Oversight_Panel
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 JUSTICE AND COURAGE
OVERSIGHT PANEL MEETING
April 20, 2005
City Hall, Hearing Room 416
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Members Present:
Barbara Brooten Job, Dorka Keehn, Fiona Ma, Emily Murase, Ken Theisen, and Beverly Upton
Members Absent and Excused:
Denise Castaneda and Manuel Vasquez
Staff Present:
Rosario Navarrette and Richard Eijima
ADOPTED AND AMENDED MINUTES
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Co-Chair Fiona Ma called the meeting to order at 9:10 am.
2. Adoption of Agenda
The agenda for April 20, 2005 was adopted.
m/s/c Murase/Keehn/Unanimous
3. Approval of Minutes
Draft minutes of the February 3, 2005, meeting was approved.
m/s/c Theisen/Keehn/Unanimous
4. Old Business
4A. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Grant Update
Emily Murase reported that the Department submitted the full grant proposal on April 18, 2005. The proposal requests a $592,621 research and evaluation grant to examine efficacy of domestic violence reform efforts in San Francisco. The proposal includes the provision of a 1.0 FTE position at the Department on the Status of Women (DOSW) to be funded throughout the duration of the three year grant, and materials and supplies. Proposal attachments include specific commitments of support from partner agencies, which meet expectations outlined by NIJ, including the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office, Adult Probation, and the San Francisco Police Department. The Domestic Violence Consortium also provided a letter of support.
Dr. Murase thanked Trish Erwin for her work in writing the proposal, and numerous parties who assisted her, including Andrea Bible, and Ellen Pence.
4B. Funders Summit Update
Dr. Murase announced the Funders Summit will take place on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, in the Mayor’s Conference Room, Rm. 201, City Hall, 9:00 am – 12:00 noon. Dr. Murase requested Commissioner Dorka Keehn’s assistance in contacting the Mayor’s Scheduling Office to insure the Mayor’s presence at the Summit. Ms. Murase, also, pointed out the need to notice the meeting due to the presence of a quorum of Oversight Panel members who are anticipated to be in attendance.
The Panel members reviewed the draft agenda. Commissioner Keehn suggested that the Friends of the Commission on the Status of Women be included. Ms. Murase agreed to contact Friends President Toni Wilson and to have her make a few remarks under the Welcome and Introduction portion of the meeting. Beverly Upton suggested that members of the Resource Committee be invited to help with strategic planning. Rosario Navarrette agreed to contact Resource Committee members.
4C. Filipino Advisory Committee
Ms. Navarrette reported that there was good participation of community members at the March 28, 2005 meeting. They expressed the need to fully understand domestic violence (DV) issues and needed additional meetings to continue building trust. Meeting participants expressed their desire to continue as a separate body and hold a retreat to determine goals and objectives, rather than conduct a public hearing (June 24, 2005 ).
Mr. Theisen concurred with Ms. Navarrette’s assessment of the meeting participants as enthusiastic and diverse. Mr. Theisen urged that institutional presence from either an Oversight Panel member or DOSW staff continue at future meetings. Mr. Theisen offered to follow-up with Denise Castenada to insure her meeting presence.
The next meeting is Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 4:00-6:00 pm, Filipino Community Center, 35 San Juan Avenue @ Ocean/Mission. DOSW staff will ask the group to discuss the capacity to conduct a public hearing to be scheduled at some future date.
4D. Report on Meetings with the Public Defender, Chief of Police, and District Attorney
March 14th Meeting with Jeff Adachi, Public Defender
Mr. Theisen reported that Panel members met with Jeff Adachi and Nicole Solis on March 14, 2005. Mr. Theisen stated the difficulty in overcoming the issue of batterer accountability versus batterer defense in dealing with the Public Defender’s Office.
Mr. Theisen further identified the apparent lack of available training and continuing education for public defenders around issues of domestic violence. Currently, there is no mandated training specific to domestic violence issues. Mr. Adachi mentioned that domestic violence training is being developed at Juvenile Hall.
Public Defender Adachi acknowledged the trend towards placing defendants in pre-trial diversion in lieu of batterer intervention services. Mr. Theisen pointed out that a successful defense leads to no counseling. The challenge will continue to be, how to get defendants into treatment without an admission of guilt. Public Defender Adachi agreed to review the parameters in cases of severe domestic or family violence cases.
Panel members discussed how the Public Defender’s Office could be better incorporated into the work of the Oversight Panel. Ms. Upton identified the difficulty of the public defender and the district attorney offices reluctance to discuss each other’s protocols and suggested the Resource Committee as being a better venue for public defender involvement.
March 29, 2005 Meeting with the Heather Fong, Chief of Police
Dr. Murase reported that the Night Investigation Unit has been disbanded and that 3 members have been reassigned to Domestic Violence Response Unit (DVRU).
The issue of Stay-Away Order back-logs was discussed, with a focus on how to hold the police accountable to these back logs. Supervisor Ma suggested that a public hearing could be held to enforce accountability. Mr. Theisen suggested that front-line (data-inputting) staff be invited to participate through the Protocols Committee, particularly with reference to Stay-Away Orders and implementation of best practices for dealing with restraining orders on weekends.
At the meeting with Oversight Panel members, Chief Fong announced that DV training had commenced and invited DOSW input. The Oversight Panel members discussed the pros & cons of the roll-call training format. The members reached a consensus that more comprehensive training involving community based organizations was needed. Ms. Upton suggested that the Panel could follow-up with SFPD on this issue through the Resource Committee. Dr. Murase stated that she would issue a thank you letter and emphasize the need for in-depth and comprehensive training with the involvement from community based organizations.
Dr. Murase reported that Deputy Morris Tabak announced the SFPD’s intention to physically move the homicide unit into the current DVRU space on the 5th Floor at 850 Bryant St. Panel members reacted very strongly and discussed the need to urge SFPD to maintain the DVRU space and support the search for finding adequate space for the homicide unit, but not at the DVRU’s expense.
Talking points to be included in a letter to SFPD include the need for adequate waiting room space for DV victims and their families, and minimizing public exposure thus reducing risks to DV survivors.
March 30, 2005 Meeting with District Attorney Kamala Harris,
Mr. Theisen reported that the Office of the District Attorney is committed to support the NIJ grant. He further reported that a request for statistics on the number of DV prosecutions should be received by the Protocols Committee in May. Panel members requested that the DA make a report on its findings at the June 29, 2005 Oversight Panel meeting.
Mr. Theisen provided an update on the Child Abduction Unit’s (CAU) work. He reported the Unit’s main goal is to get the abducted children returned, with less emphasis on prosecution of the abductors. As a result, the Unit has had a 95% success rate in children being returned.
Panel members discussed ways of obtaining statistics, involving CAU through the Protocols Committee, and developing and implementing future trainings on CAU investigation protocols. Mr. Theisen expressed the need to insure more protection for DV survivors whose children have been abducted. He further expressed concern that the DA should not charge women as abductors who take the children and flee in order to protect them and themselves. He stressed the need for more protection of survivors and their children and increased prosecution of domestic violence abuser/abductors with suspension of visitation rights.
Ms. Upton stated that the DV community is receptive to training from the CAU, especially in light of the Crawford decision, where use of 3rd party hearsay is not admissible in the cross-examination of the alleged perpetrator. Panel members discussed the need for more police training by the DA on this issue, and the need to protect and support victims in the testimony stage. Mr. Theisen reported that the DA is developing a new position, Chief of the Victim Services Unit, in hopes of addressing this need.
4E. Media Plan
Mr. Theisen reviewed the various suggested topics and strategies for media coverage during 2005.
Victim Notification Program
Dr. Murase reported that Ms. Navarrette met and discussed the San Mateo County model with Eileen Hirst, SF Sheriff’s Department. This model utilizes a live person who makes calls to survivors of DV. There was discussion on the merits of having a government versus community-based victim notification. Ms. Upton stated that community-based organizational capacity is hindered by the tremendous risk exposure and cost of obtaining liability insurance. Panel members suggested that follow-up with the Sheriff’s Department be addressed at the June 29, 2005 Oversight Panel meeting.
Filipino Advisory Committee
Both Commissioner Keehn and Ms. Upton mentioned the work of the Filipino Advisory Committee as newsworthy.
Strategies
Supervisor Ma suggested utilizing her weekly press conference with the Asian media. She mentioned her commitment to include highlighting the Asian Women’s Shelter in the near future.
Mr. Theisen and Ms. Upton suggested meeting with editorial boards and the ethnic press to emphasize the need to cover DV and DV Prevention Programs. Ms. Upton explained that the time was ripe given the recent East Bay Express coverage. Mr. Theisen successfully published 6 pieces in 6 weeks. Supervisor Ma added the need for statistical information to accompany compelling DV survivor stories to attract editorial board interest.
Panel members recommended that the following themes be pursued: a) no cuts to DV and DV Prevention programs, 2) remembering victims of DV, and 3) highlighting support services.
Commissioner Keehn and Supervisor Ma agreed to work on a Mother’s Day column that would focus on these themes.
[Action]: Murase/Brooten Job/Unanimous to adopt 2005 Media plan.
5. New Business
5A. Update on Batters Intervention Study – Dr. JoAnn McAllister
Dr. JoAnn McAllister reported that the purpose of the study was to determine how many domestic violence offenders mandated to batterer intervention programs (BIP) by the court actually enrolled in and completed the 52-week programs.
Dr. McAllister reviewed the conditions of probation, including 36-months summary probation, completion of 52-week approved batterer intervention program within 18-months, with only 3 absences, payments to domestic violence fund and crime victim’s restitution fund and payment of program fees, community service determined by the court, and protective orders that prohibit violence, threats, stalking, sexual abuse, and harassment.
Dr. McAllister mentioned that San Francisco is unique in that staffing levels for adult probation counselors is one of the highest in the California. Currently, San Francisco has 14 counselors, who are charged with approving and monitoring batterer intervention programs.
One of the difficulties in information gathering is that the Adult Probation Department does not have an electronic tracking system to measure by month, the number of batterer intervention program participants, drop-outs, or graduated enrollees. Dr. McAllister cited the JUSTIS Committee’s work in designing such a system; however that is several months away from generating live data.
Although there existed shortcomings in the data collection, Dr. McAllister commended the 11 BIPs who responded, without additional funding. Although well-staffed, the issue remains that there still existed a high non-compliance rate of more than 64%. Dr. McAllister cited several factors leading to completion including affluence, higher stakeholder, i.e., homeowner, and availability of support services.
Implications
Dr. McAllister stated that victims may be more at risk. Research has demonstrated that violations of court orders, including restraining orders and conditions of probation, are risk factors for re-offending. Failure to attend the BIP is particularly dangerous because most re-assaults appear to occur in the first several weeks after assignment to a BIP.
Dr. McAllister stated that domestic violence is perceived as unimportant by victims, offenders, and the community. Many victims express regret at having involved the criminal justice system in their lives and do not report further acts of violence by their partner.
Dr. McAllister further stated that the criminal justice system itself is perceived as ineffective. Probationers frequently remark to BIP facilitators that they will just avoid getting a traffic ticket and, thus, avoid getting arrested on any outstanding bench warrant.
Follow-up Questions for Court and Probation
Dr. McAllister raised several questions for follow-up with the Courts and Adult Probation Department including what sanctions have been imposed on the non-compliant offender; how supervision of BIP participants are monitored; what efforts are being made to track and sanction non-compliant offenders; and how frequently the court is monitoring the progress of offenders to ensure compliance.
Oversight Panel members reached a consensus that a meeting should be scheduled with the San Francisco Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Dondero and the presiding judge of the Domestic Violence court, to discuss these issues.
No Public Comment
5B. Presentation on Changes with DVRU
Deputy Chief Morris Tabak was unable to attend the meeting to make a presentation.
6. Reports
6A. JUSTIS
Dr. Murase reported that the JUSTIS hub linking existing data was not operational due to delays with the vendor bid process. Dr. Murase stated that live data would take a minimum of six months, but more realistically nine months. Currently, information and data are available at each department but not linked, so they are unable to share information easily.
Dr. Murase reported that reserve funds have been released and the RFQ process for a vendor is near completion. The first data will be generated six to eight months after vendor/contractor hiring.
Dr. Murase expressed the overall concern as “not how or why not” but “when” the vendor will be on board.
6B. Committee Updates
6B1. Protocols Committee
A. Barbara Brooten Job reported that all requested Departments have made presentations before the Committee.
Ms. Job reported that a letter will be sent to the Sheriff’s Department requesting procedures on the enforcement of protection orders with emphasis on their obligation to check enforcement related to those incarcerated.
The Committee reviewed responses from the DA’s office with reference to their protocols for addressing outstanding domestic violence bench warrants.
B. Ms. Erwin provided an update on the NIJ grant. She reported that the full grant proposal was submitted on April 18, 2005. Notification of grant award would occur sometime in September or October 2005. Ms. Erwin summarized the grant request by stating that grant seeks to assess reform and evaluation of the safety and accountability audit. Ms. Erwin stated that NIJ normally funds audits. The grant proposal stands an excellent chance of being funded due to our current situation. In addition, commitment of staff time, i.e., Sheriff’s and Adult Probation Department, will be another key factor in grant consideration.
Ms. Erwin suggested that because it incorporates a significant evaluation component, the Oversight Panel members inform local federal legislators about the NIJ grant request.
Panel members suggested the re-activation of the Interdepartmental Communication and Coordination (ICC) Committee to discuss the number of outstanding domestic violence bench warrants, reviewing letters to victims from law enforcement, advocating for hiring more Probation Officers specialized in domestic violence, and the need to discuss why there is a decrease in the number of cases at the DA’s Office and referrals to BIPs.
7. Announcements
The next Oversight Panel meeting will be held on June 29, 2005 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.
7a. Recognition of Justine McGonagle
Panel members expressed appreciation for the work of Justine McGonagle in helping to coordinate the Justice & Courage and Oversight Panel work.
A certificate of recognition to Ms. McGonagle will be issued by the Oversight Panel
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Co-Chair Keehn at 12:00 noon.
