Part 1: How the District Attorney’s Office still fails to track recidivism or termination data for defendants in mental health diversion programs, including those charged with violent felonies.
In 2021, I began working on a story about the number of violent felons that District Attorney Chesa Boudin was sending to mental health and drug diversion, but I was thwarted by Boudin’s office when asking for the data. The victim advocacy and public safety group Stop Crime SF had also requested the data to no avail, so they hired renowned First Amendment attorney Karl Olsen to submit a Public Records Request on their behalf. On April 6, 2022, Olsen wrote to Boudin’s office asking for “case numbers, original filed charges, original filing date; records of subsequent arrests or convictions involving the defendants in these cases after diversion.… Records showing failures to attend or enroll; Records of multiple diversion referrals involving the same defendant; and record of defendants being terminated either by the Court or a defendant voluntarily removing himself from the program.”
Attorney Nikki Moore, Boudin’s public records and transparency expert, responded to Olsen’s request on April 15, 2022. Shockingly, despite his claim of reducing recidivism through diversion, Boudin didn’t have any records to back it up. “Our office has been working hard to compile diversion data for disclosure to the public,” Moore wrote. “We have dedicated substantial staff resources, including one person working full time since October to obtain, clean, and standardize diversion data from the agencies that collect it, and match it to the SFDA data on arrests filings, and case resolutions.” Moore told Olsen the office anticipated the data would be ready for release by May 11, 2022, but reserved the right “to extend the time of our estimated date of disclosure.” At the time of his recall on June 7, 2022, Boudin was still “in the process” of gathering the data under threat of legal action.
In Oct. 2025, I wrote a four-part investigative series for The Voice about how diversion doesn’t work — in fact, those who go through diversion have a higher rate of recidivism than those who don’t — so I decided it was time to check on the progress of collecting diversion data under current district attorney Brooke Jenkins. On Nov. 3, 2025, I emailed a request identical to the one sent by Olsen under Boudin’s tenure to Moore (who remains the public records attorney under Jenkins), asking for all mental health diversion (MHD) data since the new administration took office. I received the data on Dec. 4, 2025. Moore once again added the caveat that existed under Boudin: “The data is not at the case level because one case can be referred to MHD multiple times, so each row represents a unique combination of court number and referral date.”
San Francisco reported 13 quarters in which 708 out of 889 diverted cases were felonies.… Santa Clara County reported 22 quarters — they granted 1,267 diversions, but just three were felonies.
A preliminary review showed criminal filing rates under Jenkins at 57 percent, with one in three cases declined for diversion. Through July of 2025 (the last data Moore provided), there were 1,367 active diversion cases. From Aug. 2, 2023 (the start of the Jenkins administration) through July of 2025 — a total of 858 days — there were 7,202 cases referred to MHD, more than 3.14 cases per day. Of the 1,799 successful entries into MHD, 1,478 involved felonies. We know many participants are repeat offenders because the dataset includes notations such as “Felon in possession of a firearm” and “felony parole violation.” There are also numerous diversions terminated by the court or by the participants themselves.
When I asked Moore whether the district attorney’s office knew the reasons for self or court terminations, she said they didn’t track this data in their systems. I also asked for the outcomes of those who stayed in the program — for example, did they reoffend? Moore again said the office didn’t have a re-offense variable in their datasets at this time, which means Jenkins hasn’t tracked diversion data any better than Boudin. This is a clear violation of California Penal Code section 1001.50(b), which states, “The district attorney of each county shall review annually any diversion program … and no program shall continue without the approval of the district attorney. No person shall be diverted under a program unless it has been approved by the district attorney.”
Attempted murderers, child abusers, and carjackers
One of the most pervasive misconceptions is that individuals with mental illness are inherently violent. Research, including a comprehensive study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, suggests that only a small fraction of violent crimes are committed by individuals with mental health issues. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), people with mental health conditions are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence. Only about 3 percent of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with serious mental illness, and only 7.5 percent of crimes committed by mentally ill individuals were directly related to their mental health symptoms. So why is San Francisco admitting attempted murderers, child abusers, elder abusers, carjackers, burglars, and drug dealers to a program designated for the mentally ill?
According to research conducted by The Voice, violent or serious felonies admitted to San Francisco MHD from August of 2023 to July of 2025 under Jenkins included 35 arsons; 18 carjackings; 129 drug dealers; 116 assaults with great bodily injury; 84 domestic violence, child, and elder abuse; 109 robberies; 62 felon in possession of a firearm; 18 felony parole; and 10 attempted murders.
We were unable to obtain the names of the participants or the cases attached to their diversion because once a person is declared mentally ill in California, privacy laws kick in. Diversion records relating to mental health diversion (Penal Code section 1001.36), military/veterans diversion (section1001.80), and various pre-trial or prosecutorial diversion programs are confidential and may not be released in a way that identifies a specific participant. Criminal history information is protected under Penal Code section13300 (California’s constitutional right of privacy). Medical or mental-health information protected by HIPAA, CMIA, and Evidence Code sections1010–1027 when the diversion is tied to a treatment plan or evaluation. Once a participant successfully completes MHD, their record is sealed, and corresponding stayaway and protective orders are vacated, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.9.
Next in Part 2, tomorrow: We follow a number of infamous diversion cases, including two recent and notorious cases where offenders assaulted and/or killed innocent people after going through diversion.