>> i will be chairing the meeting in place of supervisor malia cohen today. to my left is supervisor david campos. the clerk of the committee is [speaker not understood]. i would like to thank jesse larsen and charles from sfgovtv for broadcasting the meeting. of course we're joined by supervisor chu for item number 2. madam clerk, are there any announcementses? >> please turnoff all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the committee clerk. each member of the public will be allowed the same number of minutes to speak on items. items acted upon today will be appear on the april 19, 2013 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> all right, madam clerk, can you please call item number 1? >> item number 1 is an ordinance authorizing the juvenile probation department to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $461,166 from the office of justice programs for the united states department of justice for funding under the fiscal

year 2012 second chance act juvenile offender reentry program (second chance grant award); and amending ordinance no. 165-12 (annual salary ordinance, fy 2012-2013 and fy 2013-2014) to reflect the addition of one class 2910 social worker grant-funded position (0.4 fte) at jpd. >> all right. so, i believe we have either someone from supervisor breed's office and or cathy mcguire from the juvenile probation department here to present on the item. >> yes, supervisors, i think we have both. connor johnston, legislative aid for supervisor breed who was happy to accept and expend on behalf of the juvenile department. as a disclosure, my dad worked at the department since before i was born. this is sort of a home coming for me. this allows the department to department to expand and continue the juvenile collaborative reentry team. this is a program that began in 2009 under a previous grant from the office of justice programs from the united states

department of justice. this new grant is for $461,000. it will allow them to continue the coordinated and comprehensive reentry case planning for kids returning to the community from out of home placement. this program involves a dedicated team of attorneys, social workers, probation officers, and clinical case coordinators who work with the child and the family in advance of a child's reentry to the community. the department, as i mentioned, got a three-year grant in 2009 for $650,000 to begin this program and during that three-year period it has demonstrated a proven track record of reducing recidivism among the children involved. in fact, recidivism has decreased across the board not only for the youth served but for all the youth committed to out of home placement suggesting there is a systemic benefit for the program. this grant does require 100% matching funds from the city, but 412,000 of that has already been appropriated to the juvenile probation department

and to the public defenders office and the remaining 48,000 is an in-kind match from the california supreme court. so, we're not talking about new funds from the city from the general fund. there are no new expenses, and even if there were, i think it's important it point out that any cost increase would be offset by the reduced cost of a jude case and incarceration that go along with a reduction in recidivism. so, we're really seeing a net benefit financially, but also more importantly socially with the youth that are served by this program. supervisor breed knows how difficult it can be for youth to return to the community from out of home placement. she thinks this program is a very valuable thing for the city and she wants to see it continue. with that, catherine mcguire can present, and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you, connor. supervisors, thank you for having me today. my name is catherine mcguire. i'm the director of finance at

the juvenile probation department. i don't have a lot to say, but we certainly can take your questions, but i thought i would give you a quick overview of the grant and the model of the reentry team or reentry unit and just talk a little about the outcomes as a result of that three-year pilot that we had instituted in 2009-10. essentially, the grant is for $461,000 funded by the second chance act from the department of justice, and this is one year in duration, a continuation of the -- of a three-year grant in the amount of $66 0,000 from fiscal year '09-'10. the model really is dedicated to youth returning from long-term commitments and it involves a collaborative approach including the -- a

judge from the court. there is an assigned judge to the reentry team, excuse me. probation officers, social workers, all both in the public defender's office and the public and the juvenile probation department representing attorney for the youth, case manager from the center on juvenile and criminal justice, and, so, all of these members are really working together to improve the outcome for the youth when they return to the community. the method is simply that a team member meets with the youth just after disposition, and disposition in the juvenile system means sentencing, for lack of a better term. and that member sort of walks through with the youth what the program is and what they have -- what we have to offer. there will be case planning, those sorts of things when the youth approaches that date for release. and after six months of being

in a long-term commitment, the team meets back with the youth and starts to plan or meets within the team, the unit and starts that planning process. 60 to 90 days before returning to the community, the youth reconnects with the team and really starts that collaborative planning with the youth and family and the team. and then finally, j crew members are with that youth six months after release. when the youth returns to the community, depending on their circumstances, the youth has support from jpd and other members of the unit for that six months to two years. so, ultimately, the outcomeses of this program have really been just great ~. the, you know -- in addition to the reduced recidivism that connor had spoken to, there's been a system change.

there's a different way -- an entirely new court process that is being used. there is a judge dedicated. there's attorneys and probation officers and judge and member of the community all working together with this youth. there's the shift, as you know, the criminal justice system is designed to be an adversarial system. and in this model it's really much more collaborative instead of adversarial. there is better coordination among agencies, not only the agencies that are on the team or in the j crew unit. we also have better coordination with hsa, the school district, and city college. there's in addition a range of new programs provided to youth extended foster care, family finding and services for transitional youth. all of this is housed in our j

crew, the juvenile collaborative reentry unit. so those are really the outcomes that reduce recidivism. i can speak to that more specifically if you'd like, but connor pointed out anyway you measure recidivism, our numbers are down. part of that can be attributed to this model. so, at this time i can take any of your questions. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, madam chair. and i guess is this your first meeting you're chairing, so congratulations. just a couple of questions. i think this is a great program and i'm very appreciative of the work your office is doing. and thank you to supervisor breed for sponsoring this. just a couple of quick questions. in terms of the number of youth that we're talking about, how many youth are we talking about here? >> well, it varies. i think we have expected 200 youth to be served under the pilot and we wound up serving

about 140. looking at gary, he's our supervisor of the unit, and is also available for answering questions. right now in 2011, we have 118 commitments out of home placement. so, in a year we could be serving that number. and these are, these are now -- under the pilot we were serving a smaller subset of that population, but now we've expanded it to all private bar kids, public defender kids, kids coming out of log cabin ranch. it's now a much broader scope. >> do you keep track -- this is just for informational purposes of sort of the characteristics of these youth, you know, sort of where they come from geographically in the city, a breakdown sexual orientation, that number? >> yes, supervisor, we do keep track of ethnicity and location

in our communities. we have a lot of demographic information. i don't know if we're capturing sexual orientation at this time. >> the only reason i ask about that is because i know that there are some unique challenges that lgbt youth sometimes face. and then lastly, with the county match, it's 461,000, where is that going to come from? >> so, as connor had mentioned, this is all in either juvenile probation, public defender, center on criminal -- on juvenile and criminal scuds advertise or in the court budgets already. and it's money we already had and we allocated resources appropriately. >> great. thank you for your presentation. >> and i believe we have a budget analyst report with this item, [speaker not understood] campbell. ~ >> good morning, chair tang, supervisor campos, supervisor chu. [speaker not understood] campbell from the budget analyst office.

page 4 of our report we show the expenditures for the match. this does require 50% match of 461,000. it would pay for 1.5 existing deputy juvenile probation officers in the juvenile probation department, and one social worker in the public defenders office, existing position. as well as some travel time consultant services and some other services. it also, however, would create one new social worker position in the juvenile probation department. this would have a retroactive hire date to january of 2013. it amends the annual salary ordinance to create a 0.4fte in the existing year. we make a recommendation to amend the ordinance to specify the disposition is a grant funded position, that it terminates when the grant funds terminate. one of the things that is

important when we discuss with the juvenile probation department is they do want this to be an ongoing position. they will ask for it to be a general fund position if the grant funds are no longer available. that is something that is subject to board of supervisors appropriation, so. questions? >> are there any questions from colleagues for the department or the budget analyst? okay. if not, then are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the item?

[speaker not understood]. first thing is good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak in behalf of item number 1 and i have some serious concerns about today's hearing on item number 1. from my experience, according to my interpretation of audit and oversight, seems like this item does not properly belong here. so, i'd like to say for the record i'm questioning the validity of this item being heard in this committee. according to my interpretation, it seems it's a better fit in budget and finance, especially when supervisor breed is a member of that committee. so, i would like a discussion of that to follow whether i am misinterpreting that or there is some other reason why it's being heard here. in relation to this item number

1, also like to voice my concern that the last gao meeting was canceled and when i was told the official reason, in my interpretation and opinion, i thought it was very inadequate reason why it was canceled. looking at the agenda, i see item 1 and 2, and i tell myself, ha this committee become a lap dog rather than a watchdog agency. there are plenty of items to discuss in addition to item number 1. i only see one other item, and i also have to consult whether it belongs here or not. so, let's put it this way. either this committee is going to be active and a watchdog or it will continue to be a lap dog and will do a great disservice to law abiding citizens in san francisco.

and for the record, so there will be no arguing later on, i find it a very interesting phenomenon that when committee hearings are under observation, that there are so many cancellations all of a sudden and that all of a sudden the number of items have dropped off. so, the only thing i can conclude is what's going on? thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, the budget analyst has suggested an amendment to this resolution and i wanted to see if there is a motion to include this recommendation. >> so moved. >> all right. supervisor campos. and, so, is there a motion to approve item 1 as amended? >> so moved. >> all right. all right, without objection. and i apologize that i forgot our first order of business actually to excuse supervisor malia cohen.

so, is there a motion to excuse supervisor cohen from gao today? >> so movedrdv >> thank you. madam clerk, can you please call aye tell number 2? >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the administrative code, sections 22d.2 and 22d.3, relating to san francisco's open data policies and procedures and establishing the position and duties of chief data officer and departmental data coordinators. ~ >> all right. welcome, supervisor david chiu to gao on this item. i'd like to see if you have any opening remarks on item number 2. >> thank you, chair, thank you, colleagues. i want to thank the members of the public and city staff who are here to talk about this legislation i have proposed along with mayor lee about open data. i'm very excited about today's discussion. we all know that openness and transparency are fundamental to a successful government and in the internet age the release of government data and an improved partnership between government and our citizens, including many folks here in our room

today, has led to numerous suck is hees in improving our government and local governments, international government around the country. and this comes about oftentimes we harness the talent and ideas of the public as government data is analyzed to help lead to innovations in both the government and in our local communities. in 2010 three years ago i was happy to work with mayor newsome to pass our city's first open data ordinance. and from my perspective at that time we were ahead on the open data movement. we were a real national leader in that. but unfortunately i think we've fallen a little behind and that is what this legislation is trying to address. at this time my understanding is we have about 500 city maintained data sets, but there are literally thousands of data sets that we could put out to the public. more over, the data sets that our city departments currently put out often show our city departments in their best light. from my perspective the value of open data is to give the public and the smartest minds in the city data sets that help us improve on imperfect

situations, to have data sets that show where we can improve, take risks and be innovative. to do that this legislation that we're considering today does a number of things, but three things in particular i'll point out. first, it creates a chief data officer position to maintain the focus on moving forward our open data movement in san francisco city government. secondly, it requires that each city department designates a data coordinator who works with the chief data officer so we can ensure that the public knows who within every department they can work with on data requests. thirdly, this legislation requires the development and consistent standards in how data is presented. now, for our colleagues and for the public, let me just mention a couple of data projects that i have proposed in the past to give some examples of what we're talking about, in part these have been my hack a thon challenges to the public. first i have been talking for a couple years about a towing [speaker not understood]. all too often residents in

neighborhoods around the city wake up and find that their car has been towed due to sunday streets or some other special event they may not have known about before they went to sleep. ~ in 2011 i publicly challenged city agencies to provide data for towing times so that the city or its citizens could create an application to allow residents to input a cell phone number to receive a simple alert if their car is in danger of being towed. the mayor has indicated his support for this, but a year and a half later the towing times has not been released. a second topic around open budget, all too often san franciscans want more transparency in their budgets to be able to drill down exactly where and how every dollar in city government is spent on salaries, contractors, programs, goods and services. i want to take a moment and thank our city controller for working -- for work that he and his office are already engaged in to move this forward and i do hope that we'll be able to roll out this data soon for our public to really be able to

analyze this and better understand how we as a city government spend our money. third example comes out of the category of our department of recreation and park. and this is really a success that i'm proud of and i know there are probably an individual here or two that can talk about that. four years ago in my first meeting with phil beginsberg when he became the director of the department, i asked him if he could create an online application to reserve picnic tables and barbecue pits. last year they were able to put out data on a local company, appaliscious that answered the call. i'm excited finally there is a rec and park application that can help find picnic tables and understand that hopefully soon this data can be used for seamless online transactions to do this. these are only three of literally hundreds of reasons why i'm excited about this open data legislation and hope that it will soon continue to bring us into the 21st century. with that i'd like to ask [speaker not understood] who has been doing a lot of work with my staff on this legislation and in this area in

general, to come and present from his perspective and from the city department's perspective. mr. naff. >> good morning, supervisor tang, supervisor campos, and supervisor chiu. my name is jay napp. [speaker not understood]. before i start i want to talk about the basic concepts around open data, what it is and why it's important. open data in its simplest form is machine developed raw data sets available to the public without any restrictions. so, what does that really mean? what that means is it's our excel spreadsheets, our access databases, it's all the other databases that we manage and store data really we're stewards of this data for the public. and it's our responsibility to share that information back with the public. obviously making sure that we're complying with privacy and security policies that we have in place. so, why is this important?

it improves transparency and accountability, no doubt. but what's interesting is it also drives economic development. it's created new industries like gps. it's created weather information, multi-billion dollar industries. locally companies like appaliscious, mom apps and many others have been fueled by open data. they wouldn't exist without this information. but i think what's really interesting is that it's created a new form of civic engagement. and it's created this partnership with the public, people -- the best and brightest are working with city staff on solving problems and challenges that we face. and data is that fuel. so, i want to talk a little about our open data efforts and when it started. it started in 2009. we were literally one of the first cities to start an open data initiative. we were actually number two. as such it was really an experiment. it was an experiment to understand what the demand was in our community as well as what the impact could be. what we saw was beyond our

expectations. it was tremendous response from our community t. created dozens and dozens of applications. we don't know how many applications they created. things like crime maps, 3 in 1 applications you can submit potholes for graffiti issues. it's allowing people to find parking, et cetera, et cetera. there are numerous, numerous examples of people creating applications at no cost to taxpayers. these are people creating applications that are benefiting our citizens, tourists and residents. so, with that, we established open data legislation in 2010 and that was really, again, one of the first cities to do so. and it was fairly basic and rudimentary in form at that point. it established an open data portal and encouraged city staff to share data. since then we've seen a tremendous adoption of open data both international and nationally and locally. hundreds of cities have adopted

open data. some of our peers like new york city and chicago have advanced the movement establishing fairly sophisticated legislation and practices. so, this open data revision is really a response to that, but not really for bragging rights. it's really to establish a new change in our operating system, to change the mind-set of our staff, to have them recognize that openness is fundamental to our government, and that we need to really embrace that and change the way that we do business. so, just really quickly, the legislation itself has president chiu mentioned establishes chief data officer which will work with the public as well as city agencies on establishing best practices, policies, procedures, technical architecture, work closely with the data coordinator which will be an existing position within each agency. and, so, you're recruiting this organizational structure and network within our city family

to really accelerate the release of data to the public. and one of the main things that the open data coordinator will be working on is establishing a catalog of data that they manage as an agency. and the reason we did that was when we talk to our community and ask them, hey, what data would you like to see, their response was, well, what data do you have? our response would be, well, we don't know. obviously not a fruitful productive exchange. that tried to resolve that issue and create a great feedback so we can prioritize thousands if not tens of thousands of data sets we manage on behalf of the public. the other components of the open data legislation are really making structural systematic change so that our default position is one of openness. the first is that we are ensuring that new technology that we purchase has the ability to share data inherently, that it has a p