San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
A Report of the 2004-05 Civil Grand Jury For the City and County of San Francisco a New Chief of the Juvenile Probation
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 8 findings
F1
San Francisco has made large investments of resources in providing alternatives to detaining youth in secure facilities, such as the creation of CARC and the funding of CBOs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
San Francisco has made large investments of resources in providing alternatives to detaining youth in secure facilities, such as the creation of CARC and the funding of CBOs.
F2
These investments have not resulted in a decrease in the rate of detention of arrested youth. 53 “Selling out kids. As Juvenile Probation Department melts down, ethical questions swirl,” Bay Guardian, August 25, 2004. 21
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
These investments have not resulted in a decrease in the rate of detention of arrested youth. 53 “Selling out kids. As Juvenile Probation Department melts down, ethical questions swirl,” Bay Guardian, August 25, 2004. 21
F3
Although, the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) indicates many times that youth need not be detained, probation officers (POs) often override the RAI in order to detain anyway. This is one of many indicators that the resistance of POs appears to be the chief obstacle to reducing the population of non-violent youth in secure detention, such as youth arrested for violating the terms of their probation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Although, the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) indicates many times that youth need not be detained, probation officers (POs) often override the RAI in order to detain anyway. This is one of many indicators that the resistance of POs appears to be the chief obstacle to reducing the population of non-violent youth in secure detention, such as youth arrested for violating the terms of their probation.
F4
Lack of management controls at the JPD appears to be a leading factor in persistent resistance of POs to alternatives to detention. For example, supervisors are not reviewing the PO’s overrides of the RAI as required by JPD policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Lack of management controls at the JPD appears to be a leading factor in persistent resistance of POs to alternatives to detention. For example, supervisors are not reviewing the PO’s overrides of the RAI as required by JPD policy.
F5
Reduced hours and inconvenient location of the Community Assessment Referral Center (CARC) is apparently a factor in preventing police from referring all arrested youth first to the CARC for assessment as required by SFPD policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Reduced hours and inconvenient location of the Community Assessment Referral Center (CARC) is apparently a factor in preventing police from referring all arrested youth first to the CARC for assessment as required by SFPD policy.
F6
Police have been instructed to make initial contact with CARC regarding arrested youth by a Police Department Bulletin. However, these instructions are not in the Department’s General Orders, which is a higher level of authority that could increase compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Police have been instructed to make initial contact with CARC regarding arrested youth by a Police Department Bulletin. However, these instructions are not in the Department’s General Orders, which is a higher level of authority that could increase compliance.
F7
The role of community-based programs (CBOs) in preventing detention is not clear. Some CBOs may be more effective than others in preventing detention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The role of community-based programs (CBOs) in preventing detention is not clear. Some CBOs may be more effective than others in preventing detention.
F8
The Juvenile Probation Commission may not be providing the necessary leadership to achieve the objective of reducing detention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The Juvenile Probation Commission may not be providing the necessary leadership to achieve the objective of reducing detention. Recommendations
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R9Appointees to the Juvenile Probation Commission should be knowledgeable about the issues that confront youth at-risk of detention and the organizations that serve them. They should devote the time and be willing to inform themselves of juvenile justice issues. Commissioners should not have any direct relationship with a CBO that may receive funding from the juvenile justice system. Commissioners should be evaluated according to these criteria and replaced when their terms expire if necessary. Required Responses (Please reply to those Findings and Recommendations that are within your jurisdiction.) Board of Supervisors – 90 days Juvenile Probation Commission – 60 days Juvenile Probation Department – 60 days Mayor – 60 days Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice – 60 days Office of the Controller – 60 days Police Commission – 60 days SFPD – 60 days 23