SAN FRANCISCO | MARCH 2021 BLUE RIBBON PANEL …

1

SAN FRANCISCO | MARCH 2021

BLUE RIBBON PANEL JUVENILE Justice Reform PLAN

BLUE RIBBON PANEL YOUTH JUSTICE REFORM PLAN2

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF PANEL ............................................................................................................................. 4BLUE RIBBON PANEL TIME-LINE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6IMPACTING THE DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................................................7CLOSE JUVENILE HALL WORKING GROUP .................................................................................................................................................. 8RECENT RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 9SFPD REALLOCATION REPORT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10JUVENILE JUSTICE BLUE RIBBON PANEL: GUIDING VALUES ..............................................................................................................11THEMES .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................12SYSTEMS CHANGE .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17GUIDING PRINCIPLES ..........................................................................................................................................................................................18HARM REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................19TRANSFORMATION AND RADICAL IMAGINATION ................................................................................................................................20RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22SAN FRANCISCO BLUE RIBBON PANEL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM .................................................................................. 27HIGHLIGHTED RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO JUVENILE PROBATION ..............................................................................28JUVENILE INTAKE .................................................................................................................................................................................................29DETENTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SUPERVISION .............................................................................................................................................31PRIVATE PLACEMENT ..........................................................................................................................................................................................32DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ...........................................................................................................................................................33CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................34APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................................................................................35

3

INTRODUCTION

In April 2019, Mayor London N. Breed announced the composition of her Juvenile Justice Reform Blue Ribbon Panel. The panel was charged with making recommendations on comprehensive and system-wide reform to San Francisco’s juvenile justice system. San Francisco has been a leader and now has the opportunity to lead and further advance best practices in juvenile justice in a manner that centers healing, support and care for our City’s young people. While acknowledging San Francisco has been successful in reducing the number of incarcerated youth in San Francisco, Mayor Breed encouraged community and systems stakeholders to do more reimagining what our system should be in the interest of equity and providing better service to our young people and the City.

3


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF PANELThe Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Juvenile Justice Reform is a diverse, wide array of stakeholders from San Francisco communities, justice system leaders, reform advocates, and directly impacted youth. The range of perspective and the many recommendations submitted by BRP members demonstrated the dedication and commitment to youth well being in the City and County of San Francisco. We thank the members of the BRP for their service.

CO-CHAIRS

Sheryl Davis, Human Rights CommissionCorey Monroe, Community Partner COMMUNITY PARTNERS

Carolyn Caldwell, United PlayazArturo Carrillo, Street Violence Intervention ProgramRudy Corpuz, United PlayazMeredith Desautels, Youth Law CenterDinky Enty, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Julio Escobar, Restorative Justice CoordinatorRobert Figone, Youth Guidance Center [retired] K.I., Young Women’s Freedom CenterLiz Jackson-Simpson, Success CenterJack Jacqua, Omega Boys ClubDan Macallair, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Kasie Lee, Bar Association of San Francisco

Allison Magee, Zellerbach Family FoundationJayVonn McGlothen, Community Partner Jessica Nowlan, Young Women’s Freedom CenterMisha Olnes, United PlayazJennifer Rodriguez, Youth Law CenterIeeshea Romero, Community Partner James Spingola, Juvenile Probation CommissionDawn Stueckle, Sunset Youth ServicesJulie Traun, Bar Association of San FranciscoMichael Texada, UCSF San Francisco Wraparound ProjectSarah Wan, Community Youth Center

CONSULTANT LEADS

David Muhammad, National Institute for Criminal Justice ReformJames Bell, Hayward Burns InstituteShawn Ginwright, San Francisco State University

5

STAFF

Tshaka Barrows Hayward Burns Institute

Brittni Chicuata Human Rights Commission

Stephanie Garcia Human Rights Commission

Cristal Harris Hayward Burns Instituterome

Sami Iwata Human Rights Commission

Rome Jones Human Rights Commission

Deb Kersey Flourish Agenda

Sophia Kittler Mayor’s Office

Airto Morales Hayward Burns Institute

Cathy Mulkey-Meyer Human Rights Commission

Laura Ridolfi Hayward Burns Institute

Aman Sebahtu National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

Sharoia Taylor-Cornejo Hayward Burns Institute

Mawuli Tugbenyoh Mayor’s Office

Joan Miller Human Services Agency

Chief Katherine Weinstein Miller Juvenile Probation Department, District Attorney

Theo Miller HOPE SF

Viva Mogi San Francisco Unified School District

Robin Randall Department of Public Health

Ben Rosenfield Controller’s Office

Peg Stevenson Controller’s Office

Maria Su Dept. of Children Youth and Families

Tiffany Sutton San Francisco Police Department

Marina Tolou-Shams University of California San Francisco

Judge Monica Wiley Superior Court

Michael Yuen, Superior Court

CITY DEPARTMENTS

Margaret Brodkin Juvenile Probation Commission

Alysse Castro San Francisco Unified School District

Judge Roger Chan Superior Court

Rebecca Corteza Dept. of Children, Youth and Their Families

Jasmine Dawson Dept. of Children, Youth and Their Families

Aumijo Gomes Dept. of Children, Youth and Their Families

Paula Hernandez Juvenile Probation Department

Nora Hylton Youth Commission

Naomi Kelly City Administrator’s Office

Sophia Kittler Mayor’s Office

Patti Lee Public Defenders Office

Judge Pat Mahoney Superior Court

Vincent Matthews San Francisco Unified School District


July August September October Ongoing

Process (Who/Where/When)Data Review/AnalysisThemesInformed RecommendationsAppendix - notes, participation

ProcessPurposeValues Setting ActivityLearning Community

Learning Community Meetings

Presentation by Representatives from Juvenile Probation Apache County in Arizona.

Revisit previous notes and apply the values developed in full panel meeting

Learning Community Meetings

Review previous notes/dis-cussions. Prepare thoughts to share with TA

TA Present/Update Mayor Breed and full panel on progress and recommenda-tions

Review/Document Explore possibilities Discussion/ Prep Presentation Deliverables

Blue Ribbon Panel Time-line

Process:Consultants, Co-Chairs, Staff

Receive notes

Review notes

Consider national and international best practices

Full Committee meetings Learning Communities Synthesize notes

and findings

7

IMPACTING THE DISCUSSION

• Close Juvenile Hall Working Group

• Recent Racial Justice Movement

• SFPD Reallocation Report


CLOSE JUVENILE HALL WORKING GROUPIn June 2019, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to close down the Juvenile Hall. The ordinance closing Juvenile Hall, created a task force to propose alternatives to the traditional facility. The Close Juvenile Hall Working Group has been meeting since December 2019. The efforts of the Blue Ribbon Panel and the Close Juvenile Hall Working Group are complementary and worked to avoid duplication. Some of the documents and groundwork of the Blue Ribbon panel was shared between the groups, similarly many people participated in both processes.

In the early months of 2020 the working group began to establish the structure, schedule, expectations and timeline for meeting the goals of the ordinance. During this time the chair was selected and the group began designing the subcommittees. In March the shelter in place order and COVID-19 slowed down the work and impacted the ability of the full group to meet. The limitations of meeting required the creation of the Executive Committee and Management Structure to continue discussions and development of a plan to advance the goals of the ordinance. Since that time the creation and definition of subcommittees and assignments have been modified and streamlined.

9

RECENT RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTThe killing of George Floyd and COVID-19 sparked a series of discussions and protests around the county, focused on the role of racism in the justice system. Racism was labeled a pandemic, a deadly virus likened to the Coronavirus. Specifically, attention was given to the impact of racism on health, academic achievement, economic development and in the justice system. Everyone from news casters, medical professionals to youth, used their platforms to call out and draw attention to the injustice.

“COVID is a funhouse mirror that is amplifying issues that have existed forever. People are not dying of COVID. They are dying of racism, of economic inequality and it is not going to stop with COVID.”

— Shreya Kangovi, M.D., M.S.H.P., associate professor of medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

and executive director of the Penn Center for Community Health Workers

“We knew [COVID-19] was going to hit hard in jails and prisons. By the summer it was clear there had been major outbreaks. Nine of the largest outbreaks in the country were in prisons and jails. ”

— Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, Ph.D., assistant professor of social medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill and co-founder of the COVID Prison Project

These movements confirm the need to do things differently and the importance of addressing racism and understanding the role it plays in the lives of youth and especially youth of color.


In June 2020, Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Shamann Walton announced their intention to redirect funding from the police department into the African-American community following the killing of George Floyd. A key part of this process involved hearing directly from community members, particularly those most impacted by systemic racism, through a process facilitated by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission (HRC).

On Monday, July 27, 2020, Mayor Breed and Supervisor Walton released a report from the Human Rights Commission that summarized the findings of initial community engagement and provides a framework for ongoing conversations and decisions to reinvest in San Francisco’s Black community. The report highlights recommendations, research and data raised through the community input process to prioritize resources to the African American community. The Human Rights Commission facilitated a community process to propose how the $120 million could be allocated. Based on the input from the community, Mayor Breed allocated funding for a variety of programming to support mental health, wellness, homelessness, education, youth development, and economic opportunity.

In February 2021, Mayor Breed and Supervisor Walton announced the launch of the Dream Keeper Initiative, funded

with the reallocated dollars. The disbursement of funds will be discussed, tracked, and evaluated on an ongoing basis through the Human Rights Commissions’ continuing process of community engagement.

The Dream Keeper initiative seeks to repair the documented legacy of racially disparate policies in education, health, housing, and economic outcomes for Black/African American people in San Francisco. The initiative will provide a myriad of activities and community led programming as well as comprehensive support for 300 Black families and educational activities for 500 youth.

In addition to funding to support workforce development, academic achievement, and mental health, embedded in the initiative is a comprehensive data collection and evaluation process. Similar to feedback from youth and community stakeholders in the listening sessions for the Blue-Ribbon panel, the Black community expressed a disconnect between City funded programs and community identified needs. The Dream Keeper Initiative will create an oversight committee to help administer surveys and host focus groups. Community members will serve as the evaluators, studies posit this method increases credibility and likelihood of culturally competent evaluation. This evaluation strategy will assess the activities and outputs identified in the community informed logic model and centers the intended user rather than the judgement of a disconnected evaluator or systems leader.

SFPD REALLOCATION REPORT

1Berube, 2018; Davis, 2020; McIntosh et al., 20202American Evaluation Association, 20183Patton, 1994

11

JUVENILE JUSTICE BLUE RIBBON PANEL: GUIDING VALUESGuiding values provide a foundation for how the future San Francisco youth care systems and programming should be designed.

By applying our values, we can create strategies focused on developing positive experiences and thriving futures for all youth in San Francisco.

YouthCentered

Accountability

Hope

Honest

Will

LivedExperience

A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS LED BY AND WITH YOUTH HIGHLIGHTED THE FOLLOWING VALUES.


THEMES

LEARNING GROWING THRIVING SYSTEM CHANGE

“Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to

arrive at its destination full of hope.”

- MAYA ANGELOU

The identified themes emerged from the recommendations, but can only succeed if done in and with love. The foundation of this work requires LOVE; juvenile justice reform is both heart and hard work. Members of the Blue Ribbon Panel felt it important to include love as a foundational value of these recommendations and necessary to advance change.

13

LEARNINGNumerous studies highlight education as a tool to develop social, economic and cultural capital needed to succeed in life. Yet, many factors including, race and poverty make accessing quality education a challenge. A comprehensive juvenile justice reform plan, must include meaningful and impactful learning opportunities.

ACADEMICThe Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) suggests solutions to end the school-to-prison pipeline requires collaboration between schools and communities, funding, equitable distribution of resources, expanding of community programs and elimination of discriminatory practices.

Specifically for systems involved youth, it is recommended that unique programming be created, programming that extends the learning and credit earning time of youth impacted by the system.

SOCIALBronfenbrenner’s Ecology of Human Development explores the connection of youth development to family and the greater community4. If we are going to build a roadmap to wellbeing that develops thriving and healthy youth, we must understand the role community, families, culture, and social influences have on learning.

We must find ways to celebrate the strength of each young person and see their learning potential. Programs and systems should demonstrate that all children and youth are valued. Getting to know youth, their family, and their challenges; to acknowledge for some the pressure of meeting basic needs, including food security and housing impacts their ability to focus on discussions around education and learning.

For families impacted by the juvenile justice system we should explore

either the Family Group Conference (used in New Zealand) or Child & Family Team model (used for CA foster care youth) as the default process for developing youth and family-centered plans that (1) place the family in the seat of authority; (2) meet real needs and goals identified by the youth/family; and (3) uses evidence-based models to address criminogenic risk factors. Establish flexible funding that can support creative problem solving for our youths and families.

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT/ADVOCACYThe CDF asserts current educational systems disproportionately deny low-income and youth of color the opportunity to succeed and increases the likelihood they will enter the school-to-prison pipeline. Restorative and community-based solutions and policies should be informed and when possible, led by youth, families and community stakeholders.

Members of the Blue Ribbon Panel suggested the City consider creating an interagency body that holds the vision and leads interagency coordination to accomplish the goals set forth in the recommendations. This interagency body shall be empowered to evaluate and oversee departments/agencies, bringing accountability to the juvenile justice system with reporting to Mayor and Board of Supervisors.

This body would be different than current collaborations that perform annual audits or engage City departments, as it would be a more intentional effort, focused on the continuum of services that impact education and be informed by conversations with youth, families, and community stakeholders and not just the system leaders and City funded contractors.

Listening sessions hosted by the Blue Ribbon Panel, as well as the Close Juvenile Hall Working Group and the Dream Keeper Initiative highlight advocacy of community stakeholders to foster greater accountability across systems and to center community voice in the discussion.

4 The Ecology of Human Development, Bronfenbrenner


GROWINGThe Search Institute created a framework for youth development that outlines best practices for helping young people grow up healthy, caring, and responsible5. The Framework is comprised of 40 assets, shown by research to be foster resiliency and protect youth from risks.

The assets are divided into two categories, internal and external. All the subcategories align with recommendations heard in listening sessions. The Search Institute reports that studies of over 4 million youth demonstrates, the more assets a young person develops, the least likely they are to engage in high-risk behavior.

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends a commitment to support all youth, and create pathways to growing into thriving and healthy adults. The strategy could include utilizing the 40 Developmental Assets to advance recommendations.

YOUTH RECOMMENDATION EXTERNAL ASSETS INTERNAL ASSETS

Help youth get more jobs Support – other adult relationships Empowerment – youth as resources

Positive identity – sense of purpose

Kids want money Boundaries and expectations – high expectations Positive identity – personal powerPractice restorative justice. Simply punishing kids is not going to change hearts and minds. For example, instead of suspending young people and just having them sit at home for 3 days after a fight, restorative justice would help them understand the harm that they caused.

Support – caring school climate Positive Values – Responsibility Empowerment – safety Social Competencies

– Peaceful Conflict ResolutionBoundaries & expectations – school boundaries Positive Identity – Positive view of Personal

FutureProvide implicit bias training to teachers Empowerment – Community Values Youth Social competencies – Cultural Competence

Case managers who are paid well and look like the community members

Support – Caring Neighborhood Positive Values – Equality and Social JusticeEmpowerment – Community Values Youth Positive Identity – Self-esteem

Invest in “the mental part” – how do you get kids to make better decisions

Constructive Use of Time – Creative Activities Social Competencies – Planning and Decision Making Power

Invest in professional training as well as general development re: navigating different life situations (i.e. how you behave at home v. with friends v. at school v. at work)

Empowerment – Community Values Youth Commitment to Learning – Achievement Emotion

Provide money for field trips. Let kids get out of the projects and have experiences in spaces where they can relax, think without worrying about harm/always looking over their shoulders

Support, empowerment, constructive use of time Social competencies, positive identity

5https://page.search-institute.org/40-developmental-assets

15

Studies posit resilient youth who, “beat the odds”, by overcoming challenging situations, - achieving academic success, less likely to use drugs or be involved in criminal activity - some of these young people produced more stress hormones and/or had other medical issues including obesity, high blood pressure or diabetes. Deficit thinking, narrow definitions of motivation, fixed mindsets and limited cultural views foster structural, systemic, oppressive conditions, conditions that disproportionately impact low-income and youth of color8. Thriving begins with meeting basic socioemotional needs, like being cared for, seen and valued, as well as meeting physical needs like food, shelter and access to health care.

Achieving success, being highly motivated and avoiding detention or performing well in school, should not be conflated with thriving. We must expand our definition of thriving and basic needs to focus on the indicators that support the whole young person, their mental, physical, and spiritual needs. For some youth the shame of inadequate housing, food and health care is harder to manage than the physical needs. Some youth expressed shame for being different, having cultural norms or lunches that are not like the majority of their peers or a having a nontraditional family, can impact behaviors and attitudes.

6Resilience in Adolescence, Health and Psychosocial Outcomes, Brody, Yu, Miller and Chen, 20167Acknowledging the Whiteness of Motivation Research: Seeking Cultural Relevance, Ellen Usher, 20188Peddling Poverty for Profit:Elements of Oppression in Ruby Payne’s Framework, Gorski, 2008

THRIVINGResearch suggests where youth live affects their mental and physical wellbeing6, access to quality education, employment opportunities and their overall economic or upward mobility7. In addition to their environment, a young person’s family income, race, socialization, exposure to violence and other factors can impact their ability to feel seen or valued.

Members of the Blue Ribbon Panel, youth and community stakeholders requested approaches that center the wellbeing of youth as well as a commitment to to help all young people thrive. In listening sessions youth shared frustrations about limited opportunities to play or to be a kid.

“There’s no outlet”

“Kids don’t have the basics they need to thrive as children”

“No gym”

“No extra-curriculars - like sports teams that travel”

“What do other communities have in place for their children? These things are not here”


Indicators of wellbeing and approaches to help youth thrive:• Explore the root causes of oppressive conditions• Foster self-sufficiency• Shared power between, youth, family and community• Valuing the lived experience, culture and input of diverse stakeholders• Collaboration amongst stakeholders• Build and strengthen network of support for youth and their families• Add diverse assessment tools that measure wellbeing, sense of being valued and tools shared in the

Measuring Mobility From Poverty report• Increase the diversity of mentors, therapists and other service providers to connect youth with people with

similar lived experiences• Consider the incentives and motivations from different cultural, racial and socioeconomic perspectives• Create safe spaces - emotional and physical - for youth• Suspend judgement of youth and their families and instead have a discussion• Center the voices of those most impacted• Have discussions with youth, show and tell them they matter

9Measuring Mobility From Poverty, Acs et al, 201810Overcoming the Silence of Generational Poverty, Donna Beegle, 200311Peddling Poverty for Profit:Elements of Oppression in Ruby Payne’s Framework, Gorski, 2008

The US Partnership on Mobility From Poverty defines mobility with three core principles: economic success, power and autonomy.9 The report highlights strategies to measure mobility and offers tools and ideas to help youth, their families and communities thrive. Similarly, other studies stress the need for youth to feel seen and be connected to caring adults. Research suggests understanding youth behavior requires connecting with youth and their families in a meaningful way.10 We must shift from trying to “fix” youth and their families11 and instead address the causes of violence, classism, racism, poverty and other inequities. Many of these studies provide recommendations to address opportunity gaps, inequity and support the success of young people.

17

The City and County of San Francisco is blessed with a wealth of services for youth and families. During our process we discovered approximately 90 programs identified as serving justice involved youth funded by local departments. The data we gathered revealed that services were provided to young people that are from a few specific zip codes/neighborhoods in the City. Similarly, programming for these youth and families was provided by funding from the Department of Children, Youth and Families, the Department of Public Health, the Juvenile Probation Department and others.

It is not surprising that with over 90 programs funded by several departments for specific services that coordination is a problem, resulting in gaps in services, inefficiencies and poor outcomes. Information gathered during the Blue Ribbon process reveals that while City agencies have established data information systems and protocols for sharing. More needs to be done to coordinate better between departments, service providers, youth and the broader community. Services operate in silos and are too dependent on youth and families to navigate and master the complexities

SYSTEMS CHANGEThere are no shortage of requests or recommendations on the need for better coordination between the systems or increased accountability on the impact of services. The desire and will to advance change seems lacking and it is recommended that more be done to encourage and foster the development of transformative systems to support all youth.

A review of funding found duplication of services – with over 90 programs inadequately serving the same youth. Recent focus groups hosted by the Close Juvenile Hall Working group found similar responses and experiences as shared in the Blue Ribbon Panel listening sessions. Several community meetings hosted by the Human Rights Commission in the summer of 2020 had questions about who is being funded to support systems involved youth and demanding the City do more to meet community identified needs.

• Dental care• Therapy

• Three meals / day• Friends are in there

• School• Safety

of needs. We want to be clear that none of this is malicious but rather an outcome of the funding and delivery structure. We highly recommend that the Mayor convene a process wherein the services provided by the City departments for youth and families be coordinated and funded more seamlessly. Concerns about service coordination and collaboration across City departments were raised by the consultants, community and the Blue Ribbon Panel. These concerns can be addressed through increased engagement between agencies, focused on supporting families connected to multiple systems. This type of collaboration fosters partnership on funding, encourages co-designing metrics and expectations that are clear across departments and meeting the needs of the community.

As currently operated, the City could receive better life outcomes for youth and families for its investments by restructuring how they function, fund and measure services. Services should include practice based evidentiary programs steeped in culturally acknowledged approaches.

THE CURRENT STRUCTURE TO DELIVER SERVICES MUST BE RENOVATED

In listening sessions youth and community shared their feedback on system failures:

• The community feels City-operated and funded programs "are halfing it." You can see that there are people who do not care about the populations that they serve. They do the bare minimum, but seem to get so much money from the City. They are not actually invested. They do not look like the populations they serve.

• You have to get in trouble to get help. Sometimes going to juvenile is like a “mini-vacay” from the realities of daily life.


GUIDING PRINCIPLES The work of the Blue Ribbon Panel should inform future work around juvenile justice reform. In addition to the values, several ideas were proposed to improve systems and partnerships in support of youth. The outlined principles establish rules of engagement, and offer a foundation for stronger coalitions focused on youth development.

COLLABORATION – A desire, commitment, a will to do the work. JPD, HSA, DCYF, DPH –Values oriented type of work that must be done between departments and organizations to develop trust and partnerships.

A common theme that predates the Blue Ribbon Panel requests and in some ways demands that community and City departments work differently together, it is imperative to develop a system that expects and requires these groups to work collaboratively. A commitment to this principle is desired and necessitates someone to lead this new collaborative process. A meeting with the city departments and the consultants highlighted a willingness to engage in a more coordinated approach, and a need for support to build and maintain.

On several occasions youth, caregivers and community stakeholders expressed frustration with who has access to the array of community-based services funded by Department of Children Youth and their Families, the Department of Public Health, or other City and County funded programs. Youth often shared a need to “get in trouble to get help”. The request for access to programming, refers to programs at any point along the continuum – prevention, intervention, diversion or re-entry. Youth should not be precluded from accessing mental health, anger management, housing or other services because they have not been arrested, likewise, being systems involved should not limit access to high quality, academic or enrichment programming.

RESPECT – Allow time to develop systems, for new approaches to work and for change to happen incrementally.

Many of the themes and concerns that emerged from conversations with youth and in the Blue Ribbon Panel working groups align with the themes and values identified in the Close Juvenile Hall Working Group Listening Sessions. The surveys and focus group notes from the Blue Ribbon Panel process highlight a need to engage and center a level of respect for youth and their families. Youth and their families felt betrayed and abandoned by the overall system, which includes the community and City led programming. Families need to be seen, heard and supported - this requires a commitment to respect those who are served by the system.

There is a strong need for the partners to respect and value each other and find a way to work together in the interest of youth and to advance the shared value of creating a space where youth never have to touch the juvenile system.

Many of the Juvenile probation officers represent the diversity considered in research on women and people of color12 in law enforcement13. Although tension and disagreements around law enforcement are reverberating across the country we should avoid generalizations about people in positions and find ways to recognize and respect the individuals, their experience, their intent and the value they add to the work.

RECOGNITION – We pause and recognize the work and dedication of each of the partners, from the nonprofits to the probation officers, each person brings a unique gift, a lived experience and special insight to this work. We believe good intent and hope that no one comes to this work to bring harm, but instead to right wrongs of the social injustice, inequity and disparity that too many youth face.

Through this process we honor and recognize the passion and dedication of stakeholders to improve outcomes for youth, to create a place where all youth no matter where they grow up, their race, ethnicity, gender or socio-economic background can thrive and live well.

Although there is more to do, San Francisco has been a model for change. Many stakeholders asked that we remember the actions and efforts San Francisco made to improve the juvenile justice system, from our emphasis on diversion and community-based services to the City’s efforts to support the safety and wellbeing of our youth and families during the pandemic.

Ultimately, the process suggests a need for greater accountability and understanding. A need to understand the true costs to do effective work and fund accordingly (Staff, Resources and Youth). Average Daily Attendance in a program does not tell the story of what success looks like for youth and their families. As the costs and needs are better understood, there should be a change in structure and shared accountability. Redefine success and understand the costs to achieve individualized success.

12Diversifying the police applicant pool: motivations of women and minority candidates seeking police employment, Gibbs, 201913Shades of Blue: A review of the hiring, recruitment, and selection of female and minority police officers, Donohue, 2020

19

HARM REDUCTIONMembers of the Blue Ribbon Panel also explored strategies for harm reduction as opposed to an overhaul or total transformation of the system. The following strategies consider approaches that reduce harm within the current system.

A fair and reliable detention risk assessment instrument will be administered with each of the youth processed through the JPD and only youth who score high on the risk assessment will be detained until they are presented before the court for their initial detention hearing. Based on available data, it is estimated that no more than 15 youth at any given time will need to be securely detained in SF14.

Continue to have various community-based organizations provide programming for the youth who are held securely pending adjudication, in addition to high quality education, health, and mental services. CBO capacity building should be supported as a part of this effort.

14The Close Juvenile Hall Working Group is working to determine a more accurate number15Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X0202600601 16FUNDING PREVENTION IN COMMUNITIES Lessons From Evidence2Success, Annie E Casey Foundation, 2021

RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLAlthough tools exist, as a system, we should collaboratively review validated, meaningful risk assessment tools that can be implemented universally among all juvenile justice stakeholders. Additionally we should work in partnership to develop a risk assessment tool in support of all youth. The tool could be used to design programs based on identified risk factors15 versus inadvertently labeling or defining youth.

WELCOMING AND SUPPORTIVE NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTNERS AND STAFFResearch by the Annie E. Casey Foundation highlights the positive impact partnerships with families and community partners can have on prevention and early intervention. Key components to success include partnerships focused on the well-being of youth, leveraging existing resources and access to evidence-based programs. Creating a list of programs, strategies for evaluation and assessment and funding for evidence based programs can help meet the goal of harm reduction.

DEVELOPMENT OF HEALING CENTERED FRAMEWORK FOR CITY FUNDED AND/OR OPERATED PROGRAMMINGWorking with Dr. Shawn Ginwright to develop a healing centered engagement framework that will be used by multiple departments and embedded into contracts and the RFP process.

BEYOND JUVENILE PROBATIONA 2021 report16 encourages investing in building partnerships centered around data on the well-being of youth. Community and City partners - not just Juvenile Probation - must work collaboratively to support all youth and address systemic failures that lead to youth being detained or arrested.


HEALING CENTERED APPROACHESNew models must be based in a multigenerational community driven approach that provide services in the way that the community wants them delivered.

Align the title of counselor and the role of juvenile probation officers with their main duties and responsibilities. Ensure Counselors work with youth on their caseload and their families to identify their greatest needs and strengths, and to develop case plans/achievement plans to connect clients to services, supports, and opportunities. JPD should revisit its position descriptions, recruitment methods, and staff training protocols to prioritize youth development and case management training to include a healing centered approach versus a punitive and deficit based model.

Studies suggest a need to utilize an intersecting lens, that includes cultural norms, social experiences and past harms in developing strategies to support diverse groups of youth. For instance, one study asserts an “Afrocentric archetype emphasizes spirituality, value in interpersonal relationships, collectivism and knowledge of the African subject.”17 This requires centering culture, history and collaboration across generations. Additional studies explore the connectivity of self-sufficiency to hope and hope to spirituality18. In his book of Sermons, Strength to Love, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. admonishes, “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” King goes on to say, we can’t let our shattered dreams and failures push us to bitterness, because the bitterness impacts our physical, social and mental wellness. Ultimately, we should avoid lingering on the impact of trauma and begin to focus on healing and offering hope.

We should move past Eurocentric and normalized practices and begin to create models connected to community and culture. We should explore the practices passed down from the ancestors, Harriet Tubman, Langston Hughes, Maya Angelou and Fannie Lou Hamer, who understood and utilized the power of culture, art, music and spoken word. These strategies are supported by science to be healing and they continue to encourage and foster hope to new generations through artists like Amanda Gorman, Kendrick Lamar and J. Cole.

TRANSFORMATION AND RADICAL IMAGINATION

• A lack of research and study on the leadership and practices of people of color in leadership, especially Black people.

• There are few practices, tools or strategies focused on a comprehensive multigenerational race specific behavioral health approach.

• Understanding achievement emotions – whether something motivates or demotivates someone, can help develop impactful programming

• A parent/caregivers motivational belief impacts how they interact with their child and impacts the child’s behavior

STUDIES HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS:

17Rhetoric Of Commonality: An Afrocentric Analysis Of Jesse Jackson's Discourse And Performance At The 1984 And 1988 Democratic National Conventions, Fox18Spirituality, Hope, and Self-Sufficiency among Low-Income Job Seekers, Young, Hong, Hodge and Choi

21

NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFICIn 2011, the Stanford Social Innovation Review introduced the concept of Collective Impact. The Collective Impact framework focuses on a collaborative effort to advance social change. Core to the model is a shared agenda, this approach of developing a cross-collaboration around a common goal could build an impactful coalition. An evaluation of sites found the Collective Impact model contributed to the desired change goals.

In the spirit of comprehensive juvenile justice reform, the collaboration between stakeholders, should include community partners, businesses, and City agencies, it should also consider a neighborhood specific approach. The collaboration should consider the needs of the youth and their families and include prevention programs as well as diversion. More should be done to keep youth from entering the system as well as from staying in the system.

Collaborative and ResponsiveCreate a list of community vetted city funded services that can be shared with diversion programs. Working with youth and community members to review the current list of services, to better understand how those services are meeting youth, families and community needs. This goes beyond generating a list of organizations, for youth, their families and community this is about creating a system of accountability to the community we say we serve.

Community members specifically, youth and their families asked for a list of the organizations funded to provide services to support juveniles who are systems involved. The requests also included the ability to provide feedback on the listed organizations.

Begin to identify the neighborhoods where large numbers of youth on probation live, and in partnership with those communities, establish community service offices that are welcoming and supportive environments which may include co-location with other government agencies and community-based organizations.


RECOMMENDATIONSINTENTIONAL COMPREHENSIVE HOLISTIC APPROACHES JUSTICE ADJACENT SERVICES

Mayor Breed requested the Panel explore comprehensive and system-wide reforms. The values, themes and strategie shared through this process recognizes the need for prevention and to address the factors that impact a young person’s quality of life.

A report from the National Council of Young Leaders and Opportunity Youth United highlights a need for broader systems change, that connects criminal justice, education, upward mobility, community development and family.19 In addition to previous recommendations, here we share ideas to transform communities into places where all youth can thrive.

HOUSINGThis approach takes into account issues which are central for the well-being of young people and their families but are often viewed as adjacent to the youth justice system. For example, housing is an important issue that improves justice outcomes. We recommend that City departments coordinate to improve housing stability for families, as well as expand housing options for youth. This includes engaging transitional housing options that can be combined with other intensive supportive services to help youth remain connected to their families and communities while addressing their housing needs. The City should work in partnership with community-based organizations to increase such housing services and support for youth and families.

Several departments are reviewing a list of families that have been systems involved. A deep dive of city systems failures and engagement with families is informing the work of the Dream Keeper initiative. The funds redirected from law enforcement to the Black community - referred to as the Dream Keeper initiative - are meant to provide comprehensive support for youth and their families. The Challenges facing the juvenile justice system are not a problem of Juvenile Probation alone, it is a failure of multiple systems, often long before a young person is arrested.

Housing is important to the health and wellbeing of our youth, Dr. Bechara Choucair’s (Kaiser Permanente’s senior vice president and chief health officer) argues, “We can’t keep people healthy if they don’t have a roof over their head and food on the table.” More must be done to ensure our youth are stably housed if we truly want to reform the juvenile justice system.

The City should work in partnership with community-based organizations to increase such housing services and support for youth and families. In their report the National Young Leaders Council makes plain the need and vision to meet basic needs like housing, connecting with neighbors and creating a sense of community to improve outcomes for youth. San Francisco youth would benefit from the adoption of the values and recommendations proposed by the National Council of Young Leaders, not to mention the youth of San Francisco who shared similar guidance and thoughts.

19Recommendations to Increase Opportunities and Decrease Poverty in America, 2016

23

EDUCATIONWhile the Mayor’s Office does not have authority over the San Francisco Unified School District, there are shared issues between education and other City departments. There is overrepresentation of youth with disabilities such as “emotional disturbance” with the youth justice sector. There is a need for coordination between the schools, health, probation and community based agencies to improve appropriate services being accessible. Additionally, there are opportunities to engage San Francisco’s higher education stakeholders to expand the pathway to college for delinquency-impacted young people. Options like dual-enrollment for youth who are still completing their high school requirements can help form a foundation for higher education. Several colleges in San Francisco have programs to engage system-involved youth, presenting an opportunity for investment in and expansion of higher education as an alternative to incarceration.

It is recommended to coordinate systems and supports for all youth to address barriers to education. This includes providing mentors, tutors, learning assessments, transportation and the impact of traumatic events. Neighborhood specific programming, leveraging of resources such as stipends, to minimize the call of making money over education.

In listening sessions youth expressed frustration with their education and many expressed a concern they were being groomed for prison instead of careers, the general feeling stressed students with IEPs are being routed from schools to prisons. Many youth felt going to juvenile is teaching kids how to be in jail. Youth asked that, instead of grooming kids for the penitentiary, they should be groomed to be successful in life. Youth warned Black kids are being told that jail is their destiny.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM YOUTH:• More teachers who care about us. Who push us to do our work. Who

believe we can do the work. We need more Black teachers.

• Instead of sending kids to alternative schools, send them to City Build so that they can learn a trade, get school credits, and be prepared to enter the workforce/take care of themselves

• Invest in trades schools for people in the community.


MENTAL HEALTHYoung people should be able to access behavioral health services that are holistic and culturally relevant, and the services must be offered in settings where young people feel most comfortable getting support, as defined by them and their families. This service model should include cultural groups, arts, and community programs, and should be integrated into more holistic healing and wellness services. Modalities such as Drumming, Sweatlodge, nature trips, meditation including other culturally congruent affirming activities

Data reveals that 10 of the 11 youth in juvenile hall had open mental health cases. We recommend enhancing well coordinated community based behavioral health services to improve the chances that youth and families do not have to rely on the justice sector to access crucial mental health supports. The City’s Black to the Future report from 2016, identified this area of concern and its impact on African American youth and families.

There are models being piloted in San Francisco such as Project ECHO to engage in partnerships with child-serving CBOs and their providers providing mental health services to system-involved youth and families. The model empowers academic-community partnership and transformation of community- based mental health settings to be able to provide greater access to and more varied types of youth and family mental health services for youth and families’ in their community by their community providers.

It is recommended that community and city departments develop a practice of restorative justice, with shared language, expectations and outcomes.

Through focus groups in schools and conversations with community stakeholders, participants communicated concerns over young Black people being over diagnosed with ADD & ADHD when what they are experiencing is PTSD. Participants shared youth are witnessing extreme violence (examples included a shooting that happened in front of dozens of youth and

community members. Another participant had their house shot up with an AK-47. The community reported little to no post-trauma therapy/follow up of any sort by the City in the months and years that followed the incident.) Youth participants and their mentors stressed they need therapists, especially therapists of color, in the community. Community members also shared the presence of police feels very oppressive – "Idling cop cars everywhere. Constant sirens. You cannot relax."

To address this need, the City must deliver on broken promises - over the years departments have suggested developing shared language and expectations for case management and funding strategies to support the comprehensive support. Support must include mental health and a shift from the deficit model of trauma informed to an asset based approach of healing centered.

Dr. Shawn Ginwright helped develop a healing centered engagement framework that could be used by multiple departments to advance shared language and expectations for justice programming. Working in partnership with the Human Rights Commission and Dr. Ginwright the framework could be developed into modules used for training and participation in workshops included in contracts and the RFP process.

SUBSTANCE USEData from child and adult studies repeatedly demonstrate that substance use is one of the strongest predictors of re-entry into the justice system. The same type of model that is being suggested in the community capacity building approach for expanding community mental health access could be considered for adolescent substance use. In fact, it is strongly recommended that substance use services be considered within adolescent mental health needs (as “behavioral health”) because the rate of co-occurrence is dramatically high (data demonstrate at least 50% of community- supervised justice-involved adolescents endorsing regular alcohol and/or cannabis use).

25

Abundant research describes the powerful effects of trauma and other adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on the cognitive, physical, social and emotional development of children and adolescents. Kaiser Permanente’s path-breaking ACEs research, conducted in partnership with CDC, laid the foundation for much substantive work by Dr. Nadine Burke-Harris and others who have become powerful champions for trauma-informed care. Related research shows clearly how certain protective factors, such as the presence of a caring and sympathetic adult and opportunities for school and community engagement, can mitigate trauma’s harmful effects and help young people thrive.

Building on this research, many health practitioners are incorporating trauma screening and trauma-informed care into their practice. Similarly, educators in many districts have embraced policies and strategies to create trauma-informed schools. As important as these developments are, they are insufficient, warns Shawn Ginwright, a leading national expert on African American youth, youth activism, and youth development. Simply treating the symptoms of harm as an individual, isolated experience ignores the fact that trauma is often experienced collectively by a group of people – whether the result of racism, discrimination, extreme poverty, violence, criminalization, etc. The roots of trauma are not neurological impairment (although that may be a byproduct),

but environmental. For communities to create the conditions for wellness, a communal response is required; we must seek to foster collective healing among those who experience harm collectively. We need to move upstream of trauma and root out its structural, systemic sources of toxicity. Ginwright champions the concept of healing centered engagement – which infuses the political and cultural dimensions of wellbeing - as a necessary complement to more conventional trauma-informed therapies and approaches for restoring wellbeing.

Healing centered engagement is nonclinical in orientation (although appropriate in clinical settings), focusing rather on community building and civic engagement, cultivating and celebrating a shared sense of identity, culture, belonging, being valued, being seen as a community asset. Healing centered engagement operates through a lens of possibilities and strengths rather than psychopathology. It focuses on what we want to achieve – all children thriving – rather than merely treating emotional and behavioral symptoms of trauma. It posits wellbeing as a political act, predicated on young people’s sense of power and control in their lives. It builds upon their experiences, knowledge, skills and curiosity as positive traits to be enhanced.

Developed by Dr. Shawn Ginwright - Flourish Agenda

HEALING CENTERED ENGAGEMENT: “I am more than what happened to me.”


The City and County of San Francisco has a long history of elected and appointed officials paying attention to the health and well-being of its children, youth and families. Over the years our governing bodies have been a national leader in making positive youth development approaches a priority. Current Mayor London Breed continues this tradition by appointing this Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) to take a comprehensive look at our youth services environment.

The BRP was appointed in the midst of rapid social change in San Francisco that has significant impacts on youth and family well-being. One such change has been the extraordinary reduction in juvenile crime and arrests and in corresponding juvenile detention rates. There are fewer youth in San Francisco’s juvenile hall today than there have been in more than 30 years. The City and County has also invested significant resources into community-based services for justice involved youth, including an annual $10 million investment from the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF).

Beginning in March 2019, the SF Chronicle published a series of reports documenting the dramatic drop in youth violence and juvenile incarceration over the last two decades, both in SF and across the state. The reduced numbers of youth in our juvenile justice system presented a historic opportunity to look anew at our approach to youth delinquency. In April 2019, Mayor

London Breed created the BRP composed of juvenile justice experts, community based organizations, government officials, and others. With over 40 appointed members, the BRP was tasked with utilizing their individual and collective experience and expertise to develop a wide range of recommendations for comprehensive youth services reform in San Francisco.

Soon thereafter, In June 2019, the SF Board of Supervisors demonstrated their concern over the efficacy of the current youth detention facility and other related services for youth in trouble with the law by overwhelmingly passing a motion to close the juvenile hall by December 2021.

The Mayor’s establishment of this Blue Ribbon Panel and the Board of Supervisors’ legislation to close the San Francisco Youth Detention Facility reflect a trend across the country to disrupt the status quo regarding services to youth, family and communities. Elected officials and the communities they represent are more willing to explore alternative approaches to the traditional carceral response to law violations. Justice practitioners are recommitting to the original purpose of the youth justice sector to focus on “need” in addition to “deed.”

Flourish Agenda, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform and the W. Haywood Burns Institute were assembled under the auspices of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission

as the team of consultants to shepherd the recommendation process forward. Over the last nine months, we facilitated dozens of meetings across the learning community groups, full BRP and listening sessions to devise a set of recommendations that engage improvements for not only children in trouble with the law, but all children in need of services and support. The recommendations enumerated below are pertinent to the youth probation department and other youth serving agencies as well.

The Chronicle series, the Blue-Ribbon Panel, and the Supervisors’ motion all come on the heels of decades of research, advocacy, and work to reform and improve the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department (JPD). More than twenty-five years of consistent, dedicated reform advocacy has been documented in numerous reports and studies calling for the transformation of the youth justice system in SF. And sweeping changes have been made. The number of youth in detention has reduced, the number of juvenile court filings have fallen, and Log Cabin Ranch – where youth were held in-custody – has been shuttered.

The following recommendations would move the City and County even further, to the forefront of the national reform movement with a focus on child and community well-being. The goals of these reforms are to enhance the well-being, reduce the harm caused by system-involvement and improve public safety. The following recommendations were made by members of the Blue-Ribbon Panel, youth and community members who attended listening sessions, and the BRP consultant team. It should be noted these recommendations preceded the Covid-19 global pandemic and significant juvenile justice reforms at all the state levels.

SAN FRANCISCO BLUE RIBBON PANEL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORMJuvenile Justice Reform Plan Recommendations

27

HIGHLIGHTED RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO JUVENILE PROBATIONSeveral recommendations have been shared in this report and the full list of recommendations is available in the appendix. Per the charge to the panel, the following recommendations were selected by the technical assistance providers to highlight reforms that are systematic and can be implemented with new policies and practices.

20707b is the California Welfare and Institution Code (WIC) for serious and violence offenses for youth. WIC is, in effect, the juvenile penal code in Ca.

While some field Probation Officers perform their duties very well and are community oriented,

not all POs work in this manner. POs are not mandated to connect youth to community services or follow through to ensure engagement. Therefore, JPD should redefine the role of juvenile probation officers in the field so that their main duties and responsibilities are to work with the youth on their case load and their families to identify their greatest needs and strengths, and to develop case plans/achievement plans to connect clients to services, supports, and opportunities. JPD should revisit its position descriptions, recruitment methods, and staff training protocols to prioritize youth development and case management training.

The City and County of San Francisco, through the Juvenile Probation Department, should

implement a policy that stipulates that only youth who are arrested and accused of committing 707b offenses, who are above 13 years of age, and other youth who have legally mandated detention should be detained. According to the February 2021 JPD Monthly Statistics Report, in the month of December 2020, there were 16 admissions into juvenile hall, 12 of them were mandatory admissions.

Numerous studies and reports have proven that when the juvenile justice system engage youth who

have been assessed as low risk, those youth have worse outcomes and are more likely to engage in more serious delinquency due to their involvement in the juvenile justice system. JPD should implement a policy to not engage youth who are assessed as low risk and instead have those youth referred by a community-based organization to community services.

32120


JUVENILE INTAKE These recommendations pertain to the broad category of initial arrest, delivery and related processes for young people considered to be in violation of the law. They include a few general considerations and specific policy and practice changes.

• All youth arrested or given a notice to appear for non-707b level offenses in SF will be processed through a community-driven reception and assessment process (a current example of this is the Community Assessment and Referral Center).

• All youth processed for misdemeanors will continue to be diverted from formal prosecution. Youth arrested for low-level felonies should also be eligible for diversion to community services, which may include a restorative justice process that allows victims of crime to participate. While SFPD has discretion to divert low-level felony arrests, JPD does not. For cases presented to probation by SFPD, JPD must refer youth over the age of 13 arrested for a felony to the District Attorney.

• Youth with first time, mid-level felony arrests who are also assessed as moderate or high risk should be offered conditional diversion that will result in prosecution if they do not comply with terms of the diversion programming. This diversion will be provided by SFPD or the DA.

• For youth with previous arrests and the instant offense is a felony and they are assessed as moderate or high risk, they will be connected to services and supports through a community-driven reception and assessment process while also being processed through the system for adjudication. These youth will be given detention alternatives, meaning while they are going to court, and they will not be detained in juvenile hall.

• All diversion programming should have access to the array of community based services funded by DCYF, the Department of Public Health, or other City and County funded programs.

• The remaining 707b offense arrests, which make up a very small percentage of all arrests, will be processed through the JPD. According to the February 2021 JPD Monthly Statistics Report, in the month of December 2020, there were 16 admissions into juvenile hall, 12 of them were mandatory admissions.

• A fair and reliable detention risk assessment instrument will be administered with each of the youth processed through the JPD and only youth who score high on the risk assessment will be detained until they are presented before the court for their initial detention hearing. Based on available data, it is estimated that no more than 15 youth at any given time will need to be securely detained in SF.

• Some members of the Blue Ribbon Commission suggested that other youth who are assessed as high risk on the Detention Risk Instrument that do not fall within the state mandated detention category may need to be detained at the discretion of Probation.

29

DETENTIONThese recommendations involve a range of suggestions regarding alternatives to the use of the juvenile hall, closure and significantly reduced usage.

• Close the current juvenile hall.

• Open either one 15-bed secure home for temporary detention or two 8-bed temporary detention homes in the City for youth who meet the criteria mentioned above: charged with a 707b offense, who are above 13 years of age, or have court ordered detention.

• Continue to have various community based organizations provide programming for the youth who are held securely pending adjudication, in addition to high quality education, health, and mental services. CBO capacity building should be supported as a part of this effort.

• Explore the possibility of using empty cottages and/or vacant space at the Edgewood Center for Children and Families as the new juvenile detention center.

• Transfer 1-3 custodial detention staff or POs to Case Expeditor positions whose duties primarily include expediting the bureaucratic process to move youth to their next destination. One of the main reasons youth spend long times in detention is awaiting movement to their court-ordered destination. These waits are largely due to the time it takes for paperwork to be filed. Case Expeditors in other jurisdictions have been credited with significantly reducing the time youth spend in detention.

• Some youth arrested in San Francisco reside in other jurisdictions and plans need to take into consideration youth returning to court as well as receiving services post-adjudication from other cities.

• The Close Juvenile Hall Workgroup is addressing detention issues, which include compliance with state laws and statutes.

• For the youth who do require detention, BRP members expressed a collective committment to develop a reimagined space and program.


1. If the above measures are implemented, then there should not be any youth who are assessed as low risk on active probation caseloads, but if for any reason youth assessed as low risk by a fair and reliable risk assessment are placed on probation by the courts, JPD should not actively supervise those youth.

a. It is very important to define community-based organizations as organizations rooted in the community that can stay connected to the young person and their family as long as needed and can seamlessly help them be integrated into the community.

b. Youth assessed as low risk should be diverted and referred to appropriate service providers to effectively address their needs through a community-driven reception and assessment process.

c. It is important to note the difference between risk and need. Some youth may have high needs but lower risk. Such youth will need to receive intensive services, supports, and opportunities. Those services need not to be provided by JPD.

d. JPD’s Detention Risk Instrument and post-adjudication risk assessment tool need to be evaluated for accuracy and fairness or replaced by risk assessments that are fair and accurate.

2. Research has proven that long probation terms are ineffective and wasteful. For youth placed on probation by the court, SF JPD should request that the length of probation terms be capped at no more than 10 months. The conditions for youth on probation should be developmentally appropriate and not used as a tool to increase criminalization when they violate. A bill introduced in the State Legislature in February 2021, AB 503, would reduce juvenile probation terms to six months.

3. For youth who have not violated the terms of their probation or committed a new offense in 10 months, JPD should request to the court that their probation be terminated and regardless of the decision, JPD should end active supervision of all such youth.

4. Redefine the role of juvenile probation officers so that their main duties and responsibilities are to work with the youth on their case load and their families to identify their greatest needs and strengths, and to develop case plans/achievement plans to connect clients to services, supports, and opportunities. JPD should revisit its position descriptions, recruitment methods, and staff training protocols to prioritize youth development and case management training.

5. Hold POs and CBOs accountable to ensure youth are connected to needed services. There is a large number of community based services providers funded to serve youth on probation. There must also be joint accountability between JPD and CBOs for performance tracking and high quality services. Create collective accountability, performance tracking, and high-quality services across all system stakeholders.

6. Identify the neighborhoods where large numbers of youth on probation live, and in partnership with those communities, establish community service offices that are welcoming and supportive environments which may include co-location with other government agencies and community-based organizations.

7. Integrate culturally congruent interventions/strategies aligned with BIPOC communities, especially Black, Latinx, and Pacific Islander in all Trauma Informed and Healing Frameworks.

8. According to JPD’s February 2021 data report, as of 12/31/20, the monthly active total caseload of community based probation officers was 384. There are 174 pre-adjudicated cases and 210 post adjudicated cases. When all of the above reforms are fully implemented, the number of youth being actively supervised post-adjudication by JPD should be under 100. With Log Cabin Ranch remaining closed, juvenile detention being reduced to no more than 15 youth at any given time, reduced out of home placement as discussed below, and community supervision under 100 youth, the JPD can begin to responsibly reduce its size. Through attrition, not back filling vacant positions, and reassigning some staff to other government agencies, JDP can reduce staff and budget size without any employment disruption. The City and County should consider maintaining safety retirement for staff who are reassigned and ensure all staff that have at least adequate performance will have secure employment within City government. In the past year, JPD reduced its probation officer FTE count (positions) by 24 percent.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SUPERVISION These recommendations suggest specific changes to the provision of services to young people that are touched by probation services and the courts.

31

PRIVATE PLACEMENT These recommendations are aimed at reducing the use of out of home private placements for San Francisco youth being supervised by the probation department.Juvenile Courts in San Francisco, most often at the recommendation of JPD, send some youth to private, out-of-home placements. These placements are sometimes called group homes although they are often large, congregate care, private institutions. One of these residential facilities that JPD used regularly was 3,000 miles away in Pennsylvania, which was recently shut down due to widespread abuse of children by staff. Like incarceration, out-of-home placement has proven to be harmful and expensive. In California, the level of residential facility that most probation departments use, charge nearly $14,000 per month for each youth placed. In line with the initial recommendations made in previous drafts of the BRP report, California decertified the use of all out-of-state residential facilities in December 2020. SF has historically used out of state residential facilities in part as an alternative to DJJ, which is also closing.

Provide resources and support for cost effective group residential placementsAlthough San Francisco real estate prices make it extremely difficult to operate local residential placements for youth, JPD should seek to reduce, if not eliminate, the number of youth sent out of state. The City and County should implement the following reforms:

1. Do not send any youth to private, out-of-home residential placement unless they meet the following limited criteria: youth who have been adjudicated for a serious offense and are assessed as high risk; or youth who have been placed on probation, have had previous attempts to live at home but whose home or family is not tenable to live in/with (a child welfare case).

2. With the exception of very specialized residential placements, which is mostly limited to sexual offenses and serious mental health cases, cap the length of stay at residential facilities to no more than six months.

3. Prioritize the use of family placement, utilizing Therapeutic Foster Care or other residential services where youth are placed with families instead of in congregate care facilities. This approach is in line with the Continuum of Care Reform Act passed by the California Legislature in 2015.


DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICEThe state juvenile justice system, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), is designated for youth who have committed very serious offenses. In SF, this has mostly been limited to youth who have been adjudicated for homicide or violent forcible rape cases. Many local advocates have raised concerns that the number of youth JPD have recommended to be placed in DJJ by the courts have risen sharply, beyond the types of cases that have typically been ordered to DJJ. Many years ago, San Francisco County led the state by placing a moratorium on youth being sent to DJJ (then known as CYA), due to the high-profile number of abuses on youth and extremely high recidivism rates.

With the passage of SB 823, DJJ will close intake in July 2021 and will close entirely in 2023. SF must develop an appropriate alternative for the very small number of youth who commit the most serious and violent offenses -- a residential center that is focused on rehabilitation, education and treatment, within a therapeutic and home-like environment, that is secure.

33

CONCLUSIONThe Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Panel presented an opportunity to engage significant improvements in the provision of services to children and families in the City and County of San Francisco. As with any comprehensive look at continuums of care, priorities need to be established in a thoughtful way so as not to squander this important opportunity.

While many of the BRP’s recommendations are listed above in this report, the full list of recommendations is in the appendix. The recommendations run the gamut of easy to implement to difficult, from no cost to expensive, and short to long range. The recommendations will need to be phased in over time. Some of these recommendations could be used by the Work Group to close juvenile hall.

All of the above reforms and principles, taken together, will result in a reduced, much improved youth justice system in San Francisco. Although some of the identified steps include details, implementing this plan will require much more planning, detail, and coordinated implementation by multiple government and law enforcement agencies, community based organizations, and the courts. A data-driven performance management process should be initiated by the Mayor’s Office to ensure all of the above reforms are implemented appropriately, accurately, and timely. The goal is to achieve child well-being and development in San Francisco; community safety; and greater investment in youth, their families and their communities.

APPENDIX

35BLUE RIBBON PANEL YOUTH JUSTICE REFORM PLAN - APPENDIX

RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCOUNTABILITY

A desire, commitment, a will to do the work.

Address issues of confidentiality both in system and community trust.

Adjust assessment tools used so they are more applicable

Allow time to develop systems, for system approaches/strategies to work and for change to happen incrementally.

Change scope of Probation so it no longer administers programming/services directly

Create an interagency body that holds the vision and leads interagency coordination to accomplish the goal. Empowered to evaluate and oversee depts/agencies, bringing accountability to the juvenile justice system with reporting to Mayor and Board of Supervisors. Should sit in the Mayor's office, not within a dept.

Developing models/systems of accountability (see samples from the brainstorm attached)

Expand the use of restorative justice and restoratively-based diversion models that enable youth to repair the harm they have caused in lieu of prosecution. This includes expanding Make it Right Restorative Community Conferencing (the DA’s pre-charging restorative justice program) for more serious cases with identified victims, and exploring the creation of Neighborhood Accountability Boards for cases that are less serious or do not have identified victims.

Have quarterly or annual assessments that are transparent to the community

Implement forums/practices to address history of mistrust between individuals and organizations

Investing in uniform training, resources and comparable salaries in community and government.

Prioritize experience and adaptive Learning as part of training and development

Standardization of training for anyone working with system involved youth

Governance - Create a coordination and oversight body to provide transparency and input into monitoring the plan

Build in empathy and learning about that, while engaging in restitution (it's deeper than giving back money)

Connect with police about their receptivity regarding preventing youth from CJ system involvement

Add a budget analyst specializing in JJ

Develop a transparent method to ascertain who the probation officer has linked the youth with

Consider the constituents of those impacted of reform changes - that means include youth and families who will be impacted most by the changes.

Hold foster care system accountable for creating local beds

APPENDIX

APPENDIX - BLUE RIBBON PANEL YOUTH JUSTICE REFORM PLAN36

Treat youth and families with respect throughout the process when they experience and interface with the JJ system. Simply encountering the system can be traumatic and scarey, despite kind and informative educators and advocates when individuals have the opportunity to receive such support.

Give youth, parents/guardians, and service providers equal power and equal voice at the same table when making city or department decisions about justice reform and changes.

Form a Board/commission to neutrally examine the success Cbo's have with young people and to within reason collect feedback from community that are impacted by the CBO's practices

TRAUMA INFORMED SYSTEMS: Train police officers, school officers, court personnel, judges, probation officers, etc. to use trauma-informed practices and to implement de-escalation tactics prior to arresting a youth. Examine national empirically supported models for doing this

Collect data to assess how effective any new practices/policies/procedures are at improving outcomes for the youth, families, and systems.

train all entities involved with the juvenile justice system on youth development. move away from hiring folks with enforvcement mindsets and only engage with people who believe in the positive potential of young people. Intensive efforts must be made to educate the Police, the Courts, JPD, the DA and PD and the training should occur in conjunction with community based providers.

Do we want our JJ system to focus on the best interest of the minor or limit its involvement in a youths life to fact finding in the instant offense and accountability and restoration for victims. If so, taking custody to keep kids safe would no longer be an option.

Develop Community Accountability Boards as an alternative to traditional court referrals where the DA, victim, and probation recommend and support this option.

Develop and implement performance-based standards for all youth and family serving agencies.

Expand the use of the shared youth database and develop web-based mechanism for all youth service agencies to input performance inputs. Include dash boards so each entity can view their outputs, and overall impacts can be measured.

Identify, develop, and implement tangible, realistic, and sustainable economic develop mechanisms to address multi-generational poverty, lift youths and families out of deep poverty, and create attainable pathways toward economic mobility.

POLICE – What are the current diversion policies? Could they be changed? Is that even a good idea? What can the police tell us about juvenile crime and kids’ needs. What do they think would make a better system? How do they feel about bringing kids to a place in the community – not YGC?

RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCOUNTABILITY

APPENDIX


RECOMMENDATIONS: WELLNESS & MENTAL HEALTH

Add a mental health assessment to the initial processing phase

Create new mental health residential program utilizing Edgewood campus or other appropriate sites.

Fund community expertise/support at comparable to clinical, licensed and people with degrees

Prioritize black and brown professionals/therapists, value people with lived experiences and train them to provide services

Redesign empty units: vocational unity, therapeutic unity, honor unit, residential drug treatment, intense trauma unit

Wellness Centers in every school, especially Woodside Learning Center Court School

Develop day treatment program(s) for youth with mental health issues. Could be very structured, include school, door-to-door transportation, medical supervision.

Evaluate the need for mental health beds for children and youth and expand beds as needed

Provide funding for more Spanish-speaking therapists and clinicians, as well as other bilingual clinicians (i.e. Samoan, etc.)

Repurpose LCR for a mental health residential facility

Create a therapeutic community-run alternative at the LCR

For clinical assessments/screenings, see what is already done via the CANS; determine streamlined sharing process because currently too many assessments by multiple people who won't be working with the youth (this is not best care)

APPENDIX


RECOMMENDATIONS: WELLNESS & MENTAL HEALTH

CBOs (including therapists) who will be working with the youth once the youth is released need to be up at the JJC interacting with the youth before release

TRAUMA/MENTAL HEALTH: Implement empirically-supported screenings for adverse childhood experiences, and mental health and substance use needs at the earliest stages of contact with the juvenile justice system (ideally prior to any contact occurring and done through community based organizations and schools). Repeat screenings with any further justice contact as these factors are dynamic and likely to change over time. Conduct more in depth assessments for youth who screen positive for needs in any of these areas. Refer to evidence-based prevention and treatment programs as needed

FAMILY: Engage family members early and often when a youth is at-risk for being, or already involved in the justice system. Provide supports for caregivers to address their own mental health, substance use, and resource needs. Involve them (and the youth) in decision-making during the youth's involvement in the system. Deliver empirically supported family-based interventions

CITYWIDE FAMILY MENTAL HEALTH NAVIGATOR MODEL: develop and test a navigator model focused on increasing timely access and providing systematic coordination around community-based behavioral health supports (intercept 0) for youth

Continue to expand the continuum of care for youth and their families offer wraparound services to the whole family for socio-emotional crises, substance abuse,mental health challenges, trauma and support groups to work with the family treatment plan

Implement empirically-supported gender-responsive programming to address behavioral health needs

Develop parallel assessment and intervention processes with youths and parents when juvenile justice petitions are sustained.

APPENDIX


Have all youth brought to a diversion program initially for an interdisciplinary assessment and referral. Prevents unnecessary involvement in Probation and incarceration in the Juvenile Hall. Increases utilization of community based alternatives. (Question from Margaret: Is this about CARC? Need to evaluate CARC and figure out how to make it the most effective "first stop" for a young person in trouble - so that no youth can be incarcerated without a wide range of options considered by a multi-disciplinary team knowlegeable about options. Unless there is a fear of extreme violence, no police should bring youth to the JJ Center/YGC)

Increase police use of diversion, with system for direct referrals to CBO's"

Use diversion programs (either in current form or at multiple locations) as the primary site for assessing kids’ needs and developing individualized plans, with community case managers facilitating the process, and providing ongoing support and linkage to services and opportunities that promote positive youth development and family wellness. Establish this process the default, whether or not kids’ cases are being diverted from juvenile court.

Adopt either the Family Group Conference (used in New Zealand) or Child & Family Team model (used for CA foster care youth) as the default process for developing youth and family-centered plans that (1) place the family in the seat of authority; (2) meet real needs and goals identified by the youth/family; and (3) uses evidence-based models to address criminogenic risk factors. Establish flexible funding that can support creative problem solving for our youths and families.

Revisit the risk assessment process, consider alternatives

Create a unique 'afterschool program' at Woodside Learning Center that extends the learning and credit earning time of youth while in detention facitlity.

Develop a program through which youth who owe restitution to victims can earn money or perform other acts to address their restitution.

Flexibility in the funding - Create a way for the many community case managers (or similar positions) to have access to flexible funding to meet specific needs of youth and their families, whether it is for summer programming, transportation, job training, chidcare, etc.

RECOMMENDATIONS: ALTERNATIVES & FUNDING

APPENDIX


Fund what's needed - Evaluate available alternatives to incarceration to determine whether SF has what is needed, and what is funded is utilized effectively. For examaple, Do we need more or different home detention programs.

Funding space to do the work and heal

Housing voucher

Increase access of CBO's to youth in the system - on probation and in the Juvenile Hall. (Alysse's note: the Wellness Center and After School program at Woodside described below are both possible strategies to achieve this goal.)

Increase resources (social workers, education experts etc.) for the conflicts panel so that youth represented by those attorneys have comparable resources to those represented by the Public Defender.

Increase programs like Life Learning Academy

Investing in prevention to avoid need for response. A commitment to the additional costs on the front end and for deeper dives

Less hierarchy in reporting

Open ‘Unit Out‘ extension of SFUSD Court School for recently released students in the non-secure side of 375 Woodside staffed by existing teachers.

Provide most supervision of young people through community based organizations. Limit role of Probation Officers to reporting and compliance only when necessary

Resources available to youth and their families/support system

RFP for residential services for high need boys, ages 16 - 18

Shift funding as needed - reallocate or realign

Streamlining the discharge planning and linkages to both mental health services and adjunctive supportive programs

Transportation to get to services and schools

Understand the true costs to do effective work and fund accordingly (Staff, Resources and Youth). Average Daily Attendance in a program doesn’t tell the story of what success looks like for youth and their families. Redefine success and understand the costs to achieved individualized success.

Fund relationship-building not time-delinated services, incentivize longevity of connection


APPENDIX


Pursue health and human services funding sources, including billing/reimbursement codes, for preventative and interventional work outside the justice system

Evaluate ALL costs of system to determine potential for reallocation of resources

Consider feasiblity of specialized foster homes (including group foster home) as placement. Experiment with recruitment. Use local dollars to increase pay.

Provide restorative justice conferences for youth who owe restitution to victims, and for other relevant situations

Establish FLEXIBLE funding that can individually support the unique needs of the youth and familiy, through creative problem-solving for varying individualized situations the youth/family faces

Utilize restorative practices with cultural congruent interventions

Reallocate resources back into communities being impacted with crime, both vicitms/defendents

Direct more funding towards nonprofit juvenile justice services

Develop alternatives for where the current youth in the current JJC can/should go

Using the Apache model, take the noise out of the doors, create "staff secure" facilities

Provide the Public Defenders and CBOs with the youth's RAI scores

Get Public Defenders and CBOs involved to address out-of-county kids in JJC

Provide safe supportive school opportunities in the community similar to the ones Court School offer so young people can learn in their community

We need numerical goal assigned to placement options, including shelters.

In the current (and any future) juvenile hall, get rid of the locking noises of the doors, as the Apache County juvenile hall was able to do, because those noises are trauma-inducing and horrificly disturbing when you hear it countless times a day/night throughout the course of your stay at the hall

Do not detain kids who are waiting to go to unsecure placements like RFA, etc


APPENDIX


TECHNOLOGY: leverage digital health technology to promote access to and engagement in needed supports (e.g., community-based behavioral health, court and probation appointments)-- and rigorously develop and test interventions that use technology to augment/enhance access to mental health care

identify and analyze housing options for youth who may need secure care

"Accelerate the identification and development of Resource families to serve as alternatives to detention for non-violent offenders.

Embed financial literacy, conflict resolution, and stress management, in all custodial, residential and community based service delivery models.

Invest in ongoing program and service delivery system analysis and evaluation.


COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS – For a primarily community-based system we need to review all the agencies that are being funded, and be able to make recommendations about gaps, duplications, etc. For instance, we have something called “home detention” which is Probation’s most frequently used CBO option (I think) – is that the best use of our CBO’s? We spend a huge amount of money on Seneca through DPH and HSA and it is never factored in – very few people have even heard of it. What are healing alternatives to out of home placement or residential treatment that we could create – especially given support from DPH and HSA?

UNIQUE ASSETS/OPTIONS OF SAN FRANCISCO – It is important to drill down on the specific assets we have, most importantly CARC, Edgewood, Life Learning, DDAP, various shelter beds, as well as the school and clinic at YGC – maybe others. We need to know more about their potential to be the core of a new system. Program visits

FISCAL ISSUES – We are spending much more money on our system than the budget of JPD. For instance, DPH runs a full service, 24-hour clinic at YCG (for 30 kids) – no one factors in the cost or how we could better use that money or resource. Also, it seems that people want families of kids in the system to have access to housing support and a wide variety of other supports. Is there money in the system to have a flexible pot of funds for families to avoid detention and institutionalization? Also, the school at YGC must cost a fortune – there are so many teachers per kid. What is the best use of that resource?

APPENDIX


RECOMMENDATIONS: LEGISLATION/POLICY

Add a legislative analyst specializing in juvenile justice, similar to CA LAO

Clarity on the laws/legal system and potential waivers or work arounds.

Cut down the time between arrest and adjudication

Develop protocols and criteria (based on offense and risk level) for diversion at every stage of the youth justice system, includ-ing (police) arrest, (probation) informal probation, (prosecutor) charging, and (judge) formal wardship.

Get youth before a judge sooner

Have court hours and Probation hours on weekends

Have the DA do a felony review before a booking decision is made (during investigation, prior to arrest) to help keep kids form going to juvie in the first place

How can we formalize decision-making, using a tool at the de-tention hearing?

Introduce new category to reasons for detention so reasons such as "AWOL" or "Inability to house youth" can be tracked and treated differently

Less hierarchy in reporting

Redesign contracting process

Redesigning the system

Reduce the time it takes for JPD to bring cases to the DA to make charging determinations so that youths do not experience a lag between their act and the system’s response, and that they do not have unnecessary, repeated contacts with Probation’s Intake Unit.

Revise Juvenile Hall rules, programs and policies regarding handcuffing, visitation, room confinement, punishment and rewards, family engagement, food, strip searching, privacy, socializing, room point systems, clothing, use of groups and peer support.

Add an outside resource to be a legislative analyst specializing in JJ

Change intake so JPD doesn't own that process - this is a top priority; need to do more about this now

Start to implement reform now as you move kids now

APPENDIX


Accountability should not be punitive, data should be used to im-prove and potential increase support and not to defund promising practices or strategies.

Evaluate use of Juvenile Hall for transitional age youth in the adult jail

Ideas of prevention/intervention as well as responses when harm is done

Investigate partnering with Alameda County to place appropriate youth at Camp Sweeny.

Longer contracts (duration) fewer youth

Staff

Stop sending JUV clients to LCR. Re-purpose Log Cabin Ranch for other CCSF uses - transfer to Rec/Park or other options.

Strengthen network of family resource centers throughout the city and increase their ability to provide support to parents with adoles-cents (now focus primarily on families with young children). Could be an effective early intervention strategy. There are 27 family resource centers - they are in every neighborhood and provide non-stigmatizing family support. This is a hidden gem of San Fran-cisco.

Track overrides by entering the RAI score for each youth in the JPD data system so the overrides information is generated automatically and then address the rate so it's below 10%

Assign juvenile judges to long term assignments on the juvenile bench to maintain stability of this critical person. (Do not include juvenile judges in constant rotation to other placements.)

"Vision Zero" for youth arrests

Reduce youth referred to justice system from SFUSD - Resolve more conflicts at school site

Extend court hours and probation hours to include nights/evenings

Reduce the length of time dramatically by JPD for cases to go the DA

Adopt a standard practice with/for all youth and families around CFTs, family group conferencing, etc (this is limited due to Me-di-Cal so standardize a process for all youth irregardless of Me-di-Cal)

Develop a plan for the current youth in the JJC

Develop a formula to address the resistance against reform

Use DDAP (not probation) to formalize decision-making at the detention hearing

Make the decision-making of what happens to a youth inclusive so it's not all decided by JPD

Develop a timeline to avoid inertia and delays in working with youth

The linkages JOD implements need to be verified

RECOMMENDATIONS: OTHER

APPENDIX


$280,000 vs $15,000 doesn't work; the city needs to augment current STRTP rates

Reduce the number of inmates at county jail #4. This helps with the issue of 18 year olds getting into 850 Bryant from the JJC

Doing right by our youth cannot be linked to JPD jobs/employment

Need willingness to top off foster care and STRTP costs

FRCs for the most part don't work with teens. Need to identify and refer to those who do work with teens

Make the future Juvenile Hall "staff secure" rather than the facility being the primary means of security (i.e. bardbed wire, locked doors, etc) so as to keep the space as home-like as possible ("staff secure" vs "facility security")

As of immediately, provide NEW underwear to all youth in the JJC everytime

As of immediately, provide all current youth in the JJC with real mattresses to sleep on rather than the stiff and thin fibrous material used currently in lieu of mattresses

subsidized employment, financial health and needs of families impact young people and employment related serves should be offered instead of incarceration

treat juvenile justice involvement as a public health issue and focus interventions on addressing the underlying conditions that led to in-volvement. Strong focus should be put on therapeutic interventions, full family approaches and connection to resources with every effort made to keep young people in the community and out of detention facilities. detention facilities should be small and only used for the most severe offenses or those where detetnion is mandated by law. if young people need to removed from the home but are not at the level of detention they should be placed in small community based homelike environments like the Life Learning Academy Boarding school. Every effort should be made to change the conditions that underlye the involvement and providers, law enforcement, the courts, DA and PD should all be focused on the belief that nearly all young people can be succesful if given the right conditions, rela-tionships, access to resources and supports.

Decision point analysis to assess case processing times, disparities, opportunities for efficiencies.

Implement DA felony review on all juvenile arrest to determine viability and suitability of charges. This could be limited to circum-stances where 707(b) charged are contemplated.

Adopt local practice where transfer in cases are no longer automat-ic detentions, yet subject to the DRI and possible release pending court hearing.

Develop non-secure shelter beds for youths who score as eligible for release, yet parent or guardian is not a suitable option.


APPENDIX


Expand the role and use of Court Appointed Special Advocates to serve as a resource to youths and families in the juvenile justice system.

IDENTIFYING WHAT POPULATION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT – Some of the folks on the panel seem to think that this process is about all kids in SF; others think we are talking about kids who get involved in the formal justice system – and others think it’s something in between. I would suggest that we start (not end) with a narrow definition so we can make sufficiently specific recom-mendations. We know that designing a new system that minimizes criminal justice involvement for kids now in the system will ultimate-ly impact many more kids. For instance, if we address the referrals to the justice system that come from schools through SRO’s, that would lead to recommendations about the role of SRO’s and school referral policies and would ultimately impact many kids. (And, by the way, it is already the mandate of DCYF and the Our Children Our Families Council to study and make recommendations for all kids in San Francisco.)

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE KIDS AND THE SYSTEM – We need to know much more about the kids in the system than we know now in order to make good recommendations. For instance, how many kids in the system have mental health needs and what kind; what placement options are currently available and what more are needed to move kids out of YGC much faster? How many kids could be kept out of YGC and the formal justice system through a much more robust “Make it Fair” program? Who goes to CARC now? What happens to them? (And, by the way, CARC has data about a lot of this – which we haven’t used.) This requires a more in-depth analysis than JPD monthly stats and DCYF can provide. Case reviews of a snapshot in time -- that was done to great advantage in the last process – and the people who did it are still around at Life Learning Academy.

PROBATION – We should at least know the caseload size (which is very, very low) and what the kids on formal and informal proba-tion get and who provides the support. How long should kids be on Probation, etc.?

FACILITIES – We need to know what kind of facility or facilities are needed. How many kids will need secure detention (if any) – and what is the most humane and cost-effective way to achieve that. Can we use an existing facility like Edgewood? What is “staff secure” – is that a real thing? It would be a shame to go through all this and not know how many secure beds we anticipate needing.


APPENDIX


Har

m R

educ

tion

Radical Imagination

Transformation

Overlap

IMMEDIATESmall actions that can be taken to improve system of care for youth currently in the Juvenile system

LONG TERMLarge acts that re-imagine the current system. Starting from a blank slate - what does the system of care look like for all young people?

SHORT TERMHow can we tweak the system? What intentional steps can we take to improve the experiences of youth currently in the juvenile system?

IMPROVING THEEXPERIENCES OF YOUTHYoung people should be the center of all of the learning communities. Prioritizing youthImproving outcomesIncreasing well-beingDecreasing recidivismThemesValues

LEARNING COMMUNITIESThe Blue Ribbon Panel established three learning communities to explore strategies that could support youth at three levels, illustrated in the venn diagram below: harm reduction, transformation and radical imagination.


Do

No

Har

m

Fix what’s broken, while building what’s best

AwarenessHistory, cultureand values

Radical ImaginationWhat does it look like to think totally di�erently. Imagine a new way

Ceding control. Nurturing transparency and trust to co-create together

Power SharingCollaboration

Divestment/Reallocation

Road map to WellbeingWhat environment supports young people on their journey to becoming thriving and healthy adults?

Authentic engagement, intentional partnership and strategic outreach

Thrivingand Healthy

Reallocate funds to directly support programs that promote positive youth development and family wellness..

THRIVING

49

PRESENTED BY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO | MARCH 2021 BLUE RIBBON PANEL …

Documents

Transcript of SAN FRANCISCO | MARCH 2021 BLUE RIBBON PANEL …