1) The City s governance and oversight of Domestic Violence services and programs, to facilitate coordination among various entities;

Transcription

1 SUMMARY Domestic Violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. While Domestic Violence is usually associated with physical violence, it can take many forms, and may include sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological violence. Domestic Violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels and occurs in both opposite-sex and samesex relationships. The personal suffering endured by Domestic Violence victims is incalculable. While some consider Domestic Violence a private issue, the implications and costs are a public problem. It affects those who are abused, and also has a substantial impact on family members, friends, co-workers, other witnesses, and the community at large. Although Domestic Violence is significantly underreported in general, it can be reported by calling In these cases, Police Officers respond and complete an Investigative Report if there is evidence a crime was committed. After an investigation is conducted, perpetrators may be arrested and ultimately convicted. Some victims may receive supportive services, such as victim assistance, advocacy and/or emergency or transitional shelter. In the City of Los Angeles, Police Officers respond to an average of 48,088 calls for service related to Domestic Violence (DV) each year - an average of 131 calls every day. The most tragic incidents result in death; on average, 10 people are killed in Los Angeles Domestic Violence-related incidents each year. Currently, five City entities are included in providing Domestic Violence services or overseeing Community-Based Organizations that administer Domestic Violence services on behalf of the City. These include the Los Angeles Police Department, the City Attorney s Office, the Mayor s Office of Public Safety, the Housing and Community Investment Department, and the Domestic Violence Task Force. The Task Force was created by City Council in 1994 and its members, staff from the aforementioned entities, meet monthly. The role of the Task Force is to assist City officials in developing and coordinating Domestic Violence programs and to make recommendations to the City Council on policies related to Domestic Violence. City government alone cannot solve Domestic Violence; but at a minimum the City can lay the groundwork for a comprehensive service delivery system, and support a cultural shift in attitudes that Domestic Violence will not be tolerated. This effort requires cooperation from the entire community: government, educational institutions, healthcare organizations, non-profit and the private sector. Although, even with significant resources, and constant diligence, this change will take several years- perhaps a generation, to fully realize. While there are many agencies that provide various types of Domestic Violence services throughout the City, this audit sought to evaluate the existing services and

2 processes funded by the City of Los Angeles government. Specifically, we reviewed the City-sponsored prevention and intervention efforts, City funding of Domestic Violence services and programs, coordination among City agencies, and the City s data collection and reporting of Domestic Violence crimes. The recommendations in this report offer a framework to address the shortcomings in the City s efforts to combat Domestic Violence that were identified during audit fieldwork. The audit scope covered activities over a five-year period through June 30, Events subsequent to our audit scope are addressed where appropriate. Overall Assessment During the audit period, we noted the Domestic Violence services funded by the City of Los Angeles were disjointed and inconsistent and did not include all of the elements of a successful DV Program. Funding for DV services and programs was limited and the City did not fund or sponsor any targeted prevention programs. Based on our review, there are five components key to ensuring the City has a holistic Domestic Violence service delivery system. City stakeholders should embrace improvements related to: 1) The City s governance and oversight of Domestic Violence services and programs, to facilitate coordination among various entities; 2) Improving Domestic Violence data collection and reporting; 3) Dedicating funding to Domestic Violence response (including investigation and prosecution of DV crimes) and supportive services for DV victims and survivors; 4) Consistent Domestic Violence intervention services, and; 5) Developing Domestic Violence prevention programs. City stakeholders must recognize that these components are deeply intertwined, and cannot be addressed individually. To have an effective Domestic Violence service delivery model, each component must be strong. Effective Governance and Oversight The City would benefit from a single entity that is empowered to coordinate City funded DV prevention and intervention services and programs. The City s DV Task Force does not have authority to require coordination across the various City entities that provide DV services, nor does it have the capacity to influence funding or to guide DV data collection and reporting efforts. As a result, the City lacks a mechanism to ensure that the various departments/offices that serve victims of Domestic Violence are working toward the same goals, evaluate outcomes and continuously improve. Our benchmarking found that San Francisco and New York have a strong infrastructure for Domestic Violence governance. While they administer DV services differently, both have Offices dedicated to coordinating the City s overall DV strategy and overseeing

3 services and programs. These Offices were established when residents voted to revise their respective City Charters to include Offices dedicated to addressing Domestic Violence. Data Collection and Reporting The DV data collected by City entities and other service providers that provide DV services was not standardized, limiting the City s ability to track outcomes or repeat occurrences for both DV perpetrators and DV victims. The Los Angeles Police Department did not track the DV incident data in a consistent manner and based on our analysis, the LAPD was miscategorizing DV-related assaults by an average of 27% from 2009 thru Further, DV data and statistics were not formally reported to the public. For example, the City did not release an annual report that details DV crime statistics and trends that could help raise public awareness and evaluate service efforts. Inadequate Funding During the audit period, City funding decreased for Domestic Violence supportive services, but the number of DV calls for service remained relatively stable. When the DV Task Force was created in 1994, the City Council originally directed the City to allocate $5 million to DV shelters each year. However, over the last six years, the City allocated an average of $2.5 million. Funding decreased by 24% from $2.9 million in FY to $2.2 million in FY Due to declining availability of federal entitlement grant funding, the City considered a further decrease to shelter funding by 50% for FY Subsequent to our fieldwork, an additional $1.1 million in General Fund monies was allocated to DV shelter operations in the FY City budget, keeping total shelter funding similar to prior year levels. The City also contracts with Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) that provide DV advocates to work with Police Officers responding to DV incidents. (These are referred to as the Domestic Abuse Response Teams or DARTs). Advocates provide information and services to address the emotional and practical needs of the victim, while Police Officers focus on apprehending the suspect. However, over the last five years, the funding allocated to the community-based organizations who provide Advocates fluctuated, from $455,000 to $853,452, which hindered the stability of the DART program. Subsequent to our fieldwork, the FY DART funding increased to $1,782,666. We compared the amount of funding other cities allocated to DV services and found that while Los Angeles spent $0.86 per capita on DV services, San Francisco spent $4.84 and New York spent approximately $ Even combining funds that both the City and County allocated to DV service delivery, for FY the per capita amount was the lowest in comparison to the other four cities surveyed. We also noted that the number of prosecutors who handled the most severe Domestic Violence misdemeanor cases decreased, while the number of those cases remained relatively stable. The number of cases reviewed by the City

4 Attorney s Family Violence Unit increased by 32 percent since 2009, from 2,835 cases to 3,729 cases in However, the number of attorneys assigned to the unit significantly decreased during the same period, from 17 attorneys in 2009 to 11 attorneys in 2013, and remained at 11 in Inconsistent Intervention Services During the audit period, Domestic Violence intervention services funded by the City were inconsistent throughout the City. As of Spring 2015, DART Teams worked in only ten of the 21 LAPD Stations. The City also had one Family Justice Center in the north central part of the City, which is one of 80 such Centers in the nation. The core concept of these centers is to provide a DV intervention model that employs the co-location of a multi-disciplinary team of professionals who work together, under one roof, to provide coordinated services to victims of family violence. This model allows victims to get assistance at one location for the many issues that stem from DV. During the audit period, we noted the sporadic placement of the DART teams and the existence of only one Family Justice Center meant DV victims received different City funded supportive services throughout the City. The type and level of DV intervention services received depended on where the victim lived. LAPD Detectives are responsible for investigating crime reports used to apprehend and charge the perpetrator. However, we found that the Detectives responsible for investigating DV crimes consistently missed the Department s internal investigation deadline of completing a case within thirty days. In 2014, Detectives missed the deadline for 17.7% of DV cases. Any delay in the investigative process may leave the victim exposed to another DV incident. Prevention Programs While several community-based organizations operating within the City administer prevention programs, the City government did not directly fund or sponsor any targeted prevention programs, during the audit period. The City had sponsored limited general prevention programs such as awareness campaigns; but no targeted prevention programs were in place. While DV occurs in every socioeconomic, age, race and religious group, the Center for Disease Control found that DV prevention programs should begin at an early age to stop the cycle. Thus, a recommended approach to a City funded DV prevention could target teens, and address teen dating violence. However, the City did not provide funding to CBOs that provide education or DV prevention curriculum to teens. Consequently, most City-funded programs were reactive, rather than proactive services that break the cycle of violence. While targeted prevention programs can be expensive to implement, by overlooking prevention, the City will continue to incur the more expensive public safety costs involved in responding to Domestic Violence calls and prosecuting cases.

5 III. Significant Recommendations City policymakers should re-examine the City s entire approach to combating Domestic Violence to ensure the City funded service delivery system is well coordinated and comprehensive to better meet the needs of DV victims, and also help prevent Domestic Violence. Specifically, policymakers should consider developing and implementing a service delivery system that includes targeted prevention programs, and an intervention program that includes: 1) Advocates who provide immediate crisis response to victims, and 2) Family Justice Centers, which would allow victims to get assistance at one location for the myriad of issues that stem from Domestic Violence. The City lacks the administrative infrastructure to develop and implement a revised Domestic Violence service delivery system; therefore, stakeholders must first determine the type of governing body that will be responsible for developing and overseeing it. Further, stakeholders need to ensure that the City s system is adequately funded and use accurate data to help determine How to best allocate resources. This report provides examples of how other cities govern and administer their DV services and programs, and describes a proposed framework to address Domestic Violence in the City in Section VI. Revising the City s Domestic Violence service delivery system will take a significant amount of support by City leaders, as well as financial resources and time. However, in order for the City to adequately meet the needs of DV victims and hold perpetrators accountable, stakeholders should implement the following recommendations as noted below. Governance and Oversight The Mayor and City Council should: Review the role, capacity and membership structure of the Domestic Violence Task Force, in consideration of an alternative governance and oversight model that will effectively implement the City s DV strategy. In the future, the City s restructured Domestic Violence governance body should: Continue to work with the Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council and identify opportunities to develop collaborative DV prevention and intervention programs that serve DV victims throughout the region. Ensure the existing DV services and programs are periodically evaluated in a comprehensive manner to determine how well they address victims needs, and ultimately reduce Domestic Violence in the City.

6 The Mayor should: Encourage City Departments that respond to or indirectly provide services to Domestic Violence victims, to be active participants on the City s current Domestic Violence Task Force. Data Collection and Reporting LAPD management should: Ensure the Data Integrity Unit continues to train Watch Commanders, Records Personnel, and Detectives at all 21 LAPD stations and applicable Specialized Divisions in the proper classification and coding of the Domestic Violence-related Crime Class and Modus Operandi codes. Include the Domestic Violence specific crimes in the Compstat reports issued by the Police Department. Work with the Task Force to design Domestic Violence statistics that could be used to spotlight the crime. Consider periodically auditing a sample of logged records in Daily Field Activity Reports, trace them back to an Investigative Report and ensure they were actually entered into the Consolidated Crime Analysis Database. The Mayor s Office, LAPD and the City Attorney s Office should: Identify the various data sources that collect demographic data related to perpetrators, and explore ways in which the data can be shared to inform how the City could target resources. The Mayor s Office and the Housing and Community Investment Department should: Explore the feasibility of a uniform application/intake process for all social services within the City s Domestic Violence service delivery system. Funding The Mayor and City Council should: Prioritize the identification of additional funding for Domestic Violence supportive services, including prevention, intervention (including prosecution) and victim assistance.

7 Continue to explore additional opportunities to leverage social service funding for Domestic Violence services and programs. Intervention Services The Mayor s Office should: Ensure a timely implementation process for the expanded DART teams, and evaluate the DART teams. Work with Community-Based Organizations and the Domestic Violence Task Force to consider developing a standard staffing model and intervention response protocols for the DARTs. Consider prior year outputs/outcomes, when allocating funding to communitybased organizations that provide DART Advocates, to ensure funding is in line with service levels, rather than awarding the same amount to each. In the future, the City s restructured Domestic Violence governance body should: Explore the feasibility of implementing Family Justice Centers, using a phased in approach, in other areas of the City. Identify the number and location of all current Domestic Violence intervention service providers to assess the City s capacity to provide additional Domestic Violence intervention services. LAPD management should: Continue to update the Detective Case Tracking System with the most current completion dates of cases, so that the average timeframes accurately reflect case durations. Rectify and eliminate the backlog due to administrative oversight of Detectives and continue to hold MAC Detectives accountable for meeting investigative timelines, by reviewing and discussing backlogs during the COMPSTAT meetings. Prevention Programs The Mayor and City Council should: Identify and secure funding that can be used to support targeted prevention programs that address Domestic Violence in specific populations. For examples, targeted prevention programs directly funded by the City could focus on: a) Youth programming and teen dating violence, and b) Programming sensitive to the cultural norms of specific demographic groups.

8 The restructured Domestic Violence governance body should work with the Housing and Community Investment Department to: Develop a Domestic Violence screening tool that can be administered by City employees who deliver services/programs directly to the public to help: a) Act as an awareness tool and b) Encourage reporting. IV. Review of Report On May 20, 2015, a draft of this report was provided to the Los Angeles Police Department, the City Attorney s Office and the Housing and Community Investment Department. We met with management and representatives at exit conferences held on June 4 and June 5, 2015, and we considered their comments and additional information they provided as we finalized this report.