2.

(ACTION) Review and approval of July 20, 2005 meeting minutes.
The minutes were adopted as written.

(public comments)

there were none.

3.

Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Program Committee of the Juvenile Probation Commission
There were none.

4.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Regarding probation officers’ safety in the field, with possible recommendations to the full commission.

Rich Perino, DPOA, briefly said that they felt they needed to be armed when they go into those high crime areas, to see their charges, just as police are  armed when they go out there. 

Comm Hale said he was disappointed that there was no formal presentation with supportive materials to justify the request. He had no knowledge of any incident in the past, which called to question the safety of POs in the field. He felt that evidence spoke to the opposite position, to not carry arms.

The discussion was around whether there was an objective danger when POs go out to such areas, or whether it was just subjective feelings of fear for the areas. 

Perino said that in the past POs had informally been armed (selectively).  Peace officers are allowed to carry arms.

Paul Cuadra, Serious Offenders Project, said this was not a question about their relationships with their charges. They have good relations generally.

Comm Hale still maintained that POs shouldn’t carry arms.  His friend in the LA Probation Dept said they don’t carry.

Gabe Calvillo, SOP, said that Comm Hale’s experience is not the same as for POs.  POs are perceived as law enforcement and need to enforce court orders, including taking youth into custody.  There have been times when others approached him on the street.  One time he and another PO had to disarm a student at Mission HS.

They are not asking at all POs be armed, just the ones who deal specifically with gang related youth, and have to go to those areas.  Comm Hale suggested having discussions with other jurisdictions to see what practices are out there.

Comm Rodriguez asked to keep this item on the agenda for next meeting and continued discussion.  He invited others from the SOP unit to come next time with a more specific and detailed proposal.

Chief Siffermann said that he would give his input the next time this is looked at.

Comm Rodriguez also asked Comm Hale to invite whoever he felt from Alameda county would be good

to hear from.

(public comments)

there were none.

5.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Update on Log Cabin Ranch, with a report from the Mayor’s Committee on Log Cabin Ranch.

No one from the Mayor’s Committee was present. Com Hale, who attended their last meeting briefly reported that they are now in the revision stages of their report, and having an outside consultant from the Casey Foundation look over their draft. This person is a principal architect of the “Missouri Plan”.  The Program Committee asked the Secretary to get directions from the President and Vice President as to how to request a representative from the Mayor’s committee to come to the next Program Committee meeting to report.

(public comments)

there were none.

6.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Regarding the protocols for court reporting, communications within the Dept, with the Commission, with possibility for recommendations to the full commission, establishing new protocols.

Comm Hale recounted that there was a concern brought up (not sure from whom) that there was a practice by some CBOS to submit reports directly to the courts regarding wards that sometimes might conflict with the perspective of the PO.

R. Perino said he was at a meeting with Comm Stiglich where some POs expressed their concern over CBOs submitting status reports on wards, directly to the courts, without their knowledge or agreement, and that sometimes the assessments conflicted with their opinions. This has created confusion. This seemed to fuel the fear that little by little POs are being pushed out of the loop, while CBOs “take over” in reporting to the court.  He specifically mentioned the Girls Justice Initiative, whom he described as “prolific”.

Comm Rodriguez suggested they meet with the judges and court commissioners to see if they are having any problems with this (do they “prefer” CBO reports over those of the POs?)

R. Perino said it seemed the judges were more interested in the CBO reports than the POs.

Comm Hale said this was relevant to the JDAI case processing work area.  He said that information that goes to the court should be available to those involved (POs) before the hearing date so that nobody is surprised by their contents.

G. Bieringer said that in the JDAI work, they did a survey and found that there was a great deal of confusion surrounding roles and relationships.. lines of authority and reporting.  Some CBOs who did pass their reports to the POs felt their comments were reduced to insignificant footnotes in the PO’s report, while others by-passed the POs and submitted directly to the courts for this exact reason.  Some POs felt that CBOs make reports based on an advocacy role rather than that of truthful objective reporter. This is a longstanding problem.  He felt that these roles and responsibilities needed to be clarified in the RFP process this next year.

Chief Siffermann agreed with G. Bieringer.  He said that he was looking into asking the judges to reduce their requests for so many progress reports. He said the larger question to this issue is who the primary case manager is.  He said that would be the PO so all information should be directed through this person. That there is no coordination between the CBO and POs on this shows the lack of rapport that is needed.

Comm Hale said that courts used to give more weight to the responsible party’s report (the PO) rather than “hearsay” from others (CBOs).  It should be a Dept policy that assessments of our wards should be made by all the involved stakeholders together and not by any single body. 

He offered possibly that the PO could work with the CBO to agree that the CBO would be responsible for meeting the court orders on the child, and if there’s failure, to mete out the graduated sanctions, with the support of the PO.

Chief Siffermann asked the committee to allow him to take this back and keep working on it.

As to the communications with the Commission, he said that he has had discussions with the President, and believes they have an understanding of what protocols to follow in getting information back and forth.

The Committee said it was aware of the limits of its ability to gather information or give directives, so will be abiding by those limits.

(public comments)
there were none

7.

(DISCUSSION) How will District Based Planning be utilized to develop/decide CBO services for youth in the Dept. in the coming year.

Comm Hale commented that he had a discussion with President Queen and said it will take a large discussion with our stakeholders to explore means of applying those principles in a practical way.  The implications of loss of funding for CBOs if district based planning were not followed, needs to be further clarified.  Liz Jackson-Simpson agreed. Accountability can’t be just put on one side (the CBOs), but the work of the Dept needs to be included.

The Chief said that the term is sometimes confusing.  Using “community” makes sense to him.  And that all those in the community need to be speaking to each other and collaborating.  He said that in the upcoming RFP process he’d hope to see the community come to agreement on what interventions are in the community to address particular issues (character/lifeskills development, employment, accountability etc.), and then to be able to respond to the Dept’s needs. L. Jackson-Simpson said such a discussion could help in resolving some of the conflicts that were mentioned before.

Comm Chuck asked if this could be dealt with in pieces so that it would be manageable.  The staff would need to identify which piece could be tried first.

L. Jackson-Simpson commented that this is a good spot to begin this discussion since the RFP process will be coming in the Spring and everyone will have to be on the same page, and all the other initiatives on-going will need to be brought into the fold of this also.

Comm Hale said there needs to be some opportunity for staff to professionally develop.

The Chief said he was already looking at this and that there would be ways that individual staff could begin to assume greater leadership in workgroups, so they could become more effective leaders.

Comm Hale suggested the Chief arrange a meeting with the Commission President, and appropriate staff to begin discussions. The Chief said he’d raise this at his next meeting with the President.

(public comments)

R. Perino suggested that if this were left on a district level it might be a “recipe for corruption.”  Might it get to Supervisors “anointing” their favorite CBOs as contractors to our Dept?

Barbara Ross, PO, did not feel there’s a conflict between the POs and CBOs.

G. Bieringer wondered if the problem is seeing district based planning as an end in itself rather than as a vehicle toward an end.  He also asked how to reconcile current and future Commission resolutions that might conflict with previously passed resolutions.

Comm Hale disagreed with B. Ross about not having conflict.  He sees it.

8.

(DISCUSSION) Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Program Committee of the Juvenile Probation Commission

R. Perino brought up a situation that has resulted in the Dept’s re organization of the probation services division.  It has created work overloads for some staff.  it has put added pressures on all unit operations when some staff take time off. He asked for a review of this problem.

Comm Rodriguez said this is a topic in the domain of the Chief so he’ll leave it for the Chief to address.

Comm Hale asked if the Dept used a “banking” system for their supervision cases? He’d like to know

Paul Quadra said he’s concerned with Log Cabin Ranch. It needs re-vamping soon.

9.

(ACTION) Announcements, future agenda items.  Adjournment

Comm Chuck asked for an update on the  language access issue that was addressed by the Chief’s memo.  That will be on the next meeting agenda.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm.