misdemeanor level -- i think there's a lot of confusion among our colleagues about exactly whether the staff in your office has, how that compares to other offices around the bay and with your counterpart. >> i think you are well aware the was a comparison done about year-and-a-half ago. what we did this time around is try to have numbers that came from the case management system as opposed to the numbers we create or anybody else. if we go through -- if we go to our table -- the this says court appearance -- court appearances by attorneys. we decided that libyan apples to apples comparison across the board. -- we decided that would be an apples to apples comparison across the board. our attorneys and attorneys involved other offices, a public

defender or private defense, you can see by far we are handling the largest number of cases. we have to go to every single case. we do not share our workload with everyone else. we are appearing even in 2010 and 2011, approximately 170,000 appearances. you can see the bar is representing the other parties involved are significantly less. on our misdemeanor workload, our attorneys are handling twice the workload others are handling. we have a significant, quite frankly a backbreaking workload. it is not unusual for an inner- city district attorney to handle these cases. we have a rotation that has come to the point where we have so few people to work with that we are having problems of people --

would people call in sick or go on vacation. we are trying to juggle and of refusing vacation time because of the workload to keep our courts open. supervisor chiu: i remember that caseload and it was and tense. we implemented a road map for the city and although i did not see what the office -- what the d.a. office has planned, there are roomfuls of paper files all over the d.a.'s office. can you talk about the plans to modernize record-keeping and files in cases? >> we are doing several things. upon my appointment to the office, we put together several workgroups. one of them is a technology. the report comes from the work groups being finalized. we're going to take that and try

to move forward with that report and provide better assessment to what our technological needs are. this month, by the end of this summer, we are taking all of our cases and cataloguing it. today, we do not have the catalog system for our case file. you'll have to actually send an e-mail case to a particular file. we will have to bar code all our case files. we hope to either use intern's or volunteer work as far as scanning into an electronic database. that is not technology advancement, just trying to create a flat level we can start from. we are woefully technologically

incumbent. >> that is something the office was talking about years ago. i'm glad we're starting to move in that direction. >> we are trying to get all the files into one place and get a catalog. supervisor mirkarimi: good afternoon, mr. district attorney. i was looking at department revenues. what are the revenue sources? >> we have funding that comes from rent, areas where we lost several grants at the state and federal level. there have been budget reductions at the state and federal level. those reductions have impacted our office and if you like a more specific breakdown, i can have the budget director speak to those. >> that is something you can follow up with me on, that would be great.

with regard to the white collar -- with a white-collar crime unit and restitution recovery, i was not seeing in data along those lines. -- was not seen any data along those lines. would we be adding into the funds based on restitution? >> i want to say before he gives the details, it is important to recognize as a prosecutorial agency, we have an ethical and legal obligation to ensure we're not prosecuting cases for the purposes of revenue gathering or income generation. we have to be careful our prosecutorial decisions are based on sound legal analysis and not being promoted by income-generated motivations. -- in come-generating

motivations. >> basically, the white collar crime you are referring to, the civil cases, the million dollars is an example that was discussed as a recovery for that type of situation. the first obligation is to get restitution for the victims of the crime. after that, if there is any civil penalties or recoveries, those come into the city. supervisor mirkarimi: in the last several years, has there been any significant cases? >> there have been significant cases. there has been a steady stream. i do not have the exact number before me. we can get you that information. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i'm wondering mr. d a, your predecessor made a point of

reentry part of the administration. one program was back on track. i did not see too much information so i was just wondering if you would like to speak to that? >> we are fully committed to back on track. we're looking at a much broader base assessment of not only reentry but getting more sophisticated about the way we offer pleased to the defense side to come up with a different type of outcome. one of the things we're doing is we are working with the department to make different approaches in the way we handle our cases. our goal was twofold -- first to race -- to facilitate reentry to those cases of becoming a for realignment are back into our community. the second goal is to reduce the number of people we sent to jail or state prison.

the overarching go is to reduce recidivism. -- the overarching goal is to reduce recidivism. it is a program that has had great success and we believe we can start taking risks here. offenders, trying to put an end to the program and trying to test. we are looking at our collaborative courts and exploring the possibility of taking cases that would normally go through our regular criminal court systems and start moving them into collaborative courts. we are exploring the possibility that individuals involved in midlevel property crimes or drug crimes may have a mental illness problem -- rather than taking them to the regular criminal processes, sending them to behavioral courts were one of the collaborative courts. we recently looked at an analysis of the counties and

citizens of san francisco. in comparison to other counties in the state, one of the things we are seeing is that we are doing the right thing. that process has continued. we have been able to lower crime and reduce the number of arrests and we are a model for the state in crime reduction at the same time -- if anybody has a bone in their park -- anybody has a phone in their pocket near the microphone -- if you actually look at what has been going on in the city and county of san francisco. we have lower crime at a higher

level than most other counties in the state at the same time have lower incarceration. that has been the result of hard work by lot of people in the criminal justice system. my goal is to continue to get more sophisticated and look more into things like community-based supervision as opposed to incarceration with an eye toward a reduction in recidivism. we have a horrible recidivism rate in entomb be sure we do better. >> this is important, but that changes the whole structure of what it means to have convictions, which is an important statistic to prosecution. if you are able to divert and divert successfully, that changes the whole decision about how effective it is to be a d.a. and what convictions mean

against prosecution. >> i think the metrics are outdated and no longer have relevance. i'm not so sure the number of conditions we have necessarily is an indicator of good performance. i think the indicator of good performances how do we reduce crime and make our communities safer? how do we reduce recidivism in our community? if we can do that as a partner in a larger criminal justice system than we have been successful. running a da's office is not about successful prosecutions are sending people to prison. we already know that has not worked. one of the reasons we have to deal with realignment is because the entire prison system has been over burden to the point where we cannot afford economically. i would argue that socially, we have created an unsustainable program and it has been unsustainable for many years.

we have over incarcerated members of minority communities in this country to the point where we have destroyed entire communities. san francisco is no difference to anybody else. the metrics of using convictions as an indicator of success are not necessarily metrics i would subscribe to. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor kim: how many of your fte's are attorneys? >> 125. supervisor kim: thank you for the graph and your answer to the question -- i noticed there was a different in the budget between public defenders and the district attorney and sustained court opinion was helpful in understanding that. the movement toward restorative justice is something i have life-support.

i would love to see explored in juvenile justice. i know it is often talked about in juvenile justice and the staff and judge their have talked about it but it would be great to see a specific program around that because it has been so successful in other places and in other states. new zealand is the country we often talk about with restorative justice, but they are able to close their detention centers except for one. being able to move for that is important. i wanted to ask a couple of questions about your neighborhood court program. you talk about your vision for it. you might have said this -- what neighborhoods are being considered for the neighborhood courts? >> the goal is to have the entire city covered within 18 months.

currently, we have the bayview station and we are talking to supervisor chu about adding the corridor in central station which would be only for prosecution. we took it from our existing rotation. we hope to get -- we hope we will get another station and we will continue to play with the model. they are the supervisor for the neighborhood court. one of the advantages of the neighborhood court is at the time the officer makes the rest to the time they are in front of the panel is to weeks. we see a turnaround time in about seven days. it's a quick process that brings

together the community and the offender and the victim and there are no attorneys present. we already see great results. the other function is to work with the community and the police department. it is like community policing, bringing the officers into the local labor had to deal with a variety of issues. it could be a bad business practice. it could be neighbors having problem with another neighbor or a problem with schools and residents. we are taking our victim advocates and we will start deploying them into a neighborhood centers. a lot of our victims are unlikely to come to the hall of justice or services. one of the functions we have statutory as well as prosecuting suspects and doing other thing is we have to take care of

victims. we are moving a lot of victims services into the community and order to have the ability to get closer to the people who need our services. we are pushing further and further down the line. supervisor kim: for the sake of public discussion, being able to clarify new records and the community justice center which exists in the tenderloin, making sure they don't overlap or are coordinated -- >> i'm glad you mentioned that. it is a question that often comes up. the community justice center is the collaborative court where there are criminal implications. the offender pleads to an offense as supervised by the judge. you have the defense and

prosecution come to an agreement and there's a stipulation, basically a contract, that the offender has to go through and supervised by the court. on the neighborhood court system, it is completely outside the judicial process. it is an informal process. there are -- the arbitrators are community volunteers. our neighbor a prosecutor does not go into court. he/she is only supervising the workload. they go through the process. the criminal process is purely restored in a search. -- purely restorative in nature. it's a step above the labor courts. if they fail, that might be the community justice center and then the traditional criminal- justice system. supervisor kim: could you talk

about what you expect the fiscal impacts to be? >> we have estimated prosecuting low-level misdemeanor would cost approximately $300 to $400. we estimated prosecuting al level is a meter in the traditional courts is approximately $1,500. we're looking at about an $1,100 savings. if everything works the way we are looking at, perhaps as much as 20% of our misdemeanor workload could be eventually ending up the neighborhood courts. by the way, the cost and giving you does not include that trevino incarceration as a result. there are many other things included. supervisor kim: it will be helpful as the program continues to expand to collect what cost savings you have from the program. there are other values and

benefits besides dollars to a program like this. the one thing i do want to say and we talked about this, how frequently victims are left out of the criminal justice process and how alienating and isolating that can be for victims of crime. we know victims also often become offenders and there can be a circle if we do not address the injustice victims have gone through and address what they're going through from the harm that has been done in their neighborhood and community. >> absolutely. another thing we are exploring is we are looking a initially at visiting victims of domestic violence within 72 hours from the time event occurs to make sure they are availing themselves of services and impacting the school where there are kids involved. there are a lot of things that initially may be impact fall on

resources but over a long time would pay tremendous dividends in terms of not only public safety but the overall cost of handling the criminal-justice system in san francisco. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: given that the department is not in agreement with our analysts, we will work and try to see you next week. >> i think we should have an agreement before the end of the week. supervisor chu: our next department is the superior courts. >> good afternoon.

as always, it is a pleasure for the court to be here today. as most of you know, this building was vital to the court operation at one point. we were house here with our to sister branches of government. all of our government was under one roof. more importantly, we are funding

for all aspects of court operations was determined by this branch of government. only you, the board of supervisors, was able to make that determination. that has all changed. we are no longer in city hall. in 1997, voters elected to consolidate the old municipal and superior courts into one new superior court. also, the state legislature removed all funding responsibility statewide of trial courts from local counties. it place them within the state legislature and the state itself. because of that, the court no longer receives any dollars from the city for a court-fund operations. the basics of the court are not funded by the city, but there are two functions the court has historically managed for the city which are still funded by you. that is why we are here today. that is staffing the civil grand jury and managing the indigent defense budget. the indigent defense budget is

the majority of these funds that surround my $0.3 million. indigent -- $9.3 million. indigent defense fund is outlined in the united states constitution and is the legal obligation which is why it has not transfer to state funding and it's under a legal obligation for the city to provide under the california penal code. it is a fundamental principle of our justice system where all the queues are innocent until proven guilty and are afforded the right to legal representation. the court's role in all this at the initial branch of government is to ensure this right is upheld. the public defender, as you heard previously, is the primary provider providing indigent defense to minors and defendants. this is again, legally mandated. if the public defender has an ethical conflict of interest or

cannot take a case because of availability, which ranges from staffing to budget issues, then the court appoint an attorney from a qualified panel from the san francisco bar association. the conflict panel has been in existence for nearly 40 years. it's an ongoing collaboration of the court, the public defender, and attorneys who are highly experienced in criminal law. it also is a model for the state. many counties duplicate our model of delivering cost- effective and high-quality representation when the public defender cannot. in the current fiscal year that is going to end in eight days, a total of $9.3 million will be spent on indigent defense. these expenses are extended be cut -- are expended because one of two things happens. either the public defender cannot defend climbed because of

a conflict or the public defender has declared himself unavailable. for the most part, all of this $9.3 million is only for conflicts of interest. as you heard earlier, he stood before u.s. and pledged he would stop declaring unavailability in criminal defense cases. for the most part, he has lived up to that. the only exception is the community justice center, or the public defender has made itself unavailable since august of 2009. that's a fraction of the cost of the $9.3 million before you. or the upcoming fiscal year, the court has decided not to request an increase or decrease for criminal indigent defense because there is too much uncertainty right now. if we look at the first chart i gave you, this is the recent trend, the five-year trend of indigent defense cases and expenses.

i will walk you through this chart. if you focus on this top line, this is the number of cases handled by the conference panel. you can see five years ago we were at 6200 cases and has been a roller coaster since then. this year, we expect to be around 8000 cases. the red bars are the total cost for the cases depicted appear. it is a roller coaster, $7,000,000.50 years ago. it went to 9.5, now back down to 91 again. the good thing on this chart is you will see the average cost per case. we are always of around $1,100 per case. we're happy to report we will be down slightly compared to last year. supervisor chu: could you explain the difference in per cost per case numbers? >> all lot of this is driven by

the types of cases and the type of work the panel attorneys have to do for that particular year. for instance, a high number here was in the school year 2008- 2009. that coincides with the year the panel attorneys had seven of the eight defendants from the big multi-defendant case that was 30 years old where the defendants were accused of killing a san francisco police sergeant in 1971. because of the complexity of that case, that contributed to a big part of that cost increase. as you can see on this chart, it is difficult to predict what will be needed from year to year. given the large uncertainty and what we hope might be a downward trend, we have not requested any change to our budget. we have requested a $9.3 million budget again for this year. from there, let me transitioned to the work we have done with

the budget analyst. the budget analyst has recommended a $100,000 decrease to the budget. that is something we are willing to live with and willing to live with it because of the uncertainty. given $9.3 million, $100,000 is not much. the other thing i wanted to discuss as you requested for those who come before this committee to present a five- year budget outlook. while we want to do our part, want to explain its very difficult for the indigent defense program to do that. let me explain why. as we outlined here, the cost of indigent defense are basically driven by the defendants the public defender cannot represent. but let's back up. cases that come before the court originate from a police department citation or an arrest. that is something that is unpredictable. from there, the district attorney has to make a decision

whether or not to file a complaint against the defendant that was either a site -- that is unpredictable. once it is filed, it comes to a court for a hearing. the public defender has to make a revelation whether he has a conflict of interest or is unable to take the case. all four elements are unpredictable. because of that, it's difficult if not impossible to make a five-year projection on where costs might be. i want to refer you to two more charts. the second chart i handed to you with the orange bars -- this depicts the number of district attorney filings that happened over the past five years. these are the filings that once the district attorney gets all the data as to who was arrested and he/she has to make a decision on whether or not to charge those defendants.