ok, sorry. i am the chief with adult probation. 8109 created a statute change and realigned the criminal justice population. it was implemented as a state budget initiative to reduce overall prison costs. in essence, it shifts low-level population, non-serious, non-a violent coup would have spent their time at state prison, and it goes to the local level, to spend their time incarcerated locally. it creates a new category of. those that iran current non- serious, non-violent commitments that are released from state prison will become under post release custody supervision by an adult probation. it also requires that a

community correctional partnership be created, an executive one of which the chief probation officer is the chair. the implementation time line is october 1, a very short time line. the legislation was not passed until june with an october 1 at realignment. the local community partnership has been meeting for months in anticipation of that. as such, san francisco's public safety realignment plan was the first county plan that was completed in the entire state and has been used as a model for many counties throughout the state. each county is required to establish a partnership. the voting members consist of the two -- chief probation officer, district police, attorney, public defender, presiding judge, and director of health. supervisor chu: with regards to the passage of the plan, our local jurisdictions in driven by

a deadline to pass the plan before october 1? >> thank you for asking that. the critical need for that is the resources that will be needed by the various agencies that will be impacted. adult probation will be impacted first. i am already having workload coming from state corrections. we are getting pre-release packages for those who would have been parolees who are now going to be under post-release supervision by an adult probation. the urgency is two-fold. it is one, because the need of resources to supervise the population, and it is also because there are elements of the law going through the public safety committee in terms of ordinance changes that are required. so, yes, there is an urgency. the post-release supervision population that is going to be coming back locally, while the college non-serious, non- reviling, non-sex offender, those are anticipated to be offenses that would have been up

to 36 months in state prisons. but they can spin logger times, and the sheriff's office is here. if they have concurrent sentences, their timing could certainly go beyond three years. the post released custody supervision cases, while they are currently non-serious and non-filing, mainly drug officials, they can be strikers. the first case i got across my desk, the individual was a light current present commitment for a drug offense, but they had second-degree robbery, automatic weapons, and a long history of criminal convictions. that is what i anticipate this population is going to look like. but as it is, another element of the law is that parole violators and post-release community supervision cases, they can no longer be violated to go back to state prison.

it used to be that they would be violated in the state prison would be responsible for their time. they may spend time in local counties, but the state would foot the bill. but now no offenders can go back to state prison with the exception of those in for life. that is going to impact the sheriff's population with the violators, both those that are serious and violent parolees as low as those better on post release community supervision. the law also gives adult probation the ability to sanction up to 10 days of incarceration under my authority. so we're actively working together with our partners to create a process and to implement it. in addition to that, they estimate that the total population that will be sentenced locally is 164. the sheriff and in our criminal- justice partners agree that we believe the numbers are wholly underestimated. that statement is throughout our

plan. if we just accepted the state's numbers as they are, it would result in approximately 646 offenders locally, with the majority of those on post community release supervision. those that are serving their time locally, the judges have another option. that option is to create a split sentence. they may be sentenced to spend time locally, under the sheriff's supervision, but in addition to that, they could have part of their sentence under community supervision a probation term. and that is a new type of sentence structure, and no one can predict how the judges are going to actually be sentencing. we think our universe of annualized is approximately 700. supervisor chu: i have a quick question on the populations. 421 in post-release community individuals that you have here. would these be people who would

now be under the jurisdiction of our adult probation department immediately, as of october 1, or would that be phased in? >> it would be phased in over time. what we're getting now is we're supposed to get the case is 180 days prior to release. but because the legislation was so late in passing, the cases are coming to as a daily. so there is going to be this massive catch up to get to the point where we're dealing with cases six months ahead. as part of our design, we have to do pre-release case work, planning, the individual treatment and rehabilitation plans, risk assessment. so we have a ramp up for the supervision, but we have a six- month backlog of work load to do in the pre release planning and developing the individual treatment and rehab plans. staff will focus on getting caught up as the state gets us the information, and then we will start supervising the cases

as of october 1. i anticipate that it will take until at least january to catch up with the backlog, because they did not give us 180 days ahead of time. the date -- part of the pre- release planning is not only to plan for their reentry back into. we have to review every case and determine whether or not there are additional terms and conditions of probation supervision that we want to have basically impose before they are released from state prison to our supervision. so that is before they ever get to us. supervisor chu: in terms of the 180 days, the idea is not be implemented well at this moment. but the idea is going further down the line. we should know six months ahead of time what our new cases are coming into the city. >> absolutely. we have an overall estimated annual number. but they're supposed to provide the actual packet and information related to each case that is coming to us, so we can

do a case assessment and determine whether or not we are going to put additional terms on. they have not given us any of that time. they are trying to catch up also with the law that has just been enacted. but by law, they're supposed to give us this information six months ahead of time. supervisor chu: and we do not expect all 421's to drop in our laps on october 1 but over time? >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, chief. we have talked about this in the public safety committee. we have had three hearings. but with each week, there's new information coming out. i appreciate that we finally graduated from public safety to the budget committee. it is the obvious that we are preparing for their reality is that we're about ready to confront in san francisco. on the question of kansas assessments, how much time would week -- on the question of case assessment, how much time would we need to use that time to thoroughly evaluate?

he said a six-month advance is what the law provides, but what is our internal process? >> it should be that we get the case, and we're reviewing it. the first review we are going to do is going to be, do we need to put an additional terms and conditions of their probation? we have to get back to them with the information. the agent -- they then have to adjust their release that the inmate actually signs while he or she is in prison. that is the first workload that we have to do. then we have to develop a pre- release plan, every entry plan, and do a risk and needs assessment. the most critical work, the first phase of it, is looking at the cases to determine if there's anyone that we want to put on mandatory electronic monitoring, those types of things, and get that back to them. then what happens is that the pre-release team would review

that and develop the reentry plan. the reentry plan, as you will see later in my presentation, and needs of this population very extreme in terms of substance abuse, mental health, and other issues. part of that work load, if you have somebody being released with serious needs, it is creating that transitional plan so we have those services in place. we are behind, because we do not have any prior contracts for services. so we are just developing that capability now. part of their request is for the resources. we're also trying to, as fast as we can, work with public health to determine what contracts we can amend, putting amendrfp's, rfq's for the assessment center and other services. we are behind in trying to catch up. >supervisor mirkarimi:8109

enables discretion to local governments were they have not had it before. we talked about this recently with electronic monitoring, something the city has been using for several years now. but the question of pre-detainee discretion -- in ways that we're not waiting for any kind of judge and determination, but determination either made by you or the sheriff's department. will you speak to that option that has now been granted to us? >> there are two different authorities under the law, new authorities regarding electronic monitoring. chief adult probation will now have within his or her authority to basically implement a sanction of alternative monitoring. in addition to that, the sheriff and the district attorney can basically determine pre-bail and what the conditions would be so

that you could have, on a pretrial basis, releasees under certain circumstances for the district attorney and sheriff would have to determine what the circumstances are. currently the judges are deciding if anybody is released pretrial, and they are setting their bail. solicit is a significant change. how it will be implemented will be determined by each local jurisdiction. supervisor mirkarimi: if it costs $50,000 to $60,000 for an annual year of incarceration -- incarcerating an inmate in our county jail system, what would electronic monitoring cost? >> i believe it is about $14,000 a year. supervisor mirkarimi: so in the pecking order of costs on incarceration, the highest would be incarceration on it down the chain of options.

electronic monitoring would be on the very low end of the spectrum. >> correct. you could also implement, and i am talking in terms of the sanction, you could also have home detention. then you could graduate to home detention without electronic monitoring. there are gradations of the different types of sanctioning ability we have. we also have, under adult probation, a new authority of day reporting. instead of using of the very expensive jailed bed, if there has been a violation, basically have the individual to mandatory time where they can participate in treatment. they can work on it resume development, work force, education, so there are a lot of alternatives. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> but what the actual loss does is it refines the felonies. it creates the new category of

post-release committed the supervision. that was not previously in the penal code. the revocations that we talked about that no one can now be revived tuesday prison with the exception of those doing life, basically we will put that population in jail, so to speak, and they will be eligible for some of the alternative sanctions. while they could be rewrote and in the sheriff's custody, the sheriff has the responsibility to decide who would be spending how much time and who could be out in community supervision or who can be on electronic monitoring. it is a significant amount of potential jail bed days. previously, there was not a 180- day limit. now there is a statute of 180 days for any type of violation. in addition, the violation time, the individual is eligible for day-for-day.

so it is a maximum time to serve of 90 days. the electronic monitoring alternative custody, we talked about. the community-based punishment is the language in the law. none of it's like the language, but that is what allows for other options, not only the home detention bed drug treatment programs, but outpatient and inpatient, mother-infant baby programs, community service, so it does provide several alternatives. the original pot of funding created by the state basically allowed $25,000 per offender for six months of local incarceration. in addition to the, service dollars of $2,275 for treatment and services. and that was in in jail. and also, post-release of

revision, $3,500 for supervision. and in addition to that, there is that $2,275. basically, the state created this great big pot of money, and that basically is the pot that is being distributed to all of the county. they work with the department of finance and determine what the formula would be for the distribution of that. it did not match of the funds were actually created. san francisco, what we are projected to get under the current formula as approved by the legislature is $5.7 million, a little over that, to serve those approximately 700 offenders. the existing funding formula, not only does it fund our actual counties cost, it fiscally penalizes san francisco because of the nature of the components of the actual formula itself.

10% of the award is based upon the sb 678 distribution. we have had discussions about evidence-based probation and the population. but the problem with that is those counties that the not send many to state prison on a probation violation, such as san francisco, then are penalized, because we did not send that many in the first place. therefore, we did not drop our numbers as substantially as the account is like los angeles. we did good, and we anticipate that we are going to get a grant for services this year. but if we are not incarcerated at those very high rates on probation failures, then our 10% number is going to be lower than those counties that were incarcerating in mass numbers. 30% is based on u.s. census data pertaining to the total population. we think that is a very fair, very fair.

if i were to choose -- if i were to choose a firm like, i would choose that formula, the percentage of population as compared to the percentage of the population in prison, which is not. the 60% based on average daily formulas meeting eligibility criteria, and those are offenders that are in a state prison, and if you look at a county that incarcerates, said they have mandatory minimums, you're automatically going to state prison and their numbers will be so much higher than san francisco. we have 2% of the population, yet we have less than 1% in state prison. supervisor mirkarimi: madam chair, a question. chief, i think it is important for public dedication to explain, is it a clean number of 700 offenders that makes it returning back just in this given year or is there an expectation that on the yearly

cycle, there'll be sort of an installment of more of them coming back? >> it is on an annual basis that these offenders will come back to us. depending upon -- while they say that the numbers will be the non-serious, non-violent, non- sex offender's house in local custody, there 61 exclusions to those that are in non-serious, non-violent. those 61 exclusions of non- serious will always go to state prison. they will come out as post- release community supervision cases but that is on top of the initial 421 that we are estimating. it is a building population. in addition to that, there are those that are completely ineligible because they have a serious or violent felony on their background. that is what will comprise a future population. the law does give the chief probation officer the ability,

if the individual stays clean for six months, at my discretion, i could terminate or discharge that individual from post-release supervision. in addition to that, those that are 12 months free from any type of violation, they would basically be mandatory early discharge. supervisor mirkarimi: what can we expect after the first infusion of 700 next year, the year after? >> i anticipate that we will basically stay around 700 to 1000 range. >> to what end game, what objection for these -- what the objective for the state? >> forever. supervisor mirkarimi: ultimately speaking, those that perpetrated offense in san francisco and sentenced in san francisco would then be coming back based on the eligibility

standards that have been set but than number begins to diminish. at one point -- at what point is that never diminish? >> well, it only diminishes if new individuals do not create crimes. you have your recidivate the population, but on top of that, if you slow that down, what you're going to have is you're going to have more than potentially on coming to us from a different way. whatever their violations says, post-release and by late, cannot come back to state prison. spend some time locally. then they would continue their sentence of supervision. supervisor mirkarimi: do we know what the total universe is of san franciscans better in the state system that would necessarily qualify under the eligible ability -- eligibility standards we have right now?

is something held back for a future installment? >> summer being held back but not necessary for a future installment. by virtue of the way that the law has come into affect. anybody in state prison right now that is non-serious, non- violent, non-sex offender with nothing in their background, when they are released, they will be released to the state. they will not be released -- for example, if they do not qualify to be a post-release community supervision case, there will be released for the state. only those that are under the non-non-violent serious-that have serious or violent in their background, which is the larger number will come to us. the zero to think about it, because i have looked at these numbers for years. over 20 years in the prison system looking at the numbers and locally. we have over 1500 parolees right now in the city. over 1000 of them qualify for

non-serious, non-violent, non- sex offenders. some of them will be post- release committee cases. the majority will be. some of them will serve their time locally. i cannot give you a straight number because no one can anticipate what the judges are going to do, and the judges are going to be the largest controlling factor in this. how the sentence, are they going to sentence under this brand new legal authority, a split sentence, sometimes serve locally in the jail, and sometimes on community probation supervision? are they going to sentence all of their custody time in jail? in that case, there would be the sheriff's total responsibility. then probation will forever have the larger universe, which is those cases that are not eligible to serve their time locally. i know probation's population will grow. i just do not know where the

leveling off point is going to be. but i do not anticipate, based upon the current parole numbers, that we would never go above 1000. but that is as best as i can see it right now related to this population. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: in terms of the funding formula that we see, you mentioned that the formulas are set up such that san francisco does not benefit because we tend not to send many of our folks up to the state prison system. so it is the incentive that if we're able to reduce our population sent to state prison by a certain decision that we will get a certain bonus, is that how it works? >> for those who have been sending out a lot to the state prison, when they send them back locally, they are going to get lots of money associated with that. per person. for san francisco, counties like san francisco, which we already

do a lot of that diversion. we have all of our different drug courts, domestic violence cords, cjc, as well as all the great work that public health does in terms of substance accused double-abuse treatment. that really has reduced the population. so we're nowhere near some of the other counties where 0.2% of the state's population but serve less than 1%, there are other counties that have those numbers. they have 1% of the population better sending 5%, you know, double that. that is where when they use the formula of how many people you sent to state prison, that is where we become severely disadvantaged. supervisor chu: in terms of our situation, are there many other counties that are similar, but do what we do? do we have a smaller percentage share of the state prison population and our general

population share? >> yes. there is not a significant number of them. basically what you have is you have more counties that are more significantly over -- i will say, using incarceration as their sole strategy versus trying to implement some local strategies. to some of those counties, the small ones, they do not have the funding our infrastructure to be able to do that. but there are many large counties that are sending significant numbers. supervisor chu: i think that if we had the opportunity to have funding formula changes, it would be advantageous for us. but i see would be an uphill battle. but if there are other ways to pursue that, let us know. >> alameda is our sister county and probably one of the other most vocal counties about it, because they are really very similar to what we are.

there are a pocket of them, and we are, as the chiefs and as the county, we're doing our part to coordinate and to lobby. but i may come back and ask you for some assistance in terms of supporting positions down the road. that would be ideal. supervisor chu: thank you. >> for an overall in terms of the funding distribution, what is up here is we have the revenue at $5.78 million. what is important to note is that only represents a 90 days' worth of funding -- a nine months' worth of funding. there is than 90 days because the law does not go into effect until october 1. i anticipate that the funding stream will grow to about $6.5 million, if not more, in the coming year. the board already acted in relationship to the sheriff's population, and you have already

put $4.8 million into the sheriff's budget to be able to handle the anticipated increase of the inmate population in the jails. below is where we have broken out what the uses are by adult probation, the sheriff, the public defender. and that the district attorney, public health, and the economic and workforce development. so the total uses match up to the total dollars. and we were very careful when we developed what the funding would be and also the projected spending plan to stay within those dollars. >supervisor mirkarimi: on a nine month projection of the $10 million number, a 12-month projection would then be proportional to those three extra months of use is made. we're looking at about $13.5 million then.

>> it actually is a little bit less than that. supervisor mirkarimi: around $13 million on an annual expenditure. >> some of the dollars were one- time expenditures, so we anticipate that the projected expenditures in dollars, if nothing changes, will probably be about $6.5 million for the year. again, that is subject to what has happened over the last nine months as well as with state funding will be given to us. what we do know is when we built this plan, we built it with the assumption of, you know, how would we want to implement this to have the most impact on reducing recidivism. we know that we're about $1.5 million to $3.5 million short of full