Protocols
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Protocol Committee Meeting
Minutes of November 10, 2004
Members Present:
Barbara Brooten Job, Oversight Panel
Trish Erwin, Community Member
Justine McGonagle, Department on the Status of Women
Rosario Navarrette, Department on the Status of Women
Sergio Calizo, Adult Probation Department
Art Faro, Adult Probation Department
Sally Pina, San Francisco Superior Court
Mary Twomey, Institute on Aging
Cynthia Alexis, Victim Witness
Dirk J. Beijen, San Francisco Police Department (for Captain M. Ashe)
Excused Absence:
Ken Theisen, Bay Area Legal Aid
Barbara Kempster, ECD/911
Member of the public: Ashianna Esmail
1. Introductions and roll call
Barbara Brooten Job, called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
2. November 10, 2004, Agenda adopted.
msc: Alexis/Twomey
3. Minutes of October 6, 2004
Minutes were approved with the following corrections: Under Agenda Item Discussions, first paragraph, last sentence correct the word batterers.
Fourth paragraph to read “Modifications to Stay Away orders are documented in each defendant’s file and may be recorded in the Court Management system in the free text system which may not be easily found.”
Under the Sheriff’s Department Update, second paragraph correct the word Tarrasoff.
Mary Twomey will serve as the recorder for the meeting on January 12, 2005. There will be no
meeting in December due to the holidays.
5. Adult Probation Department (APD) Protocol continued. Letter to Victims
Art Faro informed the committee that as probation officers and officers of the court they were mandated reporters. Once a probationer or a victim discloses an incidence of violence probation officers are required by law to report and the probation officer must take any appropriate action. APD agrees to make the recommended change to the template of the letter to the victim informing them (up front) of mandatory reporting. The changes to the template will help victims of domestic violence (or any other crime) understand the probation officer’s role and will outline what expectations and limitations they may have of the probation officer helping the victims to make informed decisions about disclosure.
Mary Twomey moved to adopt the changes to the APD letter to the victim as outlined above
msc: Twomey/Erwin
Recommendations to the Oversight Panel
Discussion on the three recommendations being developed to be forwarded to the Oversight Panel began with P11 regarding the APD Victim Impact Project. Art Faro explained that this project had been started with the hopes of getting funding through a Violence Against Women grant. The funding did not come through and given the number of high-end callers, APD decided to keep the project going. This required one probation officer (Nixon Lazaro) to take on an additional 30 cases, with intense victim contact to his regular caseload of 70. Furthermore, Mr. Lazaro is also responsible for monolingual Filipino probationers. Members inquired about the amount of training received by APD on working with domestic violence victims, in general, and specifically to Mr. Lazaro and expressed concerns of duplication and the under-coordination of services since the VWAP in the D.A.’s Office has a Domestic Violence Advocacy Unit.
Recommendation P12
There was long discussion whether there was a demonstrated need for a Chinese speaking specific probation officer. Art Faro, head of the APD-Domestic Violence Unit indicated that there was no demonstrated need. However this sparked a discussion regarding caseloads for APD and standards for probation officers throughout the nation. Art explained that in 1996 there was one Domestic Violence Unit where probation officers carried 70 cases each. Now in 2004, there are two Domestic Violence Units with each probation officer carrying between 120-125 cases. Domestic violence case victims often have a higher level of needs and require more attention than other caseloads. Some other issues that probation officers have to assist victims with include family court, child custody, visitation and child support to name a few. They deal with conflicting court orders between family and criminal court and understand that the most volatile time for the victims is during the period they are obtaining a Temporary Restraining Orders (or civil protective orders) and/or a criminal court Stay Away Order.
The bottom-line issue for APD is a need for additional probation officers to ensure appropriate monitoring of probationers. This point was further demonstrated given the most recent domestic violence homicide where the batterer was on probation and attending a batterer’s intervention program. Art Faro also indicated restitution is critical to revenues for APD. Due to a high cases loads probation officers are often unable to collect restitution. Senate Bill 940 provides for comprehensive collection of fines but more officers are needed to ensure that collection efforts are effective.
Committee members expressed concern for the caseload levels and would like Armando Cervantes, Chief Probation Officer to reinstate a reasonable caseload of 70 cases per probation officer due to the liability issues involved particularly with domestic violence cases. It was decided that APD will better coordinate with VWAP to ensure victims are receiving all of the services needed and the focus of APD is clearly on holding the batterer accountable.
Another issue raised was the unusual decrease in the number of APD’s domestic violence cases. Art Faro indicated that in 2003 statistics showed an average of 50 intakes per month in the DV Unit. Today there is an average of 30 intakes per month in the DV Unit and the Department of Justice stats report a 50% decrease in intakes for San Francisco. Some theorize that batterers are passing information in the jails that they should fight the charges by insisting that their case(s) go to trial instead of agreeing to probation and enrollment in a batterer intervention program. It was also speculated that the Public Defenders Office is pushing the cases to trial also. Feedback from victims that are immigrant or undocumented is that the Public Defenders Office investigators are intimidating victims by reminding them that they or their batterer could be deported.
This is causing a serious enrollment reduction in the batterer intervention programs to the extent that some programs are in danger of folding, which will be disastrous for the community given the limited number of existing programs, while others are expanding their services to other areas away from the domestic violence field.
Recommendation P10
Discussion was held on the large number of warrants issued by the courts for failure to appear. Currently the Police Department makes arrests on warrants during routine stops or during the course of business. Additionally, the Fugitive Recovery Enforcement Team (FRET) unit seeks and captures those who have bench warrants for failing to show in court. Art Faro indicated that one year ago, FRET had a 48% return to court of those who had bench warrants. Art also stated that there are a number of bench warrants in the domestic violence court for failure to appear.
Art Faro negotiated an agreement with the FRET unit creating a process by FRET also seeks and retrieves batterers who fail to show up for domestic violence court. APD gets a daily list of bench warrants from the domestic violence court which by 2 p.m. is faxed to the FRET unit for pick-up of the probationer or to the district stations of the individuals. Based on the discussion, Art will re-write recommendation P10 including the high risk cases and will bring the recommendation back to the Protocol Committee’s next meeting.
6. Trish Erwin reported on the Stay Away Order Adhoc Committee meetings indicating that the focus of the discussions have centered on family court, child custody orders, the termination letter to the victim when a Stay Away Order has been dropped that will be used regularly in domestic violence cases giving the victim information on resources and on ensuring that language is standardized/consistent in all communications, written and verbal to victims through the District Attorney’s Office.
7. Discussion was held on whether to meet during December.
Consensus was to schedule the next Protocol Committee meeting on January 12, 2005.
8. Adjournment
Msc Alexis/Twomey: To adjourn the November 10, 2004 meeting at 3:30 p.m.
REMINDER next meeting: January 12, 2005
