|
(DISCUSSION) Chief Probation Officer’s Report
a. Status Report on Juvenile Hall replacement project
Joanne Chow Winship reported that the project was moving along smoothly and on-time/on-budget. There is upcoming trenching that will take a couple of weeks, to connect the facility to the public utilities and this will create some traffic congestion around the south end of the building. There was a question of the noise and if it was overly disruptive. Ans. There have been no complaints about this as yet. There is some inconvenience created by the move of Dept 30 to upstairs, having traffic between the public and wards crossing, maintaining public safety.
b. Status of LCRS operations
LCRS Director D. Sanders reviewed the new processes they’ve instituted at the Ranch. The processes are in place and being implemented now, but the written document, which outlines them is being finalized and should be with the Chief by end of this week. A copy will be given to the Commissioners afterward.
L. Jackson-Simpson gave a recount of the vocational programs (given at the Program Committee of the night before, see minutes of Program Comm. mtg). She mentioned an effort with Clear Channel to conduct a broadcast training program which could offer internships to youth coming out of LCRS. There are also 3 youth interested in the Job Corps programs. The Dept is looking at working with more than just the TI programs.
Sanders reported that he has a full staff, and there is an on-call list.
Ques: what is the situation with OT and Workmans Comp. Sanders deferred to the Chief. Chief Tucker said that the OT has been reduced and is on budget. No further details were given. She said that the Controller is doing a survey of other jurisdictions to see how WC seems to be working, and will hopefully have their findings by the end of Dec.
Comm. Bonilla requested to see that report in Finance Comm. when it was available.
Ques: who does the assessment of the youth referred to LCRS? It is done between the court, the JPD (N. Yalon) and others. And there is a 90 day “orientation” during which time the youth may be returned to JH for readjustment. If he fails to comport to LCRS processes. They have used this with some youth already.
L. Jackson-Simpson reported briefly on the vocational programming being developed (see program comm. mtg mins).
There was a concern with this “new” plan. There was a “Masterplan” already done by the Dept and approved by the Commission. It almost seems that the Dept spends more time in coming up with one plan then coming up with something different, rather than concentrating on best practices and going for results. So far, there are no numbers showing the results of any of these plans, after youth leave LCRS. The numbers are more important than seeing the written plan.
This was echoed by other Commissioners who said that results were the most important thing...”tangible products.” Chief Tucker said that the two objectives they had for the youth at LCRS were either a GED or a diploma. This is in their plan.
Chief Tucker said that this “new” plan is the same as the “Masterplan” but has been scaled back due to budget considerations.
Comm Hale asked the Dep.City Attorney what the legislative requirement was for the schools; do they have to provide educational programs to the Dept’s youth? The interest in this was how to re coup some funds from the SFUSD, either by charging rent or using ADA funds. He asked for information from the schools regarding amount of money they collect for having these youth on their rolls.
J. Fithian, SFUSD said that they are starting to research this question. He has taken other measures to cost cut, leaving some positions unfilled (they have adequate staffing for 24 kids, which is the average population). He mentioned that because the age of the youth has dropped (15-16 yrs), they are not going to be getting a GED or diploma in the time they’re at LCRS. Comm. Chuck agreed, and said further that many of the youth being served are lacking the basic educational building blocks, which makes it harder.
There were questions about getting evidence of how effective the programs are, for youth after they leave… not just a year later, but even longer. The difficulty of keeping track of youth afterward, and when they reach 18 yrs, is great. Nobody had an easy answer for how to do this.
c. Status Report of the JDAI (Bieringer reporting)
G. Bieringer reported that the initiative was moving along well, mentioning last week’s public presentation at Delancey St.. They recently took 13 people back to Chicago to learn about the Evening Reporting Centers, in preparation for the SF centers’ opening Jan. 1, 2004. They are going to start another workgroup: language access and cultural diversity, to look at how all ethnicities can receive adequate and appropriate services. They did a survey of people in the 94124 zip code area (where a majority of youth in the Dept reside). They will next do a survey of youth from 17-25 who have been in the system, to see how they think things need to be changed in order for youth to be better served. They will also be surveying the Police Dept and school resource officers to get their perspectives on the issue of disproportionate minority confinement. He emphasized that the initiative won’t work without the participation of the Police Dept.
Ques: with the current and future budget issues, how will the JDAI recommendations be operationalized. Comm. Hale wanted a report from the Dept on how they will re configure the Dept to support those recommendations. The Chief commented on various issues surrounding JDAI; staffing issues that will come up with the evening reporting centers –POs working evenings; underperforming CBOs (current contractees not being fully utilized, not being referred to by the Dept; how to get the services to “shft to fill the holes so there is not duplication of services, as well as how do we form these community based organizations in a graduated sanction continuum of service, so that youth can step down or step up depending on their needs” (said the Chief). She commented that the Juvenile Probation Dept needs to reorganize to meet this need.
Comm Chuck asked how information from PrIDE factors into this. Bieringer said that at this point there is no intersection or knowledge gained from PrIDE which helps the JDAI process. L. Jackson-Simpson said that there will be some mutual support available from information from PrIDEand JDAI, but each has its own principal goals which are not the same and the other.
d. Report on Operation Cease Fire
Greg Lowder, Dir. MOCJ, gave a short update on what is happening with Operation Cease Fire, which was brought to SF in Sept 2001 and started about Jan. 2002. It is originally from Boston (called the Boston Gun Project). It is a gun violence suppression project which emphasizes heavy consequences for any gang (or individuals) who would violate a cease fire “agreement/understanding.” He reported that in SF there were approx. 29 identified gangs in the city, with about 700 confirmed members. 50% of all homicides in the City were attributable to those gangs. He said that the first violators of that “agreement” was “Big Block,” (about 27 members who ultimately got indicted by the US Attorney). The next two groups to come under suppression were “Oakdale, and BMT.” 30 members of them were arrested. Similarly, actions have been taken against “WestBlock” and other groups. He said that while it is hard to measure success for a program like this, he believed there has been success. He said that less than 50% of the homicides for this year are the result of gang violence. It is not a panacea. How does this relate to the JPD? The JPD has always been a collaborator in this effort. The Cease Fire program has also done its presentations to youth in Juvenile Hall. The program has also brought CBOs to the “talks” to encourage gangs to seek other avenues of life.
Comm Hale asked if kids on probation caseloads are getting the same information? And how?
(public comments)
There was none.
|
