supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. i am the chair of the committee.

to my right is supervisor cohen and supervisor campos. thank you to sfgtv for their ongoing excellence in covering committee proceedings. madam clerk, good morning. please read the first item. >> at one, hearing on the assembly bill 109 regarding the community just this realignment and san francisco of sorting additional inmates into the county jails. supervisor mirkarimi: this is the third hearing administered by this public safety committee over the last seven months, but this is the heart -- the first hearing of its kind since governor brown signed the budget, and there are a number of questions that had remained unanswered in the two previous hearings that we now have more specificity and definition to. we believe that this is a very critical hearing, a milestone, because of all the criminal- justice stakeholders, partners in the city family, who have

been working diligently in us preparing for the state prisoner realignment program. we will hear from a number of those stakeholders, and of course, from community members. we're working through the non- profit network as well, because of their ongoing work in excellence in dealing with reentry into restorative justice, rehabilitation programs. but we will also hear from the heads of various departments within the city. i also want to recognize reverend amos brown, former supervisor, and police commissioner angela chan is in the audience as well. there are some other commissioners, here, too. governor brown signed legislation of assembly bill 109 that redirects a percentage of low level adult offenders convicted of non-serious, non- reviling, and non-sexual

offenses back to california counties. estimates indicate that san francisco will need to supervise approximately, and the number seems to be fluctuating, but approximately 700 additional prisoners and probationers that any given time through its jail system and probation or reentry programs. part of preparing to receive these additional inmates, san francisco, like all other counties in california, are now in the process of making plans and following the state-ordered requirements, because that requirement commences in october of this year. it has been noted that the agencies in san francisco affected by this change have done an excellent job in preparing, in recent months, including adjusting their budgets in san francisco. the mayor has also ratified our municipal budget, too. as a result, this city's post- jail release programs are expected to be about to handle the influx of offenders, but

also be greatly improved from where they are today. that is important, because we're also hearing streams of reports from people who are beginning to treat this influx of realignment in inmates from a place of fear and not from a positive place, which i think is very important that we demystify what realignment truly means. it is disconcerting that in, maybe any number of our district and the communities that have been distressed and people who have been concerned about the level of public safety in san francisco, are absolutely clear on what realignment means, so that fear and the distortion of that information is not misunderstood whatsoever. so during the course of today's hearings, topics will include funding in the budget implications of realignment and its impact on the city. the mechanics of shifting state parolees to the post-release a provision program.

impact on our own municipal agencies will be responsible for the processing and monitoring and management of this population. and city treatment and service programs, our ability to keep up with potentially unexpected budget demands. we will hear from the following agencies today, who are part of the executive committee. of the proxy, representing the proxy body representing san francisco, that is adult probation, sheriff's department, district attorney, public defender, superior court, department of public health, and the free entry council which was greeted by the board of supervisors. we have provided a number of advocates who work with the ex offender community. we would like to hear from them, too. we know there are advocates or concerned about the implications relating to immigration and the particular impacts and consequences as is on their minds of those who are

immigrants who are also implicated in the criminal justice system. colleagues, if you have no other comments, i would be more than happy to start. ok, i would like to bring up the probation chief, adult probation chief, wendy still, and she will commence with the program. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. good morning, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about what is probably the most significant change in criminal justice history since the 1980's, when california, then governor brown, went from a indeterminate sentencing to determinant of the governor has noted frequently that that was probably one of the largest mistakes that he made, and if he could go back and change it, he would. we have seen with the aftermath of that decision is, having worked in the present system for almost three decades, that their population becomes overt burdened and resulted in a

lawsuit that went to the supreme court that now the state is facing in terms of their population issues. and the realignment was a major motivator behind that. the state did have, in the backdrop, this lawsuit where they needed to drop population. the court is basically forcing them to reduce the population by 33,000. i think that is an important element as we look at the plant and a wide happen to know what the results will be. additionally, the state's economic condition forced them to do business differently, and the state proposes to save approximately $1.4 billion from the several statewide shift of population to the locals. i, and many others across the state, are very concerned, because there funding formulas do not cover the cost of this population shift. with that said, from a criminal justice and public safety perspective, i can absolutely say that i believe it is very

good state policy to do the shift. they just need to provide additional funding. with that said, one of the other factors to consider when we look a population, there is a 47,000 inmates that spend less than 120 days in state prison. what you had is that constant cycling and were there were coming from the communities, going back to prison on parole violations, and also short incarceration sentences, and then coming back in without any kind of adequate reentry support. we, san francisco, saw the results of that specifically, because we have a 77.8% recidivism rate. so those are all the critical factors that we begin this discussion with. the main components of ab 109, which is the 2011 public safety realignment act, and also caught ab 117, which changed other

factors. i will go through the changes in law and give an update for those were not as familiar with this. basically, 109 de finds local custody for non-serious, non-a violent, non-sex offenders. what that means is those individuals that are non- serious, non-a violent, non sex offenders would have went to prison for 16 months, 24 months, or three years, but now will be confined locally. with that said, there are 60 penal code violations that meets that criteria but that are exempted. so it the individual is in one of those three categories but is convicted of one of the 60 penal code, they will still go to state prison. and then there will become post- release supervision cases. it also makes changes to stay parole and creates a new category of individuals to be supervised, which are post- release community supervision cases. these would have been parolees a

former lee. but now these individuals will be supervised by adults probation. the law also creates a local planning process and a mandate for each of the county's to come up with the public safety realignment plan, and it expands the purpose of the role of the community corrections partnership that was created in a senate bill 678. that was the bill that created evidence-based probation supervision. we have talked about it in prior hearings. that regard probation departments across the state to basically use evidence-based approaches, risk and needs assessments, and then individual case planning and services to reduce the probation violators going to state prison. that was very successful. it dropped the prison population by 6000 last year, and another motivator for the governor and the legislature to say that we think the counties can do a

better job. in the original legislation, the community corrections partnership was established. this new legislation creates an executive committee of that partnership. and the executive committee partners is chaired by the chief probation officer. executive members on the committee include the chief of police, the sheriff, the district attorney, the public defender, the presiding judge of the superior court or his or her designee, and a representative from the county department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and drug abuse programs. the board of supervisors will decide locally who, whether it is the social services department representative, which in our county would be the human services agency, or whether it would be the director of the department of public health, the executive committee recommended to the board that the director of the permit a public health, and thank you very much.

i would like to recognize you, supervisor mirkarimi, for your support and leadership in getting that decision made that that would be the individual who would sit on our committee. the planned bank that is put together mandated -- the plan mandated that the committee put together the realignment plan and submitted to the board for approval. for the board to reject it, it requires a 4/5 vote. if rejected, goes back to the executive committee to make whatever corrections or changes that the board since it back with. and that is, once the plan is approved, and must go to correctional standards authority. and for the funding to be released to the local counties, the plan must be approved and submitted. and when the funding comes through, it will come through to the state -- from the state controller to thel local toer and they will fund the realignment plan. our sport -- it will become

effective on october 1, 2011. my first concern is that it is october 1, 2011, and now here we sit in july, and there is a lot of work to be done. fortunately, with the collaborative partners, which i really want to recognize those agencies that sit on the executive committee and other entities, such as the mayor's office, and other departments such as the office of economic and workforce development, also hsa, and others that do not have an official seat on the committee, yet were critical to create a collaborative realignment plan that joined in this effort wit. there is a listing of all those individuals that helped develop it in the body of the plan. i would like to say a special thank you to them and to recognize the city's spirit of collaboration. i work with the chiefs from across the state. we're in the same place in terms of developing the plans. san francisco has a lot to be proud of we have been working on

it for months and have a plan to present to you. it will help us prepare for this milestone date. also what i would like to recommend or recognize is that no state prison inmates will be released from jail that are in prison right now. as of october 1, any and made that is in prison that will be released, instead of going to parole, there will come to adult probation supervision. any individual sentence to state prison that meets the criteria will go to jail if their the non-serious, non-filing, non-sex offender, but it will only affect sentencing from october 1. also, the law creates a new sentence structure that is a blended. basically, it is the ability to sentenced to prison time, which would be local commitment time, and coupled that with felony

probation. say if an individual would have been sentenced to up to a 36- month sentence in state prison, instead of that, the judges will have the option of combining any time span, let's say one-year of custody commitment and a two years of felony probation or any composition that add up to no more than 36 months. the local custody, the law revises the definition of felony to include the specified lower level crimes that would be punishable in jail. it maintains the length of sentences. there's no change in the sentence structure for the actual law in terms of 16 months, two years, or three years. that remains in effect. the time to serve in jail i instead of prison, and enhanced local custody by probation. it also provides the ability for the sheriff and the district

attorney to basically set bail criteria for those, and the sheriff will talk to those -- will talk about that. it is significant, because 80% of the population in the gel is pre-trial. we will talk about that. confecting back, the ability for county to contract back to the state. we do not anticipate doing that. we do not anticipate any need, and would not be cost-effective. under the post release community supervision, the realignment law calls for each jurisdiction to notify the state on who, which agency, will supervise those post-release supervision cases from state prison, and that will be an adult probation in this jurisdiction. that is our recommendation to the board. the plan is built around that. the county level supervision,

who we will not supervise locally, we will not supervise third strikers. we will not supervise individuals that are serious or violent. we will not surprise high-risk sex offenders on current commitments. now, we can have individuals that will be on our supervision that have been served sentences for all of those categories, but their current commitment offense that there serving their prison time is a non-serious, non-violent. the reason i make that distinction is that this is a very high-risk population, a very high indeed. so the services will be critical in order to be able to reduce the 77.8% recidivism rate and improve outcomes. and we're talking about not only improving outcomes for the individual, but also creating an intervention that breaks that cycle, the enter generational cycle of incarceration. i also like to recognize supervisor mirkarimi for the

resolutions and the ordinances that you have put forth in terms of -- under the law, there have been a couple of resolutions and a two ordinances that declared who these agencies are and who the supervisors are and who the dozen men are on the executive committees. that has been extremely helpful and critical for us meeting ourc final line meetingdcr -- 5 . cdcr are required 180 days prior to release of individual0 in state prison at that will be supervised locally. they're required to notify the agency of who is going to be released. there will send us supervision packets. we will then be required adult probation to notify the state if we have any special conditions of supervision that we wish to have put on these cases. they then will process the paperwork, and then when the individual is released from state prison, they will notify our agency and the individual is

required to report within 48 hours. there are all kinds of concerns regarding that. depending upon what prison they are at and what resources they have to get to the county for supervision, that is one. the actual release paperwork itself being handled timely and getting to the agency, and those are all the details that we will be working through. cdcr, the future will have no jurisdiction over any individual that is under post-release supervision, and no person shall be returned, under the law, for a violation of not only this non-serious, non-violent population that we're supervising, but another part of the law is that no perotti or post-release cibber visn case can be violated and sent back to state prison. the violation hearings will be held locally. the serious and violent cases will be heard by a board of

parole hearing and then can be violated for up to 180 days, by law. it used to be a year. and there would spend their time in local jails. so that is the jail pressure. but the sheriff's office will speak about that. the post-release supervision cases, the same thing, with the exception of instead of being heard by the board of parole hearings, now they will be heard by the court. and that will impact both the public defender and the district attorney in terms of providing representation of the violations, and it will also impact adult probation as we will be responsible for all the recommendations. it also, under the law, will require the courts to be the judicial officer that is actually presiding over the hearing. if individuals do not have any violations