Mayor's Task Force on Human Trafficking - January 8, 2014 - Child Sex Trafficking Subcommittee Meeting Minutes

Mayor’s Task Force on Anti-Human Trafficking
Child Sex Trafficking Subcommittee Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, January 8, 2014            
1:30 pm - 3:00 pm     

San Francisco Police Department
850 Bryant Street, Room 500
San Francisco, CA

Attendees: Tara Regan Anderson (District Attorney’s Office); Marianne Barrett (District Attorney’s Office); Kathy Baxter (Child Abuse Prevention Center); Patrick Buckalew (Huckleberry Youth Programs);  Irene Casanova (Larkin Street Youth Services); Ken Epstein (Department of Public Health, Youth and Families);  Grace Fisher (Department on Status of Women); Antonio Flores (Police Department); Nancy Goldberg (Jewish Family and Children’s Services); Sophia Isom (Human Services Agency); Minouche Kandel (Department on Status of Women); Antonia Lavine (National Council of Jewish Women); Rebecca Marcus (San Francisco Public Defender’s Office); Ana Villagrán (Juvenile Probation Department); Kate Walker (National Center for Youth Law).

I. Introduction, Agenda Review and Minutes Review

The meeting was called to order at 1:32 pm.  Attendees introduced themselves and reviewed the agenda for the current meeting; the agenda was approved.  The December meeting minutes were also reviewed and approved.

II. Discussion of Emergency Response to CSEC

The group reviewed the problematic lack of an emergency response to CSEC in San Francisco.  At the last meeting, it had been proposed that the response could be modeled after the approach used when children have been exposed to gun violence.  The group discussed how other typical routes, such as child abuse services and hotlines, are insufficient. There is a critical need for advocates who can go out to the scene at any time and meet with the child in an attempt to intervene as well as develop a connection with the child.  The SAGE Project uses an effective model, but due to limited resources, they cannot provide services outside of regular business hours. 

The group discussed the role of the Children’s Advocacy Center.  While the Center will provide multi-disciplinary interviews, medical exams, and cognitive behavioral therapy, it will only serve as an entry point for CSEC.  The Center will not be able to serve the child at the scene or develop a longstanding connection with the child. Furthermore, the Center does not have staff available 24-7.

It was proposed that the best way to solve a problem is to use an existing system.  However, whichever staff that performs these interventions must be specially trained and able to connect with youth.  Staff members at CASARC and the Child Abuse Center are trained to intervene with CSEC, however they do not provide services at the scene.

The group discussed that many CSEC are not from San Francisco, creating a critical issue in responding and reporting.  Currently the child abuse reports go to the child welfare agency in the child’s home county.  These reports are not shared, and consequently CPS cannot respond in a uniformed manner.  Additionally, the San Francisco police are not receiving reports of CSEC reported to agencies outside San Francisco, which could be critical in police response to a suspected CSEC. The lack of communication between different districts and CPS about CSEC interferes with first responder’s ability to intervene appropriately with children at the scene.

Mr. Flores updated the group that the Police Department is now including human trafficking resources on their Domestic Violence Referral cards. These cards will be offered at the scene in English, Spanish and Chinese.

The group also discussed the importance of considering models from counties outside the Bay Area.  For example, Saving Innocence is available 24 hours a day in Los Angeles County. Alternatively, the sexual response unit is trained to do the initial assessment in Multnomah County in Oregon. While these models may not necessarily be feasible in San Francisco, it is valuable to explore other options.

Mr. Epstein informed the group that Behavioral Health applied for a state grant to fund mobile crisis teams. He suggested that, pending the funding decision, certain positions hired into the mobile teams could be prioritized to have extensive experience with and expertise on CSEC, acting as the emergency response the group is seeking.  If the funding goes through, Mr. Epstein would like to have a meeting with SAGE and other organizations who are doing the work on the ground to better inform this decision.

The group closed discussion on this topic with an overview of short and long term goals.  In the short term, both the mobile crisis teams and the Child Advocacy Center will consider hiring in people with expertise on CSEC.  However, the group was concerned that simple training is not enough for effectively working with CSEC.  In the long term, finding funding for emergency response CSEC advocates is critical.  Additionally, improving inter-county communication about CSEC as well as the policy and legislation on this topic are important goals to work towards.

III. Discussion of CSEC MDT and draft MOU

The group briefly reviewed Ms. Kandel’s draft of the MOU.  A few of the concerns included, who would represent the San Francisco unified school district, how the goals should address understanding the role of trauma in the experience of the youth, and whether the police should be a part of the MOU. 

This will be prioritized for the next agenda.  The group will discuss the appropriate lead contact from each agency as well as the confidentiality agreement.

IV. Discussion of Children’s Advocacy Center database

Ms. Baxter described the purpose of the Children’s Advocacy Center’s database to the group.  The Center plans for the database to keep track of the children that they service by sharing data with other providers such as the District Attorney’s Office and Mental Health Services.  The database will include information about the type of treatment a child receives from each provider. 

V. Report back on ability to add CSEC codes to CWS/CMS

Due to limited time, the group was unable to discuss this item.  It will be included in the next agenda.

VI. Next Steps

The MOU is top priority for the agenda at the next meeting.  Additionally, Ms. Marcus introduced the idea of prioritizing CSEC in city job and housing programs. In the future, the group might like to speak with someone about this possibility. 

The meeting adjourned at 3:03 pm.

The next meeting is set for:

Wednesday, February 12, 2014
1:30-3:00pm
San Francisco Police Department
850 Bryant St, Room 500