Meeting Information

2.

Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission, that is not on this meeting’s agenda.
There were none.
                                                           

3.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of proposed Dept FY 2005-6 budget, with possibility of modifications and approval.

Comm Stiglich read a statement prepared by Comm Lingad Ricci regarding this agenda item. (linked at end of minutes).

Mark Lui reported that Chief Siffermann has been working with the Mayor’s office to reach the $680K reduction target for the budget.  With some technical adjustments, the target now remains at $567K reduction.  The Dept did not have any specific suggestions, recommendations for the Commission to consider at this meeting.  Chief Siffermann said that he was going to have another meeting later this week with the Mayor’s Budget Office and the Controller, to get the perspective and framework that he was led to believe when he was appointed that he would be in a position to gather the resources that he’d been offered by the Mayor’s office to help the Dept in the development of the budget.  Specifically, of where we needed to get to, as far as cutting the budget.  Before we have to identify specific targeted areas that may include reductions in contractual amounts, a reduction in staff, and other reductions, that could very well impact the services we provide. 

He referred to a letter from the Mayor’s Budget office that offered the Dept more time in preparing the budget.  He said that by the next commission meeting, he would provide a framework that would allow the commission to examine and propose other potential solutions to what the Dept would offer to continue providing services.

Comm Chuck asked Mark Lui to help him identify the budget items that refer to the revenues for Log Cabin Ranch.  Lui responded to that (index codes: 125008, and 120067)

Comm Rodriguez asked what the technical adjustments Lui referred to were, that led to the reduced target amount.  Lui said it was from re inclusion of staff not retiring.

Comm Chuck expressed concern over the timeline of the process to reach a final budget.

Chief Siffermann said he is waiting to see how serious the Mayor’s office is with respect to the budget cuts that have been essentially earmarked, identified or laid out for the Dept prior to his arrival.

He said he believes there can be some movement of that figure. He hopes he can gather some “good will” that came with his appointment.

Comm Stiglich asked Lui how OT/WC was going?  Lui said that last Thursday they met with the Budget/Finance committee of the Board of Supes, and asked for a release of their reserves (about $2.4 million).  Because the Dept has done well in the WC/OT cost areas, the reserve was released.

The WC trend has shown a decrease, from 18 cases to 10 active cases.  Actual savings is about $250-$300k.  OT is less than $500k this year.

(public comments)
There were none.
                  

4.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Probation Officers’ safety issues; court reporting and protocols for recommendations for disposition.

Comm Stiglich said she asked for this item, after speaking with many POs.  Her understanding is that POs do not have safety vests and/or vests’ condition is not meeting standards (active ‘shelf life’).  Chief Siffermann was not aware of the practice currently in the Dept, but was approached by the DPOA for a meeting to discuss safety concerns, including the possibility of arming POs in the field.  PO safety is a big concern for him, and he is looking at equipping them with two-way radios with direct line to the police, while in the field.

Have there been incidents of violence against POs?  this needs to be established.

Comm Stiglich said that it is the general sense that being in the field is dangerous and POs are hesitant to go into certain neighborhoods or situations without any form of protection.

Comm Rodriguez commented that how the POs present themselves would greatly determine what responses they receive. 

The discussion touched on various issues of rapport between youth, the probation officers, the families, and CBOs, to make POs work less felt like enforcement and compliance than support and guidance.

Comm Fetiçō suggested that staff on modified work duty could be utilized, and this was followed up on by Chief Siffermann, who gave the example of using them to do reminders for youth to appear at their hearings (and thus reduce the number of warrants resulting from no-shows). 

Comm Stiglich asked about the protocols in place regarding filing of court reports on probationers.

She understood that CBOs often directly file with the courts, reports on how probationers are doing, without referring to the case carrying PO and allowing the PO to submit a comprehensive report that incorporates the CBO’s report.

B. Johnston said he didn’t think there was a written policy on that protocol.  Comm Stiglich asked if POs have any participation in the CBOs provision of services to the youth?  No.

Comm Fetiçō said that in his own experience with his non-profit, he’s never seen one PO inquire about a youth in his program.

Comm Stiglich commented that this is a serious and important issue. She felt that POs have not been given their rightful due, vis-à-vis the courts and community, and this may be leading to the morale situation within the Dept.

She is concerned with the flow or lack thereof, of information regarding available services, to the POs so they can take advantage of them.  

Comm Fetiçō mentioned an example of information that POs do not get regarding their charges, where an incident log book in Juvenile Hall is not reviewed so that POs know how their charge is acting in Juvenile Hall, and can take that into account in their report to the courts.

Chief Siffermann said that under utilization of resources is unforgivable. They are looking at ways to improve accountability, customer service, and re-craft the mission statement.  This will include POs in the conversation.

(public comments)
There were none.

5.

Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission
Chief Siffermann mentioned that City Youth Now (formerly the YGC Auxiliary) suggested a possible fundraising event, upon the opening of the new juvenile hall; paying to stay overnight at the new hall.  It could also be used to build community support and awareness of the new facility.

6.

(ACTION)  Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm

(Attachment)  Comm Lingad Ricci’s statement

Statement from Comm Lingad Ricci                           4-18-05

I apologize for not being able to be at tonight’s meeting.  Due to the serious health problem of a relative I had to fly out to Denver, at the last moment, but I would like the Commission to consider the following in tonight’s budget deliberations.

We face difficult fiscal times, with reduced revenue streams in the next few years. Given this, we need to be realistic in what we can do with those limited funds.  This isn’t to say we sacrifice the future for more immediate short term relief.  We need to keep an eye and mind on where we are going, but we need also to prioritize our activities to directly meet the immediate needs of the Dept. and our service population.

Given this shrinking resource pool, we need to look at all aspects of our operations so that money allocated is spent for the most effective and necessary services, in keeping with the mission of our Dept.  And also, that those services are not done in a mediocre way, but maximize the results for those dollars.

Therefore, I hope you will consider all areas where there can be consolidation of services, where there may be duplication, low productivity, waste, inefficiency, and make the necessary cuts, re allocations, improvements to practices and procedures within the Dept, so that we get the biggest bang for the buck.

For instance, since there will be the realignment of community based services, and a closer working relationship between our Dept and DCYF, do we need such an expensive evaluation tool as PrIDE?   Given the nature of the services of Huckleberry Youth Services, should it be supported by other depts such as DCYF, DHS, and not entirely buy our Dept?  Should specific services such as the Chaplaincy be kept to that objective and not inflated to do other social services that are offered by other CBOs?

I don’t mean to imply that these are the only programs that should be questioned.  But they illustrate part of what needs to be done so that we can move forward and do the best that we can with the little that we have.  Remember, we still have two large issues in the Dept that will be ongoing challenges for us, Log Cabin Ranch and the Juvenile Hall replacement.

Thank you and have a productive meeting.

Jacquie