Board of Supervisors:

Recommendations 18

• R1
  The Department has developed new flyers, posters and scripts designed to inform and convince obligors to participate in their cases. These written materials use 7th grade English to foster better communication and have been translated into Spanish. Listed below are the written materials currently in use by the EPIC Project that were developed specifically for the NCP that is in 7th grade English or Spanish that is less formal and therefore less intimidating.
• R1a

  Page 163
  Study the Availability of Other Suitable School Sites to Relocate the Phoenix Campus SFUSD owns properties that are not presently being used for city schools. The Board and Administration should study the availability of suitable sites for relocation of Phoenix. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis. Within the next six months, SFUSD will analyze whether there are other available and appropriate sites for Phoenix High School. However, it should be noted that SFUSD attempted to relocate Phoenix High School to a new location on Evans Street during the 2002-2003 school year, and the students and staff from the school vigorously opposed the move before the Board. Therefore, the Board opted to retain the school’s location at 1950 Mission in recognition of the articulated wishes of Phoenix High School students and staff. In addition to going through SFUSD’s Program Placement Committee, any program or site change must comply with Board Resolution 46-8A10 (“Resolution to Increase Public Input in Program and School Placement”), which requires opportunities for community input into proposed site changes. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 In February 2005, the Director of County Community Schools re-evaluated whether an SFUSD facility located on Evans Street in San Francisco would be a suitable location to relocate Phoenix High School. The location was found to be unsuitable because the facility’s classrooms are located around a machine shop that is operated by a Junior College during the school day. The noise generated from the machine shop would be distracting and would interfere with classroom instruction. District staff also investigated whether it would be possible to relocate Phoenix High to one of the school sites that were closed during the school year to help address the District’s budget deficit. One of the main criteria for school closures was the underutilization of the school site due to low enrollment numbers. In order to fully utilize facility space and to satisfy legal obligations to the District’s charter schools under Proposition 39, these sites will house a combination of several District and/or charter schools. It is not feasible for Phoenix High to share space in this manner, because it would require the District to commingle students in comprehensive programs with students who have been expelled for a serious violation of District rules.11 11 In the context of Community Day Schools (which also serve students who have been expelled), the Education Code acknowledges the problem of commingling students in comprehensive schools with students who have been expelled. Cal. Educ. Code Section 48661(a). 155
• R1b

  Page 164
  Relocate Immediately the Phoenix Campus SFUSD should move immediately to relocate the CCS Phoenix School campus. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis, as described above. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted above, the District determined that relocation of the Phoenix High School site is not currently feasible. However, the Director of County Community Schools has taken action to improve the physical quality of the facility located at 1950 Mission. The entire facility has been cleaned, reorganized and enhanced to increase the physical resources available to Phoenix High School students. The facility has been updated to include a computer lab with an LCD screen that is used for classroom instruction, online courses (such as Drivers Education) and Cooperative Vocational Education. The site also has a new library, and a multipurpose room that houses health and wellness information, as well as information about community resources for students, parents and guardians. This room is also used to house a social worker that works directly with students and also refers them to outside community resources. The room is used to hold girls counseling groups, and will be used as a recreational area with a ping pong table and other games for students. The site also includes space that is used for parent group meetings. The site includes offices for a secretary, counselors, and an office for a parent liaison assigned to county community schools. Two curriculum specialists will be hired for the 2005-2006 school year to support teachers in the county community schools, a Program Administrator to oversee English Language Learner programs in county schools, and an English Language Development teacher will be hired as well. As part of the reorganization, the Director distributed new textbooks that were located at this site to all county community schools, and created a textbook room to store extra copies of these resources. The external areas of the facility have been improved to provide a tented eating and gathering area, a basketball court and a volleyball court, and flower boxes have been added around classrooms. During the summer of 2005, the entire outdoor area of the school will be re-surfaced. The Director has also worked with San Francisco Police Department Captain Goldberg to arrange for officers to closely patrol the areas surrounding the schools, and the school has posted prominent signs that warn of enhanced penalties for drug activity within a school zone. 156
• R1c

  Page 165
  The New Phoenix Campus Should Be Ready by the 2004-2005 school year. Ideally, a new Phoenix School campus would be ready for the 2004-2005 school year. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis, as described above. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted above, the District determined that relocation of the Phoenix High School site is not currently feasible. The physical improvements made to the Phoenix High School site are described above.
• R1d

  Page 165
  Relocate the Community Youth Center From Polk Street A secondary priority is the relocation of the Community Youth Center's one- room school from its location on Polk Street, above a strip joint. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation is in the process of implementation. CYC is currently in the process of negotiating a new lease for their site to be relocated to Van Ness and Sutter. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 The Community Youth Center one-room school that was located on Polk Street has been closed, and in the 2004-2005 school year students were relocated to a new site.
• R1e

  Page 165
  Prepare to Replace All One-Room Schools in the County System The five-year plan should include preparations to replace all one-room schools in the county system. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation is currently in the process of implementation. The District agrees that single site classes should be eliminated and is in the process of evaluating those sites for relocation. In addition to taking steps to move CYC to a new location, the Potrero Hill Neighborhood Center school site has been moved to the Principal’s Center Collaborative Campus. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 The District has closed all county community single room schools, and has consolidated these small schools into four main campuses that are able to provide more comprehensive support and resources. The single room schools that were closed include Community Youth Center, Potrero Hill Neighborhood Center, and Ella Hill Hutch. Under this new reorganization, each campus delivers comprehensive core curriculum with a strong academic focus. The four campuses are listed below: • Phoenix Campus: Provides core 9-12 curriculum, Special Day Class, Resource Specialist, English Language Learner support, and a middle school component. • Principal Center Collaborative: This collaboration between SFUSD and Juvenile Probation provides core 9-12 curriculum, Special Day Class, Resource Specialist, and English Language Learner support. The campus holds three programs including: Project Impact, Youth Treatment Education Court (education and youth substance abuse treatment), SF Girls and Boys Group Home (Bay High). The site also holds a new Youth Guidance Transition Center, which provides a transition program for students who are re-entering the District after being confined to the Youth Guidance Center for a short period of time. • Community Scholars of Success: Provides core 9-12 curriculum, Resource Specialist, English Language Learner support. • Sunshine Campus: Provides core 9-12 curriculum, Special Day Class (Hilltop), Resource Specialist, English Language Learner support. This site houses the Real Alternatives High School and the Hilltop School (for pregnant minors). The county programs have partnered with Pupil Services to develop an Intake Center located at the School of the Arts. This three week program offers assessment, counseling, school review, case management and enrollment options. This program was created to support appropriate academic placement, and to ease the student’s return to school after being referred to Pupil Services due to habitual truancy or behavioral issues. Students obtain 5 credits for successful completion of the Intake program. Next year, county teachers will receive more curricular support through the county’s newly developed instructional reform model. The model’s design has each site administrator assigned to a specific academic department. Each administrator, in conjunction with two new curriculum specialists, is responsible for conducting monthly meetings to align all county programs to standardized instruction. The curriculum will be mapped to core assessments that will be used to measure what students have learned, and to track teaching strategies employed by the teachers. All county teachers have obtained CLAD certification.
• R1f

  Page 186
  Maintain a History of Grievances Against Each Deputy A history of grievances against a deputy should be maintained and forwarded when the deputy moves to another facility. Response Michael Hennessey Sheriff Office of the Sheriff July 28, 2005 We disagree with this recommendation because it is violative of City procedures and state law regarding employee discipline.
• R1g

  Page 186
  Simplify the Grievance Form The grievance form should be simplified. Response Michael Hennessey Sheriff Office of the Sheriff July 28, 2005 This recommendation has been implemented. General Responses Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors September 24, 2004 The following is a response to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury Report, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Grievances: A Solution, in accordance with Penal Code Section 933 and Administrative Code Section 2.10. The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday, September 23, 2004 on the Civil Grand Jury Report. Representatives from both the Civil Grand Jury and the Sheriff’s Department were present at the hearing. The Sheriff’s Department agreed with most of the findings and recommendations. The matter was continued until Thursday, October 21, 2004 to hear a progress report from the Sheriff’s Department. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors October 26, 2004 The following is a progress report to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury Report, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Grievances: A Solution, in accordance with Penal Code Section 933 and Administrative Code Section 2.10. The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee continued the hearing on Thursday, October 21, 2004 to hear a progress report from the Sheriffs Department. The Department reported it is modeling a policy similar to Alameda County in order to track grievances, responses and corrective action taken. It will modify the grievance form and procedures, which will simplify the process for both the inmates and staff. What remains unresolved is the accessibility of a locked box where inmates drop off grievances. The Department is exploring alternatives to provide inmates confidential submission of grievances and the assurance of directing grievances to the appropriate individual(s). Target date for the completion of a revised policy and procedure is December 31, 2004. The Committee was satisfied with the progress report and the matter was filed. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors June 29, 2005 The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee continued the hearing on Thursday, October 21, 2004 to hear a progress report from the Sheriffs Department. The Department reported it is modeling a policy similar to Alameda County in order to track grievances, responses and corrective action taken. It will modify the grievance form and procedures, which will simplify the process for both the inmates and staff. What remains unresolved is the accessibility of a locked box where inmates drop off grievances. The Department is exploring alternatives to provide inmates confidential submission of grievances and the assurance of directing grievances to the 179 appropriate individual(s). Target date for the completion of a revised policy and procedure is December 31, 2004. The Committee was satisfied with the progress report and the matter was filed. TERMS Grievance- a complaint made by an inmate against an employee of the Sheriffs Department. Grievant- an inmate who makes a complaint. Ombudsman -a person employed by an institution to investigate complaints against that institution. Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Sheriff and Department Reponses The Department should review and amend, if 1a needed, the current "Policy and Procedure" Implemented manual. The Department should purchase/develop 1b In Process software to automate the grievance procedure. The Department should assign a full-time employee to input data. A senior officer should be 1c Disagree assigned to oversee the program and provide periodic reports to designated senior staff. Every grievant should receive a written response 1d to a complaint within ten (10) days of the date of Disagree filing. Grievance forms should be placed by the inmate 1e Disagree in a locked box or other secure location. A history of grievances against a deputy should 1f be maintained and forwarded when the deputy Disagree moves to another facility. 1g The grievance form should be simplified. Implemented For each recommendation, the Civil Grand Jury did not require responses from all departments. The table only identifies those departments that responded to specific recommendations. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 6 INCARCERATION AND BEYOND: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
• R2a

  Page 168
  Make Budgets Available for Authorized Agencies SFUSD should make its budget readily available for inspection by authorized agencies, in particular, the Civil Grand Jury. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 The Grand Jury Report acknowledges that the Civil Grand Jury has obtained budget print outs for SFUSD. With regard to other agencies, SFUSD will implement this recommendation through its compliance with the applicable provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 SFUSD continues to comply with the provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.
• R2b

  Page 169
  Present Clear Budget Information Budget information should be presented clearly, if possible, with explanatory summaries. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 SFUSD will implement this recommendation to the extent that it is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 SFUSD continues to comply with the provisions of the Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.
• R2c

  Page 169
  Keep Separate Budgets for the Two School Systems To insure the equitable distribution of funds and to avoid co-mingling of assets, two separate budgets should be kept for the separate school systems of city and county. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation is unnecessary because the District current budget system separately tracks county community funds. The District’s financial accounting is maintained in accordance with the Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) as required by California Education Code. As such, the District tracks all revenue, budgets, and expenditures by fund, resource, goal, function, object and organization code. In this structure, County funds are designated as Fund 05. Furthermore, County / Community Schools, Log Cabin, Woodside Learning Center, and the Hilltop Program have separate organization codes that allow for tracking of budgets and expenditures within each organization code. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted in the original response, this recommendation is unnecessary because the District current budget system separately tracks county community funds.
• R3a

  Page 171
  Replace County Community Schools with Community Day Schools Replace the minimum-service County Community Schools with the more challenging Community Day Schools. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis over the next six months to determine whether the development of more Community Day Schools would be appropriate and effective within the District. However, the District has already increased the school day for county community students, and has increased support to these students, as described above in section 3.1. It is unclear whether the Community Day School system is the most effective way to provide increased service to county community students. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 The Director of County Community Schools and three of the CCS site administrators attended a conference in Sacramento to learn more about Community Day Schools. In May 2005, the CCS Director and the four CCS administrators made a presentation to the SFUSD Board of Education Curriculum Committee regarding the programs and services provided by county community schools. Among the topics discussed was the possibility of developing Community Day Schools in the District. Daniel Sackheim, the Community Day Schools consultant for the California Department of Education, made a presentation on this topic and distributed detailed information about the benefits and requirements associated with Community Day Schools. CCS staff determined that developing Community Day Schools was not necessary, because the District has already taken action to provide many of the enhanced resources available through Community Day Schools. For example, the District has extended the instructional minutes provided in CCS, has provided a low pupil-teacher ratio, school counselors, individualized instruction, and specified services for youth on probation. The District has also provided enhanced support and resources such as a social worker, parent liaison, and attendance liaison. Additionally, the District is planning to hire two curriculum specialists, a Program Administrator to oversee English Language Learner programs in county schools and an English Language Development teacher for the 2005-2006 school year. Finally, the District already receives enhanced per-student apportionments for students on probation, many of whom are in county community schools.
• R3b

  Page 172
  Use All Available Funding to Upgrade to Community Day Schools Use all available funding for county schools by upgrading and making the necessary commitment to Community Day Schools. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis over the next six months to determine whether the development of more Community Day Schools would be appropriate and effective within the District. However, the District has already increased the school day for county community students, and has increased support to these students, as described above in section 3.1. It is unclear whether the Community Day School system is the most effective way to provide increased service to county community students. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 See update to 3a, above.
• R3c

  Page 213
  Reconcile Cross-Complaints by Parents and Eliminate Costly Court Appearances DCSS should make every effort to reconcile cross-complaints by both parents and eliminate the need for a costly court appearance. However, when the court procedure is necessary, each parent should be given formal and timely notice. Responses Karen M. Roye Assistant Director Department of Child Support Services July 23, 2004 Agree: The Department recognizes the cost benefits of settling cases before and/or without going to court. This is stressed in our training and procedures. At every step in the process, the other party is offered the option of agreeing or stipulating to a settlement without going to court. However, it is not possible to settle all issues without going to court. For example, disputes between the parties as to actual income, actual childcare costs, actual hours of custody/visitation, etc. are issues that can only be decided by the Court. It is the practice of our Court and our legal staff that prior to every court calendar session, CSO’s assigned to assist our attorneys will meet with all appearing parties to review the issues and to see if any agreement or stipulation is possible before the matter is called before the Court. Any such settlements/agreements reduce the time and demand of the Court and our attorneys. Karen M. Roye Director Department of Child Support Services June 27, 2005 Agree/Implemented: The Department recognizes the cost benefits of settling cases before and/or without going to court. This is stressed in our training and procedures. At every step in the process, the other party is offered the option of agreeing or stipulating to a settlement without going to court. However, it is not possible to settle all issues without going to court. For example, disputes between the parties as to actual income, actual childcare costs, actual hours of custody/visitation, etc. are issues that can only be decided by the Court. It is the practice of our Court and our legal staff that prior to every court calendar session, CSO’s assigned to assist our attorneys will meet with all appearing parties to review the issues and to see if any agreement or stipulation is possible before the matter is called before the Court. Any such settlements/agreements reduce the time and demand of the Court and our attorneys. In addition, the Department has implemented its Enhanced Parental Involvement Collaborative in order to increase participation of non-custodial parents (NCP) and reduce the number of default orders that adversely impact the NCP. This program includes higher levels of customer service and outreach, bilingual support, case management by specific case workers, and increased initiation of communication by caseworkers. The results have been better than anticipated with 95% participation by NCPs in the process of stipulations rather than default orders. General Responses Gavin Newsom Mayor Office of the Mayor September 7, 2004 I am pleased to present my response to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury report on the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). This letter underscores my continued commitment to work with DCSS to facilitate and implement changes that will help the Department better serve the citizens of San Francisco. I have carefully considered the findings and recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury, as well as the Department’s response. The Department has demonstrated thoughtful analysis and a strong commitment to implement the necessary changes. Thus, it is with full confidence that I concur with the Department’s response to the Civil Grand Jury report. I submit the following responses to the specific Civil Grand Jury recommendations: I. IN-TAKE PROCESS I commend the steps that DCSS has already taken to help facilitate the in-take process for parents in need of free services, especially with regard to cultural sensitivity. In order to make the in-take process more transparent, DCSS has done the following: • Begun to develop a flow chart, in multiple languages, that outlines the entire process, • Increased the number of outreach materials, • Produced posters, flyers and videos that will be available at libraries, hospitals, and community agencies, • Initiated development of a website where customers can access case status, • Collaborated with the Family Law Facilitator to develop a pamphlet to be distributed at all branch offices. II. PRINTED INFORMATION I commend the Department’s efforts to quickly implement change in regards to the Civil Grand Jury recommendations on printed materials. The Department has done the following in order to provide a more accessible and welcoming office environment: • Purchased and installed display racks for increased accessibility to printed information, • Will provide printed material for the law facilitator’s offices and courts, • Begun work with Department of Public Works to renovate the office and create a more welcoming environment. III. CASE MANAGEMENT I am pleased that DCSS has taken a proactive response to the issue of back-up materials and reconciling cross-complaints by parents, there by eliminating the need for costly court appearances. DCSS has made it clear that they advise parents on both issues, in order to best serve their customers. In conclusion, I offer my thanks to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury for their service to the City and County of San Francisco, and applaud their commitment to improving the effectiveness of City government. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors September 24, 2004 The following is a response to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury Report, San Francisco Department of Child Support Services: Putting the Children First, in accordance with Penal Code Section 933 and Administrative Code Section 2.10. The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday, September 23, 2004 on the Civil Grand Jury Report. Representatives from both the Civil Grand Jury and the Department of Child Support Services were present at the hearing. Child Support Services agreed to all but 1 of 9 recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury and may be willing to revisit this recommendation providing funding is available. Some of the recommendations have also been implemented. The City Services Committee has filed the matter. The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on September 23, 2004. Child Support Services agreed to all but 1 of 9 recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury and may be willing to revisit this recommendation providing funding is available. Some of the recommendations have also been implemented. The City Services Committee has filed the matter. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors June 29, 2005 The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on September 23, 2004. Child Support Services agreed to all but 1 of 9 recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury and may be willing to revisit this recommendation providing funding is available. Some of the recommendations have also been implemented. The City Services Committee has filed the matter. TERMS DCSS -Department of Child Support Services (county, state, federal) CGJ- Civil Grand Jury CSO -Child Support Officer CALWORKS -California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids MEDICAID -Source of government funding for medical- and health-related services for people with limited income. FOSTER CARE -Social Services Department's paid placement of a child with foster caregivers instead of with birth family. WICSEC -Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council SACSS -State Automated Child Support System 209 Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Department of Child and Department Reponses Support Services Written materials (in translation when appropriate) to be presented and explained at in-take should include a flow chart outlining the process to be undertaken from start to finish. Agree/ 1a Specifics should describe all of the players in the process and Implemented their roles-especially including DCSS, their computer and phone systems, and all its divisions: in-take, DSOs, attorneys and the ombudsperson. The role of the court and the Family Law Facilitator and how they can be accessed should be explained-especially if it Agree/ 1b appears that the parents will be unwilling or unable to stipulate a Implemented plan for child support. Packet information should be reinforced by the use and Agree/ 1c distribution of posters, flyers and videos made available in Implemented libraries, churches, shops, hospitals and community agencies. SFDCSS should add to its long-range plan the production of multilingual educational videos and television and radio 1d advertisements. By collaborating with other agencies and by accessing volunteer time, talent and dollars, DCSS can expand its services to clientele. In an attractive and efficient manner. DCSS should set up, monitor and stock regularly display racks of written materials Agree/ 2a and handouts at all DCSS offices, law facilitators offices and Implemented courtrooms. Re-arrange the main-office entry so that DCSS looks more like a Agree/ 2b sanctuary than a jail. {Pattern reception area after that of the Implemented Contra Costa County DCSS.} SFDCSS should plan for installation of a full-time phone team trained to deal with ordinary questions and problems of clients. CGJ recommends that it be patterned after that of the Contra Agree/ 3a Costa County DCSS. Otherwise, teams and the ombudsperson Partially Implemented should make every effort to follow DCSS policy and answer phones in person as often as possible. CSOs and/or attorneys should advise parents to keep back-up copies of all paperwork and bring it with them to court. The Agree/ 3b committee recommends that DCSS arrange to store all back-up Implemented information on computer so that information will not be lost. DCSS should make every effort to reconcile cross-complaints by both parents and eliminate the need for a costly court Agree/ 3c appearance. However, when the court procedure is necessary, Implemented each parent should be given formal and timely notice. For each recommendation, the Civil Grand Jury did not require responses from all departments. The table only identifies those departments that responded to specific recommendations. CHAPTER 8 CONTINUITY REPORT
• R4a

  Page 175
  Add Information About County Community Schools to the School District’s Website Add comprehensive information about CCS to the SFUSD website and printed materials. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 This recommendation requires further analysis over the next six months. The District will consider creating a website for County Community schools that will contain more information about these schools. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 In January 2004, the District created an area on the SFUSD website that specifically provides information about county community schools, and this website was publicized on KALW FM radio 91.7, in the program entitled “Looking at Education.” This website can be found at: http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=school_info.county.
• R4b

  Page 176
  Develop a Five-Year Plan for County Schools and to Consider Upgrading to Community Day Schools Devise a separate five-year plan for county schools-with special consideration to upgrading to Community Day Schools--and publicize it. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 The District will not create a separate educational plan for county community schools because Excellence for All applies to county community students. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted in the original response, the District will not create a separate educational plan for county community schools because Excellence for All applies to county community students.
• R4c

  Page 176
  Educate District Personnel About County Community Schools Educate district personnel about County Community Schools and familiarize them with descriptive publications and websites. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 The District already provides opportunities for comprehensive and county community school educators to exchange information about their programs, as suggested by this recommendation. County community administrators meet twice a month with comprehensive school principals, and may exchange information about their programs in these meetings. Additionally, county community and comprehensive school assistant principals also meet regularly. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted in the original response, the District already provides opportunities for comprehensive and county community school educators to exchange information about their programs. Teachers and staff now have the additional resource of the SFUSD website that includes new detailed information about county community schools.
• R4d

  Page 177
  Celebrate the Dedication of Staff and Students in the County System Celebrate the dedication and hard work of administrators, teachers and students in the county system. Give them the supplies they desperately need. "Nothing succeeds like success," but even the most dedicated laborers will burn out if their efforts are not recognized. Responses Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District August 30, 2004 The District recognizes the achievements and success of all of its county community and comprehensive school teachers and administrators. These teachers and administrators are all recognized as District staff, and are not treated as separate from each other. All celebrations, meetings, parties, and learning institutes are attended by both county community and comprehensive school teachers and/or administrators. The District administration overseeing county community schools will ensure that county community schools have the resources and support that they need. Arlene Ackerman Superintendent of Schools San Francisco Unified School District June 30, 2005 As noted in the original response, the District recognizes the achievements and success of all of its county community and comprehensive school teachers and administrators. These teachers and administrators are all recognized as District staff, and are not treated as separate from each other. General Responses Gavin Newsom Mayor Office of the Mayor August 30, 2004 I am pleased to present my response to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury report on County Community Schools in the San Francisco Unified School District. This letter should underscore my continued commitment to work with the San Francisco Unified School District to provide the most productive learning environment for the students of County Community Schools. In April 2004, I was proud to appoint Cedric Yap to be the Mayor’s Advisor on Education. Mr. Yap has been integral in facilitating and maintaining a good relationship between the City and the School District. Mr. Yap will help the Mayor’s Office work with the School District to conduct the necessary analysis of the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations and swiftly implement any change. As Mayor, I am dedicated to providing an “excellence for all” education for every San Francisco student. In March 2004, I supported Proposition H, which will provide $60 million for San Francisco schools. Additionally, this year the City has invested $11 million in schools, which represents the largest City investment in years. My focus has always been on those students most at risk. The Mayor’s Office has been dedicated to creating an effective combination of city departments and community based agencies targeted at specific school sites. The City contracts with community based organizations to work with students who attend county schools. For instance, Impact Community High School serves 25 county students who are involved in the juvenile justice system and have mental health needs. The City funds the Performing Arts Workshop to provide an arts curriculum that will keep students developing their talents at school. The Family Service Agency, another city-funded community based organization, provides mental health services to students and families as part of the extended school day. Additionally, in conjunction with my workforce development initiative, part of the City’s investment in the School District this year has been allocated to increase alternative career pathways for students who are not focused on higher education for various reasons. This effort should have a positive impact on a number of the students attending county community schools. The Mayor’s Office continues to seek out partnerships that make a real difference in the lives of young people, particularly those with special needs. I remain fully committed to supporting School District policies and procedures that will produce a more accountable and effective county schools system. In conclusion, I offer my thanks to the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury for their service to the City and County of San Francisco, and commend their commitment to improving the effectiveness of City government. Dan Kelly, M.D. President Board of Education August 30, 2004 After receiving the Civil Grand Jury reports on the School District's programs in the Bayview Hunter Point and in the County Community Schools, I requested the Superintendent of Schools and her staff to review the Civil Grand Jury's findings and prepare the required responses. I greatly appreciated the Civil Grand Jury's interest in the education of the children of San Francisco and in particular in these two critical and important areas of our work. Having reviewed the Civil Grand Jury reports and the staffs responses, I am confident that you and the Civil Grand Jury will be reassured about the integrity and quality of the District's services both in the County Community Schools and in the Bayview Hunter's Point programs. As the responses we are submitting indicate, the District shares and even anticipates many of the concerns expressed by the Civil Grand Jury and is taking steps to address those concerns. In other areas, however, the Civil Grand Jury's expressed concerns did not represent accurate portrayals of the District's efforts or the community's desires. On the whole, the Civil Grand Jury has been a helpful exercise for us and the community in drawing attention to the importance that we place on the education of every child in San Francisco. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors October 25, 2004 The following is a follow-up report on the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury Report, County Community Schools: Poor Stepchildren of the San Francisco Unified School District. The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday, October 21, 2004 on the Civil Grand Jury Report. The San Francisco Unified School District representatives discussed new programs and changes implemented since July 2004, which include addition of information on County Community Schools on its web site and an intake center to evaluate students to properly place them in the right school. Public comment was heard and the matter was filed. Adele Destro Assistant Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors June 29, 2005 The Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee held a hearing on Thursday, October 21, 2004. The San Francisco Unified School District representatives discussed new programs and changes implemented since July 2004, which include addition of information on County Community Schools on its web site and an intake center to evaluate students to properly place them in the right school. Public comment was heard and the matter was filed. TERMS SFUSD -San Francisco Unified School District CCS -County Community Schools (County's current program) CDS -Community Day Schools (proposed upgraded program for county schools) CGJ- Civil Grand Jury wrap-around services -Provided by community-based health and social service agencies to c ontinue and/or enhance SFUSD's services. Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Superintendent of Board of Education and Department Reponses Schools SFUSD owns properties that are not presently being used for city schools. The Board and Administration should 1a Not Currently Feasible study the availability of suitable sites for relocation of Phoenix. SFUSD should move immediately to relocate the CCS 1b Not Currently Feasible Phoenix School campus. Ideally, a new Phoenix School campus would be ready for 1c Not Currently Feasible the 2004- 2005 school year. A secondary priority is the relocation of the Community 1d Youth Center's one- room school from its location on Polk Implemented Street, above a strip joint. The five-year plan should include preparations to replace 1e Implemented all one-room schools in the county system. SFUSD should make its budget readily available for SFUSD will comply w/ 2a inspection by authorized agencies, in particular, the Civil CA Public Records Act Grand Jury. Budget information should be presented clearly, if possible, SFUSD will comply w/ 2b with explanatory summaries. CA Public Records Act To insure the equitable distribution of funds and to avoid 2c co-mingling of assets, two separate budgets should be Disagree, Unnecessary kept for the separate school systems of city and county. CCS staff determined that Replace the minimum-service County Community Schools 3a developing Community Day Schools with the more challenging Community Day Schools. was not necessary Use all available funding for county schools by upgrading CCS staff determined that 3b and making the necessary commitment to Community Day developing Community Day Schools Schools. was not necessary Add comprehensive information about CCS to the SFUSD 4a Implemented website and printed materials. Devise a separate five-year plan for county schools-with 4b special consideration to upgrading to Community Day Disagree Schools--and publicize it. Educate district personnel about County Community District already provides opportunities 4c Schools and familiarize them with descriptive publications for educators to exchange information and websites. about their programs. Celebrate the dedication and hard work of administrators, teachers and students in the county system. Give them the District recognizes the achievements 4d supplies they desperately need. "Nothing succeeds like and success of its staff. success," but even the most dedicated laborers will burn out if their efforts are not recognized. For each recommendation, the Civil Grand Jury did not require responses from all departments. The table only identifies those departments that responded to specific recommendations. CHAPTER 5 THE SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT GRIEVANCES: A SOLUTION