You know the City of Philadelphia's budget, your boss, has a budget of $7 billion that's appropriated through Council, at least a discussion. Just letting you know. POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: I'm just giving you the cost.
I know. POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: I just was letting you know the cost involved with it. I mean, it is that technology and other technologies we're evaluating now that will make, potentially enable us to take those systems that you're describing, potentially create a database specifically around domestic. So we are walking through that process now to see what that looks like for us to purchase.
Any other states have the similar technology that you saw that has been very, very successful as a blueprint or best practice? POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: So it's an all encompassing database though. So it's not just domestic. The system takes all of the systems and then brings them into a space, depending on what you're looking to pull out. So if I put in Kevin Bethel, that would -- and everything, as long as we have access to the systems, the court system, any of those systems that we have permission can bring that information forward. So a detective sitting at the desk could hit a button or someone in the courtroom who wants to know what Kevin Bethel looks like, could hit that or my colleague here at Office of Victims Safety, if their team wanted to look at that, there's certain permissions you can have because of CHRIA and some of the limitations what they can see. So we are looking at technology that we think could help us in that process. In our interim though, we believe internally our team could develop something that could pull the domestics and those types of cases, particularly on the offender side, a little harder on the victim side, but particularly on the offender side. So we are looking at some technology that could be able to help us bring and harness this information and make it more expedient. And so, we're doing that, on that path now.
We will be willing to support it the same we supported the drones, so -- POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: It's an and, not an or.
It's an and. We won't make you pick. But in all seriousness, this is something in terms of us, I guess, being able to have our criminal justice system talk to one another in realtime, right. And it's so important that had we been talking to each other in realtime, there's a strong possibility, at least we could have been on the front end of taking a look at this particular issue. And so, if that means that's the investment that we need to do in the future to better our system, then we are willing as a group, as a body, to step up to the plate to make that happen regardless if it's 2 million or 10. POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: No, no. I just want to say thank you. I mean, this is the work, right. It's about the things that we need to get it done, to accomplish the job that we're tasked to do. And so, I just want to say I appreciate that statement because we do believe we have something. I've talked to Adam Geer about it. He saw it as well, and other team members saw it as well. We believe this is a product that could help us address the issues that were raised here, not just domestics though, but across the board as it relates to being very in tune in what's going on with particular individuals.
Thank you, Mr. President. Chair recognizes Member Harrity.
Thank you, Chairman Jones. Commissioner, thank you for coming in today. Actually, thank you to all of you. It takes a very special person to run towards the gunfire when everybody else is running away. So I hope you know all the respect I have for you guys. And very sorry for the loss of Officer Chan, one of our Philadelphia heroes for sure. Just talking about the links, it seems that what we've been hearing is as everything else, it's about the data and it's about being linked to each other so there's no blind spots, as we would say, right. As far as domestic violence cases, when an officer goes to an address for domestic violence, right, and they go in there, because we've had the question asked before, because if something's pending, it's not a charge, right? You can't use that against them because there's no, you know what I'm saying, pending case or something like that. But is there a way that we can look into, say, Women Against Abuse system to see, all right, we're here today for domestic abuse for this guy. Look in the computer, all right, the Women Against Abuse says that this guy's been in three times, but every time the complainant didn't press charges, but it's still there because that's a history. That's what I'm trying to get at. How do we stop things from falling through the cracks? Because especially with domestic abuse, there's always a history of it, whether it's a history with the person that's being abused right now or if it's a prior history of abuse. Now, knowing the court system, that might have been dropped as we say, or hadn't been followed up because the couple agreed to stay away from it, they broke up, they finally got their thing to separate, whatever. But we should be able to see in realtime, like, this guy's been accused four times. That means that we got to take this a little serious. Even if he might not have been convicted those four times, the charges may have been dropped for whatever reason that is, we can see that through the computer that this guy has -- this isn't the first time he's been brought up on this stuff. He's most likely done it before and gotten away with it because for whatever reason they decided to not see each other or not go around each other anymore. But the fact of the matter is, what happens is what happens in this case where this guy was in on another case, his case wasn't even going through the system yet, and here he goes again with another case. How do we stop those blind spots? How do we get this information? And everybody, because the courts and police and the district attorney coordinating too is great. But for me, Women Against Abuse, that's the front line. That's the boots on the ground, the first people they see when they're coming to get help. I want their information because they know they have a record. It might not be, you know, complete, but they have something. They can say, hey, listen, this person's been in here numerous times, nobody just didn't press any charges on him. POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: So I think walking backwards, and as it relates to coming to the courts, they have that. When they come in, they have that information in front of them. They can go into the system and see everything you described. Whether the person has been arrested, their history, so they used to be able to see that. I'll move ahead of that. We have certain triggers that we have in our process that if we're seeing in, you know, the district, the victim assistant officer is tracking that information. And so, I'll let Frank talk about what that escalation looks like. And then all of that information is being shared with our colleagues at WOAR -- I mean, not WOAR, but Women Against Abuse, to be able to walk through.
And we work with them on a regular basis where they're constantly calling us, you know what I mean, Gallagher -- where's Gallagher, here, somewhere, he's back there, but Molly and her team are constantly, you know, reaching out to us as to what they're seeing as something is amiss. But I'll let Frank talk about that escalation. And I assume my colleagues may come up to testify and can share with you more what they do with the data on their side. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VANORE: So when the district --
State your name. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VANORE: I'm sorry. Frank Vanore, Deputy Commissioner. I'm sorry. The districts, the victim assistance officers, part of their routine duties is to look for the locations that are problematic. And if they see a location, and we have a pretty advanced computer dispatch system now that it makes it pretty easy to do that, so if they have a repeat location coming, that's going to be the first flag that the Commissioner's talked about. It's going to escalate things, especially when it gets to the detectives. We see what's happening. Now, we can go back, look for -- we have video. So technology is going to play a part in this too because everybody has a Ring camera. So whatever was going on in some of those other incidents, we're going to get some evidence of that and it's going to escalate what we have. So that's important. The other part of this is the court system. Like he said, in the cases that you keep referring to, there were other cases with Mr. King and that same previous complainant, not the victim, the decedent, but were not prosecuted because she was obviously afraid and didn't go to court. So can we hold that against them legally? No. But it's definitely an indicator. It's a flag. And looking back on it, it's a scary flag because there was some of the same language in the first one as in the second one. Strangulation, broke in, she didn't show up to court and he was released and case was withdrawn.
Member Harrity, can we let the other people on the panel --
Good afternoon, President Johnson, Chair Jones, esteemed Committee members. I'm Adam Geer, the Chief Public Safety Director for the City of Philadelphia. I thank you sincerely for convening this vitally important hearing. It is our shared responsibility to do more to prevent and intervene in domestic violence and intimate partner violence, which is quite simply a matter of life and death. I have been close to this work throughout my career, including as a prosecutor in the Family Violence Sexual Assault Unit at the DA's office. I also oversaw for a time period the domestic violence cases in the Municipal Court Unit and also as a Board member of Women Against Abuse, perhaps the finest organization in the nation doing this work. They're also here to provide testimony later on. Too often, women experience stalking, harassment, manipulation, coercion, verbal abuse and physical abuse and sexual assault. Such crimes frequently repeat and escalate over time. Access to firearms makes it all more likely that the escalation becomes fatal. I'm privileged to testify here today with my colleague, Victim Advocate Adara Combs. Thank you, Council President, for your wisdom in her position. This duly-appointed and confirmed victim advocate is the right person for the right time, and she can get into a bit of her background, which brings her here today. She leads the Philadelphia Office of the Victim Advocate, which was established via Charter change legislation championed again by you, Council President, and overwhelmingly approved by Philadelphia voters. OVA is still relatively new and small, but it is mighty in punches above its weight. It fills a wide array of roles, from convener, to trainer, to subject matter expert and of course, as an advocate giving voice to the voiceless. It also quite often catches those who would otherwise fall through the cracks of a big, complex, busy system. It was not created to provide direct services, but Adara and their dedicated team always do their utmost to help those who don't know where else to go. That's why they sent the resource letters to families of homicide victims, manage relocations for those in imminent danger, oversee our crime scene cleanup program after shootings and so much more. They also collaborate closely with the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies within the city, Suzanne and her team, whose public health approach complements our public safety approach. I should note that 211, the Violence Prevention Hotline that is managed by us, they now currently have DV resources. So the citizens of Philadelphia should know those DV resources are available via 211. That's 24/7, 365. Also, if you have the app, download it. There's a pillar section and DV resources is one of the top pillars. Beyond OVA's great work, the Office of Public Safety is also working on addressing violence against women in other arenas. For example, we are working with our Division of Safe Neighborhoods, led by Shondell Revell, the newly minted doctor, to integrate this work with community violence initiatives, right. So our GVI teams will also be leaning into domestic violence strategies when they're engaging with folks, because we know that folks have these multiple issues. And so, we want to address them all, including this very important issue. We've also developed a project led by our Deputy for Grants. We brought in the Office of Public Safety and Deputy of Grants Debbie Allen, to implement systemwide data integration relating to crimes that disproportionately affect women, including domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, dating violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation. That's a $200,000 grant opportunity that we've applied for and we are hopeful that we will receive that so we can do that work. Bottom line, our approach is all hands on deck at the Office of Public Safety. It is everyone's responsibility to do what we can do to advance this lifesaving work.
I want to say that earlier, and it's not in my written testimony, but Council testified to this culture change. We've been doing this work for some time now. For context, when I started out as a DA in early 2000s, they called the domestic violence courtroom, love court. It was openly called love court, right. Molly, I'm sure you remember that. We've come a long way and we have more work to do. There was no --
They called it love court. So it was known as love court, the domestic violence courtroom. And we fought really hard to change that, to call that out for what it was, despicable, frankly. And so, that was a vestige, right. We have more work to do though. There was also no DV waiting room. So there was a time where in the domestic violence courtroom, the accusers would have to come into the same courtroom, sometimes days or weeks after the assault and sit there. And so, that was intimidation. They would not come in. There was open intimidation. When I was a supervisor in the DA's office, we worked with the courts. They gave us a special place where our domestic violence victims report to so they no longer have to sit in the same courtroom waiting for their cases. So we can do this work. We can make these changes. We've talked a lot about strangulation. Again, I want to give some context to strangulation as a former prosecutor of these cases. When you hear strangulation, Molly and Joann and her team will talk to this, that is a big red flag when it comes to DV cases. Strangulation is a strong indicator of lethality, as we've spoken. So I want to provide that additional context and I want to provide hope. Because as I've said, we've come a long way. We've got great teams here. I've got great colleagues. We've got great advocates. We're going to testify. I thank Council for this opportunity. We've got work to do and we're going to do it. I'd like to turn it over to I believe Victim Advocate Adara Combs, so she can dig in a little bit more, unless there's a schedule change, with your permission.
Thank you. Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Adara Combs and I'm the Victim Advocate for the City of Philadelphia. Good afternoon once more, Council President Johnson, Chair Jones as well as the other members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is again Adara Combs and I'm the Victim Advocate for the City of Philadelphia. Today we gather to discuss how we as a community, not just a city, not just city government, not just law enforcement, not just the courts and not just the District Attorney's office, we, as a community, protect victims of domestic and intimate partner violence. How we prevent the loss of life, by interrupting the cycle of escalation that has claimed far too many. It's quite interesting that today is the day for this hearing. I was looking at my phone earlier as I was on my way in. And today actually marks my years 8 with the City of Philadelphia. And 9 I came into this work much like 10 Adam Geer to be a prosecutor, which 11 is what I was for a number of 12 years. And I particularly went 13 into this line of work to prosecute 14 sexual assault and family violence 15 cases because I have an utmost passion for this work. So it's quite significant to me to be testifying today on this topic before you all. And while I sit here in my official capacity as the city's Victim Advocate, I do use that word community with great intention. Government, city systems, law enforcement, all of us can only do so much. However, it's the survivor advocates and the community-based agencies who truly provide that meaningful bridge to services, to anything that we have to offer. I echo Councilman Harrity's sentiments when he stated that quite often before any survivor comes to any of us, they're going to these organizations that are trusted in the community. It is those very individuals who provide that road to protect victims to become survivors. So to everyone in this room who has used their pain and turned it into power, who has spent their career giving it to this work, on behalf of myself and the Office of Public Safety and I believe everyone in this room, thank you for that work. Domestic violence is inclusive of more than just intimate partner violence. It engages with family violence, anything where someone is a member of a family, anywhere there is a romantic partnership. All of those things encompass domestic violence, and more specifically, intimate partner violence. It's when there's a pattern of power and control that unfolds along a continuum. It really begins with just physical abuse. Instead, it often starts with smaller acts that I think we can't ignore. Those are those red flags that DC Vanore was mentioning, those acts of intimidation, that boundary of infringement, that manipulation that often escalates to more serious things that often become lethal. Domestic and intimate partner violence is an issue that statistically impacts us all. I mean, if we look in this room and quite honestly any time this esteemed Council is convening, there is more than one person in this room that has been impacted by domestic violence, either directly or because you know somebody that has been impacted by domestic violence. So it is truly something that impacts us all. Nationally, in women and 1 in 4 men have experienced intimate partner violence. In Pennsylvania, almost 40% of women and 30% of men are impacted by this. And there are statistics that have been provided in the city where we have 33 domestic violence homicides, 22 involving guns. Commissioner Bethel mentioned that domestic violence accounts for 40% of the assaults in the city of Philadelphia. So our numbers are on par and quite scary, if I'm honest.
We also have to keep in mind that while these statistics are alarming, there are a number of people who don't come forward, either because they're fearful, because they're shamed, because they're fearful of retaliation, coercion, manipulation, and sometimes because their very life, their very next breath is hinging upon them, their ability to closet some of the things that are happening to them so they can survive to the next day. Domestic violence perpetrators often harm more than just their intimate partners. Their behavior often extends to anyone who challenges their control. And I think that's something that we need to remember as we're looking at cases and we're looking at lethality. We're not always talking about violence towards an intimate partner. We can be talking about violence towards a number of people within relation to the person that can send us red flags and signals that we need to be watching this person a bit more. They engage in stalking, harassment, threats, property damage, firearms offenses and many other acts. And while on the face those things might not appear to be domestic violence as we conceptualize them, I think it's important that we think outside of the box when it comes to these types of situations, because it can prevent tragedies. And also, when we create hierarchies based off of these types of cases, we have to keep that in mind as well. If you're going to look at cases and create a system of identifying which cases you're going to "pay more attention to," you have to think outside of the box or else you're going to miss a number of cases that could have sent up red flags within your system. Protecting domestic violence survivors in Philadelphia does mean recognizing behaviors and understanding their interconnectivity, taking meaningful steps for early intervention and paying attention to those early warning signs, even though they may not be traditional. In the context of keeping our community safe, we have to understand that domestic and intimate partner violence may not fit into categories that we think about them in. At the Office of Victim Advocate, we are currently working with a number of community members, mostly women, who have not even been in romantic relationships with individuals who have violated them, but the red flags are absolutely there. They experience escalating threats, escalating violence, and then we learn later on that there was domestic violence in that person's history. I'm grateful that through our collective work with the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies and organizations like Women Against Abuse, Lutheran Settlement House, Women in Transition and every other organization that does this work, we're able to capture those individuals and advocate for them daily, because otherwise their voices and their lives very well could have been lost. Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit in court, and I was quite honestly alarmed by the amount of cases that were dismissed -- there was no contact with individuals -- that were not successfully handled in that given day as we sat there because the red flags were missed. Quite honestly, one of the cases I was there to help someone with was one of those cases actually. As we've heard from our cross-departmental colleagues, we know that there's many layers to listening, seeing, validating and protecting domestic violence survivors and other members of our community that are harmed by this predatory behavior, but there's much more we can actually be doing. Too often when lethality becomes a headline, we rush, we offer prayers, condolences, our well wishes, our support on the back end of things. But the real question is, what could we have done to prevent this from ever happening.
What could we have done to recognize those early signs, to respond to those quiet outcries, provide nonjudgmental, accessible, protective support, make meaningful investments in survivor safety and dismantle the way that our system quite honestly is weaponized often against the individuals it's meant to protect. In the very simplest form, just listening to what was said today, a few things that I've identified and I've jotted down in my notes are, you know, we can equip complainants with a copy of their stay-away order. There's no 23 reason for us to have a stay-away order on record with three triplicate copies. I used to be a prosecutor. I know that we signed three of them. Why we can't give somebody a copy of that to empower them with at least that one document that is meant to keep somebody away from them. There is a way to provide power behind that. How do we increase the likelihood of court attendance? By meaningful communication. I don't think I just speak for myself. I think I speak for a number of people in this room when I say that meaningful, effective communication goes a long way when ensuring someone comes to court. If they're constantly called by somebody different and their case is constantly assigned to somebody different, what trust are they building with anybody? When I come to court and I don't even know who's going to represent my interest that day because the person I spoke to yesterday is not that person. There are things that we can do to increase the likelihood of people coming into court. How do we ensure that victims are getting their questions answered? You know, one of the phone calls we frequently get in our office, and I actually feel bad for our Deputy Director Heather Arias back there, because she's often the person fielding those calls, is people saying I've been calling, no one is answering. What is the use of a phone number on a website, on a pamphlet, on a business card if no 20 one is answering it? I've had members from my staff, just as a social experiment for lack of other words, or I guess a professional experiment really, call numbers that are listed on certain sites, and there's often no one on the other end of that phone call. How do people get their questions answered if no one is answering the phone? How do we use the resources that are heavily available to us to empower victims? Because there are certain resources that go underutilized within our system that could be utilized to empower victims if we utilize them and actually train people to use them. How do we ensure that cases that have a likelihood of lethality that could lead to something more serious, that have those red flags, even if they're not gun cases, even if they're not something where someone was shot or anything like that, how do we ensure that those cases are being handled by people that actually know how to handle them? When I was in court yesterday, I was actually quite alarmed at, I guess I'll say, disequal advantage on the sides of the courtroom, just based on the lack of training that was apparent to me. How do we dismantle some of the fictions that exist in our courtrooms? As an attorney, and anyone who's in this room that is an attorney, we know that the legal fiction that exists in Philadelphia where cases mark must be tried after the first listing is not rooted in anything real. It is something we do in Philadelphia, and quite honestly, it disenfranchises victims from ever coming to court. Why don't victims come to court on that first listing? It's probably because they're afraid, retaliation, fear coming into a courthouse, shame. Sitting in a courtroom with the person that hurt you can be a very scary experience. I might not want to do that either. And I think I'm a pretty strong person.
But when I don't come to court that first time, and maybe I want to come that second time, to hear that my absence that first time, which could be conceptually explained if we think about the trauma that domestic violence survivors face, to hear that my case was marked must be tried based on absolutely nothing can be quite disparaging. So what can we do to continue to change the culture? While we might not call it love court anymore, there are practices at play that disenfranchise domestic violence survivors each and every day in our court system. When we talk about keeping domestic violence survivors safe and preventing them from becoming homicide victims, we are sometimes required to provide literal safe places for those individuals to be. And I'm very proud to say that my office has created a relocation program in order to do that. We work with a lot of our city partners. We work with the shelter system. We work with the District Attorney's office to provide relocation support, so that when victims are in situations where they're in imminent danger, we're able to relocate them to safety. To date, in 2025 we've relocated 45 domestic violence survivors to temporary safe spaces. That's actually a 246% increase from last year. We relocated 31 survivors to permanent housing. And that's an 82% increase from last year. Now, those numbers are increasing because of awareness and training among agencies. I'm proud to say that my office, Heather Arias, as well as our relocation coordinator, because we do have a dedicated relocation coordinator for this purpose, have trained almost all of the domestic violence organizations that are in this room 12 and beyond. But beyond relocation, we partner daily with city and community-based agencies to ensure that this work is done. Our work recognizes that our public safety strategies have to complement the public health strategies that are coming out of my colleague Azucena Ugarte's office, the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies, and quite honestly, they can't be separated. If you're talking about public safety, you have to be talking about the most intimate type of violence we see in our community. So we couple our approaches to make sure that we're being as holistic as possible. Through our work, we connect survivors to domestic violence organizations like Women Against Abuse, Lutheran Settlement House, Women in Transition, Congreso and WOAR. We work with other city agencies in the implementation of a lot of different policies. To name a few, we've worked with the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies, the Police Department, the Sheriff's Department and the First Judicial District as well as Women Against Abuse on the implementation of Act 79, which I'm sure you've heard a number of times today and you'll hear more, but it's essentially to make sure that when a PFA is in place, that the firearm is relinquished. Now, I know there are some obstacles through talking to our partners at the police department with the implementation of that. There are other jurisdictions that do things a little different and quite honestly could be more effective, but we do partner to make sure that we are getting as many firearms as possible. We identify systemic barriers within the police department and we work with them daily. I think I've called every single Deputy Commissioner up here, including the Commissioner, with issues relating to domestic violence. And every single time we make that phone call, there is something that comes of it, both short-term and long-term. We work with them and the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies to identify training opportunities and we support those opportunities whenever possible. We've worked with the First Judicial District and the District Attorney's office and Probation on Act 71 implementation, which is essentially the act that allows for a more robust opportunity for victims to be heard at certain hearings, including bail.
Now, we've been talking about bail a lot today. And I think it's important to note that for domestic violence cases specifically, if there's a bail adjustment that's going to be made, that person needs to not only be aware but have an opportunity to be heard, because who better to know what type of coercion, what type of threats, what type of fear, what type of safety concerns exist outside of the person who's on the other side of the case. Nobody's more equipped to know that information, and they quite honestly might not have had an opportunity or an avenue to share it with anyone outside of being in that courtroom. So the implementation of that program has been instrumental, and I'm very proud of the work that we were able to do. We've increased the amount of victims that received notification of offender release. So just a point of education, the state Office of the Victim Advocate has a system where if someone is released from prison or they escape, they make notification to victims so that way they know. You can't imagine how empowering it is for specifically a domestic violence survivor to know that their offender is getting out or that their offender escaped. And you also cannot imagine how disparaging it can be and how frustrating it can be for those things to happen and they not receive notification. It was brought to our attention by the state OVA office that quite honestly Philadelphia's numbers were dismal. For whatever reason, we were not registering individuals at the level in which we should have. I'm proud to say that through our partnership with the District Attorney's office, we were able to clear a backlog of 1200 cases since 2023, I believe, to get those individuals registered, and also make sure that there are systems in place so that moving forward, they continue to be registered. Also, we've worked with the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies for a number of years to make sure that our Sexual Assault Response Center is funded for the first time through city dollars. And that investment was made in this fiscal year. And that is the only Sexual Assault Response Center in the City of Philadelphia that provides medical care, treatment and evidence collection for sexual assault responses. Prior to this year 2025, the City of Philadelphia has never made an investment in that vital lifesaving program. Through our own office, we provide a resource guide to individuals to make sure that they are equipped with the actual information as they walk through the world. So if they do want to reach out to any of those organizations I've mentioned, they have that information at their fingertips. We support individuals seeking address confidentiality, specifically vital and domestic violence cases through the state Office of the Victim Advocate. And through my work as a commissioner, I'm able to make sure -- a commissioner on the state level, I'm sorry, I'm able to ensure that resources are continuing to be poured into Philadelphia as it pertains to this issue and any issue related to the criminal justice system. Now, all of this -- I know I've said a lot. All of this reflects our commitment, but our work is far from complete. Every single day we hear survivors tell us stories about how the system wronged them, how they talked to somebody and their words fell on deaf ears. We cannot wait until life is lost to decide that we want to act. And while I appreciate this body convening today, we are far too late. We have lost too many people to this issue. And again, I am appreciative to each and every Councilmember that has pushed this through. And, Council President Johnson, I am appreciative for you putting this legislation through, but we're too late. We have a lot of work to do. And I do believe that there are a number of things that we can do to ensure that we continue to uplift the needs of domestic violence survivors and we continue to underscore, highlight, bold, italicize their needs.
I think that a collaboration with accountability attached to the points of earlier testimonies would be vital. I'm encouraged by the initiatives that have been discussed through the District Attorney's office. I'm encouraged by the lethality assessment that's going to be implemented next year by the Police Department. But I will say that some of our initiatives are still operating in silos. Councilmember Lozada, my ears perked up when you mentioned if the courts would be included in certain conversations. I know that my office has not been included in certain conversations. And I don't say that in a way to point fingers or anything of the sort, as much as it is for me to say that we cannot continue to talk about how we're uplifting things and we're doing this and we're doing that if we're not bringing everybody to the table. There is no one entity funded by the City of Philadelphia or any other entity for that matter that can do this work alone. So the question is, how will we come together, to bring our resources together, to talk about what the issues are, to talk about what we can share and what we can't share. Councilmember Harrity, you mentioned sharing information. And while certain information can't be shared due to confidentiality and the sensitivity of victim information, we can certainly do a better job. So how do we get those MOUs in place so that we can talk to each other. How do we get those conversations started so we can work on collaborative solutions. And also, this conversation would be remiss, to be quite honest, if we didn't talk about the lack of resourcing to our agencies that do this work. I've heard over the course of the day people talking about the need for money for city agencies. And while I appreciate that, there is a need for money in this corridor of the Council chamber that cannot be overstated at all. The fact that we continue to lean on and call and pick up that phone, Councilmember Lozada, to say, we need, we want, can you do, but we do not properly resource these organizations is quite honestly embarrassing. The fact that some of these organizations, and you'll hear from them themselves so I won't necessarily state them directly, have had to lay off staff, have had to close their doors, have had to put out statements saying that if we don't get X, we will have to close. It's embarrassing for a city that claims to want to uplift the needs of domestic violence survivors. So the unpredictable nature of funding is something that we have to address if we want to properly resource these organizations. And we cannot sit here and we cannot claim that we want to do everything if we're not doing something for them as well. )
So we up here, we listen for a living. And you can always tell in the testimony people who know their stuff, who are closest to the pain. And we could tell. You didn't look down at your paper for the last seven minutes. It came straight from the muscle, from the heart --
It was 15. And we can tell the difference. If people have pie charts and all of that but haven't committed it to their very essence, we know the difference. So you do realize that we're going to ask President Johnson to voluntold you to be a part of whatever work group that we have. Because, no, really we heard more solutions in the last minutes. 13 It's not -- you could 14 tell you're weaving in between the 15 silos and you're seeing what is needed in each. And we realize we got hit over the head with the fact that, you know, it's going to cost us some more money. President is okay with it, but every one of you weaved it in like you want us to solve this, we need more money, and rightfully so. If we care about a thing, we need to fund a thing. But I appreciate it. So did I hear you say that you are a part of some of those silo group meetings to figure this thing out or not?
So there are some that my office is represented in, but there are some that we are not represented in. So I think it's a mixed bag. In case you didn't hear, my office works with the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies almost every single day. I think I talk to Azucena every day. And outside of that, we work with the organizations that do this work on a very regular basis. However, there are some, unfortunately, city-based convenings that are not as inclusive. And I hope that through this convening we're able to break down some of these silos. Because again, I do believe that that's the only way we get this work done. But also, I do think that there does need to be some accountability to make sure that that happens. While my office may not be the office to create that accountability, we will certainly be willing to work with Council to make sure that happens. And also, to go back to what you were saying, Councilman Jones, Council President Johnson doesn't have to voluntold me. I will volunteer myself because this work is very meaningful to me. And as I stated, I started my career 15 years ago to do this exact work. So whatever it is that you need from me, my staff and my office, and I think I speak for Adam, our Chief Public Safety Director, we stand ready to do whatever is needed.
We appreciate your testimony and have taken that into account. Councilwoman Lozada.
Thank you so much for your testimony and thank you for sharing some of the examples of what we can do right now. I think that often times the commonsense stuff is the stuff that is the most challenging, right, because not everyone is capable or not everyone has some common sense, right. I just want to say this for the record, right. I know this is going to cost us money, right. And often times we allocate dollars for certain programs and we ask some of these groups to do some of this very important work and then we fail to pay them, right. And so, Council President, I say that because I need us to understand, because there are some groups here who I have advocated for myself, right, who say we can't continue this way, we need to do this important work, right. We have departments that are saying they recognize that things have to be prioritized differently, but we need to be a government that prioritizes paying our providers to be able to help us do this very necessary work so that there is no Kada Scott in the future, right, so that there is no 14 Linda Rios in the future, right. Yes, communication is extremely important. Everyone needs to be at the table, but everyone needs to be able to get paid for the work that they're doing in order to make it happen. Who serves PFAs and how are they served? And what are some of the challenges that we experience when they're being served? And who protects the victim when the PFA is served? Because I have heard many times that victims have challenges getting PFAs. I've heard I'm afraid the PFA is going to be served today, but it wasn't served today. It was served two days later. I don't know what my situation is. No one is talking to me or the PFA is served and there is no safety mechanisms in place, and I'm walking around here in the city, trying to get to and from work and trying to live my daily life, but my perpetrator is still out there on the loose. POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: I mean, PFAs, some are done right there in the courtroom, right. But many of them will come into our space where they will call for a police officer to serve that PFA and then we will put forth a significant level of effort to serve that PFA. Sometimes it can be very challenging, depending whether the person is transient where we're not able to serve it, but we work diligently to make sure that those are accomplished. I don't have any specific data on that. I can follow up with you, but -- Fran wants to come and add more context.
If we can in the future, I'm just curious to know how many PFAs do we serve annually, right? What are some of those challenges? You just mentioned, Commissioner, that some of them are challenging. What's challenging about them, right, other than this person, you know, I'm just going to assume, right, that the perpetrator is a person that's kind of transitional? He transitions from one neighborhood to the other, depending on what his, profession, other profession is, right. And so, I'm just curious to know. Because when I've talked to victims, and I have friends who have domestic violence organizations, I have friends who work in domestic violence organizations, and PFAs are one of the things that have often come up that are challenging. And so, I'm just curious to know how many and why is this so challenging? And what do we do as part of this prioritizing? What do we do to make that better, make it easier and make the victim feel safer? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: I'll do the best I can to answer all those questions. Fran Healy, Deputy Commissioner of Chief of Staff. With respect to the PFAs, the individuals have to go get the PFA. And then there's two ways they could be served. Normally, the primary service is through the Sheriff's Office as part of their function. But the victims can also come to the police department to have their PFA served as well. When we serve a PFA, what you mentioned is very much the problem, trying to get the body. You got to really touch the individual so you can get it. But under the Civil Rules of Procedure, I don't necessarily have to touch the individual all the time. If I give it -- their house where he lives and it's an adult there, I can serve it there. The issue for service is incredibly important for the victim because that's what allows the case to move forward. So the issue is if they can't serve it, then that next hearing has to be continued until service can be made. So we go to great length to make sure the service can be made, either by in person or by one of the alternate means that are in the Rules of Civil Procedure. So we do the best we can. But that is some of the problem. The issue, the problem, they see us coming down the street, they run away. So it's very hard for us to serve that order, but we do our best to try to get the -- like I said, we don't have to actually grab him to have the service if we know where he lives, we know where he works. I mean, those are other alternate ways that we can do service. But that is the problem we see from a lot of victims. They'll come to us and like I said, we've always served orders. But under Act 79 just recently passed, it mandates that the Philadelphia or local police will serve orders as well, but we've always done that in addition with the Sheriff's Office. So that's never been a big problem for us. But the issue is getting the individual -- often times they're not there by the time the victim comes back.
Thank you. Is language access an issue, play an issue in serving PFAs in helping victims in the court systems, in helping relocate -- is language access an issue? And if so, what are we doing to respond to it?
So while I can't speak to the language access issue in terms of serving PFAs, in terms of providing victim services, both in court and outside of court it can be challenging in the courtroom, I will say. Outside of court, we do have a language line, and a number of our organizations do have bilingual advocates. But with that being said, resourcing would allow us to hire more. But in courtrooms, it can be quite frustrating. I don't know if any of you are familiar with the fact that there are interpreters that are paid by the court system to come in and provide interpretation services. However, there aren't enough of them. So when I was a prosecutor, there's very common where you can be in one courtroom and have the interpreter, and then the other courtroom can be waiting for hours. And by that time, people have to leave, people have child care issues. The police may have to do something, etc. So it does cause a lot of delays. And then there's also issues in terms of accessibility to certain languages. Our most commonly spoken languages of course are available. For our less commonly spoken languages, there can be barriers, especially when you're talking about in the actual courtrooms. I've had cases continued because the interpreter was not available. And how discouraging is it to have a complainant come to court ready to testify, mustering up that strength to do so, only to be told because of an administrative thing, nothing to the fault of them, the case can't go forward because no one's there to interpret in their language. POLICE COMMISSIONER BETHEL: Just a follow-up to your -- I think we do have to take a look though based on what you described. And when we're talking about this continuum and all of it, we'll take a look on our side as it relates to PFA, how well we're doing with that, are there some issues. I'm sure we can talk to some of our partners in the room 6 who can give us some insight as well. So we will take a look at that as well.
I appreciate that. It's one of the things that most often comes up when talking to the victim, especially in my district office. They're afraid to go to the police district. They don't know when or how or who's going to protect me when this person is getting served, right. And so, it's just another one of those things that we need to look at as we try to prioritize and make the system better. We need to make sure that we remember to include that part of the puzzle. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Just to touch on that very quickly, some orders come with just a protection or abuse order. Some of them also come with an eviction order. Sometimes the judge will say the individual has to be removed from the house and those orders there will assist in removing the individual from the house so the victim becomes somewhat safer. But you raise a very good point. Once we're gone, there's nothing stopping individuals from coming back. So, yeah, we will see what we can do better on that back end aspect.
Does the PFA expire? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Pardon me?
Does it have an expiration date? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VANORE: Yeah, it expires. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Oh, yes.
Up to three years? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Well, let's clarify. There's an emergency order, there's a temporary order and then there's a final order. The final order goes for three years. That's after you've had the opportunity to go to court, see the judge, they can issue a final order. If you go down tonight, late night, you'll get an emergency order until the next business day. And then you can also get a temporary order, which I think is five days. And so, hearings will be set out differently. So it's not three years automatically. You'll get an emergency order if you go down there in the middle of the night, on the holiday or you can go down on a normal day, you may get a five-day order, I believe. That may be a little wrong, but it's a shorter term until you get to court. And then once you have that hearing, you can ultimately get a three-year PFA order.
Thank you, Member Lozada. Before I turn it over to President Johnson, you might want to be prepared for the ICE issue as it relates to domestic violence, people in fear of being deported and almost captive to the violence. And we need to have interpreters and people who understand different cultures and racism to be able to be prepared for that level of domestic violence. Chair recognizes Member Johnson, President.
No. I just want to thank everybody for their testimony on the panel. And then also, Adam Geer, I want to make sure we will follow up on next steps in terms of making sure all the partners are at the next follow-up meeting to this hearing to talk about a long-term strategy and making sure what we can do to make sure everybody at least is on the same page. And I know it's tough, as you mentioned, Commissioner. When you work in silos, it takes more work for everybody to be rowing in the same direction, right, because it takes a certain level of coordination. It takes a certain level of I would say even philosophical approaches being on the same page, to be quite frank with you, right. But we're going to make sure that at least we get everybody inside the same room and we have to focus on the reset in terms of how we move forward. So just want to say thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony. It has been insightful, to say the least. Thank you. Ms. Stack, can you please read the next group of witnesses to testify.
Nyisha Chapman, Azucena Ugarte and Sheriff Rochelle Bilal. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Thank you for your patience. Please be seated. We're going to go with Ms. Chapman. Can you state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
Thank you. Greetings, Chair, members of the Committee and distinguished guests. My name is Nyisha Chapman and I serve as the President of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women.
Our organization is dedicated to advocating on behalf of Black women and girls through leadership development, education and economic empowerment and the advancement of equitable public policy. At the core of our mission is the unwavering commitment to protect the lives, the dignity and the well-being of the women and girls we currently serve. Today's hearing strikes at the heart of that mission. We are here because far too many sisters are living and dying at the intersection of violence, vulnerability and systematic failure. Domestic violence is not just a private crisis, it's a public safety issue, a public health issue in a matter of justice. And when the systems charged with protecting victims fall short, the consequences are devastating. And as we've noticed recently, sometimes even fatal. The truth was heightened due to the tragic murder that was recently captured of Ms. Kada Scott, a young woman whose life was stolen way too young. This does not reflect an isolated incident. It reflects a pattern of missed signals, delayed interventions and gaps in coordination within the justice system. As an organization that stands for advocacy, accountability and empowerment, we cannot allow this story or any other countless stories to be in vain. Ms. Scott's story will serve as a catalyst for meaningful change. Domestic violence victims often rely on the courts, the Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney's Office and the Philadelphia Police Department to keep them safe during their most vulnerable moments. Yet when these systems are fragmented, underresourced and inconsistent in their response, the very institutions that are meant to protect them yet -- excuse me, meant to protect them become yet another barrier to their safety. Our chapter has heard from other survivors, has supported families and stood with communities that have been traumatized by domestic violence. And the message is very clear: Our systems have to do better. We are calling for stronger protections, more efficient coordination between agencies, timely enforcement of restraining orders, trauma-enforced responses, improved victim communication and greater investment in prevention and support services. Every department that is represented in this hearing today plays a critical role in protecting lives and every lapse can cost a young woman her life. To improve safety outcomes for victims of domestic violence, we're urging the committee and all partners to prioritize stronger interagency coordination and information sharing, timely enforcement of protection from abuse orders and warrants as well as consistent trauma-informed responses across all departments, clear proactive communication with victims throughout the legal process, increased investment in prevention and survivor support as well as community-based services. Each agency represented today plays a critical role in preventing tragedies like the one the city recently experienced. Strengthening these systems is not only a matter of policy, it is a moral imperative. On behalf of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women Pennsylvania Chapter, our members and our Board, I urge this committee to take bold, immediate action to strengthen the policies and practices that safeguard victims of abuse. We must honor Ms. Scott by ensuring her death leads to meaningful change, accountability and a renewed commitment to the safety of Black women and girls in the city of Philadelphia. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak today and your willingness to address this issue.
Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your advocacy from your organization. I tell some of the male organizations all the time we got to keep up. You're running circles around us on the issues. And it's not just traditional issues. You are moving outside of your comfort zone to advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves. So thank you for that. Madam Sheriff. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. SHERIFF BILAL: Good afternoon, Council President, Chairman, Councilwoman Lozada and distinguished guests. I am Sheriff Rochelle Bilal for the City and County of Philadelphia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the City of Philadelphia's your response to domestic violence, No. 250927, and the critical role played by the Sheriff's Office in protecting victims and enforcing accountability. Domestic violence is not simply a private matter. As a survivor of domestic violence, it is a public issue. Every protection from abuse order served, every weapon lawfully removed and every offender held accountable represents life potentially saved. The Sheriff's Office stands on the front line of that responsibility. Under Pennsylvania Act 79, the Sheriff's Office is charged with enforcing firearm relinquishments in domestic violence cases. This means our deputies are not only serving protections from abuse orders, they are also ensuring that individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms actually surrender those weapons. That responsibility is serious, complex and often dangerous, but it is essential to preventing future acts of violence. Over the last year, we have taken major steps to strengthen how the Sheriff's Office fulfills that responsibility. I want to recognize the outstanding leadership of Inspector Nobles who is here with me today. And let me apologize because I didn't introduce everybody that's here with me today. We have Tyriq El-Shabazz, who is Head of my Legal Unit, Chief of Staff Jamison Rogers, Deputy Sheriff Sean Thornton who is over all the courts, Inspector Hans, Inspector Nobles, Warrant Unit; and Special Events Inspector Perez. Now, I'll get back to this. Under Pennsylvania Act 79 the Sheriff's Office is charged with enforcing firearm relinquishment in domestic violence cases. This means our deputies are not only serving protection from abuse orders, they're also ensuring that individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms actually surrender those weapons. That responsibility is serious, complex and often dangerous, but it is essential for to preventing future violence. Over the last year, we have taken major steps to strengthen how the Sheriff's Office fulfills that responsibility. After recognizing who is over the Warrant Unit, the Warrant Unit is tasked with all the PFA enforcement, from serving protection orders to also gun relinquishments. That used to be under our Civil Unit, but we actually made it the Warrant Unit and Inspector Nobles is all of that, and in particular Sergeant Robert Hunisch, who was tasked with building and leading our Domestic Violence Task Force from the ground up. Since its launch, the Domestic Violence Task Force has handled more than 3500 protection from abuse orders, executed thousands of warrants connected to protection orders, completed over 200 court-ordered evictions tied with domestic violence cases. These are not just numbers. These are families, protected survivors, supporters and dangerous individuals removed from the situations where further harm could occur. Within the task force's first month, Sergeant Hunisch implemented major operational reforms to ensure full Act 79 compliance, improve efficiency and strengthen integrity and coordination. These improvements include this: Creating teams to manage workload and increase accountability, establishing a dedicated task force email to streamline communications with law enforcement and judicial partners, assigning liaison deputies to both the Philadelphia Police Gun Permit Unit and Family Court Domestic Violence Unit to close their communications gaps, coordinate directly with Managing Director's Office and the Department of Domestic Violence Strategies to improve firearm surrender and weapon relinquishment procedures.
Joining the Act 79, Council, where our deputies now assist in training Philadelphia police officers at headquarters on proper PFA service and firearm surrender, implementing new inperson service procedure for final protection orders involving firearm relinquishment, conducting monthly After Action Reviews to assess performance and identify improvement opportunities, developing a full domestic violence task force training curriculum available both virtually and in person to ensure our deputies have specialized expertise in this work. These reforms have transformed how the Sheriff's Office engages with domestic violence enforcement. We are no 9 longer operating as a passive service agency. We are now an active coordinator, public safety partner in the city's domestic violence response network. Our deputies see firsthand the fear victims live with, the danger of unsecured firearms and the emotional toll these cases carry. This work requires precision, compassion, unwavering commitment to public safety. The men and women of the Sheriff's Office perform this duty every day with professionalism and courage. Let me be clear. We do not view Act 79 as a paperwork requirement. We view it as a lifesaving law and we are committed to enforcing it fully and consistently. The Sheriff's Office stands ready to continue working with City Council, the courts, police department and our domestic violence advocacy partners to strengthen enforcement, expand training and improve outcomes for survivors across Philadelphia. Thank you for your time, for your continued support and for your shared commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members of our city.
Thank you for your testimony. But in addition, I want to thank you for your team's involvement in the law enforcement continuum of the city. You go way above and beyond what your mandate is and I've seen you -- I won't go into -- in the city's worst day, and I won't go in specifics, you and your team stepped up and volunteered to be a part of the solution. And I'll never, ever forget that, and I appreciate what you do. A couple of questions before I turn it over to my colleagues. So when you guys serve these PFAs, it is a highly-charged emotional time, one of the most dangerous times because people are acting out on emotion, acting out on kind of compassion. I asked this of the police, I asked this of you, what is your standard operating procedure as you serve a PFA? And how do you determine if a firearm is to be removed? And what processes do you go through to take that firearm? SHERIFF BILAL: Nobles. Inspector Nobles is our inspector over the Warrant Unit and all the special units. And because we took the PFAs from just the civil part, the Warrant Unit is the ones that are now serving and getting gun relinquishment. And she'll tell you what we do professionally. INSPECTOR NOBLES: Good morning.
Good morning. State your name for the record. INSPECTOR NOBLES: Inspector nobles of the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office around all the specialized units. When we first get a PFA, the first thing we do is run it through NCIC and all the other particular things that we have. CLIR(ph) tells us where someone is living, where they're using their Social Security number, things of that nature. We also have access to courts where we can look up their court history. So we do all this work before we even go out. We make sure we go on JNET. We get their picture, we get their driver's license, history. Once we get to the location, we usually have two deputies if it's not an eviction. If it's an eviction or if they need to get a weapon, then we send more deputies. Every PFA don't come with weapon relinquishment. Once we get there, if the person is there, then we're serving the individual. Usually it's not an issue because they've already left their house and they're giving us a different address to go to. If we don't have that address where they moved to, then that's a different story. If it's a gun relinquishment, we go through NCIC and we look up to find out have they had any weapons, was any weapons sold, where could they have been before we go there. Once we get there, they have to hand over the weapons to us right then. If they're saying that they don't have any weapons even though we know they do, then we'll have them sign some paperwork and we send it over to PPD where they'll handle and investigate any weapons.
When you say investigating, so we arrived at the house, allegedly there are supposed to be weapons within the house. They say there's not. You hand it off to? INSPECTOR NOBLES: PPD.
And they come back and search the house? SHERIFF BILAL: When we get the weapon, when we go there and they say they don't have any weapon, they have to sign an affidavit basically stating that they have no weapons, and then we go back and we find out that they do have weapons. Then PPD starts a criminal investigation, because now they done violated the law by signing the affidavit that said that they have no weapons. So now it becomes a criminal investigation. And under the Philadelphia Police Department Detective Division, they will start that investigation to arrest them for lying on an affidavit in reference to the weapons. And if they need to, they'll go back in and search the place with a search warrant.
So there is a gap at times from the affidavit to the investigation, that a weapon might still be in the house, not to mention not registered weapons, stolen weapons and things like that -- we have to tighten that up, guys. There's red flag laws that when someone makes a threat that we should be able, with a judge's sanction, go right in, search the house and remove any threat of weapons because these things happen often spontaneously, out of emotion. And so, yeah, you came by, he signed an affidavit. He didn't get evicted and she's still there -- SHERIFF BILAL: But that's in the case where there's not an eviction order, because most of the time PFAs are served -- it don't ask for a gun relinquishment or it doesn't include an eviction. Because most of the time the person has already left, and now, we have to locate them to serve them that PFA. But if they have a gun and they sign that affidavit, now it's a criminal investigation and then the detectives will take it from there. Now, if we had a warrant to search the property, we would go in and search the property. But we don't have that warrant right then and there, because evidence has to be that there is actually a gun on that property. Because somebody says it doesn't make it so. So there needs to be enough evidence for us to get a warrant to go in to seize whatever guns, and normally that's under the investigation of PPD.
Thank you, Sheriff Bilal and to your team for being here as well. You mentioned that when you get the order for the PFA to be served, you run this person through a system and you check to see if there are potential weapons in that home. Why do we wait to get to that home and ask the individual to sign the affidavit before we actually request paperwork, right, to be able to say, okay, I'm going to go to this house, this system says that there's weapons in this home, in this residence, I'm getting ready to serve a PFA. I'm going to offer this individual the opportun -- I'm going to ask him, do you have weapons in this home. And if so, what happens, I don't know but I'm asking you, right. But if this person says no to you at that point, why are we not proactively prepared to search the home if the systems in the past have told us that there are warrants there? I'm not really sure. I'm asking the process. INSPECTOR NOBLES: That would be a law that needs to be changed with a PFA. We don't have a search warrant with it. So if we need to enter someone's home, we need a search warrant.
I understand that, right. What I'm saying is if you went into the system and the system is telling you that this individual has a history of abuse, has a history of gun charges or there's weapons in the home, right, why don't we go to that home prepared, right, and not necessarily execute the warrant if the person says, yes, there are weapons here and I'm honestly responded to your affidavit or to your question? But if the person says no to you and he signed the affidavit why are we not ready? SHERIFF BILAL: That's a legal question.
I don't know if that's a legal -- SHERIFF BILAL: That's a legal question. That means we'd be going in a whole lot of your houses and you don't want us there. That's a legal question. UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: First of all, good afternoon. I'm Tyriq El-Shabazz. I'm the UnderSheriff. Very interesting question. However, that question is protected by the Constitution. In order to go into someone's house, we have to provide factors or facts to a magistrate or to a judge. That judge reviews it and finds out or determines whether or not there is what they call probable cause. That means whether or not there's enough in those facts to allow you to get a warrant to go into that person's house. The fact that someone says someone has a gun, it doesn't make the gun illegal and it doesn't, in fact -- let me be clear, we confiscate legal and illegal guns if we get illegal guns. But normally, there are guns where people have them registered or they have a license to carry. If a person has that and, in fact, they tell us we don't, we use the affidavit. But because someone makes the allegations that someone had a gun and that part is checked on the affidavit for probable cause or the affidavit that has us serve the PFA, it doesn't mean that we have enough to go into the house. So it sounds like there's a break, but the computer checks that Inspector Nobles is talking about are not checks that take a long time. In fact, we get it, we run those checks and then they design how they're going to go in. The computer checks are two ways: One, to see if, in fact, the person has a gun. If they have a license to carry a gun, then we know that we're going to go and ask for that gun. If, in fact, they say they don't have it or they gave it to a friend -- and part of the PFA in a gun relinquishment, for lack of a better term, the person doesn't have to give the gun to the Sheriff. The person can actually, if they're licensed to carry a gun and they had no reason not to possess a gun, they can give a gun to a member of their family, they can turn the gun into the police department. And in some instances, they can turn the gun on loan, into a gun shop. They don't have to necessarily give it up. They have to get rid of it so that they no 6 longer have possession of that weapon. All of those are factors that go in. And in fact, the hardest part of PFAs, the hardest part of gun relinquishment, the hardest part of the protections is trying to balance between constitutional rights, trying to balance between statutes that don't allow certain things to happen and those protections that people need. So we just don't have enough at that stage to get a judge to sign a warrant to have that search warrant done.
Understood. And what is the time lapse between the fact that the system said that there was a gun, I went to serve the PFA, he signs he doesn't have the affidavit and then you come back and turn it over to the police so that the police can then get the search warrant to then actually enter the home to search for the gun? What's the time? UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: It's hard to say that. Because once we give it to the police, the detectives start to work on it. That investigation can be swift or that investigation could be a little bit long. In fact, I would submit that the police department is probably the better agency to ask that. But it doesn't happen as quickly in that regard because the investigation has to yield facts that will allow a judge to feel comfortable enough that constitutional rights are protected and that person's right to be safe is protected and therefore give that warrant out. That part of the law, unfortunately, we're not going to have that changed, as it's constitutionally. But there are parts of the statute that we can ask to be changed. And part of the partners, one of the things that the Sheriff wanted to submit as a good ask is a relationship with state legislators. See, there's state statutes that prohibit certain things in the protection of the Second Amendment. Once you talk about taking people's guns, everybody go crazy -- not everybody, but some people go crazy. At the end of the day when you begin to address that particular issue, there are nuances that you can have in the law, in a statute, returning guns, for example. If a PFA is withdrawn and it's withdrawn without prejudice, which means somebody can bring that PFA back, there is no 6 reason in the statute to prevent the person that's accused of being a violent person from getting their gun legally back. We run it, we make sure that there's no warrant so there's nothing on it that will prohibit that, but that person is then, based on the statute, allowed to get their gun back. We are trying to work right now with the judges, because the judges are following the statute, we are following the judge's order. And we're asking them you know factors that may have occurred in that courtroom, you know factors that occurred in that PFA, things that we don't know. We can search for the things legally, but what happened in the courtroom is something different. Sometimes a victim will say I want to withdraw. But if she's standing there by herself and somebody is standing there with an attorney and she accused that person, I don't know why she's withdrawing. The judge is then looking at those factors. And if a judge says, I'm going to allow you to withdraw that PFA but without prejudice, it seems to me in my legal intellect, there are some things that maybe he's not sure about. Because if he says with prejudice, that means you can't bring it back again. If he says without prejudice, that means you can bring it back again. Well, what were the things -- flags, I hear this red flag -- what were the things that had you say without prejudice. Was it because she wasn't represented, was it because there was something said, was it because of what you saw. But the statute would not allow the judge of his own admission without factors in the record to tell us not to give that gun back. That's the law. That is not going to be changed by any action of our office or any action of PPD and respectfully, I don't think any action of a particular judge. It only is going to be changed when that nuance in the law has changed. When people see that you're not stopping people from having the Second Amendment right to possess a weapon, but you're looking for public safety issues. And those things can happen if City Council is -- again, we're widening the pot of everybody that's involved in this, this One Philly thing. If we're really doing that, then we need to sit with the State Reps from Philadelphia and talk about how we can do that.
That's another problem with relinquishing guns. So we can't take it upon ourselves to search the property without judicial authority nor can we take it upon ourselves to keep the weapon without judicial authority. SHERIFF BILAL: But one of the things we are having a conversation with the judges with, that if you order us to take the gun, once the PFA is resolved however, you give us an order to give back the gun. The statute says that they don't have to do that. But because of they knowing more what happens in that courtroom than we do, then we are asking them to basically give an order for us to give them the gun back. Because if they know -- like he said, if there's something going on that they can say without prejudice -- UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: With prejudice. SHERIFF BILAL: With prejudice, that means there's something going on in reference to that situation of domestic violence, that they can bring that back. So for us if there's something going on, then we need a court order to give them the gun back and not just go by the statute that because it's over, we just automatically give it back. We're just trying to make sure that what they know we should know. UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: And to be completely honest, and sometimes I get in trouble when I'm being completely honest, it seems to me that a lot of times the partners, and I'm including the bench in this, don't want to take the responsibility of giving the gun back, and that's with respect to the bench. I don't have any problems with the bench. We've been working together with them and we're going to work on this issue. But it means that you would say return the weapon, you can return the weapon. Well, suppose they say you can return the weapon and that's in the order. Well, if they say that and the person gets the weapon back and then they go and do something, then the next day the paper is going to talk about the person got the gun back and that was subject to an order. So our position is it isn't about the responsibility, because obviously that's the responsibility of the system, not just one person. But it's about what you know that we don't know. We can give an example or examples of individuals where guns are returned after a hearing. And then we run something and we see something or, in fact, we run and we received threatening letters from the individual talking about, you know, his gun and what he's going to do and things of that nature, but no one ever asked us about that, no district attorney or assistant district attorney ever called us about that. We just know that the guy got an order to get his gun back and he came over and I wouldn't give him the gun back. And we wouldn't give him the gun back because the judge didn't have that hearing. See, at the end of the day, all that information -- at the end of the day, the communication has to be together, because there are times where the PFA is dismissed, withdrawn, etc, but there's still some danger there that based upon all the information you was given in the original PFA. And if you have an inkling or you see that red flag, you have to have the authority as a judge to say, we're not going to give that back. And they can get that only through legislation or through changing that statute.
Just a quick question, because we have 12 other witnesses to get through, red flag laws. The purpose of red flag laws is when someone states that a threat, a hostile, terroristic threat, that we then can go in and seize a gun because they constitute a real danger. Do you guys take that into account when you are entering these kinds of confiscations of firearms? UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: With all due respect, that's not the purview of the Sheriff's Office. We're responding to an order. The person that's supposed to be responding to the law to that particular red flag, that should be in the order --
Because we put it in the order. UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: If it's put in the order, then it should be accompanied by a search warrant. Because the red flag law, as you're putting it, those circumstances, those elements, it seems to me that the law is saying it elevates the probable cause to get a search warrant to go in someone's house and search it. Without that --
If I understood you correctly, that if on the level of -- what was it, fatality? What's the term?
Lethality, that if we determine that this person is a known doer, shooter, kind of thing, that what should be included in the order to the Sheriff's Office is that red flag provision with a search warrant? UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: It has to be a search warrant.
Okay. UNDERSHERIFF EL-SHABAZZ: We don't have the authority.
Okay. So we have to figure that one out. All right. I appreciate that. So are any other questions because we got 12 more to go? SHERIFF BILAL: Can I finish just some remarks?
Yes, ma'am. SHERIFF BILAL: When everybody comes together in reference to what we have at our disposal, the Sheriff's Office is the only law enforcement office that budget was cut. We're the only office that after a pandemic and the fact that everywhere around the country are having the problem hiring people to do the job, we're the only office that got a judge's court order to mandate that we hire people with a budget that's cut. We're the only office that is in an apartment complex. And if we could hire the people, where would we put them? We're the only law enforcement office that when it comes to actually having an academy, every police department across this state has an academy. We only have one. It's up State College. And in order to hire people here to go, leave their families five days a week for 5 weeks is the difficulty in 6 reference to hiring, even under a 7 court order. 8 So we're like a pot a 9 soup, and I say this, and we got to 10 feed everybody in this pot. Now, 11 everybody may not get filled, but 12 they will get something. So with 13 the little people that we have, we 14 are under budget, we have less 15 people. We are doing the best that 16 we can. But when it comes to 17 domestic violence, because I'm a 18 survivor, we had these 19 conversations to come up with what we can do as an office, and we're doing the best that we can.
In my opinion, you're doing better than your mission calls for, because I've heard it, seen it, seen you do it. So you're right, we should -- the one recurring theme up here is that every department that we've dealt with says that if you want more, you need to be willing to put your money where your mouth is. So thank you for your testimony. SHERIFF BILAL: Thank you.
And I'm sorry. Just really quickly. I know we have our domestic violence service providers, sexual violence service providers waiting since 10:00 a.m., but my office has been mentioned several times throughout the day so I wanted to have the opportunity to introduce myself. I'm Azucena Ugarte. I am the Director of the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies. Our office sits under the Managing Director's Office for the Health and Human Services. So we work with Health and Human Services to help them get better at identifying and responding to domestic violence, sexual violence and trafficking. Through our work, we have realized that it's not only a public safety response or a health and human service response. We need to have a continuum of responses to survivors our perpetrators. We look at training providers, changing organizational practices, doing community education as much as we can. We can collect data to try to identify where our interventions should have the more impact. About Act 79 for example, with the Office of Public Safety, we have been coordinating monthly meetings with the Sheriff's Office, Police Department, Gun Permit Unit, the District Attorney's Office. As part of that work I know we've been mentioned a lot about recovering the firearms. Part of the state law requires that we notify petitioners about the service of the PFA and the relinquishment of that firearm. We've been working with the systems through almost two years now trying to figure out how we can implement that piece. And one of the solutions that started last August with a partnership with Women Against Abuse, they receive a federal grant, and they actually hire us as a subrecipient to have one position. It's called the Act 79 Coordinator. That's a position within our office. She sits in Family Court at the PFA Unit, and she's contacting petitioners, especially for the PFAs that have a relinquishment firearm, asking for their consent and their contact information, and she's following up with petitioners about the status of the service of that PFA. She's also reading the allegations on the protection from abuse order and flagging that information with the Sheriff's Domestic Violence Task Force, with the Gun Permit Unit so the Gun Permit Unit can get information and send it to the detectives. So I wanted to add that piece. I also wanted to be clear the defendants or respondents. From the moment that they are served, they have hours 18 to relinquish that firearm. So 19 they could tell the Sheriff, yes, I 20 have a firearm, but I have 24 21 hours. And then we need to follow 22 up after, what happened after that. 23 Also, the state law. 24 One of the good things about the state law is that petitioner can -- or defendant and respondent can relinquish a firearm with the Sheriff's Office, with the Police Department or with an (inaudible) or with their own attorney. So it kind of tightened the idea of just give it to anyone, and that's really important and safe for survivors. I'm not going to say that much more. I just wanted to let you know that we are here. We are doing work with the Health Department about maternal mortality and intimate partner violence during pregnancy. We have a free, supervised child visitation program that receives direct referrals from family court. We are collecting data with our data. We know that people who commit violence in the home are committing violence in the community. People who commit violence in the community are probably committing violence in the home, and that we need a coordinated community response that is not public safety, it's not only health and human services, but it's a continuum of the two of them. Thank you very much.
Yeah. I just want to thank all of you for your testimony. And thank you, Sheriff, for taking time out of your schedule. I do believe we need to have an academy here in the city of Philadelphia as opposed to trainees going out to Penn State College to be trained to become sheriffs. And so, wish you good luck on that. And how I can do to be supportive of the future of that becoming a reality, I'm here because we definitely should have a training facility here in the city of Philadelphia. To the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies, and when we have these type of hearings, it's an opportunity to reset. I had no idea that we have an Office of Strategies here in the City of Philadelphia. And so, it's great to have you at the table. Looking forward to working with you as well. And that's also the good thing that came out of this particular hearing is additional information. So thank you very much.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Ms. Stack, can you read the next panelist to testify.
David Chiles from the Lutheran Settlement House, Kira Bellolio from Congreso de Latinos Unidos, Joanna Otero-Cruz from Women Against Abuse, and Melissa Landsmann from Women in Transition. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Thank you all for your patience. Please come to the witness table. Have a seat. Thank you. Please state your name and begin your testimony. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Councilmembers, Curtis Jones and Quetcy Lozada, all members of this Committee, and of course, Council President Johnson. Gracias for this resolution and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Women Against Abuse. My name is Joanna Otero- Cruz, the Executive Director and President of Women Against Abuse. I'm accompanied here by partners at Women in Transition, Congreso Lutheran Settlement House, and our state partners at PCA, DV Coalition, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. So I just want to give them a shout-out. Our hope is that today's conversation leads to real, lasting change and that Kada Scott's legacy becomes a safer future for all survivors. Philadelphia must strengthen its response to domestic violence because people's lives depend on it. Based on Women Against Abuse's 50 years of expertise, we call for six reforms to enhance survivor safety and hold perpetrators accountable. Due to the time- restraints, we've submitted a more detailed outline with many suggestions and recommendations on file. I'll highlight six today. Most of these recommendations aren't new, some of which we've heard today. Much of this is about doubling down on what has always been the expectation, but isn't happening consistently. Before our list of recommendations, I'd like to acknowledge and thank both Police Commissioner Bethel and the District Attorney for launching the high risk case review late last week. And here are our recommendations: First, prioritize survivor-centered safety. Safety looks different for every survivor and it changes over time. It's not stagnant. Our systems must be survivor-centered, informed and nimble. Second, strengthen domestic violence prosecution. Domestic violence cases are uniquely complex. They require expertise, experience and skill. We strongly recommend assigning all DV cases to experienced prosecutors within the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Unit. The victim should have the same ADA from the preliminary hearing through sentencing and prosecutors should use evidence-based prosecution whenever possible so that the burden doesn't fall solely on the victim to testify. Victim intimidation is a huge barrier to domestic violence cases, so ADAs should routinely screen for this and immediately charge the defendant when it's occurring. Third, improve victim engagement and communication. Survivors must be notified of every court date and have direct, timely communication with their ADA. ADAs need manageable caseloads so they can review evidence, meet victims and build trust. Strong communication strengthens cases. Survivors also need wraparound support like child care, transportation and time off to participate. And when it comes to victim participation in court, it is imperative that the Sheriff's Office increase security in civil and criminal courtrooms and work with police to improve the process for detaining a defendant who has an active warrant. Fourth, address systemic barriers and strengthen accountability across systems. The police department must thoroughly investigate each case and collect evidence quickly, not just at the time of the crime, of the scene, but examining the context and the patterns that occur in intimate partner violence. We know this is not a one-and-done. There's often times multiple texts, multiple harassment, stalking. All of those things need to be looked upon. We need rapid execution of domestic violence warrants, strong supervisory oversight and a deputy commissioner level or high-level leadership position to be dedicated to domestic violence cases to truly reduce the silos so that we can work across the continuum. And because guns are the leading cause of domestic violence death, the Sheriff's Office and Police must improve coordination around the PFA service and gun relinquishment, including exploring a better technology to track compliance and notifying survivors.
The survivor's office -- I'm sorry, the Sheriff's Office should also establish a clear, publicly available procedure for these critical protections to help petitioners and defendants understand the process and enable survivors to take informed steps to protect themselves and their safety. Fifth, enhance collaboration with victim service providers. We welcome continued partnerships for trauma-informed training and technical assistance. We look forward to working together to explore new programs such as embedding social services within the police department to work on domestic violence cases and the risk assessment programs at every stage of the justice system. As always, we are ready to connect survivors to full continuum of services like shelters, safe housing, economic stability and access to behavioral health care to remain safe long term. And lastly, use data to drive accountability. Philadelphia needs timely, consistent, citywide data across all systems, from 911 calls through sentencing, to identify breakdowns and measure improvement. We are continuously scrambling for data only to receive pieces of it months or sometimes even years after the fact. That limits our ability as a city to spot trends and identify interventions that can save lives. We urge the creation of an annual State of Domestic Violence Report for transparency and accountability to come to this committee. In conclusion, each of the systems before you today have opportunities to improve. When law enforcement and prosecutors perform their roles thoroughly and consistently, our community is safer. We hope City Council will call for a database, plan on ongoing collaboration to ensure our suggested reforms are put into place. We are committed to working collaboratively with the Police department, Sheriff's department and the District Attorney's to implement any changes needed. Thank you so much for your commitment to making Philadelphia safer.
Thank you so much, but you've reiterated what was said all day, that there are gaps in information that put people at risk and we have to -- if we take nothing else, we want to take that out to kind of be able to break down silos, share information in realtime so that we can kind of tighten things up.
Thank you. State your name and begin your testimony. Thank you again for your patience. Whatever order.
My name is David Chiles. I'm the Executive Director at Lutheran Settlement House. Thank you very much for convening this today and for having us here and for the work ahead. We're all members of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, PCADV. And so, working in coalition, working in partnership, recognizing that none of us can do this work alone is at the core of our DNA. And so, we're here, prepared to partner, prepared to work. Ideally, it would not be me sitting here today. It'd be one of our survivors from our survivor network talking with you. So I went to our advocates in lieu of not having one of those survivors, and I said, what are the stories you hear most often. So I want to give some examples of how the breakdowns in accountability and the breakdowns of partnership are impacting the lives of survivors. So Sarah, not her real name, called the police during an incident and she was arrested along with her abusive partner. Now, when the police found out that Sarah was defending herself, they released her, but not before an officer lectured her about the fact that she should not be staying with someone who abuses her. When our advocate then worked with Sarah, later she expressed that she was very unlikely to reach out to the police again because she felt blamed as the victim, first from being arrested for defending herself and then from being lectured without the officer recognizing the personal risks that she would have to take to leave that relationship. I have no doubt that officer was intending to support and help that victim, but the lack of training or the lack of an officer or a unit that is especially designed to work with survivors or the lack of an embedded person from Social Services who works with survivors led that victim to feeling like she was being blamed by the very system that's supposed to be there to protect her. A lack of consistent communication comes up all the time as well, as was a client in our emergency placement program. We were working with her to create a safety plan in the weeks before she was supposed to testify. But despite numerous calls from her and from her advocate, she was not given information about how the case was proceeding until she was asked 48 hours before her testimony to come in. Because of that lack of communication, she felt like she wanted to withdraw from the case because it was increasing her anxiety, increasing her trauma. These also happen. These communication breakdowns happen in the PFA serving and in the confiscation of weapons. Too often, our clients tell us they don't know when the PFA has been served. They don't know if the weapon has been removed from the house. You can imagine what it's like to try to safely plan with someone when they don't have that information, knowing that their partner is going to have been triggered by those actions. So that kind of communication needs to be consistently provided. And finally, I want to highlight Lena, who was a German- speaking client whose partner violated her protective order and abused her when she was picking up her kids from school. Lena went to court three different times and each time the case had to be postponed because there was not an interpreter available. Finally, she decided to withdraw from the case because she just couldn't continue taking time off of work, and her abusive partner was sending death threats to her. Our immigrant community, is uniquely vulnerable to domestic violence and they often have complex fears about working with the criminal justice system. So we must ensure that they are safe and to work with law enforcement in the courts. And when they do work with law enforcement in the courts, we have to respect the significant personal risk and sacrifice that they're putting forward in order to testify against an abusive partner. Stories aren't meant to shame anyone. All of us know that we have fallen short and can do better.
And I could also give a lot of stories about how these systems have supported and comforted and helped survivors, but the key is that we need to do better. And we as advocates are here ready to partner, ready to roll up our sleeves. I don't think it's going out on any limb to say there's not a single person in this room who does not know someone in their family, friends or work group who has been a victim of domestic violence. And if you don't know anyone, it's only because you don't know. It's not because they haven't been victims. And so, we are all committed to working with survivors and we're committed to doing the work together. Thank you.
And immigrant population, ICE issues, deportation issues get involved in that at all?
I mean, absolutely. Abusive partners can use someone's immigration status as a means of control. And especially in the climate that we're seeing right now, the comfort that an immigrant is going to have going to the police or going into the court system, not sure whether they are going to meet an ICE agent there, those are all chilling factors on anyone willing to come forward. I'm sure you all seen this too.
Thank you. Can we finish the testimony and we'll then engage.
My name is Kira Bellolio. I'm the Vice- president of Family and Parenting Services at Congreso de Latinos Unidos. We've been providing domestic violence services for over 30 years. And in 2013, we also received funding to provide legal representation to DV victims seeking PFAs with weapon relinquishment specifically. So that's all we do, because we know WAA does an amazing job at regular PFAs and there's just not enough support there. This is also what we know, reporting 911 calls are handled differently depending on where you live in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia and North Philadelphia, victims often need to make multiple 911 calls before police respond. This is something that our victims are telling us and this is something that even our police district partners are telling us. They are not in charge of dispatch. They tell us, tell them to call, keep calling. This makes survivors feel disbelieved and puts them in further dangers. Victims deserve to be believed and receive consistent and timely police response. At response, our police officers are distributing information such as victims rights, the DV hotline number, but they lack the capacity for follow-up. Their intervention is often limited when there is no physical abuse. But domestic violence is more than just physical abuse. Every form of abuse can be dangerous and should be screened for lethality. When victims fear retaliation, they need assurance that their abuser will not walk free the same day. When police make an arrest, they expect that the prosecutor will follow through diligently and prioritize their safety. That partnership is essential. And in Kada's case, it failed. At hearings, prosecutors have tools to keep victims safe, even when cooperation is difficult. They can proceed using video evidence, requesting higher bail and working closely with police and service providers to ensure that victims feel secure enough to participate. Again, none of that happened here. We urge PPD and the Prosecutor's office to work collaboratively to ensure justice for Kada and all victims. In the aftermath, even when PFA with weapons relinquishments are granted, enforcement often feels impossible. I'm going to read an account from our attorney. This is a seasoned attorney, 30-years of experience, former prosecuting attorney. The legal services attorney is encountering considerable difficulty reaching sheriffs responsible for weapons relinquishment and affidavits swearing to no possession of firearms. The same is true for police detectives responsible for fire license relinquishments. The attorney repeatedly calls one office within the Sheriff's Office and is transferred to another, only to be told he is calling the wrong place. The same occurs when contacting detectives supposedly responsible for fire license relinquishments. Again, this is with all the resources available. So what are we asking? We're asking that you invest in services that link victims to support. The DV hotline for Philadelphia is underfunded. It has consistently been underfunded. We ask that you invest in services that respond to victim safety, invest in workforce services, invest in housing, flexible emergency housing options for survivors, that you invest in prevention services so that we can intervene in school, medical and workplace settings, and that you strengthen systems coordination, that you make the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies a permanent office that has resources allocated to it. The ODVS has successfully implemented systemwide change in offices such as DHS and OHS, which has streamlined responses and improved long-term safety networks that are inclusive of different systems. So we have already a mechanism that can work. It's just not accessing. And then we ask that you mandate stronger coordination between police and prosecutors, including bail motions at high-risk DV cases.
And for Act 79 weapons relinquishment, we need additional support, additional coordination for enforcement to ensure that victims also have safety plans and the resources so that they can seek them confidently and safely. Thank you so much.
Hello, everybody. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Melissa Landsmann. I'm the Executive Director of Women in Transition, and we've been around for nearly 55 years, a leader in the movement to end domestic violence in Philadelphia, along with my sister agencies here providing free, confidential and trauma-informed services to the city's most vulnerable residents. Our programs include crisis counseling, peer support groups, individual empowerment counseling, prevention and education initiatives and a clinical therapy program, all of which are designed to help survivors rebuild their lives after abuse and prevent future violence as well as help survivors in crisis achieve safety. A cornerstone of our work is also substance abuse, because often survivors are using substances as a way to self- medicate or their abuser is using substances as a way to control them. I'm going to skip through a bunch of my testimony because I feel like I've submitted it and I also feel like my colleagues have very eloquently talked about it. Gender-based violence is a widespread issue in the United States. As we talked about earlier, in women will experience domestic violence, sometimes in their lives, at some point in their lifetime. In Philadelphia, the impact of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence is particularly pronounced and has deeply eroded the fabric of our families and communities. While domestic violence affects all communities, its impact is especially debilitating in our city with its high rates of poverty and shortage of affordable housing. These issues are closely associated with an increased risk of domestic violence and create additional challenges for survivors to leave their abusers, find housing and become financially independent. We were asked here today -- one of the questions we were asked is, why don't domestic violence victims come to court. It's a really straightforward question, as you've heard today, with a really complicated answer. In addition to psychological stress of facing your abuser, it's also emotionally difficult to have to retell your story, and some of my colleagues recounted that, as well as some solutions for that. The very real and often times paralyzing fear, these fears are shared with us by our clients, I got these from our hotline and intake managers, fear of a system that has let them down too many times before and that they won't be believed or that their testimony won't lead to meaningful consequences for their abuser, fear of facing their abuser and the possible retaliation against them, their loved ones, even their pets if they participate in the abuser's prosecution, fear of losing their jobs. Despite job protections in our city, taking time away from work for multiple court appearances is still risky for many individuals. There are frequently continuances with little notice, often after the victim and their support system has already arrived at the courthouse. Employers are not always understanding, and survivors risk their livelihood impacting their ongoing struggle to maintain or establish financial independence, fear of losing their children in custody battles and of the emotional impact on children if they testify against the other parent, fear that testifying could to loss of income, housing or stability, and they can feel very overwhelming or most importantly, fear of being revictimized or retraumatized, having to retell your story multiple times, especially if their experience is denied or minimized by the process or if they're blamed for their victimization. We talked about what we can do during court procedures. I'm going to highlight -- again, I submitted my full statement, trauma-informed training. We need mandatory training for judges. I've heard way too many stories from our survivors, our client survivors that the judges yelled at them for how they showed up in court, meaning, how they were dressed or they were upset or they were in crisis.
I have a friend who went through this, who the judge didn't believe her statement even though she had letters that the person had violated the protection from abuse order from the jail for the record. That was not in Philadelphia just so we know. Victim advocates, we've already talked about that. We talked about assignment of consistent, experienced ADA staff, protective orders, enforcement, flexible scheduling, remote testimony options, anything we can do to protect the victim while they're in court, and the cornerstone of that is probably communication around making sure that the victim is consistently communicated with. It's very nerve-racking to go to court and it's even more nerve-racking if you're the victim in the situation. We talked about the projection from abuse. It needs to be proven that the system is making victims safer, not making them more exposed or only recognizing their importance when their testimony is needed, so we need you to show up next week, but I haven't talked to you in months. The words of one of our councilors who has spoken to hundreds of victims over the years: Victims who seek a PFA often face more obstacles. We've talked about that with the firearm removal. We've talked about it, that the police sometimes when they show up, and again I know we're all trying -- nobody's pointing fingers, I think everybody's doing this with good intentions, but the PFA, they call 911 and maybe the call isn't responded to. The police show up, they tell them there's nothing they can do because maybe the perpetrator has left the scene at that point. A warrant isn't issued if the police do show up. If the warrant is issued, the accused abuser isn't ever arrested. This is multiple times. If the accused abuser is arrested, they're let out on bail or if they're found in violation, they're released in a short period of time. Remember that each of the above things that I just mentioned drastically increases the victim's risk of repeat victimization and worst, lethality or mortality. They risk being murdered. None of these statements are intended to demonize any of the above parties. We're all trying to work hard to protect domestic violence victims. But ask yourself, would you risk your life for a system that hasn't yet proven that it can protect you? We talked about mandatory training. We talked about resources. I'm going to skip ahead because I know everybody's had a long day. Recent events have highlighted the importance for protections for domestic violence survivors. However, make no 20 mistake, that these recent events are the lived realities of what's going on every day in our city in the lives of victim survivors throughout our beloved city. And behind each case brought forward is an individual who's trying to live their lives free of the fear of their abuser and domestic violence. Thank you for bringing this issue forward for an examination of how we can protect all women and survivors of domestic violence, regardless of their gender or gender identity. After you're done listening to all of us today, you've had a very long day, my recommendations implement the solutions you've heard. Protect victims of crime, truly protect them. May today's conversation lead to real, lasting change, and may Kada Scott's legacy become a safer future for all survivors. We know that every victim matters to each of you and we are glad to work alongside the City of Philadelphia and its various resources in finding solutions that work to empower survivors, hold their victims accountable for their actions and ultimately create a safer community and city for all of us. Thank you and we welcome your questions.
Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. Are there any questions? Member Lozada.
Thank you. First of all, thank you so much for your patience. Thank you for sitting through what has been a really, really long day. I just think that in the future we should consider bringing them on first, right, because the people that need to hear them are already gone from the room. (Applause.)
I appreciate the fact that many of you who testified today actually came with some actionable items that we need to look at when considering protecting victims and responding to this very serious public safety issue that we have going on and that has been happening for many, many years. I think we need to do a better job at consistently talking about domestic violence, what the resources are, how to go about certain processes. I can't tell you the number of times that I get calls late in the evening or early in the morning or on a weekend from a victim that says, I really don't know where to go, what to do, and mostly around that whole PDF process, right, and being afraid of how do I go get it, do I go by myself, and what happens once this person is served, and am I at more risk than when I was in that person's space, right, or when I was sharing that person's space. And so, I just want to say thank you to all of you for the work that you do every day. I know it's challenging. But if it's not for you, we could potentially have had many more or can have many more in the future Kada Scott situations, so I'm grateful for all of the work that you do. Sometimes we don't take the opportunity to say thank you to the advocates enough. So I just wanted to share my appreciation.
I'll be brief. I just want to thank you for your hard work and dedication and being on the front line day-in and day-out and how we can continue being supportive. We will make sure we will -- I am talking to Member Lozada regarding any contractual vendor mishaps with the City of Philadelphia, that you have our public support that we will work with the Office of Finance to make sure that you always get paid in a timely fashion because you're out there doing the hard work. So I just want to state that for the record publicly. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony and I really appreciate the enlightenment. And I'm going to take it under advisement that we need to change the order and get some of the people closest to the pain in first and then allow some of the institutional departments to respond to that pain. I got it. Thank you all. Ms. Stack.
Davina Scott from Women's Law Project; Jamie Miller from Philly Self Defense; Shakina Rush from She is U, Inc.; and Gabriela Fontan from WOAR. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Thank you all for your patience and sticktoitness. Please in any order state your name and begin your testimony. Please don't be shy.
Good afternoon. My name is Gabriela Fontan. First, I'd like to thank City Council President Kenyatta Johnson for inviting WOAR to participate in this domestic violence investigatory hearing. I'd also like to thank the members of City Council for your time today. City Council's continued recognition and support of victim services organizations within the City of Philadelphia is essential to supporting victims and survivors within the city. Again, my name is Gabriela Fontan. I am the Executive Director of WOAR, Philadelphia's center against sexual violence. WOAR is the only rape crisis center here in Philadelphia and has served survivors of sexual assault within Philadelphia for 53 years. WOAR provides critical services such as therapy, 24/7 hotline crisis counseling, medical and court accompaniment as well as prevention and education services to the community. Through these services, WOAR encounters people who have experienced trauma, and they come to us at some of the most devastating times in their lives. While WOAR specifically provides services to those who have experienced sexual violence, what many of the other panelists know is that there is an intersectionality between sexual assault and domestic violence. Abuse and intimate partner relationships manifest in a myriad of ways, including emotional abuse, physical abuse and coercion. That coercion may appear in the form of sexual coercion. For perspective, in women experience sexual assault, 1 in 6 men experience sexual assault, and 1 in 10 children experience sexual assault. Individuals who experience sexual assault at times also experience domestic abuse from that same individual, someone who is intimately related to them and in close proximity to them, which leads me to why we are here today. When survivors come in contact with the criminal justice system through no fault of their own, they experience a flood of emotions. Survivors experience the anxiety of facing their abuser, the fear of retaliation for leaving the abusive cycle, mistrust in the criminal justice process and distress due to having to relive the event or events over and over again because they continuously have to recount their experience at various points in the litigation process. They experience confusion because many of them have never come in contact with the criminal justice system outside of a traumatic event and are unfamiliar with what the criminal justice process entails. And lastly, among other emotions, the fear of not being believed by those from whom they seek help. To that end, the criminal justice system at times fails to handle survivors with care. As such, areas of improvement would include trained court staff who are aware of the dynamics of survivors and their abusers during court proceedings, which looks like attention to the separation of the parties and proper safety measures implemented by the respective entities to ensure the safety of those who appear to testify, an increase in trauma-informed and culturally competent police officers, prosecutors and even judges who understand the experience of domestic violence survivors, while working in partnership with victim advocates to ensure equal access to justice for those survivors. The survivor experience is why organizations like WOAR are critical partners in the criminal justice system. WOAR's court and medical advocates help survivors by providing emotional and physical support during stressful, traumatic and confusing times. They provide support to survivors who otherwise might not have anyone else to lean on. Our counselors and therapists help survivors process these traumatic events so that they may have the strength and courage to navigate life again as well as navigate the criminal justice system. I work for WOAR because I believe in empowering those who feel disenfranchised, marginalized and unseen. 14 years ago I was a victim advocate. From there, I became an attorney and now I am the Executive Director of WOAR.
And through all of those experiences, what I know is when people survive trauma, whether domestic violence, sexual assault and the like, they experience a common sentiment of feeling unseen and unheard. The workers within victim services organizations empower, support and protect survivors within the criminal justice system by being a voice for someone who feels voiceless, a listening ear, a buffer and a source of strength and so much more. To that end, the most critical support that legislators can provide to victims and survivors is through recognizing the hard work of victim services organizations. Continued support through consistent and abundant funding is essential to the survival of organizations like WOAR throughout the city. I am hopeful this hearing is the beginning of many efforts to protect and support the victims and survivors within the city of Philadelphia. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
State your name for the record and begin with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Davina Scott and I am here today representing the Women's Law Project. The Women's Law Project is a public interest legal organization that defends gender justice in Pennsylvania and beyond. We've been doing this work for over 50 years. I thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I serve as WLP's client advocate, and every day we hear from people whose sense of normalcy and safety have been completely shattered by domestic and sexual violence and the systemic failures they encounter along the way. In 1999 and again in 2001, WLP testified before the same committee about this same issue Philadelphia's insufficient response to domestic violence. More than years ago, 11 we shared that people experiencing 12 domestic violence in 13 Philadelphia -- 14
I'm sorry for 16 interrupting. Be patient with me. 17 Can you repeat that last statement 18 regarding when WOAR came -- when 19 your organization came here to 20 advocate on the same issue, how long ago?
More than 4 years ago, we shared that people 5 experiencing domestic violence in 6 Philadelphia had dangerously 7 inadequate access to legal support, 8 logistical help and emergency 9 housing to keep them safe. These 10 longstanding challenges still 11 persist. 12 Now, we are here again 13 because of the horrific and 14 preventable murder of Kada Scott, 15 whose family and loved ones we send 16 our condolences. I'm sorry that it 17 has taken a tragedy for us to take 18 action. This should not be the 19 case. The City and the system 20 failed Kada Scott. Had we acted on the systemic issues we know are present, Kada might be alive today. Today I asked how can we improve our response to domestic violence in Philadelphia. My core message is that we must take a comprehensive and holistic approach. To improve citywide response to people experiencing domestic and sexual violence in Philadelphia, we must take a holistic approach and address a range of intersecting issues. Race, socioeconomic status, sexual identity, disability status, immigration status and prior experiences with police and the courts all influence the likelihood of experiencing interpersonal violence and whether survivors feel safe reporting a crime or seeking services. Intimate partner violence is not limited to physical abuse. It can manifest as emotional or psychological manipulation, financial control, religious or spiritual abuse and commonly sexual violence and reproductive coercion. What does this look like? Abusive partners may control reproductive choices by restricting contraception and/or sexually abusing their partner, thereby increasing the risk of unintended pregnancy. Pregnancy in turn increases the risk of violence. In the United States, homicide remains one of the leading causes of death for pregnant people. A holistic citywide approach to addressing intimate partner violence must include strengthening our response to sexual violence and expanding access to reproductive health care. Specifically, Women's Law Project has three recommendations for the City to undertake. Our first recommendation: Invest in Peace Arch to keep its doors open. The Philadelphia sexual assault response center is Philadelphia's only dedicated center for conducting rape kits, providing 24/7-hour care to more than 300 patients annually. Peace Arch is a holistic model program that Philadelphia can be proud of. However, Peace Arch's future is at risk due to uncertainty about its administrative oversight and funding. We urge the City to ensure Peace Arch remains fully funded and operational. We heard earlier today that the funding and resources for these DV organizations that serve Philadelphia does not match the need. Our second recommendation, release data on case outcomes. I echo Councilmember Gauthier's earlier statement that data is powerful. Hundreds of cases involving sexual assault, stalking, strangulations and other forms of intimate partner violence are referred for prosecution in Philadelphia every year. But what happens after that is not clear. We know prosecutions are often declined, charges are dropped, dismissed or reduced to plea agreements. What we don't know is how many, how often or under what circumstances. We call on DA Krasner to make data on the outcomes of domestic and sexual violence cases referred to his office available to the public. We also hope that we can have access to DA Krasner's earlier report. Our third recommendation: Establish annual trauma-informed training for all SVU officers and detectives. There is so little trust in the system that most victims do not report sexual assault. When survivors do report, there are many reasons they stop participating in the process. They may be disbelieved and disrespected. They may be told their case isn't strong enough. They are exhausted and retraumatized from retelling their story or they lose faith that their assailant will be held accountable.
These are stories we just heard that are similar to what PCA DV advocates talked about. However, when officers conduct victim-centered interviews, avoid perpetrated harmful myths and make survivors feel safe and respected, victims are more likely to stay engaged in the case. Survivor participation decreases the likelihood of dropping serious charges, such as the previous charges against Kada Scott's alleged murderer that were dropped after the victim stopped participating in the case. We also echo Woman Against Abuse's push for thorough investigations. We must also recognize that lacking access to reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, increases the risk of domestic violence. While we applaud the recent Philadelphia City Council resolution recognizing reproductive rights as human rights as well as the ongoing work of Philadelphia Reproductive Freedom Task Force, we were disappointed that the city refused advocates request to fund reproductive health care that would have expanded local access to contraception and other critical services. Actualizing Philadelphia's commitment to defending reproductive autonomy requires investing in access to reproductive health care. Kada Scott's murder was senseless and preventable. Only a comprehensive citywide strategy that recognizes how interpersonal violence, intersexual-related issues and invest in holistic support will effectively reduce domestic and sexual violence. Women's Law Project remains committed to working with City Council and officials to advance these recommendations. Thank you for listening.
Thank you so much for your testimony today. Please state your name for the record and begin with your testimony. And we'll hold all questions until all of you have spoken.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Council President and Councilmembers, for convening this important hearing and for inviting me to share my story. I sincerely appreciate it. My name is Jamie Miller. I am a survivor advocate of domestic violence, a mother, a former professional MMA fighter and the founder of Philly Self Defense, a trauma-informed program created to help women, youth and survivors reclaim safety, confidence and autonomy. I survived over six and a half years of many types of abuse, physical abuse before during and after my pregnancy, mental and emotional, economic and litigation abuse. I escaped with my daughter and left everything behind, only to find myself homeless, staying in a domestic violence safe haven operated by Women Against Abuse, where I was able to rebuild our lives from the ground up. And even then, the system did not protect us. The system believed his manipulation and lies while I had to repeatedly bend over backwards just to prove the abuse we endured and how unsafe we were. We only wanted safety and protection, and the courts made that nearly impossible. And sadly for us, our situation got a lot darker before anyone started to believe me. Even with proof of evidence, the stalking, harassment, online abuse, child abuse and documented evidence, the court still granted my ex temporary full custody because he made it seem and they believed that I was homeless on the street, even though I had letters from my case manager verifying my residency at a safe haven and DHS documentation showing that a social worker had visited both locations, standard protocol for shelter placement. The judge still tried to bully me into revealing the address of the confidential safe haven. And because I refused to violate the very confidentiality laws meant to protect us, I lost custody of my daughter on that day. The courts made me jump through hoops unnecessarily. Parenting classes, supervised visits just to earn back time with my own child. Meanwhile, my ex was still meeting me in public places and asking me to babysit my daughter, not only violating the court order, but showing his confidence and using the system to manipulate abuse and destroy. He lied to the courts, lied to anyone who would listen and manipulated our daughter. And despite years of reporting his behaviors, especially the mental health concerns, no one believed me. In his care, my daughter suffered severe neglect and just out of sheer respect for her privacy I won't go into all of those details, but it was pretty severe what she endured while in her father's care. And it took nearly four years and several failed petition attempts before we finally got in front of a judge for an emergency hearing. And just to give a little bit of context, by this time, because this is sort of on the back end of those four years, up until that point it was I believe I've counted at least 23 hearings in those four years. And 24 it was just a matter of him filing and refiling things. He would come to an agreement in one hearing just to at the very end of it say, no, I don't agree to that, just to maintain that control and to continually drag us through the system. So once we got before a judge for an emergency hearing, my abuser had been sending my mother photos of holes he had cut in the walls because he was hearing voices. He had trash bags over his windows of his apartment because he was paranoid that drones were flying by his windows and spying on him. And finally, one judge, Judge Daniel Sulman, did what any judge should have done from the very beginning. He took one look at our case, and in his own words, I can't believe it's gotten this far, and he canceled his entire docket for the day.
So after eight hours of testimony, interviews, reviewing evidence of past hearings, I was granted temporary full custody, because Sulman on paper -- because my ex was considered an involved father, he also wanted to put everything in place to give him the opportunity to get the help that he needed. He ordered mental health assessments and things along those lines as well. So during that time, I was granted temporary full custody and my ex chose not to take advantage of those things that were put into place for him to get help. But during the final hearing, it was confirmed what I had been saying for years regarding his mental health. He was diagnosed with psychosis and schizophrenia and abusing heroin, methamphetamine and prescription medication. I was granted sole custody and legal custody of my daughter that day. And thank God. If the right people hadn't stepped in, in that exact time, the system would have continued to perpetuate itself and I believe my daughter -- I'm sorry. I truly believe that our story would have ended in tragedy. And he was right. It shouldn't have gotten that far. It should have not have gotten that far. And former judges, decision- makers and positions of power repeatedly ignored the blatant signs, dismissed the truth and placed us in danger over and over again. And by the grace of God, we survived. And so, this is why I'm here, because the system is flawed to its core. And I say this with love because I know that the very resources and things that we do have in place to support survivors, they are helpful because they helped me, they saved my life. But I truly do believe that on its surface it's helpful, but the real work is within the system. And I think that no 9 matter how many of these initiatives and programs we put into place, again which are great, I think that if we continue to -- I will say it almost feels like we're fighting against the system. I feel like we're doing all of this work, the boots on the ground, supporting survivors and I feel like the system is against us. And so, it feels like we're just constantly butting heads. And so, I feel that -- yeah, the system itself must change. And my story is not unique. Many endure far worse, as we know with Kada, and some won't make it out. When you look back on domestic violence cases where someone is killed, it's almost always because the system failed to protect them. And through my work with Philly Self Defense, I work with women, teens, community organizations, law enforcement and youth in high violence districts. In all these spaces the same truth echoes, people are desperate for trauma-informed, realistic, accessible, prevention and healing resources, not months later, not after mountains of paperwork, but in the moment when they reach out for help. And I want to be clear. My belief in the transformative power of empowerment through movement is not theoretical. I lived it. While living in the safe haven, reclaiming my power meant reconnecting with the things that made me feel alive, chasing the dreams and goals he tried to take from me. I found forgiveness, not just for him but for my own freedom. I knew that I truly had to cut the emotional ties and free myself from his control. I needed to release the anger, pain and resentment. Forgiveness allowed me to step into the woman and mother I was always meant to be. So I quietly stepped back on the mats at my MMA gym and began to train again. And it truly brought me back to life. I was just over 90 pounds. And through training, I regained my strength physically, my confidence and my identity. MMA gave me everything I needed to fight the battles happening outside the gym. And on the mats, we say the mats don't lie. Because if you quit, you're exposed. But then you're forced to confront your limits and your weaknesses so that you can become stronger, just the beauty of it all. You're surrounded by a team that battles beside you, lifts you up and holds you accountable.
I always knew there was something to that, the healing through movement, but MMA proved it. I knew immediately I wanted to give other survivors the same chance to become stronger from the inside out because true healing starts internally. Programs and resources matter, but what sustains you is the inner work when you shift the framework from why me or look what they did to me, to who do I need to become. That's where true healing begins. A year after leaving the safe haven, I took my first professional fight back. I was 1-0 and hadn't fought in years. It was a short notice title fight in California, where I was brought in as a true underdog. Clearly expected to lose -- we like to call that tomato can, to lose to the number one contender who was on the cusp of the UFC. I knocked her out in the fourth round and brought the belt home to Philly. )
Thank you. Thank you so much. In that moment, I knew I was undeniable. And I knew I could not be defined by my trauma. And I knew if I could do that so could other survivors. My advocacy began in 2015, 2016 where I reconnected with Women Against Abuse with a proposal to bring a self defense program to the safe haven where my daughter and I rebuilt our lives. Since then, you can find me everywhere from Harrisburg to speaking to legislators about my lived experience to events, stages, caucus rooms, sitting at my desk helping survivors who message me online, and my favorite place of all, on the mats teaching self- defense and helping people heal through movement. I now sit on the Board of Directors for Women Against Abuse, becoming the first former client to do so in 50 years. And I serve on the Shared Safety Survivor Advisory Board, thank you, for the Office of Domestic Violence Strategies as well as the Mayor's Office of Women Engagement Committee. I am partnered with the Philadelphia Police Department, including officers who were on my case years ago in my most critical moments. I speak with PPD leadership about the importance of police response during domestic violence calls and the resources survivors should receive. It's all about collaboration and partnership. None of this work was done alone. It takes collective dedication to create meaningful change. I believe that with the right policies, especially as it relates to Family Court and real systemic reform, we can set survivors, families and communities up for success. We need to build bridges, create partnerships, collaborate within the system, deploy new advocacy initiatives, place boots on the ground, fill in the gaps and provide resources that meet survivors where they're at, at every stage, not just in their most critical, most of all, create safe spaces where people can truly heal. I believe in this work because it's the exact formula that helped me become who I am today. Because it hap -- excuse me, it happened by luck, by the right people appearing at the right time, but that should never be the case. We need advocates and decision- makers placed intentionally throughout the system, along with new trainings and policies for judges in Family Court. Philadelphia is full of survivors who are strong, resourceful and resilient, but that should not have to be resilient alone. Today I stand here because I made it out. But survival should not depend on luck, strength or knowing the right people. It should depend on systems that work. Thank you so much for listening and thank you for committing to a safer, stronger and more trauma- informed Philadelphia.
Good afternoon, Council President. Thank you so much for being a man of your word and following up and supporting the City of Philadelphia. Good afternoon, fellow Councilmembers. I'm so grateful to be here. I have a mix of emotions. I'm grateful. I'm frustrated. You know, I just have a lot of different emotions, but I just want to -- let me introduce myself again. My name is Shakina Rush and I serve as the Founder and Executive Director of She is U, an organization that supports overcomers of domestic violence, sexual abuse and sexual assault. Unfortunately, I have overcome all three instances. So She Is U, we support overcomers within the city of Philadelphia and the surrounding counties. So the systematic issues discussed in the hearing are not theoretical. They are harming victims every day. At She Is U, we receive messages, requests and crisis reports that reveal how deeply the criminal justice system is failing to protect individuals feeling abuse. One individual recently asked, are there shelters specifically for women who used to be with people involved in the criminal or judicial system. I myself have to speak on that. I myself am in fear of that. I dated a Philadelphia police officer who, because I told him no, decided to drug me and then sexually assault me. So out of fear of being retaliated and out of fear of someone not believing me, I did not report the assault and I left it in my faith in the divine's hands. So I know from experience that I am not the only person that feels that way. How do you turn to a system that is corrupted and broken to support you? So as I was stating, the systematic issues discussed in the hearing they are not theoretical. They are harming victims every day, and we receive reports that reveal how deeply the criminal justice system is failing to protect individuals fleeing abuse. So one individual recently asked, are there shelters specifically for women who used to be with people involved in a criminal judicial system. This question reflects the fear and uncertainty survivors feel as they navigate systems that do not appear equipped to safely support them. Another woman reported to our contact, I called his probation officer and reported that he's calling me from blocked numbers and he called and harassed me while he was in prison. I was met with a sarcastic response. So what you want me to do, call him, the probation officer responded. This response illustrates a troubling lack of trauma-informed practice and a failure to recognize the seriousness of retaliatory contact and harassment. Another survivor shared with us, I called victim services and they promised me a resource and now, I can't get through to anyone. A broken line of communication should never determine whether a victim receives safety, support or intervention. The most alarming example in the case of a survivor, whose name I cannot share, is referred to as Jane Doe. Her testimony demonstrates multiple systematic failures. Jane Doe was incarcerated until early this year. After her release, she married the father of her youngest child believing she was entering a stable home. Instead she experienced escalating verbal, emotional, financial and psychological abuse. Her abuser threatened to have her sent back to prison, manipulated her access to money, controlled her movements and used their child to keep her from leaving. When she reached a breaking point, he accused her of stealing his gun and had her arrested. The charges were dismissed when he failed to appear in court, but the case was refiled upon her return. Meanwhile, he hacked her account, stole her funds, took her belongings and forced her into homelessness. She wrote that she has been living in her truck, struggling to stay warm, unable to access housing, mental health support or consistent protection while managing ongoing threats and coercion. She expressed suicidal thoughts driven by fear isolation and systematic abandonment.
She reached out to our organization for housing, which we do not currently have the funding to provide, so we referred her to the domestic violence hotline. These incidents show how survivors are repeatedly failed by law enforcement, probation, victim services and the courts. But another major systemic issue requires urgent attention, child custody and interstate safety barriers. Victims with children often express fear about leaving the state to seek safety because of the legal procedures required before they are permitted to do so. Under current custody laws, a parent generally cannot relocate with a child, even for safety without risking accusations of kidnapping or custodial interference. Survivors are often told that they must file custody petitions, attend hearings and obtain a court order before relocating, even when the threat to their life is immediate. These requirements place victims in impossible situations and are frequently used by abusers to maintain power through legal intimidation. Furthermore, there must be a mandatory system of intervention when domestic violence is reported, immediate, accessible and enforced. Intervention should include psychological evaluation, trauma counseling and ongoing therapeutic support for both the abused and the abuser. We cannot continue to treat domestic violence solely as a criminal issue. It is a public health crisis with a long-term emotional, psychological and generational consequences. I speak not only as an advocate, but also as someone who was failed by the system. Again, when I was in my 20s, I thought I was being loved. I believed that fighting was just something couples go through, that it would just pass. But when things got really out of control, even though they already were and the police were called, I was never handed any information, no 10 referrals, no resources, nothing. I didn't even know I needed help. I couldn't even identify with an organization or an agency. I thought they were just for married women, White women, people who were, you know, I don't know that lived in the suburbs. This was the impression that I had. I wasn't looked at as an individual with trauma. I was treated like just another call dispatch. That moment defined everything that followed. Had there been mandatory trauma screenings or a policy that ensured the officer paused to ask, have you considered therapy or counseling, would you like someone to talk to, my path might have been different. To truly protect victims and change outcomes, I respectfully offer the following recommendations: Strengthen trauma-informed responses across law enforcement, probation and the courts, survivors must be met with urgency, respect and protection, not sarcasm or disbelief, improve shelter and housing options. There are not enough housing and shelter options. I get hundreds of emails about housing. The criminal issue can be prevented how -- going through the legal system can be prevented if they were offered safe, protective housing. So again, for survivors who are just as involved or navigating probation and custody restrictions, improve shelter and housing options, ensure consistent and reliable follow-up from victim services with accountability and funding tied to performance. You cannot do anything without any money. I am a believer and the word of God says that money is the answer to all things. Reform child custody and relocation procedures to prioritize victim safety and allow emergency interstate relocations when needed without punitive legal consequences, expand legal support for survivors facing retaliatory or coercive charges filed by abusers, and reform laws that allow abuse to continue through legal means. Implement mandatory intervention protocols. Meaning, our schools need to have domestic violence and services and organizations built within their systems. It needs to be incorporated into the curriculum, into the training and everything. Workshops need to be provided.
This needs to be mandatory. So implement mandatory intervention protocols that include psychological evaluations, counseling and therapeutic support for both parties, as I mentioned earlier. Early intervention should be a legal requirement, not a personal privilege. Treat domestic violence as a public health issue across all departments, health, housing, criminal justice and human services that victims are no longer siloed, blamed or forgotten. Survivors deserve a justice system that sees them, believes them and responds to their trauma with care, clarity and consistency. Now, I've had the pleasure to meet the Scott family. And before there was a Kada Scott, there was a Sykea Patton. She Is U stands ready to support this effort and I personally remain committed to advancing solutions that break cycles of violence and restore dignity and hope to every overcomer. As I sit here, I sit next to one of our advocates and also a surviving family member of a victim of domestic violence, Sykea Patton. She's going to have a chance to introduce herself. But I thank you all for your time. I thank you all for hearing my testimony, and I thank you all for your support and let's continue to work together. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Please proceed.
Hello, Council President and Councilmembers. Thank you guys for taking the time out to listen to us all today. Firstly, I just want to commend the ladies that I'm sitting next to because all of them gave such great testimony and sound like such strong women, and I know when I'm in good company. So I just want to commend you guys. My name is Samaya Patton. I am the younger sister of Sykea Patton, who was a victim of domestic violence. My sister was years old. She was my older 18 sister. When she passed in 2021 19 November 19, she was murdered by 20 her boyfriend while walking her 21 children home from school. It was 22 a very known case in the city of 23 Philadelphia. 24 But before she was murdered, we were living together in her house and her boyfriend was living with us. She asked him to leave. She no longer wanted to be in a relationship. Things began to escalate. They got into a big fight. He ended up putting his hands on her. We called the police, and the police told us there was nothing they could do because they did not witness it themselves. He was sitting outside of the house when the police arrived. They told her to file for a PFA and to take all the necessary steps to obtain the PFA and things of such. It was late at night so she said she would do it the following morning. We changed the lock. She got a new number. That same night actually he came back. My dad was also living next door to us, so we were next door at my dad's house. He used his key, went back inside the house and destroyed all of her belongings, her TVs, her clothes, furniture. He destroyed everything. The cops came back and told us again there was nothing they could do until they saw him themselves hurt her, even though we, her sisters, had witnessed him physically hitting our sister. We had to fight him to try to get him out of the house. Two days later he came back as she was walking her kids home and he shot her. I heard a lot of testimony today about what we can do to keep people in jail after doing such things, but I don't think I heard enough about what we can do to prevent it from getting to that point. I think we talked about the word prevention a lot, but we didn't actually talk about what we could do. The steps to get a PFA are important and I do agree in that notion. But what is a PFA when there's someone who knows your daily routine, who knows where you live, who knows where you work. What is a piece of paper going to do to a person with a gun. And I think that it's just ironic because the day that everything occurred that Wednesday night, Friday after school when she was shot, the same two officers came back and they had, for lack of a better term, dumbest look on their face, because you guys were just here and you told us it was nothing you could do, and now there's nothing we can do to bring our sister back to her children. I think that a lot of the testimony today also speaks to Kada Scott and her family, to which I also want to offer my condolences. But Kada is not the first nor will she be the last to experience something like this. And I hear a lot of testimony about what we can do to prevent it, but we need action behind it. It's not just about a conversation because a lot of conversations just die at the end of the conversation. We need to put action behind these things. A lot of accountability is being taken, but what are the actions that are going to come after it. My sister died four years ago and this is the first time I'm being invited to something like this. And I've been very acclimated with Ms. Rush. She would have warned me if there was something of the sort. But the fact that it took for Kada to go viral, and you know, thank God that it is gaining traction to the topic of domestic violence, but it shouldn't have taken for her to lose her life either, because these steps should have been taken in many other years, especially in 2021.
Because the day after my sister died, another woman was shot around the corner at her baby shower. Her name was Jessica Covington. So I just think that we should just take time to not only recognize the victims and their stories, but just think about the fact that this stuff doesn't just die with the conversation we're having in this room. The PFAs are important, the court dates, being arrested is all important, but a lot of these people aren't being arrested until a life is taken. We have to find a way to arrest these people before it gets to that point. And I'm not specifically saying men, because domestic violence can be between same sex couples or any kind of couple or not couples. But I think that there needs to be somewhere in between the PFA and death. There has to be another step before we get to that point. Because if someone is -- I'm also hearing a lot about proof of abuse. Oh, she wasn't marked anymore so we couldn't tell. It shouldn't take proof. I shouldn't have to have a bloody nose or a battered face for me to prove that I'm being abused or that I'm in danger or my children are in danger. There has to be something to fill in that gap. And I don't speak for just me and my sister. I speak for a lot of women when I say these things. I also just want to highlight that there are a lot of companies and organizations, nonprofit organizations, who are trying to do the groundwork and don't have the funding, and we need to support those companies also. We really need to support those companies. Because after my sister passed, there were a lot of nonprofit organizations, Ms. Rush is being one of them, that reached out to us to help us fund the funeral and pay for her tombstone and things of such and send us on weekend trips to try to recoup. But although it could never bring my sister back, it was nice to have that support. But they can't support us if no one's supporting them. So I just want to highlight that also, and just take a minute again to thank you guys for hearing my sister's story and everybody else's who was shared today.
So I don't know about my colleagues, I can speak for myself, some of the bravery and the stories and the truth that people most closely associated with the pain has kind of enlightened us. And some of the tragedy has to turn, as you said, into something positive. And I remember the exact moment when Member President Johnson and Bill Greenlee came and pulled me aside and said, we need to put 300 more beds in the Women Against Abuse. And he went through it and highlighted why. And I kind of understood why he did it, but Greenlee it kind of shocked me, so it caught my attention and we did it. I remember the exact moment when we put more money into anti-violence money. They wanted to give I think it was like 300,000 and we said, no, this budget ain't getting passed until there is a seismic shift in the priority of this. I'm telling you today, today your testimony has sent that kind of shock wave through all of us. And some of the takeaways are that there are gaps in the system and it's people that are falling literally through those gaps. And the distance between the time the PFA and the time that the guns are removed and the time that it takes to get a court order is too long. Too many people fall between those gaps. And the fact that you mentioned we need more beds, we need reliable housing, there should be an interstate kind of exchange that people can be relocated safely, and those things just aren't happening. A well-meaning agency, I won't call out what department it was, talked about all of the things that went wrong, talk about the computers don't talk to each other. My colleague said, well, why don't people talk to each other. I mean, pick up the phone, put the files. We got Zoom. You can all go through the files and see who constitutes a greater threat we are missing. We are missing the margins. And what you pointed out, it was almost like common sense, like what were we thinking. And so, I want you to know how impactful all of you and your testimony is. And one thing about us, we argue with each other. But once we all decide that we want to do something, it's getting done. Ain't no air to that.
Can -- I'm sorry. Just to mention, even while I'm sitting here I am getting a message from someone: I'm currently searching for some assistance and finding shelter transitional housing after recently leaving a domestic violence relationship. Now, I heard you mention Women Against Abuse, but there is an organization by the name of She Is U, which I am the founder of. And I connect with other organizations, but there's really not like a system where we can kind of directly communicate with each other. We do communicate through the Office of Domestic Violence Strategy. But say if someone reaches out to me and they're looking, it's always housing, they're always looking for safe shelter. They're not even really asking about a PFA because they're concerned about their shelter first.
Yeah, but they're concerned about their shelter first. And like I said, there's not just Women Against Abuse. There are so many other organizations. They are in the living rooms, at the funeral, at the hospital bed, at the court dates that really need the support. And also, if there's a way that there could be like a -- I don't know. This is just an idea, like a public shelter where we all can kind of feed into that shelter, like, okay, someone called me and say, I have my children, it's three of us, we need somewhere to go. And I have a direct number that I can call. I'm not directing them to someone. I have a direct contact that I can call and say, you know, you can go here. I'm going to have an escort meet you. I mean, it is a danger so I can't really personally go. I mean, I can, I will. But, you know --
What I'd like to do is sit down and Prez is good at creating these special committees with a finite mission. And he's going to pick and choose and do that so we can get the best of your thinking. But just so that you know, don't think -- shelters, it better be a separate system because that's another system we're looking at. We went out in Code Blue. 30 people on the grates. And they looked up and they said, you know what, we feel safer in jail than at those shelters. So we got to find a safe place to house people.
I seen two vacant buildings across the street from the school that Kada Scott was found that can house people for shelter; a warehouse and I think it was previously an independent living home or something like that. And it seems like it's already equipped for rooms or some type of housing situation, two surrounding the building where she was found.
So we just need to look at the resources we got, come up with the ideas you have. And once again, I'm confident once we get pointed our ship in a direction, we're going to reach shore. So we just need -we're only limited by what we don't know. This is your area of expertise. You have to enlighten us on how to be helpful. All right. Member Lozada.
It's been a long day, but I just want to say I thank the providers for hanging tight and being here. Thank you all for sharing your stories with us. It's been an educational day, a long day but a very informative day. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you for your strength and thank you for your advocacy for others despite what you all have experienced yourselves. As Mr. Chair here mentioned, I think that we're in a different place. You mentioned that in 1999 and in 2001 you were having the same conversation that we're having today. It is frustrating. It is absolutely frustrating. And it's absolutely unacceptable that we're still here having the same conversation. I'm hopeful, right, that we hold ourselves accountable as a government to be able to ensure that there not be another victim at the hands of an abuser. And so, I'm looking forward to continuing the work, looking forward to continuing the conversation and that the work and the conversations actually turn into action. Thank you.
I just want to thank all of you for your testimony. And also, Jamie and Shakina -- say your name, young lady.
And, Samaya, for giving your personal testimony and your life-lived experience. And so, I know that takes a lot of heart and courage. And so, I definitely just want to acknowledge that. And on the Women's Law Project, say your name please.
Davina Scott. So as Chairman Jones talked about, we may debate on various different issues amongst ourselves, but we also form like Voltron to work together on issues as well. And I put pride in getting things done. And so, I know you talked about being in front of this body on two separate occasions and we're still here. And so, I want to be able to look back from the future to say, here's the key things that we have implemented to make sure we change the system, most importantly, change the culture, through policy, through legislation, but also most importantly, through the co-coordination of the various agencies, which I believe will change the actual culture of how we address this particular issue. And so, we do thank all of you for just being patient throughout the day. But most importantly, just encourage you to stay empowering as you have been thus far. I left a lot of information I had no idea about today. And so, we're definitely committed to actually getting things done. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Stack, who do we have left to testify?
That will conclude our panels, but we do have one more signed up for public comment, Deborah Butler.
I don't think so. She went home. I don't blame her. But let me just say in closing, thank you to my colleagues for sticking it out, listening intently and taking really good notes and feeling what needs to be done next. I was thinking about this hearing. And I go on deep dives on YouTube. And some of the things when you Google, like in India domestic violence is what the boys do, like it's okay for a dozen guys to attack a girl, a lady on a bus and nobody gets charged. That is unacceptable. And if you look at how in this country, things have changed for the better to some degree, all you got to do is watch reruns of Lucy and Desi and the way he used to disrespectfully talk to her and literally put hands on her. And you're raising boys. You know, I got sons. And we're raising them differently, to respect women, to protect women and to not abuse their authority because they have none. They're equals.
Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. And also, why our resolve must be stronger now more than ever. Because the head of, the most powerful person in the world, in the world, is showing how you can disrespect women rather if it's at a press conference and say different things, have been convicted and somehow still become leader of the free world with specific acts of disrespect and sexual violence against women and somehow folks turn a blind eye after being convicted and say, this is the guy who we want to run our country, that trickles down into the culture of what's accepted. We're having a real conversation about the actual system. Because if the leader of the free world can act that way, then we know we have a hard fight to make sure we're breaking that type of mentality. When you talk about in a court system and the judge may say, well, you can't come in here and dress like A, B, C and D without having a sense of compassion and empathy about what a person is going through or a police officer may say, well, it's your fault because you put yourself in that predicament as opposed to offering support, right, and a safe place to talk to someone. But I believe we're up to the challenge. I also want to acknowledge the father, Kevin Scott, who actually stayed throughout this hearing. And again, we're here to be supportive of him and all families. I just want people to know this happened to be a catalyst. But we have also been addressing the issue in various times throughout City Council. But now, our resolve is even stronger as we move forward to work together as a unit. Thank you.
So this concludes the business of the Committee on Public Safety. Thank you all for your participation. (Committee on Public Safety concluded at 5:50 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. ________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL