Meeting Information

Audit_Oversight

2009 2008 

I.          CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA CHANGES                                                                 

The meeting was called to order at 10:05. The agenda was changed and “IV.B. Criminal Justice Flow Chart for Victims” was removed from the agenda as it was previously discussed. 

 

II.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes from the February 13, 2009 meeting were approved.

 

III.    BUSINESS

 

A. Maintaining an Action-Oriented Focus

 

Laura Marshall distributed several handouts, including:

• Accomplishments to Date, March 2009
• Recommendation and Implementation Worksheets for:
  • San Francisco Police Department
  • Office of the District Attorney
  • Adult Probation Department
  • Multi-Agency Training-Related Recommendations

 

The handouts were intended as drafts to be used to help departments and individuals engaged in the Audit Implementation Committee see what recommendations have been fully completed (Accomplishments to Date), and what needs further work (worksheets).  The worksheets contain only those recommendations that have not, according to the comments section of the matrix, been fully completed, and that apply to 1-2 specific departments (as opposed to the recommendations requiring system-wide changes).    

 

The group discussed the usefulness of these worksheets, and generally agreed that they are useful as internal tools for the departments as they work to implement individual recommendations.  However, multi-departmental and system-wide recommendations will still require full group discussion to ensure the gaps are filled and that there is buy-in and capacity for every stakeholder. 

 

Ken Theisen queried whether there might be a faster way to implement system-wide changes, but the group felt that the slow process of discussion may be the best way at this time.  Subcommittees focused on specific system-wide recommendations may be an option, but staff time is limited, so such committees might not be feasible. 

 

As many of the recommendations are training-related, Laura Marshall raised the idea of a specific committee for training, using the Training Worksheet noted above.  The group will discuss this in more detail at a later meeting.

 

Action Steps:

• Laura Marshall will update the worksheets with a “resources” column to help departments plan (i.e. if money is needed, or if it is a protocol change requiring minor staff time, etc.).
• Laura Marshall will send out updated worksheets to all group members electronically by Monday, March 16, 2009. 
• Department representatives will fill out their specific worksheet to the degree possible and return it to Laura Marshall electronically by Monday, April 6, 2009.  [Because there are very few recommendations specific to DEM and Sheriff, there may not be a worksheet for these departments.  Also, because it is a broader topic, discussion of the training worksheet will be tabled until next time.]   

 

B. Safety Audit Recommendations Review

 

The Committee continued review of Audit recommendations where the February 13, 2009 meeting left off. 

 

Gap 1: Risk Assessment – IV. Communication

 

1.IV.1.b. Enhance communication between criminal justice system agencies by providing voice mail to patrol officers and email accounts to all criminal justice system personnel, with internet access at work to email.

 

DEM and SFPD do not have the capacity to implement this recommendation and likely won’t for some time, if ever. 

 

Originally, the capacity to have internet on officer’s computers was limited by the IT department’s concern about having email and CLETS on the same workstation.  This concern has been resolved, and the 2 programs are compatible, but limitations still exist.  For example, the City’s Department of Technology charges $150 per year for each email account.  With hundreds of staff members at SFPD and DEM, it is not fiscally feasible to offer each of them a separate account.  For some departments, the program the City uses is client-based, it requires that 1 computer be assigned to 1 staff person with 1 email account located on that staff person’s computer.  This makes the charge higher.  The SFPD uses a newer version of this program, meaning the patrol officers could share computers with access to multiple accounts, but the number of staff still would require a large number of computers and accounts purchased.   Free accounts (such as Yahoo or Hotmail) are not feasible, as they aren’t official or secure, and may create problems for ADAs related to discovery rules.  Departments are charged for each voicemail account, as well. 

 

The rationale behind this recommendation was the need to improve communication between patrol officers, inspectors, and ADAs, especially as the inspectors and ADAs are conducting an investigation.  Currently, if an inspector needs to reach the responding officer in a case, he or she contacts the station, and a message slip is left on a bulletin board for that officer.  The Audit Team thought that if officers have email, communication between branches of the system would be more efficient and effective.  It can be hoped that some of these issues may be solved with JUSTIS, as that program will be a hub of communication between departments. 

 

Captain Ehrlich explained that this is a wider issue than just domestic violence, and indicated that this committee may not be the right body to drive the issue forward.  Justice and Courage may want to take it to department heads, but emphasize its wider scope. 

 

Action Steps:

• Ken Theisen will report on the current status of this recommendation to the Justice and Courage Oversight Panel, and make sure that it is on the Department Head meeting agendas, when those meetings occur. 

 

1.IV.1.c. 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. 

 

STATUS: Complete.

 

 

I. IV.2.a. Enhance communication between criminal justice system agencies and community-based organizations that serve domestic violence survivors by regularly updating all CBO resource/user guides available to criminal justice system agencies; consider standardizing one resource guide across all criminal justice agencies.  This could be enhanced by the use of a communications network or website to quickly update information as needed. 

 

Most criminal justice agencies have a guide that is used within its office when staff members need to make referrals to survivors.  Updating guides is time-consuming, though, and can be a challenge for some.  For example, Adult Probation does not keep its own lengthy resource guide, and instead heavily refers survivors to the DA’s Victim Services. 

 

The Audit Team’s original intent for this recommendation was to ensure that survivors received the most appropriate services.  For example, most police officers only know about La Casa, or they may refer any woman speaking an Asian language to Asian Women’s Shelter, regardless of her actual service needs.  Though a survivor will be supported by either of these agencies, they may not always be the most direct referral.  Also, a review of guides given out has shown out-of-date information. 

 

A centralized resource guide may not be necessary, but a tool for keeping the guides that are in circulation current and relevant is critical.  Because the Department on the Status of Women circulates the Family Violence Resource Guide (updated bi-annually by SFDPH’s LEAP Program), one solution to this problem might be to have the Department keep a list of those individuals at all the criminal justice agencies responsible for updating the various resource guides.  When the Family Violence Resource Guide has been updated, the Department can distribute it to those at the criminal justice agencies who can use it to update their own guides or directly distribute the Family Violence Guide itself. 

 

Action Steps:

• Each department representative will bring a copy of the resource guide used to refer survivors within their department to share with the group.
• Each department representative will bring the name of the individual responsible for updating and distributing the resource guide to department personnel to be added to the “resource guide update email tree.”  

 

IV.    PUBLIC COMMENT   

 

Ken Theisen checked in with the group about the standing meeting time, and though it is not so good for the Sheriff’s Department, the others present indicated that Friday mornings worked well for them. 

 

V.       ADJOURNMENT      

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am.  The next meeting is April 10, 2009.