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 three

years, we've had somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 60 young people per day. on the next slide, with respect to probation services, our referrals to probation services are experiencing historic lows. what is most remarkable about this particular slide is that currently we have about 564 young people that are active with our juvenile probation services division, and 74% of those young people did not commit a new offense within nine months of starting their probation. and as was indicated in the presentation from adult probation, ideally, we want to track the success and recidivism beyond probation, and we're currently gearing up our case management system to do just that. when you look at equitiable outcomes for all, a couple of the grant funded programs and initiatives that we seek to

implement, foster recruitment and retention services, this will help us to develop more resource families for youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system. we talked about the commercially exploited children, and we have state funding that is earmarked to allow us to train probation officers and community agencies in the prevention and intervention for young people who are sexually exploited through commercial sexual exploitation. and then, the law enforcement services are mandated juvenile justice presentation, family reunification, and probation services.

next, we have a program that will allow the juvenile probation department to hire children working in the summer. last year, we had four youth that were not in custody and two that were in custody. this year, we're expanding the pool to six to eight people that are in custody and four that are out of custody. these are young people who have the opportunity to earn minimum wage for the custody youth while in custody. there's financial literacy that's associated with the program that includes developing bank accounts through the local credit unions, so when those young people get out of custody, they actually have those funds available to them. so a couple of other points that i want to focus on, there are currently 218 f.t.e.s in our department.

there are 43 f.t.e.s associated with administrative. within juvenile hall, 110 f.t.e.s, and for probation services, 64. and that is the net f.t.e.s after atrition. we are seeking to move two positio positions off budget on to the budget. these are two positions associated with the sunsetting of the title iv-e waiver. those positions we want to move on to our budget. and i think with that, i will stop and answer any questions you may have. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any

comments or questions for the chief? i have -- oh, anyone? supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. thank you for your presentation, cheief nance. i do have a couple of questions. the first one is how many vacant positions do you currently have at j.p.d. at this time? >> so currently, there are ten vacant positions in our department. one is the information services technology director position. we've already interviewed for that position and are seeking to issue an offer in the next couple of days. there are two accountant positions. currently, we're working with controller's internalship program to provide our accountant services, so we're seeking to fill those positions.

there is at least one program administrative analyst position. that person transferred to the m.t.a. on may 4, and then, there are seven or six positions associated with deputy probation officers, so there are six vacancies in the deputy probation officer position. >> supervisor walton: and i missed a little bit of the slides. i was trying to follow on the back, as well. did you present on your overtime budget? >> no, we did not. >> supervisor walton: do you have a figure or a number on your overtime budget or how much is spent on over time? >> actually, i think we do have it. so $1.1 million for the overtime budget. >> supervisor walton: and how is overtime approved in the department? >> it's based on vacancies and replacement rates.

it's sometimes driven by periodic or intermittent family medical leave, and it must be approved by a supervisor before an individual can work overtime. >> supervisor walton: and then, with the shutdown of log cabin last june, i believe, what are the plans for the staff that have been allocated for the department? >> so in collaboration with the department of human resources and the labor, seiu 1021, we developed a transition plan to move those individuals over to vacant positions within juvenile hall. unfortunately, there were a couple of employees that retired, so we didn't have to replace those positions, and we are currently -- we brought over ten counselors, three cooks, a secretary, and one

policy analyst that we brought over. >> supervisor walton: were they all able to remain in j.p.d.? >> currently, yes. >> supervisor walton: you just said currently. would that be a plan for them to go somewhere else in the future? >> i'll leave it at yes. i wouldn't say there is a plan to move them in the future, but at this point, they are all reassigned to functions and positions within the department. >> supervisor walton: and then, i just want to talk a little bit about d.j.j. referrals. when we have a d.j.j. referral, what is the cost for each one to the county? >> roughly about $20,000 a month for a young person that is committed to d.j.j. >> supervisor walton: how many did we have last year? >> pardon me. >> supervisor walton: how many did we have last year? >> i think that number was less than four. and currently, we have eight

young people that are at d.j.j., the division of juvenile justice. >> supervisor walton: and outside of d.j.j., when we p-- post adjudication, where are we returning minors. >> so the vast majority are returning home. currently, we have about 80 youth in foster care. that was following a finding by the court that the home was not suitable for the youth. those out-of-home facilities are at various locations throughout the state. there are five locations outside of california where we have young people placed in residential facilities. most of those youth are within california in what the continuum of care reform act now calls a short-term

residential therapeutic program. >> supervisor walton: so are we sending most of them in this case out of county or out of state? >> i would say that most of the young people in san francisco who are ordered to out-of-home placement are going out of the county. last year, we lost the girls program that was being operated by catholic charities here in san francisco, and we are hopeful and optimistic that that can be restored. catholic charities also runs a boys group home where the court and probation relays fairly heavily for some of our young people who require that level of intervention. and then, there are agencies

that are running out of state placement for youth. >> supervisor walton: and what's the total cost for the year? >> the total cost is covered through federal funds, title iv-e. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> you're welcome. >> clerk: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: oh, yes. thank you for the presentation. we talked a lot about the shrinking population of youth in juvenile hall. why has the staffing in j.p.d. not shrunk accordingly? >> well, actually, over the last five years, the probation

department has reduced its f.t.e. count by 23 positions, and we anticipate we'll do the same this year. i think where the reduction in the number of young people that we see is notable, the more challenging aspect of the work is that the complexity of the young people that we're seeing, and the higher level of acuity requires a higher level of contact with the youth and their families in order to address the needs that they have. so while we're seeing a reduction in terms of the numbers, we're also seeing an increase in the number of services that they require. >> supervisor ronen: so you said you were increasing the staff by one position, but you said you were going to decrease it later this year.

>> actually, i'm going to ask sandra to address that. i'm really confident in the atrition rates and how they work, but i'll let sandra describe that. >> hi. i'm sandra delita, the deputy director. we have taken two deputy social positions that the chief just mentioned from off budget, and we have the grant funds that the chief described to you. the resource family approval, and the cset funding. so since we have another fund that's sunsetting, the foster parent recruiting is ending. after this current year, the state is defunding that. we are taking those two social workers positions and transitioning them to the new funding to perform that activity. the reason you see one position versus two, there is a technical error in the budget

book, and the mayor's office is going to correct that error. in addition to that, there's some additional funding through the salary process that is funding to help us with the master plan and the facility analysis, so it -- there's really a net increase with total grant funding for a revenue of two. >> supervisor ronen: so i'm confused because the chief just said there will be a reduction in f.t.e.s this year, but you said there's actually a mistake in the book and there's not going to be an increase of one but two f.t.e.s. >> it's really not going to be because we're working through with your two b.l.a. analysts, and we're working to reduce. so by the time the budget process is completed, and we've reached an agreement with the b.l.a. analyst, carl, who has been great to work with, it will not be an incompeterease .

we've moving two positions from impact to grant funding, so there's no net increase but it's not in the budget because it isn't resolved. >> supervisor ronen: so how many f.t.e.s do you expect to decrease? >> my expectation is two that have been havevacant for a per of time. >> supervisor ronen: and i can't remember the time the f.t.e.s have decreased in position. >> it's over a five-year period. >> supervisor ronen: and the reason that's stayed stable is because of labor-negotiated costs? >> that's up a couple of

million dollars each year. it is beyond the department's control. >> supervisor ronen: i know you said this in your presentation, but i forget. how many juvenile probation officers are employed by j.p.d.? >> so we currently have 44 probation officer positions, and i described the six vacancies. there are 107 counselors that work within juvenile hall. >> supervisor ronen: sorry. so the 107 counselors don't include the 44 p.o.s. >> that's correct. >> supervisor ronen: and what is the size of the active caseload of those p.o.s? >> yes. so it varies based on assignment. what's embedded in state law is a variety of specific rolls and responsibilities for probation officers. so we have intake officers

whose primary responsibility is to process every young person who is arrested, and for those that are detained to prepare in a relatively short period of time a report for the court. so their turnaround is pretty quick, and those individuals are averaging about 20 to 22 cases per probation officer in the intake area. we have probation officers that are specifically working with the young people that are returning to the community. these are youth who have had probably the most extensive involvement in our juvenile justice system and are now returning to the community following placement, and so the level of intensity and the contact with those young people is much higher, and therefore, we keep those caseloads a bit lower, and they are averaging somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 17 cases for that caseload.

the private placement youth, these are all the young people who are placed in foster care. because the state mandates that we visit every youth in foster care every month, those probation officers are actually traveling across the state and to other states to visit those young people. those caseloads are averaging anywhere from 16 to 20 cases. within supervision for young people that are actually living in san francisco under supervision, some of them may be attending school outside the county, those are averaging 24 to 26 per probation officer on that caseload. we have court officer responsibilities, so these are noncase carrying probation officers. they are responsible for assembling all the parties for the court hearings, capturing all the proceedings in the courtroom, and make sure that the court calendar and process is flowing, and we currently

have four -- five. we have five probation officers that are responsible for that responsibility. they also are responsible for moving the youth people to and from juvenile court for their court hearings. and also, we have three probation officers that are assigned to liaison rolls and community support. and there is one of those officers that is the training officer. >> supervisor ronen: and so -- and those are all -- those caseloads are active cases. >> correct. >> supervisor ronen: is there any p.o.s that don't have an active caseload -- i guess the p.o. that are in the courthouse. >> that's correct. >> supervisor ronen: and are all of the staff other than the security who were at log cabin now at juvenile hall? >> with the exception of i think we had three employees that were retired, and one director that is no longer with

the department. >> supervisor ronen: okay. so three retired, one director. and then -- so given the fact of the low census and the number of people that came from log cabin to juvenile hall, why is there an overtime budget at all. >> well, i think during the course of the year, we have employees that retire, that leave the department for a variety of reasons. any time we bring on a replacement for those folks, then, we have to backfill for those positions when they're trained. all of those individuals have to complete at least 40 hours of training off-site, so even though we hire them, they're not actually working because they're attending the training. the first set of training is 40 hours, and then, they have a

subsequent what we call 832 p.c. of the penal code training that requires them to be off-site for 40 hours. the other impact is our staffing is that for young people who are a suicide risk or on suicide watch require one-to-one supervision. any time we have a young person who are off-site at -- who is off-site at a hospital, we have to assign one or two officers for the duration of their stay at the hospital, and that requires two to be off-site. so those kinds of situations 1k3 and especially because of a lot of our young people are experiencing trauma, it's a

heavy burden on the resources, and that is why the overtime budget is as it is. >> supervisor ronen: so back in 2009, when the average daily population was at juvenile hall was around 110-ish, 115, you said right now, there's an average daily population of 40, how does this compare to that? >> i would say it's pretty much flat. we didn't grow the probation counselor ranks. that is the same. what's different is how they are engaging the young people. so in 2009, the supervision that was provided to a young person in custody was more observational. today, that supervision is more interactive, so counselors are spending much more time with young people, engaging the

young people. so the numbers haven't changed, the work has changed, the mandates have changed, the regulatory requirements have changed. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and then, just last question. -- my office and supervisor walton and haney's office had asked the budget analysis to do an analysis of j.p. staffing programs on march 5, and i know the b.l.a. had reached out just that week in order to get information, and they informed us, you know, just the other day that they still have not been able to get all the data from your office. it's been three months now? and what's going on? why aren't we able to get the data that we're asking for in a timely manner? >> well, i think part of the reason for that is our department is relatively lean

on the administrative side. we don't have a team of analysts. we have three analysts that are working on a variety of functions. we've had quite a bit of turnover in our finance office, and so as i described earlier, one of the policy analysts moved on, so the challenge really has been the resources. and i know that our staff have made some significant progress with respect to getting that information, and we fully look forward to being able to provide that to the board of supervisors. the challenge simply has been the resources. >> supervisor ronen: okay. i think it's hard to believe that in three months on a topic in this room that we haven't been able to get that data, that you can't find within the amount of staffing you have. so it's -- it's very frustrating. >> i understand. >> supervisor ronen: we needed to get that report a long time ago. okay. thank you. >> supervisor walton: thank you, chair fewer. just have three follow up

questions 'cause i want to just make sure i was clear on -- currently, right now, you said part of the workforce is 107 counselors? >> yes. >> supervisor walton: all f.t.e.s? >> yes. >> supervisor walton: then, i saw the slide where you said you have 22 programs offered in the hall. and who provides these programs? >> so these programs are provided by a variety of agencies. one set youth services, young women's freedom center, the city youth now, the center for juvenile justice is providing services. we have nairoga yoga that is providing services. and of course our health department is providing clinical services, as well. we've hired a recreational

service provider from the community that also does mentoring and life skills training for youth in custody, and then, some of those programs are actually being delivered by our staff. omega boys staff is also part of the mentoring that's being provided, so there are a variety of those agencies. >> supervisor walton: and then, just the last thing to touch on, and supervisor ronen's point, just in terms of requested data, are you actually keeping this data and information that is being requested? because i understand the staffing capacity issues that may exist, but it would seem if you are adequately tracking some of the data, it would seem that we'd have a situation even with high staff turnover, we wouldn't be able to get data in

a timely manner. >> i think the data is there, but it requires mining. so the data has to be researched. some of the questions -- i think there were about 54 questions that were asked requires us to cut across two different management systems because they cut across two different periods of time. we're having to combine data from young people from two different systems, and it's the complexity of being able to research the data that is the challenge. the data does exist in i think about 90% of the questions that we've been asked to provide. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> you're welcome. you're welcome. >> chair fewer: what i'm seeing is basically what you've said to us around your budget is that basically most if any

increase is around overtime and the f.t.e.s. >> absolutely. and i think the last thing i'll say is we're very committed to the work that the mayor has launched with respect to the blue ribbon panel, and other analysis associated with that work, there is about $475,000 of that fund that will be available to do that work. we're excited about the juvenile justice reforms that will come from that effort, as well as any work that may come from any future legislation. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> you're well come. >> chair fewer: thank you very

much. thank you for the information. it's been very informative. and last, but not least, our sheriff's department. come on up. and i'm sorry to announce that supervisor stefani had a previous engagement that she had to attend to. >> that's okay. >> chair fewer: okay. here we go. >> okay. so my minutes are starting right now. >> chair fewer: yes. but you can always ask for more. as you can see, everyone has gone over. >> we're providing secure human constitutional detention, alternative to sentencing,

providing security, providing our bailiffs in our courtroom security. we're going to go to our objectives. one of my main objectives was to reduce overtime with this budget to 10% of our total hours and replace the overtime hours with full-time hours and the reason for that is we're close to 21%, 22% overtime. and we want to make the switch to ensure stability and to make sure we have the right people in the right place. so one of the things we're doing is civilianizing some position and continuing to aggressively hire deputies. supporting criminal and juvenile justice reforms. we're eliminating charges for

the jail phone calls next year. it's a lot of work, and it's going to take some time to put it completely into position. and we're -- and we've already put out an r.f.p. for a vendor; and we're ending commissions on the commissary items that come to the city. understanding that over half of the justice community are out of custody on pretrial release through the courts. we also are looking to increase our training and ensure that staff can successfully meet the expectations that we've placed for them. the department hasn't had an increase since f.y. 2015-2016.

we're supporting the justice goals while working collaboratively with stakeholders, replacing the jail management system. we're upgrading our website right now, implementing scheduling software to improve efficiency over our current management system, and we're establishing public safety policy management system. so to reducing overtime, we are adding five sworn staff to the f.t.e. staff, and i'm going to have kri have kristen present on that.

we have a very diverse department, and i'm proud of that. it's been diverse since the beginning of time, and i feel that i've been here since the beginning of time since i started in 1975. we have a budget of $3 million for inmate phone calls and i will have a statement about the rebooking and adding $978,000 to increase the threefold increase in electronic monitoring, also in response to reforms in court orders.

training include sti-- we havew training focused on direct supervision of our victims, also new crisis intervention, adding people to get there. we're only at 50% and creating a new inclusive environment with the department of public health and we've created some new mental health pods in our jails along with the department of public health. in modernizing our data, i already talked about that, so i'm going to skip over that and talk to the next thing. i did want to say one thing about the hiring, and we will get to that in a minute. this is just a snapshot of what our currently jail population looks like. it decreased by 1% over the period from july 16, 2016. the out-of-custody population

increased by 75% over that same population. total population increased by 29% over that same period. and we still have the same amount of people in custody, although we have many more people out on pretrial release. wanted to talk more about the rebooking. you were asking the police department and the d.a. and the public defenders about rebooking. it is important that the d.a. do rebooking and reports. we have been talking to the police department, b.a.r.t. police and the port agency about getting their reports in as time. the federal courts are looking closely at us right now, and we're trying to work closely

with law enforcement, the d.a., and the law enforcement agencies to see what we can do to get our reports in quickly, and we have had some very good conversations, so we're moving towards that. one of the reasons i heard from the police department was they weren't funded for rebooking, so the liaison working with the d.a. was handling that. i'm just telling you what i heard but also there isn't over because we're going to be looking at 24-7 pretrial services for people that have come into our custody. that's where we're headed right now, and i don't know where this is all goes to flush out because the federal court has said that the application of the bail schedule is unconstitutional. they've already made that determination, but there are conversations going on about that. so i just wanted to add that. and the growth in alternatives

to incarceration. you can see the electronic monitoring has gone up. we have close to 300 people on electron electronic monitoring. that's not right now, but that's over the year. right now, we have about 180 people on electronic monitoring through the courts. and case management has grown quite a bit. that's the assessment tool that demands much more time, resources from pretrial to provide that risk assessment management, and they are at about 90% compliance across the board on the pretrial release, so 90% of the people are contemplating a contemplate -- cooperating and doing what they're supposed to

do. we have had a lot of success since i've been here. we've hired 250 sworn people in the last three years. that's quite a number for us, but with that, it also brings a little bit of destablization because also, we've lost a lot of people and in terms of our overtime and dependence on overtime, that's not a good place for us to be. so reducing overtime to acceptable levels is a priority of my department. and we'll go through the budget summary and i'm going to ask kristen to step in with that. but before i do, i wanted to say we did have the assistance of a city's comprehensive

analysis, and it's not quite done yet, so i'm going to ask ben rosenfeld to comment on that. >> i'd be happy to. we're in the final stages just prerelease of an audit we're completing on the sheriff's department staffing, so i will have that in front of the committee potentially for your hearing next queen creek. i won't get into too many details because it's still an internal review. but we have fundamental reliance on overtime. we have recommendations regarding civilianization in the department that would allow civilian to replace swoerch and

he -- sworn staff and move them back. we hope to have the audit in front of you next week. >> and now, i have crispin for the last two presentations. >> okay. so in our budget summary, i've divided it up between nonwork order and work order because the increases are fairly equal on both sides. for salary and fringe, we have about a $3.5 million increase in the work order --

[please stand by]. >> -- to inmates for phone calls, and then finally, the final $350,000 is simply a budget transfer from department of technology. we're going to take over the budget to support the legacy jail management system as we move into a new system that we're doing with coit funding, so that's it for the money summary, and then, i have an f.t.e. summary, as well. our budget proposes five new civilian, 15 f.t.e.s. almost all of these are to reduce overtime. on the sworn side, we have one

deputy to support the increase in electronic monitoring, an additional four deputies over the two years simply as part of a strategy to reduce overtime. and once new recruits are hired, these employees will reduce overtime on a 1:1 basis. for civilian employees, we have one more chief information officer. this is in line with an old recommendation from the c.s.a. from february 2018, that the department should have a civilian c.i.o. we also have one additional legal support staff to support mandated transparency requirements. and then we are working on civilianizing records. the c.s.i. suggested a number of civilianizations.

we proposed in the budget somewhere around 50% of that. what is in the budget is about 25% in year 1 skprks 2, and abn year 2. finally, with regard to staffing levels and vacancies, on the sworn side, we have 9423 authorized, we have -- our -- the budgeted number that was 829, our actual is 855, which means that relative to budget,

we have -25 vacancies, which is why we're raising the numbers in the budget so the work order part of the budget will reflect reality. and then, on the civilian side, we have 190 which are budgeted, and the actual is 190, so relative to budget, we have zero vacancies. >> chair fewer: got it. actually, i think this is really smart of you. last year, we talked about the vacancies, and i think the year before it was a huge issue amongst your work staff. they came and complained to us that there was mandatory overtime. you yourself introspectively said that we could do that management. i've often thought that you need a staffing plan to staff

up and i'm glad to see this was happening because you were understaffed, and it was showing on your workforce. this was really smart to do. i'm glad to see this, and all i can say is good luck on staffing up. as you know, the police department has said they have a hard time recruiting, and i know you don't have your own academy, and you must depend on other academies to reserve spaces for you. and i have supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i didn't have any questions, but i just wanted to return to this issue with the budget director and ask that you discuss this with

the mayor because it was kwonef her projects about the rebooking process. today you've heard from the sheriff, the d.a., and the public defender that rebooking on the weekends is successful, and it hasn't been successful because of an issue with the police department that could be easily fixed. so instead of eliminating a pilot program that three of our criminal justice leaders that are often not on the same page about many things are saying works and is necessary on an issue that has been a priority for the mayor when she was on -- a member of the board of supervisors with a small tweak to the police department just i think maybe was overlooked during the budget process. so if you could go back and draw her attention to this and see if you can fix it, that would be much appreciated. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. any other comments?

questions? thank you for that. i think you're addressing that one big issue you have every year. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you for your work. okay. so now i'll take public comment on all of these department hearings, and we're not taking cards, so come on down. everyone gets two minutes. >> my name's stan flannigan. i'm head of friends of the urban forest and i'm here as the head of the urban forest council. i'm here to talk about trees, and a quick about the why. so the what is when we passed prop e, which only takes care of trees after the third year of their life, has nothing to

do with planting trees. we did a survey, and we identified 6500 trees that were dead and dieing. so they've actually taken care of 2500 of those trees. they have 4,000 trees to take care of and replace in the next two years. they have no money, except for the mayor who just put it. it takes about $25,000 to plant a tree and take care of it for two years, so with 4,000 trees, we need about $8 million. the why, many of these trees, and many people spoke to this. a lot of them are ficus trees.

they were planted a long time ago, and they're dieing, and they define that streetscape. so if you don't replace those trees, they'll be completely devastated, and you know more about this than anyone else. so does supervisor mandelman, and many other people. so that's why we're really pushing hard for this. and it's also -- it's good for the environment. you've all talked about this as an environmental crisis, and trees are incredibly important for environment. >> chair fewer: thank you. i have a ficus in front of my house, quite frankly. come on up. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is josh clip. i'm a long-time resident of san francisco, an attorney, and a long time attorney with friends of the urban forest, and as much as i love dan flannigan, i have to disagree with his request for $4 million because it's not enough. it doesn't come close to meet

the city's urban forest goals, and it doesn't account for the tremendous loss of canopy when you takedown a grown tree and replace it with a sapling. the board recently passed a resolution instructing the department of the environment to go back and create a revised climate action plan. director debbie raphael stood up here and said with everything that we are doing, it's not enough, and it's not enough because our pollution rates outpace our ability to sequester our carbon. we have yet the smallest urban

canopy of any major city in the united states. san francisco is not a leader here. in fact we are dead last when it comes to investing in this cheap, effective tool to help us meet our climate goals. one last point i would like to say is the community is really starting to organize about this. you probably have heard us knocking on your doors, calling you, e-mailing you. it's just you. we're going after departments to do better, and we're not going to stop until the city becomes a leader in this instead of just trying to keep up. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. hi, mr. wright. >> you've been giving credit where credit is due, but today, your efforts fell short. you were undermined by kate hartley in the mayor's office on housing. i'm quick to react when somebody deliberately lies by

deliberately miscategorizing the truth or the accuracy. for example, you had a situation on your hands while demonstrating a speak up for all nationalities. i don't care if your skin color's green. today, you had well over several asians speak about how they can't afford to live in the city and county of san francisco. kate hartley undermines you by saying between 30 and 40% of the a.m.i. would be affordable housing for the very low-income bracket people. 30% of the a.m.i. is approximately $25,850. to senior citizens, the group of citizens who came and spoke to you today about how they can't afford to live in a studio apartment and affordable apartment in san francisco is not making that much money. and by the same response, if she was dealing in good faith, the income requirement would start at 20%.

she deliberately told me that it starts at zero, but it only applies to people that are homeless out in the street. that's another example how you're not being an equal opportunity organization. it should apply to everybody that puts in an application for housing. for example, at 40% of a.m.i. is $34,500, okay? and now i'm going to show you some price fixing and price gouging. according to this document, very low-income is 50% of the a.m.i., which is $56,450 a year. whereas on this document here, when you get to $56,450 a year, it's located at 65% of the a.m.i. that's the kind of digging --

[inaudible] >> clerk: excuse me, madam chair. >> chair fewer: oh, excuse me. your time is up, mr. wright. [inaudible] >> chair fewer: well, we can only extend time if we ask a question. i do have one question for you, mr. wright. what do you think is the correct income level for this low-income housing? >> well first of all, it shouldn't be no income at all. this was put together to include every income by people that's living in the county. you can't just pick out a number and don't include everybody that's on this sheet of paper. their income is put on this paper so you can be included in the housing opportunity, not to be excluded. that's a discriminatory practice and chicken device.

you've got one document that says low-income is $56,450. and then, when you look at another scale, where it says 50%, 50% is $43,100. but on here, it says 50% is 56,450. that's called price fixing and price gouging. why are your 2:00 a.m.i. scale documents got two different figures. i would respectfully impeach that presentation here today because these documents contradict each other and you cannot rely on them because they're not true. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. >> i can't even get to my other demonstration because of what happened this morning. >> chair fewer: mr. wright, the

game's going to start in 25 minutes. >> hello. i'm betsy white and i'm very mindful of the game and your patience. i've been a conflict panel lawyer in san francisco, indigent defense for 35 years, and i've been a supervisor for 38. supervisor ronen was on one of my jury panels a few years ago. i'm here to tell you why this funding we're asking for is so essential. i'm 66 years old. when i graduated, i had $8,000 in debt. lawyers today, when they graduate from high school, they are $150,000 in debt. they cannot graduate from school, make $74 an hour, open an office, pay for staff, run their practice. there is no way we can continue to recruit young, passionate

independent lawyers into private practice unless funding is increased. i'm a perfect example of someone who could come into private practice at a time where it was more affordable and it was possible for all of us to live in san francisco and work and thrive. and now i'm 66, and i'm going to be part of the 25% of panel that's going to retire, who came in the way that i do. these people do the identical work that the public defenders do every day. we have the identical stories we have about the lives we saved, tragedies we suffer. just like the public defender, we represent that same class of people who need help and are constitutionally require that help. we are underfunded, we have been consistently underfunded and i think ignored in terms of our critical role. we take every case the

public -- >> chair fewer: thank you, and thank you for your service. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm pam herzig, and i'm a member of the panel, and have been for 25 years. i'm in private practice, always have been. i've never been a public defender, and i do a combination of private and publicly appointed work. i represent clients in multiple counties. i can tell you that i've been to other places where the defense bar is not what we have here. it is so good here. the private bar is full of incredibly strong, committed lawyers, and the only reason they're doing this on a nearly volunteer basis is because of their own belief in the fact that the criminal justice works as a justice system if all

three legs are engaged equally strong. when the prosecution falls down, you have jamal truelove. when the defense falls down, you have other travesties. and the mayor's budget. you clearly recognize what an emergency this is, and it's an emergency that can be remedied by funding. this is a fix, an easy fix, but it's not fixed with a 4% raise that's artificially tied to city employees that enjoy all sorts of things i don't get. i don't have health care. i don't have pension, i don't have paid vacation. i have overhead, i live in the

city, and she suggested in a -- that i should continue to do that, instead of $119 an hour, she suggested a $4.75 an hour raise. >> chair fewer: thank you. thank you for your service. julie, come on down. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm julie tran, director of the court association's court program, and we partner with the public defender in providing this critical and important work that we all do. in 2009, i helped jeff adachi develop the summit where we are asking for funding, and there was a real crisis in the city as far as the public defender's office was concerned in 2009. and to make that crisis clear, he -- he told everyone, and it was true, that he could not do his job in the absence of additional funding.