talking about evidence-based probation supervision. we now have a probation alternative support, so instead of basically taking someone who is facing a state prison sentence for basically violating their probation, and they have a motion to revoke, we have a special court where instead of sending them to prison, we look at each case and determine whether intensive case management, a plan with a special judge, a special court, public defender, probation officer, and we try to develop that individualized treatment plant before imposing a state treatment plant -- develop that individualized treatment plant before imposing a state treatment plant -- treatment plan. our plan that we develop as a county, and that is what we will have to do -- each county has to develop a public safety 2011

realignment plan and it is developed by an executive body, an executive committee. the community correctional partnership was created by senate bill 678. it was public safety partners, ceo's -- cbo's, a variety of individuals to reduce the population going to prison, and it worked. but this new legislation comes back and says we are going to create an executive body out of that partnership council, and that is going to be the chief probation officer, the sheriff, the chief of police, the director of social services, but in our county, that would be the director of human services agency, and also the board of supervisors and/or the county administrator's office of representatives, basically, and chief of police. they will be the executive body,

and they will be -- they will develop a plan that will be submitted to the board of supervisors for review and approval before any of the funding is released and before the population will come back to the county. the reason that the governor developed and in that way, that each county has different capacities, has different nuances -- in san francisco, we are a combined city and county, so we would develop a plan as a continuum, but many counties have multiple cities, so their plan would look different than ours. supervisor mirkarimi: i guarantee you, until now, i do not think the board of supervisors or many pockets within city hall were actually anticipating how intimate that this question was going to confront them and how, i think, this body and others would have to be prepared to help, i think, oversee the plan that is in motion. this is one reason i was eager to get, i think, down to some brass tacks as to what we can expect. this is not really on the radar,

i think, of most people. we have been talking like we are going to have to get ready for this. the question of what this is that has yet to be defined. since we are also coming into this season intensely on budget, you have not mentioned anything about dollars specifically. what would be our hope and expectation of dollars, a companion to the return of prisoners to san francisco, and what really is the like -- what really is the likelihood of those dollars coming? if not the desired amount, what amount can we expect? >> right now, there is no funding for this proposal. it is very similar to something that happened about 20 years ago. the community correctional partnership -- or punishment act legislation similar to this, that there was no funding behind. that penal code was never implemented. i only give that for a little

bit of perspective. this was also a penal code that has been signed into law and has no money. what the state is estimating, there is a $1.4 billion savings associated with this proposal, so they are quite anxious to fund its -- it, but whether or not they get the tax exemptions, that will be part of the budget decision. but what is on the table right now in identifying the funding is the formula for the probationers that will come to the county for county supervision. the proposal is $3,500 for each probationer, supervision for 18 months. also associated with that -- supervisor mirkarimi: $3,500 for how long? >> for 18 months.

supervisor mirkarimi: that is a night at the fairmont. >> under the law, they can be 36 months, so right there, you have a conflict for how long they will be supervised. it goes back to the governor saying the county has achieved success, reducing the prison population by evidence-based practices, by 6000, so that is how they justify giving a shorter amount of funding. in addition to that, there is the $3,500 supervision fee, and then there would be $2,275 service fee, again to be determined by the plan how the money is spent, but what is designed -- what it is designed to pay for is wraparound services. that could be for drug treatment, and patient, outpatient, electronic monitoring associated with home

detention, drug testing, a variety of other services. it could even be for housing, depending upon what their individual rehab plan is. that is why the risk and needs assessment we utilize in this county is so important because the risk and need to identify what basically that plan should be. in addition to that, there is a 10% administrative overhead fee for the total dollars that will come into the county. for the jail population, that factors $25,000 for six months of incarceration. again, the sentences could have been 36 months or longer, but the state is saying we're going to fund you for $25,000. when those per roll, when they finish their incarceration time, there is also a supervision fee for however long they are beyond

their incarcerated period, and the $2,275 service and the administrative overhead on top of that for the 30-day parole revocations that will no longer go to state prisons. they will be 30 days funded at the local level. here is the equivalent of $25,000 to supervision and then the 10% administrative fee on top of that, so they are looking at those populations to be discreet, but the funding formula is the same. it is just -- what is the number of average daily population, and that will be the most. supervisor campos: just a quick question. thank you for being here. thank you, supervisor mirkarimi, for putting this item on the agenda. how the savings happening at the state level work? is that something where it is essentially the state shipping the financial burden to local governments? is that how the state is saving

the amounts that you're talking about? >> that is exactly how they are saving the amount. the average cost to keep an inmate in state prison is $61,114. that is if you use the average rate. if you use the overcrowding rate, it is cheaper. that figure is about $29,000. that is predicated on however long a time those sentences would have been. if it was a 36-month sentence, the individuals would have spent approximately 18 months in prison, less any kind of jail sentence credits that they would have had. if you take a look at that 36- month sentence, and then take it in half, that is a minimum of 18 months time -- 18 months' time. they will fund the county the

equivalent of $25,000 for six months, and on top of that, the community supervision fee. that adds up to a lot less than what the state costs are. what the numbers i just quoted you do not include is all the state litigation costs. the state has a dental lawsuit, a mental health: lawsuit, -- mental health lawsuit, they also have the medical lawsuit, so all the costs associated by the extra burden and monitoring that have to be done by those entities -- the state has not even calculated that into the savings. huge dollar amounts on top of it. what i'm concerned about at the local level is that population that is shifting to, say, for example due process revocation hearings, all of that. if the population is no longer in state prison, it will not be long, i believe, having spent

almost 30 years at the state prison system, before those entities start looking at the local levels and look at conditions of refinement, and all of that, and there is no dollar amount provided so far for the courts to handle the additional revocation court hearing process. $0 for the public defender or district attorney to be able to process those. that said, the governor and legislature has said, "we are talking. we are in communication with the port and others, and i believe there will be some type of amendment to this proposal to deal with those costs. courts have gone back to the legislature and governor and raise issues with no dollars. they have raised constitutional questions and raised questions associated with their back log already. to try to take this burden of work load on without any additional resources, they

believe that that could constitutionally conflict with their requirement to provide basic services. those are other issues that are on the table out there that could impact a time frame and whether or not all or any of those components are implemented under the law that is proposed right now. supervisor campos: just a final question, if i may, through the chair. when will we know the extent to which this is really an unfunded mandate, or at least portions of it, and what if any steps are we taking to make sure that we get as much funding as we can? >> the public safety cluster agencies net. basically, what i plan on doing with the mayor's office, and also reaching out to president chiu for who the representative would be, is to convene the committee, so we really began to look at the elements.

we have had some conversations with the courts, but we need to work on putting our plan together so we are ready when and if it does become law. i believe it is part of the current budget negotiation process. the governor is preparing his may revised budget, and the budget is basically going to be a draconian budget that is going to have to be predicated on no new money. if he does that, i think that his hope is that it may spur some support for some additional funding. the first thing we are going to know is when they finish this budget process, is there going to be any type of temporary funding until they can get a permit a funding source. that could be whenever they passed the state budget. that could be soon, most likely not. it could be some time in the summer. one of the concerns that many of us have is the way it is written right now is upon finding the funding, it immediately becomes available.

we do not have the infrastructure. i am beginning to plan for it and develop our proposals, but we do not have the dollars and resources to deal with it. but also may come out of these future negotiations at the state level is some time to actually get the infrastructure in place to implement it. if not, we will be expected to absorber whatever comes to us while we are actually -- to absorb whatever comes to us while we are actually implementing the plan for resources, and i am ready for that. i hope it does not go that way, but i have seen it happen before, so we need to have that plan in place. supervisor cohen: good afternoon. i'm curious to know if there is any funding or allocated support once people are released from prison and re-enter into the community, to help them get reeducated, reactivated --

reacclimated. >> as it is, inmates get $200 gate fee. there is no additional funding beyond that. san francisco is fortunate, under the reentry council, and specifically, jessica flintock is working with the department of public health. there is a women with open arms reentry. there is a grant available to assist with that. we have other different reentry sources within the actual city and county, but not specifically earmarked for this population. we also under the alternative court have funding for a small amount of services -- residential, housing, education, vocational. we have been partnering with the other social agencies, public health, office of workforce development and other agencies -- children, youth, and families

-- to connect our population to the funding stream so that we can access that so that we have again a better outcome. also, part of the design of these programs is to have a rewards and sanctioned, so if somebody is doing well -- for example, they are on probation, and it met all their case planning requirements, they have gotten their job, they have stable housing, they paid their fines and fees and so on, and we feel like they are stabilized and are where they should be at, we can consider early termination of probation. we look at those cases very individually. it does not mean that we necessarily ratchet up our population. it requires us to case manage that. by using those resources that are already in place, basically, the additional funding coming from this -- coming from the state under the new proposal would be that $2,275 that they are looking at service fees to help us with this population,

but we do not get anything for who is in there right now. supervisor mirkarimi: i would think that concurrently, san francisco and other cities who are clocked on the july to july fiscal calendar would now be entertaining how our public safety department budgets will have to be adjusted in order to anticipate this. yesterday in the budget committee, we had -- we were beginning the bedding of the public safety department -- beginning the vetting of the public safety department. you have not been before us, but soon you will. there is no indication that department budgets are being adjusted. i would think that if that is not the case over the next two months -- really, we are only talking two months -- and we are looking at the potential for supplementals that will be

required in order to help subsidize the remainder of the moneys that the state does not provide and that we may need additionally in order to perform and furnish those wraparound services you are talking about. if i heard you correctly, if we are talking about $29,000 per prisoner for those that warrant that particular dollar value for that time, then the service that we would be providing could exceed that $29,000. i wouldn't that the remainder of that has got to come from x -- i would think that the remainder of that has got to come from x, and i do not know where that would be, but that means we have to brace ourselves for finding that undefined sum of money. is that correct? >> i will speak for what we're doing in probation. the answer would be yes until we got the grant dollars passed through.

for example, if they started sending probationers july 1 that are being released. we will have to incorporate that into our work load and staff in order to accommodate that, but what we have done is i have done preliminary figures and provided that to the mayor's office. again, there are so many unknowns, but with everything that we do know, that is what i did. i did my best estimate of what it would look like, but there really is no guarantee that it is going into effect -- actually, i think it is very questionable that it would go into effect july 1. that will drive an unknown of do you want to build or anticipate something in the budget that we just do not know when and if it is going to come to us. probably, we will not have kknowns -- knowns until june 30. i do not know that he will have his budget signed by june 30. if it is, it would be the first

in a long time. i think what the board would want to know is in the event that it does happen, what do you anticipate -- what do the department's anticipate the total cost could be, and what with that difference be? while he may not have to deal with it, you would at least know what is potentially out there on the horizon. supervisor mirkarimi: let's drill this down just a little bit on the numbers. we have approximately how many prisoners from san francisco in total? about 1500? we have about 1500. if the number you mentioned in your opening remarks is about 600 or 700, we are looking at 40% or 50% potentially of the total number of san franciscans that have been sent to state prison returning to san francisco. >> keep in mind that how that would separate out is 412 of them would be coming as

probationers under community supervision, and roughly 465 would be the anticipated incarcerated population, and then the 64 would be those that are currently going through revocation -- roughly 165 would be the anticipated incarcerated population. supervisor mirkarimi: what would be the projected added caseload to probation officers? >> i anticipate, depending upon how we create the caseload -- our caseloads are already high right now. we have caseloads up to 800 to 1. supervisor mirkarimi: but the mayor has asked adult probation, like he has asked all departments, to come up with your organic cuts, so i assume you are not coming to the mayor of the board of supervisors for additional staff. >> we are currently not. we are managing with what we do

have. what i am coming forward as saying is that our caseloads are so high and our budget has been cut, and we have given money baff every year over the past several years that i cannot increase -- well, if i did increase caseloads and proposed to cut more staff, basically, we would not be able to adequately supervise the population we have right now. supervisor mirkarimi: deduce for me the amount out of the 600 or 700 that would translate into the added caseload for the probation officers. >> the reason why i'm not saying exactly, it would equate to 412, and eventually, the 164 would be released and on probation at some point, and then those going through the revocation could also be on, so it could increase to 600 or 700 cases, but the

would not happen for a long time. in terms of officers, we would be looking for somewhere between about eight and 12, and that will be dependent on the number. what is concerning is the way that they've budget is that, that equates it 48 -- equates to 48 to one caseloads. that is not give money to supervise them. that has to perform the records function -- supervisor mirkarimi: i think we get that, but 48 to 1 is what your ratio is on case. with this anticipated amount spread out over two or three years, sort of the sustained release would be, once the prisoner returns, serves their time, or however they settle their sentence, and then, it becomes your responsibility. that 48-1 -- 48 to 1 would

adjust up. what would it just too? >> caseloads right now are anywhere from 50 to 800. they will be one of the highest moves we will have because they sailed through all of our services already. the majority of them have been through there, said the caseloads i anticipate, but depending upon how much money and if i have to stay within the dollar amount, it could be anywhere from caseloads of 48to 1 -- 48 to 1 of words. i think it will end up being 60 or 70 to 1. supervisor mirkarimi: you are looking at a potentially 25% increase on caseloads for probation officers that would be absorbent this extra amount. >> it could be. that is depending upon how

quickly it comes to us and the resources. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, i think that is a little more clear. on the question of the determination of who gets -- who qualifies from the state system of prisoners that would be returned back. i heard you say that it is a result of their sentencing as of july 1, 2011. >> it is a result of how they are sentenced, who is in prison right now being released. that would be a current commitment offense that is non- serious, non-violent, non-sex offender. there's a lot of exclusions to things that would have previously been non-serious, non-violent. supervisor mirkarimi: but i also heard you say that it could be people sentenced to 36 months or as high up as five years that might also qualify as non- serious, non-sex offense, non-

violence, but who have already been in the system for a while. why would they not be part of the eligible candidates that have already been in the system that have served some substantial time, not be part of this return compared to those who have not even actually serve yet? >> the legislature and governor basically agreed on the scope of the law that there would -- that they would not release any body that was already considered to be an early release. basically those that have finished serving their sentence, and those that are going currently through the sentencing process, they will not go to state prison. basically, they will be diverted into this new rail line system -- this new realigned system. one of things out there that nobody knows what it will be is

the supreme court decision. we have been going through a lawsuit relative to overcrowding conditions -- state prisons have been going through a lawsuit relative to overcrowding conditions. there is anticipated decision in june of this year that will also tell the state what the state has to do. it is not anticipated that the court will have to ask for an early release. no one knows what they will do, but all indications it would be over time that the population would be decreasing. that is another critical reason why the government needed to do realignment, because of the anticipated population cap. supervisor mirkarimi: but when it comes to be caught off of who is eligible in this realignment that comes back to municipalities, i'm still not hearing the qualified definition as to who is eligible for that.

>> in terms of people who are already in the prison system right now that would now after july 1 basically be retained at the county level? not being released. it is absolutely a political decision to not do something that would be perceived as an early release. to just make a decision on those that would normally be released and do it through attrition process. supervisor mirkarimi: nobody has covered that at all in the press. nobody has really delineated the classification as to how they are deciding which prisoners they are pulling out and then bringing back. that is what has been a little confusing to me, how they arrive. i heard the three categories of non-serious, non-violent, and the other that you had mentioned, but it is the time that -- the border of time of those that have yet to be

sentenced for sentencing of those that are yet in the system that i find fascinating. >> part of the discussion was because of legal requirements as they went through their deliberations of what they ended up with, but really, what it does boil down to is it is not going to be done -- it would not apply to anybody in the system in terms of being returned back to the local level to serve their time. it is only those getting sentenced after that point. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, that helps make a few things clear that had not been before, so i appreciate that. is there anything you would like to add to your presentation? i think we may have some more questions. mr. henderson. microphone please. >> sorry. just a couple of points of clarification. i think we have some good news, some challenges, and just some mixed in the equation.

one of the things i want to make sure it is clear for this board and that you our understanding is just to reiterate the revocation population in terms of what is going on and what will be coming back to san francisco, specifically san francisco is when we talked about earlier, but i think it is really defined what this problem is going to look like because san francisco already has so many programs in place already. we really do send one of the smallest amounts, the smallest population to the prison population because of the programs we of the programs that we already have. the numbers here in san francisco are going to be smaller than in some other counties, that have a higher population. this will be a bigger burden on the larger population. this is typically a good thing because we have these programs in place, before they