accepting certain types of prisoners. how upcounty people, you get rid of them right away. you start operating in a manner that may preserve the constitutional operation of your gel system, but it can pose a threat to public safety. supervisor mirkarimi: i actually look at the number of unserved misdemeanor felony warrants that exist in san francisco, and there are thousands. what if all of this that and, magically, and the operative word is magically, there is set at a vigorous effort to serve those warrants are vigorous efforts that have been assault into the prophesies in of those out it suspects who are awaiting trial. i see that as completely enhancing the jail population immediately curia without serving warrants for public

safety services -- services -- >> exactly. serving those warrants in some sort of mass focus or concentration, which other counties have used amnesty programs for, to enable people to come in to get quick court dates into court, to take care of their misdemeanor warrants. the sheriff's office and things of that nature. >> much of the conversation has been focused on adult probation. the shared responsibility between the sheriff and 109 realignment plan, what happened when the sheriff's department made it their primary mission to

establish programs to hopefully turn people's lives around? would that have had an increase in the population? with those programs have become stretched or taxed to the point where they are maintaining the effectiveness? many of these programs were not generally funded. i wonder about their ability to adapt to the increased pressure. >> certainly, providing services to those communities, we are actively seeking grant funding. as far as the general fund, it will be difficult to expand those programs into other units. from the state, that was dedicated from the sheriff's

department to start those programs during the course of the fiscal year. hopefully the department will be able to secure additional funding. we have been in meetings with the charter school and they have -- supervisor mirkarimi: self keys charter. >> right. they are in the position not to simply put a general fund in, which we are very grateful for. we are trying to work with them as well to see what expansion they can do in the system as the population grows. even asking them to look at creative school services. those are the things that they are looking at very seriously and are putting together recommendations for considering

inmate population growth on what, clearly, is a different distribution of the state realignment money with supplements from the general fund not necessarily be necessary to support extent -- expanded programs. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> to that point, to be clear, there are staffing needs within the sheriff's department that are going to be addressed all of the time where, in the long term, whether it is one year, 18 months, or two years, the funding for that has been created in the budget. there is another half the needs to be created and in order to expand community programs, to have a black coat -- back door when the population starts to

grow, additional staff is needed for community programs. as it is, there is a large percentage of people that cannot be released into community programs because they are in under violence substance issues under probation and some of those handlers, those sticks, are going to the first. when i have people doing time on pleading out to robberies, they would wind up in the state prison system. just because they are excluded, it does not mean the state is willing to take, to the county and jail, like understanding is that it is not being changed for that option. the population will still be filled with people who, under

his guidelines, which has served him well for those 30 years, would be considered to be released into the community program whether or not there sentence was the condition of a probation or not, for multiple year terms that were not- permitted. there are things that have to be considered where they do not even meet the minimum standard to get out into a community program rather than taking them risk of letting them out. 13 million is a beginning investment if they are going to be successful. in the long term, i think that

they will be. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree. $30 million is just a benchmark. supervisor mirkarimi: -- supervisor chu: would the public defender's office like to add anything? >> members of the committee, i would like to thank the chief for his leadership in putting together this plan. we have been grateful for her role in this and feel confident that these criminal justice agencies, as we have been working together very well, we want to focus on recidivism reduction and what we are doing across the agencies. we are committed to taking

seriously the analysis of best practices to reduce recidivism with alternative programs for other things that could be cost- effective for the city. supervisor chu: thank you. i have follow-up questions for the chief. quickly, i know that we have been focusing around the atlas addition, as that is the focus of the response of the budget recommendation report, but i want to ask, it seems, as you said it earlier in the presentation, that we need to make sure we have enough probation officers to supervise and handle caseloads. there are 15 probation officers being advocated and analyzed it with a number of clerk positions that are being requested.

your thinking, in the trade-off of what is being requested, in a way we probably would not have had such the opportunity to reevaluate this structure. your proposal adds so many more clerks and such a large number of reentry positions with more probation officers. >> i believe that we can supervise this population because of the -- through the administrative staff, but they are going to do is put into place what is necessary, whether it is a committed the assessment, disease reporting, the drug treatment program, the drug testing, that will provide us with the services that we

need to make this population successful. there are also going to be able to tell us how we are doing with research policies and tell us that the population, based on probation, we did not pay that. so the issue and alter your course. related to the workload associated with the population coming in, we will have to create and maintain records. these are legal case records that we are responsible for maintaining in terms of the provision population. >> -- supervisor chu: taking a

look at your organizational chart regarding clerks, for example, you have [unintelligible] helping to exist with the current population the to supervise with other work that needs to be done. in your new proposal you are proposing to have existing folks and incoming folks. it seems a little bit off balance, i suppose, with eight folks dedicated to a case on a 1-780 ratio. i am just trying to understand why it is that you see a need there. >> the need for existing corrections, clerks that manage their, it is 108-one.

taken into consideration, with that the population, we have asked for a number like 201. we are not asking for a whole lot, but i can tell you that there is a whole nother workload that goes with what we have to do on those additional terms and provisions, coming back from them again, you have this whole group violation workload set up with an alternative under my legal authority with a sanction for 10 days or less with huge amounts of paperwork that we are not doing in any way, shape, or for right now. that is why you see the structure and that achievement, we have to have our records coordinated. there is a huge amount of workload in there.

so that all of the records are consistent, because they are legal records, that is why you see the structure the to see. >> talking a lot about the creation of a reentry effort, i think that that is long overdue and i am glad that that has happened since the last budget. we have spoken a lot during this conversation about measures and recidivism. what metrics are in place? what are we trying to achieve with them? we can put in two analysts and a person who gives you research and analysis, but that information is only as helpful as the implementation of changes to reduce recidivism, or whenever the report might be. has your department, or the group, worked together to decide what that is it? if it is a goal of we can

achieve through data monitoring? >> to be able to set the performance benchmarks, that is part of the justification. supervisor chu: even so, given the current glut -- workload, even with our existing population, should we also already be thinking on how to reduce recidivism? >> i can tell you that we are very day the challenge. we are in the process of implementing a new data system to make us better. i can tell you how many right now are successful in terms of the determinations that we have. that was my last budget presentation. numbers show that we are improving successful terminations, 26%. all of it going in the right direction.

when we started we had 600 probationers. with numbers going in the right direction, some going up, the other is going down, what we do not have and have not had is a system that allows us to mine the data the board has supported, and in a previous budget we did create a system, not only for risk assessment, but also to collect data. we are actively in the process of working on system design. so, we know, by virtue of the contract, that we will have, from the time that we agree on specification requirements, within 12 months we will have a fully formed a data system.

parts of it have been implemented now. it gives the enabling of information for court sentences. this plan, to the public defender and the alternative sentences, to answer your question, we have been working on that entire transformation of probation and are working on the basis that we can collect the data. even with the most rudimentary data systems that we have right now, i know that the numbers are going in the right direction. we need a staff to help us with this data system that will be part of the actual system itself, able to tell you

specifically about recidivism reductions. it remains to fold, a threefold, which is to reduce recidivism, improve public safety, and reduce victimization. the fourth one is going to help us to protect that generation. those are my four goals. >> thank-you. bridge supervisor chu: thank you. -- supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: building up the response to the question of data management in ways that the department of public safety and our colleagues are dumbfounded and horrified at just how archaic of the police department's system is. mirrored by the same level of lessons in management by the

rest of our criminal justice partners. that became very clear when there was a free entry consol. we can begin to ask the relevant questions, really basic, rudimentary questions, but just the kind of chronological observations of who is in a system that is managed and who posed three weeks ago a jail system probation with proper role -- court -- probation with parole. the fact is, we could not get answers, such as the executive chief was talking about, and i think that, because there is a realignment in the opportunity to explain to san francisco the

inextricable connection on what recidivism is to public safety overall, that is why we really need to just zero not on that level, explaining how we want to tackle recidivism, bringing that level down. in return, it saves us money on the primary budget that we can allocate to the tune of half of a billion dollars per year for the san francisco police department, just to see them keep arresting the same people over again. if we are able to circle the wagons on this sort of chronic challenge of some very basic infrastructure needs, that will help to go a long way. to that point, i have the minutes here that were worked out with the mayor's office, chief, and budget analyst. if you want it, i can submit those amendments now. supervisor chu: would you like

to articulate? supervisor mirkarimi: yes, thank you. the first relates to, in order, as it has been outlined in the agenda, annual salary bonuses for 2011-2012, reflecting positions added in funding through the assembly bill 109. the second relates to the ordinance for $5.7 million in state funds for realignment. 110902, regarding annual salary district attorney's office provisions, this amendment changes the start date for most provisions from september 1 to october 1, clarifying the court room calculations. there are at least 3 positions where one attorney and one

social worker, with adult probation, will fund through work orders in the city attorney's office. the second, 110907, the state is allocating these moneys based on the formula being unchanged from the original legislation. the district attorney public defender sheriff's department remains the same, but the amount being made reflects the work orders with other city departments that do not correspond with budget alignment items. those are the two technical items i have submitted. supervisor chu: let's take a vote on these amendments after public comment. but that is a question for the city attorney. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on these items related to realignment?

no? seeing no members of the public, public comment is closed. this item is before us. supervisor chu: -- supervisor mirkarimi: i would be more than happy to move items 21, 22, and 23 forward to the full board with recommendation. i wanted to thank the chief and all of the partners who are here, who have been just bird dogging this process. it makes me proud of those who have been more than just participants, but who have been authors in sculpting this process. my conversation with other counties in california seems to make it seem that we are further ahead than most of the other counties in california, which scares me on their behalf, because i do not think they know what is about to hit them in a matter of weeks. the fact that san francisco was

able to anticipate and prepare with a great deal of uncertainty, due to the state being in flux, i think that it really shows a new era of how of the criminal justice partners in san francisco are finding a new and effective growth strategy in working together. this has proved it. supervisor chu: thank you very much, supervisor. i know that we have amendments before us. i wanted to articulate my thoughts on this proposal. i wanted to thank the budget analysts. he is often in an unenviable position to recommend against what a department and city may want to do. i have to agree with him, when we are adding new positions to the budget, making decisions

around what to fund and what not to fund. each time we had a new position, we are adding to the payroll and expenses that were not previously competing with other expenses. when i came into the meeting today, i had anticipated not supporting his position, simply because i thought there might be more than adequate staffing to deal with this. i appreciate the extra information provided today during the hearing for why that would be proposed. i am still a bit concerned, questioning the staffing levels that we have for court evictions, but i look forward to having future conversations with the department regarding implementing this. i think it is important and again, i think that the reentry effort centered on a probation is the right thing. strong data and write

information will help the city in the long run. i want to note that in terms of the population and advocacy of provisions, we heard from the department today that we heard they found adequate positions to supervise that population and ensure that there will be changes. we do need to discuss the case load for future, but at this point i am comfortable that the joint efforts have been well done within all departments. we can take those amendments without objection. on the underlying items on recommended, we can do that without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us? >> no.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. we are adjourned.