SFGov

back to Juvenile Probation Department home page

Full_Commission

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MONTHLY MEETING
held at Youth Guidance Center Cafeteria 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 by Comm. Hale at 5:40 pm.Comms. Chuck, Dupre, Ricci were present at the gavel. Comms. Aramburo and Grossman arrived at 5:42 and 5:43 pm, respectively. Comm Richard arrived at 6:00 pm.
President Hale asked for a moment of silence in memorial to the tragedy of Sept. 11.
2. (ACTION) Review and approval of August 28, 2001 meeting minutes
Comm. Hale asked that this be tabled until he had a chance to review the tapes of the meeting. He was concerned for some content of the presentation by James Bell and Bart Lubow that wasn’t recounted in the minutes.
(public comments) None.
3. (DISCUSSION) Chief Probation Officer’s Report: **explanatory document: monthly report for July ’01
President Hale introduced 4 members of the Student Council of LCRS, along with the ex President.
a. Status Report on Juvenile Hall Replacement Project.
Chris Bigelow reported that there are cost overruns, and another delay in the anticipated start of construction to July. There are re design activities going on, demanding re approvals from different bodies, eg. Art Commission. While it will need to be completed by the same deadline, but the overall cost will be the same. The bid will be put out in early April.
b. Trends/Emerging Issues/Upcoming Events
The Chief announced a Youth Summit to take place Sept. 28, for Juvenile Hall detainees, hosted by the courts.
Oct 15/16; the JDAI team will inspect Juvenile Hall. On Oct. 16 there will be the first mtg of the JDAI stakeholders’ group.
Oct. 22 is the State of the City address by the Mayor.
Oct. 25 the Dept will be sponsoring an Employees’ Years of Service celebration, in the girls gym, honoring those who have served the City 5 yrs or more.
Under the new contract with the Deputy POs, there will be bi monthly mtgs between the POA and the Dept.
Comm. Dupré asked if the Sept. 11 event resulted in any emotional impact on the youth in the hall. The Chief said that responses varied from very concerned to apathy. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary was reportedat LCR.
(public comments) None.
4. (DISCUSSION/ACTION) Presentation by Marta Ayala regardinga mural for Juvenile Hall. Possible consideration for making a wall available for a replacement mural in the new facility.
Comm. Hale reviewed the fact that she had painted the existing mural with an understanding that the building would be there for longterm. Now with the impending destruction of the bldg, the City Attorney’s office contacted Comm. Hale that the artist inquired about being able to doa replacement mural in the new structure. The Commission is not under any legal obligations to act on this request, but in interest of fairness to the artist for her work asked for a resolution to be considered. An important element of that resolution is the requirement to involve detained youth in the creation of that mural. Final approval of the project will lie with the Arts Commission.
Ms.Ayala said that she would hold a series of workshops with staff and youth to come up with the design. She is not asking for funds from the Dept to do this. Comm. Grossman asked that she include not only staff and youth, but the Commission also. Comm. Dupré moved for approval of the resolution (drafted by the City Attorny’s office).. Comm. Arámburo seconded with the proviso that it does not violate any sole source procedures. The question was called, and by voice vote, passed 7-0.
(public comments) None
5. Report on PrIDE program progress (Dr. Oberweis).
Dr. Oberweis introduced Phil Harris, from the ProDES project in Philadelphia. She referred to the reports given to the Program Committee. The Log Cabin Recidivism report was produced using the JJIS and KLEC database systems. She gave a few highlights of the findings; grads tended to get fewer juvenile petitions in the long run, significantly fewer commitments to LCR. Non grads tended to be 300 W&I code clients, or out of home placement failures. This implies that there might need to be more supports and programs directed toward these two types of youth. She also said that the drift back to offender status might be further delayed or overcome with a more effective aftercare program.
Comm. Grossman reviewed that at the last Commission meeting, a provisional approval of their contract was given, with the stipulation that they could provide examples of deliverables, at this meeting. The report on LCR was not based on the 400 client records in the PrIDE database. Comm. Grossman commented that this report, while interesting, is not one of the deliverables asked for.
Chief Williams said that the LCR report was an added report to the others that were asked for.
Comm. Arámburo pointed to the fact that the analysts for PrIDE do not necessarily understand the system so that their analysis may not be entirely accurate. For instance, one possible factor to those grads of LCR who do not acquire more juvenile petitions is that they are already on the upper end of age (18 and +) and so are not in the juvenile system much longer. If one actually looks at the files of LCR youth, one can see a large factor shared by LCR failures is mental health issues.
What she has seen is that there may be just as many adult petitions filed on LCR grads as there are juvenile petitions filed on LCR failures, and this implies that there needs to be longer term structure and direction given the youth to better prepare for jobs, school, and life generally once they’re back in the community. She was surprised by the fact that youth stay longer at LCR than in placement.
Chief Williams said that these reports give documentation to previously held opinions. These reports give us baseline data to assess later whether enhancements to what we’re doing really have the impact they’re supposed to.
There was a disagreement as to the level of recidivism from LCR. (Whether it was a 70-73% failure or success rate) Dr. Oberweis said that the recidivism rate quoted was calculated using every possible recidivist incident: unsustained petitions, arrests without convictions, contacts). Chief Williams said that the real measure of whether the young person was having a successful experience is whether there was a sustained petition. Most of those things happen within 9 mos after release, about 21% were juvenile petitions, and 15% occurred in the adult system. Bottom line is a 63% success rate.
Comm. Arámburo recounted that at a previous meeting it was agreed that AJI was supposed to provide examples of the deliverables to be gotten from the PrIDE system, which would satisfy the concerns of the Commissioners. She brought up a point of information which she said troubled her, and that was that Phil Harris indicated that there are numerous software programs that measure outcomes, and her understanding in the initial agreement to utilize PrIDE as a sole source contractor was that this was the sole vendor that could provide this software and interface, etc. One thing found out in the review of this continuing contract, was that Santa Cruz has used a different model, called Allvest, which does measure outcome. It was started in 1998, but was around in 1999 when .. it doesn’t only provide outcome measures but it helps POs in developing treatment plans. That program took 10 months to develop and cost approx. $45,000. With training for their POs. Given, this comparison, Comm. Arámburo questioned whether there was a legal justification for this sole source contract; when in fact there are multiple vendors that can and should have been looked at back then. She said she would like a City Attorney opinion on whether these contracts (with AJI) were in violation of contracting procedures (open bidding).
Chief Williams stated that this contract, as with every contract the City lets, these have to pass through every oversight agency before it is let, including sole source justification. The Dept would be happy to provide to the Commission those documents submitted in order to get the sole source approval. The Dept is as concerned with this as the Commission and took all precautions to make sure it was done properly. Whether or not there were numerous software programs that do numerous things about client tracking and case management, this is more than that, and it did pass the sole source muster. The Dept promised (in the Program Committee meeting) to meet with John Rhoades and report back with a side by side comparison of what Allvest and PrIDE do. His own understanding of what Allvest does, which is rudimentary, is that it provides software, staff training and some online capacity to do online analysis.
Comm. Arámburo said she understood that Allvest met with Sandy Clayborn and Bob Wertz. She repeated that she’d like the City Attorney to review this contract to make sure it is a proper sole source contract. At the same time she’d like the Dept to get information about all the other potential programs that might be usable. She noted that this agenda item should have been written as an action item because her understanding was that there was supposed to be a decision made on whether deliverables had been met for purposes of extending this contract.
Phil Harris: there are quite a few software vendors out there selling case management systems. One easy access to that is to go (joint counseling accreditation and healthcare organization) which sponsors a whole variety of systems. They are case management systems. It produces automated reports and even creates some recommendations, but it is all a very canned kind of response. Even outcome measures are pre defined. It does not do evaluation at the program level. Nor does it tell anything about the system wide services. This is where PrIDE was starting from. To his understanding, Philadelphia is the only city with a system that does program level and system level assessments of programs. Kansas city is using ProDES instrumentation, but is building their own.
Comm. Dupré said that at the Program Comm. the AJI presentation was interrupted and it was said that the presentation was satisfactory; and the staff and consultants would bring back the Santa Cruz evaluation model, and since this is not an action item in this meeting, he asked that the Commission give the Program Comm. clear instructions what to do, and resolve it on the committee level. He asked for a clear charge, so they could report back at the next meeting.
Comm. Ricci asked if any of the staff has seen an actual operation of the program to see if ultimately it is something they could utilize (interface with). Comm. Grossman said that she saw some of the products of the Allvest operation (a Texas example), and said that they encouraged her to visit them to see what they can do. She thinks we do need to do a comparison, given the wide disparity of costs involved in the different models available.
Comm. Arámburo repeated that before the Commission makes any decision about PrIDE, it behooves the Commission to get a City Attorney opinion. Comm. Hale said that in respect to the Commission’s fiduciary responsibility, it is not absolute. That the Commission must exercise reasonableness. Given where the conversations started, with respect to a database system, they were both comprehensive, deliberative, and he is confident that the Commission’s fiduciary responsibilities have been met. The concerns raised at the last meeting were significantly regarding whether this venture could produce the kind of information we can use, that’s helpful to the Dept. As a separate issue there was the cost factor. Just because someone says they could have done this for a lot less doesn’t mean that the course taken should be abandoned. You can criticize as long as you are reasonable. That question is still not there, (I’m sensing) from some of the Commissioners, and he expects Program Committee to deal with this issue. Once a Committee decision is reached, then it should be brought before the full Commission. Comm. Grossman agreed that these are two issues, and also agreed that it should be brought back to the Program Committee for recommendations.
Phil Harris: they were asked early on whether they would sell ProDES/Promis to SF. They could have sold it for certainly less than $45,000, but it wouldn’t have fit SF, as the needs are different.
Chief Williams said that he would accept the direction of the Commission and Program Comm in the spirit it has already been given. They all have a responsibility to do the right thing for the right reasons at the right costs. His understanding of what the Program Comm wanted was: a demonstration of the system, report on the data that is in the system, and some analysis of the costs of transitioning the system into the Dept. There was a demonstration that was ready, and 2 reports. His understanding after that meeting was that the Committee wanted a side by side comparison of what ProDes does and what Allvest does, and also a date certain, Feb., when additional deliverables will be available. At this point, the comparison is not just Allvest, but other comparable systems, and in addition to provide documentation about the contract itself (the sole source contract). He just wants to make sure they are on the same page with what the Commission wants.
Comm. Arámburo repeated that it was her understanding that at this Commission meeting the Program Committee would be recommending whether or not the deliverables had been met for the purpose of completing that additional $375K contract. The Committee did not take a vote on that issue, and prior to taking such a vote she feels it is in the interests of the Commission to make sure that in a legal perspective, this is an appropriate sole source contract.
Chief Williams said that it was not a problem to respond to those concerns. He ended his comments by saying that with any contract of this magnitude, the contract is presented to the Commission for final sign off and approval. The Commission may recall, and if we reflect back on minutes, this issue of sole source, he’d be willing to bet, was raised, discussed, resolved to the Commission’s satisfaction, at the time the contract was being processed. So that will be one of the sources they will look at to provide the information being requested.
He stated that it was the Commission’s responsibility and the individual Committee’s responsibility to raise these kinds of questions, and it was his sense from the Program Committee that they had responded to the requests that were on the table at that point.
Comm. Hale reviewed that everything requested by the Commission and Committee should be done. With respect to the City Attorney, he directed Comm. Arámburo to write a letter addressing those points needing a response. But we should not delay progress on this particular project.
Comm. Dupré reviewed his motion approving the contract with conditions (read from the minutes), and said that he’s clear on the directive of the Commission in regards this subject.
(public comments) None.
6. (DISCUSSION) Report on the school programs at Log Cabin Ranch and Woodside Learning Ctr (Frank Tom, SFUSD, presenting)
Comm. Hale reported that he and Comm Dupre had a meeting with Superintendent Ackerman and her team for the schools programs in the Dept. and acknowledged their appreciation for the meeting and continuing dialog.
Frank Tom introduced himself as the new Assoc Superintendent for High Schools, which includes County Community Schools and the Court Schools. He said the Superintendent’s intention is that all students in the County Community and Court Schools have equal access to the curriculum, content, and performance standards of all other students in the district. This includes wrap around services. He introduced Linda Miles, who is the Principal for the County Community , and Court Schools. Jim Fithian is the Asst. Principal at LCRS. Christine Baker is Asst. Pricipal for Woodside Learning Ctr.
He said it was important for him to see that opportunities existed for students to make the transition back to regular schools, from JH or LCR. He wants to see every student have an Individual Success Plan, so they can monitor their progress.
Linda Miles: introduced herself, apologized for not having C. Baker present, and introduced J. Fithian, who proceeded to give his report on LCRS. He gave a handout to the Commissioners which was a point by point response to questions raised by Commissioners. He said that one large goal he has for the school is to connect it with community resources (which it hasn’t done in the past). He said also he wants to develop the curriculum to bring it closer to the environment (nature related). He mentioned the presence of horse on the ranch and that some of his staff are ’horsepeople’. They started a horsemanship program. He has connected with some outdoor education facilities to enhance the science program.
Comm. Arámburo asked: can the school develop transferable credits (for the school and afterschool activities) for the students to take back to their HS, toward graduation, and a curriculum for monolingual students.
F.Tom said that there is the possibility of extending the classes beyond the school day and including credits for projects. J.Fithian said that he looks at all the files, and that they are going to include PE credits and health ed. credits for participation in the therapeutic programs.
Comm. Hale asked the Program Committee take this issue up in committee. He said it was more appropriate to initiate these issues in committee, and if issues are raised/or action taken that the full commission should address, then it should be placed on the full commission agenda.
Comm. Arámburo said that she would like IEP, psycho therapy (how does the SFUSD comply with the requirements of IEP for special ed students). Grant writing? Who does that for the district? Is there Consent Decree funds available for LCRS? What other resources haven’t been tapped. Is there the possibility of developing an internship program with some of the universities?
Comm. Grossman is very encouraged by the school district’s current work (via Fithian). Comm. Dupré was also very excited by this, and further mentioned that F.Tom was a graduate of Galileo HS. He said that one important thing was to maintain positive communication with Johnny Miller, otherwise the polarization will become problematic. Comm Richard asked what the grade levels are the youth at in reading and math.
Comm. Hale asked to hold these questions for committee.
He asked about the GED testing because he was approached by 2 young men who were not able to get tested when they wanted. Fithian said that they are getting a Title VI grant to get GED testing on site. There has been a transportation problem, no available Ranch staff to take them to the testing site.
There were no public comments. Comm. Hale gave the mike to the student council of LCRS. Their concerns (in no particular order):
They need more teachers, and tutors to reduce the ratio.
Reading levels are low in the youth.
They need afterschool programs that improve reading, along with books (current texts).
There needs to be a process which immediately places a youth back into an assigned school after they leave LCRS, without a delay, as is the case now.
Comm. Hale said that it is important to find ways to encourage the youth to do well, while in LCRS.
(public comments) Julie Posadas said that what they are doing in LCRS can also be done in Juvenile Hall, especially to help young women.
7. (DISCUSSION) Report on the mental health services to youth in LogCabin Ranch and Juvenile Hall. (D. Hoard; Mtambuzi, SPY)
T. Mtambuzi, Director of SPY, reported on the services at LCRS now: there are mental health services at LCRS, in yr 2000, 7 days a week; in the first part of 2001, 5 days a week. Currently it is at 1 day/wk. There is one mental health staff going down there. Those needing services more frequently are brought up to JH.
Comm. Arámburo asked if social workers are considered psycho therapists, for the purposes of a court ordered service? Yes.
Who is responsible for complying with a court order for psycho therapy? Answer: SPY.
When was the last time there was 5 days/week service at the Ranch? Answer: June of this year.
Is there a psychologist involved in the development of treatment plans? Answer: No. the MSWs can develop treatment plans, there is no psychotherapist assisting in this. There isn’t a full time psychologist assigned to LCRS.
Medications? Answer: youth have to be evaluated by the psychiatrist every 7 days, brought back to JH to be seen.
When will a fulltime social worker be assigned? Answer: a candidate has been screened and selected, but is awaiting the official appointment. They hope by the end of Oct.
Mtambuzi said that they have contracted D. Hoard to come back and consult on the development of the mental health program at LCRS.
Comm. Arámburo asked how they would improve services at LCRS. D. Hoard, referred to the concerns stated in his letter, and said that many are being addressed. He said there needs to be a balance between custody and rehabilitation. The Dept seems to be working more on a crises intervention basis rather than treatment.
There is a definite need for more therapists (too many youth for the staff available), and there needs to be an all around plan, dealing with the family, the schools, the counselors.
Comm. Arámburo: is there much follow up after release? Answer: very little follow up after release. There is an attempt to hook them up with community mental health, but there is no individual therapist working with them.
D. Hoard said that there are social work interns to help reduce the ratio of therapist/youth. Some can be assigned to the aftercare portion.
Comm. Hale again said that a lot of these items can more appropriately be dealt with in committee.
He asked about coordination with the school district, eg. IEPs. What is his (Mtambuzi) involvement with the schools. Answer: at YGC there is a staff who identifies youth as AB 3632, and they’re IEPs are screened to determine the level of services needed. SPY is responsible for providing it through their mental health staff. At LCRS, apparently they’ve "dropped the ball". They need to establish a means to track if the youth was receiving those services here in JH, they are maintained when referred to LCRS.
(public comments) None
8. (DISCUSSION) Report from Juvenile Probation Dept.(JDP) on issues raised by the Commission at its July meeting, including: moratorium on students, and impact, if any, on CYA recommendations by the JDP., hiring and current staffing, budget, discplinary system, vocational programs, aftercare, and utilization of adult facilities for "ranch failures."
Some of the concerns:
Need more interesting books in the library dealing with race, culture, history
Need access to the internet
Want driver’s education, need a means of getting an ID so they aren’t hassled by the police.
They reported that they have starteda program link with Job Corps so that about 12 seniors can transition from LCRS to the Corps (come Nov)
They stated that the attitudes of the youth at LCRS have changed.
They want back in the athletic league for ranches.
They need an aftercare program, with guidance from some mentor (to show that somebody cares).
They want more equipment t the rec hall.
They suggested extending the school day til dinner time. They say it already happens at Glenwood.
The ranch needs another reputation, one that really educates the youth and prepares them to re enter society.
Both the youth council, and Comm. Arámburo mention that the personal hygiene supplies being given to the youth are unattractive, and unused. They need "real" toothbrushes, etc.
Comm. Hale commended them for their input.
Comm Richard reported he is working with an org called College Planning Solutions, which will take graduates from LCR straight to college. He will also be working on getting mentors for the grads.
Comm. Hale reminded the Commission that under general public comments, they cannot respond in dialog to comments made by the public. He asked what the Commission wanted to do with the remaining items under this agenda items. Comm. Dupré moved to extend this discussion another 25 mins. By a voice vote, the motion carried.
Chief Williams: the disciplinary system is addressed in their Strategic Plan. Some of the comments made by the youth tonight are covered in the report. He suggested that once modification are made to the document, given the comments tonight, it become the baseline measurement against all future improvements.
LCRS staffing/hiring: there is one vacancy on counseling staff. One is out on workman’s comp., another currently assigned to JH. 9 are being background checked for future hire (permanent/on call). Don Sanders will be/already is assigned to do the follow up and completion on those decisions. Moratorium on students, in May of this year. It was lifted in mid August.
Use of CYA commitments in lieu of LCRS commitments: currently, through August of this year, there were 10. 3 for evaluations.
The LCRS 2001-2 budget is $2.5 million. This is a 7% increase from the year before. There’s about $358,000 in TANF ranch funds. There is also a $351,000 in funded capital improvement projects.
There are 3 POs assigned to LCRS, 2 in the community, and 1 at LCRS.
The Chief said that he plans to meet monthly with the student council of LCRS.
Comm. Arámburo asked about CYA recommendations, not commitments. Have they increased during the moratorium?
Question: does the Dept intend to divert TANF ranch funds again (last year $250K was reallocated to general fund programs). Answer: No. Regular TANF funds were used this year.
Answer: what about Ripple Effects? Answer: did not have the right computers at LCRS, so they implemented it at Robeson/Rivera. Question: does the Dept plan to allocate money to get the right computers to use that program? Answer: yes. Will try to get the SFUSD to upgrade the computers, through their Digital High School grant.
Question: what is the contracting procress at LCRS. Do contracts go out to bid? Answer: depends. Construction contracts go out to bid. Personal services contracts with the vocational programs do not require it (amounts under the threshold, $50K).
Question: what about the liability around the horses. The Chief said he had that discussion with Commissioner Dupre and the short answer is yes. Comm. Dupré said that the school program’s horsemanship program mentioned previously is a book based program. They are not on horses. The 4-H is a partner in that other program and liability will be provided through UC Extension.

(first part of minutes)

Meeting Information

Full_Commission