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. five years ago, we were at

17,000. we spiked up and there has been a slight downward trend since then. let me show you how that compares to be bar association. this chart depicts the number of appointments -- number of a pullman said have been referred to the conflict panel. even though you saw a chart previously that started here, when up and then down, this one is all over the map. five years ago, this was at $3,800. it went up and stayed up and then spiked way up to almost 5900 last year. a big piece of that was unavailability by the public defender. it went down to what we hope will hover at or go down even lower to $4,600. all this is basically to depict to you how difficult it actually is and how it is probably not doable to predict what the cost

will be over the next five years. having said that, i want to conclude that we do agree with the recommended reduction, and i'm happy to take any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you. just wanted to clarify -- are these the number actually charged cases? >> yes. supervisor chu: i'm seeing something very interesting. if you look back at 2006-2007, we had 17,000 cases ashley charge, and there were only 3700 that went to the courts -- 17,000 cases actually charged. as we have gone through the last few years, we have seen almost 30% of the case is actually being referred to the courts it looks like. >> that is right. in fairness to that analysis, i do want to give a slight caveat

that is not a guarantee that a reported appointment will be reported or will occur in the same year that 88 filing is made. they could have filed the case in july 2006, and probably did not appear in a courtroom until the beginning of august of 2006, and perhaps the public defender could have represented that particular client and that particular defendant, but later on down the line, perhaps a year later, a conflict is revealed or the public defender has made himself unavailable. at that point, the reported conflict would have happened. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> as the department has indicated, our recommended reduction is $100,000. that would still allow for a

1.1% increase in the department's budget. i will be glad to respond to any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. given that the department and budget analyst are in agreement, can we take that without objection? ok, we will do that. thank you for your presentation, and happy birthday. >> thank you. our next department is the sheriff's department. supervisor mirkarimi: welcome, sheriff. >> thank you. good afternoon. there are a couple of issues involving my budget, and i don't want to drag this on to long in general. i will say that i do not object to the recommendations of the budget analyst, so that may cut to the chase to some degree, but

we did and now a set of handcuffs on a couple of issues of concern. the first one is merely a comparison of our current budget year with the proposed new budget year, but this particular comparison includes the supplemental appropriation, which was added to our budget during the course of the year. i am just pointing that out because the expenditures as proposed for next year, compared to this current year, are considerably different when you consider the fact that we received a supplemental to continue everything during the current year. on the second page of the handout is a breakout of where our money goes. you can see 70% of it goes to salaries and fringe benefits. the other to a lesser amounts. the larger of the lesser amounts is -- falls under non-personnel services. of the $12 million, $9.5 million

is debt service on the jail construction. that is essentially where it goes. the two big issues in my budget this year to relate to -- to relate to the state realignment proposal. under the realignment proposal, as you have heard from the public defender and the district attorney, a great number of people convicted in san francisco who in prior years would have been sent to state prison, will be sent to the county jail to serve their time in the county jail. on page 3 of the handout we gave you, we looked at a snapshot from april 15 to may 31, 6 weeks approximately. we look at every person transported to state prison on a commitment, of which there were 49, which is about 12 a week. then we looked at the crime types that they went to state prison for and compared them against the list that the state has provided us with, who would

be going to state prison, compared to would be serving their state prison time in the county jail. during this particular time frame, of the 49 people sent to state prison, 38 of them would have been sent to the county jail instead of state prison, which, as you see, is about 10 a week. extrapolating that, that is about 40 people per month -- 10 a week -- 40 people per month will be coming to the county jail. this all ties into our population projection. the second component of realignment, which is a dramatic change, is the fact that very few proles will be revoked and sent to prison in the future. the vast majority who are revoked will serve their time locally, either through an alternative program has devised by the local courts, or serving

their time in the county jail. we looked at our transports from april 15 to may 31, and you can see that during that time, we sent 60 people a week to state prison on parole but revocations. under realignment, this is a very conservative estimate. we believe at least 25 or more people per week will be sentenced to county jail in the past would have gone to state prison. if you look at page 5, we tried to lay this out in a colorful graphic. put that on the overhead. get it all in there. to try to give you some idea of the projections that we're talking about for the coming year. this is a projection basically for four months after realignment goes into effect. at this moment, we do not know

when realignment will go into effect because the state budget has not yet passed. at some point, this calendar year, realignment will take place. you can see that our current population is the first graph, and our current population is unusually low. 1550 people. we anticipate after the 30 days, we will see the 100 parolees, in our custody and the 40 sentenced prisoners, in our custody, boost our population. after 60 days, we will see a second 100 set of parolees come into our custody and the second set of 40 or more prisoners come in, which boost our population to 1830. in the third month, which is after 90 days, i am estimating that many of the parolees who came into our custody will be cycled out. i am guessing that most will not

be serving long terms. i feel that we will probably have an in and out fairly regular maintaining approximately 200 parolees in custody. i could be wrong, but i think that is based on past looks. that could be the case. april we could be revoked for up to year, but typically, it is more 60 to 90 days. supervisor mirkarimi: new parolees in addition to the current population? >> that is right. however, we will continue to see approximately 40 new sentence prisoners coming in month after month. we're the prole population -- were i think it will stabilize at that 200 level, each month afterwards, we will see an increase of approximately 40 sentenced state prisoners per month in the county jail. so this chart i have given only

takes you essentially through the first 120 days after realignment kicks in. part of our budget is drafted on a proposal that our population is going to increase and that we will have to open jail bed space that we currently have closed. the last graph i have given you or page six, i guess, of the graph i have given you is a population projection based on the figures that i have presented you regarding realignment. as you can see, our jail population has dropped dramatically during the past 12 months. but we anticipate this regular increase of state prisoners, which is going to move our population up considerably to the point where towards the end of this year, we will have to open the closed jail, the smaller of the two out at the san bruno facility, and that is what is built into our budget, a

partial opening of the six units that are out there. i am just giving this as kind of what i think is predicting our pretty dramatic change in the jail population that we are going to see as a result of the state prison realignment. supervisor chu: can i ask just a few questions? on the average daily prison population on page 6, what does that redline represent? just an average? >> the red line indicates what our jail population capacity is without opening a small jail out at san bruno. one of our goals has been to reduce our budget and use our operational costs by keeping the small jail clothes. we have been able to do that this entire fiscal year, but we anticipate a that by january of 2012, that we will -- our

capacity will have grown enough that we will have to reopen that small jail out there. supervisor chu: you mentioned -- and it did not catch it exactly -- the operation's budget for next year assumes what for realignment? that you will be opening a small jail? >> it assumes we will be opening 1/3 of that small jail, which is 2000 units out of the 6000. then-wise, it is 60 persons per unit, sell 120 people -- bed- wise. supervisor chu: given that part of the operating budget for next year is proposing to open 1/3 of the small jail in anticipation for realignment, did we but did any revenues associated with realignment -- did we budget any revenues associated with realignment? >> mayor's budget director. we have not budgeted the revenue from realignment because we do not know what that revenue will be. we have seen a number of proposals.

the first would involve constitutional amendment, which would require a ballot measure. that has not move forward. the democrats' proposal that was vetoed by the governor had another proposal, and now, we are awaiting an additional proposal from the governor's office. we will have to wait until the state budget passes before we actually know what funding will be used and under what formula. so that revenue appropriation is going to have to take place later in the year once we have a full proposal from the state, we understand the impact, and we will have to do that as part of the annual adjustment we make to our budget in response to the state budget, so that will be folded into the update to our budget that we do when we allocate our state budget reserve, taking into account the realignment revenues, the additional costs we will have to add in here and elsewhere in the

criminal justice system, and also the impacts to the budget. that is still to come. supervisor chu: just so i know as well, given that the budget assumes there's the potential for overtime come straight time -- how did we accommodate that? >> that will hinge on the second part of our budget issues, which is the prop j. assuming it is approved, we will be receiving back 48 deputy sheriffs who are currently assigned to doing security work at general hospital, laguna honda hospital, and the court

clinics -- the hospital clinics, excuse me. our budget is predicated on us receiving those 48 people that who would then be fed into the overall operation system. we needed additional people, although we are not scheduled to, we would either do hiring or have to use overtime. supervisor chu: the 48 individuals would be the staff partially used for the opening of the small jail? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. good afternoon. the numerical difference in terms of projected realignment -- you did not mention anything about programs inside the jail's and how they might also be implicated in the need to attend to a larger population, so i wonder if y