To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information



Audit_Oversight

2009 2008 

 

Audit Implementation Committee

Friday, April 10, 2009

10 a.m.-11:30 a.m.

Bay Area Legal Aid

50 Fell Street, San Francisco, CA  94102

 

MINUTES

 

Members Present: 

Capt. John Ehrlich, SFPD
Susan Fahey, Sheriff’s Department

Tina Gilbert, Adult Probation Department

Lisa Hoffmann, Dept. of Emergency Management

Laura Marshall, DOSW

 Lt. Molly Pengel, SFPD

Jim Rowland, DA’s Office

Ken Theisen, Bay Area Legal Aid

Hediana Utarti, Asian Women’s Shelter

Andre Wood, Adult Probation Department

 

 

I.          CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA CHANGES                                                                 

The meeting was called to order at 10:05. The agenda was changed and a discussion of concerns about CLETS was inserted after item III.A.    

 

II.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes from the March 13, 2009 meeting were approved with one change:  Capt. Ehrlich amended the section of the minutes discussing email access for patrol officers, indicating that the SFPD has the latest version of the City’s email software that allows multiple accounts on a single computer.   

 

III.    BUSINESS

 

A. Resources

 

Ken Theisen reported that he had raised the issue of the need for a resources committee or a more intensive look at the resources needed to carry out this work at the Justice and Courage Oversight Panel meeting on April 1, 2009.  The Oversight Panel discussion made it clear that the Department on the Status of Women does not have the personnel to staff another committee at this time.  Prior to the next Justice and Courage meeting, the Audit Implementation Committee should identify what specific issues need more resources, and bring that list back to the Panel for further discussion.  The Committee acknowledged the need to make the issue of resources for programs and departments an ongoing theme in any discussion about recommendation implementation. 

 

Action Steps:

  • Using the worksheets and the Matrix, and at the next Audit Implementation Committee meeting, members will determine specific recommendations that require further resources, and prioritize that list.  Ken will present it to the Oversight Panel on June 3, 2009.  

 

 

B. Discussion about CLETS

 

Jim Rowland raised a concern he had regarding the CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) Restraining Orders, and lag-time for entry of these orders into CLETS.  Emergency Protective Orders have always been slow to be entered, and only occasionally get into the system before expiring.  Often patrol officers will fax the order directly to the CLETS office for entry instead of sending it through the normal, slower, channels.  Current information from community providers indicates that now even criminal protective orders issued on arraignment are taking an excessively long time to be entered into CLETS.  Formerly, these orders would be entered within 3 days, but now, they are taking up to 4 weeks.  Without entry into CLETS, officers in the field will not be aware that a protective order has been issued.  Ideally, the court clerk would enter the order directly into CLETS at the time it is issued, as other counties do.  In San Francisco, the order is transferred to SFPD for entry, which creates a lag time that is problematic, and this protocol, and the current delay, should be addressed. 

 

Action Step: 

  • Ken Theisen will bring this issue up with Judge Mary Morgan at the Oversight Panel meeting with her on April 10, 2009. 

 

C. Review of Implementation Worksheets

 

At the March 13, 2009 meeting, the SFPD, DA’s Office, and Adult Probation Department were given implementation worksheets to highlight recommendations specific to those departments.  Each department filled out the worksheets to indicate the current status of the implementation, concerns or questions that would hinder implementation, a timeline, contact person, and resources needed.  Each department submitted these worksheets prior to the meeting, and the Committee discussed the SFPD and APD recommendations. 

 

Gap 1: Risk Assessment – I. Administrative Practices

 

1.I.2. Update patrol officers’ Domestic Violence Supplemental Report (in accordance with state law) to ensure more comprehensive assessment of risk at the scene of an incident; possibly identify three key questions to help responding officers assess risk/safety that would be incorporated into the report format; and ensure all changes are documented in a Departmental Bulletin.

 

During ride-alongs, Audit Team members observed that some patrol officers were not filling out supplemental reports, or were missing steps in the reports, hindering investigations and prosecution.  This recommendation was established to ensure that departments use the form that was implemented.  The DA reports that this form is consistently included in case files sent to the DV Unit now, and the report trail shows that Police captains are returning incomplete or insufficient supplemental reports back to responding officers for completion prior to forwarding the case to the DVRU or DA's DV Unit.  The Committee will maintain oversight of this important recommendation, but at the current time, it can be considered completed.

 

1.I.3. Institute “vertical investigation” within the police department’s Domestic Violence Response Unit (DVRU) in order to track repeat cases, identify high risk offenders, and connect more effectively with vertical prosecution.

 

When possible, the SFPD makes the attempt to assign the same victim/perpetrator to the same inspector.  However, an assigning officer cannot always remember and track caseloads, especially receiving 10-20 cases each day.  In order to do this systematically, SFPD needs a computer system and software to track victims and perpetrators, and this recommendation could achieve full implementation with the start of JUSTIS.  Vertical investigation is the current internal protocol, as possible, and this recommendation, with continued oversight by the committee, can be considered completed. 

 

1.I.4. Cease using the “victim declination form” within the DVRU (i.e., a form that victims sign indicating that they do not intend to participate in or “cooperate with” prosecuting the suspect in the case).

 

This recommendation came out of the Audit Team's desire to protect victims, and to ensure that they understand all of their rights and options.  When a victim signs the declination form, she may think that she has no further criminal justice recourse.  However, SFPD and the DA approve of the use of this form.  If the police officer does not pursue an investigation on the wishes of a victim, and that victim later wishes to proceed, that officer may be open to liability without this documentation.  Both the SFPD and the DA indicate that they assure victims that they can change their minds at any point, even if they sign a declination form.  One concern of the committee is the affect of the declination form on U-Visa applications.  The DA says that signing a declination form can negatively impact a victim's U-Visa application, as they must cooperate with all law enforcement proceedings to qualify, and the DA is obligated to report any non-cooperation to ICE.  San Francisco's U-Visa policy is still in development, and the DA and Police are working with Homeland Security to make an exception for domestic violence survivors in the policy.  This recommendation will remain active until the U-Visa concern has been resolved. 

 

1.I.5. Include a domestic violence risk/danger assessment tool in the Adult Probation Department’s Probation Supplemental Reports, and institute risk assessment protocol for all criminal justice agencies, including training to cover the usage of such assessments.

 

APD: APD adopted the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) assessment tool, which identifies probationer needs and risks. Deputy Probation Officers perform the assessments. Several lethality assessment tools have been shared with APD, and they are in the process of researching their options, given extremely limited resources.  They have acknowledged the benefits of adopting a lethality assessment tool, conducted research of surrounding counties, and feel the CAIS is the best practice. 

SFPD: La Casa de las Madres staff were recently certified in use of the Jacquie Campbell lethality tool, and La Casa staff located at the DVRU are working with SFPD to develop protocols for its use.  Campbell's tool does not require certification to use, and La Casa offered free training on its use to other departments.  Implementation is in progress.

 

 

1.I.6. Develop a written protocol to include the Police Department and the Courts for the issuance of Emergency Protection Orders (EPOs).

 

Officers on patrol are regularly applying for and receiving EPOs on behalf of victims.  Community advocates acknowledged that police officers are taking extra steps to support victims when needed, and that SFPD is much farther ahead of other counties when it comes to routinely applying for EPOs.  Any protocol developed should include the Courts, and representation of that branch of the system is needed at these meetings to clarify certain concerns.  For example, the Committee would like to know if the Courts have a written protocol regarding EPOs, and if the Court tracks data related to EPOs.  This recommendation will remain in progress until such questions have been answered.

 

Gap 1: Risk Assessment – II. Training

 

1.II.2. Require DVRU Inspectors to receive updated and specialized domestic violence training on an annual basis.

 

All DVRU inspectors attend courses when available.  All have attended the ICI DV course.  There is no annual training for domestic violence at this time, but trainings are scheduled as new policies or issues emerge.  There is funding from POST for training, and the DVRU will send inspectors if the training is relevant or valuable. This recommendation has been completed.

 

1.II.5. Within the police department, prioritize the domestic violence portion of the bi-annual, 40-hour training for patrol officers; prioritizing includes moving the domestic violence segment from its Friday afternoon time-slot to a segment earlier in the week and expanding the allotted training time.

 

The domestic violence portion of the bi-annual officer training at the Police Academy has been moved to Wednesday and Thursday afternoons.  This recommendation has been completed.

 

1.II.6. Document annually all domestic violence-related training within each criminal justice system department, including training topics, hours allocated, and whether they were roll-call, in-house, or individual trainings.

 

APD secured a Training Officer position in 2007, and this person maintains detailed individual staff records of all training provided to APD staff.  Other departments have a similar staff person to keep records of training.  APD noted that the majority of staff members attend more than the 40-hour mandated minimum each year.  Currently, APD receives state STC funding for training, but this could be cut in the current financial crisis.  The Committee urged APD to inform members if this were to occur. This recommendation has been completed.

 

1.II.7. Identify two to three officers to serve as on-site domestic violence experts for each Police Station (or the four stations with the highest number of domestic violence calls), to attend the Institute of Criminal Investigation (ICI) trainings on domestic violence and other related topics, and to be available to do on-site, Station training. In addition, these on-site experts could, in coordination with DVRU, provide 24/7 on-scene to domestic violence cases, as needed.

 

The committee believes that, while this may be a good idea in theory, this recommendation is not a best practice for San Francisco.  The SFPD wants to encourage officers in the field to call on the DVRU as the experts, rather than have part-time experts at the various stations who may or may not be available.  DVRU inspectors have been instructed to be available 24/7 to visit scenes and support both officers and victims as needed.  These 16 inspectors can be trained and kept updated on the latest trends, procedures, and issues in a much more efficient way than a number of scattered officers in the field.  This recommendation is tabled at this time.

 

Gap 1: Risk Assessment – III. Resources

 

1.III.1. Provide confidential, secure interview rooms for DVRU Inspectors, DVRU advocates from La Casa de las Madres, and staff from the District Attorney’s Victim Services Division.

 

The DA's Office has made available one additional interview room within the Victim Services Office. All SFPD resource and space decisions are made by the Chief.  Justice and Courgage Oversight Panel members will continue to address this need with the Chief.  Though this committee is unable to do more at this time, this recommendation will remain in progress until the matter is resolved.

 

Gap 1: Risk Assessment – IV. Communication

 

1.IV.1c. Enhance communication between criminal justice system agencies by sharing rosters of email and direct phone lines among criminal justice system personnel for DVRU inspectors, prosecutors, probation officers, and others.

 

All agencies share information, and the internet helps close any gaps. This recommendation is considered completed.

 

1.IV.1d. Enhance communication between criminal justice system agencies by implementing a feedback system to patrol officers from DVRU inspectors and prosecutors regarding the investigation of domestic violence cases.

 

Lt. Pengel has implemented a form that DVRU inspectors use to inform arresting officers about what has happened on each case.  The DA regularly interacts with the DVRU and provides feedback about cases.  This recommendation has been completed.

 

 

Gap 4: Batterer Accountability

 

IV.6. Develop an inter-departmental protocol between the Adult Probation Department and the District Attorney’s Office that establishes procedures for the handling of Motion to Revoke hearings in both misdemeanor and felony cases.

 

Upon discussion among the committee members, it is clear that such a protocol is not necessary.  Both APD and the DA's Office have written protocols in place for the handling of probation violations and the filing of MTRs, and in some cases, the court will order that an MTR be filed. Each can and do proceed independently with their MTR filing, but notify the other when this happens.  The process in place seems to work well.  Often, the worst case would be an overlap of filing, which is infrequent, but there are no gaps.  The committee made the decision to table this recommendation until such a time as the process no longer works as well as it currently does.

 

IV.8. Explore models to ensure higher compliance of defendants for enrolling in and completing batterer intervention programs, including the development of a domestic violence priority warrant system.

 

Each probationer is given orientation appointment with APD during the initial appearance in DV Court by the Court Officer.  If the assigned DPO is unavailable (i.e. on leave), a different DPO will meet with the probationer so that orientation can happen immediately.  If the probationer fails to attend the scheduled orientation, the DPO files a Motion to Revoke.  Probationers are referred to a BIP at the time of the orientation.  Probationer must provide proof of enrollment to the Court within 3-4 weeks of their initial appearance in DV Court.  The Court Officer schedules progress reports to be provided to the Court as necessary and according to the Probationer's compliance with the BIP. APD has developed a spreadsheet of all DV probationers who are on warrant status.  This information is regularly updated by DPO's.  APD faxes the Fugitive Recovery Enforcement Team (FRET) within 24 hours of any bench warrant notification.  With continued oversight, the committee considers this recommendation complete.

 

IV.9. Explore models for the creation of a crisis line and drop in programs for batterer defendants.

 

The committee decided that this recommendation was not appropriate or a best practice for APD at this time.  The model of a crisis line or drop-in center to prevent batterers from re-offending is a good one (the TALK line for parents to prevent child abuse is a good example of its value), but this is a project more appropriate for a CBO to undertake rather than a government agency charged with law enforcement.  APD would support a BIP in setting up such a program, but there is not funding for such an effort at this time or in the foreseeable future.  This recommendation has been tabled.    

 

IV.11. Develop a program, in conjunction with the Adult Probation Department and community based advocacy programs, for rigorous batterer intervention program oversight, including re-certification and training.

 

APD has significantly improved its certification and oversight procedures.  The BIP Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meets quarterly to discuss updates and protocol enhancements.  APD holds monthly meetings with BIPs, and DPO's serve as liaisons, reviewing sessions and recommending corrective actions for BIPs.  In March 2009, APD implemented new electronic progress reports for BIPs.  The report format was changed to include 2 reports: a progress and a completion report, to better clarify if a probationer met his/her goals.  This format was approved by Judge Morgan, the DA and community advocates.  The report is also more comprehensive.  In the former report, BIPs only had to provide comments if they gave a probationer low ratings, leading to grade inflation.  Now, BIPs must comment on all scores given, which should encourage them to be more accurate in their assessment of progress.  These changes have significantly improved the oversight and accountability of BIPs.  However, APD acknowledges the need for more expertise in this process, and needs additional resources for officers to be able to conduct a more rigorous program oversight, and so this recommendation remains active.

 

IV.12. Explore models whereby the Adult Probation Department provides all batterer intervention programs, similar to the model currently employed within the San Francisco Jail.

 

The committee decided that this recommendation was not appropriate or a best practice for APD at this time.  The intent of this recommendation was to improve the accountability of BIPs by having them offered through APD.  However, the committee believes that the role of APD in improving accountability should be through increased and improved oversight, rather than in-house service provision.  The improved oversight is accounted for through recommendation #11, and this recommendation will be tabled.

 

IV.16. Explore models for alternative community-based programs to enhance batterer accountability; these programs could be in addition to the 52-session batterer intervention program.

 

APD consistently refers probationers to other programs deemed necessary to achieve accountability, such as drug/alcohol counseling, parenting courses, etc.  BIPs also refer clients to other programs, and inform APD about what is needed for a probationer's success.  Exploration of other models is beyond the scope of this committee, and should be referred to the Family Violence Council and/or J&C for additional coordination.  The committee has accomplished what it can on this recommendation, and considers it to be complete.

 

Action Steps:

  • Laura Marshall will update the Matrix with the information provided through the worksheets and this discussion, and begin to create similar worksheets for those recommendations involving multiple departments.   
  • The DA’s Office will present the information provided on its worksheet at the May 8, 2009 meeting of the Audit Implementation Committee.   

 

D. Safety Audit Recommendations Review

Discussion tabled. Discussion of worksheets stood in lieu of this topic.

 

IV.    PUBLIC COMMENT   

None.

 

V.       ADJOURNMENT      

The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 am.  The next meeting is May 8, 2009.