San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said this week that she has changed her office’s policy and will prosecute children as adults in broader circumstances than what she campaigned on three years ago.
When she ran for office in 2022, Jenkins said she would only try juveniles as adults for crimes that “shock the conscience of the community;” crimes like murder and rape, if they are of a “heinous” nature.
Now, she told the Juvenile Probation Commission in a meeting Wednesday night that the DA’s office will review all murder charges against juvenile defendants, and potentially seek to transfer them to adult court.
“When you are in the position of having to speak to a set of parents whose 15-year-old just got murdered, you have to sit and revisit the policy,” Jenkins told a room of about three dozen attorneys, advocates, and community members who had assembled that evening at the Southeast Community Center in the Bayview. “That is when it switched into me saying murders will be reviewed.”
The move would affect a small number of youth: Between 2020 and 2023, 29 kids were admitted to juvenile hall for homicide or attempted homicide, less than three percent of the 1,091 kids admitted generally in that three year period. Jenkins said she had recently requested “either four or five” referrals to adult court.
Jenkins said she has also been discussing adult referrals to Young Adult Court for defendants charged with misdemeanors. The goal, she said, is to “catch people before they commit a more serious crime.”
A move to try more children as adults is a break from decades of state and federal court precedent. Courts of all levels have accepted longstanding evidence that youth who are tried as adults or incarcerated are more likely to be arrested again.
Several veteran attorneys with experience in the juvenile justice system described Jenkins’ plan as “backwards.”
Jenkins calls city’s new juvenile program an ‘utter failure’
Defense attorneys speaking at Wednesday’s meeting took issue with Jenkins’ rationale for the policy changes, specifically, her concern that youth being released from the city’s juvenile hall in a new program called “Secure Track” were going to commit more violent crimes.
“Secure Track” was created in 2021 as an alternative for youth who would have been incarcerated in the California state juvenile prison system, which closed in 2023 and was notorious for its high recidivism rates.
Jenkins suggested that these children’s chances of reoffending might be lower if they were tried as adults and sent to county jail or state prison. She described Secure Track as “an utter failure.”
She also mentioned that two or three youth in an unspecified time frame had committed murder after being released.
It was not clear to whom Jenkins was referring. According to the Juvenile Probation Department, none of the people committed to and released from San Francisco’s Secure Youth Treatment Facility in its less than four years of existence have been accused of, prosecuted for, or convicted of murder charges.
It’s possible Jenkins was referring to juvenile defendants who had been incarcerated under the city’s former system. The District Attorney’s Office declined to comment further.
Defense attorneys from the San Francisco Bar Association and Public Defender’s Office said they knew of just four youth who had been released from Secure Track. One had been charged as an adult in what was described as “not a serious case.” The other three, they said, were doing well.
George Lazarus, an attorney for one of the four children, said his client had become a straight-A City College of San Francisco student.
Sidney Hollar, an attorney for two of the four, added that her clients had received an “amazing amount” of programming at the facility. (According to the facility’s guidelines, each child admitted has to have an individualized rehabilitation plan).
Julie Traun, the director of court programs at the Bar Association of San Francisco, said at the Wednesday meeting that all the legal professionals she spoke to “had nothing but great things to say” about how the program had kept their clients from re-entering the criminal justice system.
Jenkins’ data doesn’t add up, defense attorneys say
Still, Traun added, this isn’t the first time she’s heard the outcomes of the city’s juvenile justice programs questioned.
Traun told attendees at the commission meeting that she had participated in a criminal justice task force meeting with the mayor’s office in February. At that forum, Traun said she was asked about “the 100 percent recidivism rate at juvenile.”
Several others had also heard this statistic which, they pointed out, was false.
“We have heard that people are saying there’s 100 percent recidivism in our Secure Track,” Juvenile Probation Commission president Margaret Brodkin told Jenkins at Wednesday’s meeting. In reply, the district attorney did not directly confirm or deny using this figure.
According to Gabriel Calvillo, the assistant chief probation officer at the Juvenile Probation Department, the notion that Secure Track has a 100 percent recidivism rate is “absolutely inaccurate.” He noted that the program was still working on scaling up from scratch with limited resources, a struggle Jenkins acknowledged.
Data on the recidivism rates of youth exiting the Secure Youth Treatment Facility has yet to be released. Even if such data were available, public defender Patti Lee cautioned, too few youth have been released from the program so far to draw statistically significant conclusions: “The sample size is too small.” None of the dozen-or-so youth represented by the public defender’s office have completed their terms, Lee added.
Despite pleas to stay from members of the public who had lined up to address her, Jenkins had to leave the contentious meeting after an hour. The commenters remained, calling on the now-absent district attorney to commit to juvenile justice reform. Snaps chorused around the room.
Lee added to the impassioned round of public comment via video call: “To make that promise to the city and then turn around and make recommendations for adult transfers using the excuse that Secure Track isn’t good enough … is outrageous.”
This story has been corrected to reflect information provided by the District Attorney’s office after publication: Jenkins has been discussing adult referrals to Young Adult Court for defendants charged with misdemeanors, rather than plans to refer youth misdemeanor cases to the District Attorney’s Office.
Will she be applying this sort of scrutiny and toughness to SFPD malfeasance?
Let’s face it, she is a mendacious, spineless, fraud, who would never have won election outside of a pandemic impacted climate.
She is the modern version of the Sargent in Soldier’s Story.
Methinks it’s time to begin a recall petition for the regressive, anti-science, anti-evidence based decision making, fear mongering, unethical, unreasonable DA who likes to break promises and throw as many poor POC into cages as humanly possible, grow our local jail population to the breaking point and cage children, all while lying about statistics and attacking judges or anyone else who challenges her.
Where can I send a check for her re-election committee?
Totally agree. We are lucky to have BJ. She had made a impact on getting crime off the streets. Long way to go though.
Thank you Brooke. Keep it up.
Lucky to have a political liar as DA? Why?
You’re welcome to pay a little extra in taxes! That will do more to reduce crime than any reelection campaign.
We are tired of our neighborhoods being the epicenter of violence and appreciate her. If you really have lived here your whole life you know the truth and fully support this. It’s unfortunate that some people are relegating this to racism when most of our community that supports this are the same race.
“…only try juveniles as adults for crimes that “shock the conscience of the community;” crimes like murder and rape, if they are of a “heinous” nature.” Since when does a teenager committing murder not shock the conscience of the community!?!? This is not normal people. These types of comments are also why the donald was so successful. California’s “progressive” population centers have clearly lost sight of reality when there is greater concern for a single individual than the upholding of basic social contracts.
I despise this right-wing woman.
Opportunism is hardly a right wing only thing although it does tend to evolve in that direction for whatever reasons.
same
As a mother of an incarcerated loved one, I find this move by DA Jenkins deeply troubling and inhumane. My child was not a statistic—he went to private school, played sports, and excelled academically. Life happens, and while society is quick to blame parents, the reality is that every family, no matter their background, can face unimaginable challenges.
Locking children up with adults does nothing but expose them to more harm and strip them of any chance at rehabilitation. It is cruel and counterproductive. We claim to believe in second chances, mental health support, and rehabilitation, yet decisions like this contradict those values. How can we, as a society, justify throwing children away instead of addressing the root causes that lead them into the system?
To those supporting this shift, I urge you to pause and reflect—what if this were your child? None of us are immune to life’s unpredictability. Don’t spit in the air because it may come back to slap you in the face. We must stand against this regression in our justice system and demand a future that invests in youth rather than condemns them. We need more safe havens we need more community policing we need more intervention programs
Jenkins plans to refer juveniles (People under 18 years of age) who commit misdemeanors to Young Adult Court rather than to the District Attorney’s Office? To cut down on her caseload?
Jenkins neither admits nor denies that her data on 100% recidivism is inaccurate & her homicide citations are hazy?
Bravo, Secure Track , for writing up individualized rehabilitation plans, given that a number of our intelligent young people, due to low reading, writing & math skills, despair of finding a job or advaning to college?
Abigail Van Neely, thank you!
Campers,
The DA stole confidential files which she used in the campaign to Recall the last DA and the City Attorney’s career began with founding an Astro-Turf PR firm that boasted an Evangelical and bigoted Board and worked for George Bush against Al Gore and the new Mayor has gone all in with the idea of arresting drug customers who have our jails beyond capacity with a bunch of junkies in withdrawal.
It’s the old Revenge Vs Reform battle I’ve been engaged in for over 60 years and Reform works better and we have the Receipts but hate and violence and greed control the game cause that’s what the Algorithms say and …
Decriminalize Drugs and Legalize the Sex Trade cause you’re never gonna get rid of them til AI get’s its act together and work with Trump to put 2 Indian Casinos at the Armory and Twitter.
Jobs and hotel guests is what I’m talking about.
Fix the DA problem at the ballot which is same way she got there.
Go Niners !!
h.
How convenient for her to have to leave the meeting without providing clarity or data. This was a “Bitch, please…” moment.
This person is simply unforgivable for how she got into office. Taking 100k bribe … ‘consulting fee’ to quit her job by a PAC (later admitting to it). Then promising to prosecute the cop that, on his 3rd day on the job, literally shot a guy through his car window… in the back…as he ran away. Arrested by another cop on the scene, and the DA promised to prosecute. So suddenly arrests for Shoplifting (The POLICE responsibiilty, not the DA) stopped almost entirely, the union joined up with an outside group that constantly sues the city and starts shit even though the owners don’t even live here and donate to republicans. So she promised there’d be no “quid pro quo”. Nope, like a month after she was sworn in she released them with no charges. Lied about what the arresting officer said (he refuted it) then he sued the city and got a pay-off in exchange for keeping his mouth shut (although he didn’t initially)
The very picture of a back-stabbing, corrupt politician, bought and paid for by outside groups, spreading blatant and obvious lies (like ‘her friend’s store that closed because of Boudin not arresting people’, a store that had closed 2 years before he was even elected.)
Just a criminal. So when you think about literally anything she says, you need to take a step back and say, “how does this benefit Jenkins”, because THAT is how she makes decisions.
It hurts my heart to see bipoc folks, who could evoke some level of change but instead, still believe incarnation is a means to solve anything. Change is needed, and this is not it..
“Despite pleas to stay from members of the public who had lined up to address her, Jenkins had to leave the contentious meeting after an hour. The commenters remained, calling on the now-absent district attorney to commit to juvenile justice reform. Snaps chorused around the room. ”
Oh, please. A few angry radicals who attend every meeting to berate efforts to improve order and behavior do _not_ a mandate make. That that point was made in this article is laughable… but then it is ML, so….
I trust DA Jenkins to do what is right for the city.
I can count on Mission Local to criticize her regardless. And I know she will be the one who has the city’s interest at heart.
Good piece of journalism!
It’s funny since she orchestrated a coup in the district attorney’s office she’s not locked up any real criminals she refuses to lock up and turn over the illegal drug dealers to the feds but she wants to lock up your children and treat them as adults keep voting Democrat we need to get to send it to resend the 1993 crime bill sponsored by Joe Biden because it’s ruining children’s lives
“Children” I’m a Native and don’t comment much but I know for a fact first hand that Secure Track looks good on paper but is a joke in real life. You people don’t know what these “children” are capable and of. Work on the front lines. I love these kids and have seen so many of them get arrested to be released very soon after, to come back with a 187pc. SF and this woke shit is pathetic. Do the crime, do the time. Ask yourself. What about the victim? I know parents of dead kids. Do you?
If a child or minor commits a crime then they deserve consequences .
Where are the parents ?
Hold them responsible.
Why the city has to babysit children?
If they are not able to behave and break laws then they should not be allowed to be out in society.
Okay. So then you’d be all right with 12-year-olds being able to have all the privileges and responsibilities of adults too, right?
Voting, entering into contracts, doing sex work, getting a tattoo, renting a car… all that too, right?
I’m not seeing how you jumped from murder to sex work. And Is sex work a privilege and responsibility of being an adult?
If a 12-year-old is legally old enough to be tried as an adult, why are they not also eligible to vote?
“But a 12-year-old isn’t mature enough to vote!”
“Then why are they mature enough to be held responsible for their crimes?”
Voting, entering into contracts, consenting to all kinds of activities, working in certain kinds of jobs: all of those are things that are, rightly and correctly, only granted to 18-year-olds. Because younger children are not considered to have the maturity to do those things.
These are the juveniles who were caught. Imagine all the juveniles who were not caught and are still re offending. If you are convicted in adult court as a juvenile, you will not be sent to jail nor state prison, use your common sense, you will still go to the juvenile system and if the crime is so heinous, you’d be released at 25. It means your juvenile activities will be on your adult record, easier for state prison but the judges release everyone.
Ok but isn’t that more an indictment of our legal system more generally that it doesn’t have solid boundaries between minors and adults and applies these vague and subjective rulesets to one or the other without a bright dividing line? We consider minors to be unable to make adult decisions so we restrict that legally, yet when they make such decisions that shock our sensibilities we put all that by the wayside and consider them adults suddenly? It doesn’t make sense. We’ve got a 2-tiered system and it seems to be the only deciding factor that really matters is how much money the defendant has to spend on an attorney, vs being thrown into a system that only in the vaguest way aims to rehabilitate in a general sense, without a real map for doing that.
We often read stories of juveniles committing violent crimes. We often hear stories of adults asking them to commit violent crimes because they know they will go free. The word “juvenile” should no longer apply, long gone is the time when juveniles were still kids.Now we have, thanks to social media, young adults committing heinous crimes; they are no longer acting as kids; today’s kids are far remote from the kids from the seventies for example. At 10 years old, porn apps are already telling them a lot of things regarding sex.In the seventies they will get lucky to steal their older brother magazine to try to figure out things. So let’s just stop assuming they are kids and make new laws to address the problems they are creating. Sorry social programs, you had your chance. If kids are not responsible, the parents are; go legally after them.