SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE COMMISSION
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT/ANNUAL REPORT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Meeting Date: August 29,
2002 11:00 AM
Location: Commission for the
prevention of violence against women (CPVAW)
915 Cedar Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1. Call to Order
Meeting was called to order at 11:08 a.m. Committee members present: Linda Starn,
Laurie McWhorter (Chair), Alan Hiromura (Vice Chair) and David Rabow. Kim Austin and Paula Gammell notified the
chair they could not be present.
2. Additions or deletions to Agenda
None
3. Oral communications from the community
None
4. Approval of the August 14, 2002 Minutes
Linda Starn/Alan Hiromura/unanimous
5. Draft a letter
Draft letter submitted by David Rabow. Motion to have Rabow complete letter and
prepare for distribution on DV Commission letterhead. Alan Hiromura/Linda Starn/Unanimous
6. Continued review of each question in
the Overview Report
Starting with Task 2, letter B. The criteria set out in the August 14th
minutes for Task 2A should be the same for 2B.
Discussion about cases sent for review to DAO vs
those sent requesting criminal charges.
Agreement that only those sent requesting prosecution will be
counted. This will allow consistency
over time and agency. The DAO will track
the total number of cases referred for prosecution.
Discussion regarding the DAO tracking
ethnicity. Potential problems raised
because not currently tracked and a criteria that DA's do not consider.
Recognition by committee for the need to clarify
that for "language" we mean the language of both the defendant and
the victim. This needs to be specified
in the law enforcement section as well.
A discussion was had that a template data collection
tool is needed so that the method of obtaining the information is ready to be
input into spreadsheet/database program.
This needs to be created and sent to all agencies responsible for data
collection.
Definition for DAO of "Month" is the day
the case is opened by the DA's office.
The committee will need a glossary
defining all terms.
Discussion regarding obtaining data on reasons for
not filing. Given the privileged work
product aspect, the difficulty, lack of specificity and inconsistency which
surrounds this issue, it was agreed this information would not be sought.
Third bullet (prosecution v. file only). Unclear, deleted at this time.
Fourth bullet (TRO violations). This is not a separate category but led to a
discussion on how the information would ideally be organized. It is hoped for that the information will be
identified by the penal code section for which the law enforcement agency is
seeking prosecution. If the person was
arrested was it a felony or misdo? Then
what charges were filed by the DAO and was that felony or misdo?
There is a concern that the more complex this
becomes the less accessible and useful.
A long discussion was had about the difficulty in
classifying something as merely a conviction, without specifying what was
charged and what the person was ultimately convicted of. A concern was raised about simply providing
the number of convictions for each type of charge because it will not be clear
what the data means. EX. Data shows 200 PC 243(e) cases filed and 200
PC 243(e) convictions. It could be that
all cases that were filed as PC 243(e) did not result in any conviction but
that other cases, PC 273.5, did result in that conviction. Ultimately it is anticipated that if the
courts can provide the number of each charge that was filed and convicted and
dismissed, this will provide the most accurate picture given the difficulties
of tracking each case.
The idea was presented that upon compilation of the
data for the annual report, the information would be provided to the heads of
the agencies providing the data for comments to be submitted to the commission
if desired. This would allow
explanations to potentially be included.
7. Announcements - None
8. Next meeting scheduled 9/3/02 from 9-11 AM at CPVAW
9. Members made closing remarks
10. Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 P.M.