2.

(ACTION) Review and possible approval of minutes of June 21, 2007 meeting.

Upon motion and second the minute 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)Report by Committee Chair. (Woodson)

The Chair briefly mentioned that the meeting on JDAI was postponed from August and will meet again in Sept.  If there are developments from that meeting she will report them at the next Program Comm. mtg. She said that others could attend if they were interested, but Comm Beijen thought it would be a violation of the Brown Act/Sunshine Ordinance.

(public comments) 

There were none.      

5.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION)  Results of the Self Assessment survey for 2006-07 contractors.

L. Holmes said he hasn’t had time to do a synthesis of the data from the surveys.  Allen Nance commented that the surveys raised an opportunity to re-think their outcome measures, protocols used for referrals, and the evidence-based practices utilized by the CBOs.

There was a short discussion about what evidence based practices is. One was the use of cognitive behavioral interventions that concentrate on attitudes, values, and behavior rather than just providing social services to youth, such as recreation or life skills.

(public comments)

There were none.

6.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Report out by Larry Jones and Terrance Silas of Young Community Developers on their current contracted program services.

Both were present and gave a brief overview of what they had been doing with their youth. They conduct workshops on education, life skills, and job skills, for 1.5-2 hrs/wk Their grant includes subsidized employment for the youth when they return to the community. Aside from the subsidized employment the agency does referral to other resources to attend to issues like getting a GED, or getting to the “back on track” program at SFSU.  Out of 40 youth, two recidivated. 

One of the issues they deal with is the problem of youth not being able to get to other areas of the city due to the danger of crossing “turfs”, so they are finding employment opportunities in and around the neighborhood. They mentioned working with construction contractors (eg. Rubicon).  L. Jones said that it would be easier for them if the court mandated participation in their program, as part of the youth’s probation terms. Sometimes they have trouble with parents who won’t let their sons go to the program (due to fear for safety).

He gave an example of an incident where he had to intercede between one of his youth and another gun carrying, threatening youth. 

He thinks the relationship between the courts and the CBOs needs to be improved.

Comm Rojas asked what they did to get referrals to their program.  They said they personally came to YGC and met with individual POs to let them know about the services available.

Comm Beijen asked if it would be possible to have such terms –ordered to their program-- included in the court disposition.  A. Nance said he’d be willing to try setting up a communication between the organization and the courts, as well as a group of POs.

L. Jones talked about the positive benefits from having a skill and the possibility of doing their own business (he mentioned upholstery trades).

(public comments)

There were none.

7.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Need for services for "transient and immigrant youth.

L. Holmes said that Instituto, Mission Neighborhood Ctr, and CARECEN are providing some of the services to this population. The Dept is also working with Huckleberry Youth.  Some challenges in working with these youth are getting good, verifiable information/numbers  (local), finding responsible, connected adults, and being able to keep in touch with the youth beyond the first contact.

N. Yalon spoke of some activities they have been carrying out since January to attempt to change institutional processes to better deal with these youth, from targeted case management, to reduction of status from 602/1 to 300. 

A Nance talked about one youth’s experience coming from Honduras.

L. Holmes said they are looking at ways to establish a shelter for these youth.

Comm Beijen asked what the options are for the types of youth who get caught in a serious robbery or violent crime (a “tag along”) and might not be the kind of kid that will be detained “forever” but there is nothing else to do. N. Yalon said that if there is a responsible adult to release to, then there are options.

(public comments)

Jesus Yanez, Instituto, emphasized the need for housing, not just a shelter, but a “home.”  He said that there is no support for employment training for these youth.

Roberto Gonzalez, CARECEN, echoed the need to develop housing for these youth.  He also said that there is a lack of legal assistance available for them.

CARECEN is carrying out a campaign to establish a “home” to help these youth.

Another problem is that there are a large number of Mayan youth who are monolingual.

Greg Gordon, PO, spoke about the need to work together (respecting diversity).

Roberto Esparza, CARECEN case mgr, talked about the difficulty of compiling background information for these youth. He also echoed the need for housing, and stipended employment, along with culturally/linguistically appropriate services.  (Eg. Huckleberry Youth has no Spanish speaking staff to work with these youth).

D. Hale, mentioned a report of the Juvenile Justice Commission, regarding the suicide of an undocumented, unaccompanied ward, and the issues this raised about the problems and needs of those youth in the system.

Comm. Rojas proposed writing a letter from the Commission to CARECEN in support of their fundraising efforts toward a shelter/home.

8.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Updates and impacts of the newest gang injunction.

Comm Woodson didn’t have any particular comments on this issue for now. Comm Rojas said that she has seen the effects of this first hand and wanted to hear from the other community members what they have seen.  Comm Beijen commented that while everyone had issues wide ranging, the commission has little if any impact on those outside of the responsibility for the Dept. He felt that if the Commission tried to deal with issues outside of that, it would be reducing its own credibility and becoming increasingly inconsequential.

Comm Rojas said that this injunction is affecting the youth that are Dept wards. 

There was a short discussion of whether the actions of the police against young people in the Mission were directly due to the injunction or just their incorrect understanding of it.

What is needed is data regarding the youth who have been affected by this so that a concrete understanding can be gotten.  The floor was opened to public comment.

(public comments)

D. Hale said that there are young people who have been identified as part of the groups impacted by the injunction, and they will be impacted.  He asked the Commission to be pro-active in trying to anticipate how it will affect the youth, and how to deal with that.

Comm Beijen said the 2 issues he sees are: if the police are inappropriately “implementing” the injunction, and if some of those adults for the injunction are still the wards of this Dept. (how it might affect them).

Gustavo Lopez said that there are youth who get the “gang” label when they may not be, and this can affect them when they get older.  Many of the youth they serve fall into the ages that the injunction affects, and they can be harassed even if they aren’t involved anymore.  If this injunction is supposed to bring a greater sense of safety to the affected areas, then these youth should also feel more secure and not fear being harassed.

Comm Woodson said that, with all the comments from community orgs, it would appear there is less than full clarity around what the gang injunction is supposed to do and what affect it will have on youth that are being served by this dept and CBOs in the area.  At the very least the Commission may call on the Police Commission to get a clear understanding of its full implications

Comm Rojas also commented that the Commission should support the community’s concerns about this.

Roberto, CARECEN, mentioned a study by the Justice Policy Institute, on different gang injunctions, and said that it showed a very low effectiveness (5-10% successful in violence prevention).

He further said that their own programs are inside the “zone” delineated in the injunction, and so all the youth they serve that are between 18-24 may be affected by this.  This has affected even their staffs. 

Both Roberto and Comm Rojas mentioned that the City Attorney had put up a website on this injunction that revealed information from the juvenile records of many of the youth they work with (the site has been taken down since). 

J. Yanez asked the Commission to take a stand against the way the injunction is being promulgated, to lend weight to what the community is saying.

Comm Rojas asked the agency reps at the meeting to send copies of any documentation they might have that shows the effect on youth so that it is more than just anecdotal. She further recommended writing a letter that supports the concerns of the community (expressed at the meeting), once they see that documentation, especially opposing the use of juvenile records in identification.

A.Nance said that the Dept is concerned with the injunction as it may adversely affect those youth under the Dept’s supervision and asked the community agencies to bring to their attention any information/data on how this now affects or may in the future affect those youth so they may address it.

Comm Woodson asked this to be put on the next program comm. agenda for further discussion.  She said there appears to be a need for oversight on implementation of the injunction, and training on how.  There needs to be discussion on just how the Committee may take this issue up, and what if any position the Commission needs to take to support its community.

9.

(ACTION) Announcements, future agenda items.  Adjournment

Comm Rojas asked for a protocol for how the CBOs report out (as YCD did today) so that there is some consistency. A. Nance asked the Committee if they had any particular information they wanted, the Dept could “revise” the “protocols” to make it relevant to that.  Comm Beijen wanted to leave the presentations more unstructured, similar to YCD’s.

Ques: are there meetings with the entire PO staff?  A.Nance said he was considering doing this, as he had experienced in Chicago.

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