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 about 90 days or so, you will start 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-ish. 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