cases per year per investigator. that is less than one per week. we did not get any evidence that a second investigator was going to be necessary given their current caseload. supervisor chu: thank you very much. thank you, supervisor wiener. colleagues, from my understanding, the department is in agreement with most items. the occ is not in agreement with the investigator cut on page 39. to the comptroller's office, last week we asked you to look at the civilianization work and to true up some of the information on the reports. that was previously done by your office. i am wondering if you had any information to share? >> you have a copy of the revised memo which we drop off this morning. we worked with the police department during the last week to ensure that we're netting out of it, for example, civilians that are at the occ.

it does show, as you can see on table b of the memo, it shows a growth in budgeted civilians since opposition c was passed in 2004. 222 to 326 currently. and the proposed budget as the additional positions for the current year. we worked with the police department to clarify which -- in which cases civilian positions that are proposed in the budget or that we reviewed in the past are currently being staffed by light duty officers, and almost uniformly throughout the proposed budget in cases where the police department and the mayor's office have not proposed to civilianize a position that has been part of a previous review, that position is being staffed to the light duty officer, which makes some sense. so civilianizing the majority of positions that we recommended

the past that have not been proposed will not allow the department to redeploy folded the officers because functions are currently being staffed with light duty officers. i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. these are the positions you looked at in the last iteration of your analysis that showed roughly 65 positions that were civilian positions. the mayor's budget does propose a number of those to be civilianized, as you have in the budget proposal. so in the areas where there was not a proposed civilian position to be funded, you did do an analysis with the department and it shows generally that in those positions that were not proposed to be funded by the mayor's budget office in terms of a civilianized position, there are currently assigned with a light duty is on a police officer. so we would not be able to hire a civilian, the mighty, and put that light duty officer back on the beat because there light

duty. >> that is correct almost uniformly. i think there're five positions not being staffed by light duty officers. the vast majority are. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. any questions from the committee? ok. colleagues, we do have recommendations before us. i'd think in terms of the civilianization question, i do have some outstanding questions about options outside of these positions, whether there are any positions that are currently being done by uniformed officers where it might make sense for civilians to fit in those. i am wondering if the chief had talked about that? do not have a proposal in this moment, the future there may be positions that are currently uniformed officers fulfilling those duties, but it may make sense operationally to have civilians do that work. >> thank you, supervisor. yes, i have a list here. we had 18 officers currently right now that are part of the first-year civilianization plan,

and then we're looking at other positions like the compstat officers who came into play after the fact that would probably be better as a police service aid or crime analysts, and i would be happy to have a conversation with you in the future. supervisor chu: so there are other positions potentially other that we can discuss. >> yes, like facilities, coordinators, vehicle officers, compstat officers. supervisor chu: ok. thank you. we look forward to having those conversations. colleagues, any thoughts on the area of this agreement at the moment? thoughts, directions? no thoughts, no directions, ok. what i will suggest, perhaps, colleagues, in terms of all of the different items that are here, i would suggest that we

take the recommendations with the occ position -- and no thoughts? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: given that there is one increase position in occ -- i really value the work at the occ, but given that we're seeing declining caseloads, i would approve that one position and will take the budget analyst recommendation on at the other. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. there is one thought with regard to allowing the department or the occ to add one investigator. i think what we can do, given that the budget analyst has spoken very briefly about the drop in caseloads and the fact that we are increasing it by one, perhaps we can revisit this issue this year. so we will have one position you'll be able to hire up, and

we will revisit the issue in a year. director hicks? >> thank you very much. i would very much appreciate if we could revisit that in one year, and in response -- although it may not change where you're going today, in response to the comment by the analyst, the occ has, in fact, had many conversations and has presented evidence that what our pending cases are, with the caseload is today, and how the addition of both investigator positions would reduce the caseload to 18 or 19, as opposed to 20.

so i will stop at this point and in the next budget year, i would hope that we could revisit or not fund for this year and perhaps put in funding for the following year. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, director, for your presentation and information. we have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendation. can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you to the police department. let's go to the district attorney's office. >> good morning, members of the committee, chaired chu. i am the cfo of the district attorney's office. we are in full agreement with the budget analyst recommendation for $162,17000-

$170,000 for this fiscal year. we're not in agreement with policy recommendations as it would have a detrimental impact on our ability to serve victims in the community. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. mr. rose, is there anything you would add to the presentation? >> madam chair, members, with respect to the policy, it is the same issue as you previously heard. these are grant-funded positions which now become general fund positions. as a matter of course, we always advise the board of supervisors about that. should the board want to continue as general fund, that is the policy decision of the board. supervisor chu: thank you very much. given that the district attorney's office is in agreement with the recommendation on page 46, do we

have a motion to accept the recommendations? we will do that without objection. with regards to the policy options, any thoughts about that? my preference perhaps is to continue this item or not take action on this item today as we see the rest of our deliberations. ok, why don't we pass through that? thank you very much. our next department is the adult probation department. >> said morning, supervisors. thank you. first, i would like to think harvey rose's office. the chief adult probation officer. i'd like to think -- i think harvey rose's office for working with our staff on the budget. we have three remaining open issues.

first off, i will say that we do agree with one of the recommended reductions, which is the $97,000 in attrition savings on a one-time basis. but the three open issues that we have are, one, our temporary health salaries. as i mentioned at our last hearing, and all of our issues are related to realignment funding that came from sacramento that we successfully increased from what was to be $10 million up to $70 million to cover the city's expenses. the first item is on temporary help. partially funding our temporary help request. the department had no overtime since i have been chief. what we really rely upon doing is using the lowest cost salary that we can. we have hired prop f to help with the workload.

we have hired probation aids. in essence, what we have is we have a need for increased temporary help as we build on the alignment. adult probation is that the court of -- core of the realignment. we provide a lot of support to that. we have created the realignment plan itself. the second-year plan will be coming back to the board in july. in terms of our overall needs, our forecast for our temporary help includes basically the mayor's summer program for interns, probation aids, safety and equipment. all of our stuff coming to work with this, which are 85% high- risk clients, need to be equipped with safety gear. pepper spray and a whole litany of equipment we have not had before and that we have to increase. staff are going through training and maintain impeccable

records related to that. a policy analyst, we're having to go back through all of our policies, not only for sb 678, which we weren't successful in receiving funding for a grant, but now for all the realignment and the project with berkeley. the department's old policies when i came there, basically from the 1980's and 1990's, so realignment has forced upon us a whole new workload. and not only from supervision but also from a legal aspect and everything else as these laws continue to change. it is not like we have realignment and everything is clear and we have one set policy. they continue to be redefined as the court and legislature are changing the laws. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i want to make sure gasol following on with the same line-item. i am is soon we're speaking about the first item that the

budget analyst has put in. >> that is correct. supervisor kim: i appreciate you speaking about how you have not used overtime and you try to always use the lowest base salary. i appreciate that level of fiscal accountability. thank you for that. but the analyst as reported and there is a projected salary savings of about $1 million, which could easily cover all of these positions. so you would still be able to hire all of these positions with the projected salary savings. >> what the projection was based upon his last year, there was -- this year, currently year, a savings of $1 million. that was swept in terms of the savings overall to help the city with overall bottom line budget. because i do not use extreme overtime and all of that to cover the caseload, because we had so many vacancies associated

with our realignment positions, it generated that amount of salary savings, so that money is gone. we have done a salary projection for the coming year, and my cfo is outstanding. we went through our numbers, in those positions are going to be filled in july. the only reason they have not been filled before we finished our interviews in april was because of the fact that we have to do a 90-day background. those will be finished by the sheriff in early july. we will make amendments, hire, and have the staff report, and they will immediately need to go into academies for their nine weeks of training. supervisor kim: you're saying the $1 million and projected salary savings has already been swept? >> yes, by the controller's office, it sure has. supervisor chu: to the budget director, would you like to respond to that? >> supervisor, through the

chair, the chief is correct. as you know, throughout the year, the controller's office works with our office and departments to identify current- year savings in spending or overage is in spending, and the department was unable to hire as quickly as they had originally projected and will generate approximately $900,000 in salary savings that has already assumed as part of the nine-month report and is included as part of our fund balance that is in the budget before you. supervisor chu: just to be clear, the department did have roughly $900,000 in current year salary savings which has already been assumed with the fund balance? ok. to the budget analyst, on the temporary, miscellaneous --

>> yes, the department is asking for a significant increase in temporary salaries this year to pay for temporary positions that they put into place in 2011- 2012. i want to point out, and this is a serious issue, the reason we have salary savings is that this committee and this board approved a supplemental appropriation to hire probation officers. there were 15 and age were not hired. that generated salary savings. the department's then took that money and used it to hire temporary staff, support administrative staff that are not in the budget. these are not positions that are in the budget, and they are not probation officer positions, not direct service positions. and basically to do these other functions. they actually now need to hire up these vacant probation officer positions. they will not be generating the same salary savings if they hire

the vacant probation officer positions that they did not hide your last year. however, the positions that they are not asking for tiberi salaries, we do not see the justification. they are not direct service. they are an increase that they hired into without actually having the budget authority to hire those positions. they would retain enough temporary salaries to meet some of their program objectives. they have -- they are maintaining the $130,000 they had in last year's budget, plus an increase of $100,000 that could pay for extra salaries. on at the overtime issue, this is a department that has historically not had overtime. i looked at their budget a couple years ago and they did not have an overtime budget. >> one other point is that these positions that were hired were done so, as ms. campbell says, without budget authority,

without board or supervisor approval. >> i would like to speak to that if i could. if they will go back, there will see that probation aides, which are administrative positions, but they do workload associated -- because i have not had the officers to be able to hire. while we have hired seven of the officers, i have all of the staff workload being covered by my existing officers that are doing double duty. in addition to the probation aides, in terms of the projection for 2013, i played out exactly what we're proposing to spend the money on. but i nickering year, in addition to the probation aides better trained in participating in the exams and going to backgrounds, part of that planet talked about before in my last hearing, we also had brought death retirees that were paid out of our retirement fund -- we also had proper f retirees

that were paid out of our retirement funds. we have one person had -- that has correctional experience that has worked with this prison population and parole population before. in addition to that, there have been two administrative-type positions that have been assisting us as we are bringing our suite up, bringing the cars and everything related that is administrative. i could have come in and taken a vacant position -- i only want to do it on a temporary basis, trying to be frugal, because i do not have a permanent need for it. as we finish, whatever the individual projects we have to do, if there is no ongoing need for those positions, then that is why i want to utilize temporary help. in addition to that, there has been one policy analyst that has been helping us with our

policies as it related to probation, and now we have all of the this realignment to do. none of the positions are permanent. they're not intended to be. but i have got to deal with this initial workload. one of the positions, i am proposing in the temporary salary, is an education in victim services restoration position, and that position is half paid for, and that is to allow us to expand education which is critical for this realign the population. so the workload that is for the temporary help here is directly related to realignment. and we have to have that base in order to have a structure. having worked with this population for almost 30 years, i know it. i know parole. i know prisons. i know what this population needs to be successful. and we have been very frugal. i could have very easily utilized overtime, even if

historically it could not, but i chose not to. i chose to bring in probation aides at the third of the cost of a probation officer with no benefit. i chose to bring back and recruit retirees. i think we have been very frugal, and we do not plan on, on an ongoing basis, having all of these. for example, the mayor's summer program, that will go away after summer. i do plan on continuing to use probation aides. they are critical and save us from not being able to use overtime. the safety, eight women, and policy analysts, i think the safety and equipment will be done with this year, absolutely. the policy analyst, i believe that that could go this year and may be next, depending upon what the laws do in terms of what the state does, whether they continue to change the policy. the education and victim services, the partially-funded position, because the other part of it is paid for by the charter school, and we brought an

individual over from the sheriff's department who is very skilled in victims programs as well as education to help us bring that up. that is the two-year commitment to helping us do that and is a temporary. that is why i do not want permanent authority. the project manager for compass case records, that is our whole case management system. that is how we track the data that we need. >> i want to clarify that we're not making any changes to the current level of staffing for probation aids. that is a separate line item. it is the same mind the proposed budget as it is in 2011-2012. our recommendation would increase their temporary salaries by 100,000 from what they had last year, and they could then perhaps do some of this work. i do want to stress that the only reason the had salary savings to pay for these salaries in the last year is because they do not hire probation officers in their budget. supervisor kim: thank you. i was hoping we can move on to

the other two items on page 53. >> absolutely. before a move on, i would like to make a couple of points on our budget. from last year to this year, we reduced our general fund related to the normal general fund by over $1 million. we have increased our budget significantly, but it is related to realignment. even in the money that is being increased in our budget, they're not coming in to buy staff. some of it is, but there's a significant amount of money going out purchasing services. there's over $1 million, in an addition to the $1 million base reduction in my budget before the grant money and before the ab 109 money, i also took $1 million of department of public health capacity so they could take a $1 million budget cut this coming year. in addition to that, with the grant that we receive from the state, over $2.1 million, i

purchased another $1 million in services in dth. even though it has gone up, it is in the right place. this is keeping the jail beds down. we're at the lowest point in history of the sheriff's jail beds. that saves millions of dollars by the not having to activated. i want to frame the discussion with that. going into the next two issues, eight it has to do with my staffing account. the original allocation for our officers, prcs and 1170, this requested additional high-risk officers and one supervisor. i've done a projection based on my experiences from october to right now, and basically, i have right now 310 prcs's and 57

1170 h's. instead of being in a gel but, now they are on my supervision out in the community, which saves the beds. based upon my projection, i have the high risk of our population -- 85% of my population coming from the present population is high risk. that is a 20-1 ratio. i have asked for a 50-1 ratio. i am asking for two position for the highest risk and one supervisor. when i say the highest, these are 67 individuals to 40 out of the 67 that have 11 + prior felony convictions. those also include sex offenders. and this is the ratio the state parole is applying to all of their high risk population. i am only asking for two caseloads. based upon what i have right now, and i have been

experiencing getting about 30 a month from the state, and i am also experiencing getting 10, which is increasing to about 20 a month from the community service in -- supervision. instead of the jail bed, they are putting them under our superiors -- supervision out in the community. in statute, there is 12 months, and if there has not been a jail commitment in those 12 months, some of those cases will come off. i have included that in my projections. the state projections have been off. mine have been right on. we're at 111% of the state's community suburban population, and we are triple that of what the state assumed. when my population is going up in the mandatory supervision, that is because the state assumed there would be in the jail beds and they are not. that is what realignment intended. but i have to have adequate supervision to have them in the community, and i want a

supervisor with the highest risk case which is what we do with our highest risk sex offenders. i've two officers and one supervisor, because that is the type of supervision you want with those 11 supervising those with 11 plus a prior felonies. and indycars associated with those three positions. supervisor chu: can ask about the cars really quickly? you typically require one automobile per two probation officers. even if we agree and approved two deputy positions and one supervisor probation officer, it seems like there's still only a need for one car versus three. >> the supervisor also goes out with those officers. we look at the base. we look at how many cars we have in our base, and we consider that two of our existing officers basically go to prisons all over the state, and they go

out and do pre-release assessment. simply what i did is i look at what is in my days. i did a 2-1 calculation and added in the supervisor. to get to that and to have the car, i needed the three cars. supervisor chu: even then, is still only see the need for two cars. >> that is based upon looking at this particular workload. it does not consider that i do not have one of the car is adequate for the existing staff that are there. i mean, that is just what we did, we went back and counted how many cars were budgeted, and how many cars we received in. you know, i would gladly -- if i can get my officers, i would gladly sacrifice a car for that. what i am you most concerned with is the supervision of this population. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. mr. rose.

>> the department asked for two new deputy probation officers and one supervising probation officer in the coming year based on workload. we did look at their caseload, and as of today, they're asking for budgeted positions, probably more than they need. their current caseload -- they have eight vacancies. as they hire these vacancies and staff through the year and as caseload comes in, they will get closer to the ratio that they need. our recommendation is to add one position, which we think that might be more than 90 currently. as they stepped up through the end of the year, if they do end up with 719 cases, then they will be about where the need to be in terms of the number of deputy probation officers and caseloads. our recommendation is from the second year when their caseload is up. as the chief pointed out, there will be also some number of cases starting in october that