Oversight_Panel
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 JUSTICE AND COURAGE OVERSIGHT PANEL
March 30, 2004
City Hall, Room 416
9:00am – 12:00pm
Oversight Panel Members in Attendance
Co-Chair Dorka Keehn, Commission on the Status of Women (COSW)
Belle Taylor-McGhee, Department on the Status of Women (DOSW)
Ken Theisen, Bay Area Legal Aid
Beverly Upton, San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium
Barbara Brooten Job
Manuel Vasquez, Department of Public Health
Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Co-chair Dorka Keehn at 9:00 a.m.
Theisen/Upton/Unanimous (M/S/Unanimous)
March 30, 2004, Meeting Agenda
March 30, 2004, meeting agenda adopted.
Upton/Theisen/Unanimous (M/S/Unanimous)
January 20, 2004, Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004, meeting minutes adopted.
JoAnn McAllister presented on Holding Batterers Accountable: A Study of Batterer Program Compliance in San Francisco, 1997-2003. Dr. McAllister’s study has three parts. Due to the lack of data collection study captures only those who enrolled. Because of this study, initiated through the courts, batterer intervention programs now have databases. The first part focused on compliance of the population who enrolled between June 1997 and June 2002. Each program in the study sent her their list of enrollees. She created a database with information about when probationers enrolled or dropped and if they re-enrolled when they dropped, or if they completed the program.
The second part of the study was to focus on the Adult Probation Department’s (APD) Probationers’ Orientation as a means to increase compliance. APD developed an orientation process where probationers would learn what it means to be on probation. Once some defendants learned what probation entails choose not to take probation and instead preferred to do jail time. Those that chose probation were interviewed by a probation officer within a week to ten days, and were referred to a program that would be suitable to their needs. The assessment conducted is based more on logistics, not for what program they might do best in and since we don’t really know that. The third part of the study was the program referral itself.
This first part of the study was short, from September 2002 to March 2003. APD had the list, provided by the court, of people who were scheduled to attend the orientation meeting. This informed the study of who didn’t come to the orientation to begin with and to what program APD sent them. Routinely requests were sent to programs asking if the individuals had enrolled and if they were active.
At the end of six months, Dr. McAllister was able to see how many people were still enrolled in the program. This part of the study provided a snapshot of the orientation and referral process from court to program. Limitations of part one of the study are the length of time which wasn’t long enough to see if the orientation made a difference in the number of individual who completed batterers intervention programs.
Dr. McAllister would like the Oversight Panel to recommend completing the study (a year to eighteen months in length). The third part doesn’t have that completion of programs aspect.
Dr. McAllister conducted a slide presentation on the statistics gathered for the three parts of her study. The first slide showed compliance of probationers who enrolled in the program. Of the nearly 2,000 names, nearly 50% dropped or didn’t enroll and 38% completed.
Dr. McAllister reviewed the list of probationers mandated to the programs by APD (not just the people who enrolled in the program and added the 26% that didn’t show up from the earlier part of the study (1997 to 2002, 26% didn’t show up). She stated that when you look at the whole picture of all of the people who were mandated, the drop-out/no compliance rate is over 60% of the actual rate. Of those scheduled to the APD orientation she found that people generally went to the orientation with 88% attendance and 11% no-shows. Most were no show the first time but some were no shows two or three times.
The 26% no-show rate referred to earlier, was failure to show after being referred to the program. So, some probationers went to the orientation but still 26% didn’t go to the program. The enrollment drop was 13% and when the study ended in March 2003, 60% were still active. It appears that the drop-out, non-enrollment rate is less than 62% but Dr. McAllister indicated that this information was not certain unless that part of the study can be carried out 18 months after the last enrollment. Then those probationers in the study during that period would have time to complete it . She stated that over 50% of the people mandated to programs either never get there or never complete the program.
Dr. McAllister stated there are several things that can be examined; 1) a review of sentencing practices to determine whether those who are sent to programs are amenable to probation. APD’s term “amenable to probation” is based on a review of an individual’s records, to see if they have a pattern of following or not following court orders, to determine if the individual is a good probation candidate; 2) to look at accountability and consequences when probationers don’t comply. If the program turns in a program termination notice and the probationer doesn’t report to APD, APD alerts the court and a hearing is set to revoke probation where the probationer must appear. If the probationer fails to appear, a bench warrant is issued. She stated that 90% of domestic violence cases wind up being charged as misdemeanors. Misdemeanors are a low-rated offense. The Police Department who serves the bench warrants has a stack of felony bench warrants which they prioritize resulting in misdemeanor domestic violence bench warrants being place lower on the priority list.
Another finding by Dr. McAllister was that she reviewed criminal rap sheets for over 300 probationers in 1997 to 2002. She was astonished to find that most all of them had bench warrants. More astonishing was that some of the probationers returned to court five to seven years later and again were sent to a batterers’ treatment program. Dr. McAllister suggested we look more closely at the referrals between agencies and review criteria for assigning probation. She emphasized the need to better track probationers. A good model to follow is Sacramento’s online reporting system. This is a system where Sacramento’s APD provides software for the programs who can enter information immediately informing them of probationers who are absent or are terminated that APD receives immediately. This database provides a good tracking system of individuals over time.
She stated that it seems the San Francisco’s Adult Probation Department’s new system can’t look at a accumulative record because it is incident based. She stated a database is needed that can pull up an person’s record like a social service file and see on a timeline what is going on with this individual. Some counties have this, but she has only found one or two in California.
In New York, there’s a program called the Court Innovations Technology Project. She recommended that the Oversight Panel look into this (she could provide the Oversight Panel with information). The Project is a court-based database for domestic violence courts specifically designed to track offenders with information coming in from all parties. She added that resources for implement this type of system of accountability is critical to its success. With extensive tracking you have to have somebody in court entering the data, and you need someone reviewing and analyzing the data.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee asked if Ms. McAllister was able to determine any correlation between the persons who were enrolled in the programs to recidivism rates.
Dr. McAllister stated that recidivism studies are very complex. They were beyond the resources that she had available. She added that significant funding is needed to conduct a study of that magnitude because it is a long term study that requires access to criminal histories. Most recidivism studies are done one year, 15 months, and 18 months after completion of programs. She stated that if you can’t get 50% of the people to complete the program, it doesn’t make much sense to look at a program’s effectiveness. So, until that problem is solved, she stated that we really should not be asking if program models are effective. She stated that she believes administrative accountability needs to be done first with programs, which she believes APD is currently doing. The programs need to have a system to report immediately so probationers don’t fall through the cracks.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee asked if there are penalties to probationers for not showing. Dr. McAllister responded that if the individual does not show for three weeks, the program drops them. They send a termination notice to APD. Probation then reports them to the court and who most likely sets a Motion to Revoke Probation for that person. She added that typically when the probationer comes into court they are re-referred to the program. Dr. McAllister stated re-referral rates are another thing that could be looked at in court records to determine how many times individuals are being allowed to fail. In some counties, some people are allowed to fail twice and then they are remanded into jail. In other counties, people are re-referred over and over again.
Dr. McAllister stated that the statistics are not available, but could be obtained by the current data collected. It also depends on the judge, because this changes every year, and therefore there are changes made based on judicial style which is another other issue.
In response to the earlier question about recidivism rates, there have been many studies but the National Research Council’s latest report says that the answer is still not known because programs are very difficult to evaluate in isolation. They are moving towards evaluating systems by holding each piece of the system accountable.
APD puts everyone on maximum supervision if they are on probation for domestic violence. She added that she believes these are misplaced resources because not every offender is as dangerous. Furthermore, she stated it is difficult to be accurate but there are a number of good indicators and assessment tools. She stated that there could be more supervision of actually dangerous offenders if APD or the courts funded an assessment professional to review the caseload. She stated that in some counties felony offenders go back to court every week or if they’re on misdemeanor probation the court decides if they are high-risk and monitor them weekly. Those who are compliant, first-time offense, who don’t raise any red flags may do their reporting by mail.
Dr. McAllister indicated that she was aware the Justice and Courage Project had a Data Collection Committee. She stated that information must be accessible for input and information to those holding offenders accountable. She stated that San Francisco is not any different than other counties in California and she has not been able to find anyone with an adequate data collection system. She added that hearings by the Attorney General have been held with very articulate probation officers and judges calling for statewide databases so that counties could actually begin to communicate with each.
Ken Theisen thanked her and stated he was shocked to learn how bad the problem is of holding individuals accountable. He asked for a copy of her entire report. Mr. Theisen wondered how widely her study been read by court personnel, especially judges because it seems major changes need to take place.
Dr. McAllister responded that the Courts have the study and it’s been discussed at providers meetings and the Family Violence Council, so there are many people who know about the study. She stated she doesn’t know if anyone has a handle yet on what to do about the results of this study. She reiterated that the long term study needs to be completed to really understand the patterns and trends in order to create good public policy.
She believes some of the problems come from how the probationers are referred logistically for example those who may be at higher risk because of the neighborhood they live in, those programs may experience a higher drop out rate and should have more support from the system. Furthermore, there has never been an evaluation of the number of weeks mandated to fulfill the program. The basis for 52 weeks when the law was drafted, “It takes a long time to change behavior.” She stated that it may be that this population of people cannot do a 52 week program and we have to be realistic about people’s life. Often times, the victim signs the check to pay for the program or the probationer gets classified as indigent while having under-the-table income. There are a lot of issues involved with mandating programs. Sometimes, the court will also assign the person to a parenting program. For the poor and people of color who do not have the economic and social advantages of others, being mandated to multiple programs with fees and fines places a significant financial and time burden. It’s not surprising that the non compliance figures are so high.
Ms. Keehn asked if Dr. McAllister knew how many bench warrants are actually issued and how many people actually show up in court.
Dr. McAllister stated she did not know off hand but thought that it could be found out.
She stated this is huge problem for the state. She stated that the drug court had funding to pay for bench warrant service. They had two Sheriff deputies at the Bench Warrant Service Unit paid for by grant funding, but believes that funding is over now.
Dr. McAllister stated that if we wanted to look at this issue of domestic violence bench warrants, we want to look at funding for extra Probation Officers who can provide that service.
She stated that APD is trying to do more in returning people to Court but they have limited staff and resources. She recommended the Oversight Panel address this issue.
Dr. McAllister stated that the Oversight Panel should ask APD if their new Probation database system could look at accumulative records or only individuals incidents. Additional questions to ask related to the database dedicated to tracking domestic violence offenders are:
· Who and how many offenders were mandated to programs?
· How many people are still enrolled in the program?
· How many people had their probation revoked or bench warrants were ordered?
· How many have returned to courts and how many have completed programs?
· Can you give me a list of all the people who have completed batterers treatment programs in the last five years?
Her understanding is that none of our systems can do that. That is why she recommends looking at something similar to the Court Innovation Project in New York, where they have a database where all domestic violence offenders are inputted and followed.
Ms. Keehn stated that she would like Armando to present on these issues at the next Oversight Panel meeting and to the Data Collection Committee.
Dr. McAllister suggested that the Data Collection Committee ask the court and APD to bring samples of what their records look like so they could see what is collected.
Ms. Barbara Brooten Job asked if there is information on the number of probationers who dropped out of the program and are returning to court that have actually been sentenced by the court.
Dr. McAllister stated she has permission to use the CMS database from 1997-2002 and can find that out for the period of time or could begin a short, 6 month, study to watch something like that just to get a snapshot. She believes probationers know that the consequences are not serious.
Dr. McAllister stated that victims believe they are safe when batterer’s go to treatment programs. A terrible disservice is done to victims by saying that we have intervention programs, probation officers and a court that provides oversight when it is not as good as it can be.
Dr. McAllister thanked the Oversight Panel and stated that the issues are fixable but will take additional analysis, commitment, and funding to truly have an overall, in-depth picture.
Ms. Keehn stated that the Data Collection Committee would present out of order of the agenda because Ms. Dalrymple the Co-chair needed to leave early.
Data Collection Committee
Kerry Dalrymple, Co-chair of the Data Collection Committee presented an update stating that during the past couple of months the Data Collection Committee has been focusing on getting all the departments together to identify the type of data they collect in individual segments. The Department on the Status of Women has put together a list of the type of data elements they would like to see in the JUSTIS system. She stated that each department is going through this list of data items and identifying whether they currently collect the data, how they collect it, and whether it is manual, in a form or is it automated and if they use drop down list for those whose system is on computer. There has been crossover and different departments collect the same data but in a different manner or it may be inconsistent with other department’s collection. The focus is to identify the departments and the data they collect. The Police Department attended the last meeting and gave us a list of information they currently collect. The majority of the data comes from the Police, District Attorney’s Office and the Courts.
Ms. Keehn thanked Ms. Dalrymple and called for the next agenda item, the evaluation model.
Evaluation Model
Manuel Vasquez stated that he, Rosario Navarrette and Justine McGonagle met with Gena Anderson on February 24, 2002. Ms. Anderson is a graduate student at UC Berkeley in the Department of Education and Public Health. We met to establish a dialogue and relationship to an evaluation model for the Oversight Panel of Justice and Courage. She was given the recommendations of the previous meetings and stated that she thought our scope was quite ambitious. As a graduate student in the graduate department, she has some time limitations. He stated that as Dr. McAllister noted, funding does become an issues when you are looking at evaluation and studies.
He stated that at that meeting they tried to sort out what was practical and was asked to bring back to the Oversight Panel the idea of looking at the Adult Probation Department as the evaluation piece. He stated that one of his concerns going back to the original report regarding Claire Joyce Tempongko was the fact that when the probation officer had left, nobody had picked up the caseload. He stated that what would be looked at were questions such as were there still caseloads not assigned particularly domestic violence caseloads? Mr. Vasquez reported that the evaluator also mentioned giving an estimate for a larger project with recommendations and cost for a larger evaluation.
Co-chair Keehn stated that as soon as the Panel decides the path it wants to go on, they could get an estimate and then the Oversight Panel could start approaching foundations. Ms. Keehn stated she would like to contact University of San Francisco’s non-profit master program to take on this project. She stated that since she had met with Patti Chang, she has a list of foundations, and believes they need to approach those foundations to make them aware of this evaluation model. She asked if the Oversight Panel members if they had any questions for Mr. Vasquez.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee stated she had a conversation with Mr. Steven Greenberg, who has done a number of evaluations for a number of agencies and he said that he would sit with us and help us identify what we need. She also stated that the philanthropic community given its budget restraints over the past few years has certainly been asking for more data and accountability from agencies that seek funding. She believes they need to think of making funding or data collection a condition of funding.
Ms. Navarrette stated she wanted to add that Ms. Gina Anderson’s report had to be completed by May 20th. She stated the date they were given was very quick and they had to figure out the focus and make sure Ms. Anderson could get started right away. Ms. Anderson has a professor involved named Lynn Palou.
Mr. Vasquez followed stating that the scope would be limited in terms of its initial focus looking at Probation Department. However, Ms. Anderson stated she would provide a proposal for looking at the whole system and relationship to all the other recommendations. She could not commit to a full evaluation but she would take a piece of the recommendations focusing on the Adult Probation Department. She would provide us with a report at the end of the school year. She would then provide a cost estimate for the larger scope of the project.
Co-chair Keehn asked the Oversight Panel if they would like to move forward on this.
Co-chair Keehn stated that the actual full evaluation is supposed to take place in 2005, so this year the Oversight Panel needs to look at funding. She stated that they need to get the project to put a proposal together to start getting foundation grants and start meeting with these foundations which is in the Commission’s Strategic Plan.
All members approved Mr. Vasquez going forth with Gena Anderson on the proposal.
Co-Chair Keehn called for the next agenda item Committee Reports. The first one is Interdepartmental Communication and Coordination.
Interdepartmental Communications and Coordination Committee (ICCC)
Justine McGonagle, reported on behalf of the ICCC Chair, Quita Keller. She stated that at an earlier meeting, the Committee had submitted an outline for the process of recommendations which has been approved. However, at the last Oversight Panel meeting in which recommendations were brought forward, the Committee realized there needs to be some changes to the process. The ICCC has worked on adding a couple more changes on how to bring forth recommendations to the Oversight Panel. This is what today’s agenda action item reflects. At the last Oversight Panel meeting there were some recommendations on the agenda that were not approve by the ICCC as a whole. This recommendation amends the process so that a committee can bring a recommendation directly to the Oversight Panel stating clearly that it was not approved by the ICCC and the reason for forwarding the recommendation. Voting members of the ICCC has also been defined including voting by alternates. The ICCC has made a list of suggestions of what the process should be, but believes the Oversight Panel should determine what action happens following approval of recommendation (s). It doesn’t make sense to have the ICCC form subcommittees unless they cannot address a particular issue. Co-chair Keehn noted that she didn’t see a name listed for the Police Department representative on the ICCC and asked if their attendance has been an issue.
Ms. Brooten Job stated that Sergeant Rachel Kilshaw had been the ICCC-Co-Chair. Since she was reassigned the ICCC hasn’t had a replacement. She stated that they would like to have Lieutenant Connolly or someone from the police department as a co-chair of the ICCC.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee stated she agreed with Ms. Job and emphasized the importance of the Police Department’s participation at committee meetings. She said their input is critical and often the process and decisions are held up due to a lack of information and participation at the meetings. Ms. Taylor-McGhee believes they are critically needed at the Protocol and Data Collection committee meetings.
Ms. McGonagle stated that the Police Department’s Domestic Violence Response Unit has been short staffed and so the ICCC hasn’t press them to attend. We are also currently evaluating if they should attend only when there are issues that directly affect them. She indicated that a call will be made to Lieutenant, Mike Connolly asking about attendance (Lt. Connolly has attended some of the Protocol and Data Collection Committee meetings).
Co-chair Keehn asked for a motion to approve the changes to the ICCC’s recommendations on the recommendation submission process with the additions.
Added to #3- Barbara Brooten Job will report back to the ICCC on the status of recommendations after leaving the ICCC.
It was added that for recommendations submitted to the Oversight Panel by the ICCC, voting will be conducted by majority vote.
Action Approved. Brooten Job/Taylor-McGhee/Unanimous (M/S/Unanimous)
Protocol Committee
Ken Theisen reported for the Protocol Committee stating that the Sheriff’s Department made their presentation starting with the Resolve to Stop the Violence (RSVP).
Co-chair Keehn asked if the issues regarding the EPOs’ were addressed by the Sheriff. Mr. Theisen stated no because EPO is not a Sheriff issue. Co-chair Keehn asked if it was a court issue. Mr. Theisen stated EPO is an issue for the courts and the Police Department. The Sheriff is out not involved unless the individual has an EPO against them at the time they are in jail.
Barbara Brooten Job stated that from the Protocol Committee she learned form the Sheriff’s Department presentation that some defendants are being released where some are given a court date but not a court room to report to resulting in missing their court date.
Co-chair Keehn asked if the police have been coming to Protocol meetings?
Mr. Theisen stated that they have been coming to part of the Protocols Committee meeting or none of the meetings. The reason given is that the person that is the representative that is supposed to attend handles cases giving priority to the casework. Co-Chair Keehn expressed strong concerns about their lack of participation and continuity since Sergeant Kilshaw left. Co-chair Keehn indicated that this would be raised at the next discussion held with the Chief of Police.
Resource Committee
Beverly Upton reported on the Resource Committee stating that one of the priorities the Committee has identified is determining the mid-year contingency budget cuts. Mayor Newsom has given a directive that cuts should not be made to direct services. Ms. Upton reported that the Adult Probation Department has lost its training person.
She reported that in January, all the training representatives from each of the departments met to talk about what their training needs were, what gaps existed and where, as law enforcement partners cross training could occur. The Police Department has not lost training or personnel to-date and the Resource Committee is looking to them as a resource to see where they can cross-train the courses that are applicable to the Adult Probation Department and the Sheriff’s Department.
Ms. Brooten Job sated that she had reviewed the Penal Code Section 1203.097. She found a section on fees that are imposed on defendants when they are placed on probation that are supposed to go to the Domestic Violence Training Education Fund of the Adult Probation Department and wondered if there is anyway to tap into these resources to conduct training?
Beverly Upton reported she had met with former District Attorney Terrance Hallinan, two years ago and this issue was raised. He had reported there is a very low collection rate. She stated this would be a good issue to raise again with the APD Chief.
Ms. Brooten Job said when someone is granted probation, the Penal Code mandates certain fees and fines and as a former Supervising Probation Officer it is often difficult to collect the money because you want the individual to, for example, to go to the batterer’s treatment program first. She stated that money collected goes to the statewide Domestic Violence Training and Education Fund. That fund is used for training and education to increase public awareness in domestic violence and to improve the scope and quality of services statewide. The State Department of Health Services state program administers and awards grants.
Sharon Woo, District Attorney’s Office also spoke about these funds. She stated that the money is separated between supporting the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System through the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office gets the money for statewide training. Ms. Woo stated that Adult Probation Department collects the money and the City sends it to the state. She indicated that we are sending the money but not getting the money back since it is allocated to the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Justice for statewide training.
Ms. Brooten Job commented that maybe they could get some of the statewide training money. Co-chair Keehn stated that there could be a discussion with the Attorney General who is both interested and aware of the Justice and Courage Project.
Art Faro, Adult Probation Department, also commented on the topic stating that he is the Division Head for Specialized Services. He said that the Adult Probation Department did receive grant money last fiscal year to host a Round Table Training and he believes this money came from this training fund. He stated that the problem with it is that once a county entity applies, then it gets re-circulated back among the other counties in the state for other counties to apply. San Francisco has already applied and has used up funds for this year. The funds are only available to different counties every in so many years.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee asked him to comment about the loss of his training manager? Mr. Faro responded that this loss leaves APD utilizing a division head, Ernest Mendeda, to absorb the training responsibility in addition to his current job duties as division head for Community Services. Mr. Faro stated that by law APD is mandated to require probation officers to participate in forty hours of training each year. Mr. Mendeda will have to allocate a significant amount of his time to doing this and managing the three units in his Division. Ms. Brooten Job asked if all the funds had been taken away but there was still training requirements. Mr. Faro stated this was the case.
JUSTIS Governance Council
Co-chair Keehn reported that at the last JUSTIS Governance Council meeting it was announced that the JUSTIS budget is now under the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and that Murlene Randle, the new Executive Director will be overseeing that budget. At the last meeting Ms. Randle had stated that there was approximately a $400,000 reserve component of the JUSTIS budget. A letter has been sent by the Major’s Office of Criminal Justice asking the Board of Supervisors to release that reserve.
Co-chair Keehn reported that she had received the Domestic Violence Reporting Inquiry System Project Proposal from the Department of Technology and Information Services (DTIS). There was approximately $68,000 that had been allocated for spending to the domestic violence which came as a surprise. She reported that the Department on the Status of Women would not be billed for this amount but that this amount DTIS described as the cost associated with the work that they had done so far. The money was related to the staff person provided to the Department on the Status of Women as well as cost of other DTIS staff members. Co-chair Keehn stated this had not been discussed and she stated her concern that when the Mayor looks at the JUSTIS budget and the amount allocated towards domestic violence this may appear costly. Co-chair Keehn informed the JUSTIS Governance Council the need to be informed of funds being allocated and inquired about how the previous decision had been made with regard to costs associated with the project.
Co-chair Keehn stated she will follow-up with Oli Sadler, DTIS to find out who made those decisions and how that amount was determined.
Co-chair Keehn reported that next year’s proposed JUSTIS budget for 2004-2005 will be 1.7 million dollars and that there is not a line item for domestic violence. Co-chair Keehn stated that when she inquired about the line item, she was told the domestic violence module was not a line item but it was part of labor cost. She stated that currently there are no JUSTIS specific funding approved from the JUSTIS Governance Council for the deployment of the domestic violence reporting query system. However, she stated that most of this information is part of the case management systems within each of the departments.
Co-chair Keehn stated that she would like to have the Department on the Status of Women become a voting member of the JUSTIS Governance Council. Her desire to become a voting member is partly based on that fact that the domestic violence module had received a low priority rating by the JUSTIS Governance Council.
Mr. Al Corker, ITPM, Project Manager, consultant to DTIS, commented on the domestic violence module. He stated that the domestic violence data collection activity has a place within the JUSTIS budget. This is funded as a labor activity through DTIS. He stated he isn’t qualified to speak for DTIS but he would try to explain as much as he could.
DTIS will assign a staff person and they will put a place for their funding within the JUSTIS budget. The activities necessary for the project will need to be identified. He stated that it is not a line item yet within the design requirements or any kind of software acquisitions for a variety of reasons. There are concurrency aspects such as the Police Department’s RFP is out to bid. Mr. Corker stated there is a specific requirement within the federal guidelines for data collection which specifically addresses domestic violence. He stated that the District Attorney’s application, the Court’s application and other applications collect information. JUSTIS welds them together from an information perspective to exchange information. The information is placed into a repository. There are two repositories, one is a middleware repository that provides the exchange of information and the other repository is the final resting place for information which is called a warehouse.
Mr. Corker stated that the next step of getting the domestic violence project initiated is the creation of a design document. Once this is completed the design documents serve as the requirements. At this time, Mr. Corker stated that he sees aspects of the domestic violence module as data collection, outbound communication, sending information to different people, and quality assurance. Quality assurance would allow information to be statistically measured and make changes to the domestic violence response, programs and policy based on measurable components.
When asked about a timeline, Mr. Corker stated that as soon as the Data Collection Committee had finished the design document, this could be done. He reported that DOSW will help design the screens since they are for DOSW’s use. The screens serve as a visualization method for the information in the warehouse. This will allow for an annual report to be issued to the Mayor’s Office.
Mr. Corker stated that once the report is defined, then the domestic violence report will be produced by whoever is authorized within the city to ask for this information. The design document will specify what reports will contain, who will get them, and how frequently they will obtain them. When asked when this would happen, Mr. Corker stated as soon the design document was ready.
Al Corker stated that the challenges are not around the reporting requirement of the domestic violence module. The complicated part is in the utilization and interpretation of the reporting information and the actions that are evoked around this information. Mr. Corker stated that the biggest benefit to victims and programs is the quality assurance aspect of our application where monitoring and tracking in terms of what the results will be when you reinvest in activities. He reported that this is not being done anywhere around the country. This is a unique opportunity to create an architectural design for future services.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee stated that she hoped the domestic violence module would be concurrent as systems go live and stated that when a test run is conducted there data may not be good data because the Police Department’s system won’t go live until 2005.
Mr. Corker responded that as you move away from legacy data and to current information, the information improves. Co-chair Keehn commented that this assumes data is being entered; she is concerned for example, that the District Attorney’s Office doesn’t have the staff to enter information.
Co-chair Keehn inquired about the Project Proposal changes she requested and who will address these? Mr. Corker replied once collective comments have been submitted back to DTIS, they will edit the document. Ms. Taylor-McGhee stated that comments were already given to Oli Sadler of DTIS. Co-chair Keehn wondered if the domestic violence module was listed as a low priority in the Proposal will they be attended to by DTIS right away? Mr. Corker stated he could speak to the “low priority”. He said content was not considered in the rankings. The notion of the domestic violence module being a “low priority” is relative to the technical content of the project only. The prioritization addresses the importance of the technical content relative to the JUSTIS domain. It does not address if the system is at the front or the back of the process and was not considered in the ranking, only the role of the work requested relative to getting JUSTIS completed and if it stood out as a component or a building block of JUSTIS.
He stated that JUSTIS is the project that welds everything together and when you look at the project to weld everything together, then the domestic violence activity is another crime and will be incorporated. Co-chair Keehn thanked Mr. Corker for his assistance.
Belle Taylor-McGhee commented on the Department on the Status of Women becoming a voting member of the JUSTIS Governance Council. She reported that she had asked the City Attorney to write an amendment to the ordinance to include the Department.
Ms. Eileen Hirst, Co-Chair JUSTIS Governance Council, informed the Oversight Panel that the enabling ordinance would require a vote by the Board of Supervisors. While she was not on the Project when it originated, her belief is that it was put together to name those agencies part of the Case Management Systems (CMS) that would be replaced. It includes a list of departments who have access to the CMS. Mr. Hirst did not see a reason why it would be inappropriate to have DOSW as a voting member. Co-chair Keehn stated that she would bring it to the JUSTIS Governance Council for their approval and support before bringing it to the Board of Supervisors.
Announcements
Co-chair Keehn reported that Patti Chang resigned as a member of the Oversight Panel due to the growth of the Women’s Foundation of California, but remains committed to helping. Beverly Green Simmons will also no longer be a member of the Oversight Panel due to a job change.
Co-chair Keehn stated that Marissa Dagdagan was passed on as an individual who may be interested in participating on the Oversight Panel. Ms. Dagdagan works for the Family Violence Prevention Fund. Co-chair Keehn asked if Beverly Upton could talk with her about the Justice and Courage Project. Ms. Upton stated she would.
Co-chair Keehn asked for other suggestions from the Oversight Panel and stated that she would follow-up with names from the last meeting.
Trish Erwin’s Application
There was an action item to approve Trish Erwin’s application to become a member of the Protocol Committee of the Justice and Courage Project. There was a call for the vote and the vote was approved.
Upton/Brooten/Unanimous (M/S/Unanimous)
Co-chair Keehn welcomed her to the work of the Justice and Courage Project.
Meeting with Police Chief Heather Fong
Ms. Upton reported that there had been a meting with Police Chief Heather Fong. They discussed staffing in the Domestic Violence Response Unit (DVRU), staffing in the Record Room, Restraining Order issues and requisitions.
Unfortunately, Chief Fong was detained in a prior meeting and attended only part of the meeting. They met with Deputy Chief Morris Tabak and Captain Marsha Ash.
The Police representatives reported they will look in to the record room issue.
Ms. Upton reported that the commitment from the Police Department was to have the DVRU staffed with at least 20 inspectors. It was reported that DVRU staff is no longer being pulled to cover staff from other units on vacation. The Police Department currently has night inspectors covering domestic violence cases. She noted that night inspectors are not specialized staff and she fears that the Police Department may be losing the knowledge of the DVRU by not having trained specialist on these cases.
Ms. Upton reported that the problem of end dates on Restraining Orders is a state wide system problem. One problem with Criminal Stay-Away Orders (SAO) is that they do not have end dates although the form states that the SAO is valid for up to three years or the life of the case in court and probation. Another problem is when the SAO gets lifted or expires early and the victim is not notified. The District Attorney’s Office and Police Department have met to work on resolving this problem.
Ms. Upton reported that the Police Department has had requisitions for staffing with the Mayor’s Office and this is a place where the Justice and Courage Oversight Panel could show support. The Police Chief is committed to staffing the DVRU with at least two officers if the requisitions are approved.
Co-chair Keehn stated there were a few things not addressed at this meeting. One issue is the five recommended domestic violence advocates for the Police Department, currently, there is one and it is funded through La Casa de Las Madres. Mr. Theisen added that the funding of the advocates should come from the Police Department’s budget and a community based organization should provide the service.
Ms. Upton recommended the Police Department’s funded positions go through the Department on the Status of Women to provide accountability.
Co-chair Keehn asked if the Department on the Status of Women lost the funding for the domestic violence advocate position. Rosario Navarrette, DOSW, responded that the Department did not lose the funding, but that the funding was a part of W.O.M.A.N Inc.’s three year proposal. W.O.M.A.N Inc. had to pull in all of their resources to maintain its 24 hour crisis line. The Department allowed the change to maintain the 24 hour crisis line. Ms. Navarrette stated that at the time DOSW was not aware that W.O.M.A.N Inc. had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Department. DOSW fully supports the domestic violence advocate program, a program DOSW helped establish.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee stated that all night inspectors should have domestic violence training and this is a concern that needs also needs follow-up.
Ms. Upton said that we must be sure the Police Department is staffing the Domestic Violence Response Unit and focusing only on staffing the night inspectors.
Co-chair Keehn said that the Police Chief and District Attorney have been invited to attend the next Commission on the Status of Women’s meeting and she will address some of these issues at that time.
Sharon Woo, District Attorney’s Office, commented that night inspectors are helpful because they can take pictures at the scene and do interviews right after the time of the occurrence.
Co-chair Keehn stated when a draft letter is put together it will get emailed out to the Oversight Panel.
District Attorney’s Office
Co-chair Keehn stated that they had a good meeting with the District Attorney’s Office discussing, issues addressed with Stay-Away Orders and the new case management system. Co-chair Keehn stated that the D.A.’s Office states that it needs staff for data entry. She reported that the domestic violence unit is continuing vertical prosecution.She also commented on the CLETS issue by stating that at one time there were 28 terminals and now there are 9.
Sharon Woo, DA’s Office, commented that Linda Klee had met with Mr. Shishmanian from the Police Department to discuss this issue. Ms. Woo reported that in order for the DA’s Office to get more terminals the Police Department would need to approve applications. However, the Police Department cannot approve CLETS system applications because the one currently used is being phased out and a new one is being established to meet Federal Regulations. They cannot approve or implement hardware and software being phased out based on federal guidelines.
Co-chair Keehn thanked all the Oversight Panel members who attended the meeting with the District Attorney and the Chief of Police.
Media Plan
Co-chair Keehn requested this get tabled to the next meeting.
Meeting with Mayor
Co-chair Keehn stated that she will inform the Oversight Panel when this meeting will be held.
Meeting with the Courts
Co-chair Keehn a meeting is being set up in the near future with Judges Hitchens, Kahn and Woolard.
Community Meeting
Co-chair Keehn will be out of the country in May and she requested that Co-chair Leal run the meeting. Ken Theisen stated that in order to hold a meeting in the community outreach must be done beforehand and an interpreter would need to be present.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee stated she was concerned about having the meeting during the city’s budget process and agreed that outreach be done before the meeting. She recommended the Mission district as a place to hold the meeting.
Ms. Upton suggested that a community meeting at the Filipino Cultural Center might be a good place to hold a meeting. Ken Theisen inquired if there are the resources to do the outreach beforehand. Outreach will need to be done by all Oversight Panel and committee members.
Sharon Woo recommended the Woman’s Building. Oversight Panel members stated they would like to hold the meeting in the Woman’s Building on May 25, 2004.
Ms. Taylor-McGhee stated that in case Ms. Leal is not able to make it then there should be flexibility in scheduling the meeting.
Meeting Adjourned
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon.
