SFGov

back to Juvenile Probation Department home page

Programs_Committee

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETING
held at Youth Guidance Center rm 311 375 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. Arámburo at 4:37 pm. Comm. Dupre was present at the gavel. Comm Richard arrived at 5:00 pm.
2. (ACTION) Approval of July 24, August 16, and 21, 2001 meeting minutes.
By separate motions, the three sets of minutes were approved as written.
(public comment) None
3. (DISCUSSION) Report by AJI on the progress of PrIDE program, and a demonstration of the database capabilities.
Comm. Arámburo said that she had reviewed the reports and was impressed with the LCR Recidivism report, but it appeared to her that for the most part the information contained could have been obtained from the existing JJIS, and/or manually from the files on hand.
A demo was done using the database info on the JJIS system (the abstracted data were from the JJIS and not PrIDE). A comparison was shown of the number of clients in the PrIDE system, and those in the JJIS, showing how they could distinguish which were which. JJIS info is received on a weekly basis.
Phil Harris (of ProDES) said that the in Philadelphia, they are using only adjudicated charges as part of the risk assessment field.
Question: how do you prevent the input from being false. Answer: psycho metric instruments utilize multiple questioning at different points, hoping to obtain statistical aggregates that reveal anomalies, and hope to thwart the simple giving of false statements. But this is something that still needs to be looked at periodically.
Comm. Arámburo questioned the applicability of the PrIDE instrument, given its foundation in the ProDES model, which deals more with long-term treatment, placement agencies, vs. the relatively short term, changing base of CBOs here in SF. Harris said that change can’t be measured over a very short period of time (eg. programs which last only a couple months), but one would hope that if [it] is worth doing, you should see an outcome later on that shows that it’s worth doing. The value of doing that (service) needs to be demonstrated.
There was a discussion regarding the usefulness of doing such a research evaluation on short-term programs that may not exist after funding. The "pros" to it are that you can take the lessons learned and apply them to future programming. Liz Jackson-Simpson said that there is nothing that no service can be forecasted to work for an individual youth, but the collection of data that is not now compiled, is useful. It will help in making effective decisions for placing youth in appropriate services. Comm. Arámburo was concerned that a lot of money and time is being spent on non adjudicated youth, vs. the 10-15% of the young people, the chronic offender. A choice needs to be made between tracking a non-adjudicated youth and the other.
Harris gave an example of how their data system in Philadelphia was able to show a drift away from serving high-risk youth to low risk.
Comm. Dupré said the issue that this project has taken a long time to get online. Part of the goal of this project would have been that SF was one of the few counties in California having an evaluative component, thus giving SF a way to convince other funding sources to continue support.
Harris said that it took 4 years for Philadelphia to get to produce any reports. Question: how much money has been leveraged from the ProDES/Promis operations. Answer: no exact amounts were available.
Question: how stable are the programs in Philadelphia? Answer: their starting database had about 60 agencies, and now, 9 yrs later, there’s over 100. Approx. 1/3 are CBOs, the remaining are placement agencies (ie. group homes, other treatment sites). Pennsylvania is geared to use of mental health agencies.
Comm. Arámburo asked if Harris had heard of Allvest (another operation that does program outcome measurement, case management system being used by Santa Cruz Co.).
She further said that in light of the beginning work with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Dept might be changing the way it delivers services in the next 2-3 yrs. And from what she has heard of the Allvest products, it may be better suited to SF’s needs.
Harris said that there are literally hundreds of outcome systems, but you can’t just use a pre set up database program just anywhere. Each city is unique.
There was disagreement as to who should do data input, the CBO or the PO.
L. Jackson-Simpson described what they are planning to do in creating community based assessment teams to deal with the youth. But the data is important for that.
Question: the data from the report on LCRS came from? Answer: the California Law Enforcement Tracking System, and the automatic warrant system. The JJIS and PrIDE do not have the information yet.
There was a discussion regarding mental health issues in youth at LCRS, impacting their outcomes. And what Santa Cruz does in its system.
L. Jackson-Simpson advocated for the continuation of the PrIDE program because the structure is in place. It just needs data now.
Question: is there an approx. timeline where we will have something in hand. Answer: the first outcome report should be available by Feb. 03.
Harris commented that if it is important to generate outcome reports on TANF operations, then that should be a set priority, but that will conflict with the inclusion of evaluations on LCRS, probation services, placement, and other aspects of the Dept’s operations, which are now in the pipeline.

The PrIDE cohort descriptions come from those files kept by POs. They are adjudicated youth, and most of them were assigned to one of the IHBS programs (whether they went or not).
Question: is there a report comparing all TANF operators? Is that a report that can be done by Feb? Answer: doubt it. Not enough data collected at the correct data points (onset, somewhere down the line, exit).
Data collection is still inconsistent and incomplete.
Chief Williams mentioned that they were able to give the CBOs (general fund programs) a series of COLAS approximating 15% increase, using TANF funds ($250K this time).
Leveraging TANF monies is not just important to TANF funded programs, but to general fund programs also.
He said about the stakeholders process that they will be carrying out may in fact determine what they will do in the future; whether it’s the same thing or modifications of the same thing or entirely new activities.
Comm. Arámburo said that this is exactly the issue, with its impact on the PrIDE system.
Question: is the PrIDE system going to be a case management system also? Answer: the Dept is already able to do a certain amount of case tracking across depts. (shared database through mental health, Probation, social services, etc.). there is some capability to track cases in the JJIS. Not all POs have access to that system (computers), and it is not fully developed.
The Chief asked what specifically the Committee was asking from the AJI in future reports. Comm. Arámburo said she was interested in seeing a comparison between Allvest and the PrIDE program, to see what may be possible in integrating what is already done in PrIDE with the system available through Allvest, and what products could be produced, for what amount of money.
The Chief said he would put T. Oberweis, P. Harris and J. Rhoades together to discuss what Allvest capabilities are vs. what PrIDE will do, and at what cost and report back on that.
(Public Comment) None
4. (DISCUSSION) Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission None
5. (ACTION) Adjournment
Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:17 pm.

Meeting Information

Programs_Committee