San Francisco Youth Commission
Youth Justice Committee
Minutes
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
5:00-7:00pm
City Hall, Room 345A
1. Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl.
San Francisco, CA 94102

There will be public comment on each item.

Members: Sophie Edelhart-Chair, Ramon Gomez, Joshua Cardenas, Denesia Webb; Part-time member: Monica Flores

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 5:08 p.m. Commissioners present: Edelhart, Gomez, Cardenas, Webb. Staff present: Adele Carpenter, Phimy Truong.

2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)

There was no public comment. Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Webb made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was approved by acclamation.

3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)

A. December 10, 2013 – Special
(Document A)

There was no public comment. Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Cardenas made a motion to approve the minutes to the meeting of December 10th, 2013. The motion was approved by acclamation.

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

There were none.

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

A. Update and debrief January 14th, 2014 Board of Education meeting in relation to YJC priority of having an active SFUSD and SFPD MOU

Commissioner Edelhart provided a brief overview of the January 14th Board of Education meeting as it related to the committee’s priority on getting an active memorandum of understanding in place between the SFUSD and SFPD. Commissioner Edelhart updated the committee: the item was at the Board of Education meeting for approval, with commissioners present to provide public comment, and other youth organization/allies there to support.

Commissioner Webb then gave a detailed update on the actions that took place on January 14th Board of Education meeting. Youth commissioners and allies met with Mr. Truitt of SFUSD to review the latest draft of the MOU, when youth noticed that there wasn’t mandatory language in the section related to graduated offenses. Youth organizations were there included: CHALK, Coleman, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, etc. Commissioner Gomez shared that there was a lot of media there, and support from youth. Ms. Carpenter then provided a more thorough explanation of the amendments made to the MOU, including the section related to graduated offenses. This section was really important to youth at the meeting so they pushed for mandatory language, rather than optional so that police officers. At the end of the Board of Education meeting, commissioners voted to approve the MOU with their amendments.

Commissioner Edelhart facilitated discussion on possible next steps to follow up on the MOU priority. There is going to be a Police Commission meeting next Wednesday, February 5th. Commissioners discussed attending the Police Commission meeting next Wednesday to bring up the great collaboration between police department, the school district and youth allies to get this far with the MOU. Commissioners would also like to bring up the status and timeline of the MOU, as they feel it was important to then work on implementation and ensuring that we work towards improving relationships between police and youth. Commissioners agreed to work on their talking points on their own and to meet with staff at the next police commission meeting.

Other next steps include: holding a meeting with other youth and allies after the Police Commission meeting to plan next steps, discuss possible events. Commissioners Webb, Edelhart, and Gomez were interested in presenting to the Student Advisory Council on MOU priority with the potential date of February 24th.

There was no public comment.

B. Update on meeting with Angela Chan and Samara Marion
Presenters: Commissioners Edelhart and Gomez

Commissioners Edelhart and Gomez provided an update on their recent meeting with Angela Chan and Samara Marion, to learn more about their respective work at the Asian Law Caucus and the Office of Citizen Complaints.

Commissioner Gomez started by sharing information on the respective organizations. Commissioner Edelhart then shared the priorities and recommendations that Ms. Chan and Ms. Marion brought to the commissioners. Edelhart then shared some context on the Youth Justice committee’s work with both Ms. Chan and Ms. Marion on urging the Police Department to implement training on interacting with youth. As of right now, there is no training on this topic. In the past, the committee has recommended renowned trainer on youth police relations, Lisa Thurau. Commissioner Edelhart asked her colleagues to spend time reviewing this priority this term. Commissioner Edelhart also shared an article about predictive policing, and shared that she is working on getting a meeting with the Mayor’s Office to learn more about the city’s violence prevention plan. Ms. Chan and Ms. Marion brought up “A Sentence Apart”, a documentary on the justice system and the effects on families. Commissioner Edelhart asked her peers to consider holding a film screening for the public, and have a youth justice event.

Commissioner Webb will take the lead on planning a screening of the “A Sentence Apart” documentary. Gomez spoke about how off site official meetings were conducted in the previous term. Commissioner Edelhart directed staff to agendize time on the next committee meeting to discuss and review police training priority and the documentary.

There was no public comment.

C. Work on supporting Project W.H.A.T.’s work and research children with incarcerated parents

Commissioners agreed to bring home reports and information related to the topic of children with incarcerated parents. A google document will be created to organize the committee’s research. Commissioner Webb suggested having questions to guide the research.

Guiding questions for research:
Who might our target be? Which agency should be in charge of tracking this? Is there currently any policy that tracks which incarcerated adults are parents? Is this data compiled in one place—ie, do we know how many children of what ages have parents who are incarcerated? Who should be most responsible for that data? What are they doing with that data? How do they get the data? Why is this important? What difference would it make if the data were collected?

The committee brainstormed questions for SF Children with Incarcerated Parents:

Their history with DGO 7.01—what other kinds of youth-police behaviors are they advocating for? What is your knowledge on data collection for children with incarcerated parents? (and follow up questions) What is the training process for SFPD? Who do you train? How long is the training? Do officers “graduate” from the process? What kind of accountability measures are there after the training? Is there a policy about arrests in front of children? Do we know if it is being enforced? Do they do work with other departments besides SFPD and what are some of those priorities? How do state and local practices intersect here? What are national models around this or national advocacy groups? If there were data taken on these issues, where would you place this responsibility? What would you like to see done on this? If there were a hearing on this issue, what would be helpful to include?

The committee brainstormed questions for the DA’s office on this priority:
What is the benefit of alternative sentencing? What forms of alternative sentencing are no longer in practice? What kinds of cases are tried through peer court?
What were some successes and challenges of peer court and/or sentencing alternatives? What were the outcomes for youth? Did it reduce recidivism? Did we see a change in outcomes for youth offenders over the time peer court was in motion? Where is pre-charge diversion program at? How can we get youth involved? Share story about what Success Center is doing What kind of initiatives does the DA have for TAY? How can we help with these issues? Questions related to parents with children

D. Review other committee priorities and plan next steps

Chair Edelhart recommended starting the committee’s Feb. 25th at 4:00 pm to accommodate two presenters and planning time. The committee agreed. Commissioners requested that staff find out when Project WHAT meets.

6. Staff Report

Staff member, Adele Carpenter, gave an update on upcoming Ban the Box legislation. The committee asked Joshua Cardenas, Legislative Affairs Officer, to try to have this legislation referred. Ms. Carpenter also gave an update on the upcoming Valencia Gardens meeting re: youth-police relations. Commissioner Edelhart confirmed she would like to try to go.

Director, Phimy Truong, suggested commissioners see about screening Theo Rigby’s film at the community event being planned by the Valencia Gardens community. Ms. Truong gave an update on Commissioner Van Stark’s interest in the Community Policing DGO, 3.01.

7. Items to Report to Executive Committee (Discussion Only)

The committee wished to report the potential film screening; the update on the SFPD-SFUSD MOU and plan to give public comment at the police commission on Weds. Feb. 5th.

8. Executive Committee Report (Discussion Only)

Commissioner Cardenas updated the committee that the SF sentencing commission released new guidelines. He updated the committee that there may be a special full YC meeting on Feb. 18th. Commissioner Sicairos attended the Shape Up SF launch event. There is an upcoming rally on the soda tax legislation. The executive committee is interested in visiting with other Bay Area youth commissions.

9. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 pm.