San Francisco County Grand Jury

2003-2004

6 reports

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (6)

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: crime-ridden address on Mission Street and insure that all other locations are safe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: crime-ridden address on Mission Street and insure that all other locations are safe.
F2: The Superintendent and the School Board should make every effort to establish equity in the per-student allotments to both city and county schools. Creating two separate budgets would eliminate confusion and would be in keeping with two separate administrations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Superintendent and the School Board should make every effort to establish equity in the per-student allotments to both city and county schools. Creating two separate budgets would eliminate confusion and would be in keeping with two separate administrations.
F3: SFUSD should, with increased funding that would be provided by the State of California, make plans to upgrade the County Community Schools program to the more challenging Community Day Schools program. SFUSD should educate administrators, School Board members, the general public 4. about the mission, needs, potential and amazing successes of The County Community Schools. GLOSSARY 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 continue and/or enhance SFUSD's services. OVERVIEW The San Francisco Unified School District has a website, www.sfusd.edu. Supposedly, it has all the information about the city/county schools one might ever need. There is one glaring omission. There is not a single word about the eighteen County Community Schools. As a result, unless you are a suspended or expelled student or the parent of a problem child, you probably don't know that there are such schools. Except for this brief description in the handout, San Francisco Unified School District's "Enrollment Guide: Excellence for All, 2004/2005," , the committee found written descriptions to be almost nonexistent: County Community Schools administrative offices located at 1950 Mission Street, provides [sic] an educational program for pupils in grades 6--12 that are expelled from a school district, referred for dropout prevention, and pupils who are on juvenile probation. Students are taught in smaller classes and support services are provided by community-based organizations. Community school programs are located at various sites throughout the San Francisco [sic]. Pupil Services staff at 555 Portola Drive facilitates referral and enrollment to County Community Schools. Documents required for enrollment are the same as those described above. Please contact the Dropout Prevention Office at 695-5501 or Student Placement Committee at 695-5517. A call to the Dropout Prevention Office got this response: "We don't have anything to do with the County Schools. Call the School District." Calls to the Placement Committee and the SFUSD Educational Placement Center yielded little useful information. Two face-to-face interviews with a CCS administrator provided Grand Jury members with insights into what appears to be the poorest-funded educational program for the poorest students—fiscally poor and educationally poor. A two-page handout from the administrative offices lists four campuses and nine community sites (not including court schools) for the county schools. One thing these "schools" have in common is that they are staffed by wonderfully caring people many of whom work under pitiful conditions to salvage the city/county's least acknowledged, least motivated, least successful children. Some schools look better than others; some settings look safer than others. Some kids are criminals, some are anti-social, some are pregnant, and some are just losers. They are habitual truants, probationers, kids too difficult at home or school, druggies, gang members: in one way or another, youths who would be called "a handful." The California Department of Education website (www.ca.gov) describes the current CCS curriculum: They provide students with learning opportunities in academic skills, independent life skills, positive self-concepts, and effective relationships with others. . . . A minimum day program for county community schools is 240 minutes. Although many students graduate from county community schools, the programs are designed to transition students to an appropriate educational, training, or employment setting upon the completion of their attendance in county community school or after the court terminates its jurisdiction. All CCS are linked to available wrap-around support services provided by community-based organizations and made available to any student willing to accept them. The problem is that these services may be available as seldom as one day a week or once a month or almost never. Availability of services is different for each location. Often, a student needs to travel to some other site to get needed assistance. Locations are as varied as the students. Some CCS are one-room schools in which a single teacher must teach all subjects in the 6—12 curricula. These may be located in community centers, SFUSD school premises no longer in use for city schools, on the campus of City College, etc. Areas in which these schools are located are equally diverse; most are in reasonably safe neighborhoods. With the impending retirement of several older teachers, CCS one-room schools may be in jeopardy. Newer teachers hold secondary credentials that allow them only to teach their major and minor subjects; whereas older teachers were issued secondary credentials that allowed them to teach all subjects offered at the secondary level. It appears that there is no plan yet in place to address an inevitable modification. BACKGROUND The California Education Code (Sec. 1981) mandates that all children (except those who are legally excused) between the ages of 6 and 18 attend school full time. When students' special needs are not met by District Schools within a county, it becomes the responsibility of the County Offices of Education to provide educational programs for Programs are offered for children with exceptional needs, homeless students, them. pregnant minors, and youths detained in homes and camps. They include County Community Schools, vocational programs, and Community Day Schools. To fund these educational services, county offices receive local, state and federal monies. In the case of San Francisco's County Community Schools, that funding is $93,679,984. As one of seven counties that have a single city school district with the same geographic area as the county, San Francisco maintains County Community Schools that have the same oversight as the SFUSD schools, though—technically—they are separate systems. That is to say that the Superintendent and School Board of SFUSD are also the administrators of county schools. This duality of jurisdiction can be very confusing, especially in the sorting out of budgetary allotments. The CGJ found it nearly impossible to determine exactly how CCS funds are allotted and why there appears to be a significant discrepancy in the per student amounts apportioned for CCS students and the amounts actually used. The Grand Jury committee also discovered that San Francisco County could apply for a more rigorous alternative, Community Day Schools, a state program that requires a longer school day, has more classes, gives vocational training, and offers more services. In order to make these improvements, participating counties receive additional state funding. On its website (www.cde.ca.gov) the California Department of Education describes the Community Day Schools as follows: Community day schools are a relatively new educational placement option, having been first implemented in 1996; they are operated by school districts and county offices of education. Community day schools serve mandatorily and other expelled students, students referred by administrators or by School Attendance Review Board, and other high-risk youths. The 360-minute minimum instructional day includes academic programs as well as programs that focus on social skills, esteem, and resiliency. Community day schools are intended to have low student teacher ratios, counselors, and pupil discipline personnel. Students also receive collaborative services from offices of education, law enforcement, probation, and human services agency personnel who work with at-risk youths. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS Members of the CGJ Schools Committee interviewed: Administrators of San Francisco Unified School District/County Schools SFUSD/County School Board members . Pupil Services personnel • Budget specialists CCS administrators and teachers Dan Sackheim, California Department of Education/Community Day Schools Members of the CGJ Schools Committee visited and/or interviewed personnel of: Phoenix Campus • RAP/Hilltop Campus • RAP High School Community Scholars of Success Campus Community Youth Center • Walden House . Bay High School/Middle School . CCS Middle School Academy • Ella Hill Hutch Community Center Members of the CGJ Schools Committee read and/or reviewed: Enrollment Guide: "Excellence for All, 2004/2005" . www.sfusd.edu • California Department of Education's DataQuest website • "Educational Alternatives in Public Schools," Fact Book, California Department of Education (www.cde.ca.gov) "Core Elements for Describing a Community Day School," California Department of Education "County Community Schools: A Profile of the County Community Schools, SFUSD” SFUSD DOES NOT PROVIDE SAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR I. ALL OF THE COUNTY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS FINDINGS When the Grand Jury arrived at 1950 Mission Street, the County Community 1.1 Schools' Phoenix Campus, for its first interview, committee members were disconcerted by what they saw. The neighborhood, with a crime rate second only to San Francisco's Tenderloin, is disreputable. It is obvious to even the most unenlightened observer that drug use and prostitution are thriving here with impunity. In addition to an apparent lack of safety, the twelve outdated and obsolete brown bungalows, the asphalt schoolyard, and the one broken basketball backstop loom as an indication of the District's lack of interest in the CCS students' welfare. The school is surrounded by a very necessary chain-link fence, which promotes safety, but hardly a positive learning environment. It does not help that the school day ends at 1:30 PM, when "business" is brisk. A police officer told committee members that, at the local police station, this school has the nickname of "Heroin High." 1.2 On another school visit, CGJ interviewers noted that one of the one-room county schools (Community Youth Center) is located on the second floor of a building that houses a strip joint on the first floor. While the school's access is on a different street, the area would be deemed unsuitable for a city public school, as it should also be for CCS. As in the case of the Phoenix campus, SFUSD again ignores one of its stated goals (http://portal.sfusd.edu): "Maintain school environments that are safe, secure and attractive." (Emphasis added.) 1.3 One-room schools may soon become unfeasible—due to the change in the state's credentialing of new teachers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: SFUSD should, with increased funding that would be provided by the State of California, make plans to upgrade the County Community Schools program to the more challenging Community Day Schools program. SFUSD should educate administrators, School Board members, the general public
F4: SFUSD SHOULD EDUCATE ADMINISTRATORS, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABOUT THE MISSION, NEEDS, POTENTIAL, AND AMAZING SUCCESS OF THE COUNTY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS FINDINGS 4.1. On its website, the School District has a section entitled, "About SFUSD." While it is not specifically addressing the County Community Schools, the clear implication is that the article addresses all schools under its jurisdiction. These are some points that are made: [San Francisco's comprehensive plan for improvement is] a commitment to providing an excellent education to all public school students. We have established rigorous academic standards indicating what all students are expected to know and be able to do. If we are to achieve our vision of an excellent education for all students, we • must provide more intensive help to struggling schools and students. Additional funds are provided to schools for each English Language Learner, • each Special Education student, and each student living in poverty. These students are recognized as having greater educational needs. Our comprehensive, five-year plan, Excellence for All, identifies several • needed task forces to address important issues facing SFUSD, including high school and middle school reorganization . . . [Emphasis added.] Notwithstanding its good intentions, SFUSD has made no mention of its dual role as city and county administrations. A reasonable inference to be drawn is that this five-year plan applies only to the district's city schools and does not provide for excellence in the CCS. Civil Grand Jury members spoke to an assistant administrator of Phoenix. The 4.2 person did not know that there is no information on the District's website about County Schools. S/he could not recommend any publications with information and said, "Call the district." S/he was even unaware of the handout CGJ members had received on which are listed the eighteen schools and their teachers and/or contacts. 4.3 Several telephone conferences were conducted with teachers and/or directors. Most were followed up with school tours by CGJ members. The results are as follows: A representative of RAP/Hilltop Campus and RAP High School, said that there are actually two separate schools—one for pregnant teenagers, designed to meet their special needs; and RAP High School for students who are suspended, expelled or have dropped out. The representative is very enthusiastic about the good job they are doing at RAP with 75-80 students yearly. Approximately 25% of the students graduate with a regular SFUSD diploma. The school day is 8:30 AM-2: 30 PM, and the campus is located in a safe neighborhood. The person encouraged the CGJ to "drop by for a visit" and gave the committee copies of handouts that are distributed to incoming students. A representative of Community Scholars of Success Campus has been a part of County Schools since their inception in 1988. This person said that the program began with 18-20 youths in a single location and has grown to over 1300 children at eighteen locations. 72 students are currently enrolled at Community Scholars of Success Campus, and 10-15 earn diplomas each year. Wrap-around services (mental health, social workers, medical care) are available on campus. The representative agreed with CGJ members' impression that the work of these dedicated teachers is pretty much ignored, and the achievements of graduating seniors are not celebrated. Community Youth Center has 19-20 students, from grades 6-12. Achievements are a source of pride—especially the graduation of 18 students in 2003. A teacher will be retiring in June of 2004, and worries about whom the District will find as a replacement. Before coming to CYC, the instructor taught at Phoenix High School for two frustrating years, hating the location and the drug trading and prostitution that were carried on openly in the area. This person found the students to be very distracted (and, in some cases, corrupted) by the environs. By comparison, the Chinatown location of CYC "is ideal." The interviewee would like to see the school better supplied, especially since probation students bring more money to the district than do students who are not part of the Juvenile Justice System. A Walden House Schools employee discussed the basic difference between locked facility schools and the other County Day Schools. Boys and girls attend separate schools. Almost all of the students have criminal records, and most have serious mental health problems. The school is frustrated in attempting to get appropriate IEPs (Individual Education Plans) for students; the District is dilatory and resistant. The representative described the situation of one student who needed an IEP that would provide a resource specialist for him. It took nearly six months to get that IEP, and the resource specialist who was assigned is so burdened that she rarely makes an appearance. (Instead of 2 schools, she is assigned to 8). Nevertheless, teachers are proud of Walden's achievements; 12-13 seniors graduate every year. Four alumni are enrolled in college. CGJ members were warmly thanked for their interest in County Day Schools and members were assured that all CCS teachers and principals will be grateful for any light this committee can shine on their genuine needs and their unheralded achievements. At Ella Hutch Community Center, there are 30 students, grades 9-12, ٠ aged 15-18. Conditions are crowded, but the area is safer than Phoenix's, and CGJ visitors were told, "We got all new textbooks just this year." For the first time ever, County Day Schools will soon be getting a school nurse and a truancy officer—one of each to serve all eighteen schools. The interviewee said that students respond to a nurturing approach; for some, school is the only place where someone is kind or caring. Last year, six students earned SFUSD diplomas. Each year, there are good reports from alums who have gone on to colleges and vocational schools. They want to share their progress and achievements. A teacher at Bay High School for some time laments that there are no physical education classes, no drivers' education, no music or art classes. The school is really a group of schools, including Impact High School (a Juvenile Hall school) and a group of students from group homes. Teachers and students find the lack of resources enormously discouraging. The location of the school is safe and only a few blocks from the ocean. Even though a number of students have a 1 ½ -hour commute, they enjoy the safe and attractive location. At County Community Schools Middle School Academy the mood is ٠ enthusiastic and upbeat. Middle schoolers usually are there for the better part of a semester, then return to their former schools or are given a new placement. There was disappointment when district officials nixed an idea for a mural and some planting projects. One teacher said the biggest problem with the district is that they seem to regard the County Day Schools as punitive. The teacher believes it would be more correct to regard them as therapeutic. "These are not throw-away children." Many are disappointed that there is no vocational training for the students who do not want to go on to college but who aspire to learn a trade. It was suggested that training children how to fix and maintain bicycles could teach mechanical skills; at the same time children could be learning about protecting environmental resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: about the mission, needs, potential and amazing successes of The County Community Schools.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: time performance of 85% and service delivery of 98.5% set for July 2004 mandated by Proposition E (1999).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: time performance of 85% and service delivery of 98.5% set for July 2004 mandated by Proposition E (1999).
F2: The Executive Director of MTA, the General Manager of MUNI, and other senior management personnel should adopt a proactive and highly visible leadership role to improve the administration of MUNI.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Executive Director of MTA, the General Manager of MUNI, and other senior management personnel should adopt a proactive and highly visible leadership role to improve the administration of MUNI.
F3: Management should compare MUNI to other metropolitan transit agencies of comparable size.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Management should compare MUNI to other metropolitan transit agencies of comparable size.
F4: Controls are needed to ensure that only employees that meet the required provisions of the light-duty and battery-pay plans, and workers' compensation benefits receive remuneration for periods when their ability to perform at full capacity is legitimately compromised.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Controls are needed to ensure that only employees that meet the required provisions of the light-duty and battery-pay plans, and workers' compensation benefits receive remuneration for periods when their ability to perform at full capacity is legitimately compromised.
F5: Management should justify the cost of providing benefit payments to those employees who cannot perform their assigned duties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Management should justify the cost of providing benefit payments to those employees who cannot perform their assigned duties.
F6: Office of the Controller and the Budget Analyst's Office should conduct an independent audit of the light-duty and battery-pay plans and workers' compensation benefits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Office of the Controller and the Budget Analyst's Office should conduct an independent audit of the light-duty and battery-pay plans and workers' compensation benefits.
F7: In order to establish a program to reduce both the number and the associated costs of settlements, management needs to establish a program to record, analyze and determine the cause of all accidents and incidents. GLOSSARY AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District that serves most of the East Bay communities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. Accident – Usually an unexpected undesirable event or collision resulting in damage to person(s) or property. Battery pay – San Francisco Civil Service Commission Rule 20.15 and Administrative Code Section 16.170 provide that an employee injured as the result of a criminal act of violence while on duty is eligible to receive full pay for a period of up to twelve months. Incident – An event which is considered a minor occurrence or disruption. Light-duty - Also known as Transitional Work or Transitional Work Program. A work plan that allows employees injured on the job to work reduced hours and/or in assignments requiring reduced physical activity while still receiving full pay for a period of up to 180 days. An employee can be on light duty as often as every other year. AC Transit has a similar program (limited to three days); it is referred to as the modified work program. Light-duty job assignments – Tasks that can be performed by light-duty workers include: "reduced hours driving, loader, receiver, passenger service clerk, service quality teams, training department clerk, central control clerk, yard starter, expediter, finance department assistant, auto attendant, station operations assistant, discount I.D clerk, Pac Bell (sic) park revenue collection and cable car turn-table assistant." MUNI CAC – Citizens' Advisory Council formed by Proposition E. Municipal Railway (MUNI) – The San Francisco public transportation system. Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) – The governing body responsible for the management of Municipal Railway (MUNI) and the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). Proposition E - Passed by San Francisco voters in 1999 to incorporate MUNI and DPT into the MTA [proposition E, Section 8A.103 (c)] and to establish the following service standards: 1. On-time performance: of at least 85% of vehicles must run on-time, where a vehicle is considered on-time if it is no more than one minute early or four minutes late as measured against a published schedule that includes time points; and 2. Service delivery: 98.5 percent of scheduled service hours must be delivered, and at least 98.5 percent of scheduled vehicles must begin service at the scheduled time. In this report the above referred to as "on-time performance" and "service delivery" SamTrans - Part of the San Mateo Transit Authority that serves all of San Mateo County. Statistician – A mathematician specializing in data analysis. Third Party Administrator (TPA) – A person who processes claims and provides administrative services. Valley Transit Authority (VTA) – VTA serves all of Santa Clara County. OVERVIEW The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) is the seventh-largest public transit system in the United States, operating a fleet of approximately 1,000 vehicles consisting of subway/surface light-rail trains (Metro), vintage street cars, electric trolley buses, diesel buses, and the world famous cable cars. There are, on average, approximately 700,000 passengers boarding each weekday. (This information was acquired from MUNI) The 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury investigated the operations of MUNI with respect to progress in meeting the goals mandated in Proposition E. This year, the MUNI administration will not meet on-time performance and service delivery goals as set out in Proposition E. The Grand Jury was unable to obtain from MUNI a timeframe in which they plan to achieve the original goals. The Grand Jury concluded that these failings result from management's lack of effective leadership--by not making the necessary changes and failing to develop new plans to meet goals, either through lack of competence or lack of will to do so. The Grand Jury also looked into the administration's control over the light-duty and battery-pay plans, training program and effectiveness of overall management. It was determined that light-duty and battery-pay plans are not effectively managed and are subject to abuse. Management is aware of the situation but has done nothing to eliminate infractions. The CGJ also questioned the effectiveness of the existing training program, in light of the significant number and costs of claims that have occurred over the years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: In order to establish a program to reduce both the number and the associated costs of settlements, management needs to establish a program to record, analyze and determine the cause of all accidents and incidents. GLOSSARY AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District that serves most of the East Bay communities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. Accident – Usually an unexpected undesirable event or collision resulting in damage to person(s) or property. Battery pay – San Francisco Civil Service Commission Rule 20.15 and Administrative Code Section 16.170 provide that an employee injured as the result of a criminal act of violence while on duty is eligible to receive full pay for a period of up to twelve months. Incident – An event which is considered a minor occurrence or disruption. Light-duty – Also known as Transitional Work or Transitional Work Program. A work plan that allows employees injured on the job to work reduced hours and/or in assignments requiring reduced physical activity while still receiving full pay for a period of up to 180 days. An employee can be on light duty as often as every other year. AC Transit has a similar program (limited to three days); it is referred to as the modified work program. Light-duty job assignments – Tasks that can be performed by light-duty workers include: "reduced hours driving, loader, receiver, passenger service clerk, service quality teams, training department clerk, central control clerk, yard starter, expediter, finance department assistant, auto attendant, station operations assistant, discount I.D clerk, Pac Bell (sic) park revenue collection and cable car turn-table assistant." MUNI CAC – Citizens' Advisory Council formed by Proposition E. Municipal Railway (MUNI) – The San Francisco public transportation system. Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) – The governing body responsible for the management of Municipal Railway (MUNI) and the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). Proposition E - Passed by San Francisco voters in 1999 to incorporate MUNI and DPT into the MTA [proposition E, Section 8A.103 (c)] and to establish the following service standards:

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: Funding for in-custody programs in the jails should be continued.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Funding for in-custody programs in the jails should be continued.
F2: The needs of people exiting the county jails should be studied to help formulate effective programs for the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The needs of people exiting the county jails should be studied to help formulate effective programs for the homeless.
F3: A comprehensive continuum of services to assist this population should take priority in planning for the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: A comprehensive continuum of services to assist this population should take priority in planning for the homeless.
F4: The Sheriff's Department should utilize a computer program to track recidivism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Sheriff's Department should utilize a computer program to track recidivism.
F5: A sponsor/mentor program, which would provide assistance to this population for a limited of time after they are released from custody, should be developed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: A sponsor/mentor program, which would provide assistance to this population for a limited of time after they are released from custody, should be developed.
F6: One agency overseeing all homeless programs should be developed to maintain a registry of services, act as a clearinghouse for requests for services, and audit all programs involved with the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: One agency overseeing all homeless programs should be developed to maintain a registry of services, act as a clearinghouse for requests for services, and audit all programs involved with the homeless.
F7: An audit of all agencies, City departments, and community-based organizations that are charged with providing services to the homeless, should be undertaken. GLOSSARY Recidivism: habitual or chronic relapse, especially into crime or antisocial behavior • Misdemeanant: an individual found to have committed a misdemeanor • RSVP: Resolve to Stop the Violence Project • Roads to Recovery - an in-custody drug treatment for men • SISTER – an in-custody drug treatment for women OVERVIEW The San Francisco County jails house an average of 2,200 people per day at a cost of $98, or $35,770 per person per year, which is nearly $80 million annually. During the course of their incarceration, inmates have available to them a number of programs, including a Charter school established by the Sheriff. These programs are Roads to Recovery, SISTER and RSVP. The programs are geared toward helping inmates become crime free and better equipped to cope with life outside the jails. The majority of inmates are awaiting trial, while others have been committed by the Courts to county jail time (up to one year). Some have been committed to the state prison system and await transportation. Many of these programs are suited to all inmates, regardless of their status, while others are aimed at those who will be returning to the community. The vast majority of people incarcerated will be released to the community within a relatively short period. By all accounts, most programs are farsighted, innovative and beneficial to those who attend them. The Sheriff is to be commended for such extraordinary efforts. After release from the jails, a few additional programs, sponsored by the Sheriff's Department, are available. These offer job training, placement and counseling services to a limited number of people. Additionally, other programs are scattered throughout the community, offering a variety of services intended to assist people in establishing themselves in the community. Once released from custody, people must seek out these services. Post-release services provided by the Sheriff are, understandably, limited. It is not the responsibility of the Sheriff to continue to provide for released individuals. That is the responsibility of the City. There does not appear to be a comprehensive list of programs that would help people locate appropriate services. The greatest need expressed by the majority of inmates interviewed is for permanent housing. Finding employment without an address, and at least a message telephone number, is nearly impossible. Remaining crime-free becomes a staggering challenge when people are forced to sleep on the streets for lack of adequate shelter. The current shelter system is difficult to access due to limited beds. People staying in the shelters must leave early each morning and remain on the streets until late afternoon, when they must stand in line again to gain access to food and a bed. Frequently, an individual may attempt to find a bed at several shelters, only to find that there is no space. They then revert to living in doorways or any other place that seems reasonably safe. All of the education, counseling and good intentions forged while in jail are swept away by the reality of trying to survive. It is a great irony that in order to get services people need to be incarcerated. Many of the people in the county jails are misdemeanants who cycle in and out of the jails frequently. The Sheriff's Department does not track recidivists in the jails. There is, therefore, no reliable means of assessing how many people in jail have been there before. Agencies which work with individuals exiting the jails estimate that 40 - 60% of this population is homeless. This estimate coincides with the statements of approximately 80% of interviewed inmates who list housing as their first priority. An accurate picture of who comprise the homeless would assist the City in planning for and providing services to this population. If, in fact, a large number of the homeless are individuals released from the jails, planning around their needs is indicated. The logical repository of this data would be the Sheriff's Department. Many of the community-based agencies that receive funding from a variety of sources, including City funds, offer similar services to the homeless population. These services typically include counseling, twelve-step programs (for alcohol and drug addiction), job preparation and placement, as well as a smattering of other services. Programs are limited in their funds and tend to spread themselves too thin by offering a panoply of services rather than developing one area of expertise, such as job preparation and placement. The staffs of the programs tend to be by young people, either in school and getting academic credits for their work, or by recent graduates who will move on to better jobs when possible. Many programs rely heavily on volunteers who stay with the program for a limited period. Hence, there is little continuity for people in the programs, people who need consistency and personal contact with a reliable person. Many of these programs enjoy success, while others appear to be ineffectual and inconsistent in their services. There is little significant oversight of these programs. Anecdotal evidence, as reported by individuals who work with people released from the county jails, suggests that a large number of the homeless living on the streets of San Francisco are individuals who have been in and out of the jails. The Sheriff's Department has provided them with education, counseling, and other tools to help them upon release from custody. They report feeling renewed and empowered by the in- custody programs. Once released however, people find that services, for the most part, are hard to access. These individuals frequently have substance abuse problems, which have contributed greatly to their situations. They have self-esteem issues and may easily become frustrated and discouraged. Without short-term assistance upon release, many quickly return to their old habits and haunts because the system they are expected to access is daunting at best. When possible, mentors could be assigned to a person prior to their release, in order to set in place services - such as housing, counseling and job preparation and search - needed to enable a person to remain crime free. Most of the interviewed inmates were enthusiastic about the concept of a "mentor' or "sponsor" who could help them for a limited period of time following release. The savings accrued from keeping the person out of the jail system could provide funding for this program. The expense to the taxpayers of San Francisco in terms of incarceration, crime, medical care, the negative effect on tourism, and quality-of-life issues attributed to this population is exorbitant. Providing funding for programs which address their needs could prevent further offenses while significantly reducing the number of people living and dying on the streets, benefiting both the individual and the citizens. Providing relevant, quality programs will require political resolve. Significant oversight of existing and future programs is necessary. Programs not performing satisfactorily should be denied City funding. Agencies should be encouraged to develop specialties rather than trying to be all things to all people. A central clearing point for all services should be developed so that anyone can access available services with a telephone call. Permanent housing should quickly replace shelter beds. Estimates of the homeless population in San Francisco range from 6,000 to 10,000. If, in fact, 40-60% of these individuals (2,400 -6,000) are "graduates" and repeat "graduates" of the county jails, studying their needs and gearing services toward those needs can do much towards alleviating the problem. Significant reduction of the homeless population and its attendant problems will be difficult but possible. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors need to have the political will to demand quality service for money provided and a cessation of "turf wars" between agencies vying for this money. Careful monitoring of services is needed. Agencies not meeting a high standard of service should be denied access to City and County funding. A concerted effort by all agencies, both public and private, can make the difference between San Francisco's continuing to be a second-class city or reclaiming its rightful place as a first class environment for residents and visitors alike. BACKGROUND The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the in-custody programs provided to inmates by the Sheriff's Department. These programs are: Roads to Recovery, SISTER Program, RSVP (Resolve to Stop the Violence Project) and the 5 Keys Charter School. The Sheriff's Department has kept statistics on recidivism rates for these programs. Roads to Recovery is an in-custody drug treatment program that includes acupuncture, academic classes, life skills, relapse prevention, 12-step groups, anger management, family issues, community planning and recovery process groups (Attachment 1). Groups meet Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM to 3:00 PM. The 2000 recidivism study indicates that 55% of the non-treatment control group recidivated; while 44.8% of program graduates relapsed. Significantly the recidivism rate for program graduates who were transitioned into residential programs was only 35.7%. The SISTER program, the only one for women in the jails, collaborates with the Walden House Drug treatment program to provide a substance abuse course similar to Roads to Recovery. The recidivism rate for women inmates who completed the program was 40%, and 55% for the control group (Attachment 2). RSVP is the first violence prevention program of its kind in the nation (Attachment 3). Participants are held accountable for their violence as well as for refocusing and restructuring their attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. A 2002 study of recidivism, subsequent to release, for this group found the following: 2 months or more in the program: a 42.4% reduction in re-arrest for violent crimes; 3 months or more: a 50.7% reduction 4 months or more: a 79.7% reduction (Attachment 3). The Sheriff's Department received $1,352,491 for these programs in 2003 - 2004. In September 2003, the 5 Keys Charter School was opened in the jail (Attachment 4). It is believed to be the first such school in a jail nationwide. It was developed when the public schools withdrew their educational support due to budget cuts. Classes take place from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Subjects are taught in three and four-hour blocks since only about 10% of the students remain in the program (and in custody) for a month or more. Participants can improve their grade-point average by 1.7 grades in thirty days. Inmates and deputies are equally enthusiastic about the benefits of this program. Funding comes from a variety of sources, largely grants and State funds for ADA (Average Daily Attendance). As a natural adjunct, the post-release programs were also examined, which led the jurors to explore other options available to this population when they are released from custody. Although the Sheriff's programs are laudable, they are necessarily limited in scope. Once an individual is released from jail and on their own, there is precious little assistance to be had. Post-release programs include the Garden Project, electronic home detention and monitoring, court diversion (own recognizance) and graffiti cleanup (Attachment 5). The budget for these services for FY 2003-2004 was $1,601,034. Of these programs, The Garden Project holds the most promise. Whereas the other services, i.e., home detention, court diversion and graffiti cleanup are established for people going through the Court process or fulfilling a Court order, the Garden Project is geared toward people in the community who have been released from custody after the conclusion of their court case. The Project, begun in 1982 as an in-custody program, trained inmates in organic farming and landscaping at the facility in San Bruno. Due to budget cuts, the in-custody portion of the Project was eliminated. Increased funding to restore this program in the jails is a very desirable priority of this Civil Grand Jury. The current program trains individuals in landscaping and gardening at two sites away from the jail. Participants are paid $8 per hour and work 32 hours per week. While most of the produce is donated to local senior centers, homeless shelters and family centers, a part of each harvest is sold at the Ferry Plaza Farmer's Market. The proceeds help pay salaries and fund program operation. A second part of this Project is the Tree Corps, which pays the same amount for the same length workweek. Individuals plant and maintain street trees throughout City neighborhoods. Additionally, the Project has a third component, Garden Project Trainees. These are people who are not ready to join the work force because they lack the skills to do so. Trainees work on various jobs; e.g., planting flowers in neighborhoods, delivering produce to agencies and beginning to work in the Hunter's Point Garden. The recidivism rate for all of the Jail Alternative Programs (post release) is 60% (Attachment 6). The recidivism rate for the Garden Project is 6% four months after release and 24% two years after release. These statistics are far better than those for any other post release program and suggest that actual job training that develops skills and rewards the person for achievements is a powerful tool. After investigating the in-custody and post-release programs, jurors turned to community services available to this population. There appear be numerous agencies, both public and private, which receive funding for and provide various services to the homeless population. Descriptions for most of the programs identified as service providers offered similar or identical services; e.g., counseling, job training and preparation, alcohol/drug programs, etc. According to people who accessed and are knowledgeable about these programs, their effectiveness varies widely. Jurors, with the resources to identify and locate agencies that offer services to the homeless, were unable to find a comprehensive list of all available services. Both users of the system and professionals in the field reported that accessing services is incredibly difficult. When asked about programs for the homeless in general, and for people exiting the county jail population in particular, one professional stated, "There is nothing going on out there." Additionally, agencies contracted to provide services often engage in "turf wars" over provision of those services and funding to support them. In many instances, the result is poor service delivery. Agencies need to be held accountable for funding; they should be denied City and County funding when found in violation of their contract. Careful oversight of all providers is warranted in order to ensure proper expenditure of funds and provision of services. A Life "Walter" is a Viet Nam veteran who has an alcohol problem. He lives on the Tenderloin streets and reports having been in county jails ten times. Currently in the Roads to Recovery Program, he has participated in other jail programs during previous incarcerations. He receives a monthly check from the Veteran's Administration that he admits he spends unwisely. As a result, he frequently cannot afford housing in low-rent hotels. Sleeping on the street is frightening and dangerous. He has seen people robbed and bludgeoned in their sleep. On more than one occasion, others sleeping on the streets in his vicinity have died during the night. When he tries to find space in the shelter system, he says, he is frequently turned away because the shelters are full. When he is able to get into a shelter, he can stay there from 4:00 or 5:00 PM until 7:00 the following morning. These temporary and unreliable situations are frustrating and demeaning. During the wet and cold winter months, he may commit a petty crime or be arrested for public drunkenness so that he can go to jail where he knows he will be warm and fed in a clean environment. When he is incarcerated, the Veteran's Administration is notified and his check is withheld. Upon release, he must go to the VA office to have the checks reinstated. It takes two months for the new check to arrive, during which time he has no income and is again on the streets. Thus goes the cycle for the thousands of "Walters" in San Francisco. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS The Civil Grand Jury investigated programs provided by the Sheriff's Department for individuals incarcerated in the county jails. The Jury also investigated a number of community- based services designed to serve the homeless. The investigation included interviews with senior Sheriff's Department staff, deputies, inmates, community-based providers, a member of the Mayor's office, judges and attorneys. The Jury reviewed program descriptions and statistics related to this population. IN-CUSTODY PROGRAMS I. FINDINGS 1.1. In-custody programs administered by the Sheriff's Department are beneficial to the inmates and should be retained. Inmates participating in these programs are low- risk, non-violent offenders, most of whom are incarcerated for alcohol and drug offenses. 1.2. The 5 Keys Charter School, although in operation for less than a year, holds great promise. Students enrolled in the school are enthusiastic about this program, respond well to the teachers and are eager to learn and achieve. They report a renewed sense of accomplishment and self-esteem.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: An audit of all agencies, City departments, and community-based organizations that are charged with providing services to the homeless, should be undertaken.
Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The SFFD and the DPH should establish specific criteria for measuring the success of the merger and for determining when it is complete.
R2: There should be stronger medical oversight of the SFFD Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
R3: SFFD leadership should define and communicate the values of the Department to ensure that EMS is at least on a par with fire suppression.
R4: Resource allocation should reflect the shift in workload from fire suppression to EMS. The Mayor, Board of Supervisors and Fire Commission should direct and support the Chief to make the necessary resource allocation changes.
R5: SFFD needs to take immediate action to address the shortage of firefighter/paramedics through recruitment, retention and cross training.
R6: The Department should provide comprehensive leadership and command training for all officers prior to their assumption of command. Periodic training should emphasize professionalism, responsibility and accountability and be given on a regular, ongoing basis. Training should include conflict resolution and team building. REQUIRED RESPONSE: Fire Chief – 60 Days VII. PROMOTIONS AND TEMPORARY OFFICER APPOINTMENTS
R7: SFFD should provide better management training for all officers. It should hold officers accountable for carrying out their supervisory duties.
R8: The Mayor should investigate why promotional examinations have not been given in SFFD.
R9: The Mayor should investigate why the Civil Service Commission implemented a certification rule favored by neither management nor labor; in effect, the new rule makes everyone who takes the examination eligible for promotion.
R10: SFFD needs to determine the extent of all on-duty alcohol consumption and drug abuse problems and should institute policies and procedures to deal with the problem effectively. There must be no tolerance for on-duty substance abuse.
R11: The Mayor should initiate a comprehensive, in-depth review of SFFD by outside professionals, similar to those conducted in Chicago and Boston. GLOSSARY Acting Officer - An officer or other member designated by Department order to perform duties at the next higher level of authority. An acting officer is paid at the higher level. ALS - Advanced Life Support. Persons trained in ALS can provide high-level emergency medical service. This includes the ability to start intravenous lines, administer medications, place endotracheal tubes (artificial airways that pass through the larynx), provide advanced cardiac monitoring, and apply manual defibrillation. ALS engine – An engine staffed with an officer, a driver (firefighter), one firefighter-EMT and a firefighter/paramedic. An ALS engine is equipped with a locked drug box containing medications needed in providing ALS care. Twenty-one of the City's 42 fire stations are equipped with ALS engines. Ambulance - A vehicle equipped to assess, treat and transport medical patients. Also known as Medic Units, they carry some firefighting equipment to provide medical and rescue support. The SFFD has 19 such units that are staffed by one firefighter/paramedic and one firefighter/EMT. The SFFD also staffs one or two ambulances per day with two paramedics. These ambulances provide ALS treatment and medical transport and carry less fire suppression equipment than Medic Units. BLS - Basic Life Support. Persons trained in BLS can provide Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), basic first aid and patient transport, and can use an external defibrillator. DPH – Department of Public Health. EMS – Emergency Medical Services. EMT - Emergency Medical Technician. A person trained and certified in BLS. SFFD requires that all new firefighters must have EMT-1 licensure. Currently, 74% of SFFD firefighters are EMT-1 certified. Emergency Medical Response Times – The San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency of the DPH has performance standards governing the maximum allowable elapsed time, from call to arrival of the first responder to medical emergencies. The SFFD responds to two types of calls, Code 2 and Code 3. Code 2 calls are non-life threatening; Code 3 calls are those that are life threatening. The SFFD measures 3 responses to Code 3 calls: • Responders capable of performing BLS and defibrillation. Response time is 5 minutes. • Responders capable of performing ALS. Response time is 10 minutes. • Responders capable of patient transport. Response time is 12 minutes. Engine – A fire suppression apparatus staffed by an officer and three firefighters and equipped with a pump, hose and a water supply. Each of the 42 fire stations in San Francisco has an engine. Firefighter – A member trained in fire suppression. Firefighter-EMT – A member trained in fire suppression and BLS. Firefighter-Paramedic – A member trained in fire suppression who is also a licensed paramedic capable of delivering ALS emergency medical care as well as BLS. Heavy Rescue Squad - Staffed by an officer, a driver (firefighter) and two firefighter EMTs, the Department's two rescue squads are first responders on medical calls. The Rescue Trucks are specially equipped with infrared camera, Jaws of Life and scuba gear, as well as medical equipment and defibrillators. Rescue squad members are trained in scuba, surf, hazardous materials, cliff, tunnel and confined space rescue. Like Work Like Pay - A short-term acting officer assignment, usually for a day at a time. The pay is at the higher rate for time worked only. Medic Unit - A staff of either two firefighter/paramedics or one firefighter/paramedic and one firefighter-EMT: medic units provide ALS treatment and transport of ALS and BLS patients suffering in medical emergencies. Medic units also carry firefighting equipment and can provide medical and rescue support at fires and other emergencies. The SFFD has 19 such units. The term "ambulance" is used in this report to mean Medic Unit. Member – Officers and other personnel of the SFFD. MOU - Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Firefighters Union, Local 798, IAFF, AFL-CIO. Provisional Officer - A temporary officer who is a step closer to permanent status than an Acting Officer. The member is appointed by the Chief for up to 3 years or more with approval of the Human Resources Director. A physical examination is required for a provisional officer appointment. Provisional officers are paid at the higher level when on duty and on vacation or sick leave. A provisional officer who retires will receive retirement benefits based on the higher salary. Truck - Called "hook and ladder" by laymen, trucks are staffed with an officer (lieutenant or captain), one driver firefighter, one tiller firefighter, one firefighter-EMT and one firefighter. Trucks carry ladders and other equipment and are used to provide ladder access, rescue and ventilation. Technical definitions derived from SFFD data and the City and County of San Francisco Office of the Controller's report, "A Review of the San Francisco Fire-EMS System, April 28, 2004. OVERVIEW The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) consists of a diverse group of brave men and women, the majority of whom are dedicated to protecting the lives and property of the citizens of San Francisco. They provide protection from fire and natural disasters, provide life saving emergency medical services and prevent fires. The leaders as well as the rank and file of the Department treated the Civil Grand Jury courteously and helpfully. Our hope is that this report will result in the elimination of the problems that are currently keeping the Department from achieving its potential. The main focus of this Civil Grand Jury investigation is the status of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) that merged with SFFD in 1997. This primary objective led us to focus on eight key areas:

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.