books in place to save the lives of all people, especially people who are interactions with law enforcement. they should be held to a higher standard. they are held to a higher standard. and deescalation should alwaysen the major focus when law enforcement has to come into contact with community. there should not be a focus on ending lives or use of force. it should always be a focus on deescalation so we can save lives and there tore therefore,n 100% support of ab392 and will
continue to fight for that and more policies that make sure that we can treat everyone and make sure everyone's life is treated as just as important as someone else's. >> thank you, supervisor walton. supervisor stephanie or vice-chair stephanie? >> thank you, chair. yeah, this is a really hard topic and it's really sad and it's raw an emotional. i've done prevention work for 20 years and i work with a lot of different people in the brady campaign, the moms demand action for gun sense in america and we always say, police gun violence
is still gun violence. and it's really me because supervisor haney spoke of the healing that goes on and i think it needs to involve everywhereveryone in this topic. i know there's an effort to bring civil liberty advocates and law enforcement to come to a compromised bill. sb230 right now was just amended and a bill that they were viewing as the opposing view and amendeamended to take out the vn but the proposal to increase training for officers and strengthen the requirements for what police departments must include in their use of force policies was left in the bill. i know that talks are continuing to try to merge these bills together. sb230 and ab392 which is i think is a good thing. this, like i said, is an important issue and i want to think sou supervisor haney for bringing this to us. this is a conversation that's very difficult to have and uncomfortable for a lot of
people but i think we all need to work together. the optimal process to ensure the best public safety outcomes for all is for everyone to be at the table. so right now it's difficult for me to take a position on a bill where negotiations are still happening and i want to know what the whole bill is before i weigh in on the support. here is the crux, it's not just that. we have to do everything, everything we can to prevent the government from taking a life, everything, everything. that includes not just the laws that are on this book, i'm a lawyer, it's how we train our officers. that comes with it. you can't deny that. to hold officers to a different standard, they must be trained to a different standard. every officer-involved shooting was done by a person who went through a government-sponsored academy class, who went through a government-sponsored hiring
process and clearance process and who answered to other government-paid employees who underwent the same process. so to change those standards, what should be done and done with all parties at the table so that we heal like supervisor haney was talking about without training is irresponsible and one i can't support, even though we need to do something. this bill, we know, was molled in large part on the changes at san francisco made to the use of force policy. believe it or not, san francisco is on the leadership on this issue just like so many other things. the new use of force policy in san francisco was coupled with training. and it had all those involved and all of those stakeholders at the table, the community, law enforcement, the police commission, everyone agreed with the process and we although that and like supervisor haney said,
with the change of our use of force policy which had to be done based on what supervisor walton just said, with that change, and with the training that wept wit went with it, 30%e forces have gone down over the past years since we changed that policy, again, coupled with training. i think this bill also has to model that aspect of sanfrancisco's lead in this area, i really do. kevin mccarty, citing his support, with the officer involved in stephan clark, i did it by the book. i know that makes everyone just really ill, right? it brings him to conclude that it's time to rewrite the book. i don't disagree with that. but the book here is the training they receive, not just the standard by which they are judged. it is the training. that is the book that the person is referring to.
we need to demand use of force policies state-wide like we do in san francisco in addition to deescalation tactics, crisis intervention team training and implicit biased training state-wide. we do that in sanfrancisco. they need to do that everywhere they're not doing that. they have to do that. i'm glad we're doing that in san francisco and we're making progress. it is on us to change the training, to change how we hire, to hire compassionate people with empathy, to provide updated training for law enforcement personnel. it is on the government to do that. changing wor words on a piece of paper doesn't change the minds of individuals who have been taught a certain way. i know it's old. i know it goes back to that standard. i know that. it doesn't change the fact officers do fear for others in certain situations, it doesn't change the fact they carry guns,
a lethal tool that we allow him to carry in order to keep the people safe. i hate guns. everyone who knows me knows that. there are too many guns in this country and it is disgusting. more than 390 civilian-owned firearms in the u.s., enough for every man, woman and child to own one and americans make up 4% of the world's population. there are too many guns h this country. in this country. so changing the words just to standard and doing nothing else within in my opinion is naive. it's irresponsible and it's not good government. it's why i'm not ready to support this bill. not because i don't think the standard needs to be changed, not because what i don't think you're talking about needs to stop but i think we need do more. i think we need to demand use of force policies all over the state of california like we do here in san francisco and i hold out hope that all sides in
sacramento and they're still working on it, on a consensus bill so we set standards to the taking of anyone's life. like i say, we must do everything to prevent that and just changing the standard doesn't come anyone near to close enough. i want to thank you, supervisor, haney, for this discussion and i hope by the time this gets to the full board we'll have a consensus board, but it needed for to go forward. we can't change the standard if we won't change the training. thank you. >> thank you. soup store walton. >> thank you, chair. i 100% agree with supervisor stephanie in terms of the fact that training is very important, but we also know that the training has to match the law. and supervisor stephanie gave a prime example of why the training needs to match the law.
the officer who murdered stephan clark said he was acting by the book. well, the book is the law. and so the training absolutely is necessarily but the training has to match the law. and so until we change the law, officers in other counties, officers in other municipalities are going to continue to be trained on reasonable versus necessary. so ab392 is important because we need to make sure that the law in the books changes today. i'm very aware of folks working towards a consensus bill, but the reality of it is, we have a bill in front of us that it does exactly what we need it to do and change the standard from reasonable to necessary and
that's what we're here to support and focus on. if sacramento does get their act together and focuses on something that they can come together to save lives, sobeit. but right now in front of us, right here today, ab392 does exactly what we need it to do and we cannot change the training without changing the law. that will be the continued excuse for people who want to be compliecomplicit and the suppore have to continue to fight. >> is that a motion to forward this with a positive recommendation? >> definitely, but i figured supervisor -- >> there's a motion on the floor. >> i'll be quick because i think supervisor walton just said most of what needed to be said. i appreciate your comments supervisor stephanie. i do think and i think the authors and the supporters of this bill recognise that
training needs to be a critical component of it. it's my understanding that they actually allocated $25 million to training and dees iesdeescals past year and it's training to what standard. the other bill, sb230, which i think is the bill more focused on training is now contingent on this bill passing. so they've been paired in moving forward and there is an understanding that we both need a new standard urgently and we need to have the training that matches that standard and so i think by getting behind this bill, we're not saying that this can be done without training, quit.to the contrary, to have effective training, we need an updated star and i think that's what we as a city in san francisco need to get behind in part because of our own experience and own history and because we have to lead on this
state-wide, knowing what is at stake. so i hope that we can move this forward. i agree with supervisor stephanie that hopefully ultimately there will be an agreement and i know that the supporters and authors understand that we appreciate the governor bringing people together and they're participating in that. but it's important to say that we are in favour of an updated standard because of the experience that we've had around it and it will help that cause, i believe, of ultimately getting to a negotiated settlement that will move this forward together with the training. so i hope that this committee will pass this forward and potentially by the time this gets to the full board, we may have an updated situation but that aside, it's very important that i believe we get behind this and thank you. >> thank you, supervisor haney. seeing no further comments from my colleagues. mr. clerk, please call the role.
(roll call. the motion passes. >> thank you, mr. clerk. >> please call the next item. >> item number 4 is a hearing on the city's response to open-air drug dealing in the tenderloin mid-mark and south of measure and requesting the police department, public sheriff and office of economic and workforce development to report.
some have a time crunch and i believe the chief is here and we want to give him the opportunity to speak early on. today's hearing is about our city's response to open-aired drug dealing in the tenderloin civic centre. there are three things i hope to accomplish in this hearing. the first is to seek clarity and answers from city departments on what specifically they are doing to address the challenge of wide-spread and endemic drug dealing and societal impacts concentrated largely on our city's downtown neighborhoods. how are resources currently deployed, what is working and what is not and how we are coordinating across departments to ensure a comprehensive strategy. developing a city-wide strategy and understanding why we are
failing to significantly alter the status quo is critical. i get asked, what is the city doing about the very visible and problem of drug dealing and drug use? on on hyde street, along 6th, market street, across wide swaths of my district there are dozens of people selling drugs at any given hour, including around our few parks and schools in the neighborhood. some of us receive updates from the police department who will be here about their strategies in particular areas and will discuss their approach today, as well. but there is a whole other city apparatus, including the district attorney, the department of public health, the office of economic and workforce development, the sheriff, the probation department and the realities remain mostly stagnant. there are some targeted programmes like the young adult
courts, as well as community organizations that work on the issue everyday and must be a part of the strategy and we are grateful tor their work. we've asked each of the departments and community organizations to prepare a presentation of what they are doing and also to share with us what some further steps might be with recommendations and a potential plan of action. city hall hearings are a rare opportunity to bring everyone to the same public place where it will be recorded and made available to get answers and then hold everyone accountable to our commitments. as this conversation continues, we want to supplements the voices here with voices who offer different perspectives and expertise, including more people who have personal experience with this issue and people from the medical and public health fields which i'm committed to. i also want to note that we made a budget and legislative analyst report request as part of this hearing which will be made public and offer some data which will have presented today. and the second thing that i hope we accomplish is to provide a platform for residents, small
businesses and community organizations to speak to leaders here at city hall about the impact of this issue and their ideas to bring change. many residents of the tenderloin mid-market believe the city has settled on a strategy of containment. pushing drug dealing and drug use into a handful of mostly low-income nakeds. with san francisco's affordable and supporting stock heavily concentrated increasingly in the tenderloin and soma, these neighborhoods are home to high concentration of low income families, immigrant and people exiting concentration. requiring in recovery to encounter people actively selling and doing drugs in the open on a daily basis is unconscionable and counterproductive.
this is not a simple action, urgency and a strategy from the city and want to be included. in fact, i believe that the people in these communities are in the best position to help us come up with sustainable solutions. this is not a one-way conversation or one-way dialogue to make sustained progress, we will have to be honest and listen to each other. lastly, the last thing i hope to accomplish is to identify solutions in policy, budget, operations and process so that we can all move forward together. the purpose of this hearing is not to blame and shame anyone. we want to work together to figure this out. i personally have spent much of my career working in criminal justice reform and like countless others, i have been personally impacted by this issue. the war on drugs which rely on
long mandatory prison sentences for both possession and dealing without much investment and rehabilitation or treatment has been a failure. we cannot go back. these policies devastated communities of colour, devastated lives and families and cost millions of dollars without impact on drug use or sales. the war on drugs taught us criminalizing drug possession relying on low-level dealers and catch and release methods have not solved this problem. but we know that doing nothing is not an option. there's a false assumption we have to lock up all street-level dealers for long sentences or do nothing. that thinking has left us paralyzparalyzed and we must ads court issues in a methodical way based on evidence, current socioeconomic cacal factors. we will hear about block safety groups, safe passage, law enforcement assisted diversion, foot patrols and community policing and crime and prevention through environmental
design. we need law enforcement strategies and we need economic strategies, jobs, small business strategies, and environmental strategies. unfortunately, what i can say clearly is that our city does not have a comprehensive strategy to address this issue. we spend tens of millions of dollars on low-level offenders and nothing to show for it. this is isolated. we have seen consequences of containment which is a disaster for the residents of this community. (please stand by).
three questions which we'd we've asked the department what are you doing, and what have you done in related to drug dealing in the tenderloin, and market, and what more can be done? second, have you worked with other departments to coordinate with a targeted solution? and, third, what is your opinion on the idea, community-driven idea, to have a taskforce that would coordinate various organizations and experts to come forward with some solutions. i'm going to start first with the budget and legislative analyst, dan goncher, if he is in the room here, who is going to present some of the findings of the report that they did, which tells a part of the story, but obviously not the whole story. and then from there, we're going to move up a bit, some of the folks who have a timecrunch, specifically
the chief, i believe, will be here, and we're going to have the police department go second. >> he is here. >> he is here. oh, he's over there. okay. >> thank you for being here. as well as our sheriff is here, sheriff hennessey, thank you. >> good afternoon, members of the committee and chair mandelman. my name is don goncher, and i'm joined by monica balenoff with our office. i'm here to provide a summary of our report we completed for supervisor haney. we were asked to assess and report on the policing on the costs to the city's approach to minimize the existence of drug dealing in the tenderloin and south of the market area. and we were asked to report on the related arrests, prosecutions, and diversion programs. i'll just start out with the findings of our
analysis. we found that the city's efforts to assess open-air drug dealing are dispersed across various city departments, 3-1-1 i, and theres no coordinated strategic plan across those departments. we collected the costs across these departments, and conservatively we estimate the cost in 17/18, was $12,159,713. that is basically were police officers are on their normal beats or responding to calls for service.
and it does not include long-term incarceration costs. and we did not include all of the behavioral costs and drug costs. public safety is a leading concern among san francisco residents. the controller's office conducted a survey in 2017, and public safety was the fifth most commonly mentioned concern. we looked at the results of that survey, and noted that the concerns were particularly high in district 6, which includes the tenderloin, soma, and mid-market areas, and it is also home to some of the highest levels of open-air drug dealing. regarding narcotic sales arrests, we found that 883 individuals were booked or cited by narcotic sales by the san francisco police department in 2017-18. and of those arrests, we found that 68% were in district 6, and that's
defined by the tenderloin police district and the southern police district, which is very closely aligned with district 6. 56% of were made by the tenderloin and from the southern district. the next slide has a map from the police department that shows the areas that are covered by these police districts. the drugs most commonly associated with bookings or arrests of individuals in 2017-18 were crack cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. and with those drugs accounting for about 76% of all incidents. regarding the race ethnicity of folks that were booked or cited, city-wide, we found that 51% were hi hispanic latino, 15% white, 3% pacific or asian.
many arrestees are not residents of san francisco, so a direct comparison with the demographics of the residents might be misleading. just to break down some of the costs, so the police department's costs are included in exhibit 12, on page 20 of our report. they include a city-wide narcotics unit that conducts investigation and infiltration with regarding narcotic trafficking and trafficking organizations. for police district-based operations, they include by bus operations, where officers go undercover and purchase illegal drugs in order to make arrests. they also have spotting operations, where officers are dedicated to observing drug deals and making arrests. and there is reactive policing, but the department was not able to quantify the costs as those are the daily activities of the officers. so based on the narcotics
unit, and the spotting operations, the estimated known police department costs were $7,593,091. and we made an assumption that 68% of the costs were related to the arrests in the tenderloin, south market, and mid-market areas, based on the break down of arrests i discussed at a previous slide. the district attorney's costs -- 80.5% of the arrests resulted in charges filed. so that would be 601 arrests. of the 601 arrests with charges filed, about 46% are still pending. and about 28% resulted in
convictions. 11.3% were dismissed, and 9.2% resulted in other action, and just under 5% resulted in a successful diversion. 80.3% resulted in county jail sentence served. about 3% resulted in a straight sentence, which is time and county jail which have other been in state prison before realignment reforms. and a little less than 1% resulted in a split sentence, which is supervision under the realignment laws, another half percent resulted in unsupervised probation. we estimate the total district attorney costs in fiscal year 2017-18 of prosecuting drug sale cases in those
neighborhoods, about $1,364,850. of course, those cases are also defended by the public defender in many cases. in many cases, the public defender provided defenses for 8 25 drug cases, with 4.25 f.t.e.s devoted to those cases, and we therefore came up with an estimate of about $436,897 for those costs. the sheriff's office performs three main functions when responding to arrests of individuals on drug sale charges. they book arrestees into jail, and they book beds while they await trial, and they manage court security costs during legal proceedings. the total estimated costs for these services in 2017-18, we have is
$1,692,811. as you know, federal, state, and local policies have shifted away from criminal prosecution and mandatory sentencing of low-level drug offenders. converging and collaborative programs that address addiction include l.s.f., which sa law enforcement diversion program, the young adult court, behavioral health court, and drug court. the total estimated city-wide costs for the diversion programs, for l.s.f. and young adult court are $420,157, and our assumption of 68% of the costs attributed to those neighborhoods is $286,108. the community ambassadors' program is a engagement and jobs program run by pacific engagement and pacific affairs. they can provide general
assistance to the public and provide wellness checks, and they can report hazard and maintenance needs to local authorities and contact medical services and can provide a walking escort to those individuals who feel unsafe. for fiscal 2017-18 is $735,121. the office of economic and workforce development offers several programs in order to deter crime and promote community engagement. their approach is sometimes call crime prevention through environmental design. the o.e.w.d. operates a program that funds projects that supports business owners or property owners for their storefronts and ground force spaces. and o.e.w.d. creates grants for those working
on enhancing the over all totality of neighborhood. the department authored a block grant, increasing eyes on the street, and instilling an over all pride of place. for these three programs, we have an estimate that the costs was $272,000 for fiscal year 2017-18. we included three policy options in our report. those are that the board of supervisors should consider the following actions: first, creating a taskforce to suppress open air drug sales, consisting of community members, experts, department agencies, to curb drug sales and suggest new programs and efforts. if such a work group is initiated, we note that the board should request it report periodically on the cost of various efforts across city agencies and to track thoseo