Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 2, 2018 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT

1:00 pm
it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to doesn't really add anything to >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome back to day five of budget and finance committee hearings. how are you guys all doing. the crowd is getting smaller. yesterday it was a full chamber. we're doing our job, we're just moving forward. chopping it down. i just want to recognize linda wong, she's our clerk. she's amazing, ladies and gentlemen, just absolutely amazing. we have two people at sfgovtv,
1:01 pm
that's mya hernandez and jim smith and the ladies are here ready to go to work. i'm going to wait for my fellows to join me. i need them here. but we have sandy fewer to my right and to my left is cath ryan ancatherine. when the guys get here we're going to welcome them and keep moving. so, today we are going to hear from eight departments, ok. we're going to hear from oewd, dcyf, the sheriff's department, d.p.h., district attorney office as well as planning, homelessness. some of these departments have reached an agreement in this committee and some departments have already reached agreement and this committee is taking action but we've called them back for more in sight into specific spending, particularly for dcyf and d.p.h. as a reminder, after today's
1:02 pm
deliberations we will adjourn for the weekend. monday, we will have discussions on the outstanding policy issues. if we reach no resolution today, we always have monday. also, i want to introduce our revised -- i will reintroduce our revised split spending plan that will reflect public comment, which we will take on monday. yes, we are adding an additional day for public comment. the feedback of my colleagues and the comments we've received through the budget information website they're asking for more public comments, so we are going to give the people what they want. more public comments. yeah. it's going to be great. both on the spending plan and also on the budget legislative analyst proposed cuts. i invite my colleagues, as always, to join in this committee on monday to discuss the spending plan and just as a
1:03 pm
reminder, we will be taking no action on the rie re allocationn that day. call items 1 and 2 together,. >> clerk: item number 1, budget and appropriatation all stilts receipts and all estimates expenditures for department of the city, item 2 annual salary order dinnance in the annual budget and appropriating budget establishing these positions. >> all right. first up we'll hear from mr. jaoquin torez. [laughter] >> yes! he is representing a fantastic team of oewd. i understand they're in agreement. >> we're in full agreement. good morning. we are in full agreement. i want to thank the mayor's budget office. and the budget and legislative analyst team mr. rose. >> thank the budget committee as well. >> and the budget committee as
1:04 pm
well. i was going to save that are inform last and our analyst. thank you so much. >> so, where do i begin? you are accepting baseline cuts and you will take the policy recommendation to place $787,24. >> correct. >> b. l.a., remarks? >> we recommended reductions to the budge he have of $3,379,000. of those reductions $20,000 are on going savings and 283,799 are one-time savings. the reductions were still allow increase of 2.7% in the department's 18-19 budget. we recommended placing $787,245 on budget in finance committee reserve in 18-19. in addition we recommend closing
1:05 pm
out $333,782 for total general fund savings of $635,582 and in year two, 19-20 we recommend reduction to the budget of 20,000 in 19-20 and those are all on going savings. >> thank you, very much. since we're in agreement there's nothing to talk about. >> thank you so much. >> we're going to take -- was that applause? i thought i heard applause. i was like whoa. so i'll make a motion that we accept the baseline cuts. take the policy recommendation and put it on and place the $787,000 on reserve and that is my motion. is there a second for that? >> supervisor fewer, would you like to second that motion. >> yes. >> and that seconded by supervisorrer fewer my vice-chair and we'll take that without objection. note supervisor yee has joined us. next, we're going to hear from
1:06 pm
maria sue. coming to represent the department of children youth and their family. and good news, everyone, she too is in agreement. yeah! >> good morning chair cohen, members of the committee and i am also in agreement. i was actually here yesterday when the b.l.a. report was shared. we were part of the group that was in agreement. i want to take a brief moment to thank the mayor's budget office as well as the legislative analyst. the entire team. and of course members of the budget committee. i am here to answer any additional questions the committee may have. >> fantastic. the mayor added a million dollars in baseline funding for out of school time for eth let r athletics. this is great. i want to make sure the granting organizations are well distributed. no committees that don't have access to programs. start there and i have a few
1:07 pm
questions. start there about the strategy on laying out the additional million dollars. >> sure. so thank you for the question. we are very fortunate that mayor farrell was able to allocate additional funds into our budget to support athletics program through our two-year process, we've heard from parents and from young people about the need for more recreational activities in the city. we are grateful that the mayor was able to do that for us. through our r.s.p. process, we did allocate funding for sports programs. we had a specific category called out of school time sports. as such, we were able to fund a couple of programs and it was felt that we needed to have more athletic programs for our young people in the community. the way that we will do this will be through an r.s.p. process where we will r.s.p. out the million dollars for additional athletics and sports
1:08 pm
programs that will be broad and comprehensive. >> so, what are the grant funding proposals that you've received in this area? >> it's a wide range. so, we have a lot of soccer programs. we have football programs, basketball programs, baseball programs, tennis programs, dance programs, for us the definition of sports is very broad and it encompasses all forms of physical activity and movement. >> how does this lineup with your needs assessment? >> we worked with community leaders and particularly young people in gathering feedback from them about how we, as a city, can support them in achieving their goals. and part of the findings that we heard was the need for more physical movement and sports programs. so, this lines up very well with our needs assessment and our
1:09 pm
allocation plan. in our r.s.p. we allocated for sports programs and this is an opportunity for us to expand that and to have more. >> which committees are served with this strategy? >> under the r.f.p. we tried as best as we could to have a broad allocation. up in the precidio we have our bike program. in bay view, we have a couple of football programs, and in the mission we have a couple of soccer programs so we try our best to have different variety and options for young people. so, with the additional allocation of funds, we'll be able to allocate even more programs and more opportunities
1:10 pm
for kids. >> earlier this year, you and your department went through a transformation that caught many people, many of your granting organizations off guard and the supervisor board off guard, that sent rippling effects into our budget process. you see you changed the way in who you were targeting, who was going to get the allocation of dollars. i understand you didn't grow your pot you just refocused on who was going to get money. in the future, a heads-up would be nice. but, what is happening is now people who didn't get funding, who would normally depending on funding now they're coming back to us and part of advocating for continuation of services through this process, i just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on why such a shift took place and you've come to this
1:11 pm
budget committee before to talk about it but just in context of the budget hearing could you share i insight, thanks. >> when our department was reauthorized in 2014 or 2016 -- when our department was last reauthorized, there was very specific language in it that speaks to two major changes or a few changes. one was for us to provide funding for services up to the age of 24 and another one was for a requirement for us to do an equity analysis, which means for us to really look at the data for those who are achieving outcomes and thriving in our city. and so we spent a year to look at the data, to work with our community, to really figure out where are all the gaps in our
1:12 pm
city where either young people needed additional support and families needed additional supports and where we could bring our funding into provide those additional supports. through that process, we then spent another year to think about if these are the true outcomes, if we want children to be successful in school, to be ready to learn, to be able to continue on to postsecondary opportunities, what are the types of programs that we need to fund and we need to support. that happened in our second year of our planning process and the communities have come to our meetings. we have shared the findings of the community needs assessment as well as the allocation plan with all members of the committee here and the board of
1:13 pm
supervisors. i'm shocked they feel it's a surprise because we've talked about this many, many times and it has been a two and a half year process where we have said that we are focusing our funding towards our highest knee children youth and families and targeting programs and services to close the gap for our african americans, latino and pacific islander young people in the city and young people who have high needs such as young people in poverty and young people who are homeless and who are in multiple systems. we've used that to close those gaps and that's why you see different things within our r.f.p.s that speaks to education support that's really targeted to supporting young people from transitioning from elementary to middle school and
1:14 pm
middle school to high school because we know those are where the gaps are or support inform young girls in middle school because according to the data, that's where a lot of our young girls in the city are experiencing bullying and self-esteem issues or supports for our lgbtq young people in middle school because that that's where the youngest needs are. so we meet the shifts according to what the data was telling us and our budget grew so we were able to continue to add more funding. >> eddie: those particular areas as well as provide funding for our older people. >> what happens to the organization that don't get funding? that are out of your scope and that are unsuccessful in the process? >> well i can't speak to the process. i can speak to the r.f.p.
1:15 pm
process. we had well over 800 proposals that were submitted to us. we had over $130 million of requests that came in. we only had $76 million available. we had a very competitive process. we engage almost 250 readers from locally within the city but we went as far as readers and throughout the country because they had expertise so we worked with people who really understood what it means to runny quality workforce programs so i feel strongly the agencies that we ended up funding are agencies that will provide that high-quality program that our young people in this city deserves and need. >> great. supervisor fewer has a few questions. >> i think maria, what
1:16 pm
supervisor cohen was discussing, the reason is why people actually panic so much is that instead of a three-year cycle it's a five-year cycle. so when you reach with the five and you are not funded so some organizations could keep a float for three years but they can't keep afloat for five years without the funding. that is actually part of also why people are panicked. but, i know we've talked about this but i was hoping that you could explain the defunding of the detention diversion advocacy program, which service to identify and develop case plans for youth offenders with specialized needs with the goal of diverting these young people from custody. we have heard major concerns for stakeholders included s.f.r., superior court, public defender and others about this very unique program and it's based that the youth guidance center that will not be funded and will leave a gap. so thank you supervisor fewer
1:17 pm
for that question. what you are asking is very specific-type program that is in juvenile hall right now. i've said this before where we are very fortunate that we, as a city, have over the past several years, learned to flex the collaboration muscle. we have learned to work closer together. we know that every time a young person that enters juvenile hall, the chance of that young person reentering juvenile hall, particularly for certain ethnic groups, are 75% higher. so the better strategy is to make sure these young people don't even enter into the hall. as such, we've worked with other city partners to make sure that that doesn't happen. right now the census in the hall and the chief is not here, but the census in the hall on average has been around 30 to 35 young people. so we've done an amazing job in
1:18 pm
keeping young people out of juvenile hall. so, because the census very low, we have made the decision to make sure that our programs and services are very targeted to the young people who really need it. so, spanish-speaking young people, young people who want to work with a person that is is of their culture so whether it's an african american person, or a chinese-speaking person or a young person that wants an opportunity to develop their education or young person who wants their ability to get into the workforce. so what we've ended up doing in partnership with juvenile probation, is identify six multi-service agencies that will provide the comprehensive services for young people once they walk into the hall and when they leave the hall. so continue the wrap-around services we believe young people need which is the consistent
1:19 pm
adult alli to really help them be successful in their transition into adulthood. particularly for the program you just mentioned, the work that -- well, we're only down to 35 young people who are in the hall so it's really hard for us to justify allocat allocating $600o this agency. we believe that through this new model, the six multi-services agency model, we'll be able to meet the needs of these young people that will enter the hall. we have had conversations with this particular agency around extending their contract for a couple of months to help transition the work that they were doing, to help train up the six multi service providers to be able to pick up some of the gaps that they believe they'll
1:20 pm
be dropping. and quite frankly, i'll be meeting with the public defender and private bar probation leader today. >> thank you, very much. supervisor yee. >> thank you. i really do appreciate that your office has taken data into consideration when you do your allocations and to see where the needs are. as hard as it is for me to say this next sentence, it's probably what i believe, that when your agency is not necessarily there to the livelihood of organizations. your chore is to do what is right for children.
1:21 pm
so, the fact that some of the the organizations didn't get funded is an issue. it's about the kids not the organization. there's going to be mechanisms we will support when it comes to organizations with the rent and so fourth that we want to keep them afloat. saying that though, the weakness of this transition from one sort of mechanism or procedure or the way your organization is looking at r.f.p.s is people fall through the cracks, organizations fall through the cracks for a variety of reasons. i think there are some disadvantages when things change for small organizations that don't know how to write
1:22 pm
proposals as well as larger organizations and somehow we can find a way to take that into consideration. i saw that some organizations didn't get funding were the smaller ones. the other issue of course is as you shift into your buckets where people fit in, whether you are a small or large, it didn't matter but there were certain organizations that figure out which bucket they applied to and applied for the wrong buckets. do you have any solutions to that? it's hard to backpedal but is there anyway to look at that situation because it's about children and there are good organizations childre serving or
1:23 pm
children. >> thank you. i can't speak to how an agency decides which category to apply to. i can say, over the last couple of years we've increased our allocation for capacity building and technical assistance to our organizations because we do acknowledge that there are some organizations that are smaller, actually even large organizations that are grass root organizations that came about because the e.d. or the founder had the heart and it was through passion and heart they created the program and a lot more complications, funding streams and paper work and all those other things and over the past couple years we've allocated and almost doubled and tripled our allocation for technical assistance to support programs to build the capacity to do the paper work for the
1:24 pm
administrative stuff as well as support of program quality. we have staff who are always researching and staying a abreast on the best practices and all the field so we're, through this process, we have, i guess i can announce it here but we're putting together what we're calling the dcyf university. we truly believe that we have a responsibility to support our youth workers to earn a very difficult degree of being a youth worker. we have spent the last two years developing a relationship with san francisco state university and they have agreed to allocate credits, these are actual san francisco university credits, to our youth workers who participate in trainings that we will be implementing in our office or in the community to really honor our cbo employees
1:25 pm
who are working really hard to serve our children, youth and families in the city. >> so i know there were a lot of r.f.p.s that went out for contracts, are they still outstanding buckets that have not been r.s.p.? can you speak to when the timing is? >> sure. so we have several buckets that will be released in, i think in eight or nine more months. and that is because we phased out the r.f.p. because it was a lot to handle. the next iteration of r.f.p.s we will issue will be for art collaborations. so dcyf, in partnership with department of public-health and other departments, co fund collaborations that were ethnically targeted so we funded
1:26 pm
a collaboration serving our spanish-speaking latino community and our african american community and we will start a new project providing funding for our pacific islander samoan and pacific island community and that will come out in later fall and we hope it's a collaboration r.f.p. so we're looking for one c.b.o. to take the lead but then hopefully more will come under that as a collaborative network to provide that particular community. that r.f.p. will be coming out of the end of the year and we have another r.f.p. coming out to provide community assessment and referral services for our young people who are in the
1:27 pm
high-risk system. >> what about anything on families? >> yes. so the family engagement category we've allocated in our allocation plan, we do hope to issue that r.f.p. we are in lots of conversations with our other city departments to make sure that what we do for families will be aligned with what the department of public-health is doing to support families or first five san francisco is doing to support families so we can actually have a coordinated system to support families. we have several conversations with our school directs partners as well because we're all serving the same families and the same children and we need to make sure our dollars leverage each other and we're not going against each other and we need to make sure that the biggest thing for our buck.
1:28 pm
>> when is that coming out? >> i don't know, it takes time. we hope sometime next year. >> this sort of -- i don't want to say a delay on the r.f.p. process but not offering these r.f.p. and have old contracts, is there a gap of time where they don't have any funding? >> well, actually the funding that we've allocated to family empowerment for c.b.o.s have gone out and that was gone out to the first five to support the family resource center. so that is already going out and those non-profit agencies, the c.b.o.s have received their funds and are implementing
1:29 pm
quality and amazing work in the community. the portion of funding that i'm talking about has never gone out to a non-profit agency. these are new dollars that we believe we needed to allocate so that we can support the continuity of care and coordination for families in our city that would be in partnership with the school district and the department of public-health and other city departments. >> one last question from you. as you know, as part of the reauthorization, there was a decision in the voters supported it for many our children and families council in which the purpose of that is to look at all issues that impact children and family in the city and how we can coordinate better. how is that going or -- is it under your department? i'm a little confused sometimes if it is under your department,
1:30 pm
can you answer whether or not we're moving anywhere with that? it's been several years now. >> yes, thank you for that question. part of the reauthorization of our department, we created a council called the our children our families council and for the past two and a half years, that council has lived here in city council. it's moving over to our department. so that we can provide that back office support for that council. the council will still be chaired by the mayor and the superintendent. the council will still have senior leadership from the mayor and from the city and the school district and our communities at the council. over the past two and a half years the council has done many bold and what i believe audacious moves already. one is that we've put a stake in the ground to say that in this city, we believe in coordination.
1:31 pm
we believe in collaboration and as a result, we formed this council. number two, we also have clear north stars that we're moving towards and those are the those five main goals that we have talked about for a very long time. and then number three, we've used data to back up why we need to move towards those north star. so, we've done all those things over the last two and a half years. the next iteration now for ocof is to really figure out where are all the bright spots that is happening in our city and trying to drill down and lift those projects and initiatives up so that we can expand to more neighborhoods and more communities. but we've done a lot. we've also started our service inventory plan which is to try to track all the different
1:32 pm
services that the city has for children youth and family in the city. >> do you know when the last time they had a meeting because i haven't heard of a meeting being held for a while. there's four or five full time people working on this and i don't know what they're doing anymore. >> we just had our council meeting at the end of may so several weeks ago and in that meeting, the council approved the implementation plan or the performance measures that the city will move towards so part of developing goals and using data, you also have to develop bench marks and that council meeting we approved the bench marks we as a council and city will agree to move towards. >> i'd like to request those notices for those meetings be
1:33 pm
given out a little bit earlier and i don't think my office even received, as you know, i agent o --author this. my office would like to keep informed with the progress because this is really important for us to get this done. it's been a while and i'm struggling with other collaborations like this in the city where it goes nowhere or takes forever. more recently we talked about justice. data sharing of several departments and it's been 15 years they come to us and say we're still working on our first goal after 15 years. i don't want to hear that about ocof. hopefully our children are much more important and we get it going and i really am depending on your leadership to help with this. >> y yes.
1:34 pm
a apologize our notices have not reached the members of the supervisor and i will make sure the council staff knows that. and i agree, i agree, these are very important data and they're very important outcomes and goals that we as a city need to coalesce around and troy to achieve together. >> we appreciate your time. thank you, very much. we're going to keep moving forward. >> i don't think they need to take action on dcyf. thank you very much. we're next going to hear from sheriff's hennessey as well as mr. christian holland. they are not in agreement. and there are several points we're going to touch on. materials and supplies, non personal services, prior years
1:35 pm
appropriation and community based organization. >> thank you. i appreciate that. good morning, everybody, and i did want to -- gave a shout out at beginning, i think sophia kitler, she did a great job organizing and sending us all the information. i don't know who she is but she's listening. i'm sorry to break your streak of no arguments and the first time i've come here with some arguments so number one i think it's important to know that we fully expect to expend our current budget this year. i don't think we will have a balance left at all and our new budget has no new f.t.e.s included in it. we have 1.8 million above last year that accounts for a small cola, 1.2 million for pretrial
1:36 pm
division which is really not enough and 650,000 the sheriff's department took on to support the miss da meaner behavioral health court with beds and transitional housing and some public-health workers that are not assigned in my budget. and that replace a grant that ended this last year. the budget also accounts for the fees we have given up in terms of collection. we're no longer collecting fees from defendants but electronic monitoring and supervision in sentenced programs. >> pardon me. what exactly was the total figure that were collecting when we did collect fees? >> $220,000 a year. >> annually. >> annually. >> thank you. >> we have been using our
1:37 pm
existing funds to do a lot of innovative things and things that were talked about during the reenvisioning process and one of those is we hired a healthcare worker for pretrial to provide a warm hand off for people getting out of jail so there would be a warm hand off and some information associated with that so when pretrial got that person, they would be able to hit the ground running. and also, for electronic monitoring when we set someone up with electronic monitoring to make sure they're not leaving and for getting to come back to get their electronic monitoring put in place. we have also started a reentry specialist that is at our entry and released jail so when people get out, surprisingly, a lot of people get out would you any wio if they need services. we also started providing emergency vouchers for transportation and housing for people get out of what who may not have a place to go or money
1:38 pm
on the books to take with them. there's a number of things we have done. we did get $250,000 in overtime for domestic t.i. o. firearms retrieve. retrieval. i mentioned this before, i did not get a c.i.o. for my i.t. even though it was recommended by a controllers' audit starting us on civilianization of that area of the sheriff's department, which now that's about 12 deputies assigned to it. we'll go to the first page. >> the presentation. >> go ahead. >> this is the first stage. this is the over all budget that shows our base, the mayor's recommendation and the changes recommended by the budget analyst office. so for proposal number 1, we've given you a summary of the b.l.a. explanation and overview
1:39 pm
and they might want to add to it when it's their opportunity to speak. it talks about appropriations and basically our response to this is that the funds have been down and staff used new money instead of old and we fully expect to spend our materials and supply budget this year. thens penses include specific items, we are over on some and under on others but it's balanced. on the next page we show you some of those. so, i'll let kristen go ahead and do this. >> since the b.l.a. report came out, total inkum ranses came down to 1.8 million most has been payments for food. that is a big part of materials and supplies. food now accounts of .6 million that will cover the two months remaining with bills running
1:40 pm
about .3 million a month. the department did request an additional, roughly 150 from the mayor in anticipation of good food purchasing requirements that just passed out of this body a few days ago. this was not funded. this was a challenge that we were requested to take. unforms account for .6 million. we have .2 in outstanding uniform orders. there's a fair amount of complexity and receiving these goods. we ordered by the person and if the whole uniform comes in minus one shirt or minus a belt, that we can't close out that order and in addition to that our financial system has made it more difficult to close out orders because if prices change, we need to go into the system and spend i'm on each order to close it out. we have a fair amount of outstanding uniform orders.
1:41 pm
we have another .3 million in tactical vests. this money we have to inkum better before we can make the order and likewise for uniforms for new recruits. .1 million. the uniform budget in fy18-19 is $43,000. we had actual spending of about 400,000 this year and this supports hiring of new deputies and cadets. we ultimately we borrowed from other parts of the materials and supplies budget. the department did request an additional 150 and our budget for uniforms to support on going hiring this was another challenge that we received in the mayor's proposed budget. and then with regard to miscellaneous supplies, safety equipment, and inmate institutional items that accounts for $.6 million. this represents about 20% of the total budget and that will pay for april, may and june. i want to say that we have spent
1:42 pm
100% of the total original budget. if we compare to the revised budget, we have, which includes carry forwards from last year to this year, we have spent encumbered 100% of the total revised budget. >> keep going you are on a roll. >> b.l.a. number 2. the department, the b.l.a.s explanation summarized is that we have 535 of appropriations that have not been spent. actually, let me back up a little bit. the amount here is very small. if we can give out anything, we could give on this because of its size. our professional services budget includes 60 separate line items. some of these are under spent and some are over spent. taken as a whole the government
1:43 pm
has spent 100% and we have spent 9 9% of the revised budget including 800,000 carry forward from last year to this year. and then, more on this particular cut. the b.l.a. recommendation for professional services cut 95,000 for electronic monitoring but the department was able to demonstrate that electronic monitoring, the increase we have in the caseload will be driving up costs by 100,000 so then the b.l.a. went back and they proposed cuts that we were not supported by under spending and a little background here. there are line items in the professional services budget that include sources and then other line items that include uses. the source lines, which are just where the funding is, will always show zero spending. in two of the line items in the b.l.a. report that they are suggesting that we cut, are source lines only. so there's no spending here.
1:44 pm
so, these cuts there are not supported by under spending because there is no spending by definition. the membership line where they would like us to cut from 8,000 to 0, the mayor's proposed budget has 40,205 for the membership. this is an increase of 8,205 from the current year and that is based on historical spending shared with the b.l.a. again, this is a small cut but we can take it if we need to take a cut. this is why we were able to argue successfully with b.l.a. that we do need the amount of money for professional services to electronic monitoring.
1:45 pm
and finally, b.l.a. proposal number three and four, we've conjoined these two but they're overview explanation is that the budget increased by 2 million, which we agree. sfsd has 1.8 million for c.b.o.s not yet spent which 600,000 are for pretrial diversion. now the c.b.o. budget is allocated across three budget line items which is why i think the b.l.a. put these two recommendations separately. none the less, they target similar c.b.o. funding. the department has spent down the encumbered funds since the b.l.a. reporter we're now at 1.3 million and we agree the mayor's propose the budget does increase by 2.0 million and it supports three line items and simple to explain and 1.225 for san francisco pretrial, although this was against a request of
1:46 pm
1.7. 650,000 to replace grant funding in support of miss da mea miss d this supports transitional housing and five beds at harbor lights detox unit and health rehab case managers. this is all about reducing the jail population. and then there's an additional $250,000 which funds two and a half percent cost of living wage adjustment for c.b.o. workers. this was done across the city for all c.b.o. workers. more on this one -- the reason that we asked for 1.7 and the reason that the mayor gave us 1.2 is because both the court decision as well as the need for weekend and holiday coverage in
1:47 pm
support of reenvisioning goals has increased the work load for pre trials alternatives by 60%. as i said, we requested 1.7 from the mayor, the proposed budget funds 1.2 million and the reduced funding from the mayor -- it's based on limited funds. there are a lot of asks, i can appreciate there's only a certain amount that can go around but it wasn't based on lack of demonstrated need. since the b.l.a. ran their report, encumbrances have been reduced from 1.8 to 1.3 and we have a billing cycle and then kinder morgan reasonses represent 20% of the total and will pay for all of may and june invoices as well as some of april. which is about 20% of the remaining year. and this slide here shows the growth of pretrial as a sort of case management work load.
1:48 pm
>> the management is only one part of what pro trial services but it's the most staff intensive part of what they do. you will see as we get to the next slide, you will see what has happened due to the humphrey's decision and the courts and judges wanting to release people. >> in your presentation you refer to the humphrey decision and i'm familiar with it because you briefed me on it. talk a little bit about what exactly the decision means and how it impacts san francisco. >> sure. well the humphrey's decision was made in the end of january this year. it is a decision that says that ever person has a right to bail unless they're demonstrated a safety threat. the wordings is a little bit odd and it's actually going for
1:49 pm
review. it really means that in order to provide everybody with bail that they can afford there has to be a detention hearing on people to decide how much their ability to pay. instead of going through that, the courts, mostly, have decided to put them on pretrial with the case management because people and you will see from this slide, there's a lot of people in this that are high-risk and that are in for some serious and violent crimes and so they want today make sure they had supervision basically. so instead of doing the bail hearings, reducing their bail. having them out on bail with no supervision, there's been a tendency to put them out on pre-trial release. i have nancy ruben here from the pre-trial services did vision. step up in case there's questions. >> i don't want to go too far
1:50 pm
from your presentation but i thought it was an important point to highlight because it kind of is a foundation of the construction ocrux of your argu. >> it's electronic monitoring and it's important for people to know the pretrial services, while they're funded through my department are not subject to my supervision. [ please stand by ]
1:51 pm
1:52 pm
>> -- in order to do that, they wanted them under supervision, but i'm going to ask nancy to answer the second part of your question about how it affects the program. as far as the sheriff's department goes, we're doing about 100 monitoring, where it was 25. because of the seriousness of the crimes, it was increased, and this was funded last year by the mayor's office, we've increased supervision to 24-7 because we are concerned, as well. >> thank you, sheriff. i've spoken to each of your offices individually to try to explain this pie chart here. this is not a decision that -- we are forwarding this decision to the judges, and then, the judges, under the humphreys decision are making the decision for public safety reasons are choosing the person not to go through the bail system but try to increase the
1:53 pm
level of supervision by assigning them to us. so it seems a little bit inside out, or a little bit backwards, but this is a way to assure public safety rather than having someone out on a low bail. in the past, bail would have been set much higher so they couldn't have afforded that. so i hope everybody understands that piece. so we are, therefore, if you will, charge with supervising people that we haven't historically supervised in the past. we've handled much more in the intervening years, but we started with low level misdemeanors. we're still open only monday through friday for supervision. we a our request to the mayor's office is 1.7. at this point we're still recommending for 1.2, but what
1:54 pm
could we do with the 1.7 would mean that we would be supervising people seven days a week. we would also be able to see them on the weekends, and we go to their residences or where they're staying because some people don't have permanent residences. we also try to get them into permanent places like a health right 360, walden house, those kinds of things. these are very complicated people with complicated issues. health department helps us with placement of people because a lot of people have chronic mental illness, both homeless and chronic mental illness in addition to these high risk charges, and we have high risk cases that we manage. i hope, supervisor stefani, that that answered your question. >> supervisor yee: can i -- >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: just in follow up, miss rube in, in th
1:55 pm
event that your budget will be increased 1.2, what kind of adjustments can you make? >> we will not be open seven days a week. plain and simple. we do not have the people. right now we have eight people managing 1200 cases. right now we're about one person to 45 cases. standard in the industry is one person to 15. that's what the 1.7 would get us, and the extended hours. >> supervisor yee: i really appreciate your argument, and i don't understand why it's not in the budget. >> that's why you've been seeing me a lot laty. -- lately. i feel it's my obligation as the nonprofit provider to let the city know what the risk is, and we are telling you we can't
1:56 pm
absorb the risk. >> supervisor cohen: question. how long have we been operating for seven days a week? >> we are operating seven days a week in our o.r. component. >> supervisor cohen: so for what reason are you pushing us to operate on seven days a week as opposed to six days a week. >> the reason we're pushing it is because of these high risk clients, that we need to find them and see them more than two days a week, possibly during the workweek. also, the profile has changed. a lot of people have jobs, and they can't come in during what we call banker's hours, and those are the hours that we're open. >> supervisor cohen: so how many people are you actually seeing on sundays. >> we don't see people on sundays because we're not open now. >> supervisor cohen: okay. let me rephrase that. how many people do you project to see on sunday. >> right now, we see about 75 people on a saturday.
1:57 pm
same thing on sunday. >> supervisor cohen: do they come in by appointment? >> they're required to be in our office a certain number of days a week, so they can come in any time during the day, and we take them as a show up basis. >> supervisor cohen: so drop in, they don't need an appointment, there's no appointed time, so it's very conceivable that sunday -- >> could be a really high volume day. saturdays, sundays, and evenings. our proposal is to stay open longer in the evening until about 7, 7:30. >> supervisor cohen: and what time are you open now? >> we see our last client at 4:30. we have wage and hour concerns that we have to adhere by. our staff could staff at 6:30 in the morning. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you very much. is there anything else because we're going to pivot and hear from the b.l.a. that's ramp it up and keep
1:58 pm
moving. >> i just want to add one more thing, last year, the b.l.a. gave us money to operate as well, and this is something we need toward pretrail. as we move toward getting rid of the bail system, pretrial release i believe will be the replacement. >> supervisor cohen: you heard supervisor stefani and supervisor yee, they both commented and said this should be in the mayor's budget. when you met with farrell, how did the conversation go? for what reason was it not included? was it a lack of understanding, a lack of empathy? what -- i don't understand why, so please, explain it to me. >> and i don't know either. >> supervisor cohen: i'm not looking to you for the answer. i'm looking at mr. patrick. >> it was purely a matter of limited resources. that 1.2 was a significant investment.
1:59 pm
it was just an ability to fund, given other competing priorities. >> supervisor cohen: so you asked for a 1.5. >> 1.7. >> you asked for 1.7, you got 1.2, whereas the police is asking for $21 million. >> i would add something else, it did not become as critical until humphrey took effect, and humphrey took effect in january . if you look at january into february into march, i don't believe we're at as agile as we could have been. >> supervisor cohen: please continue. >> so the next chart -- slide. here we are. this just shows how many people are in and out of custody in our in our in and out of custody situations.
2:00 pm
this does not show bookings, this shows people that would otherwise be in custody. 2769 on the right-hand side, how pretrial release has gone up to 15-16 from a low of 1243 in july of 2015. so as you can see, there's been a steady rise of people getting out on pretrial diversion. and there has been somewhat of a corresponding reduction in the number of people in our jails. but pretty much, the 1253 has been pretty much standard for quite a while. so just wanted to show that. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. we'll pivot to the b.l.a. >> okay. >> good morning, chair cohen, severin campbell, bt