Juvenile Probation Department
Advisory Board, Commission, Task Force
Departments, Divisions, Offices
Programs and Projects
larger font size
smaller font size
Archive Center >>
Juvenile Probation Department
Juvenile Probation Department
MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2001 PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETING
Held at Youth Guidance Center Conference Rm.
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 3:10pm. Comm. Dupre arrived at 3:11 pm. Comm. Larson was excused.
2. (ACTION) Review and approval of Program Committee meeting minutes of September 19 and October 17, 2000.
The minutes were approved as written.
3. (ACTION) Consideration and possible recommendation to full Commission, a contract with Bayview Hunters Point Foundation, in the amount of $69,000.00 for population management project.
Lonnie Holmes of the Community Programs Division, and Noel Robinson, Case Manager for the Placement Diversion Program presented. This is a program modeled on the Home Detention program. It utilizes electronic monitoring of youth, who are referred to it by the courts. There were 29 referrals to the program, 12 participants currently in the program, 9 are continuing, 2 are basically successful, they are not complying with the orders of probation and so are either detained, or have warrants out for their arrest. 6 are on electronic monitoring.
Bob Wertz mentioned one youth who removed the electronic monitoring bracelet. The cost per day for electronic monitoring is $12/youth.
It was noted that this contract is only for 6 mos.
It was moved and seconded to recommend this contract to the full Commission. The motion passed, 2-0.
4. (ACTION) Consideration and possible recommendation to full Commission , to accept and expend supplemental grant funds of $483,752.00, from the Board of Corrections’ Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP).
Ed Lopatin explained that there was a supplemental grant from the Board of Corrections to add to the already granted $497,502. The additional amount of $483,752.00 will take the ROPP program til June of 2002. It will be added to the Robeson/Rivera Academy’s operational budget and will be used for the Performing Arts Workshop activities. Upon motion, and seconded, this item will be recommended to the full Commission.
5. DISCUSSION) Report from Samoan Community Development Center on progress since last program review.
Fatilua Fatilua, the Executive Director of the Center, and Dora Blake, the facilitator of the anger management program, represented. He spoke of the modifications made to the program since the last report. They are now concentrating on case management, through the schools, and providing a"promoting personal power" (anger management) program, afterschool tutorials. They work out of their Center, Balboa HS, and YGC.
There was a short discussion about getting access to the Vis Valley Beacon Ctr to utilize their computer lab or possiblity working with the Boys and Girls Club, located in the housing project in Sunnydale, since their own program has not been set up yet.
6. (DISCUSSION) Report from Davis Ja and Associates on the "Non intensive" community based
Davis Ja presented the revised final report, which includes a reconciliation of some discrepant figures for one program. He reviewed that they were contracted in Dec. of 1998 to do the evaluation of non intensive home based supervision programs. He said that this evaluation was not an outcome based evaluation, but a cross sectional look at the programs, in order to see how they may be improved to increase the effectiveness of the overall system of services. Since this could not be a comparative evaluation (programs totally different from each other), a process was arrived at where they interviewed the administrators, staff and random youth from each program. They reviewed program documentation, and costs, and in some cases compared arrest records of youth served in 1997-98, compared to those being served this time around.
Ja said that 5 of the 6 programs are doing an adequate job, and some of them are doing an excellent job. He did, however, say that one program (Ella Hill Hutch) failed totally to verify service to any youth.
He further said that in looking overall at the programs, he found the re arrest records of youth served were not good. He questioned whether there needed to be another way of providing much more integrated, and linked services than now exists.
In evaluating the programs, they took into account the severity of youth being served. Some served much more difficult youth than others.
Ja said he didn’t get the sense that many of the services/organizations were working with the family (parents), and that this represented a deficit in service to the youth.
He lauded two programs (YWCA mentorship program, and the Bayview Hunters Point Foundation Home Detention program -it was noted that the Home Detention contract was given to another organization).
He made a point that the key to any effective program is staff. He referred to the Omega program (with Jack Jacqua), which had a very effective staff, but no program documentation at all.
Question: what’s the re arrest rate for youth in the Home Detention program? 68%
The Status Offender program (which only served 80 of the Department’s youth) had a 71% arrest record for those they served (that is, 71% of the status offenders referred from this Department, that they saw, went on to commit crimes -some very serious-- and be arrested.
He was not implying anything about the effectiveness of the Huckleberry House program, but he did question whether this avenue was the best way to use the money.
There was a discussion regarding the types of youth being referred to Huckleberry now vs. in the past; the kinds of issues these youth are dealing with (implying that now there are more serious problems), stating that some are actually being referred to Huckleberry after being arrested but not detained in the Hall.
A measure of success for them would be the reduction of petitions as a result of their work.
Main issues: amount of money being allocated, severity of cases being served, appropriateness/efficacy of services being delivered, efficacy of the total system of services being constructed and supported.
7. (DISCUSSION) Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Probation Commission.
There was none.
8. (ACTION) Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 pm.
Minutes adopted 3/28/01
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 240 •
San Francisco, CA 94102-6061 •
Phone: 415-252-2570 •
TDD: 415-252-2550 •
Fax: 415-252-2575 •
Office of Economic and Workforce Development, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 448, San Francisco, CA 94102
City and County of San Francisco ©2000-2013