Oversight_Panel
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 JUSTICE AND COURAGE OVERSIGHT PANEL
May 6, 2003City Hall, Room 416
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Minutes
Oversight Panel Members in Attendance
Action: The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m.
Adoption of the Agenda
Action: the May 6, 2003, agenda was adopted.
Approval of Minutes
Action: Minutes of the March 27, 2003, meeting was adopted.
Update JUSTIS Governance Council
Gregg Lowder, Executive Sponsor of the JUSTIS Governance Council presented. Mr. Lowder stated that the JUSTIS budget has not yet been set. Prior to the City’s budget deficit, the initial budget was 2.3 million dollars. A reduced budget was submitted of 1.3 million dollars. After lobbying the Mayor’s Budget Office, a 1.519 million dollar budget will be presented to the Board of Supervisors in June. The cuts represent the loss of approximately five staff. The increase from 1.3 million to 1.5 million dollars will allow the public defenders office to put a case management system in place.
Co-chair Keehn inquired as to why the Public Defender Office’s case management system falls under the JUSTIS budget but the Police Department’s does not. Mr. Lowder stated that initially the Police Department was going to leave the City’s CABLE system and create its own system. JUSTIS was created because of the need to accommodate the Police Department creating its own system. Mr. Lowder reported that projects are being prioritized and a vision document is expected in the next couple of weeks.
Co-chair Keehn welcomed Co-chair Leal at 10:30.
Mr. Lowder followed up on questions regarding the absence of the Juvenile Probation Department (JPD) in JUSTIS. He reported that the JPD had opted out of JUSTIS prior to the creation of the Governance Council. In the late 1990’s when the project was being visualized, the JPD had determined it could not pay for the CABLE maintenance fees and also believed that JUSTIS didn’t serve the JPD’s needs. The JPD has been to Governance Council meetings and is scheduled to meet with the Technical Steering Committee in the near future for discussions about possible involvement in the project.
Presentation by the Technical Steering Committee
Al Corker and Richard Peck of IT Project Methods gave a presentation on JUSTIS. IT Project Methods is a private contractor hired by the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ) for project management services for JUSTIS. Mr. Corker described JUSTIS as a series of fourteen complex projects with computer applications connecting to over fifty external agencies and sources of information. Projects within JUSTIS include a warehouse, an integration model and all the criminal justice case management systems. JUSTIS integrates case management systems, allowing the systems to communicate with each other and share information in a central warehouse.
Mr. Corker stated that one of the projects of JUSTIS is a domestic violence module. He stated that once the Department of Technology and Information Systems (DTIS) has finished assessing and identifying the needs and required documents for this module, the Technical Steering Committee will define the methods for developing the information systems.
Mr. Corker stated that the desired outcome of JUSTIS is for agencies to be able to process information. The CABLE Management System (CMS) will be replaced, agencies will have more modern tools and the information reporting will be unified. IT Project Methods is currently working on implementing a project management strategy. Further information on the project is available on the IT Project Methods website at www.itprojectmethods.com.
Mr. Corker discussed service level agreements or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to document the relationships between the departments sharing information. This strategy will place limits on individual departments from changing systems in the future in order to preserve the functional integrity of JUSTIS. City and County policy will direct the process of determining how information is shared between agencies. The technology JUSTIS is using is not being invented for the project, but is technology already in use and readily available. After May 15, 2003, the Vision Document, showing an architectural representation of the project, will be published.
Each one of the fourteen projects will utilize standards and methods ensuring a uniform level of quality and attention, regardless of the size of the project, available to all members of the JUSTIS community. This management is referred to as the “Systems Development Lifecycle.” After May 15, 2003, the phases of the projects, the supporting activities and specific dates of project implementations will be available through the Technical Steering Committee.
Mr. Theisen inquired if the Oversight Panel could obtain a list of the fifty connections that will be interfaced in the JUSTIS project. Mr. Corker stated he could provide this list, which consists of primarily State and local information systems.
Mr. Corker stated that City agencies are talking to one another at this time. Currently case management systems communicate through CABLE. In the future, specific portions of the system design will communicate through a middleware component.
Mr. Vasquez inquired about the time required to process information. Mr. Corker stated that information processing can be instantaneous.
Co-chair Keehn stated that available technology is of no value if departments cannot access the information. Co-chair Leal inquired about the possibility of departments utilizing web based, highly secured information. She stated that this would alleviate the need for departments to have specific computers with specific software. Mr. Corker stated that this is the purpose of the Data Warehouse, but that this information is not immediate, because San Francisco uses a hybrid system design.
There was discussion on the limitation of the California Law Enforcement Tracking System (CLETS). Mr. Corker stated the limitations of CLETS as both a technical issue involving an upgrade in infrastructure (system/wire) and a security authorization issue. In order to have access, specific security requirements must be met. Cities are given one connection free of charge.
In response to a question, Mr. Lowder explained that the JUSTIS domain stops on city and county borders and that the city has no control over federal agencies.
In response to a question, all case management systems used by city agencies and all technical planning related to the JUSTIS project come before the Governance Council and Technical Steering Committee prior to any technology being purchased.
In response to a question regarding costs, Mr. Corker stated that the Governance Council is trying to share resources and technology as much as possible to help with budget issues.
Co-chair Keehn indicated the San Francisco Superior Court’s role and participation in JUSTIS and asked if there was funding in the JUSTIS budget to make a link. Mr. Corker stated that there has been discussion with the courts and architectural documents are currently being exchanged. Mr. Lowder also noted that at this time there was not a price on data sharing.
There was discussion around the deadline for the State switching the CLETS requirements. Mr. Corker stated he believed there was ample time.
Ms. Navarrette inquired if the police had in the JUSTIS budget the ability to purchase desktop personal computers. Mr. Lowder stated JUSTIS is not responsible for departments’ computers and equipment, but rather with the information sharing system that will allow conversations between departments. Mr. Lowder stated each department is responsible for how it manages its own budget.
Action: IT Project Methods will provide the list of fifty connections that make JUSTIS work.
Status Reports from Committees
A. Data Collection Committee
The Data Collection Committee did not report due to the illness of the Committee Chair.
B. Protocol Committee
Rachel Kilshaw, Co-chair of the Protocol Committee, reported that the Committee is currently working on the protocols of the Emergency Communication Department (911). The Committee aims to finish reviewing ECD in a couple of meetings and is expecting to present recommendations at the next Oversight Panel meeting.
C. Resource Committee – Sharon Woo, Chair of the Resource Committee, followed up on an Oversight Panel request from the last meeting and gave an update on the expected affects of budget cuts for those Justice and Courage partners as follows:
Police Department
The Police Department will not receive budget cuts. The SFPD Domestic Violence Unit should have twenty inspectors to be at full capacity. They are currently staffed at sixteen, with two inspectors on loan for a total of eighteen.
Sheriff’s Department
VINE program (Victim Information Notification Program) likely will be cut for a $75,000 savings. They are also closing County Jail 7, where there are four Pods (60 inmates per pod).
Drug treatment beds will be eliminated. Often a condition of domestic violence probation entails serving part of the time in custody in a drug or alcohol program. This amounts to a seven million dollar saving. There will be no new hires through 2004 and the cancellation of current academy classes. The Sheriff’s Department will no longer transfer inmates/suspects from police stations to the jail; this duty will go to the Police Department.
Training All Departments
All departments are cutting training across the board, which presents difficulty in meeting mandatory training requirements and standards.
Adult Probation Department (APD)
Due to layoffs in the Juvenile Probation Department, staff may be transferred to the APD, bumping APD DV Unit staff. However, if training is cut, the department may not be able to provide domestic violence training to the probation officers.
Every individual on domestic violence probation must attend orientation. The APD is experiencing an increased number of probationers assigned to domestic violence orientation. Previously there was an average of 15 individuals in a class, this number is now 20-25, and classes are becoming overloaded.
District Attorney’s Office (DA)
The District Attorney’s Office does not have any programs to cut so they must cut staff.
During the beginning of the year the Department lost eight attorneys and those vacant positions will not be filled. This brings the number of domestic violence attorneys from six to five, with no plans to fill the lost position.
Training – Currently attorneys received $1,000 dollars a year for all training and bar dues.
It is possible this will be cut. Attorneys do not have to take vacation or leave without pay for required trainings and this may be impacted by the budget
Grant Funded Positions – The Office of Criminal Justice Planning has cut the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program (SAPP)
Sharon Woo reported that there may be changes in Judge Hitchen’s court. The Domestic Violence Court (misdemeanors cases) in Department 18 will be made into an all day DV Court. Drug court will no longer be held in the afternoon. Pretrial will be held in the morning and in the afternoon Department 18 will handle its own domestic violence jury trials. Sharon Woo has asked District Attorney, Terrance Hallinan, to reinstate misdemeanor vertical prosecution because of these changes. She explained that a dedicated domestic violence court will make staffing easier for her department in a vertical format. The domestic violence unit would work like every other district attorney unit which has pre-trials in the morning and jury trials in the afternoon. Currently there are pretrial and jury trials in different departments and not enough staff to cover all departments. Ms. Woo believes it will be more efficient to use staff in a vertical manner with the changes in the domestic violence court.
Committee Direction
Sharon Woo reported that the Committee has begun to discuss the P.E.T. Project (Prevention, Education and Training). The Committee will research private funding and outreach programs which enter into the community educating youth, adult and educators on the prevention of domestic violence.
Dedicated DA Investigator
Ms. Woo reported back on the newly assigned domestic violence and sexual assault investigator in the district attorney’s office. The investigator’s name is Jane Yim. Ms. Yim was a patrol officer with the Police Department and has a nursing background.
Co-chair Keehn thanked Ms. Woo for her update. Co-chair Keehn said she would like to support Ms. Woo’s recommendation on vertical prosecution of domestic violence misdemeanors.
Action: Co-chair Keehn will contact District Attorney, Terrence Hallinan, to thank him for installing the new investigator and to support Ms. Woo’s request to vertically prosecute misdemeanors upon the restructuring of Department 18.
Mr. Theisen stated that he is concerned about the cutting of the VINE program. Co-chair Keehn stated that there will be a meeting set up with the Sheriff to discuss concerns around these issues.
Co-chair Keehn stated that she had requested data on the status of domestic violence, changes and trends, in particular since the murder of Claire Joyce Tempongko from the DA’s office and the SFPD.
B. Interdepartmental Communication and Coordination Committee
Quita Keller, Co-chair of the Committee, stated that they held the first official meeting of the newly designed ICCC. There were three areas of concern the Committee had expressed. 1. Membership participation and morale 2. Community education and awareness about the Justice and Courage Project 3. Department head’s buy-in and support of Committee recommendations.
At the last meeting the Committee had developed a process for recommendations, including drafting a format for making proposals. The Committee believes that keeping project participants informed will help contribute to morale. This will help participants witness changes made as the project moves forward. The Committee will look at means of keeping both community and participants informed. A web site would be a means of achieving this.
Ms. Keller asked if the Oversight Panel needs to approve the Committee’s proposal process for submitting recommendations. Co-chair Keehn stated that the Committee does not need the Oversight Panel’s approval. An outline of the process will go as follows: The recommendations will be given to the Oversight Panel. Follow up will be done by the Department on the Status of Women (DOSW). DOSW will follow up with department heads on proposals. DOSW will prepare a report determining if recommendations can move forward, if changes need to be made, or if more information is needed to implement the recommendations.
Report on Meeting with Police Chief
Co-chair Keehn, Mr. Theisen, Rosario Navarrette and Belle Taylor-McGhee met with Acting Chief Fagan, Heather Fong, Chief Dudley, and Rachel Kilshaw of the San Francisco Police Department. The Police Department’s budget is not being cut. There was discussion about fully staffing the Domestic Violence Response Unit (DVRU). When the DVRU was first created, full staffing consisted of 20. Currently there are 18 inspectors, but two are on detail outside of the Unit, leaving a total of 16. Chief Fagan stated that he believes that appropriate services are being provided through the DVRU. Co-chair Keehn stated that if there are Oversight Panel members or community members who feel their needs are not being met, to bring these matters to the Oversight Panel so they may address these issues with the Chief. It was reported that it is a standard practice that the SFPD DVRU does not follow up on misdemeanor arrests. Co-chair Keehn stated she was concerned that without a fully staffed DA’s Office, this is a potentially dangerous gap.
Inspector Rachel Kilshaw, from the SFPD DVRU gave public comment. Inspector Kilshaw stated that the DVRU takes misdemeanor cases where there are non-arrest in cases when the victim walks in. This is often a result of the phone calls the Unit makes encouraging victims to come in to file a report. The DVRU investigates these in terms of a warrant work up. Arrest cases go directly to Department 18; therefore, DVRU does not do an investigative work up. Those cases in which the suspect or defendant is brought to court occur on the next business day, sometimes 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. and DVRU Inspectors start work at 7:00 a.m. or 8:00 a.m. Ms. Kilshaw said that inspectors receive the report at 8:00 a.m. when they come in, which does not allow sufficient time to do an investigation. Inspectors get 24-48 hours to investigate the felony cases.
Ken Theisen inquired about the proportion of misdemeanors to felonies. Inspector Kilshaw stated there are approximately 500 reports made a month. Out of 500, 200 are arrested and out of 150-180 felony/30-60 misdemeanor cases. Mr. Theisen asked if Inspector Kilshaw would include this information along with the information requested at the last meeting. Inspector Kilshaw stated she would include this.
Inspector Kilshaw stated that if a misdemeanor non-arrest walks in, the DVRU will follow-up. If DVRU calls and speaks to the person and he/she wants a follow-up, the victim goes to the DVRU and does not get referred to the DA’s office. The only cases referred to the DA’s office are misdemeanor arrests, all other to go the SFPD DVRU, including misdemeanor non-arrest, felony arrest and felony non-arrest.
Mr. Theisen inquired how many individuals respond to the phone calls the DRVU makes. Inspector Kilshaw stated she couldn’t provide the number of warrant work ups per month because it is difficult to know if it was the phone call precipitating them to come in or if it was the instructions from the officer on the street. General Orders are that all victims are referred to the DVRU or DA’s office. Inspector Kilshaw stated she could obtain the number of walk-ins per month.
Co-chair Keehn stated she had received a commitment from the Chief of Police to give two promotions to rank of Inspector by the end of the fiscal year. Co-chair Keehn also stated that the SFPD has issued new radio codes with new domestic violence codes for the police.
Action: Inspector Kilshaw will include the proportion of misdemeanors to felonies with the other information requested at the meeting with the Chief of Police.
Next Steps
Co-chair Keehn stated that the Oversight Panel members will be meeting with the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee (Supervisors Daly, Peskin, Ma, Maxwell, and McGoldrick). Oversight Panel members present indicated commitment to meet with Budget Committee members.
Action: Oversight Panel members will be meeting with the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee.
Schedule of Future Meetings
Next meeting will be held in July and the following meeting will be in October. Co-chair Keehn would like Oversight Panel members to look at the strategic plan, and at the July Oversight Panel meeting, discuss the components the Oversight Panel members would like to take the lead on. She recommended that Oversight Panel members come in July prepared to discuss.
Public Comment
No Public Comment.
Closing Remarks
Co-chair Keehn noted that October is the anniversary of Claire Joyce Tempongko’s death.
Announcements
None
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00
