S.F. court questions success of a nonprofit program it’s seeking to replace

San Francisco Superior Court data shared Tuesday challenges the success of a widely respected nonprofit that, for 50 years, has provided services to people awaiting trial outside of jail. 

Attorneys, advocates, and sheriff’s deputies came out in support of the nonprofit, the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project after the Superior Court announced on May 28 that it planned to end their partnership. 

Instead, the court asked its Adult Probation Department to develop its own division to connect people accused of crimes to housing, employment and medical treatment.

The court’s analysis concluded that defendants were equally likely to be arrested again under the nonprofit’s supervision or the probation department’s supervision. SF Pretrial’s leadership quickly refuted the findings, but they were still sent to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors last night. 

The timing is important. It is rare to see a court publicly challenge another city agency. The move comes on the eve of a series of Board of Supervisors budget committee meetings on whether to continue contracting with SF Pretrial.

While SF Pretrial is allocated $8 million a year, moving the work in-house would cost $12.7 million, according to the probation department’s budget proposal. The decision to shift San Francisco general fund dollars to the law enforcement agency is up to the Board of Supervisors.

San Francisco is one of the few places in California where pretrial programs are operated by a nonprofit instead of the county’s probation department. SF Pretrial has long been celebrated by politicos and members of law enforcement for keeping its clients out of the justice system.

But San Francisco Superior Court CEO Brandon Riley wrote in a letter to the supervisors that prior data indicating the nonprofit’s services are more effective than what probation can offer is “misleading.”

Differing data

The sheriff’s department, which contracts directly with SF Pretrial, often points to SF Pretrial’s success compared to a state program that piloted probation-run pretrial services. Some 94 percent of pretrial clients in 2025 did not pick up another criminal charge while participating, the department found. 

But people can be arrested without being charged for a crime. According to the court’s data, only about 70 percent of SF Pretrial clients in 2025 were not arrested again. That rate aligns with what the probation pilot reported five years ago, Riley wrote. 

The court’s findings reflect a difference in methodology rather than a discrepancy in results, SF Pretrial CEO David Mauroff argued. An arrest does not constitute a criminal offense when people are presumed innocent, he added, and SF Pretrial’s methodology follows the standard for its field.

In fact, Mauroff told Mission Local that the court’s analysis still confirmed his nonprofit’s success: Clients make their court dates and are “overwhelmingly not arraigned on new charges while under supervision.”

Riley described other contradictions between data within the court’s Tuesday letter and data reported by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office.

For example, the sheriff’s department found that 84 percent of SF Pretrial’s clients attended their court dates. The court found that number to be closer to 80 percent. 

Mauroff said the court’s analysis was inconsistent, because it relied on case management data that is in flux. Some pretrial clients stop receiving services before their case is closed. 

Riley also questioned the rigor of the sheriff department’s evaluation of SF Pretrial, which it has been undertaking since 2025 upon a recommendation from the city’s Budget and Legislative Analyst. 

The sheriff’s department reviewed just 22 of the over 8,000 public safety assessments SF Pretrial conducted in 2025, Riley wrote. It reviewed only eight client progress reports, when about 1,700 are produced daily. Both sample groups reflect less than one percent of the nonprofits’ total output.

SF Pretrial has exceeded the city’s benchmark, Mauroff said. According to the sheriff’s review, its assessments are 98 percent accurate.

Divorce after 50 years

Mauroff said he was surprised to discover in March that the probation department had budgeted for a new program that offers the same services his staff have provided for decades — and for less.

The court’s decision to end their partnership came without explanation, Mauroff said.

The “takeover of pretrial supervision has apparently coalesced behind closed doors,” attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a June 8 letter to Rafael Mandelman, president of the Board of Supervisors.

According to a Budget and Legislative Analysis report shared with the supervisors on May 27, court staff had “expressed concerns” to the analysts’ office about Pretrial Diversion’s “financial stability, transparency, management and accuracy of the progress reports for people under pretrial supervision.” 

Such concerns led the court to lose faith in the nonprofit, Riley wrote on Tuesday. After years of attempting to obtain information, “the Court has concluded that it can no longer maintain confidence in the existing contractual relationship.”

SF Pretrial “has been responsive to every data request the Court has made and has provided detailed information about its methodologies,” Chief Impact Officer Matt Miller countered. “We stand by our data.” 

Mauroff said his organization had always wanted to keep communication open. “Prior to this process, the Superior Court’s concerns have not been brought to our attention at this level of urgency.”