2.

(ACTION) Review and approval of August 18, 2004 meeting minutes 

The minutes were approved as written.
(public comments)

There were none.

3.

Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Program Committee of the Juvenile Probation Commission
  There were none.

4

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of final conclusions of the Ad Hoc Committee, with possible recommendations to the full Commission.

Donald Sanders said he wanted to review the things that G. Tucker had raised during the Ad Hoc Committee meetings, with B. Johnston, and then come back and report to the full commission.

Comm Queen reminded him about the Blue Ribbon Committee being put together by the Mayor and said that the Dept would probably only get one chance to put on the table what priorities it thinks should be pursued, so that when Sanders presents his report, the findings should be presented in such a way that indicates these are the conclusions, with all necessary supportive rationale behind them, and not just presented as a laundry list of issues and problems which need to be addressed.   The Dept needs to have all its cards in place, with a plan for all the options that are available, and all ramifications of each. He emphasized that this was the Dept’s responsibility. He asked for this report back at the full commission meeting.

Comm Stiglich raised the question of temporarily closing the Ranch while all the changes, improvements, are in place, and then re opening it to serve the maximum number of residents. She was hard pressed to justify expending so much on so few, currently.

This would raise other issues: where to place those youth while this was done.  Not JH.  Then what would be done with staff. Re-assignment of staff isn’t a simple process.  

Other issues raised were: youth at LCRS are many times pre vocational, not ready for vocational training.  There is a serious need for an effective aftercare program.  Youth preparing to leave the Ranch re- assume their “street” persona to protect themselves on the streets.  Counselors at LCRS are not prepared to deal with these issues, due to the difference between what kind of staff is needed there, and what kind of staff is described (in the position duties: custodial vs. therapeutic).

On top of all the other issues is the current estimate of $300k to correct facilities deficiencies.

(public comments)
there were none.

5.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review preliminary draft of implementation strategy for resolution on district

planning.

Comm Queen passed out a diagram, which graphically showed the flow and interaction of people/bodies in the planning process (copy available at JPC office).  The basic question would be where this process could be utilized to advise and guide the Commission in planning for juvenile justice issues (eg. LCRS), and how the Commission would interface and interact with the process and participants to get its issues and opinions considered. The basic goal is to get the most funds directed to the most effective providers (and/or system of providers) in the most effective service provision, avoiding unnecessary duplication or inefficiencies; to maximize the communication and coordination of service providers. 

There was a short discussion regarding possible alternative processes of hiring CBO staffs (eg. RAP high school staff are paid through the SFUSD) utilizing civil service.  Questions of staffing, as well as programs and services, are all germane to the planning process that this system addresses.

Comm Stiglich again expressed her concern regarding the large complex of committees and groups that are required to carry out this process.

(public comments)
there were none.

6.

(DISCUSSION) Further discussion of CARC utilization and policies to maximize it.

Comm Stiglich reviewed the document supplied by Denise Coleman, which showed the different reasons youth are not seen at CARC.

There are several areas where discretion used can be changed to allow more youth to be seen at CARC.[

There has been the concern for liability that makes the PO decide to detain rather than release to CARC.

It was decided that the Dept would go over this list and re assess where things could be changed to make things easier for the Dept and maximize the utility of CARC.

(public comments)

there were none.

7.

(DISCUSSION) Exploration of alternative funding sources for un-funded or de-funded programs.

Comm Queen had reviewed that he had asked the Dept. look into potential alternative sources of funding for those programs that they did not fund or reduced in funding.

Liz Jackson-Simpson said that in regards to the Huckleberry contract, they had talked to the Mayor’s office about using some of their MOCJ monies or other pots to cover some of the cuts.  The Dept also is looking at the potential of expanding utilization of Huckleberry to 602s. L. Jackson-Simpson referred to a letter from B. Fisher that they forwarded to the Cit Attorney in this regards.  Comm Queen asked if a copy was also given the President of the Commission.   No.  He asked that as a matter of protocol that for all such correspondence, the Commission be copied.

Comm Queen also stated that his interest in this issue was not just about Huckleberry but the “next tier” of programs that were not funded, and how they could be helped.

Liz Jackson-Simpson said that the numbers didn’t support the need for continued services to the Cambodian community, vs. the increased needs of the African American and Latino communities. 

L. Holmes spoke of mike and was not clearly picked up. Some points made were that the numbers might under represent the problem still existent in the community.

B. Johnston pondered whether the fact that there is a lesser incidence of SE Asians in the system indicated that the dollars spent on them resulted in more effective work.

Comm Stiglich commented that while the Dept could assist in exploring other means for the CBOs to get funding, the CBOs themselves need to be doing this.

There was a short discussion regarding having CBO services being supported strictly through general fund dollars, coming from the City and not individual depts..  There is the question of control; who would select those awardees? Who would decide?  Where is the “central depository” for information about effectiveness of services.  There is the Citi-Stat database. Of course all services need to substantiate effectiveness of performance.   Is there a future for using a “voucher” system?   Some of this discussion related back to the District Based Strategic Planning model and how it could be used to assess, select and assure service performance.

(public comments)
There were none.

8.

Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Programs Committee of the Juvenile Probation Commission
None.

9.

(ACTION) Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:20pm.