San Francisco County Grand Jury • 2001-2002

The San Francisco Adult Probation Department Glossary Apd - Adult Probation Department

6 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 4 findings

F1
In San Francisco the budgets for different parts of the criminal justice system (i.e., Judicial, District Attorney, Public Defender, Police Department, Sheriff's Department, Adult Probation Department, and Juvenile Probation Department) are viewed and funded separately, whereas national best practices suggest a more integrated approach. Functions, such as probation, that can reduce recidivism if appropriately funded can also reduce costs for the police, the jails, and the court system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
In the budget process, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should consider the total amount needed to fund all parts of the criminal justice system; increases for APD should be offset by reductions elsewhere in the criminal justice budget.
F2
National best practices suggest that community-based probation programs provide the best chance for successful rehabilitation of offenders. San Francisco has made some moves toward this change; however, adult probation continues to be centralized at the Hall of Justice, i.e., all POs are located at 850 Bryant, and nearly all probation visits take place at 850 Bryant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should support APD in accelerating a commitment toward community-located probation activities. APD should reassign probation caseloads by socioeconomic and geographic neighborhoods, based on input from the public, CBOs working with APD, and the Police Department. Required Responses --  Adult Probation Department - 60 days  Board of Supervisors - 90 days  Office of the Mayor - 60 days
F3
San Francisco does not have enough bilingual, Spanish-speaking POs. There are 16 bilingual Spanish-speaking POs. Among these 16 POs, only 5 are assigned to the Community Unit of APD (i.e., the unit that currently deals with 800 Spanish-speaking offenders and whose supervisor is also a bilingual, Spanish speaker). Of the 800 Spanish-speaking offenders, 533 are monolingual Spanish speakers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should make a commitment to assist APD in hiring additional Spanish-speaking POs by providing additional slots that require Spanish fluency, and by allowing retirement/attrition of current probation officers to bring department staffing to its authorized level. Required Responses -  Adult Probation Department - 60 days  Board of Supervisors - 90 days  Office of the Mayor - 60 days
F4
Currently, an offender who is re-arrested has no assurance that he/she will be assigned the same judge and the same PO as for the initial offense According to POs, CBOs, and probationers, assignment consistency improves the likelihood of successful rehabilitation for offenders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
APD and the court should adopt measures to ensure that POs and judges are, whenever possible, assigned to offenders from the time of their initial arrest through any re-offenses. Required Responses -  Adult Probation Department- 60 days Summary of Required Responses -  Adult Probation Department - Recommendations 2, 3, and 4  Board of Supervisors - Recommendations 1, 2, and 3  Office of the Mayor - Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 ATTACHMENT 1 - SOURCES 1 Corbett, Ronald P., et al. Transforming Probation Through Leadership: The "Broken Windows" Model, (2000). http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/broken_windows.htm 2 San Francisco Controller's Report on Adult Probation, (October 2, 2000). Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, p. 43. http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/misc/cinc/5cost.pdf 4 Clear, T.R. and G.F. Cole. American Corrections, Second Edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. (1990) 5 Langan, P.A. Losing Legitimacy: Street Crime and the Decline of Social Institutions in America. Boulder, CO: Westview. (1994). Rennison, M. Criminal Victimization 1998: Changes 1997-98 with Trends 1992-98. National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999)