Mayor's Task Force on Human Trafficking - December 18, 2013 - Meeting Minutes

 

Attendees:  Tara Regan Anderson (District Attorney’s Office); Paniz Bagheri (The Sage Project); Marianne Barrett (District Attorney’s Office); Ellyn Bell (The Sage Project); Irene Casanova (Larkin Street Youth Services); Kristy Coleman (Northern California Regional Intelligence Center); AnneMarie Conroy (US Attorney’s Office); Catherine Cousart (San Francisco Human Services); Cristy Dieterich (San Francisco Department of Public Health); Jason Fox (San Francisco Police Department); Freda Randolph Glenn (Department of Child Support Services); Nancy Goldberg (San Francisco Collaboration Against Human Trafficking); Minouche Kandel (Department on the Status of Women); Hyun-mi Kim (Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach); Donna Mandel (Office of Labor Standards Enforcement); Rebecca Marcus (San Francisco Public Defender); Beverly May (California Massage Therapy Council); Emily Murase (Department on the Status of Women); Diana Oliva-Aroche (Mayor’s Office); Dyanna Quizon (Board of Supervisors, Katy Tang’s Office); Elizabeth Pederson (City Attorney’s Office); Amanda Reichmuth (San Francisco District Attorney’s Office); Kristin Snell (Department on the Status of Women); Theresa Sparks (San Francisco Human Rights Campaign); John Tsutakwa (San Francisco Human Services Agency)

 

Handouts:  Meeting Minutes (10/30/13); Matrix of Services; Data Collection Template

 

1. Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review

            Attendees introduced themselves and approved the agenda without objection.

                                                                                   

2. Review of Minutes from October Meeting

Attendees reviewed and approved the October meeting minutes without objection.

 

3. Review and Approval of Data Collection Tool

The Mayor’s Task Force reviewed the data collection tool that Ms. Nguyen had created to be used as a template to aid in facilitating the reporting of trafficking activities taking place in San Francisco. The committee discussed the tool page by page, and made suggestions for revision to strengthen the template.

A committee member clarified that this tool would be utilized for aggregate data collection in order to get a better sense of the scope of this issue in San Francisco, and is not meant to be for the reporting of any sensitive, identifiable individual data.

There was consensus among the group that a box for non-criminal justice government agencies should be added to the template, so that these organizations can provide information as well. Additionally, a suggestion was made to include an area to specify the time frame for the data collection (whether it was reported annually or biannually, etc.), in order to get the most accurate account of services provided and individuals served.

Ms. Sparks noted that there should be an area included in the demographic information section to denote whether the trafficked person identifies as transgender youth. Ms. Anderson then initiated a discussion around the most accurate age to use when reporting out on survivor information, and members agreed that age of first contact is more appropriate than when a case was started.

The Task Force then discussed how San Francisco Police Force defines victims versus unique instances of trafficking in their cases; Captain Fox stated that the Police Department protocol is to treat each separate incident as having a new victim and a new suspect. It was noted that the data is collected in this manner in the criminal justice system because the focus is on suspect information. This was discussed within the group, some noting that this method of collection will create less accurate numbers around individual victims, but will still accomplish the goal of accurately capturing how many instances of trafficking are being seen in San Francisco.

The committee conferred on the new database, Palanteer, which is currently being used by the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center in their work. Ms. Coleman noted its ability to use customized indicators which can be tracked through an extensive variety of methods, such as capturing license plates at traffic signals. The committee discussed the potential use of this database in San Francisco, and whether a criminal justice agency is better suited to house this information or the specific programs that are serving the particular trafficked population.

Task Force members proposed to include another field in the data collection template that identifies the neighborhood or zip code where the trafficking is taking place, and the type of residence it was reported to have occurred (house, apartment, etc). There was further discussion on the most appropriate way to track and report location demographics for this data; Dr. Murase made a suggestion to include descriptors of neighborhoods, and to bin zip codes into these neighborhoods. There was no group consensus on the most appropriate method to report trafficking location demographics. Ms. Kandel invited members to email any additional comments or suggestions to her prior to the next meeting.

The group continued the template review and focused on the countries of origin of the victims’ field of the collection tool. The committee revised the countries and geographic regions to include a number of areas not previously incorporated in the template. Additionally, a suggestion was made to modify the field to allow for a drop-down menu that begins with geographic region, which then allows the user to further specify the country.           

Ms. Sparks noted that San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and therefore is not supposed to be asking information about the country of origin of victims. There group discussed appropriate-ness of including these questions and the impact it might have on undocumented victims. Members debated whether the fact that the data is used only in aggregate and its not maintained on individual files makes it more suitable to include. It was noted that under a city ordinance, this information cannot be given to federal agencies, but it was unclear whether it posed an issue to have it on the tool. Ms. Sparks agreed to follow up on this question with Ms. Oliva-Aroche, and report back at the next meeting.

The committee deliberated on the potential areas for duplicate reporting inherent within the collection tool and their implications on accurate data capture.

Captain Fox then discussed how the San Francisco Police Department views the distinction between prostitution and human trafficking, and highlighted the need to be cognizant that not all prostitution is defined as trafficking. He noted that the Police Department carries out very few prostitution-related operations; rather, resources are directed to stopping street demand, and improving the general quality of life of this population.

The committee discussed the implications of the fact that under California Law, a person could be legally defined both as a victim and a trafficker if the victim turns 18 and refers their friends to a specific trafficker.

The group then deliberated on whether there should be a specific place in the template to track if the victim is a foster youth. There was a discussion on the possibility of obtaining Federal IV-E funds if all children in foster care - both 602 and child welfare dependents were tracked through this tool.

Dr. Murase requested the committee move to the next agenda item, and moved that approval for the tool be finalized in the next meeting. Dr. Murase then made a request for public comment. No public comment was made.

 

4. Update on SB 1193 Efforts

Ms. Kandel reported on recent SB 1193 efforts, noting that the mayor will be signing a letter that is going to go out to all of the affected businesses with the required poster which includes the FAQs. She reported that rollout of the notice throughout San Francisco establishments should be within the next month.

Ms. Kandel also highlighted the collaboration efforts taking place between San Francisco, Alameda County, and possibly San Mateo County toward the creation of one uniformly recognizable poster. Ms. Kandel also reported on the plan for a city-wide day of action, where volunteers will go out and visit businesses on the list to ensure they are in compliance with the ordinance.

Ms. Kandel reported on possible fixes at the local level that have been discussed to improve visibility and reach of the poster, such as displaying it at hotels and check can be done to make compliance more robust, like hotels, and check cashing establishments. She also discussed the idea of requiring that the notice also be placed in locations where Workers Rights forms are displayed at offices, due to the fact that many employees are also trafficked.

5. Subcommittee Updates

Ms. Kandel reported out for the Child Sex Trafficking Subcommittee, highlighting a presentation given by a representative from HEATWatch, an Oakland-based organization housed in the Alameda County District Attorney’s office during the November meeting. Ms. Sciupac from HEATWatch provided an overview of Alameda County’s collective response to the commercial sexual exploitation of minors during this meeting. In their December meeting, the subcommittee discussed which elements of Alameda County’s model they felt would be most effective to bring into San Francisco’s response to child sex trafficking. Please contact Ms. Kandel for the full minutes of the meeting or to get involved with this subcommittee.

 

Ms. Kandel also reported on the Massage Parlor Subcommittee meeting that was held last week, where members discussed how to better outreach and connect to women who are being trafficked at these establishments. There was consensus within the group that there needs to be increased coordination between the agencies working on these investigations. The Department of Public Health has been tasked with enhanced data collection efforts for this population. Ms. Kandel reported on the subcommittee’s discussion on the inclusion of certain elements of the Rescue and Restore Coalition’s model to San Francisco.

The next meeting of the Child Sex Trafficking Subcommittee will be held on:

Date:  Wednesday, January 8, 2013

Time:  1:30 - 3:00 pm

Location:  850 Bryant, Room 500

 

The next meeting of the Massage Parlor Subcommittee will be held on:

Date:  Friday, March 13, 2013

Time:  12:30 – 2:00 pm

Location:  25 Van Ness, Rm 610

6. Human Trafficking Awareness Month Plans

Dr. Murase reported on the Teen Poster Contest whose deadline for entry has just passed, noting that the submissions are in the process of being judged and voted on. Winners will be honored at a press release to kick-off Human Trafficking Awareness Month at City Hall on Friday, January 10th. 

 

Members of the Cross-Bay Collaborative will put together a brown bag series of 6-8 events to take place throughout January and February around how to combat human trafficking.

 

Ms. Goldberg reported that The San Francisco Collaborative Against Human Trafficking will be honoring advocates in the community at their annual Modern-Day Abolitionist Award Ceremony to be held toward the end of January.

 

Ms. Kandel invited others with event announcements to submit them to her so she can compile a list and forward the information.

 

 

7. Road Map Review

There was group consensus that all members of the Task Force will agree to provide their agency and department data for the collection tool. The committee reflected on last meeting’s conversation about training, and Ms. Kandel proposed that the group put in a commitment that people will contribute to programming and participate in training. There was a discussion within the group on ways in which the Task Force can illustrate the progress it has made in its collaboration thus far.

 

8. Department Updates & Announcements

There will be an upcoming Spanish-speaking event that will be taking place in San Francisco, which will be a presentation for community leaders and nonprofit groups that work with victims of trafficking. There will be a report made to the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, followed by a Not My Life film screening and panel discussion.

9. Next Steps

A. The Department on the Status of Women agreed to provide a finalized data collection tool for approval.

B. The committee agreed to further the discussion on the “sanctuary city” issue identified in the meeting.

C. Updates on the SB 1193 campaign will be reported on at the next meeting.

D. Ms. Sparks also advocated against using condoms as evidence in prosecution or charging of sex crimes or prostitution, and proposed this issue be an item for discussion at the next Massage Parlor Subcommittee meeting.

E. Ms. Sparks agreed to have the Human Rights Committee assist in spearheading an educational program on human trafficking to hotel and restaurant workers.

The next general meeting of the Mayor’s Task Force on Anti-Human Trafficking will be held on:

Date:  Wednesday, February 26, 2013

Time:  1:30 – 3:30 pm

Location:  City Hall, Room 305

 

The meeting adjourned at 3:34 pm.