2.

(ACTION) Review and approval of June 16, 2004 meeting minutes 
The minutes were approved 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

Jack Jacqua, Omega Boys/Girls Club, expressed his disappointment and frustration at the Dept not paying his agency in a timely manner for the work they are still doing.  He feared that this was going to be a repeat of last year’s experience and said that this is not giving the respect to those who actually provide services to the dept.  Comm Stiglich commented that it was unacceptable to be delinquent on payments to providers.  The Chief asked Jack to provide the specific details and she would look into it.  She said that sometimes they can’t pay because invoices aren’t given to them and since she didn’t know what the problem was she would have to look into it.
 

4

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of progress on activities from the Ad Hoc Committee, with possible recommendations to the full Commission.

D. Sanders passed out a large binder of materials that he said he collected from the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee, and that he didn’t want to be presumptuous about what the findings were, so he asked the Committee members to look over the materials, and decide what they want as the principal points, and he would put that together for the full commission meeting.  He asked for their responses by Monday.

(public comments)
There were none.

5.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) ) Discuss meaning and implications of district based planning as a foundation for developing juvenile justice policy for the Juvenile Probation Commission, with a possible recommendation to full Commission

Comm Queen reviewed that at the last Commission meeting he presented this resolution and Commissioners asked for more specificity as to what it meant in implementation and what, if anything, it committed the Dept and/or Commission to.  He provided here parts of the SF Administrative Code which lays out that the City wants departments to do strategic planning with goals and outcome measures, and while it said that this should be done with public input, it does not spell out how. He explained that the resolution has already found approval from Mayor Newsom, and that it would not take any authority away from the Dept or Commission, but that it would open up the process to be more fully inclusive of the communities that are affected by plans and activities that get taken up by the Dept.
He said that maximum community input does not occur in meetings of the Commission.  Planning needs to be done at the table with all stakeholders, and those plans should be brought back to the Commission for approval.

Comm Stiglich had an issue with what appears to be setting up a whole other process in addition to an existing one which seemed to allow for this.
Main points brought up in the discussion revolved around the feasibility of many additional meetings and mechanisms by which stakeholders would have to participate in order to achieve significant input, and that possibly a greater effort to outreach the community to better utilize the existing processes could bring about that goal.

Comm Queen summarized that it appeared that in principle everyone agreed that following such a concept is the way to proceed in strategic planning, but that there was still the question of how the process would actually take place and whether it was logistically possible.  Comm Stiglich had indicated support of the originally drafted resolution, with a slight amendment (the use of the word “supports” in place of “will use” ), and Comm Queen asked that the 2^nd draft resolution, which included an illustration of how it could be implemented in accordance with the Admin Code, be forwarded along with Comm Stiglich’s suggested version, to the full Commission to be discussed and possibly adopted at the full Commission meeting.  The motion was adopted and this will be taken up by the full Commission.

(public comments)
There were none.

6.

(DISCUSSION) A review of the history of Community Assessment Referral Center (CARC) referrals over the past few years.

Comm Stiglich said she wanted to review the procedures by which CARC is given youth to process, to see how it may be facilitated for maximized benefit.  She understood that certain types of offenses (eg. 707) are directly taken to YGC but she wondered whether there was some discretionary criteria where more youth could be referred to CARC rather than YGC.  She asked for a review of the past few years to see what changes may be possible

B. Johnston said that there are some youth CARC sees, who also have a parallel process through the Dept. There are others who for other reasons (CARC closed, out of county) may be referred to YGC.  Some who are referred to YGC but CARC eligible are referred to them.

Comm Queen said that there have been questions of how CARC works with the districts that youth come from. The communities would like to be more involved in how CARC works.

Comm Queen asked the Dept to produce a flowchart of the process, when they give the report next month.

(public comments) 
There were none. 

7.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) How to proceed on initiating a full Departmental audit of its programs/services, and finances.  Comm Chuck asked if it happens now.  No. The Chief said she is re organizing everything right now, and asked what the impact would be at this point since there is so much transitioning going on.  Comms Queen and Chuck thought it a good time to go through an audit precisely because things are now in flux and getting a good idea of what has been going on will make improvements easier to come by. The Committee agreed to recommend the full Commission act on this.

(public comments)
There were none.

8.

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

9.

(ACTION) Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40pm.