Mayor's Task Force on Human Trafficking - December 11, 2013 - Child Sex Trafficking Subcommittee Meeting Minutes

Attendees:  Mollie Brown (Huckleberry Youth Programs); Patrick Buckalew (Huckleberry Youth Programs); Irene Casanova (Larkin Street Youth Services); Catherine Cousart (Child Protection Center, Department of Human Services/FCS); Johanna Gendelman (Department of Human Services/FCS); Minouche Kandel (Department on the Status of Women); Hyun-Mi Kim (Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach); Stephanie Nguyen (Department on the Status of Women); Kristin Snell (Department on the Status of Women); Lt. Trenia Wearing (Police Department); Hediana Utarti (Asian Women’s Shelter)

1. Introductions & Agenda Review

The meeting was called to order at 1:37 pm.  Attendees introduced themselves and reviewed the agenda for the current meeting; the agenda was approved. November meeting minutes were reviewed, and approved.

2. Discussion of HEAT Watch Model

The group discussed some of the elements of Alameda County’s HEAT Watch model, following last month’s presentation from Maia Sciupac.   The group explored the idea of a regular case review meeting. Currently, Family & Children’s Services holds a weekly multi-disciplinary MAST meetings that include staff working in child welfare, placement, mental health, probation, and other pertinent community service providers. The meetings are designed to address the needs of any high-risk youth in the community, not only those in foster care. Each meeting consists of a weekly 10-15 minute presentation on each specific case, after which agencies decide which services will be most effective for each child, as well as whom will provide them.  There is some kind of Memorandum of Understanding for these reviews, that allows the meetings to take place within the legal bounds of confidentiality.

The group agreed that it would be preferable to have a CSEC specific case review, rather than including these cases in the MAST meetings, so that CSEC advocates and providers who give services specific to CSEC could be present.  

Some concerns were raised about confidentiality, and how agencies will need to address getting permission from clients to discuss their cases in such a group. A suggestion was brought up to include on the consent form an extra line asking minors to give consent to a multi-disciplinary case review where different agencies collaborate in order to make sure they are providing the compendium of services the client needs.

The group moved to a discussion on case review meeting frequency, format, and participation and coordination issues. Group members agreed that the legality and confidentiality aspects of the meeting should be addressed principally, and agreed that a customized Memorandum of Understanding should begin to be crafted immediately.   

Members agreed that weekly meetings seemed like too much, but would consider bi-weekly or monthly.  Group members listed the following agencies as important participants in the meetings: : HSA, mental health service providers, DPH, school, police, SAGE, Child Crisis, Huckleberry/CARC, residential programs, LYRIC, juvenile probation, family shelters, and Seneca Center.

The group discussed the potential inclusion of representatives from the District Attorney’s office and the Police Department at the meetings. Some group members felt that it might compromise the goal of coming up with the most comprehensive service plans for clients if the District Attorney is present at the meetings, because of their unique stake in the case as well as potential pushback from clients who do not want any interaction with this office. Ms. Cousart commented that if the group was going to have an agreement such as this, everyone would be coming together in good faith for the benefit of the client, and we would not want to shut people out. To this end, Lt. Wearing noted that if the Police Department is ever involved in these meetings, they from a neutral stance and have no agenda aside from providing high caliber services and response to survivors.

The group agreed that crafting a robust Memorandum of Understanding to address these issues should be prioritized.  John Tsutakawa of Human Services Agency agreed to provide a the MOU used in the MAST meetings to Ms. Kandel, who will rework it to create a a draft for the group to review at our next meeting. In addition, there was consensus that the representatives from each department or agency present at the meetings needed to be at least manager-level employees with the authority to make decisions about services and protocols where necessary.

Members then explored the idea of a shared database to track commercially sexually exploited youth, as well as where this data should be housed if a database were to be created. Ms. Brown stated that Huckleberry is onboard with having a shared database, but acknowledged the challenges and time constraints involved with the creation and maintenance. The group discussed what the the goal of the database would be. Group members agreed that because it is hard to truly quantify the extent of the problem, and as a result plan for services, it would be a very useful tool to have all the data in one place.

One group member noted that Child Protective Services should in theory have fairly accurate numbers, if people who are mandated reporters are reporting trafficking properly under the new reporting laws. There is currently no separate code on a police case to identify commercially sexually exploited minors; these cases are currently coded as sexual abuse. The possibility of introducing a state-wide code into the CWS/CMS database was discussed, and Ms. Gendelman offered to bring this idea up internally with Human Services Agency, to see how feasible this addition might be.

The discussion then moved to which agency or department would house and maintain a database, and whether it be a community or public agency. A dialogue was held around whether it made sense for Child Protective Services to hold the data, or whether the District Attorney’s office would be better; arguments were given to support and highlight challenges of housing the database at both departments. The committee members from Human Service Agency could see the utility in keeping the data with their department, but could not commit itself to an unfunded mandate. Overall, there was a general consensus that committee members believe the database would be useful, but were unsure how to accomplish this goal at this time.

3. Update on Statewide CSEC Action Team

Ms. Kandel reviewed that the Child Welfare Council has set up the Statewide CSEC Action team and she has been appointed to the Data Services sub-group called the “Prevalence Team.” This group has been tasked with collecting sample screening tools so that they can come up with a model to provide to the state. Ms. Kandel confirmed with Ms. Gendelman that Human Services will send over their tool, and reported that WestCoast Children’s Clinic has a tool they are currently testing and validating.

Committee members discussed whether to continue meeting monthly, and everyone agreed that this was a priority focus and agreed to continue holding monthly meetings.

4. Update on Meeting on Emergency Response

Ms. Kandel provided the update that Ken Epstein, LCSW, will be asked to join the next Child Sex Trafficking to discuss Children’s Crisis providing emergency intervention to exploited youth.

5. Next Steps

Follow-up:

• Ms. Gendelman will send the Memorandum of Understanding from the MAST meetings to Ms. Kandel, who will begin crafting a draft MOU for the next meeting
• California Welfare Directors Association will be contacted regarding the addition of codes to CWS/CMS
• Ms. Kandel will send Ms. Gendelman the WCC contact for the sexually exploited minor screening tool

The meeting adjourned at 3:08pm.

The next meeting is set for:

Wednesday, January 8, 2013

1:30-3:00pm

San Francisco Police Department

850 Bryant St, Room 500