Mayor's Task Force on Human Trafficking - November 13, 2013 - Child Sex Trafficking Subcommittee Meeting Minutes

 

Attendees:  Paniz Bagheri (SAGE Project); Marianne Barrett (District Attorney’s Office); Mollie Brown (Huckleberry Youth Programs); Irene Casanova (Larkin Street Youth Services); Catherine Cousart (Child Protection Center); Annabelle Gardner (Young Minds Advocacy Project); Johanna Gendelman (Department of Human Services/FCS); Kelly Gilliam (Nalls Foundation/F.D. Homes); Carletta Jackson-Lane (Sojourner Truth Family Foster Services Agency); Minouche Kandel (Department on the Status of Women); JaMel Perkins (Private Sector); Rebecca Marcus (Public Defender’s Office); Delia Montiel (District Attorney’s Office); Kristin Snell (Department on the Status of Women); John Tsutakawa (Family and Children’s Services Division/Human Services Agency); Ana Villagran (Juvenile Probation Department); Lt. Trenia Wearing (Police Department); Maya Webb (San Francisco Unified School District)

 

1. Introductions & Agenda Review

The meeting began at 1:32 pm.  Attendees introduced themselves and reviewed the agenda for the current meeting; the presentation on voluntary programs that provide services to commercially sexually exploited children was moved to the next meeting, as one of the presenters was unable to attend the meeting. The agenda was approved.

 

September meeting minutes were reviewed, and Ms. Kandel directed each organization representative present to review their agency/department’s section within Matrix of Services document and let her know if any changes need to be made.

 

2. Presentation from Maia Sciupac, Human Exploitation & Trafficking (H.E.A.T.) Watch

Maia Sciupac was invited to speak at the meeting and present on the work that the H.E.A.T. Watch program is doing to combat child sex trafficking in Alameda County.

 

Ms. Kandel introduced Ms. Sciupac, and noted that Alameda County is ahead of San Francisco in its city-wide coordinated response to trafficking. She mentioned that the Mayor’s Task Force subcommittee was interested in learning about how the SafetyNet database of trafficked children works, how H.E.A.T.Watch and the providers involved handle confidentiality issues that might arise, as well as how to use these written protocols to help San Francisco create a model response.

 

Ms. Sciupac discussed the 5 major components of H.E.A.T. Watch:

1) Community Education Engagement and Collaboration; 2) Law Enforcement Training and Coordination; 3) Prosecution of Offenders; 4) Engage and Enlist Decision Makers; and 5) Delivery of Essential Services.

 

Ms. Sciupac walked attendees through an online toolkit (which can be found at toolkit.heat-watch.org) that H.E.A.T. Watch has created and is meant to help other jurisdictions develop and expand their plans to build community action, empower survivors, and hold their traffickers accountable.

 

Ms. Sciupac also mentioned a number of upcoming initiatives and events H.E.A.T. Watch is spearheading: They are working on a graphic novel and revamping their monthly radio show. The first series will be discussing CSEC youth w/ intellectual disabilities, and on Dec 12^th from 10am-12pm at OPD in Oakland; follow this link to sign up to receive information: http://eepurl.com/urwin.

 

She reported on Alameda County prosecution statistics – Alameda County has prosecuted 46% of all cases, and has an 86% conviction rate. Ms. Sciupac discussed H.E.A.T. Watch’s efforts to engage policy makers around human trafficking laws and the move to include more focus on demand, as well as a focus on whether the foster care system is the best place for CSEC youth.

 

Ms. Sciupac discussed H.E.A.T. Watch efforts toward coordinating CSEC services and stabilization. She highlighted H.E.A.T. Watch’s ‘Young Women’s Saturday Program,’ a 12-week course designed to teach girls and young women life and other essential skills.

           

She discussed Alameda County’s online database of trafficked children called SafetyNet. This database, which tracks all minors who are referred from both criminal and other social services organizations and whom have met certain CSEC criteria, is used in a weekly multi-jurisdictional meeting in which service providers get together and review each individual case, and within the bounds of confidentiality discuss needs and appropriate services for these minors.

 

Ms. Sciupac then explained the Alameda County CSEC Response Protocol, as well as how minors make it into the SafetyNet database. Within H.E.A.T. Watch, there is the H.E.A.T. unit, which consists of 2 vertical DAs, 1 inspector and victim-witness advocate. If a minor makes contact with law enforcement, they will automatically be added to the list and SafetyNet database. Other referral sources include BAWAR, folks working inside juvenile hall, hospitals, and community agencies. Ms. Sciupac noted that at these SafetyNet meetings, providers do not discuss confidential details about the legal case. The focus is on the services the minor needs – both immediate and long-term, such as school needs or psychiatric medication.

 

Ms. Kandel noted the group’s goal to understand how to deal with confidentiality when all providers are meeting to discuss specific cases: SafetyNet uses an MOU which outlines these concerns, and a robust confidentiality agreement. They get most information from the probation department intake reports that are able to be shared with all parties. Additionally, providers are asked to get waivers for their clients whenever possible, so a more comprehensive discussion can take place as to how to best service this particular minor at the SafetyNet meeting.

 

Ms. Sciupac then detailed the structure of the SafetyNet database, which includes demographics such as whether or not the child is currently in custody, as well as whether this is a new client or a repeat case.  The D.A.’s office is the holder of the information; they input the data and prepare weekly reports.

 

A discussion arose around the prosecution arm’s access to this information, and whether there is an assumption or a pressure to help with the prosecution in exchange for this information. Some girls who actually need the help will opt out if they are pressured to testify. Ms. Sciupac responded that SafetyNet is not used to force the girls to testify, and that the D.A.’s office does try cases without the testimony of a minor. Ms. Sciupac noted that she was sharing Alameda County’s model, but it is up to San Francisco to decide what system is going to work best for the city.

 

Ms. Bagheri noted the importance of having advocates for these minors who are outside the criminal and social services system, mentioning a recent case involving a 16 year old girl who was initially willing to take a loaded weapons charge for her pimp, but after one meeting with an advocate who was separate from the system, completely turned around.

 

Ms. Sciupac also reviewed common risk factors in these cases, and Ms. Sciupac mentioned the efforts Alameda County providers are taking to capture data to see what trends are happening, how services are being delivered and utilized in efforts to improve client outcomes.

 

Ms. Sciupac reiterated the goals of the H.E.A.T. Watch toolkit, stating they are meant to be a practical guide, set of tools and a template to be customized to meet the specific needs of each county.

She noted the outreach currently being done in Oakland Unified, mentioning a toolkit H.E.A.T. Watch is putting together that is specifically designed for schools, as well as a helpful website: protectoaklandkids.org.

 

3. Review of protocols and screening tools

Ms. Kandel brought up the previous meeting discussion around which agencies have screening tools to identify potential trafficking victims, and reported that no one had turned in an assessment tool yet. Ms. Gendelman from HSA brought a draft of their screening tool and shared it with the group. A question was raised about any written protocols agencies might have in this area, and no one reported having a written protocol. Mollie Brown from Huckleberry House offered to send the screening tool they use to the committee.

 

The committee was provided with the Project Innocence report card on every state, assessing their statewide response to CSEC, and it was noted that California received an F.

 

4. Next Steps

There was a discussion about committee priorities for the next meeting, and it was agreed upon that a smaller committee would convene to discuss emergency response around CSEC. The presentation on voluntary services will also take place at the next meeting.

 

To the point of voluntary versus involuntary services, Ms. Marcus summarized the committee’s general perspective that holding people is not optimal, and the group hopes to look at models of intervention that do not involve holds. The committee agreed to continue discussions around what the most effective services and interventions are for the CSEC population.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3:08pm.

 

The next meeting is set for:

 

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

1:30-3:00pm

San Francisco Police Department

850 Bryant St, Room 500