employment, 51%. social, 77.2%. again, a very needy and complex population. supervisor chu: thank you for your presentation. the budget analyst is going to go into the report. i know there is going to be a place where the department is not in agreement. perhaps i can ask you to address that after the budget analyst has made the presentation. >> thank you. >> madam chair, supervisor mirkarimi, as has been stated, and we note this on the bottom of page 11 of our report, the total fiscal year 2011-2012 in county funding available for this public safety realignment plan is $10.5 million, and that includes the dollar sign4.7 million that the board of supervisors previously approaches -- appropriated. and then the $5.8 million in state funds, which is one of the subjects under file 11-907 today. on page 12, we point out that in the funding calculations by the state, allocation to the county's, the state reimburses county's $25,000 a year per inmate, according to the sheriff's department. the actual cost per inmate died san francisco is about $50,000 per year. according to the public safety realignment plan, the plan646 inmates in the post released offenders to be transferred from the state to the county are based upon data provided by the state. that is the california department of corrections and rehabilitation. a or as, san francisco's projections are based on -- there stating the actual population will be greater. let me go right to the recommendation. i would like to clarify one of the comments regarding caseload ratios made by the department. we stayed on the bottom of page 12, the adult probation department, of which we recommend approval of 26 of the 27 proposed new positions, and those positions would be in their reentry division, which is expanding from two positions to five positions as a result of public safety realignment. because public safety realignment has not been implemented, the actual workload, including outreach, service corporation, data collection, analysis, and reporting are not known. we recommend approval of four of the five reentry division positions including manager two, 11824, analyst, senior administrative analyst, and our recommendation where we have a disagreement with the department is the deletion of one, which would be .75 for this fiscal year, with a corresponding reduction in salary and fringe benefits as and 95,096. that would be one in new 1823 senior administrative analyst. the department did -- and disagrees. they provide the department much-needed capacity that has been lacking for many years. but because publics that the realignment will believe in -- will be implemented incrementally on october 1, 2011 with a number opposed italy's community supervision offenders under the adult probation department increasing, we consider four professional staff to be sufficient in 2011-2012. this request before you today is for 31 new positions. we are recommending approval of 30 of the 31, including 26 of the 27 requested by the adult probation department. we think our recommendation is very modest. the mayor's office anticipates that the initial state allocation of $5.8 million and the $4.7 million that the supervisors previously appropriated, the sheriff's department will not be sufficient to fully cover the county costs. we concur with that. furthermore, the total parole and post-release supervision population estimates are based upon data from the state, and the county believes that those projections are low. so because of that, we recommend that instead of cutting the funds related to the one position that we're recommending to be reduced, that is $95,906, we're suggesting that that be reallocated to other current expenses and placing those funds on reserve. and we may report back to the committee on the expenditure plan and the status. we would be more than willing to recommend approval of the additional positions after we see how this program is going. you know, supervisor, when you start a new program, if it is somewhat subjective as to how many positions needed. that is why i stated that our recommendation is leaving out one of 31 new positions and is very modest. the public safety realignment plan connects the city to costs estimated by the mayor's office to exceed state funding. we consider approval of the proposed resolution and ordinances. i would like ms. campbell to come up for a clarification on the case load ratios. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am from the budget and legislative analyst's office. i know the adult probation department raised the issue of caseload. our analysis of this city, based upon the number of probationers currently and the department, 6259. the existing probation officer gives you a ratio of 82-1. the 15 new positions, plus the expected increase in caseload from the state, would reduce that caseload overall to 73-1. it is simply the budget numbers that we were working with. they are accurate giving the information we're provided. this is based upon the department's request for 15 new deputy probation officers. we have not actually recommended approval of those 15 new positions. supervisor chu: thank you very much. to the adult probation department, would you like to respond to the budget analyst request or recommendation? if you could speak in a little bit about the proposed work duties of the position that would be potentially not approved. >> thank you very much. i really do want to thank mr. rose's office. the have been extremely supportive, and recognize that this is a new program and these are a lot of resources. but having been responsible for implementing major initiatives and statewide programs in the department of corrections, the reason why i am so concerned is that while i have seen programs fail or succeed over the years, having lack of staff to be able to implement these programs. while we talked about how the unit would grow from two, there is no unit now. we have no staff doing this work. the two positions coming to us in october are coming from the public defender's office. the two positions have full-time jobs right now, have nothing to do with realignment. they fully staffed the reentry council. the commitment i made when those positions would come over is that we would not pull them away from what their duties are. so their duties are not associated with realignment. they are not associated with our probation's reentry workload at all. i have one administrative analyst right now in the department, and she does grants, which have grown significantly. so what we are really asking for is the senior administrative and the principal administrative analyst, which mr. rose's office is supported, and two analysts, two analysts to assess and modify agency policies, build up new policies, and reflect the new legislation and changes in the penal code related to public safety realignment. as well as responsibility for the post-release community supervision managed locally. staff the community corrections partnership, which is a brand new function, mandated function for adult probation two-step. exhibit of committees and their related activities, and collaborate with local partners. develop not only the initial realignment plan, but also updated. every year, we're going to have to develop a new plan related to the funding and so on. also, to staff the justice reinvestment of initiative, which is just getting off the ground. work with this city services auditor on the realignment outcomes project and related multi-stakeholder projects. work with a principal analyst. the principal analyst is going to put the benchmarks and all of that in terms of allowing us to collect all of the data and see it. but then we're going to have to analyze it for policy implement changes and change the actual policies themselves. so it is not a one-time workload. this statute continues to change. as of yesterday, there was a new statute language, and this will continue over time. right now, adult probation's policy, i am embarrassed to say that the agency has not updated its policies in over 10 years. we have a major initiative going on, and we have been working on it for the last six to eight months, and we're working in conjunction with berkeley to get those updated. but that is a huge workload. in addition to that, now we will have to change it as it relates to all the new statute language for the realignment work load, in addition to this new, what they call the structured sentence that i talked earlier about. some major work with public safety or policy. the other senior analyst working for the second chance project, and it will be the community outreach, the rfp work, the rfq processes. and we have not done basically drug-testing for years in the department. we're going out to bid on that. all the contracts for the services that we need. and work with dph on the initial amendment. but also put out rfp's and rfq's for new services. and we know that we're going to be receiving additional dollars related to sb 678. it is not one-time money or one- time contract in. supervisor chu: supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: please continue. >> there are two separations of workload. one is really the policies and updating the plan and all of the administrative work that goes along and the analytical work. the other is getting all these services in place and to bring the contract performance measurements in place and holding the vendors accountable to those measures. and then the original two positions will continue to do what they have been doing, supervising and administering the reentry council, the executive director over that, and also staffing all the committees. those 40 depositions that came to us with a full workload. -- those are two positions the cantu as with a full workload. when i got the original request, i wanted additional administrative with negotiations to the budget process. basically we went down to the two analysts and the principle. yes the very concerned about that because i have seen so many programs go wrong at the state level if you do not have the step to put the necessary contract in place to rewrite the policies, and the liability associated with this. if i do not have current and updated policies, this is a very complex -- and many of these will be public safety issues, then i am going to create issues for my staff of i do not have clear policy and clear direction, which thereby creates a liability for the city. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: a quick question, chief. thank you, chair. on the 10 million -- $10.5 million and upwards of $30 million, how much of it is state-funded? >> $5.7 million. supervisor mirkarimi: so the rest is coming out, almost $5 million from our general fund. >> exactly. the dollar sign4.8 million you put into their in anticipation. supervisor mirkarimi: and that should be the static figure from here on for the city and county? >> i will not say that is going to be the static figure. there are so many unknowns in how the judges will sentence. some think it is underestimated from the state. the sheriff and i share that opinion. it is really not the judge's sentence. they could get half the sentence time if they are on a day-for- day. or they could have supervision. supervisor mirkarimi: i do nothing there is much disagreement, but because of the uncertainty that you affirmed, especially from the city and county's general fund perspective, that is probably why they're suggesting the provincial -- potential of the one position on reserve, to see of those uncertainties become that much more real. i am hearing sort of what the anticipated hardline facts are and what the projections are. >> part of the other way to look at it is the authority that i have put the authority will help me to manage and to sort the population. the authority i have this to those that successfully complete six months that a violation- free, for those that are 12 months and automatically discharged, if we have the right services in place. if i can get the rfq's in place and all of that, i will have a better service of population which will help reduce recidivism. supervisor mirkarimi: this is a shared responsibility. i see we have representatives from the sheriff's department and district attorneys department here, too. i would encourage that we invite them should they like to speak. but i do have a question for the sheriff's department, please. >> thank you very much. i would also like to recognize and thank you, supervisor mirkarimi, for all your support. you have really been there to help us. we very much appreciate that. supervisor mirkarimi: it has been an intimate process. supervisor chu: thank you, and to lead to the other departments for being here as well. >> i am the undersheriff. supervisor mirkarimi: i do not know if you want to add anything, but i have a couple specific questions for you. all this is focused on the process that present realignment and how the city and county receives the prisoners. i want to talk about the unspoken scenarios. aside from the infusion of inmates that come to us from the state, party to how crime is being managed in san francisco and what the capacity rates are of jails in france -- in san francisco, those being sentenced to county jail, where one of the few counties that have undergrounding right now in the state of california. what happens if we get to over- crowding? nobody is speaking to that potential scenario, if there is a combination effect of something is then causing us to have to sentence more to county jail, and in addition to that, what happens to the state? >> supervisor, again, it is one of those unknowns. the jail population capacity is about 2250. on paper, a little bit more. but in actual practice, about 2250. we currently have about 400 beds available in the jails that are open. we have the 360-bed jail that is not open. we have some room to grow to reach that point. but we do believe is inevitable that the jail population, both because the changes in sentencing practices but also because repetitions will end up in the jail, the plan numbers going to be reached. whether it is reached in a year, 18 months, or two years, it is more than likely going to be reached. at that time, it will be a combination of enhancing the uses of alternatives to incarceration at the back end, and perhaps looking at the release and bail at the front end. the released in lieu of bail was a tool to help the share of manage their population. there is significant liability to the sheriff's to put some money out in lieu of bail as opposed to a court. if the district attorney's office agrees, and then have to look at the rules, it would be far more prudent. since i self them -- i seldom disagree, to have this managed by the court. if the one additional supervision of someone in the state, then asked the sheriff for additional supervision while in the pretrial status. that would probably be something the sheriff may be more comfortable doing, to the extent that that tool is not needed to prevent overcrowding. if it is an issue of overcrowding, the sheriff may have to look at doing it on his or her own self. their constitutional issues. you cannot have a prison on a floor, whether it is a not -- on a mattress or not. under these systems, you stop accepting certain types of prisoners. how upcounty people, you get rid of them right away. you start operating in a manner that may preserve the constitutional operation of your gel system, but it can pose a threat to public safety. supervisor mirkarimi: i actually look at the number of unserved misdemeanor felony warrants that exist in san francisco, and there are thousands. what if all of this that and, magically, and the operative word is magically, there is set a ta a