Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice Log Cabin topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears wide-ranging testimony on Log Cabin Ranch closure and juvenile justice alternatives; directs DCYF study
Summary
Supervisors and the Juvenile Probation Department reviewed falling juvenile referrals, the temporary closure of Log Cabin Ranch amid AWOLs and high per‑facility costs, and community providers pressed to reinstate funding and to be included in a task force. The committee asked DCYF to commission a study and report back; the matter was continued for a follow‑up presentation.
The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee held an extended hearing Dec. 11 on juvenile probation operations and the future of Log Cabin Ranch (LCR), focusing on declining juvenile caseloads, LCR’s temporary closure, and the role of community‑based organizations (CBOs) in alternatives to detention.
Supervisor Feuer opened the hearing and asked Juvenile Probation Department Chief Nance to present data on referrals, facility use and next steps. Chief Nance said San Francisco has seen substantial reductions in juvenile referrals since 2000, dropping from more than 4,000 referrals in 2000 to roughly 1,200 in 2017, and reduced average daily population in juvenile hall to about 45. He described Log Cabin Ranch as a 70‑year staff‑secure (non‑locked) facility that had been under‑utilized (average daily population ~14 from 2008–2017) and that the department closed temporarily in June after a string of AWOLs and concerns about sustainability. "With an expenditure, an annual expenditure of about $4,000,000 in some instances close to $5,000,000 it simply is not sustainable if we're only serving a handful of young people in that facility," Chief Nance said.
Chief Nance reported outcomes data: from 2008 the department recorded 198 commitments to LCR, with a roughly 69 percent program completion rate and about 20 percent Ranch failures (absconding or early termination). He also said commitments to the state Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) remain very low (four commitments in 2017 and two since the LCR closure), and that the department has not seen a large uptick in DJJ commitments following the ranch closure.
Representatives of the Juvenile Justice Providers Association (JJPA) and many community organizations urged the committee to restore funding for community programs and to revise referral processes they said were constrained by a recent joint DCYF/JPD RFP. JJPA speakers said restrictive referral rules (requiring a single probation liaison for referrals) had dramatically reduced community referrals; DCYF told the committee it recently widened referral flexibility, allowing providers to receive referrals from schools, public defenders and other partners.
Several speakers, including provider coalitions and policy analysts, highlighted stark cost differences among options: JJPA cited a figure of $314,830 per year to commit a youth to DJJ and contrasted that with community services that typically cost $5,000–$10,000 per youth annually. Providers warned that ISCS collaborative partners had been defunded and asked the city to reallocate detention dollars to proven community programs.
Young people and formerly incarcerated residents offered testimony about trauma and the need for alternatives: multiple youth urged youth‑led programs, two youth seats on the planned task force, and immediate local alternatives to sending young people to state institutions.
Chief Nance described proposed next steps: a stakeholder planning and engagement strategy, hiring consultants to develop a master plan for LCR, convening a stakeholder task force, and producing recommendations to the mayor and Board by the end of the next fiscal year. DCYF Director Maria Hsu said her agency could commission a consulting firm to develop alternative system designs and forward recommendations to the committee.
Supervisors questioned the JPD and DCYF about RFP design, referral trends and budget allocations. The committee moved, without objection, to continue the item and requested DCYF deliver a study and report back, and asked for a presentation on the local action plan that guides JJCPA investments.
Speakers included Supervisor Feuer (hearing lead), Chief Nance (Juvenile Probation Department), representatives of JJPA (Dawn Stickel and others), DCYF Director Maria Hsu, community providers (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, OTTP, CJCJ, Young Women's Freedom Center, Huckleberry Youth Programs), public defenders and many young people and family members.
The committee did not vote on policy changes at the hearing; it directed follow‑up work including a DCYF‑commissioned study and a future presentation of the local action plan.
