have successful outcomes in all these programs that have just been outlined to you. in other words, the resources -- housing has been thrown out there. the police department -- we do not have resources. you brought up the budgetary numbers. we are not sharing in any of the budgetary numbers. we will make do with the budget you have so generously supplied us. supervisor mirkarimi: i am only bringing this in stark contrast that in some ways we are keeping this in supply to do something on the front end that is constantly being fuelled by something on the back end. the police department is the primary responder, right? it is dealing with the response needs of the heavy repeat offender population. i think it is a question of we could probably even calculate a way to maybe help adult probation even more for the

sheriff's department or others because the police department really is the one responsible for keeping safe the community itself, but also, you are dealing with vp population. there has to be some break in that cycle. >> correct. i have been in discussion with the undersheriff, and i have some meetings scheduled to come up with strategies where we are going to participate in that process of supervision pirie whether some of the concept might be thrown around. maybe that the population on notice that they are being watched. we will become what state parole was not successful as, so letting them know, we would like to get involved in the

classification when it was the notice when they come down here, when we tell them if the addresses are good. we will put out some training bulletin's and probably get to some in-service training for our officers, surrounding the problem population or what is the best way to deal with it. that is the plan at this time. supervisor cohen: thank you very much. last night, we had a meeting at the bayview opera house. >> i was not there. >> did you hear about it -- supervisor cohen: did you hear about it? >> yes. supervisor cohen: 1 did the things that was very apparent was that there was a clear distrust between members of the community and the police department. i hear good and lofty goals between many of the entities that have presented the implementation strategy, but

how are you going to rebuild trust? we are talking about a reentry population that is probably upset with you and the police department for their incarceration. now, they are coming back, and you will help them reintegrate into society and providing these services and support around them, but if there is no trust, i do not see how we can be successful. >> i'm sure we will accept ideas coming from anybody to help rebuild that trust. efforts have been made. people should acknowledge. i cannot speak for the chief on that issue. he was there last night. i know there was frustration on both sides, whether it be the law enforcement community or the community at will. i have served in the bayview. i know what some of the tensions in that neighborhood are. it is unfortunate. we are the enforcement branch, which by its nature is of having - conflict with people, whether it is issuing a traffic ticket,

or a lot of the things we do in the enforcement community are not well received. i do not know how we turn that around. supervisor cohen: i do not have the answers, either. maybe throughout this process, something will come out. maybe i am cautiously optimistic on how successful we will be. given that you said yourself that you guys enforce the law of the land. we are talking about a population of people who have demonstrated in the past their inability to follow the law. it seems to me an inherent conflict, and i -- >> if i could, perhaps an educational component in some of the successful programs that already exists. we have done it out -- in the community at the younger age levels with law enforcement through various hiking, fishing

programs, trying to interact with the community at a young age to let them know that we are more than just an enforcement robot id you will. i do not think officers go out with the intent to offend people's sense of civility, but as we have already discussed, it is an adverse relationship at best. supervisor mirkarimi: all right, thank you, captain. thank you for your insights. we appreciate it. i am going to bring up their reentry council. if the commissioner would like to speak, we will bring them up and then move into public comment. actually, would you mind if the commissioner quickly was able to -- okay, thank you. >> thank you for calling me. i'm sorry about my tight schedule. good morning.

i thank you for holding this hearing today on realignment and its impact on san francisco. i am staff attorney managing the criminal justice program at the asian law caucus, which is the non-profit serving low-income americans. the other hand i where is as a member of the police commission, and i will be sharing my thoughts as an attorney of asian law caucus, but certainly, what i've heard today has given me a lot of thoughts and ideas for how to bring this up at the police commission level with the cheek because i do think the police department has a really important role that they can play in promoting a positive relationship, and adverse relationship, and i am very concerned about the community meetings that happen in the bayview yesterday, and i intend to be involved in addressing those concerns. i come today to testify regarding the impact regarding the controversial immigration and customs enforcement program called secure communities. it is undeniable that

california's three-decade-old plan of building more and more prisons to address crime is an utter failure. with the recidivism rate of about 70%, our prisons are failing at both crime prevention and rehabilitation. in addition, our state prisons are so overcrowded that the supreme court recently held that they violate the eighth amendment. here is where realignment comes in -- the opportunity for us to significantly reduce the size of our state prisons and put the funds saved toward innovative programs that have shown to be more effective at decreasing repeat offender rates than warehousing more and more californians. this is a program whereby any fingerprints submitted by our local law enforcement are automatically shared with immigration and customs enforcement at the point of looking for the purposes of

conducting civil immigration enforcement. what this means is that these folks are held in our jails who normally would not be held for criminal purposes. the program started rolling out county by county in california in april 2009. it was activated in san francisco last year, june 2010, over the objection of the sheriff, who has been a staunch champion of immigrant rights and who has not wanted to entangle our local law enforcement with federal immigration enforcement. so what does it mean for realignment? it not only exacerbates our broken immigration system, which i think republicans and democrats would agree is in drastic need of reform, just like our prison system. it also significantly broadens our local jails by increasing our jail population. according to recent news reports, the san francisco sheriff expects the realignment plan at the state level to increase our county's jail

population by about 42%. that means we need to free up space in our county jails for this expected influx. the problem is it results in immigrants being housed in our jails who would normally be released if not for their immigration status. since june 2010 when it started in san francisco, almost 1000 individuals have been held by our local jail in san francisco. the vast majority -- about 60% of this 1000 figure -- were arrested for low-level crimes. you might have heard about the story of norma in the "los angeles times." she was held as a victim of domestic violence to call the police for help. because they did have to investigate the perpetrator and victim -- that happens in some cases -- not a lot, but in a significant number of cases throughout california -- they took her fingerprints. even though they found out she is the victim, they kept her in

the local jail because of secure communities. those of the types of folks being held under this program that is really undercutting the hard work being done by realignment. scom comes at a cost to san francisco often in terms of local dollars and public safety. it does not provide reimbursement to our city for the cost of the program. there is a separate program called state's criminal alien assistance program, which is unrelated, and it only reimburses for about 10 cents on the dollar and only in a limited number of cases. because it unfairly and unnecessarily burdens local law enforcement with immigration enforcement, the sheriff asked to opt out of the program altogether. you probably heard about this in the news. through a series of misleading and contradictory statements last fall, iced refuse to allow san francisco out of the program, instead pointing to california's agreement at the state level that implements

scom. now, there is legislation pending in sacramento at the state level that would reform california's agreement with ice. the bill is sponsored by assembly member tom ammiano. key provisions include allowing counties to opt in or out up scom, depending on law enforcement and community concerns. also provides protection for victims of a crime and provides that count is that what to participate develop a plan available to the public explaining how they will address racial profiling concerns. given the problems caused any way in which scom undercuts realignment and our goal to decrease state prison population and use more effective rehabilitation and diversion alternative programs, i urge the board of supervisors to adopt the resolution in support of the trust act. i know that this board last

spring adopted a resolution recommending that we opt out of the program, and i think what would be helpful is for this board to time in again and support the trust act. the los angeles city council in its recent history has passed a resolution criticizing secure communities and asking for many of the reforms included in the trust act. the oakland city council has done the same. so have said the clara and alameda county board of supervisors. supervisor mirkarimi: we just heard the sonoma county is also asking to opt out as well. >> there are certainly a lot of concerns in counties throughout california. realignment is a program that i know is something that governor brown highly values. that is something that he sees is going to be a new state to our criminal justice system, which we know is broken. unfortunately, secure communities is a program that when he was attorney general a

lot -- also brought us into, and it is sad that it undercuts laudable goals. i also recommend that the board take the concerns regarding communities into consideration. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, commissioner very much. once we open up, we will have reverend amos brown and a number of others that i have cards for. i will read them off. >> thank you so much for holding this hearing today, supervisors. i am the director of the reentry council, which has been in operation since 2005.

it was codified in 2008 and since then has been a formal advisory body. i wanted to give a very brief update on the reentry council activities related to realignment to date. we have held two public forums related to realignment. i have a handout here. supervisor mirkarimi: incidently, i just wanted to say that we have some copies of the city's realignment implementation plan for the public i just quit right out here. if you would like to get a copy, it is here for the public. i do not know if we have enough for everybody, but if you could share, please do so, and this is the draft copy which will begin the process of the board of supervisors beginning to review and eventually vote on with the city's implementation plan will be. please.

>> thank you. i also want to note for everyone here that the copy is also available on their reentry council website. on the front page. that has also been treated to our stakeholders list. and, of course, we are available to answer questions in order to make sure that we get a lot of public input. i provide the hand out as a brief reminder to people about the roles and responsibilities as we go forward making these various decisions. as chief still and others noted, the state last year created a new body in each community called the community corrections partnership in the spring, and the following legislation created an executive committee that reports directly to the board of supervisors. while the reentry council is committed to making sure we have community participation, the reentry council has no formal role to act on this plan. i also wanted to let the public and committee no that the

reentry council staff will be posting such meetings on our web site to insure that the public has a full opportunity to participate. our goal remains to have broad community input through this process, and i just want to offer my help in any way we can be helpful. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. quickly, once we created the reentry council, as the city government did, and the partners were part of it, one of the core issues is improving every injury rehabilitation. there's a number of core issues now getting a fair amount of press attention, also thanks to the human rights commission, and that is eliminating discrimination on housing and employment. i know there is still a ways to go, but for that particular population, of those coming out of the system, do you want to

give any quick mentioning to that? we know that we are going to have successful reentry, it means also having access to jobs, job training, and housing. >> absolutely. thank you. briefly, i will speak to the proposal that has gotten some news recently that has been contemplated by the reentry council, the human rights commission, which is to regulate the use of criminal background information in housing an appointment decisions in the city of san francisco. i am practice say that the effort came out of work of the reentry council, which was, you know, 10 of 100 people who participated in subcommittees last year. the human rights commission also came to this issue. it is a policy move that about 30 other jurisdictions have done. so while we're getting a lot of attention, i think because our name is san francisco, we are not the first to do this. it is a way in which we could

smooth the box back on employment and housing applications so that people are not asked upfront if they had a history of arrests or convictions. when that happens, they are often immediately rejected instead of first determining if they would be otherwise qualified. that remains a barrier not just for our reentry population, but criminal records remain a lifetime. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i was reminded by mr. henderson that the mayor's budget office wanted to quickly go over some quick budgetary numbers, and then we are going to open this up. thank you. >> thank you. mayor's budget director. i will go through this briefly and put some context on my comments. i think we are still in the

first stages of determining what the finances are going to look like associated with this proposal. we have spent a lot of time with all of the departments and agencies that are here today thinking through the fiscal side of this program, and there is quite a lot of uncertainty surrounding, as you have heard, where we will end up and what the impact will be on our public safety providers. so what i'm going to go through today is sort of an initial look at what we think things might look like in order to actually finalize a funding plan. we will have to come back to the board with a supplemental appropriation, and there are two pieces of that. the first is the $5.7 million, which the state has allocated to san francisco as part of this program, and i will discuss what

the initial thoughts are on that and would like to hear your feedback. then, over and above that, there is, depending on a couple of things, potentially significant financial impact on the city. that depends on what the population we experience is going to be at the jails and on our other public safety agencies, and it depends on timing, so there will be a significant amount of discussion ahead of us, but this is just to take a first look. the two main pieces that are known for us -- we have allocation of $5.7 million from the state as part of their funding formula associated with the realignment. in addition, we have some funds that are budgeted in the budget that was initially approved by the board associated with

realignment. the primary piece of that is about $4.8 million. the sheriff's department is partially tied to realignment and partially just a function of projections of jail population that is general fund money budgeted to open two dorms at the small jail in san bruno that anticipates that the population will grow over the year and starting roughly halfway through this fiscal year, we will have the need for that additional capacity. also worth pointing out, as you did earlier in the hearing, that there is -- when we look at the potential impact of the realignment that the cost exceeds our available resources. especially when we are talking about the worst-case scenario, which is a possibility that we

could have significant additional cost on the city. right now, however, just looking at what we have in hand -- $5.8 million and the $4.8 million budgeted in the current fiscal year's budget. we have spent a lot of time working with the departments to try to do an estimate of their needs and try to start taking an initial luck at if we allocated out those funds, how might they

what i'm looking at is the revenue. that's coming from the state, correct? >> exactly. that is in the form of the formula funding that's going to each county. supervisor mirkarimi: and then the general fund for san francisco is $4.8 million is what that looks like? >> that's the portion of the general fund that's already appropriated. >> from our budget that we just deliberated on. >> exactly. so right now this is simply the funding sources that we have in hand appropriated in the budget and allocated to us by the state. and what would that look like if we distributed those two pods of money. so the biggest pieces as we've

discussed here and as included in the plan are the budget to, as i just said, re-open the two dorms at the small jail and in the adult probation department. of course in the adult probation department in terms of the population numbers, the greatest impact, this would include funding the new probationers, former parolees, now probationers, at the former ratio managing the probation department which is probably inadequate as the probation chief will tell you. but that's a significant portion of the cost. and another piece of the cost would be funding a re-entry unit and services that could be used to better coordinate and align our funding so that we

are focused on being strategic and coordinated on keeping people out of the cycle of going in and out of incarceration and trying to manage outcomes for that population. so the adult probation department is going to be very key, of course to this strategy. at the shercombriff's department, again, that's open -- sheriff's department, again, that's opening the two housing units. it's increasing funding for electronic monitoring which is also going to be a jail population management strategy. and then at our other departments, there are smaller allocations. and as you heard -- i won't go into details because you've heard from a number of those departments about what their strategies are and what the funding correlates to. but it would be some level of allocation to those departments in order to try to manage this

population. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: on the use fer uses side, you have district attorney, human services, public health, economic and work force development. this is slightly related to my earlier comment to the police department if it works, those departments come in hand, meaning realignment. if it doesn't work, the police department has a role in this construct, too. right? because as i was mentioning earlier based on the statistic of repeat offenses, the police department is the primary. i noticed that's not in this calculation as well. >> yeah, that's correct. it's a great point. there's no separation out the role of the police department -- separating out the role of the police department from this system. i think the goal here is to try to take a look in the short-term at how we're going to manage this population directly on the services that they're going to hit immediately and directly. and i think there is definitely

a longer term discussion and a longer term -- some longer term study that we have to do about how this population is affecting our entire criminal justice system. and certainly the police is a part of that equation. but as you say ideally -- and i think our hope and our strategy is to try to be able to manage this population through services, through probation, and hopefully keep them out of a cycle where they're consistently and repeatedly coming into contact with the police department. >> but wouldn't you agree, though, that with this limited orbit we actually might have a possible breakthrough in thinking here citywides? and that is that there is a correlation and nexus that what happens inside the jails with

their ability of rehabilitating successfully or with adult probation or services that it actually has a direct impact what happens outside the jails with regard to neighborhood safety and public safety? >> absolutely. absolutely. and then, of course, the mechanical question in terms of what our policy response is to that. in each of these agencies we have some population-based metrix that we can actually do some analysis based on our population. what is the level of clients that we know are going to hit them directly? in terms of the police department, we know that we have a need for staffing at the police department. you mentioned that when you talked about the staffing levels earlier in the hearing. but the staffing levels at the police department are an issue regardless. there's not as obvious and immediate of a tie where we can

say based on what's happening with realignment, here's the incremental staffing needed at the police department. there's a larger and -- a larger need, i would certainly agree. the other piece is just based on kind of stepping back and looking at the financial side of this. as you know, we have one police academy plass for half a year on the budge -- class -- class for half a year on the budget which was. to actually fund an academy class using this realignment revenue would essentially eat away about 75% of the resources made available to us by the state. so i don't think -- i think policy wise most of us would agree if we could have more cops on the street, we would. mechanicically, i think that's a tougher question and a larger question for the city as we move forward.