Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11142006 - D.4 (3) EbEALt ap ' CONTRA TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORStot 411111XIIAK, '1 e~r COSTA � FROM: John Cullen, County Administrator "�9��, .� COUNTY DATE: November 14, 2006 SUBJECT: "Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence" Initiative — Progress Report SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACCEPT the 2005-2006 report on the County's progress toward reducing domestic and family violence and elder abuse through the "Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence" initiative. 2. REAFFIRM the high priority of"Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence" as the County's primary system- change effort to reduce harm to victims of abuse, children who witness or suffer abuse and vulnerable elders. 3. APPROVE the recommended strategic directions contained in the progress report and DIRECT the County Administrator to pursue additional public and private funding, implement the Safe and Bright Futures for children exposed to domestic violence strategic plan, strengthen evaluation efforts, strengthen the initiative's working collaborative and report back to the Board of Supervisors by October 2007. 4. COMMEND the results documented through the partner Departments, Superior Court, and community service provider agencies "return on investment" performance measures on program goals of assisting victims of domestic/family violence and elder abuse and their families and reducing the short-and-long term financial, emotional and institutional costs of domestic and family violence and elder abuse. 5. ACKNOWLEDGE partner Departments, Superior Court and community service provider agencies' dedication and commitment to reducing domestic and family violence and elder abuse. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X-YES SIGNATURE: %z, /, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF bMMITTEE APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHE�_ Jkk t. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF �fS TP L � ��/ q _j1 L/``r� SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Devorah L'{/�vi'ne,L5--`10'17 V � s ATTESTED !� I JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: CAO—Devorah Levine Presiding Judge,Superior Court;Sheriff; District Attorney; Public Defender; Chief Probation Officer; Health Services Director; Employment and Human Services Director; STANDI Against Domestic Violence—Exec.Director; Bay Area Legal Aid—Exec.Director;CCC Advisory Council Against Domestic Violence(via CAO) BY ,DEPUTY CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative supports three of Contra Costa's community outcomes ("Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood", "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing" and "Communities that are Safe and provide a High Quality of Life") through coordinated intervention services designed to reduce domestic and family violence and elder abuse. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Annually, the Board of Supervisors requests a progress report on the status of the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative. Attached is an annual report covering the period July 2005 through June 2006. ADDENDUM December 5, 2006: Agenda Item DA On this day the Board of Supervisors considered accepting the 2005/2006 report on the County's progress toward reducing domestic and family violence and elder abuse through the "Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence"initiative and approving strategic direction for continuing progress. Devorah Levine, Domestic Violence Coordinator opened the presentation with a progress report on the status of the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative. She noted this year new partnerships have been formed with a few cities and numerous child-serving agencies. She said in the coming year Zero Tolerance will continue to build on the bold vision established by the Board and work to sustain system changes and carry out improved evaluation metholodigies. Supervisor Piepho asked for clarification of a few items in the report. Specifically, she requested that Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence provide her with a chart showing the overall annual program budget and the constant dollars in the program. As an example Supervisor Piepho also asked about the Probation's challenges discussed in the appendix of the report. Chair Gioia asked how many of the 19 cities in Contra Costa County are putting money in as partners. Chair Gioia noted the importance of working with Law Enforcement Agencies and cities to the extent of bringing them in as partners in funding. Supervisor Piepho and Chair Gioia talked about cities becoming partners in Zero Tolerance and requested staff to work towards that goal,to get the cities involved financially. They asked for advocacy to cities, specifically suggesting going to city council meetings, City Managers meetings, the Mayor's conference,writing letters, and talking to the Police Chief's Association,. Supervisor Piepho requested that Zero Tolerance provide her with a chart showing the overall annual program budget;what the constant dollars are of the program and what measures are being used to use technology to decrease manpower efforts to be more engaged with direct public contact as opposed to systemic. She also asked about the Probation's challenges discussed in the appendix of the report. Ms. Levine noted the issue raised by Probation is a critical one for their Department. She said Zero Tolerance is aware of the Court's and Probations role as being critical and are looking for specific ways to improve their data collection. Supervisor Uilkema brought up the issue of public outreach to doctors and churches as organizations people trust. She spoke about Kaiser Hospital doing a Domestic Violence plan by offering brochures in offices for patients and said the doctors need to know where to send patients and where they can call privately and get assistance. Supervisor Uilkema spoke of reaching out to the ACCMA, AMA, small churches,parish councils, etc. About Public Awareness campaign, Ms. Levine told the Board Zero Tolerance is working with Supervisor Glover and Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds. She informed the Board they are also working on a campaign focused on children's exposure to Domestic Violence and on public awareness campaigns,strategies to engage the public to take action in their own communities. By an unanimous vote with District IV seat vacant the Board ACCEPTED the report. J REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit). I wish to speak on Agenda Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: 17 f `-) speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. 1 My comments will be: Q General Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For Name: L Jq U Ce /7 C()oEl Against r CA t'1 / n ` 2 I wish to speak on the subject of- Address:Address: f 7/ 1-�f�Tbl �? � 4.1 ,C� Z� f �� r City: kS C-,;-(-74 Phone: o 7Z 5 I am speaking for: Q/Myself ❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to leave comments for the Board to consider (use the back of this form) TOLERANCE e r domestic violence! An Initiative of the (Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors a P� ----------- Progress .Deport: July 2005 -June 2006 Compiled by: Contra Costa County Ofce of the County Administrator 651 Pine St., 11'b Fl.,Martinet C4 94553 O VABLIE (DIP OOO MIREM` S Executive �Y1Pnn1aYZ/eeee••ueuee••eJeee•eveueeueeeuuuueeueueueueueeeeeeeeeeueeeeee^� Historyand Background eeeee•eeeeeee•eseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeueeeee••eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee•••eeeseCe Resultsto Dateuueeee••eeeeeeeeueeeueeeeeeeeeeeue••ueeueeeueueeue••eeeeueeeueeee•eeeeeQQP Financingand Accountability eeeeeeeeeeeeeeu••eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeveeeeeeeeeee••eeeeeeeeeeed® Challenges and Opportunities nines eueeeeueaeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeu eeeeeeeeeee eeu�� Strategic Directions......eaeeeaeeaeeeeeaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeg3 Appendixeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee••ueeeeueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve••eue•eeeeeee ueeeeee••u•••eeeeeeedL� Financing Chart Proposed Evaluation Report Ov Department/Agency Reports 0 m x CD Orib m 3 3 as O O 0 "Seeing my mom get Fhowmuch citizen has no idea --- beat up is worse then mestic violence being beat up myself." ow much it impacts the TOLERANCE Teen witness it." dam Law Enforcement Zero Tolerance is an initiative of the Board The Board of Supervisor's "Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence" of upervisors. Initiative (Zero Tolerance) brings together a multi-jurisdictional ,Partners and Allies partnership, focused on reducing domestic violence, family violence and include: elder abuse. Bay Area Legal Aid _ Community Violence After five years of Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Solutions implementation, Contra Costa County has demonstrated its success by Contra cons diveCounty: building capacity within the response system and improving the lives of Services Protective families. Results to date include: Services. Children and Family • Increasing batterer accountability; Services . Increasing protection for victims and children; Children's Mental , • Increasing funding for a coordinated system and individual Health agencies; and Department of Child • Increasing accountability system-wide. Support Services O Family Maternal and: chila Health_ This year service capacity will be enhanced through grants adding Health Services specialized investigation, victim advocacy, and establishing supervised Department - visitation services involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual Office of the District assault, and stalking. Attorney Office of the Sheriff: Coroner, The passage of the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Act (SB 968) Probation Department permanently authorizes the initiative, and so opens up opportunities to Superior Court of address the critical challenges of further system changes that are California breaking the generational, traumatic, and progressive cycle of violence. Workforce Services _ 'First s contra Costa In the coming year Zero Tolerance will continue to build on the bold `Children and Families vision established by the Board and work to establish new Commission alliances/partnerships, secure additional resources, implement strategies 'Domestic Against for children exposed to domestic violence, and implement updated 'Domes[ic.Yiolence ' ,; evaluation measures. This fifth annual report consists of a brief history of Zero Tolerance, results and accomplishments, financing and accountability, challenges and opportunities, and strategic directions. The Appendix includes financing chart, proposed evaluation plan, and individual department/community-based agency reports. O ZQdmnesfiLF.&CE `vlwmce! I o � a 0 CL O O O �;l9STOQY AND BACKGROUND In 1999, multiple agencies' (government, community service providers and law enforcement) efforts to address domestic violence, while individually valuable, were fragmented. Indeed, the complexity of domestic violence and the diversity of approaches, policies and systems had led to single interventions which were appropriate within each discipline, but had limited success in stopping domestic violence. In February 2000, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors made a bold and laudable declaration of"zero tolerance for domestic violence." Subsequently in 2001, it launched the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (Zero Tolerance), a multi-agency system improvement effort, providing funding and establishing accountability criteria for a variety of supports and services designed to reduce domestic and family violence and elder abuse by breaking the generational, traumatic and progressive cycle of violence. At the same time the Board sought legislative authorization for funding oversight and staffing that would assist in bringing about system change. Contra Costa County's response to domestic violence has undergone significant and wide- reaching changes since the passage of that legislation, SB 425 (Torlakson), the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Act, which authorized a five year pilot program. Victim services are integrated across multiple disciplines. Public/private partnerships have resulted in new, successful strategies for addressing this widespread problem. OZero Tolerance's efforts have received statewide and national recognition: • National Association of County's 2002 Achievement Award winner • Featured in the California Attorney General's publication "Safe from the Start, Promising Strategies and Programs Resource Guide" • Recipient of the Centers for Disease Control, Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) program in 2004 - $129,000 • Recipient of funding from the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women in 2004 and 2006 - $2,100,000 • Recipient of a Safe and Bright Futures Initiative, Department of Health and Human Services, two year strategic planning grant to develop a system to assist children who are exposed to domestic violence in 2004 - $150,000 • Recipient of a Safe Havens, Supervised Visitation program grant, Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women in 2006 - $350,000 • Invited to present at American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in 2005 and 2006 This year the County reported to the California State Legislature on the results of its pilot program. The Legislature response was permanent authorization of the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Act under SB 968 (Torlakson). Many thanks are due to Senator Torlakson for successfully carrying both SB 425 and SB 968. Zero Tolerance is a collaborative effort among many disciplines: the Superior Court, the OSheriffs, District Attorney's and Public Defender's Offices, the Employment and Human Z1T1CE R�i damesfic 2 O Services (including Children & Family Services, Workforce Services, and Adult Protective Services), Probation, Health Departments, and community service providers (STAND! Against Domestic Violence, and Bay Area Legal Aid). Stronger coordination/collaboration has resulted in the formation of important new alliances with organizations such as First Five Contra Costa, Community Violence Solutions, Family Maternal and Child Health, and the Department of Child Support Services. Zero Tolerance emphasizes system improvement activities centered on addressing domestic/family violence and elder abuse early in order to reduce the need for expensive crisis services (savings in law enforcement costs, court time, out-of-home placements). Activities include; Domestic Violence Court, Vertical Prosecution Units and coordination of misdemeanor cases, Restraining Order Clinics, Co-located Liaisons, Intensive Supervision of Offenders, and a Multi-jurisdictional Domestic Violence Database. Zero Tolerance is a long-term investment in system change that intends to increase safety for those who are abused, access to services for people experiencing abuse and capacity to reduce domestic/family violence and elder abuse. Goals include 1) enhancing successful strategies and moving them toward institutionalization; 2) maintaining "active" ownership and leadership; 3) securing additional funding and continually reinvesting Zero Tolerance funds as strategies are institutionalized; and 4)utilizing results-based accountability to demonstrate effectiveness. O O ZQ101, ARiCE amr�n`°mwm' 3 0 N C O p v a� �. 0 RESULTS TO DATE The Systems improvements of the Zero Tolerance Initiative are all designed with one end in mind: improving the lives of children and families. In these first five years, the focus has been intervention at the misdemeanor level, to stop the progressive cycle of violence before it becomes lethal (see page 13, for discussion of expanding these early interventions to include prevention strategies), aimed at increasing the efficiency of partner agencies and the effectiveness of their interventions with families as they journey into and through the system. Changes in Contra Costa County's system are described in four general result categories reflective of the Initiative's four-pronged approach to effective intervention: 1) Increased Batterer Accountability 2) Increased Protection for Victims and Children 3) Increased Access to Services 4) Satisfaction with Services 1) Increased Batterer Accountability OThe Initiative's partners seek to intervene early and strongly with perpetrators of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses to prevent the escalation of violence to felony-level crimes. Key results indicate that batterers today in Contra Costa County are being held more accountable for their actions than they were before Zero Tolerance. • Law Enforcement Reports on calls rose from 49% in 1998 to 68% in 2005. While the number of domestic violence calls for assistance has decreased, the number of police reports completed for misdemeanor and felony level incidents has increased; proportionally speaking, a greater share of calls for assistance now result in a report being written by responding officers. In 1998, law enforcement reports were prepared for 49% of calls; in 2005, that figure rose to 68%. • Conviction rates remain high on Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse cases. In addition, conviction rates remain high for both felony and misdemeanor domestic violence cases (95.78% and 74.68% respectively). In FY 05/06 the District Attorney's Office filed 699 misdemeanor cases, an increase of 100 cases from FY 04/05. The District Attorney's Elder Abuse Unit continues to firmly establish itself as a statewide leader for its prosecution, training and outreach efforts. For FY 05/06 the Elder Abuse unit Ofiled 29 felony cases and obtained an 89.29% conviction rate. ZTQO &CE ` l 4 • 37% more perpetrators are being sent to a 52-Week Batterers Treatment Program in O2005 than 2001. If convicted of a misdemeanor offense, a victims' batterer is now more likely to be ordered to a 52-week treatment program and monitored by specialized probation officers in order to ensure compliance with that and other terms of probation. These results are due to the Initiative-supported, multi-agency Domestic Violence Court (MDVC). This year MDVC reviewed 1,079 cases (an offender may have more than one case) and conducted 2,044 review bearings. Figure 1 —Number of Perpetrators Referred to 52-Week Program 472 497 50 430 444 400- 363 300- 2M . 00233 . - O2001 2002 MM 2004 2005 Source:Contra Costa Probation Department. Note:Data includes felony and misdemeanor cases. Trend data not currently available for misdemeanor cases only. • Early intervention in domestic violence has improved with 85% more misdemeanor reports completed in 2005 than 1998. The Zero Tolerance Initiative's theory of change is that intervening swiftly and effectively in a misdemeanor case prevents a future felony. The data available appear to hold up this theory in Contra Costa County. As indicated in Figure 2 below, the number of law enforcement reports completed for misdemeanor offenses has increased by 85% since 1998, while the number of felony reports has decreased by 67% since 1998. O Z&;ia- CECE 5 Figure 2—Number of Misdemeanor vs. Felony Reports Completed by Law Enforcement O4500 t—Misdemeanor 4000 Reports 3500 --Ca—Felony Reports 3000 2500 — 2000 1500 1000 500 0 - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source:Criminal Justice Statistics(CJS database),Contra Costa County. 2) Increased Protection for Victims and Children Ensuring the safety of victims and children while prosecution occurs or while the perpetrator is receiving treatment is paramount. Separation violence is well-documented in the literature, and even for those victims who wish to have some level of relationship with their former batterer, the fact that the victim has `allowed' - from the batterers' perspective - the prosecution to move forward(e.g. has not recanted)may further aggravate the already tenuous relationship. O • 25% more restraining orders were issued and entered in a multi-jurisdictional domestic violence database in 2005 then 2001 Due to the efforts of numerous Zero Tolerance partners, a domestic violence victim today is more likely to obtain a restraining order than in "They(staff) helped a Ic 2001 (Figure 3 below). For instance, law enforcement officers issue an They tar domestic violenceolencear emergency protective order when they respond to a home, and the DA's helped me to make office puts a criminal protective order in the presiding Judge's folder for decision on getting him/her to sign(Order after Hearing). restraining order Victim Interviews,Ze Figure 3–Number of Domestic Violence-related Restraining Orders Tolerance Evaluation, 201 Issued and Entered in Domestic Violence Database 000^v .91183. 9571 8766 9105 4000 s0ao 7686 7000 - F1 sooc - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 V Source:Sheriff Performance Measures,Zero Tolerance Initiative. *Note: Includes Emergency Protective Orders,Temporary Restraining Orders,Orders After Hearing, Criminal Protective Orders. O ZTQhEi&4CE damesU violence! 6 Bay Area Legal Aid's collaboration with the Court and STAND! has also played an important Orole in protecting victims and children from further violence. With the help of collaborative partners, Bay Legal was able to open three restraining order clinics in the County (Richmond, Pittsburg, and Martinez) to assist low-income victims of domestic violence in completing restraining order applications. The number of restraining orders prepared has increased by 108% since the agency's first full year of service (2001)1. This year alone the clinic experienced approximately a 20% increase in the number of temporary restraining orders being sought by Contra Costa residents. 3) Increased Access to Services The third area critical to breaking the cycle of family violence is ensuring that victims and their children have access to services that will enhance their emotional wellbeing, provide emergency support such as housing, and promote longer-term self-sufficiency. a Collaboration amongst partner agencies has increased the number of victims who are referred or served within and beyond their network. With the help of Zero Tolerance, the Employment & Human Services Department sub- contracted with STAND! to have domestic violence liaisons co-located at four different CalWORKS offices. As a result, more domestic violence victims receiving CalWORKS benefits are referred to the domestic violence liaisons (to access services and receive additional support), Owith a 414% increase in referrals during last fiscal year (05/06) from FY 02/03 (see referrals made by Ca1WORKS, Figure 4). Figure 4—Number of Referrals Made by CalWORKS Staff to STAND! 'DDD 1859 "I've been able to complete two full semesters at 1500 college... I really enjoy my 1065 relationship with my son 000 and most of all myself... 725 Without programs like this 1 5.00 1 361 might have been another one who fell through the cracks. Now I'd like to work with other young FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 women so they can reach out to their highest Source:Employment&Health Services Performance Measures,Zero Tolerance Initiative, potential with pride and *Note:Data for the last three months of FY 02/03 were projected based on the average monthly Confidence." number of referrals made during the first nine months of the fiscal year. CaIWORKS recipient, 2006 Includes those served at the Pittsburg and Concord clinics,which opened in 2003. ZMILE&CE dotasstic amens! 7 OAnother objective of the Initiative and its collaborative partners is to address the issue of elder abuse in the County. To that end, partner agencies have worked together in educating professionals working with elderly and dependent adults through a series of trainings and workshops. As a result of collaborative partners' concerted efforts, the definition for "family violence" has been expanded to also include violence committed towards the aging population; professionals are better able to recognize elder abuse, and therefore make a report to Adult Protective Services; and police officers have been informed of new elder abuse charges. The impact of such trainings and workshops is evidenced by the steady increase of referrals to Adult Protective Services from 2001 through 2003 (Figure 5 below). The slight decrease in referrals during the years 2004-2005 is in part indicative of the shortage of funds/resources made available. Figure 5—Number of Referrals Made by Zero Tolerance Collaborative Agencies to Adult Protective Services 2000 1843 — 1706 1676 1536- 1 120 n sa so.-) 40'0 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source: Partner Agencies Performance Measures,Zero Tolerance Initiative. *Note,The number of referrals for the first six months of 2001 were projected based on the average monthly referrals for the last six months of the year. 4) Satisfaction with Services The fourth `prong' in the Initiative's theory of change is that the people served need to be served and supported by a system that is accountable to them, so that they feel secure in making life- altering changes to break the cycle of violence in their lives. Conversely, if clients do not have a good experience with the system, they will be reluctant to reach out for help in the future (e.g. call police, seek help from a community-based organization), despite the likelihood of repeat episodes of domestic violence. At this time, the Initiative is in the process of developing a measure of client satisfaction for use across the Initiative's partners. In the meantime, several smaller sets of data are available as proxies. • Victims felt that the referrals they and their children received met their needs. In 2005, a needs assessment was conducted to examine victims' experiences with domestic Oviolence-related services, through in-depth interviews with a sampling of victims of domestic ZTQQiLCE dameocvtme"m! o violence. Though only a limited number of victims could be interviewed', those interviewed reported that the services received for themselves and for their children were very helpful (Figure 18, below). Note: Responses were measured on a 5-point scale, with 1 being "not at all helpful" to 5 being"very helpful." Figure 6—Level of Reported Helpfulness of Referrals for Victims and Children 4 4.50 "They give me help. a.3o I don't feel so trapped. 3 1 feet like I have support and options." Victim Interviews,Zero Tolerance Evaluation, 1 -- - --------_- __...__.------...._.--—__ - - - ----. - -------- _ - _.. 2006 n - Helpfulness of services for victims Helpfulness of services for children Source:Safe&Bright Needs Assessment Report,2005. N=15. Applied Survey Research interviewed a sampling of domestic violence victims who had received services. Victims reported that the agencies with which they had contact were quite helpful. Note: Responses were measured on a 5-point scale, with 1 being "not at all helpful" to 5 being "very helpful." 0 • Victims found all agencies within the Zero Tolerance network to be helpful. Figure 7—Level of Reported Helpfulness of Agencies Encountered (mean scores) s 4.56 3.55 3.63 3.67 3.75 3 3.25 Law DV Agencies Children& Court Hospital Probation Enforcement Family Services Source:ZT Evaluation Report. Ten of 15 respondents provided an answer as to whether their children's needs had been met,and 12 of 15 orespondents provided an answer as to whether their needs had been met. ZTQGJAlAR1CE dames icvlolmset 9 0 o - DT n 3 C! al O O C � 3 O . y C 0 The return on investment in the Zero Tolerance system is significant. The Board of Supervisors has strategically infused limited general fund dollars (at its highest in 2001 at $2.3 million and today at $1.3 million) and county agencies and community based organizations have invested funding for services and in-kind staffing to support system improvements. These investments have been critical in attracting additional funding: over $2.5 million in federal funding in the last three years. Figure 8- Funding for Zero Tolerance Coordinated System $3,500,000 Programs to prevent interpersonal $3,000,000 violence are cost beneficial and cost $2,500,000 effective. $2,000,000 The Economic Dimensions of $1,500,000 interpersonal Violence. Department of Injuries $1,000,000 and Violence Prevention, World Health Organization,Geneva $500,000 2004. O $0 2000-2007 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004.2005 20052006 2006.2007est 13 Grant Dollars O General Fund Dollars ❑Wney Invested by Partner Agencies (estimated) E)Nloneyl-everaged by Partner Agencies (estimated) Q SB 425(2000-2006)/SB 968(Jan 2007-) ■TANF and CC Future Fund With the recent award of federal dollars totaling $1.7 million, this year service capacity will be enhanced; adding a misdemeanor domestic violence detective in the Office of the Sheriff, expanding advocacy services for victims; and establishing supervised visitation services for domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. (See Appendix for the allocation of the Board's Zero Tolerance funding and grants for FY 06/07). To protect the County's investment, the Zero Tolerance It has been estimated that the Initiative developed, implemented and in some cases, Violence Against Women Act institutionalized several methods with which to ensure the (VAWA 1)of 1994 saved $14.8 initiative is accountable to the people that it serves. The billion in net averted social costs. initiative has most recently conducted these activities to A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Violence increase accountability: Against Women Act of 1994,Clark,K. et al, Violence Against Women,Vol.8, Partner identification of performance measures: No.4 Sage Publications,2002 O Each year partners submit monitoring reports to Zero Tolerance staff for verification and sZ nthesis. EiLCE 10 O ➢ Expanding data collection capacity: The DV database,previously managed by the Sheriff's Office will become an effective tool for investigation, enhance the depth of information available, and enhance analysis of trend data. In the coming months the DV database will be linked to vital criminal justice records via ARIES accessed on-line by all law enforcement agencies. ➢ Revision of Initiative logic model and streamlined Evaluation Plan: Applied Survey Research (ASR) is again helping the Initiative refine and streamline its data requirements in order to capture fewer but more salient measures of effectiveness, to increase partners' sense of ownership for these important data collected (a critical element of empowerment evaluation), and to thereby increase their use of these data for system improvements as well as for accountability to each other. The effort will culminate in a simple, revised reporting template for each partner to update periodically and use to report out on at Initiative meetings. (See Appendix for proposed measures). ➢ Auditing Batterer's Treatment Programs (BIP) and the System Surrounding BIPs: A team of partner agencies, coordinated by a Phd candidate from UC Berkeley, are currently conducing a safety audit to examine how everyday practices occur across batterer's treatment programs (BIPs) and the systems that surround them (such as Child Welfare, Court, Probation, and Domestic Violence Advocates). The team is examining (through focus groups, interviews, case file reviews) institutional practices within the county and how these systems are organized and coordinated to centralize or marginalize the safety of victims and their children. The audit team will develop recommendations for system improvement. O ZZILEICE aomesucvwrmt 11 0 o 3 CL n '00 0 CD 0 w CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUMMES Despite the fact that Zero Tolerance continues to produce positive outcomes, we face significant challenges in the coming year. Funding for core elements of the Initiative have remained static while demand for services have increased. Caseloads for Domestic Violence Court have more than doubled, the number of temporary restraining orders sought has increased, and services for victims and their children and system improvements focused on elder abuse are lacking. In addition, while the Initiative has successfully leveraged significant federal grants to date, additional administrative resources required to implement grant objectives have not been allocated. Expectations at the federal level in reporting and evaluation are high. Indeed, staffing for oversight and coordination has been considered matching resources for leveraged grants.' Permanent authorization of the County's Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Act (S13968) requires long term strategic planning. Enhanced fundraising coupled with long range strategic planning will leverage the county's investment and build long term sustainability. With the passage of SB 968 the Initiative faces a historic opportunity accompanied by the critical challenge of sustaining (with renewed "Counselors and therapists don't know they focus, energy, and efficiencies) system changes that assist families in don't know how to address addressing and preventing domestic/family violence and elder abuse. domestic violence issues" True sustainability over time will require additional investments in O successful outcomes, and a focus on institutionalizing success Home visitor Safe and Bright Futures Focus through policy/practice changes, accompanied by ongoing training. Group, 2006 SB 968 deleted the repeal date of the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Act and authorizes the Board of Supervisors to establish fees up to$4.00 for Zero Tolerance. In December,Zero Tolerance will request a hearing to O increase fees by$] to increase fundraising activities,hire an evaluator to assist the Initiative in tracking outcomes, improve data collection and engage in long tern sZ rategic planning. OL614CE „io1m=! 12 0 cc, v 0 O o STRaTIEGoC ooaIECTOONS Phase I During the preliminary stages of the initiative, Zero Tolerance has been very successful in building a cohesive and integrated system among criminal justice programs, human service programs, and community-based victim advocate organizations. Collaborative activities span the spectrum of early intervention, response, and remediation efforts. Having completed the first phase of implementation, Contra Costa County's Zero Tolerance Initiative now embarks upon Phase II. Success in Phase II will be ensured by continued strong local leadership and coordination supported by the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Act. Phase II Zero Tolerance is a long term investment in system change. The next steps for the Initiative include: Institutionalizing the Initiative's Strategies and Best Practices • Continuing to build the capacity of those who provide relevant services both within government and community-based organizations. • Increasing the participation of agencies to include those who provide services outside of the system; strategically involving new partners. O Sustaining System Changes • Securing funding to advance the long-term vision of the Zero Tolerance Strategic Plan. • Continuing to improve accountability for results. • Continuing to improve systems. Strengthening the Focus on Prevention • Implementing a coordinated system for children/adolescents exposed to domestic violence. "Most of the times kids With a planning grant from the Federal Department of Health know domestic violence � is wrong, but they are and Human Services , a planning committee (First 5 Contra traumatized by seeing Costa, Community Violence Solutions, STAND! Against their mom get beat up. Domestic Violence, Office of the County Administrator, Health I hit my younger Services, Probation, Child and Family Services) completed a brothers and stole cars community assessment with input from over 150 adolescents, because I was so parents, public and community based agencies. The planning angry." committee engaged over 200 community members, policy Teen makers, county staff, and young people resulting in agreement on Safe and Bright Futures Focus Grouo. 2006 strategies. In 2004,Contra Costa County was awarded the Safe and Bright Futures for Children Initiative through the federal O Department of Health and Human Services. The initiative is a two year$150,000 planning grant to develop a continuum of supports for children and adolescenZ s exposed to domestic violence. OLILILCE 13 • Planning and implementing primary prevention activities focused on men and boys. OThe DELTA project ' continues to engage men to play a role in preventing domestic violence by mentoring boys. This year the number of men participating in education events more than doubled. DELTA has been noted for its effectiveness statewide. • Identify prevention activities focused on elder abuse. Domestic/family violence is deeply imbedded in our community. While significant strides have been made in the past five years,Zero Tolerance recognizes the need to: • Broaden the continuum of strategies; • Close system gaps; and • Incorporate more best practices. It is clear that the Board's bold vision of Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence, over time and with significant resources, has the potential to permanently increase the efficiency and effectiveness of domestic violence prevention and interventions and create safer communities in Contra Costa County. O Zero Tolerance partners received a federal grant from the Centers for Disease Control,Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances(DELTA)program,to develop and implement activities designed to prevent domestic violence. This project is staffed by STAND! Against Domestic Violence.A highlight this year of the DELTA project was the Men of Merit Father's Day Festival held in East County in June O 2006. Sixteen local men were honored for being excellent role models to young men and boys by showing that violence does not equal strength. ZTIQUICEA ! °�``° ' 14 � I n s � '� 48 ti A V A.Q N •� C j. '� o ❑ 4r U Q, r... ° is a> E d � mUF F ca > F > O . >..= a °j z7 0 b .4 o E Q �� ° m ,a IE C Uo o Ey O�m �w UO o0 > Co > ao ' c = cv v� WW W � Ge H�Oo A .•> y r fi V Q O 7 VOl W r 00 O O M ° +" F 1� 00 M 7 00 N N 7 _� Y p Q v'i N l� a, M N N R F vy C14 �" v3 ss 6Ns 3 L y U C p Y O 1614 O O O O O O O O O O O O Q Q 69 fH f!j 69 69 69 69 ff3 69 £A 69 06 cl ow O O O N �r C D1 N O N p O 3 O O O O N N O O O O oo �+ _p, 69 6R 69 69 b9 w rl- cc �1 = 00 00 � �• G W O O OO N O O O �^ U fA V) 00 N N3 U9 59 Q� y = C> 6H 69 69 69 fA .`" .�.• �+ U � N O 'fir. O O O O O O O O O O p y ff3 H9 69 69 fA Ea9 fA 69 Ef3 69 Vl V1 Q ,O N Na K O G o 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 Ln � v3 zs � vj cn (A GI) bq cfl EFi o. 00 � bos � uG CD � Q � 69 b9 v3 sus � ^6A w 3 s _ i O R7 c �L U O G O = = w a w T h C v W a ° c g E o m c ,� •a x F o � � ° ° w x U � Q Q�.° m m O � c� a 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 3 ss 3 CD _ N yW 0 y W m m Q m m m 1 U) LU LU�s a' D; w Lij a' w N N N N .N N N U) (n LU C4 Q Q d Q k4;' m m k a O (\�.+ �I \U) 3 m (n y (n U) m m • �(n :T N v7 W 0 b O `o' w w w w W d Q d Q 'O !o E o f ° J J J J J0 O a O U :Ua ,Ua h Z , . b V R It Y LL s h�i v � II tj O O a .• �' J J LLJ(n J b w R b m C � c(n a c c N p b >AVX M L4 T c m @ m @ m m R R m m ° c r m > 8 m £ c �,a2 m m b m m m m b m a o w_9'w E E E E E E E E E E aya> aci 9b td 0 s Q cord (� y (n N N N N Vl cn Q$Q dZEm>m @G i O N b r O O O O,m b N N 0am 6 d m m m c c c b m 3 €�_ah as c N 'm N d d d N m N N b C 7 m y d k. > > > m m an d d m m m m m m c= c E m t 3 O E LLT "b mcypUr c0 oco— U ra ce, f 00 Eo" o 0 `wdC80 ac 2 'm D) Co ED CO m m DCD N S Om Rv 0 0 o m � a(n m U d c 0 mJ m mc`c �m c c c a C O V b b n-0 o 'at 0 b 0.0 c c c E c.a>i w n v Z m Za m ° v ns `o `o `o `og `o m y.m r a 3. �rV N NN a) N W .-60 N d Ry 9 NC 20+. O 3 Eo Eo Ena 30 > > >! Zo EE 'o Z Z d Zd Z 2 Z �' Z Z Z Za` Z oam boa m t E A U T D O O m a R = >0 9 9 Qm 'E C m m d N x d m o - >� L - yrN.! n0v cELLE t Nom{ cl LL- mo"md0 0 - C @o N = o 0 'm.2 0 0 ° �`0 oj > 0. m m N_d m `nm o •�..� ? m @'> C m m C¢ 'O U U a) a) m pp ♦� U U p O m m b m m m C m m- C R N Vi • � c .c d t ca m m . m m Rd m m0 Er,. bt�Nb .'.y rn 0) W co 0 U c� 0 ad � p � 0 O V 0 v O O O O N O O a O V O O m O E O 0 '� 0 0 N R c c " •� '� • > a) N C O ��O all o f O a �+ a`mm 0� m `m 0 `m'm d a+c 0 c 0 d d0 a� R d- c�aa0m0 -0 .0 a a a a0 a a@ �Q .0 ac a« a a@ M�1 E ° E E E E E � E E E E E0 Ec Eo EE0 -�� Zm Zm Z-i Z Z Z$ Z ZZ Z.0 Zm Zaci Z'O Z : Z�� i-Roc� nn mo .G s� �m=N ►�I ac@\\mm = o ty N M N O O 0 N U G d Q U U U U p W li d m U d m Tai YEmm � ? � I I w w $m c 3 d �- N N N M M v�C paE E a W E2 a b^^ not m a E o = N c ct N > U > p w(n VI U 0 V ry ry a N _.0m w � j4 U) ,�e ' W W may' Q I I I I Q .0 a/Ihiv x.�t3 K "t( a ` 02 U I I I U) 0 v I I UEU'C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W W n W a W W a W U W o. W a i �• 8 c m _ =03 > N m O d a o C) E J LOL 0= 0 I I I I n I 1 m C U @ m E N N (@4 d L N L N U V @w OL9 d > O F N— @ Lam.. C N N N L x 6 9a0 i6 K a t N V m 9 U Q Qf @ m O O C N @ @ @ 6 C C N > O@ nau mcit I I 3 I I m:c i m m m _o N d W N y @ a Ln N E a, o °`m a° ° `o d v °wNd am E°d o0N,Ua0 @ ° Ea EEz E Ez E � � v Nd z'.nTNJ°>NN�m zd'��N° w �o oFO3Ov�ma°i i 11 MIS awo> i'M g � @ a ° o> Nm o> E mm e�zO ._ ' ay�0 Q NZ o�O a y a aco >0E L) m `N > w °ni E N N � N a Em IV >Cc - d m O OVC " .V O ,� ONmO . O E.a O O a w N o0o O > N o dE o y � ` om muEaENZ E > ao > a 02 @ wv 0c .om v>O � > o wc ` o ` @ O o a) O.o O)co O 0 NC U ° 'O 0.N vOOm "Ww O = . N am a) NO O v 0vN dTN@O m a ° m ° aad N o r a L p aa a a> c oa .0 wm .0 m aga .0 E EUS 0n Ocro Ecr. D aE > E � ` @N = O ° T = C = a) aw =Ld Z ZRFz a- Zara) Zu0a Z-i Z Z ° a0N c>r U . E- a QQ m Q m a m Q m I I I U , I I ' I I ° V )O )O co cc 1� o] C7 D E m m - E N N `p C y ° C j C o m a) ° N U N a -o -° o )n - o� E � vmum 0aN' a) u Q) m ° c a)m c o w • �.a2 u y ny rn IL >� a� a°i m p C co C@ N ET O U E 5 a U E N N N ) y , \ � k § � � / � � ) < 75. 0 . I S E b ƒ : \ Y) 2 \ \ � Q CO (De eE � \ � ƒ � 3E § ■ . R .2 ..................................... _ 171 1 1 » 0 q � \ / m A D uE w QO \ 7 L \ 114 \ : § a) \ H $ / $ : % a >< wm . E Cl. 7 \ _ � � { ) $ k \ \ { $ [ G tf $ \ e $ k / o k 2 � U ° CL \ = m q 2 \ %77 / cc j - ° ° � / / § k g § ° ) E A \/7 ( f 2 k k I 2 ) ( ( % ® § / h E E E 0 k % ® 2 % m / E ! % 8 a S \ \ § ) ) E s § n \ o 0 - \ E - / f \ k 8 & \ § \ ± o o § ) 0 \ 7 ) w \ \ 4 a 6 K a ¥ } O o A � � � � 3a � �, � � � 3 � � v a � � � O O Department/Agency Reports: Bay Area Legal Aid Employment and Human Services Probation Department STAND! Against Domestic Violence Superior Court Office of the District Attorney Office of the Public Defender O ODepartment/Agency Report: Bay Area Legal Aid O 0 Zero Tolerance Report July 2005-June 2006 OSubmitted by. Bay Area Legal Aid Quantitative Data During the 2005-2006 grant cycle, Bay Area Legal Aid utilized funding provided by Contra Costa County's Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative to provide pro per domestic violence restraining order assistance at the Richmond Courthouse. Clients Served: The Clinic continues to serve large numbers of walk-in pro per litigants in the Richmond Courthouse. During the grant period, the Clinic conducted 114 clinics, prepared 447 temporary restraining orders, prepared 263 restraining orders after hearing, and provided 435 referrals to other critical resources including law enforcement, emergency shelter, counseling, etc. The Clinic experienced approximately a 20% increase in the number of temporary restraining orders being sought by Contra Costa residents as compared to the 2004-2005 grant year. Bay Area Legal Aid also continues its outreach efforts to ensure that community residents, governmental agencies and local service providers are aware of the services provided by Bay Area Legal Aid's Domestic Violence Restraining Order Clinic. r. ry ' RZ , 3�' `' r'^ er.k i-r �,i��N�. {tt ..rd § }+, M1:9a: C,c� "k .T,. ,sy3.. �x Pu , em oraTotal,Restrainin s 'xReferraE �ra (2uarter Y Tflta�'V1�nI� .bt ✓a .ice c x$ r s `°fig 'wo,ti✓ VF gn y� _ �Restrain;ny gb0,rders m Olde After R � P>rowided r r�.,.,p.d .�" 4'=Ms ��� .�� �,G� �,��a-`a�,�". ��"�; �:'•������re ared��.��'� ,M.arllearlIl s_P.,,re are(1 � zs-• ,�.�,�w,."�� :a.� 1St(July-Sept 05) 26 129 68 167 2nd (Oct-Dee 05) 25 101 58 110 3rd (Jan-Mar 06) 32 101 60 73 4th (Apr—June 06) 31 116 77 85 Total(YTD) 114 447 263 435 Story Behind the Data O The following client story demonstrates how Bay Area Legal Aid's Richmond Pro Per Clinic helps victims of domestic violence. Names have been changed to preserve client confidentiality. 1 Zero Tolerance Report July 2005—June 2006 OSubmitted by: Bay Area Legal Aid "Sonya" was in an arranged marriage and had been abused by her husband the entire time. After a particularly heated argument, Sonya's husband punched her in the face and bruised both of her eyes so badly that she could not see. Sonya went to the hospital to be treated for her injuries. The hospital staff recognized her as a victim of domestic violence, and contacted the Richmond Police Department. The police took a report, and Sonya returned home with her children. By the time she arrived, her husband had disappeared. Sonya's in-laws owned the house where Sonya and her family lived. One week after making the police report, she learned that they and her husband were planning to sell the house out from under her. Then, a few days later, her husband and her father-in-law showed up at the house with movers. They started packing up the house. Thinking they were stealing everything and fearful that they would kidnap the children, Sonya called the police. They arrived, and arrested him on misdemeanor domestic violence charges. (He was bailed out by his family later.) While the police were taking Sonya's report, they referred her to Bay Area Legal Aid's Richmond Clinic. Sonya, who was now ready to move on with her life and begin the process to O escape her abusive husband, contacted the Clinic. Clinic staff helped her apply for, and receive, a temporary restraining order. The order granted her temporary use of the apartment her husband had rented, temporary custody of her children, and exclusive use of the family car and household furnishings. Later, the court granted her request for a permanent restraining order. The day after Sonya had her husband served with the temporary restraining order, he petitioned the court for his own restraining order against her. Sonya called the Clinic, and was assisted with a response to her husband's request. The court denied his application. He later filed for divorce. Because of Sonya's complex situation, the Clinic's staff attorney also referred Sonya to BayLegal's Richmond office for extended assistance. A BayLegal attorney represented Sonya in her divorce case, helping her obtain sole custody of her children, ownership of the family car, and arrearages in child and spousal support. Sonya is now living safely with her children, free from abuse. She has enrolled in CalWORKS to help her support her family and gain job skills. The children are receiving counseling from a local service provider to help them deal with the trauma of witnessing their mother's abuse. Sonya recently expressed her appreciation for the Clinic's assistance, saying, " If we have (the) O right people at the right place and at the right time, yes, we can have justice." Support from Contra Costa's Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative enabled BayLegal to provide the critical assistance for Sonya and her family. 2 ODepartment/Agency Report: Employment and Human Services O O Number of Domestic Violence Victims Who Received Mental Health Services During the Period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 East Central West Total Jul-05 8 11 13 32 Aug-05 13 17 20 50 Sep-05 8 11 13 33 Oct-05 7 9 11 27 Nov-05 8 10 12 31 Dec-05 8 11 12 31 Jan-06 11 14 16 41 Feb-06 11 14 16 41 Mar-06 14 19 22 55 Apr-06 15 20 23 59 May-06 21 27 32 80 Jun-06 17 22 26 65 Total 141 185 218 544 O Number Coded as Domestic Violence Total DV East Central West Total Jul-05 20 44 38 102 Aug-05 32 70 60 162 Sep-05 21 45 39 105 Oct-05 17 37 32 87 Nov-05 20 43 37 99 Dec-05 20 43 37 100 Jan-06 26 57 49 132 Feb-06 26 56 48 131 Mar-06 35 76 65 177 Apr-06 38 81 70 189 May-06 52 111 95 258 Jun-06 42 91 78 211 Total 351 754 649 1753 0 ODepartment/Agency Report: Probation Department 0 Probation DepartmentLionel D.Chatman Administrative Offices Contra Chief Probation Officer 50 Douglas Drive, Suite 201 -/oB5'ta rtmez,California 94553-8500 Coll my U) 313-4180 (925) 313-4191A A To: Devorah Levine Zero Tolerance Domestic Violence Coordinator From: Yvette McCollumn Probation Supervisor, Domestic Violence Unit Date: September 26, 2006 Subject: Zero Tolerance For Domestic Violence Report July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 Accomplishments: O To meet the goals of Zero Tolerance the Probation Department has continued to actively supervise felony and misdemeanor domestic violence offenders. Probation supervision holds batterers accountable for their actions, enforces protective orders, enforces batterer treatment requirements, enforces the terms and conditions of probation, and provides domestic violence victims/survivors with a point of contact with regards to their needs and concerns. While our efforts are concentrated on intervention and behavior modification,the Probation Department also encourages prosecution of those who continue to engage in acts of violence and other forms of criminal activity. Probation revocation petitions are routinely filed for a variety of probation violations, including violation of the protective order, failing to attend batterers' treatment, failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of probation, and reoffending. These revocations result in the offender either having further terms and conditions of probation added, or the offender being incarcerated. Collaboration: The Probation Department has continued to collaborate with other partners in order to meet the goals of Zero Tolerance. We continue to have officers involved in the weekly Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court. An officer funded by Grants To Encourage Arrest continues to work on a sub-committee of the Advisory Commission Against Domestic Violence, doing victim outreach, community awareness, and work with other local law enforcement agencies to address domestic violence. We have an officer working with the Delta Project, which focuses on preventing violence among young boys O through mentoring. The batterers' treatment program offered in the county jail, that ended last year due to funding loss, has since resumed. This program is a collaboration O between the Courts, the Sheriffs Department, Friends Outside, and Peace Creations. We continue to have an officer that is part of the Death Review Team, which looks into domestic violence related homicides and what actions could have been taken to prevent such. We also continue to collaborate with other probation departments in northern California as part of the Domestic Violence Round Table. Furthermore, we collaborated with other partners and agencies in conducting a safety audit to assess how safety of domestic violence victims and their children is promoted within batterer's treatment programs and other agencies in our community. System Improvements: The Probation Department, Court, Sheriff s Department, Friends Outside, and Peace Creations collaborated on developing ways to improve the continuity of the in-custody batterers' treatment program. Loss of funding has typically resulted in a break in this service. This results in a great let down for inmates engaged in this program, and it further results in a great amount of work on behalf of the collaborators to re-establish the program once funding has resumed. The collaborators developed a plan to keep the program going during funding renewal periods, and we have found this improvement to be beneficial to the continuity of this program. Challenges: Managing increased caseloads with limited staff has continued to be a major challenge. With just 2 deputy probation officers assigned to the Misdemeanor Domestic Violence O Court (MDVC), supervising the ever-increasing number of cases assigned to the MDVC has been our greatest challenge. The mandated caseload for each of these officers is 75 cases. Both officers, however, have well over 100 probationers to supervise in addition to their weekly duties as court officers in the MDVC. In an attempt to reduce the overload on these officers, misdemeanor cases have repeatedly been transferred from each of these officers to general funded officers who carry felony domestic violence cases. This proves to be only a temporary relief, as the caseloads of both officers assigned to the MDVC have consistently exceeded the mandated 75 cases. Additional officers assigned to the MDVC are greatly needed. Story Behind The Data: Examples of individuals who have benefited from probation intervention: an individual who was frequently returned to court for probation violations, and who was at one point homeless and unemployed, ultimately began to respond to probation intervention. He became committed to altering his behavior, and finally did well enough on probation to be transferred to a non-reporting status. He is now fully employed and is an active parent to his child. Even though he is no longer required to report to a probation officer, he still checks in with his former probation officer, and has expressed his appreciation for the help he received. Another individual started out with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, but repeated behavior resulted in felony convictions. This individual, who had been drinking alcohol since the age of 10 years, completed a residential treatment program, and is no longer on probation. Even so, he occasionally checks in with his O former probation officer. He remains clean and sober, continues to attend AA meetings, has a full-time job, and has his teenage son, who he helped get out of a gang, living with O him. Another individual repeatedly went to jail for probation violations and ongoing criminal activity, but ultimately worked hard to change his behavior. In addition to completing batterers' treatment, he completed a substance abuse treatment program, and is now employed, has his own apartment and vehicle, and is actively involved in his child's life. When his probation was terminated "successfully", he tearfully recalled all that he had been through, that the majority of his old friends were in prison, and how grateful he was to have received the help he needed to turn his life around. Needed Improvements: A computerized system for collecting and tabulating data continues to be a needed improvement. The "paper" method is not only antiquated but it is time consuming, and not convenient for quick references. Additional staff to accommodate the continuing growth of the Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court program is also greatly needed. Fiscal Information: Our agency incurs an annual cost of approximately $1,201,000 to address domestic violence. For the 05/06 fiscal years, we received revenues of$165,906. This includes a $63,471 grant from the Violence Against Women Act, a$100,539 grant from Grants To Encourage Arrest, and $1,950 from provider fees. O Q N Department/Agency Report: STAND! Against Domestic Violence OStand! Against Domestic Violence -Zero Tolerance — Intervention Services September 2006 STAND! does not receive direct funds from the Zero Tolerance Initiative, yet is directly involved with the initiative through different contracts that are under the wide umbrella of the initiative, such as the Grant To Encourage Arrest, Delta, and contract with EHSD. The General Intervention Services Program: Upon calling the crisis line, or meeting a caseworker in person,the client's safety is assessed. The client then receives emotional support, DV education about the cycle of violence and options for action,.and technical support in accessing STAND!'s and other agencies' services. A client is offered one of our five support groups throughout the county, can have an appointment for a Temporary Restraining Order, can choose to meet a case worker in person, can arrange for court accompaniment, and when applicable (i.e. in situations of immediate danger) can be screened and accepted for emergency lodging or for shelter. A call can last from 5 to 45 minutes and usually avereges about 15 minutes. The crisis line and the emergency shelter operate 24 hour all days of the year and is managed by staff and volunteers, all of whom are certified DV counselors who complete the required training. All services are bi-lingual English- Spanish. Temporary Custody and Restraining Orders: Clients are helped in filing for Temporary Restraining Orders and custody of their children in collaboration between STAND! and Bay Area Legal Aid. A pre-screening for a TRO appointment, the setting of an appointment with Bay Legal Aid, and instructions regarding TRO are conducted by the DV caseworker for the sites in Central and in East County. Stand! employs a bi-lingual case worker at Bay Area Legal clinic in Richmond twice a week to directly help Spanish speaking clients in filing for a Restraining Order. Advocacy, court accompaniment, and technical assistance: Stand! advocates and case workers help clients in setting appointments with Children and Family Services, Child Protective Services, Court, the DA's office, Law Enforcement agencies, the health care system, their children's schools, housing authorities etc. STAND!'s Bi-lingual advocate is available part of the week, and upon request, at the Martinez DA's office (DV unit) and weekly at the DV Court hearings on Fridays, to assist the victims and offer services and accompaniments. Court accompaniments for victims of domestic violence are set usually at the request of the victim, the victim witness Ooffice, and the DA's unit on family violence. II ODV Liaisons at CalWork office and TDM: - Three Full time STAND! caseworkers are available at CalWorks offices in four locations (Hecules, Richmond, Martinez, Antioch) to offer support, in-person meetings, referrals and services to CalWorks clients who deal with Domestic Violence. They present and offer services at clients' orientation and Job Clubs, and work closely with case managers when Domestic Violence issues come up as barriers to CalWorks benefits recipients. They also facilitate support groups and/or refer to other STAND!'s support group as appropriate. STAND!'s case workers are also present throughout the county in Team Decision Making meetings when cases are dealt with by Children and Family Services which involve children at risk due to Domestic Violence. Barriers: In working with Law Enforcement agencies, the issue of whether Law Enforcement agencies can legally release reports to DV advocates, due to victims' right to privacy, should be resolved on a state level, as we stated in previous reports. Until such time the failure to provide victim information to advocates is a major barrier to meeting some of the deliverables on Zero Tolerance, GTEA, DVRT, and other contracts. Law Enforcement's cooperation with STAND! is partial, and their reluctance to call the crisis O line from the scene of the crime, or immediately following it, or to give STAND! reports of incidents so that we can initiate calling the victims (as was the practice for many years, yet stopped last year) is a barrier to achieving some of the Zero Tolerance and the GTEA goals. Many other counties in California, including neighboring ones to Contra Costa do work more cooperatively with their local advocates and DV agencies. ACAD sub-committee which included many of the Zero Tolerance participants met regularly for over a year to create a county-wide Train the Trainer seminars on Domestic Violence, that were scheduled for July and August 2006, and were canceled due to low registration (nine registered in total) from Law Enforcement agencies. Success: Cooperation collaboration, and communication in order to achieve the ZT initiative work very well between STAND! and the DA office, Bay Area Legal Aid, DV Court, and EHSD making it easier to offer services to victims of domestic violence, and to hold the perpetrators accountable, thus making the Whole of Contra Costa County a safer place. The following are two anecdotal — recent success stories. O O DV LIAISON SUCCESS STORY By SARA RUDDER-DV LIAISON,AT THE CALWORKS,RICHMOND. I have been working very closely with a client from the Richmond CaIWORKs office. She was originally referred to me through the STAND! crisis line. When I first spoke with my client, she had recently relocated after fleeing an extremely abusive marriage and knew very little about CaIWORKs and the Welfare process. I offered support, education on the dynamics of domestic violence, and helped her fill out the CaIWORKs application. The children's case was granted, but my client was not included in the case due to her immigration status. This meant she was not eligible for Medi-Cal, the family would receive cash aid and food stamps for a family of 2 instead of a family of 3, and she was not eligible for any support services, such as financial assistance with childcare, transportation, education, and counseling. Not receiving Medi-Cal or support services was especially detrimental to this family because my client was sick and needed immediate health care, she desperately wanted to start counseling for herself and her oldest child, and she had difficulty affording the nursing school she is attending and finding fulltime care for her youngest child. O I was concerned that my client was not put on the case because although my client's residency is "restricted", she is able to legally work in the US. Therefore, the focus of our work together over the last 2 months has been centered around getting appropriate benefits for the entire family, determining my client's immigration status, and getting my client into support services for domestic violence and her youngest child into childcare. My client and I have been meeting regularly with the Bay Area Legal Aid staff. They are assisting my client in filing for a restraining order to get legal custody of both children, and they have been providing consultation around divorce and. immigration issues. Through investigative research, they were also able to determine that my client should in fact be eligible for CaIWORKs benefits and support services. Bay Legal provided me with documentation and a letter of advocacy, which I was then able to use in discussion with my client's CaIWORKs caseworker. The caseworker immediately determined my client was eligible to receive all benefits and even agreed to rush the Medi-Cal approval through so my client would be able to go to the doctor the next day. Due to teamwork by STAND!'s crisis line and DV Liaison, Bay Area Legal Aid, and CaIWORKs, my client's CaIWORKs case will be approved and back dated to her original application date. CaIWORKs will now provide financial assistance for daycare, transportation, education, and counseling. Bay Legal will also continue O to work with my client on pursuing a restraining order and issues around removing the restrictions on her residency. My client is now in nursing school full time and is looking forward to starting family counseling very soon. OSalma's Story Salina spent only 5 weeks in the Emergency Shelter, but like a butterfly struggling to shed its restrictive cocoon, she emerged from the horror of her life with her abusive husband and flew away, confident in her ability to achieve a successful life on her own. Her story is in many ways representative of an increasingly diverse clientele who benefit from not only from the program, but also from the cultural competency of staff. After Salma left the emergency shelter moving out of state to live with her sister's family, she wrote to STAND! staff at the Emergency Shelter, "You did not even know me,but you helped me so much. You were better than family."At least better than her husband and his family. Salina is Pakistani. Her Pakastani husband travelled to Pakistan to wed her.Though the marriage was not arranged, she did not know him well prior to the wedding. Afterwards she realized that she had married someone who represented all the horrors of a patriarchal culture that to this day believes that honor killing is acceptable and that wives are to be utterly subject to the whims their husbands. The mother of two children, Salma suffered 8 long years of abuse from her husband. "Bitch"and worse were the names he called her; she never heard him utter her real name.He screamed at her in front of the children that she never did anything right. Whenever he felt like it, he struck her to let her know who was boss.What was worse, she had absolutely no support system in the area or even the state. His family who lived locally approved of his abusive behavior towards his wife, after all it was traditional. To Salma it seemed as if there was no hope. One day his threat to keep the children and throw her naked out of the house and onto the street if he ever saw her wretched face again was the last straw. Salma felt that she had nothing more to O lose,and so in terror she threw a few belongings in a suitcase, gathered up her children and was able to get to the Concord Police station where she collapsed in hysterics, wailing and sobbing and utterly unable to think of the next thing to do. "Help me,help me,"was practically all she could say. At that,the police called in STAND!. STAND! staff took Salina, her and her children, and their one suitcase to the shelter. As luck would have it, the staff member had been born in India and spoke Hindi as did Salma. At that moment Salina felt her life was beginning to turn around. For the first two days Salina was helpless to do anything. "Please take care of me"was her constant plea. But on her third day at the shelter,with the police watching, she returned to her home to pick up a few more essentials. She was terrified that her husband or members of his family would confront her there. It was a huge relief to her to find the house empty. Back at the shelter where for the first time in years she felt safe and secure, Salma took advantage of all the services offered. She worked with Bay Area Legal Services and filed for a temporary restraining order. She became able to act on her own behalf and arranged to trade babysitting with other residents for car rides so she could get around and take care of important matters. Three weeks later,having gained confidence from STAND! staff and the friendly support of other residents, she was able to confront him in court and say afterwards, "I was not seared of him at all." When Salma left after five weeks with her children and her green card to go live with her sister's family, STAND! waved good-bye to a transformed woman. O O O O OGRANT TO ENCOURGE ARREST Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Report from STAND! Against Domestic Violence January 1,2006-June 30,2006 STAND! Against Domestic Violence exceeded the goal in follow up on Felony cases and did not achieve the misdemeanor cases' goal. In last year's reports (2004-05) we asked to modify the goal of misdemeanors to 360 while bringing the goal of felonies up to 300. This modification is realistic and will allow us to meet the goals by increasing the number of Felony cases and decreasing the goal for misdemeanor cases. STAND! offers a full and comprehensive set of services to victims of domestic violence and their children. STAND! also has a treatment program for people who abuse, a prevention program, and a Transitional Housing program and, is the major agency in Contra Costa County responding to the issue of domestic violence in all its aspects. STAND! is recognized as such in the county and is a leader and a participant in collaborations with other agencies, county wide, toward the goal of ending domestic violence. A countywide set of trainings for Law Enforcement is planned though the ACAD (Advisory Committee Against Domestic Violence) and is starting this month (July 2006). O Stand! will play a major role in educating Law Enforcement agencies about DV, and about the importance of connecting the victims with our caseworkers through our crisis line. STAND! believes that supporting the victims, from the onset of a case with police and the legal system, will improve the outcome of the legal case by improving cooperation. STAND! facilitated six two hours training on Domestic Violence to Richmond Police Department in this period. We exceeded our goal on Felony cases and did not achieve our goal on Misdemeanors, even though our advocate is present at the DV court every Friday, to offer our services to victims of misdemeanor DV cases. While STAND!'s advocate is present at the DA's office, she is approached for support of the victims primarily by prosecutors who work on felony cases. We suggest again modifying the goal of misdemeanors to 360, and changing the goal of felonies to 300, rather than the current 180. This is more realistically achievable. The issue of whether Law Enforcement agencies can legally release reports to DV advocates, due to victims' right to privacy, should be resolved on a state level, as we stated in previous reports. Until such time the failure to provide victim information to advocates is a major barrier to meeting some of the deliverables Oon Zero Tolerance, GTEA, DVRT, and other contracts. 0 The Program: Upon calling the crisis line, or meeting a caseworker in person, the client's safety is assessed. The client then receives emotional support, DV education about the cycle of violence and options for action, and technical support in accessing STAND!'s and other agencies' services. A client is offered one of our five support groups throughout the county, can have an appointment for a Temporary Restraining Order, can choose to meet a case worker in person, can arrange for court accompaniment, and when applicable (i.e. in situations of immediate danger) can be screened and accepted for emergency lodging or for shelter. A call can last from 5 to 45 minutes and usually avereges about 15 minutes. The crisis line operates 24 hour all days of the year and is managed by staff and volunteers, all of whom are certified DV counselors who complete the required training. All services are bi-lingual English-Spanish. When a woman and her children enter the emergency shelter, the children can and are encouraged to receive clinical counseling and are enrolled in the local schools. The women participate in a program aimed at healing, learning, and planning the next steps out of violence. The mandated program at our emergency shelter includes five days a week of group sessions on D.V. Education, Parenting skills, Conflict resolution and communication skills, recovery, housing and employment skills. They also participate in o small group meetings aimed at creating and following a plan for after the 6-8 weeks stay at the shelter. Clients at the shelter can meet a DV Case Worker in person, as needed, for emotional and/or technical support and for their needs in advocacy with other agencies. Clients are helped in filing for Temporary Restraining Orders and custody of their children in collaboration between STAND! and Bay Area Legal Aid. A pre-screening for a TRO appointment, the setting of an appointment with Bay Legal Aid, and instructions regarding TRO are conducted by the DV caseworker for the sites in Central and in East County. Stand! had a bi-lingual case worker at Bay Area Legal clinic in Richmond twice a week throughout this year. Stand! advocates and case workers also help clients in setting appointments with Children and Family Services, Child Protective Services, Court, the DA's office, Law Enforcement agencies, the health care system, their children's schools, housing authorities etc. Upon leaving the shelter, the women who arrived in crisis and in deep fear, are much stronger, their self esteem significantly improved, their understanding of the cycle of domestic violence much deeper, their parenting skills better, and their knowledge of resources greatly improved. STAND!'s Bi-lingual advocate is available part of the week, and upon request, at the Martinez DA's office (DV unit) and at the DV Court hearings on Fridays, to assist the ovictims and offer services and accompaniments. OThrough a grant with the county, which is partly funded by the Zero Tolerance Initiative and partly by the county's Employment and Human Service Department, three STAND! caseworkers are available at CalWorks offices in four locations (in East, West, and Central county) to offer support and services to CalWorks clients who deal with Domestic Violence. STAND!'s case workers are also present throughout the county in Team Decision Making meetings when cases are dealt with by Children and Family Services which involve children at risk due to Domestic Violence. Irit Umani, a Regional Director, participates regularly in the ACAD collaborative meetings, which are held monthly at the Concord Police headquarters. STAND!'s representatives also participate in Kaiser Permanente's DV Task Force meetings in three locations in the county. O O O CL) L a) O N j C O a) U1 7 N O Cc N m > 0 > aD a> a > a c 00 O O NQ L CO / N 3 C "O C N O a) O U a) C Cc C C1 (D Ca) C 0 7 .N 0 p O O O O O O "q M r � �p CO O CO O O b O �p .-. r .ti M M O h ON oo C> t- ^, N N N .r M ti M �p a •• N N -- M CA O CA O O O CO CD CO r H r ,N� ,r, rn rn rn O O O O 'IT M M Cl) O O g 7 M N 0 --� CT O v� r N 0 0o N N N N O .y b N V N N N O O ..y M ti TFICD O p N R O —ca—co � o e O a Q o a+ a (p CN O O S 7 V R c �o M ac CO 3 a V7 O � N M s c s o o � o opo oro e C7 N ur ` C C O a� `O El m E a s a`) r � r e c a N cp U O O O N T7 L N (a Ca O C O (6 s N s E Ln U_ L a) C C) O U tu o aLL a v 2 0afO E r a) — Z T p co. N p 0 CU 0 w 0 a� m a) Z tum U- 0 � aE � � yC� vEca v m W p U y O a 0. CL0 0 E ] !� � a� > Q J p C p O CL LL. G C_ p y N N p p U J 'O > .O rn LU U) G° m t ii a Fo M Of r, a c c N Z co I— H .. a� 0 ¢ L � a� Q -0 -0 L a� m 0 a� ami p a) -0 ¢ Z .. 2 p v E ri `o � O a' a' v E E E E N N E > O O U W N „ N ._ N C , , E E N ._ ._ ._ ._ N C 2 U — N C J J d N a� y E E N ca N (6 C — la O C a) l6 W U u 3 3 3 3 E u a� 3 3 3 y N 3 E E E E N E E o ani m o mp d o 0 0 0 0 N O o = N •y 0 0 0 0 a� E 0 cD Dz oU- U- LL is 09U- LL L LL < Qaa c� 0 0 > od c6 c5 0 L L CA _N O) D) C C WW C C m m L L Y Y a. a) a) a) L L Y Y 00 00 r co O 0) I� C'I N 0) 0) O O 0) r O N 1-- O T N N r (D co CD -q h 0) T N r N M le N N a r N 00 N 1- h to h N -it 'a J r r N (D (D (D r d' (D M N (D ) H O O 0 7 D O uJ O � m " M a) r co O 0 0 0 r tl) d' N (O O CU O (p in co r V 0 (O O N co O lO 0 0 CO to �D O V LO (n N N N co (O .- N N f� M O • Ci C N r O V O W (D O (O M O O V CO CO r CO M 00 O H O O O O N co co to (0 CD to N N co co E O M O r eV m l� y U O r O 00 (h ('J V O O O O 0, N 00 tO N N 0 m co C7 O O O O O C N N M In O r Cl) N co V CO N N N00 V) N U O p N N N O ti CD .y F- m O f- O O 00 N f- O N V to (D O. f� 00 O O N N N U7 O N O M (5 N 'O m N N N r N r- r N a) .O. O M N O O C OCA U•@ O C 'O O .(D C C C ' (OD a) mD. Q m m pO 0) fl Q V) V) Ca) d O O 30 @ N CILC (6 C CI Y O N m C L O C 0)-2 L N C '§ aO N E _ N U m C C m C CL _0 C C = U a) C 0) co O v 2 .� o J a) ` J 30 _j (`a C m c Y m O N �c .c c m m a) Q m m Q v m Q y c �. o Q E mocl mm •w� (n �= Ym � � � � H P- LO oa � � m �' a� .S � H SEN_ U� mQQz2 � D0 � LL � � oar° N (�o � - 0- C7 (moi o -mo W � ro m E ODepartment/Agency Report: Superior Court 0 N OZero Tolerance Report FY 05/06 Superior Court, Contra Costa County Quantitative Data Misdemeanor DV Court For fiscal year 05/06, 528 misdemeanor domestic violence charges were filed. Records reflect 307 misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. During this time period, the Misdemeanor Domestic Violence court reviewed 1,079 cases (an offender may have more than one case) and conducted 2,044 review hearings. On the civil side, 2,634 protection orders were requested and 790 became permanent orders. Approximately 97% of applications for temporary restraining orders were granted. The disparity in the number of protection orders sough and permanent orders granted may be due to a number of factors. Once the TRO is granted the protected party may not prepare the order after hearing, TRO's may be dropped, or the protected party may fail to appear. Further, data is based on clerical coding input. Restraining orders may receive different codes which makes it difficult to retrieve conclusive data. OCLETS History For fiscal year 05/06, clerical staff checked for criminal and child abuse history for 2,487 cases for judicial officers to provide them with additional information they need when issuing restraining orders. Outstanding warrants were found in 60 cases and were reported to law enforcement. Eighty-two responding parties were found to be on probation or parole and the issuance of the TRO was reported to the appropriate agency. O N ODepartment/Agency Report: Office of the District Attorney O O II Robert J. Kochly District Attorney O OFFICE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1111 Ward Street, 3`d Floor Martinez, California 94553 TO: Devorah Levine County Administrator's Office FROM: Jon F. Yamaguchi Deputy District Attorney Domestic Violence Unit Supervisor DATE: September 11, 2006 SUBJECT: Zero Tolerance Report, July 2005 through June 2006 Through the assistance of Zero Tolerance, the District Attorney's Office continued to operate its Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse Units during the 2005-2006 fiscal year (FY). These units were staffed with eight attorneys, two investigators, one case preparation assistant, and several clerical personnel. As reported the previous year, budget reductions made to Zero Tolerance required the elimination of one other case preparation position. ODuring the entire FY2005-2006, each of our two misdemeanor branch offices was staffed with a Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Coordinator. The Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Coordinators are Deputy District Attorneys whose responsibilities include reviewing all domestic violence related police reports referred for prosecution, filing misdemeanor and felony domestic violence cases, attending and participating in every session of the Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, and coordinating the flow of all misdemeanor domestic violence cases through the court system. Our Domestic Violence prosecutors and investigators have attended symposiums and training seminars throughout the year; conducted training sessions for law enforcement agencies and family violence counselors; and participated in several domestic violence and elder abuse forums. By dedicating highly skilled and experienced personnel to the Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse Units we have been able to foster confidence in our prosecution efforts throughout the law enforcement community. This confidence, in turn, has allowed us to demand and receive quality investigations from police. As a result, the conviction rate remains high for both felony and misdemeanor cases. In FY2005-2006, the District Attorney's Office filed 699 misdemeanor domestic violence cases, an increase of 100 cases from FY2004-2005. We secured a conviction rate of 74.68% for misdemeanor domestic violence cases during this period compared to 78.2% in FY2004-2005. (Please note the number of dismissals negatively affecting the conviction rate includes those O defendants who, pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, successfully petitioned the court to set aside their conviction after completing probation). 28 misdemeanor domestic violence cases went to jury trial in FY2005-2006 compared to 29 cases last fiscal year. Felony domestic violence cases filed in FY2005-2006 increased to 258 from the 189 felony cases filed in FY2004-2005. The conviction rate for felony domestic violence remained high at 95.78%. OAs reported last year, the Elder Abuse prosecution team was placed under the direction of the Family Violence Unit, joining Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. Our Elder Abuse Unit continues to be a high level performer and has firmly established itself as a statewide leader for its prosecution, training and outreach efforts. For FY2005-2006, the Elder Abuse Unit filed 29 felony cases and obtained an 89.29% conviction rate. There are currently 20 active felony cases pending in this unit. We recognize that the lack of reporting continues to be a problem. Consequently, the Elder Abuse Unit has conducted training seminars throughout the year to educate service providers on elder abuse and to encourage reporting to local law enforcement. A case recently filed by the Elder Abuse Unit illustrates the value of the partnerships developed under Zero Tolerance and the importance of the vertical prosecution model. The victim in the case is an 82 year old man living alone and suffering from severe dementia. He has no family to speak of and according to neighbors the victim's condition has been steadily deteriorating. The defendant is a car washer and met the victim at a car wash. The defendant began coming to the victim's home in 2004 to wash the victim's car. In the spring of 2006, the victim's credit union noticed that the victim had been coming into the bank with the defendant and withdrawing large sums, to the point that the victim's account was being depleted. The credit union knew to contact Adult Protective Services (APS) with their suspicions because for the past several years local O credit unions, the District Attorney's Office and APS have been working together warning the elderly about financial abuse crimes. APS quickly alerted local police and officers respond by contacting the victim at his home. The victim's dementia was immediately obvious to the police officers. The victim was unable to remember his birth date, address or phone number. The victim also had no idea who the defendant was. The police and our Elder Abuse Unit collaborated on the investigation and began building a case against the defendant. Documentary evidence collected by investigators revealed that the victim had three other bank accounts that were drained of funds by the defendant dating back to the fall of 2004. The victim's loss has been estimated to be between $158,000 and $188,000, with an additional attempted theft by the defendant of approximately$320,000. The defendant has been charged with 14 separate felony counts of Elder Abuse and faces up to a maximum of 32 years in the State Prison. APS continues to work with the victim. The victim is presently residing in an assisted care facility and has a court appointed conservator safeguarding his finances. Similarly, the Domestic Violence Unit had a felony case this year involving a defendant who had beaten his girlfriend and then fired a shot into a wall of their shared residence. At the time of the incident, the defendant and victim's two young children were present in the home. The defendant was subsequently arrested and the victim and children immediately went into hiding. As the felony case progressed through the court system, the victim and the children could not be located. The defendant was mindful the case could not be proven without the victim's testimony and demanded a trial. However, just days before the trial was to begin, the District Attorney's Domestic Violence Investigator working with the Contra Costa Sheriffs Department, located the victim and children residing outside of the county. After meeting with them, our DA Investigator Obecame concerned for their overall wellbeing and contacted Children Family Services(CFS). CFS was able to assess the family's needs and now actively oversees their welfare. In the meantime, aware that the victim had been located, the defendant decided not to take the case to trial and pled guilty. He is due to be sentenced to state prison later this month. N The District Attorney's Office incurs approximately $2,248,389 in costs to staff our Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse Units. The cost for personnel dedicated to Zero Tolerance is$487,729, Oand our Zero Tolerance allocation is $417,081, a shortfall of$70,648. In addition, we expect to receive $285,660 from the State Citizen Option for Public Safety Program (COPS) and $95,033 from the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program (SAPP), which helps fund our felony Domestic Violence Unit. ZERO TOLERANCE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PERFORMANCE MEASURES 07/05 to 09/05 10/05 to 12/05 01/06 to 03/06 04106 to 06/06 TOTALS Domestic Violence Misdemeanors Filed 192 170 165 172 699 Misdemeanor Convictions 131 133 115 149 528 Misdemeanor Conviction Rate(%) 73.18 72.28 75.66 77.60 74.68 Misdemeanor Jury Trials 7 11 1 9 28 Felonies Filed 36 64 68 90 258 Felony Convictions 37 28 45 49 159 Felony Conviction Rate(%) 94.87 93.33 97.83 96.08 95.78 Elder Abuse Misdemeanors Filed 3 2 2 1 8 Felonies Filed 5 3 13 8 29 O Felony Convictions 7 6 7 5 27 Felony Conviction Rate(%) 87.50 100 77.78 100 89.29 O ODepartment/Agency Report: Office of the Public Defender O O II O OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER County of Contra Costa Martinez, California Date: September 24, 2006 To: Devorah Levine County Administrator's Office From: David Coleman, Public Defender Subject: Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Annual Report for Third and Fourth Quarters of 2005 and First and second Quarters of 2006 During the last two quarters of calendar year 2005, and the first two quarters of 2006, the Office of the Public Defender has continued the approach described in previous quarterly reports. Attorney and support staff of the Department have served clients with cases resulting from the Zero Tolerance of Domestic Violence Program in three sectors of the criminal justice system: (1) felony cases litigated in Superior Court proceedings, (2)misdemeanor cases litigated in the Branch courts, and(3)probation violations litigated in Department 32 of the Superior Court (i.e. the Domestic Violence Court). O Performance Measure Data for July-September 2005 (Third Quarter) Litigation of Felony Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated sixteen(16) felony cases in the third quarter of 2005. Eleven(11) cases resulted in pleas of guilty or no contest to domestic violence charges. Three (3) cases resulted in no conviction of a domestic violence charge, although there was a conviction of some other type of felony. Two (2) cases were dismissed. Litigation of Misdemeanor Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated one hundred and twenty-eight (128)misdemeanor cases in the third quarter of 2005. Four(4) cases resulted in convictions after jury trial, forty(40) cases resulted in pleas of guilty or no contest, and forty-nine(49) cases resulted in pleas to offenses not involving domestic violence. Twenty-nine (29) cases were dismissed and three(3) cases resulted in acquittal after trial. Three (3) cases resulted in a disposition characterized as "other". Performance Measure Data for October-December 2005 (Fourth Quarter) OLitigation of Felony Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated to conclusion fourteen(14) felony cases in the fourth quarter of 2005. Nine (9) of the cases resulted in a conviction by plea and three (3) were dismissed. Two (2) cases resulted in conviction at trial. OLitigation of Misdemeanor Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated one hundred and twenty-eight(128)misdemeanor cases in the fourth quarter of 2005. Four(4) cases resulted in convictions at trial, forty-seven (47) cases resulted in pleas of guilty or no contest, and forty-six (46) cases resulted in pleas to offenses not involving domestic violence,but sutaining convictions of other types. Twenty-five (25) cases were dismissed, and five(5) cases resulted in acquittal at trial. One(1) case resulted in a disposition characterized as "other". Performance Measure data for January-March 2006 (First Quarter) Litigation of Felony Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated twenty-one (2 1) felony cases in the first quarter of 2006. Sixteen(16) of the cases resulted in a conviction by plea and three (3)resulted in no conviction of a domestic violence offense but sustaining convictions of other charges. One (1) case was dismissed. One(1) case resulted in a disposition characterized as"other". Litigation of Misdemeanor Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated one hundred and seven(107) misdemeanor cases in the first quarter of 2006. Forty-seven(47) cases resulted in pleas of guilty or no contest, and thirty- O four(34) cases resulted in pleas to offenses not involving domestic violence. Twenty-five(25) cases were dismissed, and one (1) case resulted in acquittal of domestic violence related offenses. Performance Measure data for April-June 2006 (Second Quarter) Litigation of Felony Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated nineteen (19) felony cases in the second quarter of 2006. Fourteen (14) of the cases resulted in a conviction after pleas of guilty or no contest, and two (2) were dismissed. Three (3) cases resulted in no domestic violence conviction in conjunction with disposition of other charges. Litigation of Misdemeanor Cases Involving Domestic Violence Staff in the Department litigated one hundred and twenty-three (123) misdemeanor cases in the second quarter of 2006. Six (6) cases resulted in convictions at trial, forty-six (46) cases resulted in pleas of guilty or no contest, and forty-five(45) cases resulted in pleas to offenses not involving domestic violence in conjunction with other types of convictions. Twenty(20) cases were dismissed and two (2) cases resulted in acquittals. Four(4) cases resulted in"other" dispositions. O 2 o - - Domestic Violence Court Litigation The Department represented numerous misdemeanor defendants on probation violation cases in the special domestic violence court every Friday morning and most Friday afternoons during 2005 and 2006. On occasion, we have also litigated evidentiary probation violation hearings. Story Behind The Data The enhanced focus on domestic violence cases and the reduced flexibility in plea bargaining that has emerged since the advent of the Zero Tolerance program resulted in an increasing number of misdemeanor trials and cases set for trial where domestic violence is alleged. Although this places additional burdens on the system, as well as our agency, the trials of such cases which result in a guilt finding also have the concomitant effect of exposing an offender in a very direct way to the disruption and harm caused by their conduct. In some cases the trial experience can provide an opportunity for a healing of fractious family conditions even if the final result is to temporarily or permanently separate combative parties. When no guilt finding results because the charges are dismissed or the jury finds the charges not proven,needed balance is restored in the criminal justice system. And, family dynamics change for the better. OOne recent trial concerned a client with no prior criminal convictions who was accused of domestic violence by his wife of two and one half years after she became angry at him because he took her car keys after she told him that she wanted to go out at midnight for the rest of the night. She had been previously convicted of felony forgery and welfare fraud, and although her three children were by different men, she admitted that our client had provided a better home for her and her children than she had ever had before. Our accused client was employed but did not have a motor vehicle, and showed up for his first day of trial in his employee uniform after having worked a twelve hour night-shift and ridden his bicycle to court. [He didn't have enough time to ride all the way to his home and change before court.] The complaining witness eventually admitted before the jury that she had made up the accusation out of spite. He was acquitted by the jury. This client, as well as many others, need public defender services, and benefit from effective legal representation sufficient to protect their interests, and to make certain that they are treated fairly under the law. Each of the quarterly reports reflected above contain references to cases dismissed or resulting in acquittal following our representation. Our role is critical to provide protection for those who should not be convicted despite an earlier decision by the prosecution to pursue charges. The benefits of such representation are difficult to quantify but they are certainly substantial. In addition, even those persons who are convicted often need our services to articulate to the court the merits of their personal circumstances such that fair sentencing will ensue. 0 3 N OChallenges The primary and constant challenge facing our agency is to provide effective representation in an era of limited resources. The Department's financial interest in the Zero Tolerance program is the funding equivalent of a single attorney position, which is a conservative estimate of the impact on our department from the increased attention applied to domestic violence cases. That same financial investment(adjusted for cost of living increases) continues to be the same this fiscal year. cc: Jack Funk, Assistant Public Defender O O 4 yfl Q�,�:;`\ J,�� sir � �•� a ova 0r*'* jFOIiiVXA � vto � � O U L! Q V V o on oa � ono �r a o0 � o I Y O O O O O ® O O O O O O O -v O Q rn rn Zw =r �n �� ° 3 � cr w o M (D 0) �� ' su 3 ° cmrn ,n ° � =3cn 0 ° m O � � � < > '" m moi -„ �, -mvw aam cno nm w � � '�' `" �' �' r' co rno0v ot� mv+ r' o > `'¢ � � moo' �• ° � ~ �d 3 c no o ° °-o � n m o C+ 0 ( sun e-r ”) iv r m ° acs - novo a � 0' oo w %A cis � o, �' �' 0 rt n a0 sv o o o two 3 o p o 0 0 0 °3 c ri, o w, � m '•* rn m LA LA � `< o n o xm sv o .�, c � -v Cra M sv rt 3 2 o N 3 �- .-: o N O ° CDCD g 2 E tai `i CU 0 ° Sv ri n ca sv ca 3 `Do m � `° O� GL N N to n V o to Q p n - • � •0 pco tT+ p r.? 0 p W 0 o l M o • p b to 0.03 �1. woov CO �all 3; 'p © os 0 0 cv o� CD sv C, CD CD O6. CD., syt C7 N a. 0 CD D " CD CD '� i tD � ee� tj MLon n v+ S2 m dD s oo O C) 0 wool C'1► QN0 e �° O N o ...�• Q M G N 0 � fz s' ro O {D 0, m _ n (D O- ® � 0" Gro — 3Qo N o m �� raj e-i• NV ¢ m o i ton 1 . 0 Q � `p a a 011 �o 0 kn o C r �:3 0 Y r CAR ///moi r� C 5:2.. d+ w !: o Cr 41 Q O O it r i - SU W @ c (b (.0 � CDQ :3 o C.) o (S (D .' N �'a o � N oU) 4 N N r - a @ c N N n m a $ N CD Q g CT N Q Np @ O C �• N tJf � N o fJ �� o0 0 '4 0010 ...woo) 0 o Ln n co o)010 G � CD o =1 tip o G, 03 N ►. -A � 00� ok � � O ngooo n N;o y � c o t'r1 °°° 3 � Z � � o x a� m cr o 3 � o �w rt womi o rn =' Z CD ::3a u' D c0 (n � o o {gyp 3 C)' -r N p =3 -n 3 4 r'�' o iv Q � T % cn G Qom; •-n Q � Q M fl- RN-r t't1 o I R (D e--r Lion . " ° sv oCD 0 CL p e roto mN fi 0 o (D n a � .�.c o �- LO Y n fD Q r' eta fD Z c' CD ProZ 0 V ©p D✓ � o �Y p Ln. /1 n tt/��11p �a a ca r� �� o0 A 0 O o �l M co cr U ul ® 0 - AV-4 , Un ®� S o o ca a 0 , � � 0 0 0 U-1 til- C: 9:3 0 4 t1� o co � o CD Lo Lni 0 � Uu �� u r. a 42 x b.. �b k CL o 0 co C NEW �• y a �4 So O CD Cl C2 CD