resources. i have seen firsthand as public defender the decimation of community-based programs, including those for reentry. walden house, haight-ashbury. these are programs that have been around for 20, 30 years and have been decimated by budget cuts. so we do not have the programming that was available even two years ago. the residential treatment program is gone. so as we see these programs eliminated, there is not something to step up and take their place, which is why we need to look at the needs from the individual. i think they want me to stop. we cannot be costco to

everybody. we need a more tailored approach and make sure that the people that the the most amount of service get it. the people who need the least amount of supervision, that resources are not wasted on them. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: you said 30 years and they had been around. i was wondering, when their budgets flourished, or the more successful at meeting their targets? did we not see the trend, the upward trend to rise and

mirkarimi spoke about for reentry? is there a direct correlation? >> there is a direct correlation between those engaged in services and the outcome they achieve. we recently did a study of individuals who went through reentry programs through the public defender's office. we do not provide reentry services ourselves. we link them up with other service providers and advocate for outcomes with the judge that are consistent with reentry principles. what we found is 70% of the people experience better outcomes. recidivism is actually -- actually tells you little. it does not tell you whether somebody had a job, if they were in school, if someone was cleaned off of drugs. when you look at those types of factors, you find an overwhelming correlation between

success rates and the individuals who participate. you also find a correlation between people who either do not avail themselves of services or drop out of services, as you might expect. the problem with the recidivism rate here is we do not do a good job of tracking why. this is a limited study of about 200 people. it showed over a six-month period, we saved close to $2 million in incarceration costs because these were people who would have otherwise taken space in the county jail. so again, we have to take an individualized approach to looking at the outcomes and the failings that individuals are experiencing. the only way we can do that is to have the resources to

collect that information, and more importantly, to act on it. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. public defender of bache, thank you for your leadership on these issues. -- adachi, thank you for your leadership on these issues. and everyone else who's has participated in the effort in the last five years. chief stills, adult probation, welcome. >> if you answers to some of the questions asked. three out of four parolees fail in san francisco. over 70% means three out of the four go back to prison why that is is based upon a combination of things. looking and realignment and the impact it would have on the potential number, also our non- serious, non by the population, currently, san francisco has over 1300 parolees.

we are looking to shift the responsibility from state supervision to probation supervision. supervisor mirkarimi: what would that number look like two years from now should the number go through? >> what will happen over a period of three years, from 2011 through 2014, all 1300 would be shifted to supervise by probation. first read the start with a non- serious, and then a serious and violent sex offenders and others added to it. eventually, all 1300 would be here. supervisor mirkarimi: in proportion to that, what is the budget increase or added dollars to escort that particular level of responsibility? >> they are proposing a 48-1 caseload ratio. supervisor mirkarimi: in the state of california. >> the state of california's budget ratio is 48-1. that is what they say, the witch

of the dollars. what is problematic is they've only shifted for an 18-month period of time. after that, there is no budget support for that. again, a sex offender is not an 18-month probation supervision timeline, so the formula is flawed. that was something that our chief organization brought up to sacramento. i spoke to them about the problems of their proposed funding formula, not only poor that population, but for a non- serious, non-by land, that they are proposing to shift to the local levels. what that looks like is an additional $700,000 -- 700 to $1,000/ the proposal is to take a non-

serious, non-by then, non-sex offenders with no serious things in the background and shift that supervision to the local level allowing counties to determine how those inmates basically would be housed. whether an alternative, whether in jail, electronic monitoring. they are proposing a certain dollar amount. supervisor mirkarimi: after some of those that require a longer level of care and reentry beyond the 18 months, that budget expectation would then deflect back to city and county government? >> that is right. that is why it is a flawed methodology. supervisor mirkarimi: i was not prepared to get into this now, but your budget is what? >> a little under $13 million.

i will say our current caseload ratios, in comparison to the 48- 1, we currently have officers who have caseloads of 1000-one. we have roughly two -- a higher caseloads are up to 250-one, which is beyond what the evidence tells us. we should have a supervision ratio. all the evidence and research out there shows the most significant decrease to recidivism, the largest impact, it is by the probation officer and probationer relationship, referrals to services, connection they are following and monitoring. a few positive things that we have done over the last year is we have moved toward -- we have had risk in needs assessment for about 70%.

when i say that, they have done a risk assessment but it has not translated into additional recommendations. for a lot of reasons, we have locked on emissions and resources. what we have done over the last year is negotiated a new contract. we are going to be moving to a new risk in these assessment compass. this is the same risk assessment the state uses. parolees come to the local level, we will have information on the services they have received and what their needs are. we will also begin to use that same system. senator leno in passing the performance an incentive act, what that said was, used the evidence, what science out there that works in integrated reentry practices. if you do that, we will reward the counties that are successful by giving you money, $29,500 for

those highest performing counties for not sending the population to the state level. i am happy to report, adult probation, we were one of the areas where we have success and were able to reduce the numbers we are sending to state prison by 20% in a single year. so we will receive that money back to reinvest in support of the probationers. what the larger message was hyper --, use science, the thint are there. that is the problem when you ask why is the result -- the recidivism so high for the parole? it is because there is not a court in and system of care. the problem begin and end in the community and solutions must, too, but we have a bifurcated system. there is much wisdom in the

realignment proposal to basically join the two systems together. you received efficiencies as well as improved services. speaking from over 26 years at the state level and how san francisco compares to other jurisdictions, and also from the federal perspective, just had a conversation this morning with a crime justice institute, who the fed's spend a lot of money to go into jurisdiction. they have been to san francisco, are impressed with san francisco's commitment to services, but what they see is their knees to be a stronger joining of -- needs to be a starter joining of services. basically, access to the services. i would agree with that, but i would also look at the other jurisdictions in the state and say, they joined ahead in the other jurisdictions, but we can

do better. in looking at the recommendation better in the reports, how do you hold apartments accountable, more than just a plan? you have the department had put a timeline to it and have them report back. you make it part of the budget process. how have you done? where are the resources going? where is the request as it relates to supporting type of recommendation we have to prove that the board of supervisors? those are just thought. but also, the department need to continue to look alternative ways to be more efficient. i talked about the data system we are going to utilize. it was lost amid evidence based sentencing recommendations to the -- it will also allow us to case plan. the automation is going to help us. we have high caseloads. it is not the sole answer, but

at least we can get better. in addition to that, the other strategies. adult probation has received $1.2 million in grants. those grants are related to violence against women. in the bayview area, we applied for a grant because it has the highest rate of domestic violence. we were successful in that. we now have a dedicated officer reaching out closer to the victims. san francisco probation alternatives court. there are no resources at the state level. they have cut their budget in terms of state dollars. there is really not much to oversee, really. the bottom line is, we need to intervene before we are sending our population off to prison. at the city we have 943 on an average basis that go to state prisons that spend 120 days or

less in state prison. then they come back to the community without that successful reentry plan. that is the population that we need to target. we apply for a grant probation and we received it in partnership, funding. [inaudible] [unintelligible] so that we could create a ratio, interdisciplinary team so that we could case managed individuals before they went off to prison and came back. last night, department of public health it is an important partner. i was conferencing on one of our cases and it was a complicated case. we spent almost $400,000 as a city on this individual in our emergency psychiatric services within the city. so they are not just within our prisons or jails. they are an hour of red services

drawing down dollars. when we talk about justice reinvestment strategy is, we have to look at the demographic and say how can we have better access using those dollars? [unintelligible] i really do join with the public defender of bacha dodgy and what jennifer plan has done in bringing the jurisdictions together. i have to say former personal opinion, i do not think creating another reentry department is the answer because i think we have to get to the answers of the questions. what are the core functions of each entity at each department? let's look at what the penal code defines, a city ordinance, and decide who is going to do what and how we can leverage those services to be responsible to the board and public. part of that is it is not only

developing these plans, but again, the time line and told us accountable for delivery. being able to articulate what our demographic profiles are, success and failure rates are. we have in the last year -- adult probation has gone through -- far beyond what our population has served -- all of who we are spending to state prison, who is on probation, where they are located, what their service needs are. our new compass system will be able to in the future project capacity needs. how many that we are servicing will need housing, substance abuse, how many dedication and so on? we will be able to tell you this is what our needs are. in addition to that, the partnerships traded have been fantastic. i cannot say enough good things about sheriff hennessey. he opened up a learning center.

i visited a couple of schools that have virtually no services for my probationer and so many of them the education. we created a learning center inside of the adult center at the hall of justice within a few months, but we did not stop there. he reached out to the district attorney's office. they have a back on track program and created another program to have them, and access services. not only is it education, it is job placement, resumed building. so those partnerships that are being formed -- and because the department heads are working together -- very important -- last two things -- very important -- senator leno legislation requires creating a community correction department counsel. we have created that as part of the amendment to the rental councilman the states and for the two entities to were close together. the last thing is the mayor has

reconvene the public safety cluster meetings so that all the realignment proposals -- we can talk about the impact from a systemic standpoint nurses and individual department. that is a positive step forward. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. that was very comprehensive. we may have a question or two. no? just something on a primary level, quite routinely, the public safety committee asks the police department to come in and provide a month to month, quarterly analysis. just to show you that level of forging partnerships that we hope certainly continues to be improved, that we ask the police department -- give us an idea of those they are arresting, those that they are engaging in their roles, who of those people that they arrest have already been

repeat offenders? they do not even know those statistics. so just on a basic level, i would like to get a better landscape throughout the city and in key neighborhoods. when that kind of question comes up, we would think that all departments relevant to this question, again -- safe city couple the city -- would be able to answer that so that we could paint them book and strategy of what is happening on the front end and what is perhaps happening on the back end, so that those that are repeating their offenses, primary responders, like the police department are also aware and cognizant of what their roles are. this vicious cycle seems to be repeating itself in san francisco, which is no different than any other city in the country right now. that level of coordination and partnership is critical, i think, in that discussion, as

you had just painted as well. >> thank you. i agree. we have been sharing our demographic information. our first public safety cluster meeting, we prepared demographics for the whole city. we began the meeting by going through that. data sharing is so important. i also think that in future budget discussions, a question i will be presenting to you is, what is the successful rid of termination for probation? >supervisor mirkarimi: absolutely. but what is the latest and greatest for the police department is comsat. they have needed it for a long time. it funnels information on to the head of a pen as to the current activity and trends of activity, given a given area. instead of treating it as a member, we are not going behind the number to understand, who is that number, and that does not

make the press. that does not make any mainstream discussion. when we hear that it could be anywhere between 60% to 80% of those requiring police attention, and comstat is looking at where their resources are being applied, it is where people are having a prior offense. that is a statistic that is never connected in the discussion when we are speaking with the police department. should we just continue to expect this? that is not for them to necessarily answer. it is for everyone else, right? >> hopefully, you will be pleased to know -- i talked about moving to a new data system -- working on another version of comstat to look at our key performance indicators and tracking them internally within department. we have already been tracking

and continue to improve on that. i can tell you how much of my population is low-risk offenders, misdemeanors, how many are high to medium risk, how many we are referring to services. we are tracking in rudimentary ways, but we are, so that we can identify the needs and gaps. we are also serving a population better in terms of specialized service. i should talk to the gender response to programs. i roped the state's female master plan for reform for the entire prison system. i recognize how important is to dedicate a we have a dedicated officer for our in the probationers as well as dedicated officers moving to write those. so there are a lot of -- the data tells us where we need to put our resources at. we do not have all the answers yet. i know moving to the systems --

we will be able to take into a lovell of -- a finer amount of detail -- to answer your questions. we are also doing autopsies on cases. i talked about our three-year average of who we are sending to state prison. 256 on provision failure. that is our benchmark. i can also tell you my number after implementing evidence- based. 199. we decrease to we sent to state prison on probation not only because we are looking at it, but we are also looking at the 199 to say, why did they fail? 62 of them were paper commitments. they basically their footprint -- set foot in prison but the city lost money as a result of being a paper commitment. all those things are happening so that we can basically not only identify who they are but look at what are the gaps in the

criminal-justice system, what do we need to do differently in terms of whether it be sentencing, risk and needs assessment at the front end so that we can have a better outcome. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: a thank you for your very comprehensive presentation. just a question on the issue of recidivism going back to the discussion that supervisor mirkarimi had had. what is the connection between the staffing ratios that you are talking about and this trend of recidivism going up in the last few years? >> the higher staffing ratio? that was the study you are going to -- i was talking about 20% direct correlation -- the most of the in thing we can do to reduce recidivism for medium and high risk offenders is reduced their caseloads. supervisor campos: as we are

looking to the budget, going forward for your department, is there a clear understanding of that point? in terms of the folks in the mayor's office looking at your budget? >> i am having those discussions with the mayor's office, yes. in terms of what the outcome will be -- as you know, times are challenging. what my concern has been is not losing any resources to even basically having the ratios become hire and having to go after grand dollars to support that and efficiencies through the 678 funding. if we get the girl population -- parole population, we could be more efficient and effective, but it would drive additional resources. supervisor campos: and what are the ratios of san francisco relative to other jurisdictions in the state? >> they are all over the map.

i was just talking with the district attorney. he has sheets relative to what he presents to urban jurisdictions. we were the lowest amount that had been invested in over this period of time they had looked at. maybe it was 10 years. i also know the other jurisdictions had been hit hard. i cannot give you an answer because they have just gone through a year of cuts and i did not know what they are. i would say that our case ratio is probably in the high -- with other jurisdictions have been lower ones -- but at the end of the round of cuts, we are all going to end up in a place where we are going opposite of where the evidence tells us where to go. as a city, we spent $4.85 a day on probation vs $140 a day for a

day in prison, $13.85 a day on parole, versus $140 a day in jail. we are talking about realigning those strategies. we want to front of their resources so that we do not end up having them go through multiple times through the jail, to prison and back, only to repeat the cycle, because of the court costs and all of that. supervisor campos: i would hope that as you have those conversations, it is not maintaining what you have, but talking about bringing in additional resources. it would seem to me, in the end, the investment pays for itself many times over. >> thank you for recognizing that. supervisor campos: thank you, chief. supervisor mirkarimi: i know many people here -- thank you very much. thank you for everything you have done in short -- in such a short period of time with the city.

i know there are key representatives here from various departments in the city. the district attorney's office is here as well. i want to thank everybody who has been the critical players to the reentry council. i know that most people here for the next hearing on taking us that specialized peace and having a discussion on the mental health portion and how we respond in public safety ways. but if there is anybody else that would like to speak to these issues such as director sue, please come up. i think both of these hearings are obviously connected. >> good afternoon. i just want to be brief with my comments. first, i want to say thank you to supervisor mirkarimi for proposing this amendment to the reentry council membership. we are honored to be included as an augment, an additional

member to the council. very briefly, over the past several years, dcyf has increased our reach in the depth and breadth of to the justice were to serve young people all the way to the age of 25. we have worked closely with our other public safety partners, many of whom you will hear today. but more specifically, we are the coordinating and support body for the city around many of the state and federal contracts that the city receives. i want to acknowledge the great work of chief still, but the program -- program she was returned -- referring to, compass -- that was a grant proposal that cdyf wrote in coordination with adult probation and current oversee those dollars. over the past seve