STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program Implementation Plan for Oregon Fiscal Years

Transcription

1 STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program Implementation Plan for Oregon Fiscal Years Attorney General John R. Kroger Oregon Department of Justice Crime Victims Services Division 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR (503)

2 State of Oregon John Kroger, Attorney General Mary Williams, Assistant Attorney General Crime Victims Services Division, Oregon Department of Justice Cynthia Stinson, Director Karen Heywood, Assistant Director Grant Monitors Diana Fleming Cathy Relang Mackenzie Gray Nancy Greenman Christine Heyen Mike Maryanov Grant Assistants Gail Mavity Krista Anderson Norman Walters Grant Accountant Karen Schieferstein Oregon VAWA Advisory Board Members Desiree Allen-Cruz Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Steve Bellshaw Salem Police Department Camille Cole Klamath Tribes Anna D Amato Community Works Scott Healy Clackamas County District Attorney s Office Sybil Hebb Oregon Law Center Leona Ike Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation Kim Larson (Co-Chair) Marion County District Attorney s Office Rebecca Orf Oregon Judicial Department Alexa Priddy Attorney General s Sexual Assault Task Force Terrie Quinteros Oregon Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence Jennifer Stephens Salem Hospital Darin Tweedt Oregon Department of Justice Criminal Justice Division Gloria Wiggins Catholic Charities, El Programa Hispano Letetia Wilson Center Against Rape & Domestic Violence Vacancy - Sheriff

3 Insert submission letter

4 Page intentionally left blank

5 Table of Contents Section I: Introduction 7 Section II: Description of Planning Process 9 A. Planning Process with Non-Profit and Governmental Victim Services, Tribal Nations and Historically Underrepresented Communities 9 1. Strategic Subcommittee Victim Service Providers Focus on Services to Underserved, Marginalized and/or Oppressed Communities Oregon Tribal Outreach Joint Funders Subcommittee 12 B. Annual Planning Activities 13 Section III: Needs and Context of the FY STOP VAWA Implementation Plan for Oregon 14 A. Geography 14 B. Demographics 16 C. Indian Country Jurisdictional Framework 23 D. Crime Statistics 24 E. State Violence Against Women Laws or Policies 24 Directly Impacting the Implementation Plan 30 F. Needs Assessment 32 Section IV: Elements of the FY STOP VAWA Implementation Plan for Oregon 34 A. Relation to Prior Implementation Plans 34 B. Priority Areas 35 C. Identified Goals 37 D. Grant Making Strategy Non-Competitive Request for Application Process Competitive Request for Application Process STOP VAWA Grant Cycle Timeline Programs and Projects Supported By STOP VAWA Formula Grant Program Funds Grant management System 41 E. Addressing the Needs of Underserved Victims 42 F. Monitoring and Evaluation 44 G. Barriers to Implementation 45

6 Section V: Conclusion 47 Endnotes 48 References 49 Appendix A: VAWA Advisory Board Members List 52 Appendix B: VAWA Advisory Board Subcommittee and Work Group Lists 53 Appendix C: Letters of Support 55 Appendix D: Strategic Subcommittee Priority and Training Survey Results 61 Appendix E: Underserved, Marginalized and/or Oppressed Communities 63 Appendix F: Tribal Survey Results 64 Appendix G: Map of Oregon Counties 67 Appendix H: STOP VAWA Program Summaries 68 This publication was supported by Grant 2010-WF-AX-0046 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

7 I. Introduction The Violence Against Women and U.S. Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 resulted in the continuation of assistance to states through the Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP) VAWA Formula Grants Program. The STOP VAWA Formula Grant Program funds are issued to the State of Oregon by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) for the purpose of funding programs that encourage the development and strengthening of effective law enforcement, prosecution and judicial strategies to combat violent crimes against women and the development and strengthening of victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women. The STOP VAWA Formula Grant Program was initially authorized under the Violence Against Women Act of It has been subsequently reauthorized and amended in 2000 and The emphasis of the STOP VAWA Formula Grant Program is on the implementation of comprehensive strategies addressing violence against women that are sensitive to the needs and safety of victims and hold offenders accountable for their crimes. The STOP VAWA Formula Grant Program seeks to forge lasting partnerships between criminal justice system and victim advocacy organizations. It also encourages communities to look beyond traditional resources to include new partners, such as community and faith-based organizations, which will respond more vigorously to domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence crimes. The Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) Crime Victims Services Division (CVSD) is the State Administrative Agency (SAA) for the STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Formula Grant Program as authorized by ORS Annually, CVSD administers 11 major statewide programs with 37 staff members on behalf of victims of crime. CVSD administers more than $15 million annually in federal and state grant awards to other state agencies, local government units and non-profit organizations that support communities in their efforts to reduce the impact of crime on victims lives. Total CVSD funding supports 120 governmental and non-profit victim service providers in every county in Oregon to promote victims rights and provide victims access to information and resources. A total of $2,453,104, is available for Oregon s STOP VAWA Formula Grants Program during FY This includes $1,844,856 in new FY STOP VAWA Program grant funds, $16,458 in de-obligated funds from FY , and $304,124 in de-obligated funds from FY as well as $287,666 in re-obligated funds from FY 2006 when the STOP VAWA Program transferred from the Oregon State Police to ODOJ in July De-obligated funds will be reintroduced into the category for which they were originally distributed. 1 In accordance with federal statutory requirement, CVSD allocates STOP VAWA funding to law enforcement (25%), prosecution (25%), courts (5%), and non-profit, non-governmental victim services providers (45% - which includes discretionary funds). These percentages are assessed after ten percent (10%) of the total award to the State of Oregon is taken for administrative costs. Specifically, the FY 2010 STOP VAWA award, $1,844,856, and other de-obligated funds, $608,248, supports 58 projects (refer to Appendix H). Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 7

8 A competitive solicitation process guides awards under the law enforcement, prosecution and court allocations and a non-competitive process guides the non-profit, non-governmental victim services providers allocation (Section IV subsection D). The Oregon VAWA Advisory Board advises CVSD on the administration of the STOP VAWA and Sexual Assault Services (SASP) Formula Grant Programs. Currently, there are 15 advisory board members (Appendix A) and two active subcommittees (Appendix B). The VAWA Advisory Board and its Strategic Subcommittee is specifically responsible for the development of the STOP VAWA Implementation Plan for Oregon, FY This plan establishes the VAWA Advisory Board s funding priorities for projects receiving federal STOP VAWA Program grant funds. Furthermore, the Implementation Plan outlines how the state will use STOP VAWA Program grant funds to enhance responses to victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking and teen dating violence in accordance with the federal priority and purpose areas. The Advisory Board s mission and value statements are as follows: Mission statement: The Oregon VAWA Advisory Board is committed to ending violence against women in Oregon through collaboration, system assessment and guidance. Value statement: The Oregon VAWA Advisory Board will: 1) serve as a model for collaboration; 2) act as the voice for VAWA and its implications for practice at the state level; 3) identify and address gaps in service; 4) provide guidance and support around best practices and collaboration between non-profit, non-governmental victim services, law enforcement, prosecutors and courts; and 5) identify its role in relationship to other funding bodies. The STOP VAWA Implementation Plan for Oregon, FYs is intended to be a living document during the next three fiscal years, drawing on the contributions of the VAWA Advisory Board, its sponsored subcommittees and the collaborative partners described in Section II. (See Appendix B). Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 8

9 II. Description of Planning Process for the FY STOP VAWA Implementation Plan for Oregon CVSD began its planning process in July 2007 when the STOP VAWA program transferred to DOJ CVSD from the Oregon State Police. The VAWA Advisory Board worked with the VAWA Program Coordinator to establish a framework for its first Implementation Plan, building upon the federal program s priorities, eligibility requirements, funding allocation categories and statutory purpose areas. Using federal criteria, the VAWA Advisory Board went a step further to establish its own state funding priorities and its mission and value statements. The core aspects of the FY Implementation Plan are carried forward into FY to continue addressing statewide needs and gaps in services for victims in Oregon. CVSD and the VAWA Advisory Board reached out to statewide and local partners with diverse backgrounds to ensure that the voices of underserved, marginalized and/or oppressed communities were included in the planning process for the STOP VAWA Implementation Plan for Oregon. In particular, Native American interests are included in the planning process through the participation of representatives on the VAWA Advisory Board and other boards and subcommittees. Additionally, CVSD conducted a survey with the nine federally recognized tribes in Oregon to begin the process of identifying the domestic violence and sexual assault services that are available to Native Americans and to determine the need for support services to tribal victims. This conversation continued through several advisory boards and a group of collaborative partners in an open forum to identify the challenges to providing services to underserved, marginalized and/or oppressed communities throughout the state (Section IV subsection E). CVSD and all of its advisory boards will continue this work and update the plan annually. The VAWA Advisory Board meets at least four times a year for additional planning. Letters of support for STOP VAWA funding from board members, grant recipients and the statewide coalitions show strong support for how CVSD administers STOP VAWA funds in Oregon (Appendix C). A. Planning Process with Non-Profit and Governmental Victim Services, Tribal Nations and Historically Underrepresented Communities The Strategic Subcommittee met multiple times between October 2009 and June 2010 to accomplish the following tasks: Review the Implementation Plan and current funding strategies Gather input on unmet needs and improvements in the criminal justice system process with regard to sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking and teen dating violence Include Tribal Nations in the statewide Implementation Plan Plan for potential statewide initiative projects Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 9

10 Advisory boards, subcommittees, and statewide community partners were included in the planning process as noted below: Strategic Subcommittee The Strategic Subcommittee members developed a survey that asked respondents to identify the top three priorities and/or resource gaps in the state s ability to respond to the needs of domestic violence, sexual assault, teen dating violence and stalking survivors; to prioritize future training projects for law enforcement, prosecution, victim services, and judicial response to survivors; and to determine funding priorities for the FY Implementation Plan. The survey (Appendix D) was conducted in December 2009 and included over 200 victim service providers, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, court administrators, tribal organizations, subgrantees and statewide partners. Fifty-two percent of the respondents represented non-profit victim service advocates; 18% District Attorney-based victim services advocates; 3% law enforcement-based victim services advocates; 7% prosecutors; 6% law enforcement; 2% judicial or court staff; 3% Training Institute; and 9% Civil Legal Attorney. Tribal organizations responded within the listed categories. The Strategic Subcommittee and the VAWA Advisory Board provided recommendations for a revision of goals, objectives and existing funding priorities based on the results of this survey. The subcommittee found that the survey results supported its continued focus on training and collaboration between systems to provide a multi-agency response in an effort to increase victim cooperation, but also identified the need for ancillary support for victims that includes housing, mental health services, and other emergency support. Subgrantees are able to utilize STOP VAWA Program grant funds to include direct client services such as emergency child care and emergency rent assistance to ensure victim safety. The Strategic Subcommittee also included the work of other CVSD advisory boards and subcommittees which also strive to improve services to historically underserved, marginalized and/or oppressed communities such as Native Americans, Latinos, elderly, and teens. Refer to Appendix E for a complete list of identified underserved, marginalized and/or oppressed communities in Oregon. Victim Service Providers Oregon included non-profit, non-governmental victim service providers in the planning process through multiple methods: 1. Representation on the VAWA Advisory Board and the Strategic Subcommittee. 2. Participation on the Sexual Assault Services (SASP) Formula Grant Program Subcommittee. 3. The Underserved, Marginalized and/or Oppressed Open Forum Work Group. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 10

11 4. The statewide survey. Focus on Services to Underserved, Marginalized and/or Oppressed Communities The voices from underserved populations are included through a diverse membership on the VAWA Advisory Board. The underserved, marginalized and/or oppressed populations are further represented through the work of many subcommittees, state and federal grant funding bodies at CVSD and the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS), and the collaborative work with other state partners. CVSD worked with the Sexual Assault Services (SASP) Formula Grant Program Subcommittee to develop a solicitation that required applicants to demonstrate collaborative relationships that enhance services to marginalized or underserved populations. Programs provided letters of support from community organizations that demonstrated how the program maintains and builds capacity within communities. CVSD continues this work across all funding sources and with each of the funding bodies to further define solicitation requirements that hold programs accountable to a standard of service. CVSD will continue to hold open forum discussions to ensure that underserved, marginalized and/or oppressed communities are being adequately served (Section IV subsection E). Oregon Tribal Outreach With the assistance of DOJ s tribal liaison and the Chair of the Public Safety Cluster, the VAWA Advisory Board successfully recruited two Native American representatives to join the existing Native American representative. This enabled the VAWA Advisory Board to meet STOP VAWA goals and objectives of diversity and to obtain positive collaboration with Oregon tribes. The Native American representatives on the VAWA Advisory Board conducted a tribal survey in June 2010 (Appendix F) to identify tribes with tribal courts, law enforcement, probation and parole, victim and/or family violence services and shelters on the reservation in order to prioritize gaps in services and identify training or technical assistance needs. The results will guide the next steps in enhancing services and strengthening collaboration between the tribes and domestic violence/sexual assault service providers. The VAWA Advisory Board determined: Tribes will be notified of all grant awards within their county service area that include a Native American population; The VAWA Advisory Board and tribal nations will discuss the best way to conduct an assessment of tribal needs for domestic violence, sexual assault, teen dating violence and stalking services; A process will be determined to acquire statistics and information from each of the tribes in order to evaluate the effectiveness of services to tribal victims and survivors. CVSD outlined the focus of its work across all funding sources in the 2009 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Federal Report. The STOP VAWA Implementation Plan will also focus on increasing understanding, improving communication and building partnerships as described below: Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 11

12 Inclusion of Tribal Representation on Other DOJ CVSD Funding Advisory Boards The inclusion of tribal representatives assures that the voices and concerns of tribal victims are represented on advisory boards during planning, allocation and application review. The VAWA Fund Coordinator will conduct site visits with tribal board members during the next three fiscal years to increase general knowledge and understanding of funded programs to specifically support increased collaboration between the DVSA program and tribes. Making Grant Funding Available to Programs that Serve Native American Victims It is a goal of CVSD to use established, as well as new, strategies to raise awareness of funding opportunities for tribal leadership and victim services programs. CVSD is working to compile a list of contacts from each tribe in order to facilitate communication and to share funding and training opportunities. Improving Access to Services for Tribal Victims and Survivors All CVSD grant programs prioritize services to underserved populations, including tribal victims. CVSD continues to work with non-tribal grantees to be sure they are making their services fully accessible to tribal victims and survivors in their service area. In order to facilitate this connection, several programs have recruited tribal members onto their Board of Directors, some programs have formal contracts for services with tribal governments, and in other cases the collaboration is informal. The VAWA Fund Coordinator will work with the VAWA Advisory Board and the tribes in Oregon to identify a process that improves outreach efforts to tribal victims. One specific strategy is to develop and use a common language across all funds in solicitations. Joint Funders Subcommittee The Joint Funders Subcommittee was created in 2006 for the purpose of coordinating and leading the review of the Equity Allocation Report (Equity Report) and developing a common formula for allocation of the joint noncompetitive DVSA funds (Section IV, subsection A). Membership includes representatives from the Attorney General s Sexual Assault Task Force (AGSATF), the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (OCADSV), and the four CVSD grant advisory boards. CVSD participates in the Joint Funders Subcommittee with the objectives of furthering communication among state administered funding sources, streamlining funding for grantees, avoiding duplication of effort for grantees in areas such as reporting and grant applications, and maximizing the benefits of funding to victims across the state. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 12

13 B. Annual Planning Activities The VAWA Advisory Board and the Strategic Subcommittee will review the Implementation Plan changes or updates periodically throughout the year. Specifically, it will be included on the agenda for the following VAWA Advisory Board meetings in 2011: January 6, April 7, July 14, and October 6. CVSD will also continue to work with tribal nations and other underserved, marginalized and/or oppressed communities in order to further the goals and objectives identified in Section IV, subsections B and C. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 13

14 A. Geography III. Needs and Context of the FY STOP VAWA Implementation Plan for Oregon Oregon is a state of vivid geographic contrasts: the western boundary is rugged Pacific Ocean coast and to the east, across the Coastal range, lie the fertile valleys of the I-5 corridor, along which lives the majority of the state s population. The central and eastern two thirds of the state are mountains and high desert. Fifty-five percent of Oregon s 95,997 square miles is publicly owned and sparsely populated, while 51% of the population lives on 4% of the land mass (Clackamas, Multnomah, Marion and Washington Counties = 4,248 square miles). Ten of Oregon s 36 counties Harney, Wheeler, Lake, Gilliam, Grant, Sherman, Wallowa, Morrow, Baker, and Malheur are federally designated as frontier, and the average population is 2.1 persons per square mile. Out of the ten counties, seven have populations with less than three persons per square mile; five have populations that are fewer than two persons per square mile; and three have less than one person per square mile. The combined populations of the frontier counties total only 12.5% of the population of Multnomah County, the state s most populous county and home to Portland, the largest city. Five counties contain almost 60% of the entire population of Oregon. A map of Oregon counties is provided in Appendix G. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 14

15 Population Distribution by County County Population -Greatest Numbers County Population - Percent of State Multnomah 660,486 Multnomah 17.26% Washington 519,979 Washington 13.59% Clackamas 375,425 Clackamas 9.81% Lane 342,921 Lane 8.96% Marion 310,223 Marion 8.11% Jackson 198,881 Jackson 5.20% Deschutes 153,694 Deschutes 4.02% Linn 113,082 Linn 2.96% Douglas 103,945 Douglas 2.72% Yamhill 95,980 Yamhill 2.51% Josephine 81,086 Josephine 2.12% Benton 81,040 Benton 2.12% Polk 74,906 Polk 1.96% Umatilla 73,252 Umatilla 1.91% Klamath 66,243 Klamath 1.73% Coos 63,525 Coos 1.66% Columbia 48,845 Columbia 1.28% Lincoln 45,757 Lincoln 1.20% Clatsop 37,213 Clatsop 0.97% Malheur 30,933 Malheur 0.81% Tillamook 24,949 Tillamook 0.65% Union 24,711 Union 0.65% Wasco 23,677 Wasco 0.62% Crook 22,793 Crook 0.60% Curry 21,740 Curry 0.57% Hood River 21,285 Hood River 0.56% Jefferson 20,405 Jefferson 0.53% Baker 16,741 Baker 0.44% Morrow* 10,995 Morrow* 0.29% Grant* 7,935 Grant* 0.21% Harney* 7,609 Harney* 0.20% Lake* 7,422 Lake* 0.19% Wallowa* 7,226 Wallowa* 0.19% Sherman* 1,934 Sherman* 0.05% Gilliam* 1,915 Gilliam* 0.05% Wheeler* 1,547 Wheeler* 0.04% * The American Community Survey (ACS) three-year estimates for 2009 are only available for geographic areas with a population of 20,000 or more. Counties marked with * display data from Census Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 15

16 B. Demographics In 2009, Oregon s population was estimated at 3,823,465. Of the 1,881,928 females in Oregon, 77.6% are between the ages of 18 to 64 and 14.6% are ages 65 and older. Racial and ethnic group demographics in Oregon are as complex as population and geography. The table on page 17 demonstrates the presence of a growing Hispanic/Latino population in many parts of the state, as well as the presence of other ethnic populations, including those whose primary language is not English. Based on 2009 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 89.8% of Oregon s population were white persons not of Latino or Hispanic origin, 11.2% were Latino or Hispanic, 3.7% were Asian, 2% were Black or African American and 1.6% were American Indian and Alaskan Native. Less than 1% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander and 3.3% belonged to two or more racial groups. Racial and ethnic group estimates are not available by gender or age. The estimated number of Latinos in Multnomah County is greater than 70,000, reflecting a 38% increase since the 2000 census and confirming that Latinos are the largest and fastest-growing minority group in Multnomah County. Similar increases are also found for Washington, Marion and Clackamas counties, which have seen significant growth in their Latino communities in recent years. Challenges that Latinos face include poverty, lack of English language and literacy skills and the concomitant difficulty of gaining access to services and finding employment. Many of the Latinos in Oregon come from poor, rural areas of Mexico and Central America, where there are low levels of formal education and deep-seated distrust of government and government services. Many Latinos may be unfamiliar with the social and economic institutions of modern, urban society in the United States and they confront barriers to health care, housing, legal services, and steady employment. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 16

17 Race Latino or Hispanic Some Other Race American Indian & Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Two or More Races Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander Ethnic Population Largest Population Population Largest Percent of Population Percent Multnomah Hood River 26.3 Marion Morrow* 24.4 Clackamas 26,284 Marion 22.0 Lane Umatilla 18.9 Jackson 17,579 Jefferson 17.7 Washington 27,992 Morrow* 19.5 Multnomah 26,620 Malheur 12.2 Marion 20,464 Umatilla 10.7 Clackamas 7,699 Yamhill 7.1 Umatilla 7,529 Marion 6.6 Yamhill 6,823 Washington 5.4 Multnomah 12,409 Jefferson 13.6 Marion 10,519 Wasco 5.0 Washington 9,606 Harney* 4.2 Lane 5,359 Hood River 3.7 Jefferson 2,777 Klamath 3.5 Clackamas 2,666 Marion 3.4 Washington 42,214 Washington 8.1 Multnomah 37,638 Multnomah 5.7 Lane 9,205 Benton 4.5 Clackamas 8,292 Hood River 3.3 Marion 5,971 Lane 2.7 Benton 3,506 Clackamas 2.5 Multnomah 37,434 Multnomah 5.7 Washington 8,698 Washington 1.7 Lane 3,567 Lane 1.0 Marion 2,904 Malheur 1.0 Clackamas 2,233 Marion 0.9 Jackson 979 Benton 0.8 Multnomah 26,864 Malheur 5.7 Washington 17,427 Jefferson 5.4 Clackamas 13,075 Klamath 4.3 Lane 10,976 Multnomah 4.1 Marion 10,584 Clackamas 3.5 Jackson 6,314 Clatsop 3.5 Multnomah 2,320 Union 0.8 Washington 1,718 Marion 0.5 Marion 1,511 Multnomah 0.4 Lane 644 Lincoln 0.4 Clackamas 569 Washington 0.3 Jackson 235 Jefferson 0.3 Race designations are taken verbatim from the US Census Bureau. * The American Community Survey (ACS) three-year estimates for 2009 are only available for geographic areas with a population of 20,000 or more. Counties marked with * display data from Census Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 17

18 Despite modest numbers, some of Oregon s rural and frontier counties such as Hood River, Morrow, and Malheur have proportions of greater than 20% of their county populations comprised of Latino or Hispanic and/or non-english speakers. Additionally, the Census Bureau estimates that 12.1% of the population aged five or greater in Oregon speak a language other than English at home. Language Other Than English County Language other than English - Greatest Numbers County Language other than English - Percent of Population Multnomah 121,947 Hood River 24.7 Washington 109,706 Marion 23.5 Marion 67,236 Morrow* 23.3 Clackamas 40,008 Washington 22.8 Lane 33,438 Malheur 22.4 Jackson 15,863 Jefferson 19.0 Yamhill 12,465 Multnomah 18.7 Umatilla 11,351 United States 17.9 Deschutes 8,986 Umatilla 16.7 Benton 8,570 Yamhill 13.9 Malheur 6,451 Oregon State 12.1 Linn 6,283 Clackamas 11.3 Polk 5,814 Benton 11.1 Klamath 4,684 Wasco 10.5 Hood River 4678 Lane 10.3 Douglas 3,900 Polk 10.0 Jefferson 3,354 Jackson 8.5 Josephine 3,265 Klamath 8.1 Clatsop 2,823 Clatsop 8.0 Coos 2689 Sherman* 8.0 Lincoln 2,420 Tillamook 6.3 Morrow* 2,348 Crook 6.3 Wasco 2,332 Deschutes 6.2 Columbia 1575 Harney* 6.0 Tillamook 1,450 Linn 5.9 Crook 1124 Lincoln 5.7 Curry 1092 Curry 5.4 Union 1,027 Lake* 4.8 Baker 629 Coos 4.5 Harney* 429 Union 4.5 Lake* 339 Josephine 4.2 Grant* 211 Wheeler* 4.2 Wallowa* 170 Douglas 4.0 Sherman* 146 Baker 4.0 Wheeler* 62 Columbia 3.9 Gilliam* 58 Gilliam* 3.2 * The American Community Survey (ACS) three-year estimates for 2009 are only available for geographic areas with a population of 20,000 or more. Counties marked with * display data from Census Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 18

19 There are nine federally recognized tribes in Oregon: the Burns Paiute Tribe; the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw; the Coquille Tribe; the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians; the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde; the Klamath Tribes; the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz; the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. Each of these sovereign nations has its own history, culture, lands, treaty rights, governmental structure, membership requirements, court system and criminal jurisdiction. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 45,211 persons self identified as Native American in Oregon, but the Oregon Legislative Commission on Indian Services records a total enrollment of the nine tribes at 24,208 in Oregon Indian Communities Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 19

20 Considerable research has been conducted to determine whether ethnicity, race, or being a non- English speaker are socio-economic factors for abuse. Generally, the findings are that they are not factors that put an individual at greater risk of being a victim of domestic or sexual violence except when combined with poverty, with the exception of Native Americans. However, they do affect victims ability to access needed services. Similarly, for victims who speak a language other than English or do not speak English well, access to services can be difficult. Statewide, the median household income is $49,863 with 13.4% of the population living below poverty. By state designation, 34 of Oregon s 36 counties are economically distressed. All ten frontier counties are among these counties and the additional hardship of great physical distances between residents and services adds to the economic challenges. Seventy two percent of Oregon counties have a poverty rate greater than the average for the United States. The most populous counties face the challenges that come with population density: the greatest numerical concentrations occur in the most populous and urban areas, with some of the highest densities in Multnomah, Washington, and Marion counties. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 20

21 County Number of People in Poverty - Greatest Numbers People in Poverty County Number of People in Poverty - Percent of Population Multnomah 104,922 Jefferson 20.7 Lane 53,838 Benton 18.5 Washington 48,878 Josephine 18.2 Marion 48,085 Tillamook 17.6 Clackamas 33,788 Lincoln 16.8 Jackson 26,849 Wasco 16.7 Linn 16,962 Union 16.5 Benton 14,992 Klamath 16.3 Josephine 14,758 Lake* 16.1 Douglas 14,552 Umatilla 16.0 Yamhill 12,957 Lane 15.7 Umatilla 11,720 Wheeler* 15.6 Klamath 10,797 Marion 15.5 Deschutes 9,836 Curry 15.3 Coos 9,592 Coos 15.1 Polk 8,914 Multnomah 15.0 Lincoln 7,687 Linn 15.0 Malheur 4,547 Morrow* 14.8 Clatsop 4,540 Malheur 14.7 Tillamook 4,391 Baker 14.7 Jefferson 4,224 Sherman* 14.6 Union 4,077 Douglas 14.0 Columbia 4,005 Wallowa* 14.0 Wasco 3,954 Grant* 13.7 Curry 3,326 Jackson 13.5 Crook 2,849 Yamhill 13.5 Hood River 2,533 Oregon 13.5 Baker 2,407 U.S Morrow* 1,617 Crook 12.5 Lake* 1,184 Clatsop 12.2 Grant* 1,169 Polk 11.9 Wallowa* 1,002 Hood River 11.9 Harney* 875 Harney* 11.8 Sherman* 280 Washington 9.4 Wheeler* 239 Deschutes 9.4 Gilliam* 173 Gilliam* 9.1 Clackamas 9.0 Columbia 8.2 * The American Community Survey (ACS) three-year estimates for 2009 are only available for geographic areas with a population of 20,000 or more. Counties marked with * display data from Census Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 21

22 Increases in poverty may be linked to the high statewide unemployment rate: 75% of Oregon counties have a higher rate of unemployment than the national average. Oregon Unemployment Rates by County Unemployment rate - Seasonally Adjusted June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 Crook County 16.30% 18.40% 17.50% Harney County 15.30% 16.50% 16.00% Grant County 14.10% 14.80% 15.40% Douglas County 14.20% 15.60% 15.00% Jefferson County 13.40% 15.10% 15.00% Deschutes County 14.10% 15.40% 14.70% Josephine County 13.80% 14.60% 14.30% Lake County 13.80% 12.50% 14.20% Linn County 12.70% 14.00% 13.50% Klamath County 12.80% 14.60% 13.40% Curry County 12.90% 14.00% 13.10% Coos County 12.40% 13.10% 12.80% Jackson County 12.00% 12.80% 12.80% Wallowa County 13.30% 13.00% 12.20% Malheur County 10.30% 11.00% 11.80% Columbia County 11.60% 13.50% 11.70% Wheeler County 10.80% 9.60% 11.60% Marion County 10.80% 10.90% 11.10% Lane County 10.60% 12.10% 10.70% Oregon 10.50% 11.40% 10.60% Yamhill County 10.40% 11.10% 10.60% Lincoln County 10.90% 10.50% 10.50% Union County 10.00% 11.20% 10.00% Baker County 9.80% 10.60% 9.90% Clackamas County 9.60% 10.60% 9.90% Multnomah County 9.50% 10.80% 9.90% Umatilla County 9.70% 9.20% 9.90% Tillamook County 9.40% 9.50% 9.80% U.S. 9.50% 9.40% 9.60% Polk County 8.20% 9.00% 9.30% Wasco County 9.60% 9.10% 9.30% Clatsop County 8.80% 9.30% 9.20% Washington County 8.40% 9.60% 8.90% Sherman County 8.10% 8.00% 8.50% Morrow County 8.70% 9.30% 8.30% Hood River County 7.90% 8.10% 7.90% Benton County 7.00% 8.30% 7.10% Gilliam County 6.60% 7.30% 6.00% Source: Oregon Employment Department Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 22

23 The county unemployment rates for August and the state rate for September were released October 18, 2010, and there is no improvement predicted. The state unemployment rate has remained steady and essentially unchanged for the past year with rates between 10.5 and 10.7 percent. Additionally, the Legislature will be faced with cutting more than $3.2 billion from the state budget in the next biennium beginning July 1, 2011 in order to address a significant budget deficit. Further cuts to programs and services throughout the state will inevitably result in higher rates of poverty and unemployment. As reported in the Oregonian in September 2010: Without a fundamental change in state spending habits, Oregonians can expect a decade of big, paralyzing gaps between the demand for services and the money to pay for them. Here's just one example of the state's fiscal dilemma: Even as agency heads are looking for ways to cut spending, the Oregon Department of Human Services calculates it will need an additional $1.8 billion in because of the rising tide of hard-hit families seeking state aid, an end to the flow of federal stimulus dollars and scheduled raises in staff pay and benefits. To put that number in perspective, the total new money he state expects to receive over the next two years to invest in schools, police and all other programs is only $1.6 billion. C. Indian Country Jurisdictional Framework Although the VAWA Advisory Board has identified collaboration with tribal nations to provide services to Indian victims and survivors, response on tribal lands is complicated by the jurisdictional framework in Oregon. According to information published by the Oregon Legislative Commission on Indian Services in the Oregon Blue Book, about 875,000 acres, or 1.4 percent of land within Oregon, are held in trust by the federal government or are designated reservation lands. Generally, the state does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Indians on tribal lands. However, in the 1950's, Public Law 280 extended state jurisdiction to all Indian country in Oregon except the Warm Springs Reservation, "over offenses committed by or against Indians." Since that time, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Burns-Paiute Tribe have obtained exemptions from Public Law 280 through "retrocession." However, Public Law 280 applies on lands of the other six Oregon tribes. Public Law 280 did not, however, divest tribes of concurrent jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians. The nine Oregon tribes also differ in terms of law enforcement and tribal court infrastructure. Tribal nations may have long-established tribal courts or have courts that are recently expanding their jurisdiction; may have their own police forces or rely exclusively on local law enforcement or on contracts with local law enforcement; may have local law enforcement personnel deputized by county sheriffs or may not be able to reach agreements with local law enforcement. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 23

24 D. Crime Statistics Local law enforcement agencies report offenses and arrests for crimes in Oregon to the Oregon State Police Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS). The crime data information is compiled using the Index Crime Rate, an official scale of measurement used nationally, and summarized and published annually. It is important to note that law enforcement data in Oregon depends on victims reporting crimes, and domestic and sexual violence crimes are widely considered to be under-reported. Additionally, there is a clear need within the state for enhanced specificity for collecting data. The following table illustrates crime data from the Index Crime Rate and Oregon specific Oregon measurements for Other Sex Offenses and Simple Assault. Notably, the data shows the majority of adult sex crime victims to be women (70.5%). Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 24

25 January 1 - December 31, 2008 Reported Offenses and Arrests - Crimes Against Persons (Criminal offenses where the victim is present and the act is violent, threatening, or has the potential of being physically harmful) Crimes Against Persons Reported Offenses Arrests Rate per 10,000 Homicide* Rape* 1, Other Sex Offenses Includes Non-Forcible Rape, Contributing to Sexual Delinquency, Physical Molestation, Obscene Phone Call, Incest, Exposure, Forcible Sodomy, Non- Forcible Sodomy, Other Sex Crimes 6,243 1, Aggravated Assault* Includes Attempted Murder 6,610 3, Simple Assault 22,835 15, *Crimes listed on the Index Crime Rate Other Sex Crimes by Type Type Reported Offenses Arrests Non-Forcible Rape Contributing to Sexual Delinquency Physical Molestation Obscene Phone Call Incest 74 8 Exposure Forcible Sodomy Non-Forcible Sodomy Other Sex Crimes Total ,785 Rate per 10, Domestic Disturbances Statewide 2009 Type Reported Offenses Arrests Rate per 10,000 Homicide Rape Aggravated Assault Simple Assault , Other Sex Crime Disorderly Conduct , Trespassing Criminal Threat Restraining Order Violation Total Source: Oregon Uniform Crime reports, Law Enforcement Data System, Oregon Department of State Police Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 25

26 The Oregon Judicial Department annually records the number of case filings in the 27 circuit courts throughout the state. In 2009, there were 11,303 restraining orders filed in accordance with the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA); 1,054 restraining orders filed in accordance with the Elder Abuse Prevention Act (EPPDAPA); and 2,200 civil stalking orders filed. Current data from LEDS regarding restraining order violations and subsequent arrests is unavailable due to budget reductions and it is unlikely that the data will be produced through The 2005 data shows that 2,620 restraining order violations were reported and arrests were made for 1,331 (50.8%) of the violations. These cases do not include data for the three tribes which are exempt from Public Law 280, but the remaining six tribes are included in the figures. The following table illustrates the five year trend of stalking, FAPA and EPPDAPA cases filed according to the Oregon Judicial Department: Civil Stalking FAPA* EPPDAPA* ,105 13, ,086 12, ,100 11, ,954 11, ,200 11,303 1,054 Source: Oregon Judicial Department. Cases Filed Statewide January 1 - December 31, 2008 *FAPA is Family Abuse Protection Act order; EPPDAPA is Elderly/Disabled persons Abuse Prevention Act orders. The Oregon Department of Human Services, Children, Adults and Families collects data from 47 private, non-profit domestic violence and sexual assault programs in Oregon, and the majority of these receive STOP VAWA funding. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of crisis calls made by survivors of sexual and domestic violence increased by 66%. In 2009, the programs accepted almost 166,000 calls on domestic violence, sexual assault and/or stalking and provided emergency shelter to 5,166 adults and children, for 112,515 nights. DHS reported that 19,506 requests for emergency shelter went unmet in 2009 due to a lack of space and resources. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of requests for unmet emergency shelter needs increased 44%, from 8,546 to 19,506. Local and state service providers rely on the research conducted by the Oregon Department of Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology as a primary source of information on intimate partner violence. In 2008, homicide accounted for 12% of all violent deaths (742) in Oregon; of the 12% (92 deaths by homicide), 13 were intimate partner violence related. In 2008, there were an additional five events of homicide-suicide that resulted in 10 deaths; of these deaths, nearly 80% of the victims were killed by an intimate partner or family member and more than half were killed by their current or former spouse or boyfriend. Complete crime statistics are not available from tribal nations due to varying jurisdictional reporting issues. In 1999 US Department of Justice American Indians and Crime report stated that although American Indians experience about the same rate of intimate partner and family Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 26

27 violence as all victims of violence, Indian victims are more likely than others to be injured and need hospital care. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey support that non-white women and men have higher reports of intimate partner violence than their white peers and, in general, American Indian/Native Alaskan women report significantly higher rates of intimate partner violence than do women of other racial backgrounds. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 27

28 From 2003 to 2008, there were a total of 83 deaths in Oregon as a result of intimate partner homicide. The following table illustrates the victims by sex and the method of homicide: Data Collected in Oregon Method Female Victim Male Victim Total Firearm Sharp Instrument Hanging, Strangulation, Suffocation Blunt Instrument Personal Weapons (fist, feet, hands) Fire or Burns Motor Vehicle Unknown Total Source: Oregon Department of Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, Violent Deaths in Oregon: 2008 The incidents of domestic violence increased significantly since January 2009, in total 66 victims have died as a result of intimate partner homicide. The following table was compiled by a Multnomah County domestic violence advocate using various newspapers throughout the state. It was created to provide a glance at the increasing number of domestic fatalities taking place in Oregon and is not intended as an official report Domestic Violence Related Deaths & Attempted Murders in Oregon 2009 Victim Deaths 28 (includes 4 minors) 2009 Perpetrator Deaths 18 (includes 17 suicides) 2009 Total Deaths (to date) Victim Deaths 2010 (to date) Perpetrator Deaths 2010 Total Deaths (as of 10/13/2010 Source: Multnomah County Family Violence Coordinator's Office 38 (includes 4 minors) 15 (includes 12 suicides) 53 In November 2009; in total, 18 people lost their lives in less than 30 days. Along with seven women, two young children were shot and killed along with their mothers, and an adult son died trying to protect his mother. All eight male perpetrators committed suicide. In every case, the murder weapon was a gun. This pattern appears to be following a national trend with many states reporting significant increases in domestic violence deaths. A spokesperson for the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) says, distress from the economy doesn t create batterers but has caused a dramatic increase in both frequency and severity in all corners of the country. It s like pouring gasoline on a fire. The economy doesn t cause it but it can make it worse. Furthermore, a weak economy limits options for survivors to seek safety or escape. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 28

29 Sybil Hebb, a VAWA Advisory Board member from the Oregon Law Center and the Alliance to End Violence Against Women, contributed to an article that noted several other compelling issues: Shelter and safety services are not adequately funded to meet the need. Child welfare intervention must be coordinated with domestic violence services Domestic violence doesn t stay at home when its victims go to work. Guns in the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence are a deadly combination. Governor Ted Kulongoski convened a group of leaders in law enforcement, advocacy and social services in January 2010 to provide a statewide critical review of each DV homicide case by a multidisciplinary group to provide increased safety to victims. According to 2004 survey of over 85,000 Oregon women, one in ten aged had experienced physical and/or sexual assault by an intimate partner in the preceding five years. The study found that about one-fourth of physical assault victims and one-fifth of sexual assault victims obtained a restraining order against the intimate partner who assaulted them. Most women who experienced IPV did not report the most recent incident to the police. The National Violence Against Women Survey found that one in six women experiences rape at some time in her life, while 25% of women and 7.5% of men have been victims of domestic violence in their lifetime. In One in Six Rape in Oregon: A Report to the State, researchers conservatively estimated the prevalence of forcible rape over the course of an Oregon woman s lifetime at 17.5%. The data and surveys reveal domestic and sexual violence as severe problems in our society and to the citizens of Oregon. According to a 2002 AGSATF report, system-level improvements are needed to improve the ability of professionals to serve victims. These improvements include increased funding for services, more and better training for professionals who serve victims, and increased community coordination for improved response. In addition, the top five barriers professionals perceive to be faced by victims are fear of reporting, lack of coordinated response, language, lack of effective response, and culture. CVSD and the VAWA Advisory Board intend to use STOP VAWA Formula Grant Program funds to address what has been identified in this section and attempt to provide professionals adequate resources and training to serve victims. To address the growing need for domestic violence prosecution and expertise and training opportunity, Attorney General John Kroger used STOP VAWA Program grant funds in March 2010 to hire a Domestic Violence Resource Prosecutor (DVRP), Erin Greenawald. Ms. Greenawald s position is based on a national model and offers support to all 36 prosecuting attorney s offices in Oregon, law enforcement agencies, and service providers by providing training, technical assistance and legal expertise. She assists local DAs in the prosecution of complex domestic violence cases and develops training materials, best-practice policies and other publications to improve the identification, investigation and prosecution of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 29

30 Since assuming the DVRP position, Ms. Greenawald has noted: Twenty of the 36 counties have a dedicated Domestic Violence prosecutor position or have appointed a liaison attorney from the DA's office to appear in the respective county's DV Court. Counties are using varying models for their DV courts: Deschutes County has a "Deferred Sentencing" court; defendants who are allowed the benefit of pleading guilty without adjudication on a DV case are monitored through this court. However, Lincoln and Linn counties have a more extensive DV court model; misdemeanants convicted of certain DV crimes are strictly supervised and monitored by the counties' DV court judge and appointed probation officer. The DVRP also administers the Statewide Domestic Violence Training Project for Law Enforcement and Prosecution (See Appendix H, page X). A portion of this project is funded with 2006 re-obligated funds as described on page X. To date, the DVRP has provided Domestic Violence training to 133 members of Oregon law enforcement, 47 prosecutors, 35 DV advocates, and 7 other professionals. There have been 75 different state agencies and/or organizations that have received training through this project. Additional trainings are scheduled through June 30, E. State Violence Against Women Laws or Policies Directly Impacting the Implementation Plan The Oregon State Legislative Assembly, which convenes every two years, adjourned sine die July 10, Advocates for improved responses to violence against women achieved several legislative victories as described below: HB 2343: **AGSATF Priority Bill** Definition of Mental Incapacitation in Sexual Assault Crimes: Under current law, there is less accountability for a perpetrator who assaults a victim who is mentally incapacitated and unable to consent due to voluntary intoxication, than there is for a perpetrator who assaults a victim whose mental incapacitation is due to involuntary intoxication. This bill changes the definition of mental incapacitation for purposes of Oregon s sexual assault laws to include any incapacitation that results in the victim s inability to consent. The bill, at long last, removes the question of how a person who is assaulted became incapacitated, and focuses instead on the person s ability to consent to sexual activity and the defendant s knowledge of that state of mental incapacity. The bill was effective January 1, HB 2874 and SB 233: Crime Victim s Rights: HB 2874 provides crime victims with the right to a speedy trial. Currently, defendants in criminal cases have this right, but not victims. HB 2874 grants victims this right and creates a procedure for asserting that right. The remedy for violating this provision is to have a trial set with all practicable speed. However, a victim s right to speedy disposition of the case does not supersede a defendant s constitutional right to due process. Effective January 1, Oregon Department of Justice, Crime Victims Services Division Page 30