To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 




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 2:45 pm. Comms. Dupre and Richard were present at that gavel. Chief Williams, Sheila Arcelona, Bob Wertz, were present for the Dept. Dr. Oberweis and Ross Tobia represented AJI/PrIDE. Comm. Arámburo extended the sincere condolences of the Committee to the Chief for his bereavement. Chief Williams acknowledged and thanked the Commission and staff for their support during this time.
2. (ACTION) Approval of September 24, 2001 meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved as written.
(public comment)
3. (DISCUSSION) Report by AJI on the progress of PrIDE program..
Chief Williams reviewed the directions of the Committee; he asked Phil Harris to talk to staff at Allvest, and prepare a report (received yesterday). Ross Tobia also did a comparison chart of 4 programs (chart passed out at meeting). Dept staff also visited Santa Cruz and talked with their staff regarding their data collection system (Allvest). Comm. Arámburo said that this was not exactly what she asked for, and also didn’t feel that having Dr. Harris do the comparison was an appropriate means of obtaining an objective opinion (given his stake in PrIDE/ProDes). She said she had hoped the Dept would arrange to have vendors do presentations so the Commission could have a direct dialogue with the vendors and see side by side comparisons. Chief Williams said that referring back to the minutes, he asked specifically what the Prog. Comm. wanted and it said they wanted a comparison between Allvest and the PrIDE programs. He said the minutes don’t refer to any presentations from vendors.
          Comm. Arámburo said that in her opinion it was not a sound practice to have a vendor (Dr. Harris) do the evaluation of another program since there would be a natural bias. She also expressed concern about the fact that the other vendors were not given an opportunity to respond to Dr. Harris’ report and his assessments of their program.
          Comm. Arámburo said she was inclined to recommend that the Committee take the materials just passed out at the meeting, to review, and bring back to Committee at a later time. Without having had time to read the report before hand, she did not know if they are sufficient for the side by side comparison asked for. The Chief said that, in his opinion, they were.
          Comm. Dupré suggested that the meeting continue with the documents received but advised that he wanted to know a little about what that other model provided for $45K. And also are there other models? He asked Dr. Oberweis to compare the Allvest model to PrIDE and tell if there
          would be savings that go with that. Dr. Oberweis referred to the report from Dr. Harris (copy available at the JPC office). She pointed to the purpose column. PrIDE/ProDes, (P/P), share program evaluation/development as primary goals vs. Allvest’s case management objective, to improve case management. She mentioned the MSJ model, which concentrates on program evaluation. The $45K instrument through Allvest is essentially a case management tool.
          PrIDE goes beyond that to provide program evaluation, and assistance in assignment of youth to appropriate programs. It also will tell what youth do well in what programs, under what circumstances, to allow for the improvement of the quality and array of services. There are various user groups for P/P. P/P will help providers assess how well they’re doing and help them improve their services. The next group of users is the Commission, in terms of planning the array of services. Two additional users will be the case managers and their supervisors in the CBOs.
          Allvest is based on very strong nationwide research on delinquency, protective and risk factors, and certain selected outcomes to measure, and instruments by which they could measure them. PrIDE/ProDes rely on a model of development that allow programs to self select which goals they want to be evaluated on, resulting in information that is custom made for the group of users.
          So, Allvest’s measurements are derived from national orientation, while PrIDE is local goals and outcomes. Utilization: Allvest has automated responses generated by the system. So does PrIDE. PrIDE assists programs to collect data in the most valid and reliable way. Allvest does no training for this. Technical support consists of helping users so they can connect their terminals to the database and seeing that information transfer is successful. When PrIDE comes "in-house" the Dept already has staff who can take care of that. Because PrIDE data will be processed on an aggregate level, all data collectors are carefully trained so data is collected in the most valid way.
          Fees: $45K is essentially the proprietary cost of using the Allvest software. The data gathered through Allvest can either be stored in the storage space. (for SF this is a confidentiality issue) The $45K does not include training for data collectors, no aggregate reporting. They could hire outside people at a cost to provide that analysis, but it is not a part of their fee. That $45K fee can be different at any time (increases). There is essentially no control. If this system were in-house it could be managed. She then turned to Ross Tobia to report what he learned from John Rhoades and Scott McDonald of Santa Cruz.
          Ross Tobia introduced himself as being with AJI and also as having worked with JPD’s Information Services Div. He referred to his chart given to the Committee at the meeting, which is a distillation of his notes when he met with them. He reported that the Allvest system tracks 9 traits (indicators, risk factors). PrIDE tracks many more. (the report can be gotten from the JPC office). He said they are essentially using their system to track clients through the process to see if they are receiving services and where. They are still in their infancy and have not yet begun to use the information to evaluate the programs. They have the system installed on two machines and haven’t started collecting data yet.
          They are confident that they will be able to track single clients and assess their outcomes. PrIDE can assess changing trends in criminal justice factors, social factors for groups of clients, trend data for before and after to design to evaluate program and services in the aggregate.
          Comm. Arámburo asked if Tobia contacted Sean Hosman of Allvest. Answer: No. Did Allvest have a chance to review his notes about the differences in the systems: No. Commissioner Aramburo was told by Hosman that Allvest can be modified to interface with JJIS. Tobia said it           definitely could not. He said they could do it at a minimum of $150/hour and $4000 a year.
          Tobia: Allvest is a stand-alone proprietary product, not designed to directly share data with existing information systems in probation departments. Allvest cannot be modified by the probation department to share data with JJIS. It can export custom data sets (you can set up certain reports that are costed -at $150/hr work--above those reports included in their fees). But there is no control over the timeliness of receiving those reports. PrIDE can be set up side by side to the JJIS (they use the same server software). Existing staff can modify it and custom data sets can be extracted as needed. Data storage: Allvest has online storage, or stored in "seats" (in-house computer nodes) hooked up to a single server. The cost is $45K for 35 seats (terminals). Santa Cruz helps them market their wares so gets a better deal than most. PrIDE is stored on a server in the JPD. While Santa Cruz hasn’t gotten their system up and operating, PrIDE has been providing client level reports for a year.
          Sheila Arcelona: she referred to a printed piece, which described Allvest’s Back On Track program in detail. She said it was a comprehensive, research based, risk assessment and case management tool. Santa Cruz is looking at Synovation to provide the case management tool they need (but it costs more).
          Comm. Arámburo said that she understands the Allvest and Synnovation are currently discussing a possible joint venture to develop a case management and outcome measures software program. She said it was interesting that other California counties were contracting with Synovation and Allvest to develop their systems while we are doing something much more expensive. She questioned whether the program differences were worth the difference in cost. She said that in fairness to Allvest she thought this report should be given to them to see if it was accurate. She further said that this was not what she had expected and that she was disappointed that the Department did not provide live demonstrations with other vendors for the Committee’s review. In her opinion, it is problematic to have PrIDE do the comparison of the two since PrIDE is the sole source beneficiary of this contract and would have a natural bias. She expected the Dept to give the Committee the overview of multiple vendors and models so that the Committee would have information about other models and costs that are available She wanted to see what was out there that might cost the Dept a lot less money. She liked the Allvest/Synovation product because it seemed much more a PO driven case management model. She said her understanding is that Allvest does train the POs. An issue with PrIDE is that there can be multiple intakes on a youth depending on the number of programs which the youth participates in. This is valuable CBO time which is expended completing the PrIDE questionnaire multiple times. Comm. Arámburo believes that the initial intake is a core responsibility of the PO and needs to remain such and the Allvest program does help develop treatment plans from this initial intake interview which expedites release of the wards and community treatment. This seems more in line with what the Casey initiative will be doing and is consistent with the model already utilized by Santa Cruz, our partner in the Casey initiative.
          Chief Williams said that the Dept has attempted to respond each time to the requests of the Program Comm. They compared PrIDE and Allvest, PrIDE vs Allvest vs ProDes and another system. He read from the minutes of the meeting where the request was made. It said that the Dept would ask Dr. Oberweis and Harris to get together with John Rhoades and get a report back to the Commission.
          Comm. Arámburo said that the Dept was to do this, but that she expected that the Department would make the presentation and not rely on potentially biased comparisons by the competing vendors. She did not think that this was a sound or fair administrative practice.
          The Chief disagreed. He said they did what they were asked, and if there was further direction they would do that also. He agreed that there is a difference in philosophy between Allvest and ProDes/PrIDE. There is clearly a difference in understanding of what they each can do. He said that the Dept has always been guided by the direction of the Committee and Commission, but it has become a little frustrating to try to respond and be constantly pulled to the last day. He said that’s not what the Dept wants, but he has been willing the last 6 mos, as in the last 4 yrs to provide information that this and any committee wants and the full Commission requires. He asked again what is that information and to what end. His understanding of what the Commission wanted is what the Dept has already presented. He said that at some point he would like to get definitive direction from the Commission as to what direction it wants to give about the PrIDE contract, in the subsequent fiscal year.
          Comm. Arámburo said that it was very clear to her what she wanted and had asked for repeatedly for the past few months. She wanted a comparative demonstrations of programs provided by the separate vendors. She thinks that information should have been presented to the Commission before entering this sole source contract, but they had been told that PrIDE was the only vendor developing outcome measure software. For her it is simple, she wants to see what other vendors and models are out there and what is the likely cost Chief Williams interjected that, with all due respects, the sole source process is its own process, and we’ve (the Dept) met the requirements of that process.
          Comm. Arámburo said that it is one thing to meet the legal requirements of a sole source contract and it was another to meet the mandates of the Commission; to provide as much information as possible. That has been the problem with this contract; a little information given at a time. For instance, this presentation, she was expecting a comparison of not just PrIDE and Allvest, but three or four different programs out there, because contrary to the original claim that ProDes was the only one doing this sort of thing, there were a number of different ones. And actually, according to Dr. Harris, there are hundreds. With that, the Commission has to consider what our budget can handle and if there are more cost effective programs.
          Chief Williams said that the Dept always keeps in mind the budget needs. He said that at every step of the process, started 3 or 4 years ago (whatever that was), they have shared a significant amount of information about the intent of PrIDE, pros and cons of ProDes, the rationale for going with AJI.
Commissioner Aramburo told the Chief that the Department had not made it clear what the full cost of PrIDE would be until prodded by the Committee during this contract round. She has checked with former Commissioners and they too are surprised at the potential ultimate cost of PrIDE. There was a difference of opinion regarding whether the Dept provided a clear understanding of the ultimate cost of the system.
          Comm. Dupré asked, given what has been provided to date by Dept staff, what else is still needed Comm. Arámburo replied that the Program Comm. could decide if this was sufficient to make a decision to commit to PrIDE for a potential cost of $2.5 to $3 million, without looking at any alternative models. It was her own feeling that the Commission’s fiduciary responsibility obligated them to determine whether there are other sufficiently validated, and less costly models to meet the Dept’s needs. Chief Williams referred to a previous report by the Dept. regarding possible scenarios for integration of the PrIDE project that included issuing an RFP for any interested party to bid on maintaining the system. He repeated that he wanted definitive direction from the Commission on how they wanted him to proceed in the subsequent fiscal year.
          Comm Richard felt that it is time to make a decision and move forward. There was a discussion about the differences between PrIDE and Allvest, and if the savings would still allow the Dept to better meet its needs, as well as the question of data collection methodology; which way was better.
          Chief Williams commented in regards to the budget issue. The loss of TANF will affect programs beyond the PrIDE program. He enumerated a number of other budget issues. He agreed that is was an issue for the PrIDE program, but that it shouldn’t necessarily govern the decision about the contract. He reiterated that he felt the Dept did the fiscally responsible thing, in proposing possible integration models, which accounted for the loss of TANF, and possible support by general funds.
          Comm. Dupré reviewed his understanding that the Chief has acknowledged due to budget concerns, the possibility of RFPs in the upcoming year, and the possibility of no service if there is no contract So, what is the desire of the Committee? Comm. Arámburo replied that since the contract with AJI has been approved for $375K, that gives the Dept up to a year to look around at other models to see what might be supportive to the Casey Initiative.
          Comm. Arámburo said that possibly around Feb 2002 the Committee could begin looking at other models and vendors. Chief Williams stated his understanding was that the Committee would like the Dept, sometime in March or April, to review the status of PrIDE and its implementation, and Allvest and its use in Santa Cruz. Comm. Arámburo advised that we should not limit ourselves to one model, but look at any other successful programs that are developed and are consistent with the reform initiatives planned by the Department and Casey.
          The Chief inserted, ’through JDAI." The Dept would ask one of the sub committees of the JDAI to take on the task of reviewing data systems that support the initiative. Comm. Dupré said that this should be for February or March. The Chief mentioned that depending on the directives from the City during the new budget planning, whatever impact that has on this scenario will be taken to the Finance Committee of the Commission.
          Comm. Dupré repeated that in Feb. the Committee would get the deliverables from the PrIDE program. He asked for clarification of what this would be. Dr. Oberweis said that it would be the first group of clients where data collection was completed at the appropriate junctions. They will have an outcome report for that cohort of youth (amounting to a program evaluation report).
(public comment)
4. (ACTION) Consideration of recommending to the full Commission, a continuation of Population Management Contract with Bayview Hunter’s Point Foundation, in the amount of $140,000.
The Chief asked Bob Wertz and Lonnie Holmes to do the presentation. He summarized that this was a contract started last fiscal year, as a detention alternative with an enhanced service package. Comm. Arámburo reminded B. Wertz that materials/documents, information regarding such matters needs to be in the Committee’s hands before the time of the meeting so Commissioners have time to review them and have a meaningful discussion.
          Wertz said that this program was for youth, who were in the ’pipeline’ to be placed out of the home, or youth that were between placements. In the first year, the goal was to serve 15 youth at a time. There were 34 referrals in that year, 23 of who were accepted. Under the guidance of Barbara Johnson, a case plan is developed for referred youth. A great part of the success of the program is due to the work of Kwanza Morton (PO). There are currently 13 in the program. 5 have successfully completed the program. 2 others completed, re offended (charges dismissed) and were re referred to the program, but did not end up in placement. There were youth with severe mental health and violence issues and were not taken into the program (not suitable for them). The court is supportive of the program, and in two cases asked the youth to remain in the program beyond 6 mos. Electronic monitoring is a part of this program. It has been very positive in enhancing the chances for success. PO Kwanza Morton described some of the things he’s doing in the program. He mentioned they include the families in the development of the case plans.
          Comm Richard asked if they keep touch with the youths’ schools. Answer: yes.
          Comm. Arámburo asked about the outcomes of those leaving the program. Morton said that 4-5 of them have been returned to the hall on new offenses.
          Comm. Arámburo asked the cost of electronic monitoring. Answer: $12/person/day. The cost is not covered by this grant. They have used electronic monitoring on youth for a max of 60 days. There have been situations when a youth was returned to it after having been taken off.
          Comm. Arámburo: what impact has it had on the population of the hall. The Chief said that those in the program would otherwise be sitting in the hall.
          Comm. Arámburo asked if this contract went through the RPF process. The Chief said that this contract began as a contract modification of 6 mos, for an existing contract, and then an extension of 6 mos of that modification, and now for a full 12 mos. Lonnie Holmes said that was a correct description of what was done. There was no formal RFP process. Comm. Arámburo asked if this a sole source contract? Answer: this is not a sole source in that regard. Sole source procedures were not followed? The Dept did go through the processes and safeguards required to modify and then extend a contract, and now, they will have
          to do the same to clear this full year contract. The Chief said his understanding is that they would not have to go through a sole source justification process, even at this level. Comm. Dupré moved to make a recommendation to the full Commission to approve the contract as presented by the Dept., at the level of $140,000 for a full year. It was seconded, and upon roll call vote, passed, 3-0.
(public comment)
5. Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission There was none. Comm. Dupré raised the issue of Judge Feinstein’s concerns for LCR, and asked to have those issues discussed at future Committee meetings, and to hear from staff how better communications can be established between the courts and the Dept/Commission. He said that he was concerned for the LCR programs, and wanted to discuss some of the issues the Judge took out of context. Some of those issues were the staffing, staff’s ability to carry out programs, contracts, etc.
          Comm. Arámburo said that it would be important to have meetings at LCR for the Program Committee so that the LCR needs remain in the forefront. She also said that it was important for the Commission to establish priorities for LCR because we need to evaluate the costs of a program budgeted for 60 to 80 youths which is now currently serving less than 30.
6. (ACTION) Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm. with a prayer led by Commissioner Dupre in the memory of the Chief’s son.