public comment. break the appreciate it. -- greatly appreciate it. >> good morning, supervisors. allison mcgee. i wanted to expand on a couple of maria's comments. we are in the third year of our partnership owhich was meant to minimize budget cuts would for coming down for our community partners. that partnership has grown into a true collaborative. by allowing jpd to shift its focus from -- to my term contracts, we are better able to focus on supporting our staff in terms of their developing their partnerships and relationships with their community partners, and with you themselves. we have been able to dedicate a police officer to serve as a liaison between our police

officers to insure fewer gaps in services and better service across the board. this partnership has also expanded out words in terms of our other internal stakeholders. for referred to the juvenile justice court council. this body is mandated by the state to allow the county to receive certain funds, but it had really devolved into a rubber-stamp process were every year it wasn't approving the same plan, and through the partners, we have expanded the role that jjc takes in over seeing, coordinating fought the french and citywide. in doing so, we have insured better consistency or continuity in the programs and policies and the members themselves. the police department, adult probation, we all agree on the city's strategy. they can then incorporate that strategy in their own policies. we are proud of the work we have done. we are eager to continue.

i will not introduce dr. emily gerber who will speak on behalf of dcyf. -- dph. >> i am the manager of the intensive supervision and clinical services program, which has benefited from the local action plan partnership. it is a great example of what our cross agency partnerships look like on the ground. in 2010-2011, intense community- based services were provided by five agencies and a program psychiatrist, funded by a blend of violence prevention initiative dollars and state metical dollars. services were provided city wide to over 250 juvenile

justice involved youth with serious behavioral problems and high risk. as you know, nationwide, over 70% of youth involved in the juvenile justice system have mental health needs. another of 25% have serious mental health needs. iscs is designed to serve those youth. the majority of the youth in our program have been exposed to repeated community buviolence. at least have have symptoms of ptsd, which can contribute to the kinds of behaviors that get them into trouble and involved in the system. ifcs is more effective than just supervision alone. combines monitoring of the

structure of intensive supervision with an array of clinical services, including evidence-based practices like cognitive therapy and seeking safety. some of that information i believe has been provided to you. our overall goal is to address the critical needs of youth, reduced recidivism, and increase their well-being and functioning. key to the success of this program is the close probation and a rural health collaboration that takes place on the ground to implement an individualized plan for youth based on standardized assessment of their needs and strengths. and having this assessment and a plan based on what is actually going on with youth allows probation and behavioral health to work together with progress benchmarks that youth and family

can see and everyone else involved can see. we have done some preliminary evaluations of the program and the evaluation has shown an increase in the appropriateness of the services that youth are being provided. has shown increased behavioral health and behavioral collaboration. youth are actually engaging in these services. a fuller about tuition is currently being conducted of our first two years a program outcomes. we hope to follow up with you on those outcomes charlie -- shortly. thank you. i will not pass the podium on to deanna who will tell you more about the program. >> good morning, public safety

supervisors. it is a pleasure to speak today about the work and what we are looking forward to with this new local action plan. i have a couple of slides that i would like to show you. i am not sure if it will appear. i did bring hard copies. but that i will stari will starg you know the local action plan is part of an effort that we were assigned at dcyf to conduct a while back pay and we had envisioned planning for couple of years to produce this document. we did in the past was look at all different plans that our department was assigned and create an umbrella document and revision to the bond prevention plan. if you look at the second slide in your packet, what you see is

a diagram that speaks to the revision process. the local action plan specifically is the second phase of our over all by and prevention plan revision. supervisor mirkarimi: did you want to use the overhead? >> great. as you can see, we are on the second phase. the first phase was the straight violence reduction initiative. currently, it is in its implementation process. we are working closely with the agencies that work with us on the street level to reduce violence, not only would gang- related violence, under current terms, issues that exist on the street level. we drafted a plan that was a requirement from some of our national and state partners, and now we are and point of making it happen, working closely with those agencies to make sure we were could easily not only at

the city level, but also at the community level to reduce street violence in general and to keep our homicides reduced over all. the second phase of the violence prevention program is the local action plan. today, i am presenting to you around this product of what it looks like, in terms of what our joint partners envisioned when preventing violence. some of the major issues that we see to date that really should influence the way we dictate our funding, that we actually produced in general. the third phase is still in progress. that is the city-wide ballot project -- prevention program. we are waiting for the transition of the new mayor to come on board to then further define how we want to move forward with the bond prevention plan. the existing plan expires in 2013, so we hope to use this upcoming year to finalize the updated version and and move on to our next five years strategic plan. moving into the violence

prevention plan in general, lap, we created an extensive community input process that included community meetings, focus groups, interviews, and we also had a series of key stakeholder meetings that a lot of you where a part of. a lot of your aides for dissipated and gave us extensive feedback. from that you see a total of about 400 estimated data points that we collected. from this point, we also looked at the literature that told the story of what needed to be prioritized in terms of violence prevention in the city. the combination of community input and literature review shaped the way that we finalized our local action plan. so what is the local action plan? the local action plan purpose was established by the jjc partners. it is to establish the funding

strategies and recommendation for community violence prevention and intervention efforts targeting young adults between the ages of 10 and 25. all this funding is supposed to steer towards that direction. we want to make sure that it is clear, that it is dictated in a concise way so that it is clear what the funding is for. then we can better shape some of the outcomes we would like to see. the framework we used for our local action plan this time around, because we do produce had a local action plan every year. this reiteration of it, we used a theory of change for our bond prevention and intervention efforts. we are working with the mission analytics group, an independent evaluation firm, to create an overall framework that connects all of our violence prevention and intervention in a portfolio. we are also looking at including an hour from mark a circle of

care model which have traditionally put been part of the local action plan. that looks at providing service to youth and prevent them from three incarcerating, refunding, and moving them into a more productive framework. finally, something that is fairly new in this year's framework of the lap is a restorative justice principle. we want to follow the principles of restorative justice. it was also a recommendation that was strongly recommended by not only the jjcc, but by our community partners. most of the principles follow the rules of the san and cisco unified school district. we tried to align ourselves with the vision of san francisco of restorative justice. in this sense, restorative justice is at the forefront of the remark. following that is community input and the evidence of best practices that dictate the way that our lap is shaped.

our target population is 10 to 25 years of age. we are predominately focusing on three major target populations. one being at risk, two being highly at risk, and 3 being in risk. the definitions which are more details are in the action plan. we are more than happy to go through any other question that he might have about the target population. supervisor cohen: i wanted to go back over the definition. at risk, in risk, and highly at risk? you said it is in the packet, but in terms of those who are listening and watching, for those who do not have the information in front of them, could you go over the distinction of each definition? >> absolutely. at risk are you involved in some sort of violence but are not necessarily involved with the system necessarily. that is kind of the broad definition that you can think

about. highly at risk refers to more youth that are exhibiting more delinquent behavior that have had some sort of contact with the police or law enforcement entities but have not been incarcerated. in risk means you are in custody, actually inside an adult or juvenile prison setting, on probation, parole. that is the difference between the three categories. and again, more extensive detail is included in the plan. in layman's terms, that is the general definition. some of the major findings that we had, what we did an extensive literature review and we found some really concerning challenges that relate to the juvenile and adult population. one of the thing that i want to highlight was coming in 2010, we found most of the referrals -- juvenile referrals were between

the ages of 15 and 18 years of age. most of the individuals referred to us are disproportionately represented. 40% are african-american, 17% are latino males. and when we also found, and our findings, most of the bookings, most of the offenders, yes, there is an increase in the amount of bookings, but there is an increase -- decrease in the amount of bookings, but there is a incn increase in the seriousness. also wanted to highlight the criminal justice challenges that we found. when we spoke to our colleagues in adult probation, we found for this population, there was an 80% percentage of and need to address education. 75% were dealing with issues of unemployment. 20% dealing with issues of mental health inez's.

80% dealing with substance abuse issues. 70% with criminal associations. these major findings are alongside many other findings to we have included in the plan. it wanted to highlight the major findings because it was really important for us to look at what are some of the current trends of the population we are speaking to. following that, on the flip side, we also wanted to present the major achievements at our portfolio has funded in the past. that is also included in the lap, like what has happened with the local action plan, and the funding, a question that most supervisors and individuals in the community have. some of the achievements are highlighted here. in 2009 through 2010, we found around 511 youth were diverted from detention and enrolled in the community as a set -- assessment and referral center,

a major initiative funded to work out of huckleberry programs, working in collaboration with juvenile department. in terms of specific programs, we wanted to highlight a around 374 women received a gender- specific services. out of the 395 youth served in total, 374 were part of jpd's database. that meant that this amount of women were given a comprehensive program and were also enrolled in jpd's database. these agencies work closely with the youth at the juvenile level. following that, our case management strategy, we wanted to highlight the jjccp funding

of this goes tomb a lot of amazing programs. eight served 823 youth, 85% of which demonstrated a positive outcome. that could of been the obtaining an education, completing school, going to some type of girl that is necessary, whether it is employment, life skills. these are some of the major outcome that we wanted to highlight in terms of the funding and what has been produced. following that, to the side, you see the strategies and services we funded over all in fy10-fy11. these are the strategies that we produced out of our lap, and from that, 5044 youth in total served by this portfolio. this year, when we wanted to do,

after all the input, we realize it was important for us to define similar but refine and define strategies. we have similar strategies, but they're only six this upcoming round. the strategies are presented on top. they are secondary prevention, diversion, detention alternatives, the tension-based services, after care reentry, and after care services. the difference between the color coding is the agreement focuses on mostly at risk and fiat -- highly at risk youths. the red focuses on in risk, custody young adults. what you see on the far right is all the activities that we fund. once again, what we did was collect all the information from the community, look at the need, the data, and look at what we were already funding and what we had stated in previous lap's,

and moved into this new refined products that you see today. this is a product of the extensive work that has been done. from this point on, this strategy really informs our current rfp which we announced in the last couple of weeks. we want to also highlights some of the major changes that were included from the previous lap and current lap. what we found in our research, you are being impacted by violence at a number of -- you are being impacted by violence at a younger age -- youth are being impacted by violence at a younger age. a couple of things that i mentioned before, really defining some of our strategies. in that work, what hope to dubai of the dividing our strategy is

is to look at defining our activities that we are funding and looking at outcomes that support our overall work. figuring out, telling the story of what do we get for the money -- what do we produce for the money that we allocate for services? in that effort, we have redefined some of the strategy is like case management as an actual activity versus a strategy, so that it is clear in terms of what products we would like to see. finally, we have included gender responsive services throughout the spectrum. we see gender responsive services as an important component in all areas. it is a service that should target the entire population. not only a specific cohort. in past years, we passed gender specific services on the juvenile population. this time, we will focus on the three target populations. in a nutshell, these are the

three major changes that you will see in the upcoming lap. from that point on, as i mentioned, we have strategies that are connected to a target population and that really allow us to look at an allocation distribution. this is the allocation -- proposed allocation for our 18- month cycle for the upcoming year of fy10 -- a 2012 through 2013. what i want to highlight is the allocation is about $15.5 million. we hope to fund 80 programs in total that do violence prevention and intervention work through all the strategies that are listed. as i mentioned, the rfp was released august 30. this local action plan dictated the way that rfp was articulate, the way it was presented. we had a proposal conference on

september 8 that was attended by many agencies, a total of 62 agencies that attended the bidders conference. proposals will be due on monday october 3. we hope to then go through a thorough process where recruiters can review and then we will be looking at trying to have reviewers that our experts in the field of violence prevention locally and outside of counties. finally, we hope to announce the awards in december, negotiate around the same time period, any type of contracts to finalize by december and begin to grant in january, and then the term of funding january 30, 2013. i know that was a lot of information. and i do apologize, i went through it fast. i wanted to get to the major content. and i also wanted to hear any question that you might have.

i know we put an e-mail out to see if your interested in asking questions beforehand. it appears that most of you were familiar with the plan. again, i am here, along with the rest of the department directors, if you have any questions. supervisor mirkarimi: on the 5044 youth served, is there a breakdown of neighborhoods, and demographics of where those 5044 come from? >> there is and i can share that with you individually. i can definitely share that. there is a breakdown included. i do not have it right now, but i can definitely share that with you. supervisor mirkarimi: it would be useful to see what is working and what is not, where trends are in the various neighborhoods. that would be helpful.

anecdotally, just by experience, i think we can guess which neighborhoods are in the pecking order, where you might be coming from, but is important is that accurate. -- we stay accurate. maybe you or juvenile probation can speak to this, but it does not mention any stats on repeat offenders, recidivism. i am very interested in this issue. considering the fact that the precursor to our adult issues exactly is this orbit right here, where is that information? >> supervisor, we talked about this earlier. we expected this to come up. certainly, something the jjcc

needs to do. i would also encourage your participation. we need to come up with a common definition of recidivism. some folks may think multiple bookings would qualify as recidivism, where others would say, not until the adjudication process is complete and the child is -- a disposition has been made. so we are trying to come up with some common definitions of what do we mean when we say recidivism? when somebody is booked, and does not necessarily mean that they are going to go through the adjudication process and a disposition will be found. it is an important distinction and we need to get to a port and we talked about recidivism, we talk about the same thing. supervisor cohen: just for clarification, what definition are you working from? >> we are not really working with a common definition either.

we know in 2010, there are about 608 bookings in juvenile hall. unduplicated. about 18% of those came in multiple times, had one or more bookings. 18% of the 600-plus booked cayman multiple times. but that is only 2010. so we would have to run a full analysis year after year to follow those individuals through time to see today come back into the juvenile system, do they come back into the adult system? we certainly want to do that, are willing to do that, and i think it would help everybody, in terms of clarifying what recidivism actually means for us in san francisco. supervisor mirkarimi: the reentry council has been grappling with this and they have zeroed in on this question.

one that we have to for our own local needs, but that is being accelerated to answer this larger question because of present realignment, which commences in two weeks. that needsthat needs to be lineh the juvenile side of it. based on the adults definition of recidivism, we're losing that age gap between 18, 19 to 27, because we're noticing that the repeat offender rate is substantial in san francisco, but if there is not that linkage to the juvenile sort of analysis consistently, or as consistent as the juvenile system can allow for this, then that is not going to help us try to figure this out. >> absolutely. and one of the real downside to having a separate juvenile probation department and an adult probation department is we're not able to really follow those individuals as one department would in other

jurisdictions because of confidentiality and everything else we really struggle with that. we have been working with adult probation. i hate to bring this up, but one way is to re-elect at justice and juvenile's interaction with the justice process -- we relook at justice. it would help us in running some of those analyses. we're trying to better partner with adult probation in terms of case planning and looking at new systems to see how we can better link our information to adjust to what you're talking about. we are very aware of it. supervisor mirkarimi: this is a very lively topic. supervisor cohen: vienna, supervisor mirkarimi was talking about trends as it relates to the framework of the model you and your department have decided

to work there. is this a cookie cutter approach? or models that have been successful in district 5, district 9, 11, or wherever across the city -- are they able to be duplicated across the city or is it sounded that needs to be individualized to understand better the complexity of the individual districts, all the way down to the neighborhoods, to the unique nuances? it is a very convoluted question. >> in terms of the rfp, what we have decided to do is really enforce that would like evidence-based practices and best practices to be proposed. so that is as far as we have gotten at this point because we're in the rfp phase. in a local action plan, we have included some of the highlight included some of the highlight initiatives, recommendations