not that attorney is qualified. we risk not knowing whether or not that attorney has the time necessary to devote to that case. and these risks lead to the possibility of ineffective assistance of counsel, is something that nobody wants. finally, i'll leave you with the real example, the live example of jamal trulove. jamal is a san franciscan, he's musician, actor. in fact, a starring role in a film that came out last week, called "the blast black man in san francisco." in 2007, jamal was in the wrong place at the wrong time. he was arrested and subsequently convicted for murder. he maintained his innocence and seven years later, in 2014, an appellate court overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial. at that point, to ida attorneys were appointed to represent him in his new case. a year later in 2015 he won a jury acquittal.

jamal has the fortune, even though he was falsely incarcerated for seven years, he has his life back. he had the fortunate for access quality representation. and it's this type of quality representation that we would like to try to uphold and ensure that everyone who is accused of a crime in san francisco has access to. thank you, supervisors, for your time. i'm happy to take any questions that you have. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. i'm hearing sort of a little bit of chatter up here, too. i'm horrified by this. i think we're all a little bit horrified by this. to see that the rates having fallen so far behind the federal panel and we allowed them to get so far behind over these years, seems like a gross dereliction of our governmental responsibilities to provide for the, you know, for the defense of the accused.

and it seems to me like what you have asked for is a reasonable and necessary fix to something that's gotten way out of whack. so i want to thank you for bringing this to us. and i'm hoping this is something that we as a board can do something about. >> chair fewer: yes. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. i kind of was having an offline conversation with the budget director. i think it's pretty outrageous that this was not included in the mayor's budget. i'm wondering if you could explain why not. >> thank you, supervisor. as mr. yuen, noted, the mayor's budget doesn't increase the allocation for ida and the proposed budget. not at the level requested. i will say that we had not been asked to raise the rates in over five years. so i -- there wasn't a conversation for five years

about the rates with the mayor's office. so we did our best to align the increase that we provided in the mayor's budget to align with the wage increases that were granted to city employees, through our negotiated bargaining. and we agreed with the courts, at least to stem the tide of the growth different, the continually falling behind. concluding inflationary factor going forward to ensure the i think was keep up with inflation, similar to other contracts. >> supervisor ronen: so mr. yuem, did you request these amounts to the mayor's office and they declined the requests? >> supervisor ronen, we did, indeed, make this request of the mayor's office. and i think part of the complexity here as well is the court, while a state entity now, perhaps always a state entity, but now funded by the state, in

the past we were funded by the county. and there's a quite old legal opinion from the city attorney's office, in fact, it might be 40, maybe even 50 years old now, is that the way this process works is it's really only the board of supervisors that has the authority to make substantial changes to the court's budget. so i think that's part of the complexity here, in that while we made the request to the mayor's office, i believe in that legal opinion perhaps the mayor did not have to fully devote attention to it, pursuant to this legal opinion. i'm not sure exactly what happened there. but that is something i think that is in play here. >> supervisor ronen: is that the legal advice you got, budget director? >> i didn't ask -- i'm sorry, i'm not sure what the legal request question is. but the courts did bring us the full -- the request that is before you.

and we were able to fund i think -- i forget what the $300,000, about $500,000 within the mayor's budget. >> supervisor ronen: yeah. i just think it's very strang. obviously this board has extremely limited power of budget compared to the mayor's office. and when we know that you're scoping out attorneys in the waiting room to defend people, because you can't get attorneys to take the cases that are qualified, that's pretty egregious. and you'd think that would be fully funded in the budget. i'm sure we'll take it a priority. next time i hope the advocacy and this level of really negligence, that the city is engaged in, would be handled by the mayor. thank you. >> yeah. actually i would remember that we can request that this be -- this amount be baselined in the next budget. but as you pointed out to us, i

think it's -- the board of supervisors have the authority actually to increase this fund, which seems like i think that we're in consensus that it is sorely, sorely needed. and our promise to the public and the justice system is actually for due process. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: any more questions, comments. a little horrified. thank you. we are now going to go to items 2, 3 and 4. we're going to revert back now to the other thing, which is the housing bond, that all ready. items 2, 3 and 4 i believe president yee is going to make amendments on the housing bond and many thanks so his chief of staff. my legislative aide and sanu.

and the mayor's budget staff, of course. >> president yee: okay. so would you like -- before i make my statement? should i just go ahead? >> sure. kate hartley. we have just i think three, four slides to talk about the recommendations. so i can go through them, if you would like, president yee. >> president yee: why don't you do that, otherwise i'm just reading. probably seeing it and reading it. >> okay. great. okay. thank you. i will be quick. and i just want to say also thank you to jen and ian and andrea and kelly and everyone for their assistance in putting this -- these revised recommendations together. we are thrilled to be here today to talk about the update to the bond allocations, because we now

have $600 million for allocation, rather than the original $500 million that you saw last time. to just quickly. we have the original allocations of funding and the categories of uses before you, public housing, low-income housing, affordable housing, middle income housing, senior housing. we have, through great deal of discussion and stakeholder input, we have added a category of funds specifically educator housing. so what we recommend for the allocation of the $100 million, is that the public housing value stays the same. low-income housing is allocated an additional $10 million, affordable housing preservation, that is the acquisition and rehab of existing buildings principally for non-disreplacement purposes

stays the same. middle income house, which was a pretty low original value goes up by $10 million. and senior housing is increased to $150 million, that's a $60,348 in-- $60 million increase. we're recommending a $20 million educator housing category for new construction. that totals $600 million. and there are also some allocation priorities that the stakeholder input created. and so within certain income categories, there are priorities. and i'll quickly run through those. so for low-income housing and that is the construction of new housing available to everyone from homeless households up to 80% of area median income, will have $10 million set aside for predevelopment for permanent supportive housing. we will have $5 million reserved for a new program, which is

permanent supportive housing and a scattered site context. it's a communal housing or shared housing, small buildings with intensive services. we will -- and this is specifically treating -- addressing people with chronic mental illness or substance abuse. that's a very particular use of those funds. $15 million we will reserve for -- through a notice of funding availability to start new sites that are located in neighborhoods that either have a low amount of affordable housing in that neighborhood or both a low amount and a high disreplacement rate. -- displacement rate. this is the geographic equity and balance we have been talking about, since the discussions of the bond commenced. for senior housing, we have a similar set-aside $50 million, specifically directed to

neighborhoods with either low affordable housing production or both low production and high displacement rates. and then finally the $20 million will be for new construction opportunities and these rental opportunities will be for sfufd employees, as well as city college of san francisco employees. and that is going to serve a wide range of residents in our city, earning between 30% and 140% of area median income. and just a few more recommended recommendations that will go in the bond report, not in the ordinance. therethere will be a lot of detl that will follow in the bond report. we're very intent on getting this money out the door and making sure we create new housing as soon as we can. so if the educator housing category funds are not spent within four years of the date that the election is certified, the bond approval is certified,

then we'll reallocate those funds to both low-income and middle income, so they can get used very quickly. in the same -- we'll do the same sort of reallocation in the geographic balance set-aside. both for senior housing and low-income housing. and then funds not otherwise geographically restricted should prioritize neighborhoods that are facing high displacement. we really want to protect our residents, who are facing or at risk of losing their housing. finally, we want a priority for our senior housing, to include that it be lgbtq welcoming, such as the successful lgbtq welcoming senior housing, that we sponsored at 5 laguna. and that is really it. so we are here to answer questions. but again thank you for everyone's participation in this effort and i think we have a

very good -- a great bond to present to the voters of san francisco. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, miss hartley. i actually think that i really want to thank president yee and his staff and all of the other legislative aides in the mayor's office that worked on this. i think this is cause for celebration that we are together putting on a $600 million housing bond, completely not enough, but the first really good step. president yee. >> president yee: yeah. thank you, chair fewer. i want to thank everyone for your patience today. after all it took so long, two weeks to figure it out, since we found out that we actually had this additional $100 million. i say that sarcastically, of course. knowing that people have to work really hard to get to this point today. there probably was even more discussion over this

$100 million than the first $500 million. it was -- it gave an opportunity for many of us, whether you were from the community or from the educators or from my colleagues, even more time to think about what if. and with the addition of $100 million, it became what if, rather than that's it. because of that some of this discussion was sort of brand new, some of it was partly brought up earlier. and, you know, unlike the first iteration, we had much more time to think about it. so there was some tense and i have to give it to everybody, and this to everybody that were involved, kay hart liquor, amy and everybody else from the mayor's staff that was involved. , so many of the supervisor's

staff were involved, as jen keeps on telling me every night. oh, my god. talk to everybody every night. and i want to give her recognition for staying -- you know, basically staying in the office almost every evening, especially last night, where i was already in my p.j.'s, after dinner and ready to get to bed. and i get a phone call near midnight and she's asking me questions. i said -- i'm still at the office. i said, oh, boy. thank you for your patience. and all this. so basically i want to thank also -- there's a lot of thanks to go around here. i'd probably even say it again. this is a wonderful that we had co-chairs mike malcolm young, ta

tamika moss and annie chung for facilitating the working group, committees earlier on and dozens of organizations that were involved in the discussion process. and out of that, of course, we were able to configurethe first $500 million and also added on to the discussion for the $100 million. so i also want to thank the mayor, mayor breed for her leadership and collaboration with the border of supervisors. i truly felt like everybody gave a little bit on this one. and we all gained a lot. the housing bond like this comes every several years or every few years i want to say. so we should be thoughtful about what we can do and also be bold about ways we can maximize affordability and financing projects. the reality is that this bond

alone will not solve our housing crisis. everybody knows that. but we hope it will move us -- move the needle somewhat in the right direction. at the end of the day, we want to keep san francisco housed and provide more housing opportunities for those struggling to stay. we heard the testimony from seniors, who are desperately looking for a way to age in dignity -- age with dignity. we heard from public housing tenants, who are in dilapidated housing units. we heard from workers who cannot establish roots here with their families. [ please stand by ]

you . >> president yee: now, we could do a lot more, but it's a start. in describing to educators,

what do we really mean, because if we don't put some definition in terms of what are we talking about in terms of their salaries or income, they're educators that earn as low as 30% a.m.i. to 100% a.m.i. so it covers not just the credentialed teachers that are in the classroom but more -- not more, but important individuals that are in the classrooms as paraprofessionals, and hopefully, this will cover them, as well. the details in the bond report, these are some of the high-level amendments that we will be making. and in addition to that, the

third thing that we have do is within the bond report, at this point, i would like to make a motion to prepare -- i hope this makes sense, but if it doesn't, it will make sense one of these days, but this is what i have to do. at this point, i would like to make a motion to prepare a motion out of the herring file, item number 4. meaning, that this motion will include almost everything that we had discussed, and it's in written format this point. and instead of going through all the little details of it, this motion will basically make it clear that those details will be in our bond report. and you have a copy of it. okay. so those are the three things that i'm asking.

>> chair fewer: okay. i think there's a motion for some amendments on the table. before we vote on, that i'd like to supervisor ronen whose name has been on the roster. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much just really quickly. and i want to thank supervisor yee. it really was a tremendous corraling and negotiating process, a lot of different priorities, a lot of different individuals. thank you to you all. not only is the specific money for teacher housing amazing and important and something that we've hoping for since that hearing that supervisor fewer and i held what, two years ago now? this is a really concrete step towards a solution. so tons of gratitude for that, and then thank you for adding the $5 million to for the first

time since the 1990's expanding this form of cooperative housing for people with substance use and mental health addictions. it works, and it helps stablize people in our city, and it's really exciting that we're going to add to that supply. >> president yee: so supervisor fewer, just a few more things that i want to say. >> chair fewer: okay. hurry up. let's go. >> president yee: i know i have a five-minute limit. >> chair fewer: i'm sorry i said that. mr. president. >> president yee: yeah. for the low-income housing, we'll have $15 million for neighborhood affordable housing production or in neighborhoods

affordable housing, as well as housing removed from protective services. one thing in a nobody speaks about -- that nobody speaks about is we want to make sure we use every single dollar before we go on to our next bond measure, so some of these categories, we're pretty sure we're going to use it all, but we put a time limit. basically after four years from the time that the bond is certified, the money could shift if it isn't used. by that time, we're probably going to be talking about a new bond measure, okay? so i want to make sure that all of us hear that, probably comments at this point. all right? >> chair fewer: sure. i also want to thank the mayor's office of housing and community development as this is going to be in their hands,

quite frankly, but i think it's a really good thing to have, and thank you for this. now, i'm going to open this up for public comment. we had earlier public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed on this item. i believe there's a motion on the table. president yee has made a motion. >> president yee: so i made a motion to amend the ordinance and resolution for item 2 and 3. >> chair fewer: right. i second that. i think we can move that without objection to the full board meeting of -- no. >> president yee: no, we need to -- >> chair fewer: next friday -- next week. >> president yee: yeah, continue it for one week. >> chair fewer: i'm continuing it to next friday's budget meeting, whatever that date is. >> president yee: because we made amendments. >> clerk: items number 2 and 3 will be continued to the finance meeting of june 21st at

amended. >> chair fewer: is that it. and then, for item 4 -- >> president yee: without objection. >> chair fewer: oh, without objection. item number 4. i believe president yee has made a motion on item number 4. is that correct? >> president yee: yes. i make a motion to create a motion for the bond report for item number 4. >> chair fewer: okay. i second that, and if we can take that without objection? okay. thanks. is that done or do i have -- >> clerk: no, you have to -- >> president yee: you have to continue that. >> chair fewer: we're continuing that until next friday, also. okay. thank you very much. it's all official now. thank you very much. good, good, good. okay. it's a good sign. all right. now, i'd like to go back to hearings and call our district attorney, mr. george gascon.

>> good afternoon, madam chair and board members. we're loading up our presentation and i believe that you all have copies of our powerpoint with you? it's coming up. >> chair fewer: oh, it's coming right here? okay. thank you. mr. gascon, we will put five minutes of time on, but if you need more. that's absolutely fine. >> thank you so much. just let me know when you're

ready. ready? good. okay. so beginning with -- as your instructions indicated, we have our mission, which is pretty much the one that we've had for the last several years. our strategic goal, which i won't read for you. they're all right there for you. next, i'd like to get into our expenditure overview. in our case, about 76% of our budget is salaries and benefits, as you can see by that graph, and most of the increases that you're going to see in later slides, they're driven by two things. one is m.o.u. -- new m.o.u.s for salary and benefits, and the other one is rent increases in our facilities, both in the brennan street and our yerba buena island facility.

so you can see we have a 7% increase, and that was driven by those items. and i'll get granular in a second. so the first item is the m.o.u. related expenses, and that's about $2.4 million, and that is followed by about 1$1.5 millio for rent increases. the next was is case management increases. that is for d.t., and d.t. has shifted over to the county attorney's office. the next is lead. the lead program is free law enforcement diversion program for particular offenses primarily related to drugs.

the grant will end halfway through the year, so the mayor is funding us two positions for the remainder six months of the year. and the next item is a body worn cameras, and we're being funded for two paralegals. that has to do with significant increase in workload in body camera information, and i'll review those and when appropriate release that information to the defense. you also notice in red, we have those eliminations of weekend rebooking, so that was a savings of a little over $800,000. on the next slide, now, you're seeing the f.t.e.s, and if you notice, our total count is 276, so we have remained flat there. and the way that worked out, we had the weekend rebooking was defunded, and we had four people, and we gained two for

the body worn cameras a, and then, the other two people for the other programs, so the f.t.e. count continues to be 276. next, vacancies. we've had 11 vacancies in the last eight months, but we anticipate all of those will be filled out. next has to do with metrics, and i'll get into detail about them next. some of them, we like to charge rates, trial, diversion, caseloads, early resolution, advocacy work, and victim's

compensation. these are all areas that we think are important. there are other areas, too, like recidivism because we haven't found a way to track that because we haven't found a common definition, so we continue to work with our partners in this area. but the ones we are tracking that we have clear metrics for are the ones that you see here, which are the number of cases that are presents, the incoming caseload in our trials, and that very quickly in this slide gives you a more granular look. so our caseload decreased a little bit in 2018 and 2019, however, continues to be higher than '15 to '17. our caseload is approximately 123 cases per attorney. conviction rate is 90%, felony

filing rate is 60%, and that completes my formal presentation, and i'd be glad to entertain any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. district attorney. any questions for our district attorney? yes, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: hi. just two quick questions. you said your weekend booking was defunded? >> yes. >> supervisor ronen: do you know why? >> i think the mayor's office was looking for savings? >> supervisor ronen: so mayor's office. >> as a part of the process, we asked the controller's office to do an impact of the analysis on the weekend rebooking. that analysis determined there was not a reduction of the number of jail bed days. in addition, it was not defunded, it was funded as a pilot in fiscal year 18-19. so in order to fund the

program, you would have to add another $800,000 to the budget. but the primary reason was it was initiated for jail bed day reduction, and the controller's analysis determined that it wasn't helpful in that arena. >> supervisor ronen: is that your opinion, mr. district attorney? >> well, it's complicated, right? because i think it -- as the mayor's office is pointing out, when it came to weekends, because oftentimes, the police department wasn't bringing the cases, that does not necessarily resulted in a reduction in jail per se. we always said from the very beginning, that we made it clear that we did not think that would be the case. on the other hand, the value was we were able to review cases much more quickly, which resulted in some people spending less time in jail. and then, the space has really evolved tremendously in the

last 1.5 years now with post humphrey decision. there is a lot of pressure to evaluate cases quickly, if it is moving forward, whether we're going to ask for pretrial detention. our general position is no pretrial detention unless there's a danger to public safety or a flight risk. those require review, and while i think the original intent of the unit wasn't to address this, this is what the unit has become, and i think that will be a problem for us. the other part is you've heard, i'm sure, maybe, that we have announced that we've moved to a biased mitigation system, where starting in july, we will no longer look at the color or initial race of a person. again, this is going to add

pressure to the rebooking process, so we were hoping initially frankly because we were looking at these way before the budget, that we would have them, but we won't have those bodies. we were not expecting to have this program defunded. >> supervisor ronen: and then, rosabell, in your review of the pilot rebooking program, the budget director said there wasn't a reduction of days at the jail, right? did you look at other benefits of the program besides bed days? >> good afternoon, supervisors. ben rosenfeld, controller's office. we looked at the effect of the jail population, meaning, how

many bed days, and our conclusion was it does not have a meaningful impact on jail bed days. our report stated there were other benefits, but for the primary purpose, it does not achieve that goal. i'd be happy to forward the analysis on to the committee members if that's helpful. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. and then, my second question, i know for sometime, you've been looking for another attorney in your sex trafficking unit. did you request that attorney again this year and was it included in the budget? >> right. it was requested and it was denied. >> supervisor ronen: all right. and what's the cost of that? sorry. you can get that to me later. and was there a reason, budget director, that that position wasn't funded? >> it was simply for the reason

that there are many requests from many departments, including the district attorney's office, and we weren't able to fund all the requests given this city budget. >> supervisor ronen: yeah, and this was a request that i made, as well. there's nightly sex work that happens in my neighborhood. it has led to shootings in the neighborhood. residents are propositioned early in the morning. they've felt very unsafe. there has been committees of neighbors and victims to get together to request funds from the mayor's office to address this extremely dangerous situation in our neighborhoods, and none of it was funded. i was very disappointed. i know you've been asking for that position for years. the unit currently has one attorney or two? >> well, we have one attorney

that we move around. calling it a unit, we're just pushing it because it is very important work for us, and we have been requesting this continuously to get this funded. we thought this year we would, given the high profile that was given to this issue, especially given your focus, as well. we are one of the hubs of trafficking in the country, and we do not have a dedicated unit. many counties have dedicated units to do this work. i do not view sex workers as criminals, i view them as victims. >> supervisor ronen: i've never seen a group of organizations that advocate on behalf of sex

workers join with neighborhoods who was sex work out of their neighborhood and come together with a joint proposal to address this situation in a responsible way that doesn't criminalize the workers and to have it not even looked at and rejected without comment was shocking to me. i have to say i'm extremely disappointed in that. we brought in an expert from los angeles that chief scott suggested we brought in. we brought them in for a day. the unit in los angeles is running circles around us. we have two major tracks in the city, one in the tenderloin, one in the mission where teenage girls are basically enslaved by pimps and working the streets and to have this

not prioritized in budget is shocking to me, so i will continue working alongside with you. thank you. >> you've still got the massage places that -- >> chair fewer: i've got those in my neighborhood. they need a ton of work. thank you very much, district attorney. now i'd like to call up the public defender's office, manejar raju. you have a whole team with you. madam clerk -- oh, we have a new one. madam clerk, can you please put five minutes time on, please. >> clerk: yes.

>> so thank you, chair fewer, members of the board. under jeff adachi, i think we

became one of the finest boards in the country. i'd like to thank the mayor's office for helping us get to this place. first, i'd like to talk about a pretrial unit, which was jeff adach adachi's idea a couple of years ago. it's been a huge savings for the city in terms of bed days

and days in jail. also, it's representation at a crucial time in a -- someone's incarceration. this is the initial time when someone's in custody, and if you have the means of a private attorney, you call your attorney, but if you have a public defender, you wait for the public defender to come and visit you. we have a unit dedicated to that, and it's been a huge success. it's going to now be continued for the next two years. it's moving out of temporary status into the permanent budget next two years -- next cycle. our newest addition is our integrity unit, and we've heard a lot today about 1421 and all

the records that are being processed and released. but these laws are meaningless if the intended beneficiaries of the change in the law, our clients, don't receive that benefit, and that is true for 1437, too. resentenci resentencing under 1170.95 requires a huge amount of work. we have boxes of old trials that we're going through, in essence, having to retry those cases. similarly, there have been changes in the law for transition-aged youth who have the right to parole hearings and sentencings. if you look at the material that they're giving incarcerated people, it says visit your public defender's

office. [inaudible] >> so now, we have to go back and work on that to ensure we get the right sentence in place. similarly, under 1421, we're going to get millions of documents that we have to process, scrutinize, and categorize and see if they're past cases, where a person has been convicted, present cases, and future cases in a way that we can access them efficiently.

we're already overloaded. we have people staffing our specialty courts, many of them are carrying several life cases on top of that while they're in court outside of our felony rotation. and if we do not have a staff dedicated to these integrity issues, then other cases end up being delayed, resulting in stress for our clients who have to wait a longer period of time. we believe this is essential to leveling the scales of justice. we asked for more f.t.e.s. as this board knows, we make the most of every dollar. we have happy hours, and six out of ten go back to work after that happy hours.

we thank you all in civic government for making this happen. >> chair fewer: thank you. and so it looks like it's an increase of three f.t.e.s for the integrity unit. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yeah. i'm wondering about the impact of the pilot program? >> individuals that are rebooked have that decision whether the case is going to be charged or discharged be expedited. so somebody who comes into custody on a thursday or even a wednesday may stay in custody all the way until monday or tuesday. as i understand it from the d.a.s office, the reason for

the reduced impact so to speak was the police department was not providing the police reports in time because there wasn't a similar effort in place, i suppose, for that weekend. so the decisions that the district attorney had to make relied on police reports that were not forth coming. and it seems that rather than defund a program, it seems the fix would have been, should have been, to get those police reports timely. and so that was -- that's certainly something that i think you should continue to talk about because the various decisions that were made in the context of whether san francisco needs to invest in a new jail, there were many, many efforts that were funded, and as we know, there's 17,000 people that are booked into the

county jails every year, whereas 4300 get charged with felonies. so we have people that are just cycling in and out of the jail every single day, and it's not -- it's ending up with a charge of a felony case, and so i think we really need to look at that. and weekend rebooking was something that i think was critical. >> supervisor ronen: so if we were able to figure out xz w, chief scott, how to fix things on their end, do you think it would be an impact on jail beds? >> oh, absolutely, absolutely. because that was the hinges, and that was something that was talked about and discussed was that they were unable to make those decisions over the weekend. they had staffing. they had no police reports to review. so the fix, i think, chief scott, discussions with the

police chief and the police department would definitely be a positive way to deal with this. >> chair fewer: actually, supervisor ronen is a subject that you could explore as a hearing even with recommendations. >> supervisor ronen: just want to do it in time for us to impact the budget, so i'm wondering -- >> chair fewer: i don't know. the district attorney put in a request in to fund the weekend booking project. >> supervisor ronen: yes, and it was denied. >> chair fewer: okay. so we're aware of that. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. straightforward. thank you very much. appreciate it. now we will have chief nance of juvenile probation.

>> good afternoon. >> chair fewer: hello, welcome, chief nance. we will put five minutes time on when our clerk gets back. let us know if you need more time. it's just a helpful reference. >> thank you. we will get our presentation up here. with me is several people from our office. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> okay. thank you again for the opportunity for the presentation on the juvenile probation department's budget. first slide focuses on the mission and strategic goals for the department responding to the needs of young people who have contact with law enforcement, using a strength-based and culturally competent trauma informed rehabilitations. we work closely with the superior court and stakeholders

for unique resolutions. we comply with statutory regulations and rules of court that governs juvenile hall and probation services. san francisco has recognized that we cannot achieve the best outcomes for youth when we race to the bottom in an effort to do the bare minimum. the more than two thirds decrease referral in detentions over the past decades is evidence that robust consistent andest-based service delivery yields the best outcomes for youth and families in the community. this transition breaks the cycle into the criminal justice system and disruption of the generational justice system involvement. here, we have a high-level overview of the department's budget for fiscal years 19-20 and 20-21. as you can see here, roughly 73

to 74% of our department is salaries and benefits. in the services, supplies, programatic section of the budget, which represents about $4.5 million. this includes $302,000 in the first year and $415,000 in the second year of state funding for new and increases to existing programming, resource family approvals, commercially sexually exploited children, law enforcement services for rehabilitation and reentry, and other juvenile justice programs. in our nonpersonnel services, we have our debt replacement for the juvenile hall facility, which is approximately $2.5 million each year, and other professional services, including security for the

currently vacant log cabin ranch facility, which is vacant currently, and staff to maintain the facilities at log cabin. we have case management system, electronic monitoring. we have about $235,000 in software licensing fees for our case management system. our service -- services to other departments include the p.u.c. about $946,000 a year to dcyf, the department of children, youth and their families.

our office basically serves as a pass through of all of those funded to fund community-based agencies. that total amount is used to support the services that are being utilized in juvenile hall. it costs about $800,000 for workers comp, and our general service obligations through d.t., real estate, risk management, central shops, and reproduction. we also have services to the department of public health to cover some of the work that they do with young people, the clinical services at juvenile hall. that's approximately $250,000 a year, and then, other miscellaneous services. our facilities maintenance is about $450,000 a year, and then, we have several capital outlays associated with repairs to the facility. those include the multipurpose room windows that require replacement, and other windows on some of the other parts of

the facility, as well as the athletic field in the juvenile hall. in the next slide, it's a brief description of each of the programatic options of our department. log cabin ranch is currently closed, so juvenile hall is the primary custodial facility that we operate. arrest, intake, foster placement, step parent adoptions, court supervision. under our general administration, that includes our finance, information

technology, research and planning, human resources, building and grounds, and you may also recall that under buildings and grounds, the facility that we operate at y.g.c. includes the courts, the school district, the health department, nonprofit agencies, the district attorney and their staff, and the public defender. a couple of key performance measures and i'll run through these pretty quickly. about 4,479 young people participated in violence prevention programs during fiscal year 2018. 259 youth were diverted into the community assessment and referral center. 97 of those young people were served on electronic monitoring. that's used as an alternative to detention. so every young people that we're able to release into the community with electronic

monitoring, that is one more youth that's not in juvenile hall. a particular note is 85% of the young people through a snapshot that we looked at in october 2018 were involved in some level of community programs and services. as you look at the pie chart on the right side of the page, you can see that about 57% of those young people who were served were not young people in the juvenile justice system, and the remaining 43% were actually involved with our system and had a prior arrest. this is actually a good number because it demonstrates that as the number of young people in the juvenile justice system goes down, that we pivot to prevention so that we're reducing the number of young people coming into the system. a couple of other performance measures that we'll focus on with respect to juvenile hall. in fiscal year 17-18, we had 712 bookings into juvenile hall. over 16,000 bed days, or

392,000 hours of direct care service, given the fact that we run a 24-hour-a-day facility, 365 days a year. our average daily population was 45. and while we've seen significant decreases in the number of youth that are served in our system, we have also seen an increase in the intensity and complexity of the needs that they present, and this is further manifested in toxic stress, acute psychiatric conditions and often co-occurring conditions. many of these young people have fractured families and limited familial supports. so by way of comparison, the trends of the past decade show a steady decline in the average daily population of our juvenile hall. however, in the past