release supervision cases, after six months, the chief adult probation officer has the discretion to terminate successfully the post-release supervision period, and that is optional. if the individual has twelvemonth's satisfactory without any violation, it is mandatory under a law that this population will then be discharged from supervision. again, i want to go back to, we have no time of experience working with this case, but with a 77% recidivism rate, you know, that is a very common practice around per roll. but we have created a system to try and assist this population with the successful intervention to make them successful. we created a strength-based model. the services will be critical. supervisor mirkarimi: while you're going through the mechanics, would you prefer we wait to ask questions when

you're done? >> i am almost done. the parole revocations and the post-release, we talked about. again, if they're successful for 12 months, they discharge out. but the term of the actual post release supervision is three years, just like the permission. -- just like the probation term. under probation, there's no such provision about 12 months successful completion and then you're automatically discharged. i see that as an inequity in the law. i think it will be raised as some point, and i think there could be future legislation. but that is the system we have right now. the last part of the law is ab 109 originally was to shift all the juvenile functions, including the hearings come back to the local level. that has been put on hold, and for at least another year, there will be no change to the juvenile system. supervisor mirkarimi: chief, we

cannot thank you enough for all your great work. you and the others, on the reentry concept, but on the executive committee representing san francisco and preparing for prisoner realignment as described by assembly bill 109. i appreciate you going over the mechanics. in plain english, what i am hearing from the general public when we are out there, and maybe you can speak to this and the other department heads -- by the way, i fell to mention earlier, the police department and the mayor's office of criminal judge it -- criminal-justice and the budget director of the mayor is here, too. but what i am hearing from the general public is there is confusion about what this prisoner realignment is all about. i think the citizenry is feeling that this is almost sort of a confession overly by the state, in some ways, that they just cannot handle its anymore and that they are just bursting at

the seams and that they need to deflect back some of the responsibility back to counties to help the state alleviate. so people that i am hearing from you are trying to monitor this, treat this as a significant imposition. and that is being fueled by their own, i think, concerns generated by misinformation or others that this could absolutely spew public safety by making it more challenging for san francisco's law enforcement and criminal justice system, that public safety now will be taxed that much more because of the infusion. that is number one. number two is, because with the 77% + repeat offender reid, recidivism rate from the state, of those coming back to san francisco, coupled already -- we do not have as high a recidivism

rate in san francisco, but it is not low, and that would be an added stressor to our municipal systems to be able to handle that population. so how do you address those common concerns that this is an imposition and an added challenge to already very distressed municipal system that may not be able to, or is able to, handle this added pressure? >> the first thing i would say is that these individuals are in our community now. there are those, again, that are the non-serious, non-violent, the lower-level offenders that are spending shorter amounts of time. by the time they get their sentence credit for the time they have spent in jail and the time that they are awaiting sentencing, they really -- this is the population were talked about 100 spending 120 days or

less in state prison and coming back. so they are in the community. whatever crimes they are committed for their parole violation, these are the individuals. they're going through our jail system right now, and then they're going on to state prison. the law is going to put additional responsibility and work load on all public safety agencies, and not only the public safety agencies, the social service and of the department of public health. but to the degree that we can create an intervention, as we design in this plan, we have an opportunity to improve the outcome. which would then decrease -- you know, could eventually end of decreasing overall populations. because we know what the needs of this population is. it is going to be housing, jobs. it will be those types of educational opportunities were there is ged, high school, or

vocational training so they can get the job. it will also be other services that they're going to need to support case management, mental health, substance abuse. so these individuals already are utilizing our system to some degree. so what we're really proposing to do is to create a plan to where we have some dedicated capacity, and we have also created such things like an adult creation where we have a community assessment and a service center to where we bring all the resources to a single location. instead of having to violate someone on probation or parole, or on this case a post-release supervision case, we can have them do constructive work in the service center and not take up a very extensive and value jail bed. so we have also created with in this alternative sentencing strategy to where the public defender and of the district attorney and others -- yes, there are additional

responsibilities, but we need to recognize this population is here. and the degree that these interventions work, which they're based on research and evidence that they should work, then we're actually going to relieve some of the pressure. but that is not going to happen in the short run. there will need to be a dedication of resources and a lot of effort put into the successful reentry. and also part of our plan is to take our reentries services and consolidate and have, within the adult probation department, a reentry service division, so we can do a better job at taking all these different services that are out there and making them available. so as we have somebody coming to us from prison or even in the existing jail system, we're able to develop an effective pre- release plan. so when the individual is released, they have a stable base to go and to work from to be successful. supervisor mirkarimi: you know,

i am of a similar mine, and i believe my colleagues may be, too. we root -- we really are the tipping point in the state of california that, from the city and county perspective in san francisco, we actually may be able to project a different approach in how we deal with the repeat offender rates, the recidivism rate, and do so in a way that makes a strong connection in helping turn people's lives around and doing something about public safety at the same type of you are right. i mean, something of this magnitude from the state level in the criminal-justice system has not happened for nearly 30 years. or even happening at this level of prison realignment. so if we do this right and do this well, i think so many amazing things can happen from this. but if this does not go well, then i think that the consequences could really set us back by years. so there really is much riding on this realignment program, which i think could be very much

of the laboratory for us to change how we are dealing with this level of offender population in a way that has never been dealt with before, in a mainstream way. >> i would absolutely agree with that. the federal government also agrees with that in terms of they have invested a significant amount of grant dollars in sentences go, basically funding some of these innovative strategies. san francisco probation alternative court, individuals facing state prison. instead of re-entering them and having a parole reentry board, basically wea started an alternative court. not one of the individuals is gone to state prison. we have used the same approach. an individual assessment and treatment plan, wraparound services, case management. all components of this plan. i know that the parole reentry court as a demonstration project

for state parolees. they have experienced a similar amount of success. i cannot say that their 100% successful, but you know, we know, and it is not only in our jurisdiction, other jurisdictions, there are pieces that have been tested. we are creating a system with our partner agencies that wrap these services around. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. chair. thank you again for continuing to focus on these very important issues. chief, thank you for the presentation. i, unfortunately, have to leave the meeting early, because i have to attend to another matter involving another commission. but i wanted to ask you something. is there something that we can learn or that we have learned in terms of what other jurisdictions within the state are doing to address these changes? i am wondering if we're sort of

keeping our eye on what is happening statewide, so that, you know, we also take advantage of any creative or innovative approach that may be out there as well? >> thank you, supervisor campos. all of the chiefs are meeting on a regular basis regarding the best practices that are out there. we are also having -- there has been an award by the national institute of corrections and also a private foundation to where they have been convening different parts of the system together to learn from one another. there will be another large statewide meeting in october. our own district attorney and i were hosting under the district attorney's leadership. the executive committee correctional partners from around the bay area, and i would have to say, almost every single month, there are these opportunities to share lessons

learned. it is not only for the chiefs and our counterparts and the other law enforcement agencies, it is also for our staff. also, i am presenting at many of these. i will tell you that we are out there on the leading, cutting, innovative edge, but we do not know it all. so we're absolutely looking and listening and investigating other best practices that are out there. no, we're all in this new era, and we all need to learn from one another. since you have to leave shortly, i would like to go over the elements of the plant, and then the other partners will come up and do the presentation. i would also like to recognize the mayor's budget office. the have been extremely helpful as we have sorted through this. one of the things that was mentioned before, the level of resources, if we are successful, this really gets answers for us

to address some longstanding issues. from humanity standpoint, but also from an economic standpoint. but if we do not, the consequences can be grave. that is why i would urge -- no, having the right resources there will be critical for the success of this. in summary of the recommendations to the board contained in the plant is that we request that the board consider the proposed city and county 2011 public safety realignment plan. it designates sentences go adult probation as the post-release community supervision agency. the sheriff's department is the agency that will have jurisdiction over all those serving custody time. this includes alternatives to incarceration during the custody period as opposed by the court. the sheriff and adult probation will utilize home detention and electronic monitoring of the plan focuses significant amounts of resources on community corrections.

the level will be determined by the board's final decision. the funding is for nine months due to the october 1 implementation. the funding formula, in terms of how much money comes to the city, is set at the state level. it was negotiated with the department of finance and the legislature. these formulas are subject to change every year. and this one is set for this nine-month period. one of our strong recommendations is to have the board and mayors support local legislation and reaching out to our statewide leaders to change the methodology. because san francisco already invests heavily at the local level, and we have success rates. that is why, while we have 2% of the state population, we have less than 1% of the state prison population. however, the funding formula penalizes that because it is so focused on those that have been

in prison or the rate of their probation violators who did not go back to prison. we already do so much. when the formulas are developed, they hurt us and reward those that are relying heavily on incarceration from other counties. the plan includes recommendations to partner with a research into the to establish outcome measures and to measure results based upon the return of investment. the plan is a strong collaborative approach of criminal justice agencies, human services, public health, work force development, and other city and accounting partners. the funding provided by the state level, and it is included in the plan that i have delivered to date, the revised copy, the overall award is $5.7 million. in essence, they have provided the state a little over $5 million for the post-release community supervision, and also local incarceration. the mayor's office will give more details about that.

but what i will say is that amount of money would not be sufficient to provide the supervision of both of those. it is not. maybe if you double it, it's close. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to remind you that in the previous hearing, we were asking for an early inventory of what the budget would be for san francisco. maybe then never has changed, but the earlier projections were from a complete a to z kind of assessment, we would need about $15 million and covering both the needs of adult probation, the sheriff's department, etc. >> and all the service agencies. supervisor mirkarimi: yes, but the governor signed includes about 30% of what that inventory would be. is that correct? >> that is correct. i would say that is still accurate. if we fully funded this, there will be different scenarios. but it will get down to how much

money is invested in services. that is the driving factor between the differences in dollars. in terms of the population -- and that is why, we really do not know what the outcome is. we do believe, both the sheriff's office and myself, that the population estimates are very under-projected. so we based it upon what we know at this point in time. the funding also includes money for planning, which is the community correctional partnership planning, and training and implementation activities. the district attorney at a public defender representation, and that amount, the have only provided for a nine-month time span, and not knowing how many violations are going to occur, we're going to have to get some experience of working with this before we really know what the out number is going to be. we have all done our best to give a projective estimate. >> we should probably going to the other departments. >> that is a wrap. supervisor mirkarimi: will

probably return back. thank you very much, chief of adult probation. the sheriff's department, followed by the district attorney and public defender, please. >> good morning, supervisor. undersheriff jan dempsey on behalf of the sheriff. i always good to follow the chief probation officer, and she always does such a good job that makes my presentation quicker pitiless with the mechanics and more with what we think is going to affect the sheriff's department. i always appreciate that. the sheriff's department, the impact on the sheriff's department is basically in three primary areas. because of the shift of certain types of violators, whether non- violent, non-serious, non-sex offender population, will not be of a serve their time in county

jail. the numbers of sentenced people in the jail system is expected to go up. and this will be a challenge for the sheriff's department for a number of reasons, but mainly because they will be in for a longer time spans. prior to the change in this law, people did not do more than a year in the county jail. some can do anywhere from 16 months to three years, and it is possible, although presumably rare, it is possible with strikes or enhancements that they could do even longer time spans. however, the bulk of the people we're looking at would be in that range of doing time in the county jail. to offset the impact, the law has also been changed to give them 50% credit. in other words, there will their halftime on a sedan's, were currently they do about two- thirds of their time. so this will help with the flow of prisoners in and out of the gel system. the second area in which the sheriff's department is

affected in its post-release services or alternatives from incarceration. because part of managing the jail population is going to rely on us and maximizing the use of alternative programs, so that we can free at the jail beds for folks more deserving and enable people, as part of their reentry process, to get into community programs where, while they're still under the sheriff's constructive custody, there in the community, beginning the reentry process under our supervision. and presumably over time, this will help reduce the amount of folks who will then 3 offend. and another component of that is expanding the relationship we already have with the adult probation, to ensure sort of a seamless handoff between when their commitment time to the

sheriff has been served, and they then begin their probation time. because the goal would be to have a plan, one that is developed prior to the end of their commitment, so that whatever services they are receiving, if they still either need those are others, that those things can be in place, so that when they go on probation, there is not a crack for them to fall through. because that would be something that would impact, obviously, probably in the negative of their success rate. the third area that we're sort of impact it in is presumably the courts. because now they will be responsible for revocation hearings. while they will not initially deal with the serious, violent, high-risk sex offenders, they still will be dealing with the non-non-violent serious-, non- sex offender population. to the extent that that requires more security in the court rooms, more transportation, if they need to expand criminal

court activities at the civil court house, that may require additional staff. in light of the particular budget problems, that may not be the case. it is something the sheriff's department will monitor, since they have had to make some adjustments. it might be that our staffing will be ok to handle this. this is sending that we will monitor as time goes on. those are the primary impact of 109 on the sheriff's department. unlike most sheriff departments, we're in a position where we're not at our capacity. we're at probably a historical low count, and certainly in my 33 years, i have not had the count is low. so we have a number of beds available in the jails that are open, and we have numerous housing units within those jails closed.

we have a smaller jail at the san bruno complex with 360 beds closed completely. to the extent that we see a population increase, we're better off than most sheriff's departments, at which half of the state are under a superior court cap or a federal court cap because they're overcrowded. so we have some options and/or not in need of finding more hard jail beds, because we had the ability to expand that with an existing facilities. it is not the preferred method, but to address some of the concerns you raised about public safety, the reality is it would be sort of guy you'd do think that we will not see some spike in -- it would be sort of naive to think that will not see some spike. these folks have a 77% recidivism rate. so they have not been very

successful in their attendance -- attempts to renter -- reenter in the past. we believe there is a part better likelihood that between the services we can provide services that adult probation can provide, especially their partner agencies in the city, that we have an opportunity to provide better services for this population. so that over time, and i do not know what the magic time would be, but over time, you would start seeing these people be more successful at their reentry into less likely to agree offend. but we do know that even with programs that the sheriff has had in place for 25 years and the success we have had in those areas, we still have people that recidivate they come out of the county jail system, and we know that some people require more than one attend in order gibbs -- more than one attempt

in order to get their life back on track. so we think there will be a spy, an increase in sentenced people, just because more people can be sentenced to the county jail. the fact that the minimum sentence would be 16 months, granted some would have credit for time served, but even on 16 months, you do eight months. part of being successful is being accountable. so if is unlikely that the first thing the sheriff would do is release them into a community program as soon as they were sentenced, because there needs to be some accountability, both to maintain the integrity of community programs but also to provide some assurances to the public that we are going to take steps while they're in jail to provide them services to help them make a better transition and presumably be more successful as they moved through their incarceration from a hard

jail bed intercommunity bed and then over into adult probation. that alone will cause some increase. the parole population is tough to estimate. we send about 60 prisoners a week back to the state on parole revocations. in spite of the population dropping in the jail system, we still send about 60 a week. so that number has remained sort of constant over time. and some number of those people are going to reoffend, and after that, there will be in jail for some period of time, and we will lecture the get revocation hearings before the court or whether not probation can intervene with them to find some other sanction other than jail for them, which is the overall hope, because this is another

red to help manage the jail population. while the state figures sort of look good on paper, the look very well for the state, but as with most sheriff's department, we do not believe that their projections have much application to what may happen in the county jail. it is nice to know. it has given us an idea of how many people are currently on parole in the area and how many will transfer to post-release community supervision, how many do less than 30 days in the state prison when they get revoked. it is nice to know that stuff, but whether or not those numbers pan out, it is our belief that those numbers are understated. but we will nano. it is something we will monitor closely. certainly, we are aware of the fiscal restraints that the city and county. we want to be part of the solution and not -- and not part of the problem. the other mechanism in the law

that helps is this release in lieu of bail. the law allows the sheriff to release in lieu of bail people in on a misdemeanor. it requires that the district attorney's office and the sheriff to come up with rules and regulations to move forward with such a program. that is probably a riskier step for any sheriff's department to take. if the district attorney's office can come up with a set of conditions, the sheriff's department's position will be, great, we will get the court and the public defender on board. the court can put someone out on bail, and they want assistance from us, then that would be the role of the sheriff's department. i believe that that is what we will see happen, with the collaboration between the partners that are working on this plan.

i think it will be a mechanism that will help control the population, but i think it will be of more use based on the court, district attorney, and public defender been more comfortable and agreeing to a pretrial release of some people if they're going to be under the supervision of the sheriff's department. supervisor mirkarimi: is there a way to project, out of the approximately 700 that might be coming, what would be the percentage that would come into the county jails? >> well, not really. our best guess based on monitoring state commandments since april, we figure we will get 40 or more new commitments of people who currently are going to the state but will not come to the county jail. and a conservative estimate of parole violators coming into the system we believe will be around 100 or so each month. we do believe that at