San Francisco Youth Commission
Youth Justice Committee
Minutes
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
5:00-7:00 PM
City Hall, Room 278
1. Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl.
San Francisco, CA 94102

There will be public comment on each item.

Members: Joshua Cardenas, Jillian Wu, Alexandra Berliner, Sophie Edelhart

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 5:06 pm. Commissioners present: Wu, Berliner, Edelhart, Cardenas; Staff present: Adele Failes-Carpenter; There was quorum.

2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)

Commissioner Wu, seconded by Commissioner Edelhart moved to approve the agenda. There was no public comment. The motion was approved by acclamation.

3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)

A. December 23, 2014
(Document A)

This item was tabled at the request of the chair.

4. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda (Discussion Only)

There was none.

5. Presentations (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)

A. Presentation on Results of Project WHAT’s 2013-14 Children of Incarcerated Parents Research Action Project
Presenters: Project WHAT Youth Leaders

Project WHAT youth leaders shared the preliminary findings from their 18 month research project which included focus groups, a survey of over 100 youth, and the BOS hearing:

Project WHAT! Research Findings with Solutions

Parental Incarceration’s Impact on Family Unity:
1. Research Finding: Children of incarcerated parents face challenges trying to keep a relationship with their incarcerated parent due to communication barriers in phone calls, letters, and visits.
Solution A: The city or state government should mandate that phone calls be free to children of prisoners and their caregivers.
Solution B: HSA (via social workers and group homes) should provide children of incarcerated parents with stamps to write letters to their incarcerated parents.
2. Research Finding: Youth are negatively impacted when they lose contact with their incarcerated parent.
Solution A: Social workers, teachers, therapists and other direct service providers should be trained and required to follow protocols that require them to prioritize communication between children and their incarcerated parents (if communication is desired).
3. Research Finding: Witnessing a parent’s arrest is a traumatic event for children, which can cause further separations between youth and their incarcerated parents as well as youth and law enforcement.
Solution A: (already in motion) DGO 7.04 requiring all SFPD to follow protocol regarding children of incarcerated parents. Our follow up solution is that that all SFPD and jail staff in SF be trained in the protocol by children of incarcerated parents.
4. Research Finding: Due to the many transitions that happen in a kid’s life during their parent’s incarceration, they are likely to live unstable lives causing further trauma and familial separation.
Solution A: (not yet finalized) How can SF prioritize housing for caregivers of children with incarcerated parents and TAY CIP who are not involved in the child welfare system?
The Barriers to Visiting an Incarcerated Parent:
5. Research Finding: Children of incarcerated parents don’t know where their parent(s) are and it affects their ability to visit them.
Solution A: There should be someone within the prison system whose job would be to update families when their loved ones are transferred. The city of SF should make their “inmate locator” user friendly and accessible online.
6. Research Finding: The cost of visiting and transportation is too high for families, especially considering the distance youth have to travel to visit their parent.
Solution A: The city and state should provide families with a stipend for a minimum of two visits per year, including the cost to drive to the prison, an overnight hotel, and/or bus fare.
Solution B: Prisons should consider where the children are located when deciding where to place each person (already in motion with family impact statements).
7. Research Finding: Visiting regulations are too strict and discourage youth from visiting their incarcerated parent.
Solution A: Every prison and jail in the state should have the same dress code regulations.
Solution B: No to the new CDCR policies regarding ion scanners, dogs, and strip searching of visitors.
Solution C: The jails and prisons should notify the guardian of proper identification needed to visit the parent
8. Research Finding: There is no adult who is responsible for taking kids to visit their incarcerated parent (and since you cannot go as an unaccompanied minor, youth are left without access to visitation, especially when in the foster care system. *More research needs to be done for this one, it looks like this is someone’s job in SF but it is not an effective system*
Solution A: More funding in the city for Program’s “get on the bus.” City job.
Solution B: When youth are 16 and up they should be able to see their parent by themselves.
The transition back to their community (re-entry):
9. Research Finding: There are a lack of transitional support services for families when a parent is being released from prison.
Solution A: Re-entry support services should be offered in the form of counseling and restorative justice circles to help heal the family pre and post a parents release.
Solution B: There should also be family transition circles at SF county jail when a parent is going to be transferred to state prison to have the alone time to explain to their children what is happening and come up with a communication plan together.
10. Research Finding: The box on housing and job applications that ask about a history of incarceration make it harder for people to get jobs and live back at home with their families after they have been incarcerated, preventing successful family reunification, and further punishing children.
Solution A: (already in motion with SF’s Fair Chance Ordinance) The city should ban the box on housing, job, and health care applications in addition to working to de-stigmatized formerly incarcerated people.
Solution B: No family should be banned from living with a formerly incarcerated person strictly because of their incarceration.
Lack of Support Services:
11. Research Finding: Children of incarcerated parents have unmet emotional needs both before and after their parents are released, and current services providers are not adequately trained on the unique set of issues children of incarcerated parents are dealing with.
Solution A: The city should provide more therapy to youth that is specific for dealing with the loss of a parent due to incarceration. Therapists and counselors should all be trained on best practices in supporting CIP.
12. Research Finding: Children of incarcerated parents are stigmatized and are not supported in schools or at home, and are more likely to get searched by police and school officials.
Solution A: There should be a policy within the school district and HAS where students are able to provide consent to who they want to be informed about having a parent that’s incarcerated.
Solution B: Trainings for social workers and school officials for working with children with incarcerated parents to help de-stigmatize and provide support to the population.

Committee chair Berliner commended PW youth leaders on their work. Youth commissioners and Project WHAT youth leaders discussed how the solutions suggested would impact the lives of youth with incarcerated parents. Youth leaders and youth commissioners then ranked their areas of interest in order to determine areas to prioritize for further research. Using a weighted vote of 1st-3rd priorities:

• Allowing free phone calls to children of county jail inmates received 8 points
• Training social workers, teachers, and therapists on how to support family unity for CIP got 4 points
• Following up on DGO 7.04 implementation got 10 points
• Prioritizing housing for TAY CIP and caretakers got 8 points
• Improving the “inmate locator” function online at the county level got 11 points
• Allowing unaccompanied 16 year olds to visit parents in county jail got 25 points
• Using family transition circles when parents are being sent from county jail to state or federal prison got 18 points.

There was no public comment. No official action was taken. Youth commissioners and Project WHAT youth agreed to meet again and follow up on either February 24th or March 3rd.

6. Business (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)

A. Review Resolution of Commendation for DGO 7.04 Training Video

Commissioner Berliner and Edelhart confirmed they would present the commendation during public comment at Wednesday’s police commission meeting. There was no public comment.

B. Review outstanding questions regarding CPS referrals

Staff confirmed Capt. Gracie would join the regularly scheduled committee meeting in late January.

C. Review Updates from SFPD-SFUSD MOU Implementation Process

Commissioner Berliner confirmed that Associate Superintendant Kevin Truitt would present on Fall semester campus arrests and MOU implementation at the January 27th Board of Education meeting. Committee members may attend a meeting with Mr. Truitt on February 3rd at 4:00 pm.

D. Review other committee priorities

Commissioners directed staff to reach out to Chief Nance of Juvenile Probation for a meeting, to One Family for a presentation, and to the Center for Youth Wellness to learn about the youth training for SFPD.

7. Staff Report

Staff confirmed the next Dignity in Schools membership call was Wednesday. Commissioner Berliner confirmed she would join.

8. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 pm.