we get a report? so the report comes to the hot line and there are two different situation and it could come in the regular business to a hot line as a report and, it could be >> if we decide that we are going to assign it and have it investigated we are going to have twot-hour response or a ten day upons, and in a ten day response or a immediate

response we go out and we go out and try to see the child within a two-hour period and so that can be situations where we will go out, and with the police are, and go to the scene, and it could be where the police may bring in the children to our child protection center, and because if the parents incapacitated or in cars rated and you do not have a care giver that child is brought in and that requires a immediate response. >> the ten day response, might be a situation where there is not, as urgent of a need and the child is in not in danger but we need to go out and investigate and find out what is happening. so if it comes in and goes to the investigations, what the investigations does, is fails to make a series of decisions, and they go out and the interview the child and the parents, and the contact and get the information from the police, and what they are looking at is, whether we are going to open up, this case, and make it an active case for

us and, there are two ways that a case can be opened and one is that we can work with the children in the home with the parents or we remove the children if there is a safety threat and i wanted to say on the dv cases that we work on the collaboration and, we have a contract with the center and, we have advocate that we can conduct with that can go out with us on cases that can follow up with the families after we have done our investigation or during the investigation and that person works with us, and to look at a not just from the cps but from the community perspective and provide the community engagement. and so, in that process, which often involves like i said the rilely center, we make the decision of whether we are going to keep a case open, and whether we are going to have the child in the home and out of the home >> and part of the mandate is

to have the least restrictive placement for children and so we try to keep the families together the least restrictive is with the parents and that is our goal, if the child can be safe and we want them to remain in the home, one of the and some of the tools that we use, and i know that, there is concerns in the community, about the rolls of cps and the people have talked about the distrust of cps based on a lot of the history and the things that we do is support and work with the family and keep the families together and one of the tools that we use is called structured decision making and it is trying to differentiate what are the immediate safety threats verses what are the general risks. >> fl safety threats are dangers that are immediate and what we are concerned about is a danger that is unmitigated and the risk is anding like alcohol abuse or homelessness or different things and that is not a danger but it is a concern and?

ing that we want to help the family with and we are not going to remove based on risk and we are going to move on a safety threat and i mentioned that it has to be an ununmitigated safety threats and there are threats that can be viet violence in the home and physical abuse and it can be around neglect and one of the things that we can look at is can we mitigate that safety threat, we are looking at protective capacity of parents and we are looking at whether that parent is going to take actions or measures that they need to keep that child safe. and the other thing is what interventions we can put in the home. supports from the families and from the community, and other types of interventions to keep that child safe, if we can mitigate that safety threat, we can leave them in the home and we create a safety plan and if something happens if a perpetrate error returns to a situation, what is that family

going to do, even if we have intervention to mitigate that can happen. >> but we try to kind things in place to keep the families together and at the same time keep the child safe. and there are cases where you have an unmitigated threat have you to remove the children and we focus on trying to reunify the children with that parent and usually like that will go through a court process and reunification, and the requirements will be set up around the uv and it can be getting the restraining, orders and getting support from the violence, and or going to a shelter and keeping the batterer out of the home and there are a number of things that we do around the dv trying to keep the children safe from

that our goal and our effort and we have a court that monitors us and we try to bring the child back into the home once the child is returned we monitor it for a period of time and work with the family to be sure that the parents continues to keep the child safe and if it is accessible and then we will close out the case. >> how many children are removed every year in san francisco? >> so, i just to give the general numbers we get 4,000 or 5,000, numbers and about 60 percent of those, so about 3,000 of those are actually invest gated, and in terms of removal of the children and that is probably around had 450 to 500 children, and some are returned quickly and so this can be returned in a matter of days and others that we work with over a family over a period of months or years. >> commissioner? >> yeah, what would rise to the level of removing children due to failure to protect.

>> we are looking at the domestic violence on that child, and the situations where the children are caught in the crossfire and their hit, by throwing objects and they use the shields that are carried out the fights, and we are also looking at situations where a child in a struggle may be targeted and we have had cases where a batterer threaten to kill a baby and put the hands around the baby's throat and they are actually caught into this and it is tied with the physical abuse and sexual abuse of that child in that home. there is a large, emotional impact and from whether it is from trauma or threat or in tim daysing, and a lot says that it is worse, than actually getting hit because of the child's imagination about it. and so the failure to protect, where we look at it, is we would set up a safety plan, and

say with a mom, around getting restraining, order and then, and keeping them out of the house holds. >> if having those set up either the mother is unwilling to do those things or they don't follow through and so we have a situation where you get a restrainingorder, order and our staff and see that coupled together and the child around and so it is brought in by the parent into that dangerous situation and, then we see that even though we set up a safety plan, the parent is not following through on that and putting that child in danger. >> how many of those cases do we have in san francisco >> in terms of, i don't have the numbers on like the failure to protect, probably in the cases, when we do our risk and safety assessments of about 20 percent of our cases, and it indicates that there is domestic violence involved, on a national level, that is

somewhere between 30 and 60 percent of the child welfare cases have db involved. >> that is the reason that the child is in the system and is being removed. >> and it can be, and if there is a and if there is a direct harm or threat to that child and usually it is in conjunction with the other neglect and abuse, and so sometimes when we are looking at why a child is in the system, there may be more than one count, and it could be physical or sexual abuse. so, one thing was a deep distrust and a misunderstanding or a valid understanding of family and child services responses and in particular, companies. and there is definitely a kasm and it is understandable for everybody who is a parent and a

call from cps or an advocate or working with someone who suffered domestic violence and that going to trigger a call, and there was a lot of discussion of how that could have a chilling effect and what we uncovered was really, a distrust of the services that are provided and so i would like to hear your response to that, and the agency's plans to work with them and moms and advocates to make sure that we have an obligate to the survivor and the victim of domestic violence and to everyone, our obligation is to everyone and it is important when we recognize the areas of distrust that they need to be lifted up and talked about, and given that that is coming up in this decision and what is your response and how can you address those concerns going forward. >> and so, along and there are different parts of... >> i know.

>> historically, there is a concern that the child protective services removes children and does not return children, in 20 years there has been a strong effort to do what we call family preservation and so it came and historically it came around with mainly the crack cocaine epidemic where a lot of children were removed and put in foster care and a lot of the children that are aged through the system, 15 years ago, the realization that we were bringing all of these kids in and they were not reunifying and we changed the philosophy a lot on the family preservation and we got the community resource and we looked internally and we built that into our practice and when i talked about the decision making and the differentiation between the safety and risk is trying to separate out the general risk concerns, verses, what is the real safety, and where do we really need to step

in. >> at what point does it rise to the threshold and it is not a historic level from 15 or 20 years ago wr, there could be a lot of variability in the threshold of when a child is removed. and one of the things around the domestic violence and some of paoement could speak to it, there is a green book initiative and that is where the child welfare system and domestic violence agencies as well as batter programs worked together to look at how as the systems we can work together and part of it is there are different philosophies and mandates of our system and in the child welfare, we are focused on the children and we have time lines to work with the familis if we remove the children and to return the children or to find permanentcy, and but our focus and i think that the main difference is that we are looking specifically at the child and with domestic

violence you are working with a parent and you have a different relationship with an adult and they are concerned with the children also, but there is a different relationship to the client and a different philosophy and a approach and the idea of the green book initiative was trying to cross that bridge between our system and figure out what is the common ground and how we can work together. and one of the things that came out of that was, how do we respond to the domestic violence, and cases, and probably about 8 or 9 years ago there was a focus on what they called differential response and i was looking at community responses rather than straight child welfare responses, and part of the response was working with the dv community, and so to this day, we have a contract with the rilely center to have an advocate, at a time and two advocates that work with our er staff and i mentioned that earlier and that can go out with the staff and conduct on cases, and that can

try to engage, that parent i think that going forward, we welcome to meet with the dv agencies and to be able to look at concerns that we have, but whether it is on a case level or a policy level and then to also, and i think that part of it is educating the public about what, or how do we make the decisions about trying to support the family and what type of cases do we need to remove the children and work on reunification. >> and okay. i am glad to hear, willingness to continue the conversation because part of what we have been talking about is this policy is talking about what a first responder does, and any time that we are uncovering, you know, violence in the home, and the people who are suffering, and talking about that, and talking about how we need to respond and how we need to continue to do bet and her get better results is an

important conversation to have and to keep having because it is a long haul to make sure that the systems respond to those who are the most vulnerable and certainly the children and the survivors of domestic violence are among the groups. thank you for being available and we might have more questions. >> i will be glad. >> okay. >> captain mcfaden? paragraph h, it is about the treatment and the injuries and the reports that are not there and that is the most important evidence going forward in any investigative case for domestic

violence, and and back to the protective court orders and the department changed the procedure for verifying the court orders by requiring that the members conduct the computer quirries on the party by using the department's computer data base to determine and confirm the specific terms of the order, and where we were in the old school it was not and we were not checking ourselves we were doing it through the different operation and now the officers go through them and we actually check to see if there are any existing orders by which to protect the victim. >> and page, seven also in the procedures, continued and the protective orders, urged the epo which we have been working

on forever, the department has a language that requires the member to provide the victims with a copy of the completed epo in english, and for the victims with the limited english, professioncy, the members shall also provide a blank copy in the appropriate language, and if available, and we also available, we have the translations in spanish, and vietnamese and korea, and they will document that the copy of the epos were given to the victims, and so, that has been a problem that we found, while we were in court, and in dealing with the woman's con sorcium and looking at some of the loop holes that they found in the cases were with the epos that what i teach is that, you issue the epo and you explain the conditions of that epo, and to the suspects so that he and you can testify in court that you explained it to him and he understood it and then if he violated later when it goes to court and we can shut down that

argument. >> and section three, page 12, and getting close to the end, thank god, in training, so training is the biggest issue that we have concerning the domestic violence, of course and so in the training we added that section, into our domestic violence general order. and recognition of the importance of the training in the areas of dv in recognition and prevention and investigation skills and family resource and advocacy organization and this includes talking about the shelter and about the epos, and about everything involved and so currently, we go above the post mandate of 14 hours of domestic violence training in the academy and we go toup 16 hours or more and i have held them over myself to get them through the simulation and what they have to do at the scenes of these db scenario and additionally in ao, the advanced officer training and any updates that are given through that and the inspector king teaches, and he goes up and we emphasize that those

areas, where they might need a little brush up or some of the things that we are starting to see in the court as investigators. and additionally with this, and if this general order goes through, it will be a roll call training, and a priority going out there and a priority general order that they have to sign-off for and get trained in it and it will be addressed immediately through the roll call training all facets of this. >> all right. and then, where the last minor thing in this, is on the end of it and so we used to have a section in there, and that was an old paragraph, section j and l and we took that out because we made the specific order for the officer involved db which is 6.20 which we set out to do which i know that our family violence advocates are very thrilled about. >> okay, any questions for the captain, and sergeant? >> okay, so i am going to take

a departure from our agenda, which is just to recognition that there are a number of advocates experts and people here who want to talk about this dgo and i know that my colleagues would like to hear them before we vote on it. and i will ask that we go to public comment and, i don't know if you want to say anything? >> i just really want to thank anybody that came together for this. i mean that it was absolutely a two year effort led by the good captain who was actually a lieutenant and rachel and the captain and just, everybody, is here i think, and tamaras and i think that she is back and yeah, there she is and just everybody pulled together, and on getting this done, and i know that they are still a little bit of concern over some of the notifications, but as the person who is going to be

standing there, should anything happen to a child it will just be me, and so i am telling you right now that just in good conscious, the officers have to have the clear direction, and i think that when you saw some of those horrific situations, and that are the only instances when a person is not arrested that a notification will be made that the discretion, is still with the parent to make the decision, who the care taker will be, just that the fcs will make the call on backgrounding that person, to determine that they were appropriate. and i know that it is in the member involved dv policy and i think that it is big and i think that we will make it, and my contact there and i know that president loftus and i have talked about it and as we do one of the biggest hires in the police department, and section, c of the very first section under the policy, and speaks to the applicants to the sf pd who have been convicted of a domestic violence, or the arelated offense shall not be considered for employment, and so i think that it is very

clear in here that you need not apply. and so, to add that, and come out in october, and the work that has been done, and two years or not, we are here tonight and i would ask you to support this general order. >> thanks, chief. >> and so, i am going to ask for any public comment on a line item 6:00, discussion and possible action to adopt. >> department general orders 6.09. >> come on up. >> good evening, commissioners. and my name is adell carpenter and i am the director of the san francisco youth commission and we thank you for your time this evening and the general order before you, represents a great deal of work that has been done, and behalf of the department and dv community advocates, and it will go a

long way in insuring consistent police responses to domestic violence calls and we are very happy about that, and other ways that the youth commission is in some what of a difficult position this evening, and on the one hand, we have been made aware by community members of several concerns regarding paragraph g and we share many of those concerns which were cited in the discussion owes far, regarding to referral to family and non-arrest situations in which the child was not the victim of a child and, on the other hand, we appreciate it. >> and we witness the commitment with the work together on the passage of an mou regarding the police work on the sfusd school campuses and our concerns are that we really want to be certain that the young people are assessed

for trauma and connected to the services that they need and not simply assessed for the parental fitness or for the dependentcy cases and then the other is that we see a need to have the data collection, methods and provisions in place as well as the officer training capacitis in place to be is that youer the policy has the intended impact and so not everyone here tonight will agree with us, but our position tonight is that we would like to not hold up the adoption of this order and support the passage tonight if the chief and the department can make commitments to three provisions that we think that will go a long way in insuring that this policy has intended impacts and youth commissioners are going to talk about what the three ideas are. >> what we would like to have is a clear data collection. and sharing capacity through

the establishment of a memo of understanding. with the sfcs and includes provisions for collecting data on sfpd and referrals including age, race, and ethnicity and language, and with an arrest was made, and out comes of scs and services provided the cases accepted for the investigation and placement and family reunification no the duties, and the mayors and the effective policies concerning the children in the use of san francisco. hello i am a youth member and the second point is to recommit the implementing training for the sferds working with

juveniles, and including recognizing and responding to trauma in juveniles which has been a priority for the youth, justice committee and the youth, commission since 2012. >> i am a mayor appointed on the commission and i am the chair of the youth commission and the third thing is that we just want to emphasize that the stakes concerning paragraph g are too high for the last time that this policy is reviewed we with like the chief to agree the data in six or 12 months to assess the policy for disproportionate impacts on communities of color and whether the intended out comes of linking youth people to trauma services have been met, with the commitment of revisiting the general order if necessary. >> they work with the fcs to be sure that once a child is referred that they receive the support services that they need. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, all, chief?

>> sure, commissioner, we have had the discussions about looking at this in six months, and to see where we are, and i think that it is too important to try to do it on the fly, in three minutes, and so i will commit to convenienting a group and we will make sure that the youth commission is included to look at those points that come up with an understanding that we will take and come up with the data collection and we will look at this thing in six months to see where we are. >> can you give an update on the trauma informed training that you are developing, which is my former employer. >> right, we are doing at the police academy, and with the center for the youth wellness, and i have actually been working with miss thuro, and to speak of the international association, and chiefs of police on our children arrested parents, general order that this commission, adopted, in may, and that she is trying to make a standard nationally. >> and this, again, to make sure that the children are not

retraumatize and they know that they are going to be safe and cared for, and reassured by that i parents that in the enstance that the parents will not be able to do that, that the officer will do that and again, make sure that they are left with the person that they are comfortable with. >> and in terms of the reviewing the data, i think that we have talked about this before is that i believe in six months that we need to come back and review where we are at and look at the impacts and so thank you all for your advocacy that is really important. >> i appreciate it. >> and camille? >> commissioners, thank you for letting me speak again, and very quickly. today, after i read the cops need new rules for children, i checked on the net, the agencies and advising the police department, outside of the city services. and just to get a bearing of what is going on here. and i think that the police

department needs rules that they can understand. and very simple rules, and 10 points and 12 points. and that a police officer will not get confused when he gets involved with the domestic violence and which is a problem and we don't want the children to be battered. but looking at the number of agencies, and non-profit and advising the police department in the city i am a little stunned, i can't find any information on any of these people. beverly upton there is no background on her, she is a business person she was in architect or a designer and decided to go into domestic violence. the quotes that they use on some of their agencies, come from somewhere unknown. rolang g, i don't think there are any other agency and a gem in the jewel for the familis for cathy baxter.

>> and i am not knocking them and i am just saying that we have no idea who these people are. and they are not non-profits that suck the money out of the city and they are there to create a greater bureaucracy as the domestic violence has been declining to some agree, but we are seeing more agencies pop up, almost everywhere. the fight domestic violence, or to promote brochure and documents to prevent the domestic violence, and i can read a few here under the san francisco domestic violence, council, there is 17, agencies. and the apa families support services and the asian pacific islander and the asian woman's shelter and the legal aid fund and the san francisco united against violence and the