1 Jones, Michael (CMO)
From: Melissa Luke <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:35 PM
To: PSFSScommittee
Cc: Cynthia Melchor; Lindsey Mansfield
Subject: Public Comment for 10/17/24 - Item 3
Attachments: YWCA SJPD coordinated response data 10.17.24.pdf
To Whom It May Concern: YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley would like to provide the attached written Public Comment for the 10/17/24 PSFSS meeting under Item 3. Options for Expanding Alternative Response and Co-Response Programs to 911 Calls for Service. Thank you for your help,
Melissa Luke | Chief Program Officer, Healing & Justice Direct: 408-295-4011 ext. 3695
Email: [email protected]
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley
375 South Third Street
San Jose, CA 95112
www.yourywca.org
Email Confidentiality Notification
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.] You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley
375 South Third Street
San Jose
,
CA
,
95112
P
408.295.4011
F
408
.
295
.
0608
yourywca.org
Thank you for the opportunity to
update
your
office about
San
Jos
é
Police Department
(SJPD)’s
and
YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley (YWCA)
’s
coordinated response
system
s
for survivors of domestic
violence
and sexual assault
.
Current programs
include our embedded advocacy at
SJPD’s
Family Violence Center
(FVC)
and Sexual
Assault Investigative Unit (SAIU),
and
our
co
-
response to DV calls through the
Domestic Violence High Risk Response Team (DVHRRT).
We value our partnership
with SJPD and especially the officers who work side
-
by
-
side with our Advocates
every
day to
ensure survivors have access to safety, justice, and healing.
San Jos
é
Police Department Family Violence Center
The SJPD’s FVC addresses family violence issues by co
-
locating multiple agencies
within
the Department’s
community
office
on The Alameda. The
C
enter is staffed by
representatives from
San José
Police Department,
the
Santa Clara
County District
Attorney's O
ffice, County Adult Probation, County Child Protective Services, and one
1.0 FTE co
-
located D
omestic Violence (DV)
Survivor Advocacy Coordinator I from
YWCA.
YWCA’s
partnership
with SJPD
began in FY 16
-
17 and ensures that DV survivors
receive critical
emergency support services as soon as possible after a DV incident. The YWCA Coordinator contacts all DV survivors referred by SJPD
officers
to offer services
and support. They follow up
within 72 hours of receiving the referral from SJPD, and as
many as t
hree times
if the survivor does not initially reply. They also provide
ongoing
case management which includes
counseling, advocacy, lethality/risk assessment,
safety planning,
and linkage to our restraining order, family law
, criminal law, and
immigration
services.
YWCA Services
at FVC
FY
20 -
21 FY21
-
22 FY22
-
23 FY23
-
24 % Increase
(
FY21 to 24
)
# of
DV
follow ups
591
1,087
1,135
1,764
1 99
%
# of
survivors
receiving
ongoing case
management
&
advocacy
46 64
106
93 102
%
# of ongoing case
management &
advocacy
sessions
65 191
631
541
732
%
Page
2 of
11 Follow ups at the FVC
–
which are
directly
triggered by referrals from SJPD officers
–
have been increasing year
-
over
-
year
and indicate the project’s
strong focus on
sustain
ing
engagement with survivors
.
In FY 2
3 -
24 , the YWCA
FVC
Coordinator
provided
1,764
follow ups to survivors at the FVC
,
a
55% increase
in one year (
FY
23 to
FY
2 4) and
1 99
% increase
from four years ago
(FY21 to FY24)
.
FVC
-
based
requests for case management and ongoing advocacy have also increase d.
Over four years, we have seen a
102
% increase
in the
number
of
survivors
served and
a
732
% increase
in the
amount
of services provided.
There was a
small
dip last FY due
to the YWCA Coordinator’s
work
leave from June
-
October 2023
(5 months)
, which
highl
ights the importance of dedicated staffing
for
this project.
FVC
volume
has become too
high for
the
one
YWCA Coordinator to manage on top of
ongoing case management,
and YWCA
has had to
leverage
outside funding resources
-
pull
ing
DV Advocates from other
projects
to assist
SJPD
.
Unfortunately,
the City of
San
José
current
$136,757
FVC
contract
with YWCA
barely covers
costs for the
FVC
Coordinator
and their supervisor
,
with no room for
additional
A
dvocate
support
.
Looking
at staffing levels, there are currently 7 detectives in the Family Violence Unit and only 1 YWCA Coordinator
responding
to the referrals from those detectives.
We are also preparing for significant reductions
in federal and state funding for vic
tims
of crime, including
$2.5 million in cuts for Santa Clara County
. We are grateful to Vice
Mayor Rosemary Kamei and Councilmember Dom
ingo Candelas for
their support at our
VOCA
rall
y
–
which led to Governor Newsom deferring these cuts for one year through one
-
time fun
ding for victim service programs. Unfortunately
we do expect the 44.7%
funding reduction to come down in FY 25
-
26 , which will
significantly impact YWCA’s
ability to
re
direct
outside
resources for
SJPD
-
based
services.
Should additional
and ongoing
City
resources be made available, YWCA recommend
s
that they be invested
in rightsizing
advocacy
response through the FVC
to match
existing demand. Specifically, we would recommend co
-
locating two bilingual
staff
: one
A
dvocate
focused on follow ups that provide immediate crisis support, and one
C
oordinator
dedicated to ongoing case management and systems navigation.
This
wou
ld sensibly enhance and expand resident access to an existing program, and
bring
timely and responsive services to survivors experiencing domestic violence with information about their rights, facilitating referrals to safe shelter, and offering specialize
d support through YWCA’s LGBTQIA+ program.
San José
is by far the largest law enforcement jurisdiction in the County . Adding a new
1.0 FTE Bilingual Community Support Advocate, co
-
located at the FVC
and working
alongside the officers and existing
1.0 FTE
FVC Coordinator
,
w
ill
positively impact both
quantity and quality of service.
Specifically, alleviating the
Coordinator will
allow
them
to
refocus on care coordination, case management, and partnership
building
-
allow
ing
more in
-
depth service for survivors being
referred by
SJPD
.
Page
3 of
11 San Jos
é
Police Department
-
YWCA
DV
High Risk Response Team (DVHRRT)
Per the
nationally recognized
Geiger Institute
, t
he goal of a DVHRRT
model
is to reduce
intimate partner homicide by both monitoring specific high -
risk cases and closing gaps
in the domestic violence response system.
“
Research shows that many intimate partner
homicides are predictable; and if they are predictable, they are preve ntable. The
DVHRT Model leverages that predictability by incorporating research -
based risk
assessment into a community’s domestic violence response system to identify the most dangerous cases.
”
San José’s
DVHRRT program provides immediate
support to survivors with high risk
cases (e.g., meeting high risk criteria)
through a collaboration between
SJPD
and
YWCA.
The DVHRRT model is not meant to respond to every DV incident, rather the criteria act as a funnel
t
argeting
respo
nse
to those most at risk
of being killed by their
intimate partner.
SJPD funding for this pilot project began in April 2019 and led to the hirin
g of
A
dvocates to provide immediate crisis intervention in the field for high lethality cases.
The COVID
-
19 stay
-
at
-
home order in March 2020 caused the project to pivot to over
-
the
-
phone response. Currently
YWCA provides
both in
-
person and over the phone
response to DVHRRT requests.
The Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Protocol for Law Enforcement requires a
lethality assessment
at the scene
of
domestic violence 911 calls
.
The use of this
evidence
-
based tool
is embedded in law enforcement response countywide. For DVHRRT, it is the first step for
SJPD
officers to connect survivors to services and
identify them for co
-
response.
Using the lethality assessment,
the
SJPD responding officer will ask the
victim
to
answe
r a series of brief evidence
-
based questions
foc
using
on
their
level of danger to
be seriously injured or killed by their intimate partner . If the victim’s responses meet
DVHRRT high risk criteria, the officer will
contact the 24/7
YWCA H
elp Line
requesting
a response, whether in
-
person or over the phone.
During the initial pilot, the F
amily
V
iolence
U
nit
Lieutenant and YWCA had an
understanding that
patrol would call for any
and
all DV
incidents
in order to establish the
habit and launch the pilot.
A response
w
ould then be
provided by a YWCA Advocate
when the call me
t
DVHRRT high risk criteria. Whether that response is in
-
person or
over the phone is determined by SJPD’s internal prioritization, including the officers’ assessment of safety on the scene (e.g., if
the person who harmed is not in custody and
the scene is not clear and secure) or the officers need to respond to another call. Often the scene itself is chaotic, with the priorities being immediate safety and medical considerations. Also the survivor may
not be in the space mentally, emotionally, or
physically to engage. They may have physical injuries, be mentally overwhelmed in the moment, and struggling to attend to their children who have witnessed the precipitating incident. They may also not want to
engage in the moment because they did not call
911 themselves and/or were not aware of the consequences of calling law enforcement.
Immigrant survivors and survivors of color, in particular, may not be aware of Santa Page
4 of
11 Clara County’s mandatory arrest policy,
the District Attorney’s discretion to move
forward with prosecution regardless of survivor consent, the potential impacts on immigration status, involvement of child protective services, etc., and they almost always need more time to process and consider
their options.
When
the survivor is
not
open to connecting, the officer is
encouraged to contact YWCA
so they may relay information, consult for safety planning, and so on
.
YWCA
’
s
Survivor
Advocacy Coordinator
at
SJPD
’
s Family Viole
nce Center
also
receive
s
the
police report
and
Lethality Assessment
to
provide
follow up
,
if the survivor consented.
This ensure
s
that, even if
contact is
no
t established
initially, YWCA
still has an opportunity to
provide
support
.
O
ver time
YWCA has
integrated DVHRRT response into our full 24/7 system, both in -
person and over the phone.
This does not
mean
that
a DVHRRT
-
funded
A
dvocate
is
available to respo
nd 24/7
.
Funding from the City of San José
supports
a total of 1.2
FTE:
1 afterhours
A
dvocate
at
0.8 FTE (approx. 4 shifts/week between 4pm
-
12am), 1
daytime
A
dvocate
at
0.1 FTE, and 0.3 FTE of a
M
anager’s time for training, supervision,
and oversight.
YWCA’s full 24/7 system includes
27 A
dvocates
and 11
Ma
nagers
O
n
C
all staffing our 24/7 system and providing 1,307 responses every year (or 3.6 responses/day, with VMC responses lasting as long as 8 hours). 82%
of staff
are
bilingual, the majority in Engli
sh/Spanish.
YWCA cross
train
s
all
on
-
call
A
dvocates to support all
domestic violence, human
trafficking, and sexual assault
survivors, whether
the
response
is from
DVHRRT, a
SAFE through Stanford Hospital/VMC, a Pediatric SART through the Children’s Advoc
acy Center, an exam through the County’s DV Strangulation Protocol, or a community response through our community offices, local law enforcement ( for sexual
assault
,
YWCA
respond
s
to all jurisdictions except for Gilroy and Morgan Hill, which refer to Community Solutions), local hospitals such as Kaiser, local schools such as San José State University, and other community
-
based organizations.
A survivor’s communication with YWCA
A
dvocates is privileged under California state
evidence code (EVID §1037.1), meaning
A
dvocates are not allowed to share
information with law enforcement and other entities without the survivor’s consent. For survivors who may be hesitant or even fearful to
engage with law enforcement and the
criminal justice system, being able to speak confidentially
can be
valuable in getting
them connected with resources and support and helping them better understand the law
enforcement
system, which can then increase thei
r
comfort level and
engagement with
officers
.
YWCA Services
through DVHRRT
June 2019
-
May 2021
(
24 -
month
pilot)
FY21
-
22 FY22
-
23 FY23
-
24 % Increase
(
FY22
to
24 )
# of responses
meeting DVHRRT
high risk criteria
,
110
(
9 pre
-
pandemic,
101 after state
5 24
55 1000%
(From
5 to 55
responses)
Page
5 of
11 both
in
-
person and
over the phone
lockdown orders
in March 2020
)
# of
SJPD
call
s
answered by
YWCA Advocates
that did not meet
DVHRRT high risk
criteria
N/A
N/A
99 (Dec
2022
-
June
2023)
236
From 0 to 236
calls
# of
survivors
from
DVHRRT
responses and/or
calls that
receiv
ed
ongoing case
management
&
advocacy
N/A
N/A
95 (Dec
2022
-
June
2023)
130
From 0 to 130
survivors
Over the last five years (June 2019 to June 2024), YWCA expanded both our existing crisis response system and ongoing case management services to support an additional 55 DVHRRT responses, 236 calls from SJPD officers, and 130 survivors receiving ongoing s
upport.
As long as
an
A
dvocate is not
already on another response,
they
wi
ll respond in
-
person to a DVHRRT call
at the request of the officer
. If
A
dvocates
are on other responses and nobody
i
s available in
-
person, or if in
-
person is
no
t
requested, then
YWC
A will
provide over the phone support.
Looking at
DVHRRT calls from November 2023
-
April 2024
,
o
fficers reached out to
YWCA 41 times for response to a high lethality incident. YWCA Advocates responded on scene to three domestic violence incidents during th is time period and over the
phone to 38 incidents. YWCA
A
dvocates also responded to 110 calls from SJPD that
were activated by the DV protocol but did not meet high risk criteria.
T
here was
only
one
instance where
A
dvocates
were not able to respond in
-
pers
on due to capacity.
The DVHRRT saw a
129% increase
in responses from FY23 to FY24. This may be due
to expanded program efforts, increased collaboration with law enforcement, and/
or
heightened awareness and reporting. YWCA made a concentrated effort to train hotline and in
-
person response
A
dvocates as well as to adjust to the request of the survivors to provide support over the phone or in
-
person. With this flexibility YWCA was abl
e to
connect with more survivors overall. SJPD also increased the number of calls they made to our hotline over the most recent FY, after a significant dip occurred during FY22 (likely
due
to the pandemic).
A
s
SJPD
Lieutenants
have rotated through
the
DVHR
RT
, the
referral system and
types of information requested
has evolved, leading
to new datapoints such as calls and ongoing clients being tracked over time.
YWCA also
frequently respond
s
to the hospital through the County’s Sexual Assault
Protocol and DV S
trangulation Protocol, which SJPD also responds to. At least 77% of our 1,307
total
responses
(Countywide)
in FY 23
-
24 occurred within SJPD’s jurisdiction.
Page
6 of
11 In FY 21
-
22, SJPD’s contract with YWCA for DVHRRT services totaled $120,000. In FY 24 -
25, the contract is $133,125. This represents a 10% increase in funding for an 1000% year
-
over
-
year
increase in services provided through this contract.
The sharp
rise in DVHRRT responses highlights the success of targeted interventions in addressing high
-
risk cases. This program has enhanced the safety and well -
being of
vulnera
ble populations. Yet once survivors receive that initial contact, there may not be enough Advocate capacity for follow up and ongoing case management and support services.
A survivor typically receives
7.5 months
of case management and ongoing
advocacy fro
m YWCA Advocates.
R
ightsizing capacity at the FVC
will help ensure that
survivors from DVHRRT responses have th
ose 7.5 months of additional support
.
Services at the FVC also address survivor feedback about opportunities for change when working with law enforcement. According to the
2021 Summary of Fin
dings and
Recommendations
from the Victim Rights Advocacy Project (VRAP, p. 14), survivors expressed the need to improve responses to reports of abuse and to increase information about resources. Both of these services are provided by YWCA Advocates throug
h the FVC.
SJPD FVC
Comparison to Sexual Assault Investigative Unit (SJPD SAIU)
YWCA’s partnership with
SJPD
SAIU
is very similar to FVC.
The center is staffed by
SJPD officers and
a 1.0 FTE co
-
located
Sexual Assault (SA)
Survivor Advocacy
Coordinator I from YWCA. Our partnership
began in 2019 through a three
-
year contract
ensuring that SA survivors receive a warm referral as soon as possible after a SA incident. The YWCA SAIU Coordinator contacts all SA survivors referred
by SJPD to
offer services and support.
Due to the high volume of referrals, the Coordinator is assisted by
YWCA
SA
Advocates
that are
pulled from other Countywide projects to
assist
.
They follow up
within 72 hours of receiving the referral from SJPD, and as many
as three times if the survivor does not initially reply.
They also provide
similar ongoing
case managemen
t, including
counseling, advocacy, lethality/risk assessment, safety planning, and linkage to our restraining order, family law, criminal law, and immigration
services.
YWCA Services at SAIU
FY
20 -
21 FY21
-
22 FY22
-
23 FY23
-
24 % Increase
(
FY21
to
24 )
# of SA
follow ups
295
772
1595
1290
3 37
%
# of survivors
receiving
ongoing case
management
& advocacy
76 261
238
201
165
%
# of ongoing case
management & advocacy
sessions
808
3368
2374
1117
38%
Follow ups at the SAIU
–
which are directly triggered by referrals from SJPD officers –
have increased overall
and indicate the project’s
strong focus on sustain
ing
Page
7 of
11 engagement with survivors
.
In FY
2 3
-
24 , the YWCA
SAIU
Coordinator provided
1,290
follow ups to
SA
survivors
, a
3 37
% increase
from four years ago. We also saw a
165
%
increase
in the number of SA survivors seeking ongoing case management and advocacy
and a
38% increase
in the amount of services provided
. YWCA’s $120,000
contract with SJPD SAIU funds 1.25 FTE.
Looking at staffing levels, there are currently
16 detectives in the SAIU and only 1.25 FTE YWCA staff tasked to respond to the referrals from those detectives.
C
omparing the FVC and SAIU
data
: In general, demand for services appears to be
steadily increasing at the FVC year
-
over
-
year while, at the SAIU, it appears to fluctuate.
Reasons might include
decreased referrals with fewer SAIU detectives in the unit or ope
rational shifts due to the opening of the CAC, where CAC -
related follow ups now go
to the CAC team instead of the SAIU team.
It also appears that the conversion rate from a survivor receiving a follow up contact to actually pursuing ongoing case managemen
t is higher for the SAIU than the FVC (1,290
SAIU follow ups leading to 201 SA survivors receiving ongoing support vs 1,764 FVC follow ups leading to 93 DV survivors receiving ongoing support).
Due to the close and
often complex relationship between DV sur
vivors and the partner who has harmed, DV
survivors may experience significant emotional and psychological barriers to seeking and engaging in services
–
which
dedicated FVC
A
dvocates
can help them navigate.
Critical Linkage to
YWCA
S
ervices for
S
urvivors of
G
ender
-
B
ased
V
iolence
Every survivor referred from SJPD
receives access
to YWCA’s
comprehensive
continuum of
crisis response and ongoing
support
services for
survivors of domestic
violence (DV), human trafficking
(HT), and sexual assault (SA).
Services are free and
confidential, trauma
-
informed, and
culturally responsive.
They
are
designed to be low
barrier, seamless, integrated,
and grounded in survivor feedback and lived experience.
The individuals and families we serve are often at the inters ections of racism, sexism,
violence, and trauma.
YWCA’s current client d
emographics
are
8 5
% female;
7 6% Black,
Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC); 1
4 % LGBTQ; 2
9 % differently
-
abled; 2
5 %
prefer
services in a language other than English; 8
2 %
are
extremely
low to low
-
income
;
and
2 3
% were under the age of 18.
A survivor’s first interaction with YWCA Advocates occurs through our confidential 24/7 Support Line, at one of our locations, or during an in
-
person response
(IPR)
in the
community. The Support Line is toll
-
free, staffed 24/7 by trained
A
dvocates, and
bilingual English/Spanish (
with
other languages available through a confidential
language line). Callers receive immediate crisis intervention such as safety planning, emotional support, information on rights and options, community resources, and assessment and intake into YWCA. Advocates provide immediate, in -
person support
and advocacy to survivors throughout our community through YWCA’s
24/7
in
-
person
response system.
This includes responses through
the San
José
Police Department’s
DV High Risk Response Team,
the Santa Clara County DV Strangulation protocol,
Sexual Assault Forensic Exams at Valley Medical Center and Stanford University, and Page
8 of
11 medical/forensic exams at the County’s Children’s Advocacy Center. YWCA Advocates also respond to walk
-
ins at our two comm
unity offices in the Central and North parts of
the County, local law enforcement jurisdictions, local hospitals such as Kaiser Permanente, local schools such as San
José
State University, and other community
-
based organizations.
For the last 42 years, YW
CA has been the only California state
-
certified Rape Crisis
Center for North and Central Santa Clara County and has built a robust in -
person
response system stretching from Palo Alto to San
José
. As the County and local Cities
have expanded their IPR progr
ams over the last five years, YWCA’s IPR system has
flexed to meet the increasing need for confidential
A
dvocates. Looking at YWCA data
from FY 17
-
18 to FY 2
3 -
2 4
,
essentially pre
-
to post
-
pandemic,
requests for services
have increased dramatically.
FY 17
-
18 FY 23
-
24 % Increase
Total Survivors Served
901
5940
559%
Total 24/7 Support Line
Crisis Calls
4834
9 031
87 %
Total Crisis Intervention
R
esponses
521
1307
151%
CAC (Child Abuse Exams
+
MDI + Pediatric
SARTs)
70 531
659%
Stanford/VMC SAFEs
237
344
45%
SJPD DVHRRT
0 55
From 0 to 55
new
responses
DV Strangulation
Program
0 78
From 0 to 78
new
responses
Community
Response/Walk
-
Ins
214
301
41%
Notes: CAC = County Child
ren’s
Advocacy Center,
MDI =
Multidisciplinary interview with trained forensic
interviewer, SART =
Sexual Assault Response Team
,
VMC = County Valley Medical Center
,
SAFE =
Sexual Assault Forensic Exam
,
SJPD = San
José
Police Department
,
DVHRRT = Domestic Violence
High Risk Response Team
, DV = Domestic Violence
During this time frame
, YWCA saw a
559% increase
in survivors served,
104%
increase
in crisis line calls, and
151% increase
in in
-
person responses.
YWCA
Advocates provide integrated services at over 25 community -
based locations.
YWCA
continued to be the first responder for
sexual assaults in North and Central County,
participated in two pilots (DVHRRT, Strangulation Program) increasing our systems response to
law enforcement and VMC, and staffed the new Child
ren’s
Advocacy
Center
(CAC)
.
In particular, the
creation of the
CAC
in 2021 has
enabled us to increase
support for San
José
r
esidents
, who are
the majority of survivors being served
by the
Center.
Page
9 of
11 Only two agencies
–
Community Solutions and YWCA
–
are qualified by the state of
California to
respond to sexual assault
survivors, which places the burden on a finite
number of
Advocates
to
meet ever increasing demand. Community Solutions and
YWCA are also the only victim service
agencies providing in
-
person responses for
the
DV Strangulation Program
. Community Solutions co
vers sexual assault
cases, including
in
-
person responses, from South County (Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and
unincorporated areas
of San
José
). YWCA covers the majority of the County including San José
and all other
jurisdictions in the County.
YWCA is
also
the
primary
contact for
multiple law
enforcement jurisdictions, including
San José
as well as
Los Altos, Milpitas, Mountain
View, Palo Alto,
a
nd
Sunnyvale
.
Our services meet
a
survivor’s needs as they move from crisis to stabilization to
long
-
term sustainability. While every survivor’s journey is unique, YWCA services are
structured to
offer a
robust continuum of support
with multiple entry points and no wrong
door. Services
include
crisis
intervention, advocacy,
accompaniment, case
management and systems navigation, advocacy
-
based
counseling, therapy services
and support groups, client emergency assistance,
legal services,
safety planning and
information and referrals.
Last year YWCA staff provided
over 2,700 counseling &
therapy sessions
and
over 920 legal service and court accompaniment sessions
to
survivors in need.
YWCA’s
Housing Department offers a comprehensive continuum of support including emergency housing, h
omelessness prevention services, rapid rehousing, and
permanent supportive housing. YWCA is the designated gender -
based violence point
agency for the County
’
s Here4You Hotline, which centralizes countywide referrals to temporary housing.
For survivors exit
ing emergency housing, 40%
moved
to permanent
housing. For survivors in rapid rehousing, 52%
exited
to permanent housing.
These are typically high engagement services, where an average case
management
relationship lasts 7
-
8 months. Services which may
appear to be one
-
time
-
only,
such as
in
-
person responses
, are actually very time intensive. Per our FY
24 data, YWCA
provides
1 ,
307
responses/year or
3.6 responses/day. One response at VMC can take
u
p
to
8 hours. With 3
.6
responses x 8 hours/response on ever
y 24
-
hour shift, an
A
dvocate
is often
responding to three SAFEs in a row, back
-
to
-
back. YWCA also
follows up at least three times
with survivors who receive SARTs/SAFEs and lethality
assessments to ensure they are
connected to resources.
The increasing vol
ume of
responses also puts pressure on ongoing case management services, as more survivors choose to
receive continuing support
.
YWCA also provides
licensed childcare (infant, toddler and preschool), ensuring quality and
affordable services for families
ages 6 weeks to 5 years of age. While their
children
are in a safe environment, parents and caregivers are on the path to economic
or
educational fulfillment. Your YWCA’s Economic Opportunity programs empower low -
income women to achieve
economic self
-
suffi
ciency through empowerment,
employment services, and entrepreneurial pathways. We offer free
job training, digital
upskilling and reskilling, placement services, full wardrobes and assistance in launching
Page
10 of
11 small businesses specifically tailored to the uniqu
e barriers
and needs of this
population.
Additionally,
YWCA
’
s Social Justice Department reach over
35,300
youth
and community members through primary prevention education, outreach,
and
awareness events.
Policy Recommendations
W
ith
over
seven years
of experience partnering with SJPD, YWCA’s recommendation is to apply any additional funding and other resources to address current program shortages at the FVC
.
FVC
a
dvocacy serv
ices
for survivors of domestic violence
are overutilized, and the
year
-
over
-
year
increase
s
in demand
are
not sustainable.
We also recommend
analyz
ing
the
responses with SJPD that are already in
place,
rather than creating a new co
-
response model. Taking a closer look
at
the current
DVHRRT
system
, and seeing if it can be improved, may be more efficient than exploring another model.
It
may
also be helpful to
include an analysis of
San
José
-
related
responses through Countywide
domestic violence
protocols such as DV Strangulation
.
Finally it
may
be worthwhile to explore the
2,000
difference between DV Events and
Calls for Assistance
–
specifically what happened to those individuals and whet her they
were connected to community
-
based
resources
.
911 Event Data Analysis Report
from February 2024 Memorandum to City Council:
Domesti
c Violence
-
Related Calls for Assistance
1 from the State of California
Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General:
1 California law enforcement agencies report to the CA Department of Justice information on the total number of domestic violence related calls for service received by law enforcement, the number of calls for service involving weapons, and the description of
the type of weapon reported.
Page
11 of
11 1
Jones, Michael (CMO)
From: Maria Daane <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:53 PM
To: District2; District7; District1; District3; District 10 Cc: Schembri, Jennifer; Munguia, Emily; PSFSScommittee
Subject: Feedback: Disability Community Concerns, PSFSS meeting 10/17
Dear City Council Members Jimenez, Doan, Kamei, Torres, and Batra:
I am writing today regarding item (d)3 on the October 17 agenda for the Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Committee (PSFSS), Options for Expanding Alternative Response and Co-Response Programs to 911 Calls for Service.
Parents Helping Parents is the lead agency in Santa Clara County supporting parents of children with disabilities; each year over 6,000 county residents are served by PHP.
We ask members of PSFSS to defer accepting the report and direct staff to return within 60 days with updated recommendations for additional alternative response options to explore TRUST responses to the disability community beyond mental health disabilities.
Our concern is around Finding #1 and FInding #3:
Finding #1: Finding #1 preference for alternative response The first finding, that members of disabled communities and their representatives, prefer alternative response programs over co-response programs (with law enforcement), is the key finding, and all decisions made by city officials should follow from it.
Finding #3: As the staff report details, “Many community members and advocates also supported prioritizing further investment and resources in alternative response and community-based programs over co-response programs, as alternative team response can create more equitable outcomes for communities of color and others disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system.” (emphasis added). We do agree with the recommendation to hire more clinicians and others with the skills to communicate with people with particular disabilities, such as those fluent in American Sign Language.
San José should strive to remove armed officers from as many situations as possible rather than put the onus of safety on community members, as detailed in several examples from other jurisdictions cited in the staff report.
We would respectfully like to remind committee members that currently 1 in 36 children in our region and our country are born with autism, and that 20% of the population has disabilities. People of color with disabilities are more at risk than any other segment of the population when police become involved. In a recent town hall meeting at Parents Helping Parents, we collected survey responses from families on the top eight public policy priorities for their families: a full two-thirds of our families of color placed concerns about safety in interactions with public safety staff as one of their top three concerns for their family.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.] You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 For our families, these youth and adults with disabilities are our sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers. The TRUST line staff should be trained and able to safely assist a wider range of disabilities than just those who have mental health challenges. We ask for a sixty day delay to allow city staff time to meet with and consider the needs of the large and diverse disability population in San Jose.
In partnership,
Maria Daane
Executive Director
PHP "Parents Helping Parents"
(408) 727-5775 ext 153
For news and information to help your family, follow PHP on social media:
Parents Helping Parents (PHP) is a nonprofit organization that provides information, training, individual assistance, and resources. PHP is not a law firm or legal service agency, and as such, the information contained in this email or in phone conversations is provided for the purpose of informing the review, but should not be considered legal advice. For legal advice, you should consult an attorney.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.] From: SURJ Santa Clara County
To: PSFSScommittee
Subject: PSFSS Item 3: Do NOT accept the “Options for Expanding Alternative Response and Co-Response Programs to 911 Calls for Service” report
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 9:06:43 PM
Attachments: surj bird not final.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important To: PSFSS Chair Jimenez, Vice Chair Doan, Vice Mayor Kamei, Councilmember Batra and Councilmember Torres
From: Showing Up for Racial Justice Santa Clara County Subject: Item 3: Do NOT accept the “Options for Expanding Alternative Response and Co-Response Programs to 911 Calls for Service” report Date: October 17 2024
SURJ Santa Clara County, representing hundreds of SJ residents, is writing to ask that you defer accepting the “Options for Expanding Alternative Response and Co-Response Programs to 911 Calls for Service” report and that you instead direct city staff to return in 60 days with:
1. Updated recommendations for additional alternative response options to explore.
2. An official, written response from the California Department of Health Care Services as to the legality of funding TRUST with Opioid Settlement Funds.
We are thankful for the city’s exploratory investment in a 40 hour/week TRUST field team as well as its pilot investigation of transferring 911 calls to 988 – these are a good start and we expect to see expansion of both approaches in the next budget cycle. And we appreciate the comprehensive analysis that city staff did last year to identify categories of calls that could be directed to more appropriate responders than police. It is the response to those findings that remains inadequate. We also take issue with today’s report in several important ways.
The report itself found that members of disabled communities and their representatives prefer alternative response programs over co-response programs that include law enforcement. Yet the report focuses heavily on “same old, same old” police responses, like CIT, PERT and MCAT. For example, the report cheerleads for SJPD’s Crisis Intervention Training (CIT), even though the California Reporting Project Investigation found that not only did the introduction of CIT not reduce rates of injury and death for people with disabilities in encounters, but in fact harm actually increased after CIT was adopted. Why is a report that is supposed to be about expanding alternative response spending so many words on CIT, a police-only response, in the first place?
The report also spends pages reviewing co-response both in our county and other regions, even though it is a less effective, more expensive and more harmful approach and even though those most directly harmed by co-response told the city very clearly that non-police response is the option that will reduce harm. Furthermore, there are two pending lawsuits in Oregon and Washington D.C. that argue that police response to behavioral health crises is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it discriminates against people with invisible disabilities. We send EMTs and paramedics to crises experienced by people with physical disabilities. We don’t expect police to treat a broken leg; why would we expect them to treat a mental health crisis? We do not understand why this report focused so heavily on police and co- response, when the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s national guidelines for behavioral health crisis
response recommend that mobile crisis teams should incorporate peers but avoid law enforcement accompaniment (except in special circumstances). Los Angeles’s groundbreaking expansion of mobile crisis response follows this model and Chicago recently chose to abandon co-response models. As noted in the LA report (p. 35), “Co-responder teams have demonstrated over time to be significantly more costly, while not as effective, as civilian teams that are comprised of a BH clinician and a peer support specialist.” The report itself acknowledges that lives are at stake: “Recent national data indicates that people with serious mental health conditions constitute a statistically significant percentage of suspects injured in police interaction and involved in use-of-force cases. For example, a recent national study found that people with mental health conditions are 11.6 times more likely to experience police use of force, and 10.7 times more likely to experience police-related injury than those unaffected by mental health conditions. Mental health conditions often accompany other disabilities, such as autism, and when accompanied with other structural social
identities – such as race or socioeconomic status – the compounding intersection of these conditions and identities can lead to higher rates of victimization.”
Given that this is the case, the report needs to provide more research on non- police response models and chart a path forwarding to expanding those models. We do appreciate the report’s recommendation to continue expansion of the TRUST program in San Jose. However, we believe that the city attorney is mistaken about the potential use of opioid settlement funds for expanding the TRUST program. This summer we met directly with staff from the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to get a deeper understanding of how opioid settlement funds can be spent. In that meeting, we learned that crisis response for substance abuse and behavioral health is typically an allowable use. However, we don’t expect you to take our word for it, which is why we are asking for an official, written response from the California Department of Health Care Services as to the legality of funding TRUST with Opioid Settlement Funds.
In February, the City Council directed staff to explore the following:
Potential models for alternative response and co-response for incidents involving individuals with a disability
Alternative response models for welfare checks, disturbances, suspicious circumstances, and trespassing calls involving mental health issues or unhoused individuals
Potential models that include partner organizations as a co-response with police to domestic violence calls
This report largely fails to deliver on those requests. The second bullet point seems to have been ignored entirely. The first and third bullet points don’t take seriously the real alternative responses that community members want.
The report also notes that non-police response is a racial justice issue: “Many community members and advocates also supported prioritizing further investment and resources in alternative response and community-based programs over co-response programs, as alternative team response can create more equitable outcomes for communities of color and others disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system.”
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
We are nearing the end of 2024. In response to the racial justice uprisings of 2020, the San Jose City Council made a commitment and promise to re- imagine public safety. Dozens of impacted community members met for over a year to develop over 80 recommendations in the city-funded Re-Imagining Public Safety process. And four years later, the Council has implemented almost NONE of those recommendations. Racial justice isn’t a fad. It should be one of the core goals of a city council in a city as richly diverse as San Jose. If the promise to re-imagine public safety wasn’t just empty virtue- signaling, if your commitment to racial justice is strong and ongoing, if you believe that our city should be safe for ALL its residents and most especially those vulnerable to police violence, you cannot be satisfied with the report delivered to you this week.
Sincerely,
The members of Showing Up for Racial Justice Santa Clara County