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 you could speak to that a little bit. >> we did build in an increase

in our programming capacity that would replicate the distribution of programs we have currently throughout the jail system. supervisor mirkarimi: so it would be a corresponding match based on the proportion of that increase in population increase in the programs and their capacity to attend to it? >> that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: on the question the supervisor chu just mentioned on general hospital and laguna honda, i have been visited and others by seiu in trying to float an alternative proposal. we were not sure if there had been any discussion internally about an alternative proposal that continues to meet the need of providing for sworn officers at general hospital laguna honda while trying to save dollars, which is the goal. i do not know if there is any

response to that. >> supervisor, the proposal, of course, is that of the department of public health. it is their budget, their facilities, and it is my understanding -- and i may not be 100% correct, but it is my and a standing the proposal is to retain the current ip officers and to presumably group them in one or two work sites and then to have a contractor provide the security services at primarily san francisco general hospital. that is the proposal i have heard. if you look at page 7 of the handout, which i have given you, you will see how we analyze or how i analyze financially whether the prop j is approved

or not approve, and again, this is based on our discussions with the department of public health. you can see that in the first set of columns, it shows the total funding that is currently budgeted to allow for this to occur, and the transition will take place at the very end of this calendar year or in january of next year. if prop j is not approved, i am not currently funded to provide deputy sheriffs at general hospital past january 1. the costs would go from call 1, which is $4.6 million, to colorado two, which is $9.2 million. obviously, the contract in cost would go down. to keep the current system in place as opposed to approving prop j, the department would need $2.3 million more than what is budgeted now. supervisor mirkarimi: what would

happen if those officers were not attracted back to deal with the increasing realignment population -- what would be the response of the department? >> we would be seeking the $3.2 million, and with that, we would be hiring and training the staff. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: just a few follow-up questions. our current population is about 350, rock me -- roughly from the chart below, what our current capacity is, and this is without opening the small jail, as you mentioned now what -- now looks

like the capacity is 1950 or so. >> that is correct. without these small jail. supervisor chu: even if we do not open a small jail and remains close, we still have the capacity to deal with this in our existing system. where the red line is and how we are currently staffing that, are we adequately staffing all those positions and posts based on regular time, over time -- how does it work? >> if prop j is approved, i get the officer's back that would be working at straight time. supervisor chu: that was the conversation around opening up the small jail to allow for the extra capacity, to open up 1/3 of the jail, but even if we do not talk about the small jail and opening up, and the current operations, we have capacity to

house 1950 or so individuals. how are we staffing that? do we have enough sheriff's deputies on regular time to staff that? >> i see what you are asking. we do have enough people if they are all work -- of course, we have people out on disability and leave and that, so our overtime would probably go up slightly, but we would not have to hire additional people to bring the inmate capacity up to what we are running, what our capacity is, but i would like to just say professionally, you really do not want to run a jail at 100% capacity because you have what we call giveaways or people that cannot be housed with other people. so you do not want to run your jail at 100% capacity. you like to keep it slightly below. supervisor chu: reconnecting it back to an item we saw not long ago, which was the supplemental for the department, a lot of that had to do with not

implementing the prop j at the public health department part of it, and the other department was just over time at the departments. >> yes. supervisor chu: can you explain that in context with with the budget is being proposed? i guess i am and little bit curious because the budget analyst recommendation talks about the attrition savings we are talking about. i just wonder if we end up taking that, are exacerbating the issue, and it is something that we have one too, and we have asked the office to look at across some of our largest overtime departments. back our overtime budget in the sheriff's department has gone down continuously for three years. i have a chart here -- i do not know if you can see this. i guess maybe you can read it. but you can see that our actual expenditure of overtime in 2008- 2009 was $12 million. the next year in 2009-2010, it

was $7 million. in the current year, through june 15, it is $5 million. so we have continually brought our overtime down the. if you can slide over further, we break down our overtime in this chart into two categories. one is general department over time. the other is in our work order enterprises. so a fair amount of our over time is to replace staffing in those our units. we brought over time down within the sheriff's department down quite bit over the past three years, and we have done that partly by consolidating staffing as we have closed units down. we reassign people to facilities where they were using higher

degrees of overtime. we brought more staffing in, and that is one of the ways we have been able to bring our overtime down. supervisor chu: given this recommended cut, that is quite a large sum. you feel comfortable that you would be able to live within that budget? >> yes. i think so. again, a lot of is conjecture based on how fast our inmate population is going to grow compared to how fast we can hire people that we have to. supervisor chu: ok. thank you. the same comment goes for the comptroller's office, of course, so look at the sheriff's apartment and the balance between straight time and overtime. thank you. other questions from the committee? mr. rose? >> our recommendations are detailed on pages 65-67.

they totaled $804,218 in 2011- 2012, and of those recommended reductions, 100% of general fund, at 100% of on going. it would still allow an increase of 50,000,200: $4,765 or 9.8% in the department's 2011-2012 budget. we also recommend closing of prior year general fund incumbents, which would allow the return of $202,229 to the general fund. together, these recommendations will result in a savings to the general fund of $1,006,441. supervisor chu: thank you. given that the department and budget analyst are in agreement, can we move to take that? ok, we will move that without objection >> greater than thank you. do i comeback next week? supervisor chu: you are done.

ok, our final department of the day -- the adult probation department. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the adult probation budget operations and five-year financial outlook. i would also like to thank the mayor's budget office and his staff expertise and support in our budget preparations. adulteration dept.'s core mission is to protect the community, serve justice, and change lives. our penal code mandated mission is to provide koresh ordered community probation supervision and court-ordered investigation reports. 84% of our staff are sworn peace

officers and provide direct court-related services. our strategic goal is to improve probation outcomes and department performance through use of evidence-based probation supervision practices. that address of fenders criminogenic needs and through collaborative reentry partnerships. i would like to recognize supervisor mirkarimi and his past efforts in developing the reentry council and associated functions. they really set a good base for us to build on ab 109, which i will talk about later on, but the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 is $4.6 million. approximately 86% of our budget is staff resources. 5% of our budget is for services for the department, and 9% are non-labor. we are in the people business. american probation and roll currently recommends the supervision-related ratios at

our staff right now have caseloads that are three and four times that amount. the curly supervise approximately 6300 probationers who have 6700 grants of probationers. 81% of our probationers are convicted of felonies, and 19%, misdemeanors. population we serve is comprised of 90% high and medium risk probationers. 57% of this population are related to drug crimes. 11% for felony property crimes. 22% are on probation for felony crimes against persons. again, our caseloads are extremely high, so i am pleased to report the results and that adult probation is a very cost- effective solution. even with these high caseloads, for basing costs $4.72, while a day in jail costs $130. from 2008 through 2010, the rate

of successful probation termination has increased by 14%. during this same time, the rate of unsuccessful terminations has decreased by 17%. san francisco's provision case unsuccessful termination rates are quite low. 19%. as compared to a state parole, san francisco's recidivism rate of 7.8%. the good news in san francisco is more offenders are successfully complete -- completing probation and fewer are failing, resulting in savings of lives, reducing victimization and reducing criminal justice costs and helping to break the into generational cycle theory the bad news is that san francisco state parole recidivism rates are the highest in the state. this is especially concerning as the governor and legislature proposes to partially realign the state goes to prison population to the county via ab

109. you have heard today already some of the specifics, but let me go over a few more. takes non-serious, non-violent with no prior conviction of felony terms that would have resulted in 16 months, two-year, or 24-month prison sentences, and realigns those to county jail. it is not strictly about alternative -- incarcerating. alternative sentencing is authorized. and incentivize within the legislation. also, we really have not talked much about this today, but there is an increase in date for date earning credit. for every four days -- for every two days -- and we are days, there's two days credit. that would help reduce the population. also in terms of in our jail system, 80% are basically pretrial approximately, and approximately 20% are pre-

sentence. the legislation also authorizes changes and that the district attorney and share of have to agree to that could further impact in a positive way dropping population appropriate for alternative. but no matter what happens, the share of and i completely agree the our populations are going to rise, and in addition, that the state numbers that they have estimated are basically very understated. we anticipate for adult probation that we will have an increase to 700 offenders that will be on post-custody release supervision. what will be key is how the courts react in terms of their sentencing. are they going to sentence for alternatives to incarceration and post custody right off the bat, or will they meet out similar sentences? the courts again are part of our whole community correctional

partnership committee, and we are having those internal discussions. the state's original estimates were that we would receive right off the bat 412 non-serious, non-violent offenders that would be released to adult probation supervision, but that is a little misleading because these offenders can have serious or violent felony convictions in their background, and again, these are very high voice. a role violators at 64. only time will tell what those numbers are. the original date that it was to be implemented was july 1. that date has now officially changed to 10/1. the funding formula has changed from when they originally gave it to us. that is still in the state of flux. what we do know so far is that the governor has taken out of a reserve fund $300 million and

put that basically into or towards the vehicle license fee, which is key to realignment happening. there is still $205 million short as well as they have to secure the funding for the realign populationthe state is n revising and population projections for the entire state. they hoped to have them by now. i intended an additional to the bureau to -- additional 2 to 4. it does not go near to fully covering the costs. i am chairing the executive committee responsible for the criminal justice realignment plan but will be submitted to the board for approval of

partners include the district attorney, the public defender, the police, the human services agency. nylon this executive committee most prepare the plan -- by a lot of the board must approve the -- by law, the board must approve the plan. in terms of overall strategies we are working on, in terms of language ordinance compliance, they do have a language translation . we basically have bilingual staff to the speaks spanish, cantonese, and mandarin. we also use interpreters as

necessary for court proceedings. now our i.t. programs are critical, especially in anticipation of realignment. we have to know who we half and where we have it, and they are consistent with justice. they have been approved. they really focus on the population that is going to come and lea associated costs. staff training will be critical to your your -- critical. in terms of revenue, we do have

some of our funding in federal and state grant funds. we anticipate the depending on what happens there could be pressure, and if we lose, but would impact the staff. xóhow we hope to embark to improve outcomes, and the this going to help with management. we are going continue to implements. now we have opened a learning center, and we had our first

graduate l instead of basically utilizing the typical reentry strategy where individuals are incarcerated and come back, the starter since -- this target smals, and i am happy to reportd they reached out and offered half a million dollars. gwe are happy with what happened in san francisco superior -- san

francisco. sun francisco is saving the state over $200 million by virtue of not incarcerating affable will leverage -- below average rate. they are saving $418 million. one thing i am very concerned about is funding formulas. we are producing results. we have to hire a drop in crime last year as opposed to any county. we know what works. back to san francisco and a gold appropriation, we have agreed to

the majority i am continuing -- agreed to the majority, and i am hopeful we can come to a resolution. you>> thank you for your presentation. >> our recommendation is detailed on page 5 and 6 total

217,000. they would still allow an increase of 16.2% of the state's budget. we also recommend $1,208, so our recommendation would resulted $279,000 in savings to the general fund and your ego -- to the general fund. >> we will see you next week. i guess we do not have any departments for us. can we continue item one and item to tomorrow? >> the us. -- yes. >> any other items? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you. we are adjourned.