To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information



Programs_Committee

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000  

 

MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2002  PROGRAM COMMITTEE  MEETING

held at Youth Guidance Center  Main Conference Room 375 Woodside Ave San Francisco, CA   94127

 

 

The minutes of this meeting set forth all actions taken by the Commission on the matters stated, but not necessarily the chronological sequence in which the matters were taken up

 

 

1.      (ACTION)  Roll Call 

The meeting was called to order at 2:53 pm by the Chair.  Comms. Aramburo and Dupre were present at the gavel.  Comm. Richard arrived at 3:00 pm.

2.      (ACTION) Approval of October 23, 2001 meeting minutes.

The minutes were incorrectly noted in the agenda, the correct one is Dec. 13, 2001, which were approved as written.

(public comment)    There was none.

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

Kathryn Klingele, a staff at LCRS, presented her concerns for the safety and welfare of the horses being stabled at LCRS. The issues raised were wide ranging, from questions about the responsibility and liability of the horses there, to the conditions of their confinement, which she pointed out to be clear violations of standard practices in caring for horses.  She said that she tried to get some attention to her concerns when she asked as an employee there, but was not given any answers.  She presented a 4-page document listing her concerns, as a private citizen. (The document is appended to the end of these minutes).

Comm. Arámburo  thanked her for making her comments, and asked that this issue be agendized on a future meeting agenda so a full discussion can be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance.  Comm. Dupré asked Ms. Klingele for her telephone number which she gave.   Comm. Aramburo asked that the phone number be deemed a confidential  Commission record.

4.       (DISCUSSION)   Log Cabin’s mission, and list of all programs and their status by Donald Sanders.

·            (School, YCD, JOB CORPS, Sport programs etc.) (Foodservice, Engineer, Counseling Staff-Morale Issues)

D. Sanders reported that he convened a meeting at LCRS and created 3 committees to oversee the operations there.  He is also conferring with Liz Jackson-Simpson on programming support.

He said he is trying to focus LCRS as a therapeutic, psychological model.  They will have 2 social workers coming onboard, 2 more substance abuse counselors, and a licensed clinical social worker or psychologist hired as a consultant.  They will help introduce a large amount of psychological issues throughout the programs, train and monitor the counseling staff, implement programs around counseling, and assist Lillar B Jackson with issues.

The School: they have a good working relationship with Jim Fithian and the schools.  The school will be involved in the horsemanship program. The 4-H club (Sanders met with this morning) is developing a curriculum for the horse program.  Richard, who runs the horse program at the Ranch will have the hands-on.  The school will do the academic, in-classroom work.

YCD:  they had their first tour yesterday (of the Job Corps).  There are 2 youth from LCRS attending the Job Corps program.

Sports programs:  LCRS has paid their $400 fee and joined the Northern California Athletic League (for camps).  Gary Thompson is the Athletics Director.  He is trying to get some coaches from San Francisco to come out, so they can look at some scholarships.

Food service:  they have looked at the budget for food and the costs are in line with where they’re supposed to be.  They are using a “nutri-kit program” which monitors everything that comes in and goes out.

Engineers: Sanders said he was pleased at their attitudes and work efforts.  They will be meeting weekly to look at short term and long term projects. 

Counselors: they will be doing training on how to counsel.  

Staff morale: Sanders thinks it is up.  They are having a counseling staff meeting tomorrow, and will come up with a mission statement from that meeting.

Comm Richard asked what they need more of.

Sanders said that 2 Supervisors have been hired. What he needs is the Commission’s support. He encouraged people to go to LCRS and show the staff they are appreciated and supported. 

Comm. Arámburo said that this is one of the reasons for having the Advisory Committee, to have this kind of dialog and talk about the positive things that are happening at LCRS. 

Comm. Arámburo   asked how many of the 18 at LCRS are Seniors.  L.B. Jackson said 1.

Question: 4 have been screened and accepted into Job Corps?   Answer: yes.   2 are Juniors, 2 probably Sophomores.

Question: what vocational programs are currently in-place.  Answer: Horticulture (SLUG), photography/NFTE, barber college (BVHP), YCD.  Writer’s Corps.

Comm. Arámburo said she heard that SLUG will be providing another staff for the horticulture program.  Maybe NFTE can revive the revenue generation power of that program. 

Question: how’s aftercare working.

Answer: 3 POs, 2 of them are working on aftercare.  Next week they’ll be going to Colorado to develop an aftercare program designed to meet the needs of San Francisco and LCRS.  They will present what they have (a model Sanders developed years ago), and have the facilitators help them develop a new model.  Some POs probably have never had formal aftercare training.

Comm. Aramburo asked about the non-aftercare PO and how often he goes to LCRS.  Answer: 

Roger Gainey goes to LCRS daily.

Comm. Dupré asked about the spiritual life programming.  Sanders said that there were 3-4 groups coming down to the ranch.  They decided at the time of their Xmas program that they will establish a “spiritual” component to the aftercare program, where each youth leaving the ranch would be connected to a “spiritual” partner in his community.  It would be totally voluntary what contact the youth maintained with this resource.

Comm. Dupré expressed his concern regarding comments made by Ms. Klingele.  He said that he had met with Sanders and the Asst. Chief, and talked with Mr. Fithian.  He asked if they were going to deal with Ms. Klingele, because she said she had brought her concerns to the Dept and did not receive any response.  He did not want the Committee or the Commission to micro-manage the day to day activities of staff that are paid to implement programs.  The Commissioner wanted to know if this could be snuffed in the bud, nipped in the bud, because the proper protocol would be for her to talk to Mr. Fithian, and Mr. Sanders. 

Comm. Arámburo commented that she thought this line of discussion was already beyond the bounds set by Brown and Sunshine ordinance and that this issue should be addressed publicly at the next Program Committee meeting.

Comm. Dupré asked Sanders, as a part of staff morale, did he intend to address issues that continually enhance the morale of staff.  Sanders answered that they had already done that.  Commissioner Dupre asked what would be the best posture for this Committee to work with Sanders’s administrative style. 

Sanders said that they could come down during staff meetings.  He said he’d rather informal meetings, not like this one where people are looking at you, there are microphones, people are writing notes.  He said that he’d welcome the Advisory Committee or Program Committee to come down and talk.

Comm. Arámburo recalled that at the last Committee meeting DCPO Tucker said that it isn't good for people to just drop in at the ranch.  The Commissioner's own experience in going to LCRS has

always been positive, with staff and students welcoming Commission involvement and interest.  She also thought it was better to go down unannounced so that there wasn't a pre-organized program presented and Commissioners could get an accurate day to day portrayal of programs at  LCRS.   Whenever, she visits LCRS the students are positive and eager to meet and discuss the program.

In regards to Comm. Dupré's comments, Comm. Arámburo said that it was this Committee's hope that as the interim Director of LCRS, when someone exposes a public safety concern, he (Mr. Sanders) bring all the right parties together and have that discussion at LCRS so that it gets addressed immediately when there is a public safety issue. As a public safety issue, the Commission needs to give folks an opportunity  to be heard and request that the JPD provide an immediate response.

Comm. Arámburo asked about the library program.

Sanders said that it is operating from 6:30-730pm.   Are there any library interns? Not yet because the former interns have graduated.

·            Representatives from Job Corps, and YCD reporting:

Comm. Arámburo  thanked Mr. Steve Arcelona (Director of the Job Corps Ctr) for the tour she received.  She was very impressed with the operations and vocational programs offered.

Arcelona gave a brief explanation of the Job Corps Center and operation (orientation materials available through the Job Corps).

The program they are now doing with the Dept is modeled after another program working in Seattle.

The first 4 from LCRS will be starting on the 19th of Feb. The maximum to be accepted at any one time will be 12.

Comm. Arámburo mentioned that she would like to see a Job Corps satellite operation at LCRS rather than a program that requires extensive  transporation and personnel time.  There are resources at LCRS that could be utilized for job site activities including the currently under-utilized woodshop.   Her impressions of the Job Corps program, when she toured, was that the older the youth are, the more they get out of Job Corps. There are other  screening criteria (eg. substance abuse, mental health issues, felony convictions) which she thought would eliminate LCRS youth from participating.  Arcelona said that they are willing to work with individuals who might have had a problem but have promised to stay clean. 

Comm. Arámburo questioned how LCRS might be structured to better the students’opportunity to succeed at Job Corps. She asked if taking a youth from LCRS only after 4 mos of work there was sufficient.  Another issue was travel, back and forth daily from LCRS to TI.  Was there a potential to find a residential placement closer to TI for seniors who would do the non residential enrollment there.  She asked how might the arrangement between Job Corps and LCRS be structured to make it a much more valued incentive or ‘reward’ for the youth doing well at LCRS before they are allowed to go into Job Corps eg. requiring a GED).

Arcelona said that the Dept has assigned a PO to work with Job Corps.  This is a special arrangement made by Job Corps for the Dept.  Normally, a youth under active probation supervision is ineligible for enrollment.

Arcelona said that 60-70% of the Job Corps participants do not have HS diplomas. 

Most of them are working on GEDs.  Comm. Arámburo asked about GED and who would be responsible for  that, Job Corps or the SFUSD.  Possibility is to have that as a requirement before they are considered for Job Corps.

Comm. Dupré asked who would pay for the transport of the students.  Answer: LCRS.  The Commissioner asked also if LCRS could be used as a project site for Job Corps projects.

Arcelona said that the various trades training workshops are carried out by the respective unions, under contract with the DOL, but as part of the training programs, students go through something called workbased learning, and those are done offsite (of TI).  This might be expanded to utilize LCRS for projects.

Asked about success rate, Arcelona said that the DOL requires certain things, among which are: keeping 95%of their participants in the program, in contact for 60 days afterward, with assistance in job search/placement.  The number of participants getting GEDs.  The number of vocational completions (TI’s is 70%).

Dwayne Jones, YCD, made some of the following points:  theYCD program has been at LCRS for about 18 mos.  They could not build a strong enough link between vocational training and the activities they were doing, once the youth came out.  They are committed to making sure that the day the youth is released from LCRS, they have a job lined up. They have a strong relationship with developers (building trades) who build anything, in their community. 

They are going to involve LCRS students in the construction of slot car racers.

They will be teaching music and the music business to some LCRS youth.

Comm. Dupré asked about YCD’s relationship with the SFSUD.  Jones said that the SFUSD has been very cooperative with them.  They are designing their curriculum to complement the SFUSD’s subjects. 

Comm Richard asked if those programs Jones described were part of “Chocolate City 2”.  Yes.

It is a 10 week youth program serving 300-400 each year.  It is operated by 7 different youth programs, with youth in control.

Comm. Arámburo recalled that in the Silicon Valley before the bust, there were about 6000 union jobs needing filling every day, so a link to union apprenticeship programs was very valuable as an employment tool. Comm. Arámburo  asked about NFTE, Jones said that they have just developed a partnership with them. 

Comm. Arámburo asked how many students have gone through the YCD program in the last 18 mos, how many have completed the program, and how many are currently employed through job placement with YCD.  In the past 19 mos there were an initial cohort of 12. In this next round there will be 15.  Jones did not have the hard numbers of successes, just the percentage.  Of the number of completions, 92% of them are still out and doing well.

His guess was that of the initial 12, 8 completed and 92% of them are still in touch with the YCD program.  He said that it was sad that they (YCD) had more jobs available than people ready to fill them.

Comm. Arámburo asked about the relationship with the unions (which are the same unions that Job Corps deals with).  She asked about the amount of hands-on experience youth at LCRS get in their vocational programs.  Jones did not know that, but said they would be more than happy to take on those projects needing attention at LCRS. 

Comm. Arámburo said that she knew how much the students the YCD program but she was concerned that they were missing the academics they needed from the SFUSD.  Jones said that he was unaware that they had a conflict with the schools, that he thought they had it worked out to work in conjunction with them. He didn’t realize the size of the population had dminished until he recently attended graduation ceremonies there.

J. Fithian said that after sitting down and discussing the issue with YCD, it was resolved that the YCD program would work with the students in the afternoon as part of the vocational program..

Now the youth get the required as well as the elective credits because they can do both programs. He had very positive comments about the working relationship between the schools and LCRS, due to the cooperation of D. Sanders. They are setting up a room to be used for individualized tutoring and study.  They will be using Title I funds to supply this room, including an on-site GED program (computer based). The SFUSD gets its money based on attendance (population) and since that’s been low, their funds will be very limited.

The progress on the Digital High School is showing where students now are asking to download college applications rather than just web surfing and playing games. 

They will be using individualized learning plans for each student, and will be doing weekly monitoring the progress on those plans.

Comm. Arámburo asked if the curriculum for monolingual students is done.  Answer: work on it has gone forward, and there are bilingual staff there, but there are no monolingual students currently at LCRS.

Comm. Dupré asked if the schools were having any problems with the YCD/Job Corps program now?  Fithian said that the transition was tough, but now it is working. 

The issue of credits obtained and lost; he said that academic credit was given if an accredited teacher was in class, but elective credit was available for other classes.  He further said that there was a reasonable cap for numbers of credits attainable in a semester.  They are giving elective credits for many of the complementary programs run at LCRS: the NFTE program, workshops run by Lillar B Jackson, PE, etc.

The Chief passed out a sheet (available from the CPO or the JPC) showing some of the issues that they have reviewed with the Judge Feinstein, that will be the basis for coming up with a plan for LCRS.  He said that he was very comfortable with the way things were going now and the direction.  There is the right frame of mind with the people involved, and the support of the court and the Program Committee.  On April 1 he expected to have that document ready.

Comm Richard asked what some of the characteristics of the student profile were.  Answer: deciding on case by case basis whether being on psychotropic drugs or having other drug maintenanced conditions would be approved.  Families being willing to participate in the therapeutic program for the youth.  Ages from 15-17.

Comm. Arámburo commended the CPO for work on the student council, and noted that having a code of conduct was a more positive thing than what was practiced in the past.  She also commended the CPO for working with the Court and keeping the Court appraised of improvements and developments with the LCRS program.

Comm. Dupré asked what the Chief’s assessment of the courts’ feelings was.  The CPO was cautiously optimistic.  He and the court will be having a monthly meeting to talk about a range of issues (including LCRS).  

Comm. Arámburo asked that the document passed out by the CPO be made a part of the minutes.

Liz Jackson-Simpson described a $1.3 million State grant dealing with youth development and crime and substance abuse prevention. The grant will focus with youth from LCRS to serve 70 students a year.  Comm. Arámburo asked for a copy of that grant proposal and commended the JPD for seeking funds to address the mental health needs of youth. 

She commended everyone for their reports and the apparent positive development of the LCRS program, with public and stakeholder involvement and input.

5.      (DISCUSSION/ACTION)  Review the protocols for the Advisory Committee and possible action to approve them for implementation

Comm. Arámburo commended the CPO for the draft protocols, and just explained her reason for the additional language she suggested.  It would give the public the knowledge that this is the dialog the Commission has with the CPO and that someone will be held accountable for any policy or goals adopted by the Commission.  This will give them more incentive to participate in the process.  She asked if Chief Williams had any problem with that.  He said no but had questions.  He said that this statement only repeated what is already happening in his performance review process so why repeat it here.  Secondly, he didn’t know whether this was intended to add additional performance measures to the current evaluation grading period, or subsequent periods.

Comm. Arámburo said that it was important to make a statement that if recommendations were made to the Commission, something would happen as a result.

Comm. Dupré recommended that a representative from the Juvenile Justice Committee be a member of the Advisory Committee.  Additionally, he suggested that either Linda Miles of Frank Tom of the SFUSD be members.

Comm. Arámburo asked about a member to come from the LCRS Student Council (being mindful of the privacy issue involved).

Comm Richard also suggested someone from the Delinquency Prevention Commission.

Comm. Arámburo asked the Chief if he had suggested language for that portion of the protocols.  He proposed:

The Juvenile Probation Commission personnel committee may include appropriate recommendations for consideration as performance measures for the Chief Probation Officer, during the established process for negotiating annual performance measures.

This provision will be effective for FY 2002-3.

Comm. Arámburo approved of this change.

The CPO commented that the section on access only set out professional courtesy to the Director of LCR when people want to go and visit.

Comm. Arámburo commented that the protocols were good; a very user friendly document. Comm Richard asked about the deadline for the final work product, which set Sept 1 as the deadline.  It was decided that the Committee would complete its work by Sept 1 but issue its report and findings by Oct. 1.

Comm. Dupré asked if the Judge had been given the option of designating a representative for the courts.  It was decided that the CPO would call the Judge about that.

It was moved and seconded to adopt the protocols with the discussed changes.  There was no public comment.  The question was called and upon voice vote, passed unanimously.

(public comment)    None.

6.   (DISCUSSION) Announcements, requests for future agenda items:  Meeting with Student Council at LCRS

      Comm Richard asked to have the next Program Committee meeting at LCRS.  The Chief asked if the Program Committee could set up a calendar of meetings so that the Dept could better prepare for them.  Comm. Arámburo said that she will touch base with Liz Jackson-Simpson to review the calendar once proposed by Cheyenne Bell.  They’ll figure something out.

      Comm. Dupré asked for a Dept report on the status of TANF and if they have any plans for handling programs after TANF ends.

(public comment)  There was none.

7.    (ACTION)   Adjournment

        There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:33 pm.