Oversight_Panel
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 JUSTICE AND COURAGE
OVERSIGHT PANEL MEETING
February 3, 2005
City Hall, Hearing Room 416
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Members Present:
Barbara Brooten, Denise Castaneda, Dorka Keehn, Emily Murase, Ken Theisen, and Beverly Upton
Members Absent and Excused:
Fiona Ma and Manuel Vasquez
MINUTES
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Co-Chair Dorka Keehn called the meeting to order at 9:05 am.
2. Adoption of Agenda
The agenda for February 3, 2005 was adopted.
m/s/c Murase/Keehn/Unanimous
3. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the August 30, 2004, meeting was approved.
m/s/c Theisen/Keehn/Unanimous
Minutes of the October 21, 2004, meeting was approved.
m/s/c Murase/Upton/Unanimous
4. Old Business
4A. Update on Safety Audit Proposal
Emily Murase reported that the Department submitted a concept paper to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) requesting a $500,000 research and evaluation grant to examine efficacy of domestic violence reform efforts in San Francisco.
The Department is expected to be notified in late March/early April 2005 as to whether an invitation will be extended to submit a full proposal to NIJ.
Panel members discussed the prospects of receiving a grant and identified contacts for follow-up. Ms. Murase assured panel members that the NIJ’s major interest is to fund proposals submitted by major metropolitan cities.
4B. Funders SummitUpdate
Emily Murase reported that the Mayor’s Conference Room is not available at this time. Date for the Summit remains uncertain.
Panel members suggested dates for the Summit including:
- Tuesday, April 19, 2005 AM
- Wednesday, April 20, 2005 PM
- Tuesday, April 26, 2005 AM
Agenda items will include: 1) Safety and Accountability Audit Proposal, 2) JoAnn McAllister’s Batterer Intervention Program Study, 3) the need for services, training and collaborative projects for the Filipino Community, and 4) the need for the creation of a Citywide-Cross Training Collaborative formation.
4C. Filipino Advisory Committee
Dorka Keehn reported that two meetings were held at West Bay Filipino Multiservice Center on December 4, 2004 and January 24, 2005. Discussion centered on identification of community needs and the issue of whether the Filipino Advisory Committee (FAC) maintain independent status or be a representative body of the Oversight Panel.
In regards to the FAC status, Ms. Keehn discussed this matter with Beckie Masaki, Executive Director of the Asian Women’s Shelter. Ms. Masaki has reconstituted a similar stand-alone committee and was supportive of the possibility of integration with the Panel. She expressed some reservation on the impact of the Sunshine Ordinance on the integrated meeting approach.
The Panel members discussed the difficulty of initiating outreach, i.e., neighborhoods, faith based communities, etc., when a lack of dedicated staff trained on domestic violence prevention and intervention within the Filipino service agencies exists to adequately respond to the needs of domestic violence victims.
The Department will continue to support and assist in convening future FAC meetings. Ms. Murase mentioned that in her discussion with Art Faro, Adult Probation Department Division Director, he acknowledged the Filipino community service delivery system was fragmented, and the FAC would nurture cross-section collaboration.
Ms. Murase suggested that the Panel consider utilizing the Department’s allocation to have a televised meeting prior to end of this fiscal year. Panel members supported the idea of a televised public hearing on Filipino needs be placed on the agenda for discussion at the next Oversight Panel Committee meeting to be held on April 20, 2005.
Ken Theisen suggested that Department staff identify translators and additional Filipino dialects, particularly Ilocano at the next FAC meeting on Feb. 28, 2005, 3:00-5:00 pm, @ West Bay Filipino Multiservice Center.
4D. Batterer’s Programs
Justine McGonagle presented a summary of the National Institute of Justice Report on Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go From Here?
Background
Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) were introduced as a way to hold batterers accountable without incarceration. Victims would state that although they wanted the battering to stop, they did not want their partners incarcerated. To respond to these requests while holding batterers accountable, offenders were referred to batterer intervention programs.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) conducted two studies. The Broward study took place in Broward County, Floridaand the Brooklynstudy took place in New York. Early evaluations of BIP programs suggested that they reduced battering. Recent evaluations based on more rigorous designs found little or no reduction.
Researchers of the studies agree that there were many complications which may have flawed the methodology used or they considered that there was something wrong with the programs themselves. The report looked at both possibilities.
Both studies conducted were based on the Duluthmodel, the most common form if BIP used in the United States. Both studies used classic experimental designs: Batterers were randomly assigned to experimental or control groups. Batterers and victims age, income, and marital status all varied.
In both studies, the two groups were tested to see whether treatment had changed their attitudes toward violence. Recidivism was measured both by official measures and by victim reports of abuse.
BrowardCounty
The selection process in BrowardCountyused randomly assigned individuals convicted of misdemeanors during a 5 month period in 1997. Men placed in the experimental group were sentenced to 1 year of probation and 26 weeks of group counseling sessions from a local BIP. Men placed in the control group were sentenced to 1 year of probation only.
In BrowardCounty, men in the experimental group were sentenced to 1 year of probation and 26 weeks of group counseling at a BIP, whereas men in the control group were sentenced to 1 year of probation.
Batterers and victims were interviewed at adjudication, 6 months and 1 year later along with police and probation record checks.
The study’s purpose was to test whether court-mandated counseling reduced the likelihood of future violence. It was also designed to test the theory that stake-inconformity variables (e.g., age, a steady job, marriage to one’s partner, a stable residence) could explain when an intervention would reduce the likelihood of subsequent violence.
Batterers were asked whether they believed that their battering should be considered criminal, whether they thought they were responsible, and how likely they were to batter again. Response rates dropped substantially for each interview.
Findings
The BrowardCountystudy found no significant difference between the experimental and control groups in attitudes toward the role of women, whether wife beating should be a crime, or whether the State had the right to intervene in cases of domestic violence. Approximately half of the men viewed battering as acceptable in certain situations. Both groups also reported the same likelihood of beating their partners again.
The only change noted in all of these comparisons was a small but significant change in men’s views of their partners’ responsibility for the offense that led them to court. Over time, those in the control group viewed their partners as increasingly responsible. In contrast, in the 6 months after adjudication, those in the experimental group saw the woman as slightly less responsible.
BIPs are based on the premise that teaching men that it is wrong to exert verbal, physical,
or sexual control over their partners will lead to changes in their beliefs that will ultimately produce changes in their behavior. The results of these analyses seem to indicate that men in BIPs did not change their beliefs about the legitimacy of battering, their responsibility for these incidents, and the proper roles for women.
An interesting finding was the number of months employed best predicted violations of probation. A man who moves is more likely to be cited for probation violations, as are younger jobless men. Married men are less likely to be cited for probation violations. Employment was the most important factor accounting for variation in re-arrests. Lack of steady employment is more important than nonattendance in predicting re-arrest.
Even those men who attended all their sessions, however, were only slightly less likely to be rearrested than similarly situated men in the control group who attended no sessions. When they did not attend all the sessions, they were more likely to be rearrested than their counterparts in the control group.
The BrooklynStudy
In the Brooklynstudy batterers were eligible for inclusion only if all parties to the case (prosecution, defense, and judge) agreed treatment was appropriate. The study presumably did not include unmotivated batterers.
In this study batterers were assigned to attend 1.5 hour weekly session for 26 weeks or attend a 2.5 hour session twice a week for 8 week or community service. This study wanted to look at short term and long term treatment. Short-term outcomes are important to assess because any treatment effects may be short-lived.
This point is crucial because it has often been argued that treatment cannot be expected to work for individuals who are compelled to attend against their will. Again batterers were interviewed about new incidences of violence on 3 occasions: at sentencing, 6 months, and 12 months
The researchers did find that batterers were far more likely to complete the shorter course of treatment. - 67 percent of the men assigned to the 8-week group graduated, compared with just 27 percent of those assigned to the 26-week group
Researchers expected that men assigned to the 8-week group would have a lower re-offense rate than men assigned to the 26-week group because a larger proportion of them completed the program.
However, the 26-week group had fewer criminal complaints than the control group at 6 and 12 months after sentencing: The 8-week group and the control group were virtually indistinguishable. This finding remained the same when age, marital status, and employment were factored in. This study was at odds with results of other studies that found no difference in re-offense rates according to length of treatment.
In addition, reports of criminal complaints showed that those in the 26-week group went longer before battering again. However, there was no basis for claiming that treatment changed batterers’ attitudes or ways of dealing with conflict.
Researchers asked themselves: Does batterer intervention modify attitudes and behavior in a relatively lasting way, or does it simply suppress violent behavior for the duration of treatment?
The results of this study do not support the view that treatment leads to lasting changes in behavior. Nor was any evidence found that treatment altered batterers’ attitudes toward spouse abuse, which further suggests that treatment brought about no permanent changes. The results of this study thus support the view that batterer intervention programs merely suppress violent behavior for the duration of treatment.
Conclusions/Future Findings
Definition of success - A related issue is whether success should be defined as complete cessation of violence or merely as a reduction in violence. The studies consider a reduction in violence a success.
The Duluthmodel assumes that all batterers seek to control their partners. Batterers’ motivations for violence may differ, so the same type of intervention may not work with all batterers.
The field of batterer intervention is still in its infancy, and much remains to be learned. Rather than asking whether BIPs work, a more productive question may be which programs work best for which batterers under which circumstances, a decidedly more complex question.
BIPs may also be limited by their lack of cultural specificity. Although domestic violence occurs in all populations, treatment approaches may need to be tailored to serve specific populations. Useful research has been conducted on batterer profiles, and new treatment approaches are being designed to match those profiles with appropriate interventions. Although this approach still must be tested, it may prove more productive than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Few interventions to date have assessed abusers’ mental health and substance abuse treatment needs. These factors do not excuse the battering, but they may make interventions less effective.
Programs may remain minimally effective until they consider the batterer’s readiness to change. Theories focusing on understanding the stages of personal change suggest that the batterer will change his behavior only when he is ready to change. Thus, mandating treatment for batterers who are not ready to change may be ineffective. BIPs may be effective for batterers who are ready to change, but batterers who are not yet ready may require other interventions.
As BIPs are a relatively new response to a critical social problem, it is too early to abandon the concept. Researchers found that further research is needed along with rigorous evaluations are essential to answering the pressing questions about what works and using that knowledge to influence public policy.
BIP Discussion
Panel members acknowledged that the criminal justice system is geared to getting offenders into counseling and probation. The issue is how to change behavior and end results. The Panel members called for the need to conduct a recidivism study in San Francisco and further suggested the creation of 52-week BIP model citing benefits such as longer contact and supervision of offenders.
Panel members expressed concern with the expansion of BIPs resulting in less oversight and implementation of program standards. It was also noted that there are more than 500,000 unserved warrants, which negatively impacts on the effectiveness of BIP and acknowledgement of batterers’ behavior. Panel members conceded that BIP participants will more than likely develop other control mechanisms negating program effectiveness.
Panel members suggested that a public hearing on BIPs be conducted with the integration of Safety and Accountability Audit and BIP discussions. Emily Murase will draft questions for public hearing response in collaboration with Dr. JoAnn McAllister. Ms. Murase will also contact and request the Adult Probation Department’s involvement by having them present an overview of the BIP certification process.
Public Comment on BIP Discussion
Rosario Navarrette concurred that the “one size fits all” approach does not account for cultural diversity and that future studies and evaluations must take into account the consequences that work with respective diverse communities. She further stated that evaluation processes must be made mandatory through legislative action in order to achieve improved outcomes.
In response to the matter of un-served warrants, Captain Marsha Ashe, SFPD, reported that the Department has made domestic violence arrest warrants first priority. She also reported that the Police Department and the Adult Probation Department deploy personnel on every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to serve probation violation warrants. Ken Theisen suggested media coverage on this matter.
4E. Media Plan
Ken Theisen stated that the 2004 media plans needed to be revisited. Denise Castaneda offered to assist Mr. Theisen with this matter. Dorka Keehn suggested that the Plan include the work of the Filipino Advisory Committee and SFPD warrant protocols. Beverly Upton reported on her contact with San Francisco Chronicle reporter, Joan Ryan, with reference to the San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium.
5. New Business
5A. Victim Notification
Executive Director Emily Murase reported that the Friends of the Commission on the Status of Women received a $100,000 grant from Verizon. $75,000 in funds was allocated to create a victim notification system similar to the one the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department had to cut- the Victim Information Notification Everyday Program (VINE)- from its budget due to the city’s budget crisis.
Ms. Murase indicated that the Department is exploring where best a victim notification program would best be housed and is looking at either the District Attorney’s Office-Victims Services Program, the Sheriff’s Department or a community-based organization.
Panel members expressed concern for the need to develop a sustainability plan, which would likely be the first response from either party.
Panel members further discussed issues affecting the respective parties. The District Attorney’s Witness Services program deals with all violent offenses and may not have the resources to have a domestic violence specific program. The community based organizations do have domestic violence survivor specific responses, but their link to the criminal justice system and hurdles for information-sharing are suspect. It was suggested that the Victim Notification Program with matching grant requirements be discussed at the Funders’ Summit.
Ms. Murase will schedule a meeting with Cynthia Alexis, DA’s Office Victim Witness Services Director. Both Ms. Murase and Rosario Navarrette will meet to frame a request to the network of community-based organizations.
No Public Comments
5B. Set Meeting Date for Courts
Dorka Keehn announced that there was a new presiding judge and expressed the desire to schedule an introductory meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 2005. Justine McGonagle will coordinate the scheduling of an appointment.
6. Reports
6A. JUSTIS
Emily Murase reported that the JUSTIS hub linking existing data was not operational due to delays with the vendor bid process. Ms. Murase stated that live data would take a minimum of six months to be placed on-line, but more realistically nine months. Currently, information and data are available at each department but, because they’re not linked are unable to share information.
6B. Committee Updates
6B1. Protocols Committee
Barbara Brooten Job reported that two meetings have been held (since the last Oversight Panel meeting) and the Adult Probation Department recently completed its presentation to the committee.
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 for intakes to the DA’s Office and referrals to BIPs.
Captain Marsha Ashe, SFPD, cited the recent Supreme Court decision on the Crawford case that has resulted in reinforcing the defendant’s right to cross examine the victim/witness. This requires that the DA needs the victim’s cooperation to testify in court and has narrowed introduction of video or audio taped testimonial as evidence which may be one of the reasons for the decrease in intakes and referrals. Dorka Keehn volunteered to follow-up with the DA’s office to invite their participation with the Protocols Committee starting with the Victim Witness Assistance Program.
Ken Theisen also mentioned the importance of the Public Defender’s office presence at future meetings and to discuss cross training opportunities. Panel members suggested that an afternoon meeting be arranged for either March 14 or 17th.
Emily Murase will contact Annemarie Conroy, new Executive Director of Emergency Services & Homeland Security, to review Justice and Courage Report and Protocol Committee recommendations related to her office.
6B2. Resources Committee
Oversight Panel members voiced concern for the lack of attendance at the Resource Committee meetings and called for regularly scheduled meetings to discuss surveying City Department training needs. Justine McGonagle will distribute a proposed budget for implementation.
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2005.
7. Announcements
7A. Schedule for 2005
Oversight Panel members reviewed the 2005 schedule of meetings.
7B. AlamedaCountyLawsuit
Ken Theisen described a lawsuit in Alameda County bringing attention to the need for better job descriptions for law enforcement in the treatment of domestic violence survivors and a call for statewide standards.
7C. Memorial Mass in Celebration of Claire Joyce Tempongko’s Birthday
Rosario Navarrette announced that members of the domestic violence prevention community have been invited to attend a memorial mass in celebration of Claire Joyce Tempongko’s birthday on Sunday, February 6, 2005, 8:30 am, at Star of the Sea Church, 8th Avenue/Geary Boulevard in San Francisco.
7D. Oversight Panel Committee Opening
Dorka Keehn announced that there remains one vacant seat for Oversight Panel membership. Suggestions of potential candidates should be forwarded to the Justice and Courage Project Coordinator Justine McGonagle.
7E. Introduction of New DOSW Staff
Dorka Keehn introduced Richard Eijima as new Secretary in DOSW.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Co-Chair Keehn at 11:20 a.m.
