2.

(ACTION) Review and approval of January 27, 2005 meeting minutes
Upon motion, 2^nd, the minutes were approved as written.
  (public comments)

There were none.

3.

Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission

There were none.

4.

(DISCUSSION) Chief Probation Officer’s Report

Bill Johnston introduced the newly appointed Chief, Bill Sifferman.  Sifferman informed the Commission that he would be starting in April and looked forward to the challenge of working with the Commission and Mayor’s office in building a new era of juvenile probation in San Francisco. 

a.   Juvenile Hall project update

      There were technical difficulties which prevented a full presentation by J. Chow Winship, so it was

        Tabled the AV presentation till the next meeting. Chow Winship briefly noted that the project is about 58% complete.  Move in is now expected to be mid Sept (about 3 wks behind schedule). Final work completed in April 2006. Additional funding request is now before the Finance Comm of Bd of Supes.  It is a “package” with DPW, $5+ mil, to work on San Bruno jail and the 4^th St. bridge. $2.7 mil of that is for the JH project, to cover change orders and project management cost.

        Comm Rodriguez asked how the funding for San Bruno jail impacts the JH project.  Chow Winship said that the City was going after some bond funds for the total package. She said she hopes it won’t adversely affect this project, even though it has had much publicity surrounding it being over budget.

b.   Juvenile Hall population spike

B. Johnston passed out a doc regarding the numbers, and said they will be speaking to Supervisor McGoldrick’s committee Feb. 28, about it.    In reviewing the document, Johnston explained the spikes due to abnormally high arrest rates for certain days.  And many charges are for serious offenses.  Also there are 14 out of country youth who are in for drug charges (and no way to release them). Ques: is there something being done to address this issue? Johnston said they have a task force, which is trying to look at this, but nothing effective has been found yet.  There was only one group home capable of serving monolingual youth, but they are not certified now. 

Johnston said they welcome anyone wanting to work with the Task Force on this issue.

c.   Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative update

      G. Bieringer reported that the Evening Reporting Centers have been operating about 1 yr now, and have been extremely successful. Two other counties (Santa Clara, Santa Cruz) came to see how they work, because they want to introduce it to their operations.

      The Language Access workgroup (SF is the only JDAI site that is addressing this issue).  They are doing a “know your rights” project, targeting parents and youth in the system.  They will produce the materials in 6 different languages and use young people to directly develop them, rather than adults, deadline, June.

       Focus for the upcoming year will be on: youth with mental health issues, placement issues, 707B trials and detention time, unaccompanied youth (from outside the country), repeaters/multiple failures.  Serious analysis of effective community programs for these kids.  Casey Foundation will fund one of their technical experts in community programs to come out here and work with the Dept with an analysis.

d.   Budget update

      Comm Stiglich read a letter from the Budget Office (attached)

       listed several requests from Comm Lingad Ricci: that the Dept provide a copy of the Dept’s budget as it stands now, that the Dept refrain from any changes or alterations in positions (eg. transfers or promotions) until the budget is finalized, full report on proposed cuts, especially positions being considered for lay off, and to note that the Commission will be holding special meetings to deal with the budget, vis a vis Chief Sifferman’s input, and the Mayor’s Budget Office.  M Lui said they would have to evaluate where they ware with the Mayor’s office. They don’t know what level of cuts need to be made.

      Murlene Randle, Dir MOCJ, re iterated the intent of the letter from the Budget Office, that no decisions and changes be made to the Dept budget until Sifferman has a chance to participate in the process. This does not stop the Commission from having discussions about it, but no changes are to be made to the “baseline” budget (as of 2/22/05) until Sifferman starts.

       (public comments)                                       
       There were none.
                                              

5.

(DISCUSSION) Presentation by Margaret Brodkin, Dir. of Dept. of Children,Youth, and their Families, of the Community Needs Assessment.

Brodkin commented that by the City Charter, the Dept of Children Youth and Families has to perform a community needs assessment in preparation for doing their annual Children’s Plan, and to present it to various commissions to allow input into their plan.  She summarized their findings. Some points: 20% of our youth are in danger.  The City is losing families and kids.  The level of violence is unprecedented.  The City is becoming “hyper segregated”.  Some of their recommendations: further collaborations between schools and community. Getting private sector to give more internships/jobs. Reform juvenile justice system.  Using rec centers being community hubs.  Using inter departmental case management.  Streamline contract management system. Coordinate cross training. Maximize funding.  Wider access to services (via outreach and information).

Quest: what’s the best means of getting any Commissioner’s comments to the report to her.  She said to email her at her city email address.

Quest: what is being done to address needs of undocumented youth?  Brodkin admitted there wasn’t much in reference to that and that it does need to be done.

(public comments)

Rich Perino, Pres. DPOA, said that after 20 yrs of the advocacy and demands for changes in the juvenile justice system in the City, things aren’t so much better, so he looked at these recommendations with some skepticism.

Comm Queen encouraged him to come to the table with a positive outlook, because everyone is hoping for accountability from people, and it’s a new day for the Dept.

6.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of the proposals from the district based planning consortium, regarding the future of Log Cabin Ranch, with possible action to approve submitting them to the Mayor’s blue ribbon committee on Log Cabin Ranch.

Comm Queen commented that he was concerned about the lack of input from direct service providers in the Blue Ribbon Committee process of discussing what LCRS needs. He also didn’t know where the Commission will fit into the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Committee to the Mayor (this Friday), given it is the official body in charge of the juvenile probation dept. He said he wanted to make this report (and its concepts) an official part of the Commission’s dialog with the Blue Ribbon Committee.  He said he wanted to move that this be made a part of the Blue Ribbon Committee’s dialog and that the group that produced this report be included in the process of any implementation planning.    Comm Hale seconded the motion.

Comm Hale expressed concerns about the Blue Ribbon Committee. He said he hoped they would go out to the communities and engage them. Otherwise he won’t be receptive of their recommendations. Comm Rodriguez asked if there have been meetings of district consortiums in other neighborhoods, or will be meetings?  Dr Boles says there have been some occurring, and will continue.  Comm Rodriguez felt it important that all communities have a chance to give input.

Comm Stiglich asked who was coordinating the whole process.  Dr. Boles commented that he didn’t think there was one person or group coordinating this. He named several individuals who participated at the Jan. 8 mtg.

Comm Stiglich reviewed that there have been many bodies and processes that have looked into LCRS, but did not feel that any of them were exclusive of each other.  She felt that everyone was generally on the same page, and wanted it to all work together and not at odds with each other.

Comm Queen re-stated the motion, that the Commission endorse this report as a part of the discussion of the Blue Ribbon Committee, and that the district based planning consortium be a part of the planning and implementation of whatever comes out of that process.

Comm Stiglich felt the Commission wasn’t in a position to give directives to the Committee about who to put at the table.

Comm Hale said until the laws are changed, the Commission is the body that makes policy that guides LCRS.

Comm Rodriguez agreed that it could be no more than recommendation, unless we have jurisdiction over the Blue Ribbon Committee.

Comm Queen said that it was important to endorse this, so that the Blue Ribbon Committee knows the Commission is on the side of having community participation in the process.

Comm Hale proposed this language:

It is the policy of this Dept that district based planning be the process in which we engage our communities in developing policies for the Dept.  And this Commission will give great weight to recommendations that come through a district based planning process, as representative in the document before us, in our deliberations in setting policy for Log Cabin Ranch.

Comm Stiglich added an amendment: that this include any district based organization other than just this particular consortium. Comm Rodriguez seconded this.

The question was called and upon roll call vote, the motion carried 4-1, with Comm Stiglich voting nay.

(public comments)
There were none.

7.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Recommendation from the Program Committee that the Commission co-host, with district based consortiums, public meetings with the future Chief Probation Officer to review community concerns and needs as they relate to juvenile justice.

Comm Queen said he was requesting this action so that the Commission can be more pro active in getting a dialog going between the Chief, Dept, and the various communities impacted by the, and that he had mentioned this to B. Sifferman, and he was agreeable to it.  Comm Hale 2^nd.

Comm Stiglich said that we need to assure that other neighborhoods, not necessarily most affected, are brought into the discussion also. Comm Rodriguez said he was surprised that the Commission didn’t go out to the community often, as he had experienced when he was part of the OCC.

There was an acknowledgement of the Sunshine rules on meetings.

These public meetings, as stated in this item, would come under Sunshine.

The question was called and upon roll call vote, the motion carried, 5-0.

(public comments)

There were none.

8.

(DISCUSSION) Committee Reports

Program Committee

Comm. Queen stated that the gist of that meeting was presented in items #6 and #7.

(public comments)

There weren’t any.
                      

9.

Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission

Rich Perino, Pres. DPOA, spoke in opposition to the recommendations made in the DCYF report on community needs.

Comm Stiglich said that neither POs nor CBOs are mutually exclusive of, nor adversarial to each other and both are needed partners in the role of rehabilitating our youth.  She acknowledged the role of the PO as a peace officer, and appreciated that.  She just hoped that everyone would be able to work together in this new positive day.

Comm Queen asked everyone to try and “move the agenda”

10.

(DISCUSSION) Announcements, requests for future agenda items

Comm Hale asked to discuss a policy placing a moratorium on making CYA dispositions, other than for 707 offenses.
(public comments)
there were none.

11.

(ACTION)  Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45pm