actually increasing their capacity. in some situations, we were actually funding duplicative work. so we decided at that point to go through an rfp process to do two things. one was because we had to make that very painful reduction in the service area. and two, to make sure that we were allies and the core services that the three departments felt were needed at that time. at the end of the day, we made approximately $4 million in reductions, because the board of supervisors graciously reallocated some funds back to our department to make sure that we cover some of the crucial services. i am sad to say that over the years since then, for the past three years, we have continually receive reductions from the state. whether it was reductions primarily through vehicle license fees, because that is

the primary source of our funding for a violence prevention work in the city, or because we were not allowed to apply for state grants for whatever reason. however, i am produce a that the three departments, including the department of public health, has made the policy decision to keep our funding for the service area as protected as possible. so the three departments have actually not made reductions to be funding service area. so, in a way, because the three of us walked into the budget office and say, look, we have to do this together, and we're going to do this together to protect its service area to protect the budget. in terms of the state level, i cannot speak to that. we, unfortunately, are somewhat at the mercy of the state, as you all are very aware of. and unfortunately, you know, if i am reading things correctly, we will see even more painful

reductions, even after the realignment of the public safety entities on the state level. it feels as if the state is advocating their responsibility and sending some of their responsibilities in taking care of our citizens back to the local government, which will stretch our services even thinner. if you notice in this local action plan, we called out a new service category called reentry and after care, because we want to make sure that we truly acknowledged that is a need. when our young people, whether they are in juvenile hall or in mandated out of home placement, and when they go back into our communities, we want to make sure that we help them make that transition as well. supervisor campos: well, thank you for that. i agree with everything you said. i wanted to put that out there,

because even though i think a lot of great things are happening, we also want to be very clear about the fact that even though we're doing these things, we're talking about, in the last few years, the city reducing its expenditures on a violence prevention. as you noted, the rfp that went out with these three departments had a combined $4 million less than it did before. and i think that we need to remember that as we are moving forward with the budget process for this coming fiscal year. i personally think that these departments and this kind of funding should be among the very last things that we touch, if we touched at all. and hopefully as the economy improves that we do not lose sight of this reduction and we come back to the issue that we're always talking about, the issue of what the proper level

of funding is. i just want to make sure that we are aware of that, and i do not think that enough people know that we are, in fact, talking about millions of dollars in last funding in just a matter of two, three years. this second point that i wanted to make is the point, something that i am dealing with as a supervisor for district 9 and something that has to be our top priority, and that is the safety of our neighborhoods and our districts. as you know, there has been an increase in violence in the mission, and if it is something we have to take very seriously. my office, we have been working very closely with our partners in not only your department, but also the police department and violence prevention workers to make sure that they have the resources they need to not only

deal with what has happened but also to prevent more crime, and i do feel that we're doing everything we can with the resources we have. but one of the things that i worry about as you're going through these processes and getting the rfp and everything else that is happening is making sure that we are also keeping a focus on what is happening on the ground. and so, i am wondering if you can say a little bit about that? i think it is important for us to have systems in place, to maintain accountability, to have transparency, but i do think that at the end of the day, the priority has to be, you know, what is happening on the ground, especially with these young people. i am wondering if you can talk a little bit about how you balance this process with that, and also, more specifically on what is happening within the mission to address some of the

incidents that have taken place? >> i am going to attempt to answer your question, supervisor. before that, i wanted to make a comment about -- one of the reasons why we're being very strategic in crafting up the particular populations of at- risk, highly at-risk, and in- risk is because with knowledge that the level of funding in the types of services that are required to truly meet a particular outcome that we are going to lay out for our cbo's are actually differ for each one of these populations. actually, maybe not, but we do not know because we do not have that level of data. what we have now someone saying that we serve young people in the bay view or the mission, but we do not know what some of the risk factors are that these

young people have. or, where are they on this continuum of need? now that we have broken apart this way -- and i realize that means a little bit more work for our community partners, but it will definitely help us in terms of gathering that type of data. so that we can say, in order to serve as a young person here as in-custody contact, it actually costs us this must -- this much money. for us to truly serve the population, we need to truly invest in this population. and invest in the types of services that will produce that type of outcome. so we hope to get there through this rfp and through this process. in terms of meeting the needs of on the ground, street level, and ensuring processes have been, one of the reasons why -- there was a comment that this is funding for 18 months. this is an 18-month rfp.

a couple of reasons. one is that through our committee process, we have realized that making the shift, making a funding shift or a contractual shift during the summer months is really detrimental for a violence prevention providers. even if it is the same agency. even if it was the same agency. there are resources that the agency needs to dedicate to work with our office, but the contract together, to negotiate with us, to redo all of their hiring things, and all of these things. and you have that happen during the summer months where there is limited summer school, young people are out on the streets and have more time, so it just does not make sense. which is why we requested and were approved to extend the current contracts that all of our contractors are on by six months, which will then take their current contract to end in december of 2011.

so that we can then have that transition happened during the winter months of december to january. hersupervisor campos: i want to thank you for that, because that was going to be my follow-up. i am all for having systems and making sure that we have accountability measures and that we try to make the most of every dollar. but i do worry that, you know, when that happens, because i know that, for instance, in commission, for december, the summer, for whatever reason, has been that very difficult time when is violence politian -- prevention workers are the police department, their job is even tougher. so i want to thank you for that flexibility, because i do think that it goes a long way, and i think it shows the level of responsiveness on the part of the department. so thank you for that. >> and then the other comment of

us making sure that we continue to check in with our cbo's and on the ground folks to make sure our policies and strategies makes sense. makes sense for the case managers, the social support providers. i believe, and i would like to believe, that we do that on a regular basis and that we connect with our providers on a regular basis but i definitely acknowledge that my level of communication and frequency of communication might be different from others, but i do want to put out there that our doors are always open for more feedback. and in terms of specific efforts out in the mission, i would defer that to dee anna. >> i think that there is a series of purposeful meetings that we have orchestrated in this last year to be up to make sure that there is ongoing communication on the ground

level, so we have tried to go to the peace collaborative. we have tried to talk to agencies. we have also really look at our team's specifically, trying to make sure that we communicate with the school district and treader have the ongoing communication with the actual community residents. i think those are efforts that our team has done. in terms of specific meetings, we attended the peace collaborative. in terms of visitation valley, we created its service provider coalition, and we facilitated it for quite some time and passed it over to mercy housing, and other community partners where it was more than a community entity would lead a community meeting. we provide a capacity-building on that. we try to eat -- a jindal events and community gatherings. we are invested in making sure that we're there the ground level. we also communicate with our police partners. the police department, ongoing.

most of the time when there is a critical incident like a homicide, which recently occurred in the mission, a couple of homicide, we're often communicating with our crn's and case managers. we talk to the police. we try to provide any kind of linkage is necessary in order to be responsive to the homicide. those are a couple of areas on what we do ongoing. >> there is a great model for this work. dph, jcpp, and jpf me monthly with all of our providers. it allows us to see whether the expectations, requirements, and policies are actually aligned with what our front line workers are doing. there's a continuous feedback loop, which is very helpful. supervisor campos: if i may say -- and we have a lot of other things to cover, but i simply want to say that i look forward

to continuing to work with all departments. i think it is one of the things that we should do, and we're trying to set up a community meeting in the next few days, and we want to make sure that others in the community know what we're doing. what i have heard from many folks in my neighborhood is we hear what is happening from reading the chronicle or the examiner, and it is always on something that happens, but there's not enough information about all the positive things and pro-active things that are being done. i think we can all play a role in making that happen. thank you again, and i look forward to continuing to work with you. supervisor mirkarimi: if it is ok, why don't we go to public comment? another has been a lot of partners here who would like to chime in. one after the other, and we look forward to hearing from you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dr. terry delane.

i run life learning academy. i am here in support of the local action plan to the life learning academy is a model school. we have been there for 13 years. we're on treasure island. we deal with the answer all of the populations that have been described. all three at-risk groups. we have never had a fight in our school, and the kids that we deal with come from all neighborhoods which we pick them up from. we pick them up. we have a van service, which makes a huge difference. the kids that are from rival areas, not only just coexist -- we have a delancy street model school where we teach kids not to just coexist, but we create a community of non-violence. our hope is that they take it back into their communities once they graduate from our school. so i just wanted to say we are

in support of this initiative, and that is it. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is liz jackson since then, executive director of the youth guidance center improvement community, which is a nonprofit corporation that lives on campus said the juvenile probation department and has been around about 30 years. we provide alternative education, employment services, and that version services to young people who are engaged in the juvenile justice system. we have been intimately involved in the entire local action planning process, pretty much since its inception. i just want to commend the departments for coming together and thinking about how to strategically plan and realign the resources to help support this very in-risk population. we, too, focus on young people

who have been engaged in the juvenile justice system. and this comprehensive process has enabled us to be able to get input not only from key stakeholders in the department or even community-based organizations, but the young people and their families themselves. so i applaud dcyf for their efforts in ensuring that. it has been a tremendous -- it takes really all the collection of resources and a comprehensive service strategy to support our young people. they get to us when the normal system's did not work or going to a comprehensive high school did not work. they need comprehensive solutions to make it. we are intimately involved in the entrance to reduction initiative, so many of the young people to go to our school have been truant for a long time and are not providing was some of the basic orders of probation to

go to school, and we support the model in helping young people to get engaged and connected to employment. so we applaud and want to support this strategy and this plan, because it takes the mental health services -- i cannot encourage the people to go to school or get a job when their basic needs are not being met. when the have mental health challenges our substance-abuse challenges. we have referrals to some of the other service strategies in order to support our students and our young job-seeker speed up again, we're glad that this effort is complete, and we support and applaud you in approving this plan. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. and good to see you toygat ycg. it was good. >> thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. director sue -- i know this is just a hearing, but why don't we sum it up -- it is really critical information you are sharing with us in terms of what the action plan is. the cautionary tales about budgeting, as supervisor campos was discussing, are very important. so that the city does everything it can to obligate itself to the triad here of organizations that are working together. and i really want to put an emphasis on it the new category that you have now decided on, and that is on reentry and after care. as much as i am optimistic, yes or extraordinarily nervous about what is coming down the pike for san francisco. and all systems have to be in place on the adult side, but

again, looking at the recidivism figures, the repeat offender figures for young adults, the carry over is undeniable in terms of the recidivism on the juvenile site. so i do not know how that gets modified, whether in the reentry consoles or a subset, but i personally will push very hard for there to be almost kind of a slightly different approach in making sure adult and juvenile probation and juveniles elevated in the discussion on the adult side, because it is all adults, with a sprinkling of juveniles, but not in the formalized way that i think it needs to happen. and i know that the chiefs talk all the time and are connected at the hip on this. but the systems and support systems do not recognize that. on down to almost on a nonprofit level and the service delivery level, even if staff knows that. that is what i am worried about,

and that systems delivery infrastructure, they have not quite seen that transitional age question in repeat offenders from used into adult. that is noticeable in the statistics that we have been thoroughly reviewing. we are at 75% on a repeat offender level at the juvenile level from what we have been able to tell, depending on your definition of recidivism could a that is the wavering definition. so i get that. and it could be a lot lower. but that, of course is a strong flag, something that has been flagged that we're going to have to really look over. supervisor cohen: i agree. it is no mistake twice dcyf was appointed to the reentry council. it was your leadership in making that happen. it was very essential for dcyf

to be appointed so we could be the body that can link the two. there has been a lot of conversations between our staff and the juvenile justice coordinating council staff and the reentry council staff to make sure that when we're talking about support services, we're talking about the continuum of services. because, once again, there's no magical kind of shift of mind frame from 17 to 18 or from 24 to 25 or 25 to 26. and then with ab109 coming down, we need to make sure that we have all of our reentries services and after care services all aligned, and i look forward to your leadership on that. supervisor mirkarimi: would delimited dollars we have, public safety means are now being driven not by first-time offenders, but it is all being driven by the repeat offenders,

a very clearly on the adult side, so the police department is the most well-resourced in taking care of repeat offenders on a level of almost about 65% to 70%, but they're not the ones responsible for rehabilitation or after care or reentry. it is the department's you all are associated with on the juvenile side, or it is adult probation. but the funding for those departments is a fraction. so, in many ways, this conversation is a precursor of looking at the logic of the current practice and how counterintuitive the logic is, why we keep the front loading so much to see this repetitive habit picking up the same people, and there's no break in their behavior, criminal behavior. it is also, as it was described earlier, a bureaucratic snafu of juvenile that obeys information not allowed to be shared on the

adult level. this handicaps us considerably. we understand all the reasons why, but somehow, someway, there has got to be a bridging of that divide, because it really ill- equips us in dealing with the young offender and the recidivism issue. i do not know how that is going to happen, but i know this has been percolating discussion in the reentry council. well, thank you very much. i know this is a hearing. i want to thank everybody who is here in participation. i appreciate all your work. i do not believe any action is required here. this is a hearing informing us of the rfp and of the communication that is going out. good work, and we look forward to being part of this process.

thank you. we're going to set with a perfectly into the final piece of the matter today, and that is adult probation. so please read item number 9. >> item 9, or in its amending the administrative code by adding section 2a.300 and 2a.301 to designate the adult probation department as the county agency responsible for providing post release community supervision to eligible inmates released from the state prison, as required under california penal code section 3451, and operate the adult probation department to develop a home detention and electronic monitoring program that can be used as the supervision tool and a sanction for persons to violate conditions of their post release community supervision program. supervisor mirkarimi: i am going to introduce this.

i'd just want to say that in the series of legislation, this is literally the final piece of our preparation for a prisoner realignment, prompted by assembly bill 109. this ordinance accomplishes two things. it designates san francisco adult probation department as a county agency responsible for providing post release supervision to inmates as part of the realignment process under ab109, and it authorizes the adult probation department to develop a home detention and electronic monitoring program to be used as the supervision tool and sanctions for persons who violate conditions of their post release supervision. that is now well known. governor brown signed legislation last april that directs a low percentage -- directs a percentage of low level adult offenders convicted of non-serious, non-violent, and

not-sexual offenses to california counties. san francisco is gadahn to receive approximately 650 of these offenders in a little over two weeks. the population that we're about ready to receive is substantially lower than many counties throughout the state, so that might be some welcome news as well, too. san francisco is well ahead of most counties in the state because it started early thanks to the creation of the reentry council and its ability to prepare for what nobody would have expected years ago, the advent of ab109 and since has worked diligently to create a realignment plan that will rely heavily of post release programs in areas of housing, jobs, and treatment. the sheriff's department is prepared for any new influx of prisoners, since we're one of the few counties in the state that is experiencing under crowding, not overcrowding. adulteration is taking the lead

in coordinating the many law enforcement agencies involved in this effort. under this ordinance, adult probation will be about to implement adult electronic monitoring program. in the past, that has been under the purview of the sheriff's department. now this will be a shared responsibility in the discretion that is now forwarded through ab109, both to adult probation. david cook, adult probation, welcome. >> thank you, a chair, and members of the committee could you have so elegantly explained what is happening with the ordinance and with the plan. i would just acknowledge, the board approval of the public safety realignment plan earlier in the week, i appreciate the board's support for that. truly, that was a collaborative effort, putting the plan together. indeed, it will require a

collaborative effort to be successful in implementing it. i have every confidence that we will be successful in implementing this. you have already pointed out what the ordinance does, and i will not reiterate that. i just encourage your support and appreciate your support for the plan and the department's activities related there, too. >> and double- supervisor mirkarimi: just to be noted, i talk to chief still all the time, the board of supervisors just passed his first reading, the most increase of personnel for adult probation cents adult probation was established in san francisco in anticipation of ab109. so your department has now exponentially grown. it is an interesting new reality that is taking hold of some of

the other, what people have not seen as visibly, the criminal justice and public safety stakeholders in this city are now taking a more front line of view, like adult probation. >> absolutely. given the presentation prior to this, i am very excited about linking efforts of a juvenile probation and adult probation, especially in regards to transition-age youth population. there are things that we can obviously do better and work together more effectively in addressing the needs of that very unique population. and as you point out, that is a group that is much more prone to reoffend, and if there is a way to stem the tide of those used migrating into the adult system, that is where efforts should be maintained. supervisor mirkarimi: well said, thank you. that is exactly what we really have to 0-in on very prominently --z