{{section.number}}{{item.number}}
25-88192
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of Submitting a Grant Application for the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses (ICJR) Program
1. Motion Directing Staff
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 10, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report seeks City Council authorization to submit a grant application for the U.S.
Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses program. The grant provides federal funds over three years to improve the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The City would apply for $500,000 (for a City of our size) in partnership with YWCA Glendale and Pasadena, with support from other city/community partners.
{{section.number}}{{item.number}}2
25-88192
6 1
3 5
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to prepare and submit a grant application for the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Response (ICJR) program in partnership with YWCA Glendale and Pasadena.
ANALYSIS
At the request of Councilmember Asatryan, staff explored the opportunity to apply for the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) FY25 Improving Criminal Justice Responses (ICJR) grant, which provides funding to improve responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The grant offers up to $1,000,000 over a 36-month project period, with no local match required.
Partnerships
To meet eligibility requirements, the City would apply in partnership with YWCA Glendale, a qualified victim services provider. Additional collaboration may include Glendale Police Department, Armenian Relief Society, and other city/community organizations. While the Police Department cannot serve as the lead applicant, it has offered staff support in developing and implementing the program.
Grant Submittal Options Explored
Staff explored three options in considering the grant application:
1. Submitting a grant application with SafeYOU as the technology solution.
2. Submitting a grant application with an undetermined technology solution.
3. Submitting a grant application without a technology component.
Below are the pros and cons of each option explored:
1. Submitting a grant application with SafeYOU as the technology solution Pros:
•Provides a ready-to-deploy, survivor-centered digital tool that aligns with the grant’s emphasis on technology to enhance victim safety. •Strengthens the competitiveness of the application by demonstrating an actionable and innovative approach.
Cons:
•Involves a proprietary vendor, requiring sole source procurement justification and scrutiny regarding transparency and fairness.
•Raises concerns about data privacy, oversight of a third-party platform, and the City’s responsibility to ensure full compliance with federal confidentiality and victim protection laws.
{{section.number}}{{item.number}}3
25-88192
6 1
3 5
•Introduces potential liability for the City if the vendor’s technology fails, is misused, or compromises survivor safety or data security.
2. Submitting a grant application with an undetermined technology solution Pros:
•Preserves flexibility to competitively procure a technology provider post- award in alignment with City policies.
•Reduces potential concerns about favoritism or vendor-specific partnerships in the application phase.
Cons:
•Weakens the application by presenting a vague solution. •Could delay project implementation if the City must conduct a formal procurement process after award.
3. Submitting a grant application without a technology component.
Pros:
•Simplifies the project scope, reducing risk related to procurement, vendor oversight, and compliance with data privacy laws.
•Focuses the application on training, victim services, and interagency coordination, which are core allowable activities under the grant.
Cons:
•Misses the opportunity to demonstrate innovation through technology, which is a stated priority area in the grant guidelines.
•Weakens the application compared to proposals that offer integrated, tech- enabled solutions for survivor support.
Recommended Option
After reviewing these three options, staff recommends Option 2 as the most balanced approach. Option 2 allows the City to present a strong proposal that anticipates the integration of a digital safety tool while preserving the flexibility to conduct a competitive procurement process post-award. This approach ensures alignment with City policies, mitigates concerns about vendor favoritism, and provides time to evaluate multiple technology options that best meet the needs of survivors and partner organizations.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund associated with submitting the grant application. If awarded, the grant would provide funding of $500,000 to support domestic violence prevention and response efforts. City matching funds are not required. If awarded, staff will return to Council to appropriate the funds. {{section.number}}{{item.number}}4
25-88192
6 1
3 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item relates to fiscal activity of the City in applying for a grant and is therefore exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize submission of the grant application with the inclusion of SafeYOU app.
2. Delay submission pending additional review of technology. This alternative will not allow sufficient time to conduct the review and be able to submit the grant by the submittal deadline.
3. Decline to pursue the grant application.
4. Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Roubik R. Golanian, City Manager
Prepared by:
Elena Bolbolian, Chief Innovation Officer
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None