2.     No public comments.    

3.     Review and Approval of the Full Commission Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2010 (ACTION ITEM)

Motion to approve the September 8, 2010 Full Commission Meeting Minutes by COMM Beijen, second by COMM Chang, and approved by the rest of the Commission. 

4.     Presentation on Youth Employment by Larry Robbin, Executive Director, Robbin and Associates (DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM)

Mr. Robbin has been in the Bay Area for 24 years and has recently seen a development of a youth employment system than in the previous 20 years and expressed that Glenn Eagleson has been very instrumental in creating youth employment systems.  Mr. Robbin does not feel the need for more programs, but increased collaboration and capacity (funding).  Youth unemployment is at 75% and youth employment is directly related to adult employment.  Adults are bumping youths out of jobs. 
COMM Beijen asked what age range defines youth.  Mr. Robbin said “funding sources define this as 16 thru 24 years of age.”  In addition, seniors are now returning to the workforce seeking part-time jobs.   The real force that drives youth into the working market, is seeing adults going to work.  The number one skill for youths is the ability to manage rejection and depression, and stay in the job search.  Good youth employment programs have strong links with education.  There should be respect and a mutual learning experience between instructor (strong adult role model) and a student.  Good programs also create “family” (common identity and bonding).  If youth employment programs are successful, they have very little recruitment problems, because youths recruit other youths.  Missing elements in good youth programs is identifying hidden disabilities (learning, mental health, and autism) and is often the reason youths feel that they do not fit in.  In addition, business associations need to become more involved to improve employment for at-risk-youths.  See list of websites under supporting documents. 
COMM Beijen expressed that LCR, the department and Missouri Model are doing a very good job at providing safety, education and a foundation for opportunity for youths.  When kids leave LCR with hope and education, they go back to that same environment where they are ridiculed if they want to take a $15 an hour job.  How can a department, who is providing resources for re-entry, change what is a defining factor in a kid’s life when he goes back home.  Mr. Robbin said to “develop a strong mentoring program.”  Adults should come from outside to mentor youths, ideally from SF, so that youths can continue to have contact with them once they are released; bring in alumni from the program that were successful; and create alumni groups so that they can help each other figure out how to deal with this. 
COMM Arellano stated that he works for Bay Area Council, a business association, which has scholarship programs that serves 50 under-served youths per year and helps fund them to go to college.  They are then brought on as interns and then referred to businesses and corporations in their memberships.  COMM Arellano wanted to know if any business associations in the country or locally are doing this.  Mr. Robbin said that “he has heard about it, but has not seen it yet.”  See supporting document, “Helpful Youth Employment Related Resources.”

5.     Presentation on Youth Employment by Glenn Eagleson, Director of Policy & Planning, Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) and Sandra Naughton, Sr. Planner, Department of Children, Youth and their Families (DCYF) (DISCUSSION ONLY)

Glenn Eagleson discussed how the Office of Economic and Workforce Development looks at youth workforce.  It falls into three areas: 1) work with a number of city departments to help align youth workforce programming, policy and services in the city.  SF is rich in resources in both the funding OEWD gets from the federal government, which is the largest investment in the youth employment and programs, but they are locally resource rich which gives them flexibility regarding the programming they offer.  The challenge is that they have so many resources and are not forced to coordinate services and communities see a lot of departments creating their own programs because of the available resources.  OEWD has worked with DCYF on youth services; worked with JPD to advise how they should fund some of their services; OEWD has a seat on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the city’s Re-Entry Council; and has helped advise work done at LCR with youths making transitions into the older young adult system in the city; 2) coordinated citywide policies in building the system thru the Youth Council of the Workforce Investment Board.  Because OEWD receives federally funded training money, they are mandated to have a youth council, which advises the city on youth plan for workforce services and to approve contracts related to workforce development.  The Youth Council has worked on defining quality programs; and the recognition of the importance of educational attainment for young people.  It is the single greatest indicator of success for young people, which will show how successful they will be later in life; and, 3) fund citywide programs and receive federal employment training dollars from the Workforce Investment Act.  OEWD looked at the different needs in the city and to best utilize each of the funds given in the requirements (see supporting document “DCYF/OEWD Youth Workforce Development Framework”). They have been funding a number of programs that provide not only GED services, but high school and comprehensive services for young people. Young people have testified to other young people to try the program. 
COMM Woodson asked what type of financial education plays into these programs.  Mr. Eagleson said “there are many financial components built into these programs.  Not only with money management, but discuss the dangers of check cashing, opening bank accounts and planning.”  They work with kids before they get their first check regarding money management and responsibilities.  Mr. Eagleson referred the Commission to the resource chart. 
COMM Chang recognized that some agencies are skilled at getting private sector money and asked if there is a program that could help private sectors align their goals with these programs.  Mr. Eagleson said “the program is called Match Bridge, which is a program of the United Way of the Bay Area, for employers to contribute to youth workforce programs.”  They serve as intermediary between employers that want to hire young people and young people coming out of community training programs.  In addition, there are a number of partners that work directly with the schools.  The focus is how to get young people involved in the work place.  They need to involve employers more in helping to design curriculums, provide young people in experiencing the workplace through mentoring and internships.  Young people that come from low income communities without a working culture, knowledge of the working world is incredibly small. 
Sandra Naughton expressed that Glenn Eagleson did a good job covering how the two departments work together to come up with continuing services and she covered the programs on the chart that are DCYF funded (MYEEP and Youth Works).  The School Partner Model, partnered with the Youth Council, OEWD and the school district, focuses on the school district’s highest-needs students in their alternative and court-community schools.  The idea was to embed a workforce experience into what they are learning in the school day.  The Youth Workforce Development Programs for high-risk population, which targets youths from 14 to 21, are involved with the juvenile justice system or other risk factors.  14 different programs are under this funding strategy.  In all strategies, they tried to layout more specific expectations; such as quality standards, quality programs; and services.  The major strategy components working with high-risk population are: the assessment process; planning; and transition planning.  The second component is job readiness, placement and actual subsidized work employment experience.  The third is individual support that a youth would need to succeed in that work-based experience.  The fourth focuses on educational attainment; making sure they are engaged in school, their educational trajectory, and what’s next for them.  The Youth Guidance Improvement Committee was funded to serve as a coordinating role to help youth who are coming out of the juvenile justice system and placed into the right program.  For funding strategies, see supporting document “San Francisco’s DCYF Y-LEaD Service Area.”
COMM Chang asked what the teen population is that DCYF is trying to reach regarding funding investments.  Ms. Naughton said that “they are still finalizing contract negotiations and does not have a finite number yet, but depending on the extent of contacts, around 10,000 youths.” 
COMM Woodson asked if there were any reporting requirements for these programs to maintain to increase or decrease funding.  If so, is the data publicly available?  Ms. Naughton said that “they have an online tracking system where all funded programs enter data on activities offered, when activities take place, and on the youth they serve.”  DCYF is in the process of developing outcome measures, mostly self-reports, and an annual survey of youths in the programs. 
COMM Woodson asked if any available reporting data could spot trends in outcomes for successes/problems.  Ms. Naughton said that “they do that internally.”  They create year end reports for the funded programs that show a snapshot of program participation over time.   COMM Woodson asked if they were seeing any trends in terms of participation over time and if it is increasing or decreasing.  Ms. Naughton said that “they have not seen much in this funding cycle with these new strategies, but have seen both increases and decreases in trends over time in different programs.”  The focus is on what the department and programs can learn from using this data for improvement and course adjustments. 
Public Comments:
Liz Jackson Simpson, Executive Director of the Youth Guidance Center Improvement Committee, echoed the comments of Larry Robbin, Glenn Eagleson and Sandra Naughton.  She introduced herself and will be presenting at the November Full Commission meeting.  Ms. Jackson Simpson has a long history in workforce development and invited the Commission to visit their office, in the W cottages, to see their programs.
Allison Magee, Director of Administrative Service, expressed that Glenn Eagleson with OEWD has been instrumental in helping JPD develop their partnership with the SF Conservation Corp and Year-UP.   Both are critical programs for LCR. 

6.     Report on Juvenile Collaborative Reentry Team presented by Kwanza Morton, Probation Officer; Rebecca Marcus, Public Defender; Vanessa Alvarez, Social Worker, Public Defender's office; and Danny Reyes, Case Manager, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (DISCUSSION ONLY). 
Allison Magee, Director of Administrative Service, said that this is a new program and today is the one-year anniversary.  It is an unprecedented partnership with JPD, Superior Court, Public Defender’s Office and CJCJ to work with youth returning from out-of-home placement to improve outcomes for youths, including those from outside the Bay Area.  The group is on track, because it was estimated to serve 100 youths and they are at 75.  As youths are sent to out-of-home placement, the JCRT team (the Public Defender, a designated Probation Officer, a Youth Advocate, and a Clinical Case Coordinator) reaches out to the youth to introduce the program and lets them know that when they get through with the majority of their placement, they will be contacted to start developing the Re-Entry Plan with the youth and their family.  This plan will be approved by a designated judge with the Re-Entry Court and in place before they are released from placement.  The team works intensively with each child and family to get services in place.  It is a labor-intensive, staff-rich model, and is very effective to date.  A recent report showed 96% of kids showed improvement in antisocial behavior, 86% showed improvement in family relationships, and similar numbers with school participation.  These are not kids coming out of LCR and are not exposed to the Missouri Model. 
The Honorable Kathleen Kelly thanked COMM Woodson for inviting the group to present.  Judge Kelly said this is the “dream team,” because each individual member of the team links kids up with the needed services.  This team is a hard-working group who focuses on collaborative and advanced planning.  A member of this team who is not present, but very much a part of this team, is the family.  They all sit at the table and discuss the plan to be sure that it makes sense for the minor and family.  The Commission is invited to attend these meetings.  They are trying to create a mini re-entry program at LCR, using some of the established best practices that have been developed through the re-entry program.  The only room for improvement is in relations with community partners: school district; mental health; and issues with housing. They are very happy to have these community partners and great relations are developing, however, there is still room for improvement.  The links between job opportunities for kids could be improved.  This is a work in progress and hopes the Commission can assist with a job fair and get non-profits to help link jobs for kids. 
City Attorney Marcus explained the background and the Second Chance Brand Act, a bill passed by Congress to fund re-entry work. Five grants were issued for juvenile sites.  They are the only site working with kids coming from out-of-home placement and only one of two sites coming out of the city, rather than states.  Their grant is very unique.  There are approximately 200 kids in out-of-home placement in SF and their office has approximately 100 of them.  They try very hard to keep the kids with their families and in the community whenever possible with wraparound services.  To get to a place where a kid has to be removed from their family and put into some type of placement means that there are very significant issues with the child or their family.  There is a very high degree of mental health issues that they deal with, over 50% of the kids are special education students.       
Kwanza Morton added that they use a lot of out-of-home placement and some of them are out-of-state.  Once the kid is placed in out-of-home placement, Vanessa Alvarez will meet and get to know them and their family.  One of the strengths of this program is that they have team meetings every week and discuss the cases and individual issues.  The group is in contact almost every day and make themselves available at community meetings and meetings with the families.  Mr. Morton’s position starts when the youth is transferred home.  He monitors the youth and follows up with the family on the case plan. 
COMM Chang asked how much of the overall workload is taken up by JCRT cases.  Mr. Morton said “100%.” 
COMM Wan asked that after the youths are released, how long are they kept track of.  Mr. Morton said a “maximum of six months.”  Their focus is working with these families when the kids are in placement. 
COMM Chang asked what the primary focus was when creating the plan and whether the child’s interest comes first, or the family. 
Danny Reyes, Case Management Coordinator for JCRT, said that “it’s a collaboration of both.  You will usually find that what the family wants, is usually what the youth wants.  A lot of times, youths are in out-of-home placement because of the family dynamics.”  Mr. Reyes works with the family when the youth is at placement.  Before the youth is transitioned back into the community, they will have the youth and family sitting at one table to discuss any challenges.  “One of the things I hear at our meetings from families and youths, is that they feel a sense of empowerment over the components of the plan.”  They have written it.  With the case plans, the team looks at the family, housing, education, employment, mental health, community and peer activities, and substance abuse.  The key with this program is looking at re-entry when the kid is placed, as opposed to when the kid is re-entering.  For the youth going through this program, it is changing their perception of probation and juvenile court.
COMM Chang asked how sustainable is the model.  Ms. Magee said that “it is a very expensive model, but you have to invest in the resources to get the return in the long run.”  It is a three-year grant and the DOJ has expressed interest in resuming this initiative.  The Zellerbach Foundation is one of JPD’s funders, and they are very interested in this model and supporting JPD to formalize this model.  JPD is hoping to show that after the third, fourth or fifth year, that this is cost effective.  Chief Siffermann stated that this program embodies everything in terms of judicial leadership, collaboration, team support, and membership.  This represents the spirit behind the whole involvement behind the juvenile court systems.  Ms. Magee added that the federal grant is only half of the program and the team underestimated the amount of resources and costs that would go into it and they are investing tremendously in this program. 
Public Comments:
Liz Jackson Simpson commended the team and efforts of this innovative group.  Keeping the family focused is critical to all of the young people being served. 
No further public comments. 

8.     Future Agenda Items (ACTION ITEM)  

            Announcements

·         COMM Woodson asked the Programs Committee to hold a meeting concerning a job fair for the youths served by the JCRT program, to build on the success of the LCR job fair.

·         No public comments. 

9.     Adjournment (ACTION ITEM)  

The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.