SFGov

back to Juvenile Probation Department home page

Programs_Committee

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2000 PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETING
          Held at Youth Guidance Center, 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. Aramburo at 5:12pm. Comm. Dupré, Comm. Larson were present at the gavel.

2. (ACTION) Review of Program Committee meeting minutes of May 17, 2000.
The minutes were approved for May 17, and 24, 2000, as written.

Comm. Arámburo welcomed the people in the audience: Sally Chow and Joe Buenavista from the SFUSD, a representative from the Mayor’s office, and Rev. Toni Dunbar.

3. (DISCUSSION) Status of Spiritual Life program in the Department (Chaplain Dunbar)
Some highlights of the report.
Rev. Dunbar talked about a proposal for a religious aftercare program for youth coming out of Juvenile Hall. Part of it is already funded; part of it still needs finances. (A copy of the proposal is available from the JPC office).
She stated that the program in the Hall is being received very positively, one girl asking for her release to be delayed so she could attend one more choir practice and one more service.
There are 60 volunteers in the Hall. She carried out a successful 3-day training for them.
The spiritual life program here is a model for replication. She is being called on by Public/Private Ventures (funded through Ford Foundation) to speak to other communities about this.
She commented that she will be connecting with Stewart Wobber of INCH, and Vision Youth, and will be working together on the aftercare program Wobber has/will set up for LCR graduates.
Comm. Arámburo asked if the Wellness Foundation was a potential source of funding. Rev. Dunbar will be contacting them.

4. (ACTION) Creation of a Log Cabin Ranch Steering Committee, for the improvement of programs (Aramburo)
Comm. Arámburo recounted the Committee’s meeting at LCR, on May 24, and commented that it is a good facility with tremendous potential to do good for the youth housed there. There is a great need to bolster and strengthen the program at LCR, in preparation for the possible increase in population due to reduced out of state placements, and more referrals from the courts. She felt that a Steering Committee made up of representatives from several different sectors dealing with youth in LCR, that could sit and draw up a coordinated plan for how LCR can best serve these youth. Comm. Dupré moved to establish such a committee. Comm. Larson seconded. The question was called and passed unanimously.

5. (DISCUSSION) Programs at Log Cabin Ranch: educational and vocational (J. Miller)
Sally Chow commented that she is now looking at the school programs in the Dept to see what will be necessary to eliminate the fragmented and unconnected curriculum that used to prevail, and replace it with a system of coordinated and age/interest appropriate instruction which will allow youth to continue their education after they are released from the Dept. They have already assigned separate Principals to LCR, and Woodside Learning so each site can have full attention paid to it.
Joe Buenavista wants to see comprehensive educational assessments done on all students in the Dept. He wants to see the program in the Dept conform with the educational goals and content of the SFUSD so students can apply it to their continued education when they leave. They will continue to develop and strengthen the partnerships with educational agencies such as City College, other colleges, and vocational programs such as union apprenticeships.
Dr. Buenavista made a point also that the two programs (Woodside & LCR) should be coordinated so that when a youth is transferred to LCR from JH, whatever educational program he started can continue without interruption, so that the credits are accumulative and not partial with no benefit to the youth.
S. Chow said that they are also looking at means of solving staffing problems. A year round program is a possibility, with short sessions in between to bring support services to the youth, all with usable credits. Use of substitutes from San Mateo Co. is another means.
Dr. Buenavista mentioned that they want to offer instruction to the youth, based on need, and not what is presently being done (by unit, with a wide range of educational needs in youth). With the "digital high school", they can do it.
Gwen Tucker said, in correcting Dr. Buenavista, that they would not be sending youth from Woodside Learning Center to Log Cabin. They are two different classifications. LCR is a commitment vs. Juvenile Hall, which is a detention site. LCR is post adjudication, so they’re not going to mix those populations.
S. Chow said that they also want to develop the alternative education offerings and will be working with Reno Taini (SFSU) among others to try different things out: eg. ROPP, Schools to Career. Engineering technology might be a vein of education.
Comm. Dupré mentioned the woodshop and how it could be utilized. S. Chow is reviewing the issues around the woodshop and will make sure it will be used.
Howard Schoft, PO assigned to LCR, spoke about what he does with the residents in LCR, in conjunction with the Aftercare POs. He emphasized the importance of continuity in teaching staff, with a good orientation for the teachers so they know what they will be facing (the type of population at the ranch). He also mentioned the need to have real education and not just "hand out" good grades for not causing trouble (or after intimidation).
Comm. Arámburo emphasized that the Dept is responsible for appropriating placing the youth into programs and creating placements that meet their needs.
Ched Frierson, Supervisor for County Placement, described how they take care of Aftercare activities for youth now in LCR. Comm. Arámburo asked if any of the CBOs go to LCR to make linkages for those youth coming out. Answer: No, not currently.
Comm. Dupré commented that the faith community needs to be brought into this fold.
Comm. Dupré asked if there were payments given to CBOs for serving LCR youth in aftercare? No, the CBOs are contracted to serve the youth of the Dept so unless their capacities are maxed out, they are required to serve LCR kids. Comm. Arámburo asked if there was a comprehensive service provider? Answer: no.

6. (DISCUSSION) Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission.
None

7. (ACTION) Adjournment
          The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm.

Meeting Information

Programs_Committee