allow the staff to make those judgements in order to keep us on path, but making sure we can do this exhaustive national search and i think it also has the obvious advantage for us as well because it gives the -- if you have a short window of recruitment, then the expectation is just the opposite of what commissioner campos was talking about is the perception of the marketplace would be, well, they must have someone in mind already because they are not keeping it open for long. by hiring a search person to help you means you are doing something nationally and exhaustive and having a reasonable time that shows you are open to candidates from a variety of sources. we are impressed with the talent that we have uncovered within san

francisco and regional agencies. we think we are going to have a wealth of talent that comes right from our own backyard which in our cases is beautiful. it keeps us off the plains. that's what the brochure is. we will then distribute this electronically to candidates who have expressed interest. we send this to individuals who we want to be sources for us and thought leaders for us. we also send this to targeted people that we are very interested in having them take a look at the opportunity and we also will have this posted on the authorities website, we will also have a personal invite taegs so everyone has a personal invite taegs to apply

for the position. >> thank you. mr. hawkins. i know you requested or discussed perhaps wanting 3 weeks extension to the recruitment process. can you walk us through the dates what that would look like exactly? >> sure. >> initially if you look at the

agenda of the timeline, the may 6th meeting was scheduled for a time when we came back and discussed with you candidates that you would then select to participate in interviews. in order for us to have that discussion with you, we would have to close the recruitment somewhere near april 25th in order to be ready for that kind of meeting. we would like to push that meeting back by 3 weeks to the last week of may. and everything else would lineup by the same kind of sequencing. >> you feel that 3 weeks will be ample time. >> yes. >> okay. commissioner campos. >> yes, why 3 weeks, why not 2

weeks? >> we said between 2 and 3 weeks. it could be less than 3 weeks. >> you have a scheduling issue as well and we want to be able to schedule to your calendars as well. we have a 3 week window and if we can line it up where 2-3 weeks would satisfy it as well. 3 weeks gives us the flexibility. >> i'm worried about the timing here and making sure we are not taking too long. i appreciate that. >> typically, that phase of the recruitment is a 6-8 week base for national recruitment. you are well underneath the standards, we recognized the urgency associated with this but in order to do the thoroughness that puts us at basically 6 weeks. >> thank you, mr. hawkins. you

are saying typically a national search or any search at this level is 6-8 weeks and we are engaging in a 6 week process. >> as we are looking at now it's a 3 week process. >> interestingly enough my comments, i think you would need more time. i just want to make sure that we are able to spend time developing relationships and also evaluating so that we are able to really get someone that satisfies all the different type characteristics we are looking for. i don't want to sell ourselves short even in your request for the extension. >> right. i think 3 weeks will satisfy. the other elements of the timeline stay intact in terms of the sequencing. it

just us more time. >> i was going to say that i think up to 3 weeks makes sense but i still have that sense of urgency that our chair has as well. i think there needs to be some mention of the mta, the municipal transportation agency somewhere in the narrative and explanation of our mta as well. i had a suggestion that on page under the executive director bullets, that it should list ensure where it's talking about effective communications with the board of supervisors, the mayor's office and san francisco's elected representative at the state and federal levels, it needs to mention the mta too, i think. that would be my recommendation and i just wanted to echo our chair avalos's suggestion that

the track record of promoting social justice and equity is top priority. and focusing on track records that someone who has a demonstrated experience from promoting equity and justice. this you for doing that. >> i think it goes beyond the mta. probably there are other departments that are related to other work of county transportation authority. >> we always run the risk if we put one agency in there that we then have to put all the agencies in there not to lose sight of this. if there is a what the we can use a catch phrase that is inclusive for all of those regional partners that will work to our benefit. so but if there is -- if we know there is three agencies

and three agencies only that we are concerned about and we fill those three in and we use a catch phrase for the rest of them. >> i think it makes sense to list some of them. i think the mta, puc and dpw. i think staff might have the best recommendation for which ones to list as well. but definitely mta and puc and dpw. the effective communication especially with the mta is going to be a core competency that we need to highlight. commissioner wiener? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in terms of the timetable, i have a probably similar perspective to commissioner cohen. while we

certainly want the fros move forwards expeditiously and efficiently and we don't want to have any unnecessary delays, the most important thing is to cast a wide net and bring any and all potentially interested qualified candidates forward and get it right. it is better to get it right than to get it done fast particularly on deadlines that are frankly not self-evidently better or worse than other deadlines and that are in some ways artificial. it would be great to have an executive director who starts on july 1st. that would be terrific. if it takes, if it means starting august 1st or september 1st in order to be able to cast that wider net, that is not going to in anyway

damage agency. we have very competent staff who are currently doing a great job keeping the ship on track and will continue to do so. so there is nothing magical about july 1st even though that is the date that would be great to meet. in terms of how much time you need whether it's 2 or 3 or 5 weeks. you are the professionals. you know what needs to be done to make sure we are casting the wide net and what i would say if it turns out that 3 weeks is not enough to be able to communicate and deal with the potential candidates from around the country, i would encourage you not to feel like you are being pressured to have the shorter time period if you feel in your professional judgment that we can use more. and frankly, having an artificially strict

deadline will accomplish the opposite of what supervisor is expressing concern in that it will make it harder to conduct a national search because people around the country, it's more challenging for them to come in for an interview and i don't want to have the tail wagging the dog so it's artificially imposed deadline forces us to focus only on local candidates and that's what i'm afraid to do and that is my perspective. >> i would propose that in addition to adding the 3 weeks to the closing date that on that may 6th date we have already a meeting scheduled and we'll give you a briefing as to where we are and how it's shaping up so we know we don't wait until the end and say we need more time. that we've already, we want to keep you in the loop as we move through the process. we keep that date on

the schedule and that becomes a progress meeting for us to come and give you the results of how things are moving at that particular point. >> thank you, we spoke on the phone and you mentioned this as well and your opinion at that time was that this would be ample time to do an effective search. i do appreciate that as well. commissioner campos? >> thank you, commissioner chairman. i think all the comments reflect the need to balance that are involved here. i have been involved in these process here, not in the area of transportation but in the area of education and hiring of superintendents. my experience is that the bias usually falls the other way. which is a bias in favor of outside candidates and nothing that i have heard today changes my view in terms of where that bias is here. but be that as it may, i think it's about balancing. i think that

if you feel a 3 weeks is what's needed, i'm okay with that. but anything that goes beyond that, i would have a concern. i know we have a very capable staff indeed, but the transition we have in place was a transition that, an expedited process without exclusion any qualified national candidate. the one thing i thought was troubling and missing in this document and i think it's what supervisor mar eluded to that there is no recognition of the autonomous nature of the cta and i think there is some reference to that in terms of the description of the governing board. i think it's really important to make it clear that someone is coming

into an agency that even though it's part of the city and county family, it's not run the way an mta is run. it's not run the way that dpw or any other agency is run. i don't know if it's necessarily captured here and there needs to be added emphasis on the fact that beyond the autonomy we want someone who is also going to be able toen than is collaboration with the other agency locally. you have some reference to that, but i don't think it's emphasized enough. i think if there is one thing that i have seen in the last couple of years especially on major projects and district specific that packet certain neighborhoods, the level of

coordination among the various agencies is not where it needs to be and the mta can particularly play a role in that and i actually think that's something that has been lacking and it's not just a ta thing but an issue of the entire city and i think that's a priority that we have better collaboration. i think that's the other missing piece. thank you. >> mr. hawkins are those things that you will be make reference on? >> definitely we can add some language in here that talks about the autonomy of the authority and we can add more information or beef up the information already in here regarding the collaboration and coordination role that the cta

plays. i think that could be added. >> okay. colleagues, any other comments or questions? >> commissioner wiener? >> this is as much for the commission or the staff for consultant. in terms of future meetings are we going to be sticking to monday morning? >> i want to say thank you for the morning or afternoon. i don't have a preference, but i'm just curious. >> we'll have a set for time. a tuesday morning if we don't have a finances committee meeting or plans and programs meeting perhaps we can double up with a finances committee meeting. we want to make sure

we don't get in the way of any other committee meeting. >> any other morning is fine with me. >> thank you for you and your staff and your work and your presentations. i appreciate the effort. we can go on the public comment. any last thing? >> thank you very much for your time and input and we'll take everything into consideration and integrate those comments into the document. we'll allow commissioners campos to take a look at that and share with the rest of the commissioners and if we don't get the feedback we are good to go. we'll use our point person to figure out those last elements there and share with you. >> right, if you can consult with us on that that will be great. up to 3 weeks would be appropriate and i second that recommendation. thank you. >> okay any member of the public would like to comment?

seeing none come forward we'll close public comment. next item please. >> this is an information item >> items introduced okay. public comment on this item? we'll close public comment. >> next item? >> no. 5. public comment. >> any public comment? we'll close public comment. >> last item. >> item 6. adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thank you. >> 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