that was not the final justis budget that would fund all of the case management systems through each of the member departments and would build the hub. less than a million dollars is not, in anyone's imagination, enough to buy a case management system, install them, and build a hub. those numbers are out there and they are constantly compared and we should do a better job of providing you with accuracy on what this has cost. >> i appreciate that, but in 1997, i do think that that would have brought new a bid. who is in charge here? if not the city of visitors of this or you, the co-chair of justis? >> over the years, it has

followed this path. the original design of the governance of justis was that the mayor's office of criminal justice would perform the budget tracking function. the member departments, in an unprecedented move, agreed to have all of their individual i.t. budgets consolidated in one place that would be managed and controlled by the mayor's office of criminal justice. we have talked about the history of that office over the answering -- ensuing years. but it then moved over to the budget of technology, which was not a solution that satisfied anybody. in this context, they were the vendor of record. therefore, having the vendor of record who is charged with completing the project also in charge of the project is not a

very good set up. however, they continued budget tracking. the budget presides in general city obligation. now it is managed again by the city administrator's office. >> so the city administrators of this is ultimately responsible. we look forward to getting that information. what is the end date projected? it is not clear from this report. this young, if you want to answer that, that would be great. >> i do not have a clear date. i am trying to get through phase one. i am sorry. i literally inherited this project. i would tell you what i know. we know the case management systems at individual departments have been funded. we are working with them to connect to the hub. my plan for this fiscal year is to get as many of the

departments, including the police department, on board. once that phase is over, i see it at the end of the project. the program, which is different from the project, certain operational functions that have to continue. maintaining the hub, mainframe, we will always have a few staff around to do that. >> so how do you intend on making sure the project gets done? >> part of the resources, originally intended to have eight staff people. when we inherited the project, it only had four. in the last six months, we have increased by two. i now have people who can do things for our program that we do not need to rely on dt. >> but as far as cutting an

actual end date. you need to still higher four people and then you will have a sense of what we can complete the project? >> i think if i got one more person, and i got the full cooperation of all the departments, within a year, we should have -- the only one i am not sure about is the police department. theirs is a big system. everyone else, i am confident we can have connected to the hub, with dt's help, to maintain capacity. >> i would assume that what she is saying is actually going to happen by the end of the year, unless one of you wants to tell us otherwise. of course, we are open to hearing that. what is typical from our standpoint is, there are so many departments working on this, the

accountability has been difficult to manage. we will assume maybe this will get that over the next year. >> i would love to come back in three months to give you a progress report. if we have the capacity, i hope to have the shares upgrade completed. courts by december. public defenders by december. if i could come back to give you an update, the plan that we laid out is reasonable and should be achieved. >> my recollection from a year ago in a meeting was there was a progress report provided, the dates by which the department would be online. my recollection is that there were dates attached to each department. what happened to those dates assigned? he may not know, but may be others who are familiar with the project. how are we tracking what we

committed to last year? >> i would love for i need to talk about what the sheriff's system has been able to do. >> there are two issues that i hear as the co-chair of the governor in council -- government's council. the speed at which the project can be implemented. one of them was personnel. ms. young has tackled that and managed to hire staff recently who has the skills needed. the second, hardware capacity, infrastructure capacity. wald would be the best one to explain. given the current investor asher capacity, -- for example, to bring the sheriff's live in not being able to test what is going

on in other departments, to do the upgrade that we are in the middle of right now means that that capacity to bring that others forward is nonexistent because of infrastructure. if you would but, if i could have what explain that a little bit further? >> thank you, eileen. city administrators of this. supervisors, if you go back to one of the charts that we had up there, the one with the justice as it is supposed to look --

sorry, this chart right here. i am sure i know how to activate the camera. >> we can see it. >> each of those boxes represents a unique project within justice. every single one of those boxes is dependent on one task being completed. that task has to do with our hardware equipment. we have a number of delayed servers and we have a justis san. right now, two servers are connected to that, which limits the ability to move the department on to the justis environment until the remaining servers are connected to the san. that is a critical path to

everyone of the department. when we did you did before, it was under the belief that all of the blade over time over the next month or two would be connected to the justis san. that was a project with dt but they have plenty of other projects that they have to separate areas for. we would love to be first in line for everything, but we are not. there were numerous situations where resources were diverted away from what we needed to do. again, the reason we were delayed, until each of our blades are connected to the san, no other department can come online. one of the ironic thing is, today, some staff from dt are

cooking up some additional blade to the sans. we have been working with them to get that done. that increases our capacity. that means now we can start working with the courts to get court data to them so that they can start testing and so that we can get to the next step on these individual case management systems. >> i know there are a lot of questions. i would like to defer to my colleagues so we can keep the conversation going. one major topic i am interested in. i have heard from rank-and-file i.t. staff around the city, the technology decision we made on this justis program is already antiquated. because this program has gone on so long, we may not be using the best system available to us, may not be the most efficient system. can you talk about the technology, is it a web-based

technology, it needs to be installed on every computer? >> depending on the case management system, some our client-based, some are web- based. let me allowed a technical person on the staff and that more specifically. >> city of minister's office. the technology for justis is essentially middle where technology. it is not and acquitted by any means, using the latest oracle fusion the where sweet as the court justice cupp. the way that they put it together from the standpoint is days several independent management systems that the department level. these kids management systems were never designed to speak to one another. many of them had, prior to working with the justis team,

never had the ability to receive or get data out of the systems. the justis hub, with oracle as the back and database, provides the separate case management systems to exchange data from different databases. some are simple, some are mainframe. we have to integrate with that. others are oracle. some are web-based. the hub converts all of that data on a transaction basis and send it out to where it is needed. >> my understanding is there is still discussion internally about whether we are migrating to a system that will be sustainable for long term. other cities use more cutting edge technologies. can you comment on that?

>> i would need to know specifically what you're speaking about. i know other counties within california who had similar name former president projects had reached out to me and my team to get our feedback and consultation on how they should move forward. like i said, which are using the latest oracle-based database back end, the latest local -- oraclehub technology, their fusion suite. i should also point out, when oracle database was selected for the technology of justis, that decision was not arbitrarily made. we did a study on dt core capabilities. i am sure you know from the audit report, part of the requirement from justis is that it can no longer rely on outside

contractors in the city to maintain criminal justice technology. we did a core competency study, and what came as a result of that was oracle-based technology. >> thank you. i know i will probably have questions from representative for other city departments. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i would like to bring up ms. young so that we can resume the conversation. very much appreciate the context late for us, but i want to delve in more. what is in our binders, what we have had before in previous public safety committee meetings his rather stark when we are looking at the newspaper reports over the last 10 years, reporting on the complaints in 2003, that the implementation of justis was already 10 years late and over budget. i think this helps us understand

-- where is the backstop? earlier this year, we were able to legislate the transfer of the function reorganization to the city administrator, which i think, is finally the rights that. but between the years of 2003 through 2011, when we made the reorganization, this is something that was under the mayor's office of criminal justice and chief executive's office, is that correct? >> that is correct. in previous years, it was housed in the mayor's office of criminal justice. >supervisor mirkarimi: so i am trying to understand, this whole time from 2004 through 2011, through mayor knew some pause administration, to the desire of supervisors like president

shoot, and others who have been tried to synthesize and upgrade our technology systems -- just try to understand better, how did this not get the attention that we think it should have been do? now i see a great amount of attention, right away so, by yourself and the cochairs, department heads. but it seemed within these seven years, there had been such an absence of the decisionmaking or the will to get something done. i think it is important to try to understand, how did we lose that much time? frankly, surprisingly, this would have been a perfect candidate for a civil grand jury report, based on the way that civil grand juries isolate these kinds of glaring disconnects within city government. if you could expound on that little bit, that would be helpful.

>> i cannot speak to the previous administration. this project literally came into our office six months ago. in my mind, part of it is attention to the project and what is needed. that is what i and the team behind you is bringing out. on a daily basis, we're talking about what needs to be done. for example, blades and capacity. data from t t had met with me every week to talk about what needed to be done. as a result, they are increasing our capacity. it is that level of attention that need to be paid, whether it is the public defender's case management system or the district attorney's office. right now, they have our attention. so my commitment to you is going forward, the report that i made. supervisor mirkarimi: certainly the positive direction to be looking forward, but the intermittent review of this over

the last 10 years or so has bubbled up where there has been confident declarations, as we look at the newspaper report from the last 10 years, that this will be addressed and taking care of. it is identified between 2004, 2003, 2009. that was made clear by the mayor's office of criminal justice. before it was disbanded. >> i hear your concerns, i echo them. all i can say is you have my and my team's commitment. with dt's help, we are making those changes. supervisor mirkarimi: i am not sure if someone from i.t. has spoken to this subject, but my sense of how this project can work is, there are inextricably rely on each of the other

strand and streams of those connected. so i think what makes it a little bit clumsy in the presentation is, it is an holistic design that needs to be completed in order to receive the full benefit of what this program is. i do not think it has been explained in that way. it is all those partners within the criminal justice system that depend on each other for a fluid, communicative system, so that they are receiving the most up-to-date information to the point of what president to was asking, by the time we get to establishing that system, the technology could be obsolete by the time it has already arrived because of how many years this had been in the queue. i do not know if you want to speak to that. >> i think this is a perfect segue to the sheriff's system that is connected to the hon. they are receiving real-time information. supervisor mirkarimi: that is

fine. with that particular cycling, it can be a very dramatic example, as it was already prefaced in the hearing, that somebody's life was lost in a domestic violence situation, murders have happened because of the lack of proper access to information. i am not sure how simplified that particular characteristics and depiction is, but if that is the case, that is a stark reminder of where things have fallen through the cracks. if that is the case or not, it is it simply because there had not been access to information? is there also irresponsibility by law enforcement partners that has not sat out the information as well, too? the will to get that information, even if it is fixed, but could be difficult to procure? >> some of the information, sharing information, is exactly that.

the shares information is available to other sister departments, if they can connect to the hub. if the police department connected, then they could take -- make booking is easier and be able to prevent some of the merced evocations. if i could ask the shares department to talk about their system. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor cohen, did you want to wait? ms. hurst, thank you. >> i want to address some of what you have said, supervisor mirkarimi. you are correct. the ultimate goal, altman benefit of the justice system is to have every case management system connected sooner rather than later. as good as the work has been

within the d.a.'s office, public defender's office, public defender's office, police department, to upgrade their systems, and as great as it is that their age realize efficiencies within their departments, the ultimate benefit of justice is when everyone is exchanging information through the hub. right now, the sheriff's department is the only department connected with the hub. the advent of the jms system, we have automated our five core functions. booking, classification, housing, movement, and release. that has been a sea change of monumental proportions for us. some of the information that we could now share with other

departments, particularly, the police department -- i point out another benefit of justice is certain economies of scale -- a bit of a diversion here. the police department and sheriff's department each would out to bid on their case management systems and it was quickly realized that the same vendors, the same companies, were going to respond to both. so we did 1 rfp, two separate process is to choose the correct vendor for each of us. we ended up choosing the same vendor. given the direction that the police department goes to, at this point, we could come sooner or later, be ready to share bookings. where a police officer would book at the district station. that information would be transferred to county jail no. 1 so that we knew this person was

coming. the data would be entered once, fewer mistakes, more information. the lease would have access to what is called the global jacket. this is simply thought of as the file folder on each prisoner. they would have automated access, immediately, to our gang information, tattoo files, both of histories, -- photo histories. part of this product was collecting the history of photographs of this person over the years so that you could see what they looked like in 1995, what they looked like today. that is enormously important in the task of identification. there is just a myriad of facts, figures, what is in someone's property, where they were housed in the jail, who they're known

associates were, who visited them? that could be available either suitor or later. incident reports could be available to all the agencies. searchable, secure, easy to access. the efficiency that are so close are so tantalizing because it will change how we do business in san francisco, where we relied on paper and pencil, and in some cases we still do, we will no longer be doing that. does that answer your question adequately? supervisor mirkarimi: i think it paints a forward-looking victor. i think everyone is getting that and has been hoping for that. -- picture. >> if you need more specific information on how the sheriff's

system has impacted us, i have brought capt. kathy gore would here, who worked on the project, but commanded the bookings for a number of years and is expert. i would also offer any member of the board of supervisors who would like to come to county jail one and see what a booking looks like, how our processes have changed, i would be happy to set that up. supervisor mirkarimi: i would and courage that. i have done it, i'd not know who other has, but it is an important port. colleagues, would you like to ask for a question? supervisor cohen: i do not necessarily have a question for you, but i wanted to ask linda a couple of things. this is actually just a point of clarification. i want to make sure i heard you correctly, the police department is not on board with this --

participating in this technology? >> the police department has the greatest challenge right now because they have a very large work force in a city-wide implementation. i think the police department is here if you want to talk to them. i think the challenge is, they have had multiple chief changes, multiple cio changes. they need to look at what had been delivered and figure out what will work for them. there are things like incident reports that they need. the bookings module that the sheriff's department talked about. if the players were able to implement that, city wide, it would make their work and the sheriff's department easier. supervisor cohen: so answer is no. you did a great job blowing out where you would like to be in the next six months. public defenders of that, so on and so forth. within that six months, is sfpd

also is part of the plan? if not, do we expect them in the first quarter of next year? >> cio sfpd. we are fully on board with the plan. what we have done is, we have tried to build upon comstat, the data warehouse brought in by chief gascon. we have recently automated our report and have put our data within the police department online. we are working to improve that by creating a better front end, the information that police officers enter into the system, that it better. think we have looked at the criteria and we think we can port are dated into the hub by october or november of this year. supervisor cohen: a question

for, i think, robert. the tech guidy. i know you are familiar with the challenges we have been basing battling the budget. frankly, the challenge that we are going to have in the upcoming years. i am sure you understand the sentiment of some of my colleagues and their concerns to the quality -- maybe quality is not the best word. technology. is this technology that we are working with, is it a credible? is it something that we can build upon? at new technologies come to market, will they be compatible? >> you are asking, i feel, a three-part question. there is technology for the individual departments, technology for the integration hub,