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

Skip to page body

Meeting Information



Finance_Committee

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000  

MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2003 Meeting of the FINANCE COMMITTEE Of the JUVENILE PROBATION COMMISSION, continued from Feb. 10, 2003

held at Youth Guidance Center cafeteria 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 at 9:45 am by the Chair.  Comm. Bonilla was present at the gavel.  Mark Lui and Gwen Tucker represented the Dept.

 

2.

(ACTION) Review and approval of  February 10, 2003  meeting minutes 

The minutes were approved as written.

(public comments)  There were none.

 

3.

(DISCUSSION) Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile

Probation Commission.

Comments presented here were all related to the proposed closing of Log Cabin Ranch, and are listed under item #4.

 

4

(ACTION) Continued review and possible action to recommend FY 2003-04 Operating Budget reductions to full Commission  

Mark Lui stated that there was one revision (a technical adjustment) to the document of Jan. 10, 2003.  He pointed to it on pg 3 of the budget, under Professional and Specialized Services, which combines the reduction of $120K from the Status Offenders services contract, and the transference of approx. $13K of program services from the JH budget.  He also pointed to the last item on the page, called expenditure recovery, in the amount of $400K.  This would be reimbursed via the TANF funding.  This was done to meet the requirements of Prop. D, which set baseline funding of children’s services. Comm. Ricci asked if there would be a fuller breakdown of sub categorical costs for the dept. budget by the Wed. 19th meeting.  She also asked how the amount of cut was arrived at for the Status Offenders contract.

DCPG Tucker responded that the Dept had decided on a 10% reduction to CBO contracts, based on legislative and the priorities for this Dept.  Apparently, Huckleberry is the largest general fund program, and it is very large.  The Dept felt that it was better to just cut from one, Status Offender program, rather than spread it across the board. 

Comm. Ricci asked about the PrIDE program.  DPO Tucker referred to Liz Jackson-Simpson.  She said that this contract is paid for out of TANF and not general baseline funds.  The sunset of those programs under TANF will be Oct. of this year.

Comm Bonilla asked about the Owens Information contract.  DPO Tucker said that this is through the end of this fiscal year.  It is for programming for our organization.  We have to have a programmer to work the entire computer system. Without a programmer the Dept would not be able to function.  The alternative approaches are being worked on.  If the Dept didn’t continue that contract then they would have to enlist another position, but in this budget year that potential is slim.  The Dept is mandatory to have a programmer to complete the computer programming.

(public comments)

Jack Jacqua spoke against the closure of the Ranch.  There are no other like programs the youth can be referred to. This would only lead to more CYA commitments.

Closing the ranch is not as much about money as it is about not having the will, vision, and spirit to keep it open.

Joe Berkowitz, a LCR counselor said that by the figures, the Dept is choosing to balance its books on the backs of Log Cabin Ranch and the kids.

Tracy Brown, Mission Neighborhood Centers, questioned the wisdom of moving CBO contracts to TANF funding, which will end in Oct. 03.  

M. Lui recounted that the “technical adjustment” he mentioned earlier essentially sets out that the CBO contracts would be reduced by a total of about $107K, and not the original amount noted in the Feb. 10 document.

Comm. Bonilla asked what would have to be cut in order to keep LCR as it is today.

Tucker said that those determinations would have to be made by what the legislative mandates are.  The Dept did a very thorough review of what those legislative mandates were, what the Dept priorities were, etc. and this is what they came up with.  “We are clear that cutting LCR is not the best thing for the children or for SF. This is about budget cuts and the mandates we were given of what must be cut,”  Tucker said.

Dr. Kyra Bobinet, of Vision Youthz, spoke against the closing of LCR.  She suggested forming a collaborative of CBOs who might come up with a scheme of operation for LCR.  She welcomed participation on such a body.

Jim Fithian, VP at LCR, spoke against the closing of LCR.  He gave a recounting of the improvements and accomplishments of the school program and the youth there and strongly opposed throwing that program away.  As an alternative, he proposed a 10% cut across the board in the Dept’s budget, or to just tell the Bd of Supervisors that it is unacceptable to cut anything from LCR.

Henry Breen of the YGC Vol. Aux, asked it the Dept had any idea as to restrictions on the use of the land at LCR, which would kill any attempt to sell it or use it for other than what is now being done.  He strongly opposed closing LCR.

Tucker said that legal documents regarding the land had been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office and there are no restrictions on its usage.

A representative from SLUG spoke in opposition to the closing.

The Native Plant manager at LCR opposed the closing, and distributed some documents regarding conservation and environmental protection, which might be useful in finding alternative funds to continue LCR. 

Writers’ Corps opposed the closing, citing the wealth of accomplishments the program and the youth have made in the past 6 yrs and the value of the program to turning youth around and steering them to productive futures.

The National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship opposed the closing, also citing their work with the youth and what youth have done.  The representative mentioned the impact their work has had in other parts of the nation.   He also stated that among all those concerned with LCR, there was a “brain trust” that could be accessed to come up with a best solution to the problem.  He welcomed inclusion in this.

The Fatherhood Development Coordinator from the Family Restoration House in the Bayview, opposed the closing. 

Derald Ford of the Trauma Foundation, said that there is no comparable program in other counties (eg. Alameda), to LCR.  He asked why the Dept didn’t try to find other funds to keep the ranch open (eg. selling some of the property, returning 1% of their pay). 

Rev Toni Dunbar spoke against closing LCR.

Com. Bonilla encouraged all those concerned to lobby those with the purse strings to keep LCR funded.

Don Sanders, Dir of LCR, said that the LCR staff has expressed their willingness to take unpaid furloughs, something he hasn’t heard anyone else in the Dept willing to do. He also said that he investigated services from the CYA and there are no similar services available there. He opposed the closing of LCR.  He said that those making decisions affecting the ranch do not know what’s going on there.

Liller B. Jackson, counseling coordinator at LCR:  She spoke about her experience at a conference on ranch programs where she found that LCR is the only ranch that had violence reduction programs for the youth.  She said that CYA used LCR’s model for victim impact sensitivity training.  LCR’s family reunification goals would be lost if the youth were just shipped out to other ranches even further away.

Ray Balberan, Mission Neighborhood Centers, cautioned not to overuse LCR if it is kept open.  And also to make sure that language access to services is not a problem.

Nina Fisher, mental health professional from Dept of Public Health, at LCR.  Therapeutic group facilitator.  She referred to the many firsts that LCR created, working on therapeutic issues for young men.  She said that this is the only ranch that provides such services to their youth.

She said that the idea that cutting LCR would save $2.1 million is wrong because they will still have to use $1 million to contract out for services to serve those same youth.

Comm. Ricci thanked all the speakers, and said she feels the same way they do.  She encouraged others to create a collaborative and try to find a way to keep LCR open.  She expressed her willingness to work with such a collaborative, but said that they needed to have all the facts and figures at their disposal to be able to show what the benefits and losses would be if LCR were open or closed. 

Comm. Bonilla agreed.  The private sector needs to be enlisted since the public sector is experiencing such fiscal problems.

Kent Eagleson of the Boys/Girls Home.  Recounted that they had once had an operation called Transition House –an aftercare program for the Ranch which previous JPD administrations closed down.  He expressed his opinion that kids who are referred to LCR are in need of what LCR can provide and not what CBOs in a community based setting can do.  So he cautioned against looking to CBOs to take up the slack if LCR is closed, as this would be inappropriate to the therapeutic needs of those youth.  He opposes the closing of the ranch.

Comm. Bonilla repeated that he moved to recommend the current budget to the full commission for consideration on the 19th.

 

5

(ACTION) Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:27am.