San Francisco Adult Arrestees - A Study of the 1978 Adult Arrestee Population of the City and County of San Francisco, California

• NCJ Number: 74991
• Author(s): B Hoffman
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 107 pages
• Grant Number(s): A-2926-2-78
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; San Francisco Mayor's Criminal Justice Council; San Francisco Criminal Justice Planning Office
• Corporate Author: San Francisco City and Cty Municipal Court
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A study which was originally intended to determine the number of individuals who enter the adult criminal justice system in San Francisco, Calif., annually is presented; incidental findings are emphasized.

Abstract

Study methodology involved drawing samples from the 1978 adult arrestee population. In San Francisco, arrests can be classified as processable or nonprocessable. The former more serious charges require the creation or expansion of an arrest record. In 1978, 24.1 percent of the 48,071 adult arrests in the city were for felony (processable) offenses, 32.4 percent were processable misdemeanors, and 43.4 percent were nonprocessable misdemeanors. Samples were drawn from both processable and nonprocessable categories, and data were collected on the number of arrests, type of charges, and social characteristics of arrestees. The study goal was accomplished, including development of a formula which can be used for estimation purposes. In addition, significant and interesting findings resulted from the effort. About 50 percent of the processable arrestees are first timers to San Francisco's adult criminal justice system. They are younger, and the group includes more whites and women than does the group of those arrested in prior years. Findings highlighted the existence of several separate arrestee populations: those who are arrested on nuisance violations, those who are charged with more serious offenses, those who are arrested once only, and those who are rearrested so often that they can be called chronic offenders. The system's reaction is leniency with first timers and an increase of penalties in direct proportion to seriousness of offense and length of the offender's prior record. Diversion and community service programs do appear to be more suitable than jail for first timers. Data also demonstrate that a small percentage of arrestees are responsible for a high percentage of criminal activity and criminal justice costs. Twelve footnotes, 13 references, 46 tables, and appendixes of related technical information are included. (Author abstract modified)