Juvenile Justice Community Assessment And Referral Center (carc) Report of the 1999-2000 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury

Recommendations 5

• R1
  CARC is presently not underutilized, but rather a pilot project that is improving with time. CARC should be continued following completion of the pilot project. One of the earlier criticisms of CARC was that it was greatly underutilized. This may have been true during the time period when the U.C. Study was undertaken, but since then this finding has changed significantly. As noted in the Results above, CARC was establishing the various components of its trial program during the time that research for the U.C. Study was performed. As such, CARC could not be expected to demonstrate the level of utilization expected by those performing the U.C. Study. Based on our review of this pilot project, we find that CARC is beginning to show its value. The number of juveniles served has increased, and more City districts are being served. Further, the Probation Department also does not feel that CARC is underutilized because it is set up as a pilot project, which will be properly evaluated by the NCCD, sometime in June 2000. RECOMMENDATION CARC should be continued after the pilot program period. A meeting should be set as soon as possible after the NCCD evaluation. This meeting should give all interested parties an opportunity to be heard on issues that will be addressed in the NCCD evaluation and raised in this CGJ investigation. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission Delinquency Prevention Commission 2.Despite a drop in juvenile crime in San Francisco since 1988, the census at Juvenile Hall has remained consistently high. One of CARC’s goals is to decrease the number of juveniles detained at the YGC. RECOMMENDATION In light of the fact that despite the drop in juvenile crime and the success of CARC there continues to be a high number of juveniles detained at YGC, we would recommend that the Board of Supervisors obtain copies of the population management investigation of both the Implementation Team and the Probation Department and schedule a hearing as to why there has not been a decease in the number of juveniles detained at YGC. Required Response Board of Supervisors Delinquency Prevention Commission 3.There are exceptions as to which juvenile offenders are referred to CARC (see Attachment 4). The Implementation Team should identify resources needed to service "high-risk" youths and those with mental health needs. RECOMMENDATION If CARC is continued after the NCCD evaluation, the issue of the type of cases that should be referred to CARC should be made clear. While the decision of the exception of juveniles from who are referred to CARC may be that of the CBC, it is recommended that leadership be taken either by the Implementation Team or the Coordinating Council of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council in order to provide the CBC with information so that a well-informed decision can be made. Required Response Mayor Juvenile Probation Department San Francisco Police Department Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission District Attorney Public Defender Department of Public Health
• R2
  Despite a drop in juvenile crime in San Francisco since 1988, the census at Juvenile Hall has remained consistently high. One of CARC's goals is to decrease the number of juveniles detained at the YGC. RECOMMENDATION In light of the fact that despite the drop in juvenile crime and the success of CARC there continues to be a high number of juveniles detained at YGC, we would recommend that the Board of Supervisors obtain copies of the population management investigation of both the Implementation Team and the Probation Department and schedule a hearing as to why there has not been a decease in the number of juveniles detained at YGC.
• R3
  There are exceptions as to which juvenile offenders are referred to CARC (see Attachment 4). The Implementation Team should identify resources needed to service "high-risk" youths and those with mental health needs. RECOMMENDATION If CARC is continued after the NCCD evaluation, the issue of the type of cases that should be referred to CARC should be made clear. While the decision of the exception of juveniles from who are referred to CARC may be that of the CBC, it is recommended that leadership be taken either by the Implementation Team or the Coordinating Council of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council in order to provide the CBC with information so that a well-informed decision can be made.
• R4
  A proper public forum is needed to present the NCCD evaluation and ensure enlightened dialogue with and input from the public. RECOMMENDATION A meeting should be set as soon as possible after the NCCD evaluation before either the Implementation Team or the Mayor’s Criminal Justice Council. Consideration should be given to soliciting help from the signatories of the Action Plan as well as San Francisco State University and Golden Gate University (Attachments 7 and 8). This meeting should give all interested parties an opportunity to be heard on issues that will be addressed in the NCCD evaluation and raised in this CGJ investigation namely: usage of CARC; the stable population at Juvenile Hall over the years; exceptions to juvenile offenders who are referred to CARC; programs that target "high-risk" youth; removing any impediments to success; mediating differences and misunderstandings thereby ensuring coordination among agencies; optimizing the allocation of funds among the various service providers; implementing effective leadership to ensure accountability, coordination and communication; requiring accountability of all participants by demanding detailed reports that measures performance; and lastly, getting consensus from all the participants as to the future of CARC. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission
• R5
  There is no easy method to update or amend the Action Plan or otherwise reach consensus. For instance, there are no regularly scheduled meetings of the Action Plan signatories, nor are any planned. There should be a formalized method by which significant issues can be referred to all participants in the Implementation Team, which was established by the Mayor as an objective body to implement the Action Plan and which is in the best position to try to reach resolution in a manner which is of greatest benefit to the juvenile offenders. RECOMMENDATION The Implementation Team should agree to meet on a regular basis, at least twice a year, to discuss significant issues related to the Action Plan. Required Response Mayor Juvenile Probation Department Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission ATTACHMENT 1 COORDINATING COUNCIL’S LETTER OF COMMITMENT ATTACHMENT 2 JUVENILE JUSTICE COMPREHENSIVE CIRCLE IMPLEMENTATION CHART ATTACHMENT 3 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND REFERRAL CENTER PROGRAM NARRATIVE PROGRESS REPORT #1 7/1/97 TO 12/31/97 ATTACHMENT 4 CARC REFERRAL CENTER GUIDELINES FOR TAKING YOUTH TO EITHER CARC OR YOUTH GUIDANCE CENTER BASED ON TYPE OF CHARGE ATTACHMENT 5 LETTER DATED AUGUST 24, 1999, FROM SUPERVISOR MICHAEL YAKI TO JESSE WILLIAMS, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER ATTACHMENT 6 LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1999, FROM SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE KEVIN MCCARTHY TO SUPERVISOR MICHAEL YAKI ATTACHMENT 7 LETTER DATED MARCH 13, 1997, FROM ROBERT A. CORRIGAN, PRESIDENT, SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY TO MIMI SILBERT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DELANCEY STREET FOUNDATION ATTACHMENT 8 LETTER DATED MARCH 14, 1997, FROM THOMAS M. STAUFFER, PRESIDENT, GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY TO GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY COLLEAGUES