Youth Justice Committee - February 25, 2014 - Minutes
Meeting Date:
February 25, 2014 (All day)
Related Meeting Content:
San Francisco Youth Commission
Youth Justice Committee
Minutes
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
4:00-7:00pm
City Hall, Room 345
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 5:00 pm.Commissioners present: Edelhart, Cardenas, Webb; Absent: Gomez, Flores; Staff present: Adele Carpenter. There was quorum.
2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)
Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Webb, moved to approve the agenda. There was no public comment. The agenda was approved by acclamation.3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)
A. February 11, 2014 (Document A)Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Webb, moved to approve the minutes. There was no public comment. The minutes were approved by acclamation.
B. February 18, 2014 (Document B)
This item was tabled because the minutes were not attached.
4. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda (Discussion Only)
There was none.5. Presentations (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)
A. Overview of work of a juvenile institutional officerPresenter: Brian Bingham, Juvenile Institutional Officer and Special Advocate for Alameda County Foster Youth
Brian Bingham, juvenile institutional officer with the Alameda County juvenile hall, introduced himself. Mr. Bingham is a social worker. He works with severe offenders in the max unit and mental health unit in Alameda County juvenile hall. He led commissioners through a “day in the life” of youth at juvenile hall in Alameda county. He described their cleaning, meal, school, homework, and recreation times in a usual daily schedule. Detainees are screened for placement based on age and safety considerations. All services, including medical services are provided on site. Mr. Bingham gave youth commissioners an overview of the transition services provided for young people leaving the Hall. Those with mental health issues work with a multi-disciplinary team to achieve a successful transition. Still, recidivism is common, especially among youth without good support outside. Disproportionate minority contact is a major issue. Most juvenile detainees in Alameda are African American. Referral to adult prisons is also a major issue. While court officers notify parents of court dates, it is not uncommon for young people to miss court dates because of changes in address or phone number. Probation officers act as liaisons between the family and the court. For juvenile detainees who are parents, their children can come visit. Alameda county does have a restorative justice program and a graduated offenses program for low-level offenses. Right now 171 of the hall’s 358 beds are filled.
There was no public comment.
B. Overview and updates on juvenile initiatives and sentencing alternatives
Presenter: Katherine Weinstein Miller, Director of Policy and Managing Attorney, Neighborhood Prosecutors/Neighborhood Courts, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office
Katy Miller introduced herself, as well as Luis Aroche, the Alternative Sentencing Planner for the DA’s office. The DA’s office is beginning a new restorative justice community conferencing program for juvenile offenders. It is a pre-charge diversion program. Where traditional criminal justice asks: What law was broken? Who broke it? How should they be punished? Restorative justice asks: Who has been harmed? What are their needs? Whose obligation is it to meet those needs? The model is based off of models developed in New Zealand in Maori communities that were meant to decrease disproportionate minority contact. It has been in use in Alameda county and is being tried in San Diego and Long Beach.
In RJCC (restorative justice community conferencing), the model is used instead of prosecution. It is based on the voluntary participation of the young person and victim. It includes: facilitated face to face discussions with victim and supporters of both parties. It results in a consensus-based agreement to repair the harm. The young person fulfills the agreement with the support of an “agreement monitor.”
There are clear criteria for taking a case through the program, which will handle 25 cases in the first year: The case would normally actually be prosecuted by the DA (not be thrown out). There is not an appeal/argument about guilt, because the goal of the RJCC is not to determine guilt/non-guilt. It will mostly be used for felony cases including auto burglary, home burglary, and maybe robbery. There will be no cases where a victim was seriously hurt or where weapons were used. The case is a first offense.
The program is being administered by Community Works West and Huckleberry House (CARC case managers). The DA, JPD, and Public Defender are finalizing protocol and MOU and the DA began reviewing cases for the program in October 2013. National Centers for Crime and Delinquency will evaluate the pilot program.
Luis Aroche gave an overview of the Alternative Sentencing Program at the DA’s office, which works with adults, mostly transitional age youth 18-25 years old. The DA George Gascon has a unique philosophy as a DA, based on his own background and challenges, as well as his years in law enforcement. As DA, his job is to protect the public, but he is trying out a number of alternative approaches that actually help better protect the public by reducing recidivism by connecting offenders with services. The Alternative Sentencing program was created in recognition of Gov. Brown’s Realignment plan.
ASP (Alternative Sentencing Planning) makes use of “Smart Sentencing” or evidence-based dispositions. It recommends sentences and probation conditions that address individual needs. It holds the offender accountable to change behaviors. It forges closes relationships with community based agencies and others invested in creating safe neighborhoods. So far, ASP has served 273 cases ranging from robberies to gun cases to burglaries, drugs, and theft. Drugs are most common.
56% of ASP cases are defendants 18-25 years old (143 of 273). The program works with first-time adult offenders and first time serious adult offenders with juvenile histories, as well as primarily with drop outs without employment history. Mr. Aroche gave an example of a TAY youth who was involved in a first-time robbery offense who was also a young father. After reviewing the case and interviewing the defendant, the DA recommended a modified sentence that included connecting the young man with substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, GED completion, and home detention electronic monitoring as well as intensive supervision by the TAY probation unit. They also recommended a removing his strike if he had no violations or modifications during probation. At the end of his probation, the young man had graduated, completed a fatherhood program, completed substance abuse treatment, and was working full time.
Ms. Miller also confirmed that there was an alternative sentencing planner position begin created at the juvenile justice center for offenders under 18. Ms. Miller also gave an overview of the DA’s work on issues faced by children of incarcerated parents. The DA is involved in SF Children of Incarcerated Parents collaborative. The Adult Probation Dept. is implementing a “family impact statement” for use during sentencing that includes consideration of harms to dependent children. The Alternative Sentencing Planner includes parental considerations in case assessments. ADA’s are receiving training in the collateral consequences of felony convictions on families.
Youth commissioners asked about specific areas for follow up. Ms. Miller said that a major gap is with almost-18 year olds. The youth programs will not work with them and there is not similar mentoring for adults. Another issues is finding gender-specific programs to refer young women to. It has also been difficult to expand RJCC to dating violence because there are no programs to enroll offenders in. Finding people stable housing during reentry is a major challenge, and there is a need for more TAY housing. Mr. Aroche explained that the ASP process has a difficult time meeting the needs of the highest needs individuals. Many of those young people are not being served by existing DCYF programs. He also explained that stakes are higher for TAY offenders and there is a need for more support for TAY. The juvenile justice providers may need support preparing to work with TAY at 850. Right now, TAY are not mentored/prepared to interview properly (are not “seasoned” interviewers) for alternative programs and thus may be losing opportunities. Additionally those doing program intakes may need training on understanding developmental concerns for TAY.
Mr. Aroche recommended that youth commissioners take a tour of 850 Bryant and meet the TAY supervisor, look at the reentry pod, etc. He said he could help set up a tour.
There was no public comment.
6. Business (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)
A. Work on committee priority: Investigation into the needs of youth with incarcerated parentsCommissioner Cardenas offered to work on drafting a motion requesting a hearing on the needs of youth with incarcerated parents. Commissioners asked staff to request that Project WHAT youth facilitate the next follow up with the organization, as committee members all had mid-terms. There was no public comment.
B. Review committee priorities
Adele Carpenter confirmed that commissioners impacted by parental incarceration had been invited to participate in the mayor’s signing of the Fair Chance ordinance on Tuesday.
Commissioner Cardenas confirmed he could meet with community advocates regarding the SFPD-SFUSD MOU the next day.
Commissioner Edelhart updated her colleagues on the recent meeting with the juvenile probation department. Committee members affirmed they would like to stay apprised of plans to create an armed unit of juvenile probation officers and would like to help make space for community input on that issue.
There was no public comment.