seeing some turnover in the parole violators. so it could be the case that that number is not 600 more every month, because as some point there will be getting out as well. but at this point, that is our conservative estimate. it really is a best guess based on 30 or some-odd years doing this and sort of hoping for the best. supervisor mirkarimi: and then, based on the program capacity of the programs provided by the sheriff's department and their network of programs, they are already challenged in some ways based on the population that they have to attend to now. without an infusion of more funds or more resources, does that not just then passed those programs -- task those programs that much more, since we are relying on them to make a difference of whether there is a repeat offender rate that is reduced or sustained?

>> certainly. to the extent that those programs reach their capacity and there are not more resources added to them to expand capacity, it will start causing that block between a seamless sort of transition, but i will say that the charter high school, for example, uses no city funds, and we have been in meetings with them, and they have expanded tremendously since their inception five, six, seven years ago. and they have come up with several ideas of how they might provide both in-custody expansion as well as community program expansion. we are working with them on that development because we also know education is a very strong factor in fighting recidivism. we are working on that. i will also say that in the current budget that has been

approved, the budget is funding that allows for expansion of current monitoring if it is needed, and it also provides funding to operate two prods at the jail in the event the population spikes, and the additional funding recommended from the a.b. 109 moneys will allow for the costs associated of providing program services as part of that expansion. to the extent we are able to keep program services funded, that is a very important piece. the community programs section is also a big issue. working with adult probation, we think that we have a fairly good plan, and with the a.b. 109 moneys as the proposal is to distribute them, it appears there is an opportunity to use those resources to expand capacity at this juncture. but certainly, there could, time

when for whatever reason capacity becomes available -- there could come a time. supervisor mirkarimi: since we are one of the few areas in california experiencing under crowding, has there ever been any internal discussion about us bringing in prisoners from other jurisdictions? is that something that san francisco would be poised to help alleviate in terms of budgetary reasons? >> we have been approached by at least one department in san mateo, and they have had ongoing crowding issues in the last several years. we had not had serious discussions with them, but we have that as a possibility, and

we are also aware that they get a 30-day notice in case they needed it. they have to find a place where -- for the prisoners, but we certainly would entertain that kind of relationship, but it requires certain things. like guaranteed minimums because you need to pay for the staff. there are a few counties. alameda has a number of beds, so there are a few local agencies that also have some bed space for the moment, but yes, we would certainly look seriously at that, but there is just a bunch of disclaimers you sort of have to put into it to make sure you do not find your own jail

system in a bind. supervisor mirkarimi: we are 700 or 800 under our maximum limit? >> with the current jails that are open, we have about 400 beds, without opening a little jail, but if we open that, that would be 360. we are about 750-sh. obviously, you cannot but a prisoner in every bed for a number of reasons. certainly, we have more room than seven years ago because our population was up around 1700, so we do have a little space there. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. i believe for now, that might be all, but thank you very much. i would like to bring up the district attorney's office, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the chief of the collaborative course division in the district attorney's office, representing district attorney george gascon.

we are also joined by the chief assistant district attorney if there are any questions. the district attorney's office sees three main impact we think realignment will have on the work of our office. the first is that we will now be responsible for prosecuting violations for people on post- release community supervision. these are communities who would have otherwise been on parole, and those violations would have been handled by the state board of parole hearings, so this is a new area of work for our office, something we have not had the responsibility to do before. the second impact we see on our office is that we anticipate that we will have to make more court appearances and court cases will be protracted in length. now, people who are sentenced to state prisons, many of them will be held locally, which means that local authorities are responsible for monitoring and

tracking those cases for longer periods of time. the third and potentially most important impact on our office is that we see that we now need to develop expertise in alternative sentences. we recognize that simply relying on local jail in lieu of state prisons will put us in a situation where we go from pact state prisons tupac local jails, which, you know, is unacceptable and certainly would not help us with regard to the recidivism rates -- we go from packed state prisons to packed local jails. our office needs to develop expertise along the lines of services. we have about six things that we are prioritizing taking on. the district attorney's fees realignment as, you know, a new era in a criminal-justice for the state of california, and given that it is a new era, we

need new approaches. the way we have addressed public safety issues has not been sustainable up to this point and certainly will not be sustainable using the same approaches we have used in the past in the future. our priority is what we call a recidivism reduction analysis. we are really interested firstly and most importantly internally working with the office to train prosecutors in best practices to reduce recidivism, best practices in a criminal justice, and best practices with regard to alternative sentences. we will spend quite a bit of time in our office training staff and becoming experts in these areas so when we look at cases and identify what we think of presentence is are, we will be doing that from the vantage point of what is the most likely be to reduce the recidivism of those in front of a spirit second, we would like to create new positions.

what we are calling alternative sentencing planners. this is a new area of work for the district attorney's office. this is not a position that our office or other district attorneys offices have had historically, but we think again that this is the time that we really need internal capacity to think outside the box and how we prosecute cases and how we settle them. we would have alternative plan is on staff that would work with prosecutors to develop potential outcomes for cases that prosecutors would be able to feel comfortable supporting, and that alternative sentencing planning -- planner would be a liaison for not only our victim and witness division and the victims of crime, but also being intimately familiar with alternative programs in san francisco and becoming familiar with and understanding the risks and needs of offenders through information provided by the defense bar and probation department. we are looking to bring on alternative sentencing planners

with the support of the realignment plan. the third is in addition to expanding our capacity to become familiar with alternative sentencing approaches, focusing on recidivism reduction. we also think this is the time to look for ways to improve efficiencies in the criminal- justice system overall. we already have something in place that we call the early resolution calendar. we think there may be an opportunity to expand the calendar, look for ways to increase the speed with which we are able to move through cases, given that we will have bigger caseloads and more responsibility locally. the fourth is that we know through the leadership that san francisco now has become this assessment that the probation department is going to be using and is in the process of now rolling out to assess the risk and needs of offenders so there is accurate and helpful information at the time of

sentencing. we think that this is also information that may be helpful early on in the process so we will be working with the probation department to see an ss -- and assess the viability of the department getting involved early in the process. this is the first time our office has had a unified place within the office where all of our staff who work on the programs are working together, and the reason that the district attorneys did that is because we believe that collaborative courts are a way forward to protect public safety, reduce recidivism, and resolve cases more effectively. in that vein, we will be continuing to advocate for collaborative core programs. we think this is the moment in history where they should not only be supported and funded but also expanded. we think they are an effective

way to resolve cases, and we would like to see them grow and will continue to work to do that. supervisor mirkarimi: with the collaborative course focus on misdemeanor or felony? >> there are collaborative courts that deal with both. they include everything from drug courts, behavioral health courts, community justice center, prop 36, probation alternatives, as well as the neighborhood courts initiative we recently launched to deal with as many nonviolent misdemeanor an infraction cases before charging. and then the sixth -- we think this is also a time to assess the gaps and look for places where we need additional programming to deal with certain areas where we think offenders may do better in different programs. many of the note we have a program called back on track started by attorney general harris in 2006.

the program has an excellent track record reducing recidivism for first-time non- violent drug sellers. we think this program is increasingly important, and it has elements of programs that we think could be replicated for other categories of offenders, especially those who are economically driven to engage in crime. that is the overview of what the district attorney's office has been working on. we have been really honored to work with chief still, and our community justice and criminal justice partners. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i do not believe there's any questions right now. thank you to the district attorney's office. public defender's office, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i am the director of specialty courts and reentry programs at the public defender's office. the public defender's primary role is to safeguard the due

process rights and the liberty interests of the individuals that will now be served -- that will be affected by this new law. as the other departments have been impacted, our department will be impacted as well. the plan we have created involves a realignment team consisting of an attorney, a social worker, and a criminal justice specialists. the realignment team will work within the existing reentry units. the public defender's office has a reentry unit that has a social work component, and the clean slate program. the social work program provides high-quality clinical work and advocacy. the social workers place hundreds of clients on a yearly basis and hundreds of clients on community-based programs and social services.

the goal -- the reason the realignment team will work within the office's reentry unit is so that we can build on prior successes. we conducted a study in 2009 that evaluated our program, and the evaluation showed -- and i provided you a copy of the evaluation -- that almost every client that had a social worker and an attorney working as a team together -- almost 98% had a favorable legal outcome, and they were placed in community- based programs and residential programs and in treatment services. the goal at this point with realignment is to expand on programs that are successful, and that is the point of having the realignment team working through an existing successful program.

so that the realignment team will design alternative sentencing strategies and conduct training is within the office. they will identify and advocate for appropriate collateral to and community court referrals, and that is a really important point here -- a corporate collaborative -- appropriate collaborative and community court referrals. we have drug court. we have community health court. we have other courts that exist. we have folks of a similar background of the folks that will part of this -- that will be part of this realignment population. the goal will be to expand the criteria and increase the capacity of these alternative programs, and that is something that the team would be working on.

we intend to collaborate very closely as we do now with the attorney, with the probation department, sentencing planners, the post-release community supervision so that we can achieve these goals because the successes we have seen thus far have been a result of the collaboration of the different units and departments. we will also coordinate efforts and community justice agencies and departments. there are some concerns -- there are some outstanding legal concerns that exist that i want to bring up, and they do involve due process and liberty issues. one is the flash incarceration.

the way it stands now is that the probation department is the entity that would be irresponsible for flash -- that would be responsible for flash incarcerating individuals without a hearing, and that is something we would be looking into and seeing whether that is a violation of the persons due process rights, and it would be our intention to raise those concerns at the appropriate time. if the flash incarceration cannot occur on this automatic way, then it will increase the work load. there will be more hearings for even the minor offenses. the other issue is that the mayor's office -- we appreciate the fiscal constraints that everyone is working on -- is that the preliminary budget recommendation proposed by the mayor's office does not adequately fund the various

departments to perform their duties and does not allow for the needed increase in capacity for treatment and housing, and the population we are talking about -- this is what we need to do, is we need to have housing available, have treatment options available, and if we do not increase the capacity, then what is going to happen is we will simply continue to incarcerate these individuals and not address the underlying causes for their coming into the system in the first place. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: is there anything -- i'm curious since we understand the intrinsic relationship with district attorney and public defender -- it also sounds like the dea and public defender are kind of on the same page with regard to trying to access more of the collaborative court their version programs, etc. is there anything about that has been described so far that you may not feel that local secret city in the approach towards

realignment? >> i think there is a lot in common that we have that we share. we do have a relationship of collaboration, and i think that time will tell, and we will see whether these expansions are going to occur and whether there is going to be a commitment. thus far, most recently, we worked together in expanding the drug court criteria. the drug court recidivism rate in san francisco is approximately 26%, as opposed to somebody on probation who might have a 60% or 70% rate. san francisco already uses best practices, is innovative, is creative, has successful programs, and we do not even need to go outside the county's. it is the relationships of the various departments that allows

that to happen. there is always more that can be done, and that is the role that we will play. we will make sure that the individuals that find themselves before the court in this new era, that they are getting the advocacy that they are entitled to, and that is what the public defender's office is prepared to do. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. thank you to the public defender's office. i would like to bring up the superior court, followed by the department of health and the police department. >> i am director of collaborative courts, standing in for our ceo. i just wanted to support chief still's comments earlier.

about $17 million will be coming to -- statewide to the judicial courts essentially to fund hearing officers. some of these officers will be shared by other superior courts. this whole issue does not affect the current court's downsizing. this is something that we can handle quite well through the superior court. supervisor mirkarimi: it has been well reported in the press how saturated and distressed the court system is now, so this might be a good time to kind of address that sense i think anybody walking away from this conversation would automatically think that this is just more pressure added to the responsibilities of the court system. how do you manage that?

>> as i said, we are in great shape, as others have said. our collaborative courts -- we work so well with each other. all of our partner agencies. we are far superior to kind of other programs around the country. basically, the foundation is there. i feel like we can work with whatever comes our way for this new population. supervisor mirkarimi: there was a grant that had been procured by the state to stack the city's first reentry court not that long ago. does this have any relationship to what we were talking about? >> it could conceivably. at the moment, we have about 60 clients in that program. i think that having id under way -- having it under way,

ape -- operationalizing it, that could be something important. it could be we combine perhaps the probation alternatives with -- we are just playing it out. we need to get together and see how all this can be brought together in greater efficiency. supervisor mirkarimi: all right, thank you. we will consider that an early report. >> the short answer is we are doing fabulously well. supervisor mirkarimi: we love to hear that from this perch. department of public health. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the director of community behavioral health care for

barbara garcia -- here -- here for barbara garcia. when i look at the work the health department did, it was done with a lot of current knowledge. i come to my current job after having 25 years working within the criminal justice system and health services. we also know that 85% of the current cdcr population has substance abuse issues, and 20% have serious mental illness. so if you look at as getting 700, about 600 of those individuals will have substance abuse issues, and 140 will have serious mental illness. i also recognize that a lot of that 140 will be represented within the 600 because they do have co-occurring disorders.

also, when i look to cdcr and the services they are providing to the substance abuse population, right now, there's only about 2700 people in substance abuse services, so that tells me that the individuals that are in our prison population are not receiving the appropriate services. undershare of -- undersherriff dempsey said right now that they are at capacity. we are bursting at the seams. for an individual to get into one of our treatment programs, it can take four months. for them to get into our substance abuse treatment program, it can take about five weeks. we also recognize that most of this population will not need residential treatment services, but certainly some will.

we know that this population has a very complicated health issues, high levels of hepatitis c, diabetes -- they also have high levels of trauma. these are all issues that need to be addressed when they come back to the community said that they are successful in their reentry to the community. the area of services that we propose is care at our community programs, our health clinics. outpatient therapy for both mental health and substance abuse. residential for both mental health and substance abuse. supportive housing services for those that have a lower care of needs, and, of course, medication management.

do you have any questions? supervisor mirkarimi: the growing population that we have taken notice over the last few years, as it intersects with the department of public health and the criminal justice system are those with mental health needs. it seems to sometimes be a political football as well as a budgetary one, about how san francisco will deal with -- and the department of public health and san francisco general and law enforcement -- to deal with that population that are often associated as part of the homeless population or quality of life or even up the escalated criminal-justice food chain of those who are committing offenses, of still mental health needs, and it seems that pressure is being sort of centered on department of public health to help us deal with that. the state is not able to deal with that specific population.

maybe you could speak to that a little bit. >> well, there are several things to speak to. one is that it is an ever growing expanding need for individuals that have mental health issues that wind up somehow in contact with criminal justice. whether it is just police contact or whether they end up going to prison, to jail, it is growing. the undersheriff said that the jail population is down. that is not true for the mental health population in the jail. i think that in itself -- you know, when the general population goes down, the percentage, the numbers of mentally ill stays high. supervisor mirkarimi: that is sort of a complicated demographic because you do not expect that that population is