Committee Hearing, May 7, 2008

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 7, 2008 10:05 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. RESOLUTION 080219 - Resolution authorizing the Committee on Public Safety to hold hearings to examine the current laws, programs and procedures regarding service of Protection from Abuse orders in Philadelphia County... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2

Good morning, everyone. My name is Donna Reed Miller and I am Chair of the Public Safety Committee. The Committee on Public Safety is now in session. Would the Clerk please read the title of the resolution.

Authorizing the Committee on Public Safety to hold hearings to examine the current laws, programs and procedures regarding service of Protection From Abuse orders in Philadelphia County and to explore alternative laws, practices, programs and procedures to ensure that an abuse victim will not suffer further mental and physical trauma by having to confront his or her abuser with service of the Protection From Abuse order.

Thank you. Let the record reflect that in attendance are Councilman Bill Greenlee, who is a member of this Committee, and 3 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 also Councilman Bill Green, who is certainly a member of City Council, not a member of this Committee, but very interested. Councilman Rizzo could not be here today. He is a member of the Committee, but he is representing the Public Safety Committee at the plaque-laying ceremony for slain Officer Skerski, who was slain, I believe, a couple years ago. We probably do expect other Committee members to attend this, but this is a resolution and not a bill, so we're not obligated to have a quorum. I'd like to begin by thanking all in attendance. The resolution 18 touches an issue that is very dear to my heart and many people's hearts here in Philadelphia. Any abuse is intolerable. However, domestic abuse goes much further. This is simply aggression that goes through personal trust and attacks someone that is vulnerable. 4 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 The main purpose of this resolution is to protect those who have gathered the courage to stand up to their aggressors, who unfortunately were someone they probably loved very dearly and petitioned the court in search of protection from the abuser. The number of victims who have lost their lives is unbearable. However, the abuse must stop, and the victims should not be afraid. We have an affirmative duty to help where we can and desperately help when it's available, and the consequences of delay or denial may result in the death or serious injury. Domestic abuse is an epidemic that has plagued not only our city, but our nation. I introduced legislation that prohibits possession of sale and transfer of firearms of persons subject to Protection From Abuse orders. Fortunately, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted this legislation. 5 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 It is unknown how many lives have been saved by this measure. However, we have an affirmative duty to do everything in our power to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I understand that today's hearing is not intended to discuss any of the gun legislation. However, I want to remind everyone that we still have a fight on our hands regarding these issues. With that in mind, I'd like to call on Councilman Bill Green, who has an opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank everyone for coming out today to discuss this important issue, the practices and procedures regarding Protection From Abuse orders in Philadelphia County. In December 2007, the Philadelphia Daily News ran two articles chronicling the difficulties that an 6 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 abuse victim faced in obtaining and serving a Protection From Abuse order, or PFA. After reading this article, I, along with Councilmembers Reynolds Brown, Sanchez and Jones, introduced a resolution calling for this hearing in an attempt to create an open dialogue between all interested parties in this matter. Before we begin testimony, I want to thank everyone that took the time to meet with my office in preparation for this hearing. First I'd like to thank the Philadelphia Police Department for their efforts on this issue. The Philadelphia Police serve over 7,000 PFA orders a year, an absolutely remarkable number. No other county in Pennsylvania issues, let alone serves, the number of PFAs that the Philadelphia Police Department serve in a given year. Moreover, the Philadelphia Police Department has expressed a strong desire to help identify potential changes 7 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 in the procedure that could be implemented to make the entire process more efficient and safe for everyone involved, including police officers. As I am sure we will hear today, service of a Protection From Abuse order, which often involves the eviction of a violent person from his or her home, can be a very dangerous task, and we are extremely grateful for the role the officers play in this process. Additionally, I've met with Judge Kevin Dougherty and Judge Sandra Murphy of the First Judicial District. Judges Dougherty and Murphy have met with representatives from both the Police Department and various advocacy groups regarding this issue. The Court has emphasized its willingness to review and consider proposed administrative changes that would improve the process while at the same time ensuring that all of the service requirements under the law are fully and fairly satisfied. We are 8 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 grateful to the Courts for their assistance and information they have provided and look forward to their continued guidance and help on this issue. Lastly, I wish to thank the various advocacy groups that have joined us today. These groups work tirelessly to provide counseling, guidance and legal support to domestic abuse victims in our city and neighboring counties, and we are truly grateful for their dedication to this cause. Today's hearing was planned to address only one issue, the City's procedure regarding service of PFAs. A point of clarification, this hearing was not called because we were under a perception that abuse victims must serve their abusers with a protection order. Contrarily, this hearing was called because it is our understanding that because of misinformation, misunderstanding or the existence of a 9 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 complex procedure, there are abuse victims that are slipping through the cracks that are not receiving the assistance to which they're otherwise entitled, and I am optimistic that together we will be able to examine this issue, identify the problem areas and propose and implement an effective solution. In doing so, we must be mindful that this issue is only one of many larger problems facing domestic abuse victims in Philadelphia County. It is my hope that improving this practice and procedure for service of Protection From Abuse orders will be the first of many domestic abuse issues that is tackled and fixed through a strong collaborative effort between the City, the Courts, the police and domestic abuse advocacy groups. Thank you.

Thank you. 10 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 I'm going to call the first witness. Lieutenant Francis Healy, Esquire. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. ) LIEUTENANT HEALY: Good morning, Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee on Public Safety and Councilman Green specifically. My name is Francis Healy and I'm a Special Advisor to Police Commissioner Ramsey. And, first, on behalf of the Commissioner, please let me extend his gratitude for allowing the Police Department the opportunity to be heard regarding this very important resolution. Let me state at the outset that Commissioner Ramsey and the Philadelphia Police Department are committed to serving the victims of domestic violence in Philadelphia in the best manner 11 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 possible. Towards this end, we have worked tirelessly over the years with the domestic violence and women's advocacy groups in Philadelphia. Together, I'm very proud to say that we've dramatically improved our response to domestic violence victims. But as with all our policies and procedures, we're constantly striving to ensure that we're using the proven best practices. With that said, the Police Department applauds the efforts of Councilman Green in striving to identify and develop improved methods that can only better serve the victims of domestic violence. As those who will come here today and testify will obviously affirm, the service of a Protection From Abuse order is very different from any other kind of court order. The plaintiff in these orders are victims, plain and simple. They have been beaten or threatened and have come to the court for 12 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 help. Complicating these matters even more are the facts that children, custody and eviction are often very much a part of the PFA process and the order. Both the Police Department and the Family Court have always worked together and have always been amenable to any changes, recommendations or ideas that can help these victims. In fact, the victim services is so important to Commissioner Ramsey that he has appointed Charlotte Council, a two-star Deputy Commissioner, who will be directly responsible for the coordination and provision of such services. This leads me to the existing PFA service procedures. As I'm sure you're aware, a domestic violence victim must proactively notify the Police Department when he or she wants a PFA served by a police officer. They can do it two ways. They can either call 9-1-1 or go into a police district, and officers will be assigned to serve the 13 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 order as quickly as possible. Although this is cumbersome for the victim, it is currently the most effective process to ensure the orders are safely served, which is extremely important, with no 7 additional violence and equally important that the victim receives the crucial verification of service upon the abuser/defendant. First, we recognize this is a slight burden and it is a burden on the plaintiffs in these matters, the victims, but the victim -- it's important to state here that although it is a burden for the victim to meet the police, and we understand this, this is very important from the Police Department's perspective, because it allows the police officers and the victim to meet personally. It's very hard to define exactly why this is important. I'm going to try to capsulize it. These officers then have the ability to interact with the victims to 14 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 personally inquire as to the abuser's demeanor, size, propensity for violence towards police officers, as well as the victims, whether drugs or alcohol are a factor, whether there are other people in the home that could endanger the officers, whether children are present and whether there are any other additional weapons in the house that the officer should be aware of.

This type of information is critical to officer safety as well as survival and cannot be gleaned except directly from the victim. Without this information, our officers will be walking blind into these potentially volatile situations, and it's just not acceptable. Next, to fully protect these victims as well, the Court must gain jurisdiction and authority over the abusers/defendants. For this to actually occur, proof of service on the defendant is necessary for the cases to move forward. If this does not occur, the 15 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 victims can be forced to actually start the entire process over from the beginning, and this is actually unacceptable to the Police Department. The last thing we want to do is revictimize domestic violence victims with bureaucracy. With this being said, the question remains can the system be improved? And I say this without doubt with a resounding yes, but it can't be improved in a vacuum. To best serve the victims of domestic violence, every component of the system, of which the Police Department is an integral part, must come together in a collaborative effort to explore a number of options and evaluate the viability of each. As I mentioned above, the Police Department is constantly striving to ensure that we're using proven best practices. The Police Department, again, applauds the efforts of Councilman Green in striving to identify such best 16 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 practices, and we truly look forward to working with the Councilman, Family Court and the advocacy groups that we have teamed up in the past as a team. Together, we can identify, develop and implement the very best practices available to protect the victims of domestic violence here in Philadelphia. Once again, on behalf of Commissioner Ramsey, thank you for giving the Department the opportunity to be heard on this very important resolution. This concludes my testimony, and I'd be happy to answer any questions Council may have.

Thank you. Any members have -- Councilman Greenlee.

You're going to have to keep making that plain, Madam Chair. Thank you. Good morning, Lieutenant Healy. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Good 17 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 morning, sir.

Just a couple of questions. I'm sure Councilman Green has questions. But do you find that most of the victims turn to the police to serve these orders? Is that the high percentage do? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that again?

When the orders are served, they don't have to be served by the police. LIEUTENANT HEALY: That's correct.

Do you have a rough idea what the percentage is of victims that turn to the police to have these orders served? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, regrettably -- and I believe this is actually a loop or a hole that the Councilman is looking to fix -- the fact is, from Family Court to us, there is a disconnect. But I know anecdotally from 18 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 the Court, there's about 14,000 served, so approximately 7,000 aren't served by us on average a year.

So about half? LIEUTENANT HEALY: For whatever reason, we don't know. But apparently we serve about 7,000 on average, but I believe Family Court issues about 14,000.

Okay. And I understand from your testimony that it's not just a matter of serving. The police try to talk to the victim and find some information out so they know what they're kind of getting into. LIEUTENANT HEALY: It's extremely important for -- from serving hundreds of these myself, when you actually get to speak to the victim, not only do you see the victim's demeanor, you can see fear in people's eyes. You can see that they're legitimately scared for their life. We don't put these -- it's not 19 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 like we bring the victim on scene and have them abused again. We keep them down the street. They point out the house. They let us know exactly where we're going. They let us know what we're walking into. Often times a lot of these situations, there's more -- there's multiple sets of families often living at the same house. Some of the abuser's children are not necessarily the victim's children. So when we walk into a scene, although the victim may have her children with her and have left, there may be other small children in there that we need to consider as well. The last thing we want to do is traumatize the children by us walking in the house as well. It's a very complicated procedure, but not having the insight from the victim on scene or reasonably near to really hampers the police in being able to handle the job efficiently and safely. 20 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

You have to know what you're getting into. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right.

And just one last question, and this is a general question. I'm sure you're going to hear lots of suggestions, but do you have one or two that you could highlight that could make this process better from the Police Department's viewpoint? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, I think that's where the discussions have begun. I think what we really need to do is with all the people -- like I can come up with ideas, but other people from other areas of government say, Well, that doesn't work because of X, Y and Z. So it's important that we sit in a room 20 together. We've been doing this with the Councilman and actually it's very productive. You sit there with a white board and say, Here's idea one, and work it through its mechanisms. And the 21 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Family Court says, You can't do it this way because X, Y and Z. Then we find alternatives. And I think that's what we need to do. I mean, I have ideas, yeah. I would like to see everything, as the Councilman would like, somehow computerized, where we receive all of them, but we can't take options away from the plaintiffs. Right now the plaintiffs in Philadelphia have the option to serve the order themselves. In other jurisdictions, as I'm sure the Councilman has informed you, in New Jersey that's not an option to the victims. Maybe that's an avenue, I don't know, but those are all the things that we need to discuss, and I think we're very open to discussing. But we'll work with whatever -- this is a very -- let me just say this, and I may talk a little bit, but I'm a little passionate about this. Domestic victims are a strange 22 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 breed of victim. And I'm sure the advocacy -- I hope I say the right thing, otherwise I'm sure they'll beat me in the back of the head.

That would be abuse, wouldn't it? LIEUTENANT HEALY: It's very -- these people don't understand unless you've really dealt with them. You say, How in the name of God has this woman allowed this to occur. The average woman, strong woman, would never allow this. What happens, you don't understand. This is not something that happens overnight. This is a process of humiliation and degrading, and there comes a point where the women -- not just women, but predominantly women, are beaten to such a point where they have no 21 self-esteem, they lost self value, and this abuser has held himself as the only person that's important to them. So as he has power and control over these people psychologically and emotionally, 23 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 so it's very hard to get these people to come forward, number one. And when they ultimately do, it's important that we step up and make sure they get the services they need, because the officers will go back three, four times, it's just classic, until they get the strength to go forward on their own. It's very hard. I mean, I can only guide them to water. I can't make them drink it. But the idea of the police officer comes on scene, they'll go there three and four times, tell them they got to go get a protection order, you got to go get a protection order. And finally when they do, it's important that we all step up and make sure that they don't fall through the cracks. And that's all what we're trying to do here and what we've always tried to do. So I like the idea of somehow getting a mandatory list, but it has to be worked out with the existing rights and privileges of the victims, and we're 24 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 willing to sit down any time, anywhere to figure out how we can best do this.

I see you're really on top of it. Thank you, Lieutenant. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had as we discussed yesterday -- and I'm sorry I didn't have the chart when we were meeting yesterday with the First Judicial District. We called around to a bunch of other municipalities or counties of similar sizes, and one question we consistently asked people and my staff people universally got the same response from people, and the response they got from the counties or municipalities was, Are you crazy? And the question was, Can the petitioner serve her own Protection From Abuse order. Universally, except for a 25 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 few small places, that's not even an option. In other words, you don't want the person -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: Absolutely not.

-- the person who is abused to feel like they have to do that. And I know that's not normally what happens. Normally the Police Department does it. So that is a Court rule that we have to change. But in terms of, I think, what we discussed yesterday -- and I'd just like your comments on this -- is automatically somehow having the Protection From Abuse order go electronically, via fax or otherwise, to the Police Department so that it can be served by the police officers without the person having to go -- the other question they said that doesn't make any sense on was having essentially the victim of abuse go on the ride-along and -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: You had 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 mentioned the ride-along. I'm not really -- I think that may be a misnomer. What we'll do is, often times they'll either come to the district and they'll say, Listen, I have an order to serve at 123 Main Street. They've already come to the district in their own car, so they'll follow the police officers and they'll stay down the block, around the corner or at the nearest shopping center. We go serve the order, but they also -- we get to interact with her, get the information that we need from a safety perspective. We serve our order, and if we need to evict him, we evict him, we get him out of the house. So one is not walking in the house and one is not walking out, because right then and there, there's a potential for violence. So we make sure there's basically sight and sound distance, and that's the standard course of how we instruct our officers to handle these things. So they never actually get -- they don't have to confront their 27 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 abuser.

I understand that, but still, even what we're told is most places would not allow the proximity. And so one of the solutions that we've gotten in feedback from a lot of different municipalities and counties is sort of a central place where if you want the -- even though it could be transmitted electronically, if it's important for officer safety for some police officer to have a conversation about who it is they're serving -- and obviously officer safety is very important in this process -- then within the courts or somewhere very close by the person after they receive their order can go get it, talk to a police officer, drop it off for service, and then the Police Department would take it from there and the person -- that would be the end of that. They've spoken to a police officer. The police have their questions answered and then the person doesn't have 28 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 to take a second day off from work to go to a police district, et cetera. Any reaction to that? Many counties do that. LIEUTENANT HEALY: In theory, I'm with you, don't get me wrong. If we can facilitate the process, I am. But there's two problems in that, in that regard is, the person you're talking to that these people will come and speak to would not be the officer serving the order. The question how would that officer relay the information and what happens with any human being in any organization, it gets whispered down the lane, and what happens is, I don't get to see the demeanor of the woman involved in it. Because it's very different. When you have a woman who is just -- and, like I said, don't hit me, anybody. Some women get these orders for different reasons. There's a very large core group of victims that need protection and there's other people that 29 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 know how to use this process domestically, and being able to interview the witness, you get the feel for what you're walking into. You know whether it's a custody dispute and a separation more so than an abuse issue, and the officers can actually accommodate. They can prepare for that. Now, how an officer like a central officer who receives that information would relay perceptions and stuff like that --

Well, it can be done "very dangerous," "dangerous." I mean, in whatever detail is necessary, there are guns in the house, there are children in the house, there are -- it seems to me you can standardize that so that -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'm not saying we can't improve this, but what I'm saying is, that is for me as a police officer, if you took that away from me, going to look eye to eye with the victim, 30 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 you've taken something very serious away from the police officer.

I understand. LIEUTENANT HEALY: The other side of that is, it's important to me that the woman doesn't get revictimized by saying, Where's the service, where's the verification of service, and the case gets thrown out.

Which is why I think -- right now what I understand is the police officer will sign it and hand it back to the abuse victim. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right.

And then it's their responsibility then to get it back to the Court. The only thing I'd like to see automated is for it to go automatically from the police back to the courts so that that abuse victim doesn't have to become the courier to the police back from the service to the courts. That may be where some of the 7,000 31 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 fall-off is. LIEUTENANT HEALY: We would entertain anything like that, but as it stands now, it's incredibly important that the victim gets that piece of paper, because that's what she desperately needs to make it go forward.

What's important is that the Court gets that paper, not that the victim gets that paper, right? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, true, but we have to give it to her at this point.

Right, but if we got it to the Court without involving the abuse victim, that would take one step in the process away from them that is not necessary for them to be involved in. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Yes.

So do you know how many people who have PFAs taken out against them are already in the 32 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 police database for prior crimes or have warrants out for them, et cetera? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I don't have that number off the top of my head, no. 6 I mean, when we -- what would happen is, when we go on scene, we run anybody we would come in contact with, and if they come up wanted or something like that, we would arrest them based on that, but we don't track that --

So that's once you get on scene, you'll do that? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right.

So if we had a central clearinghouse for these things, perhaps that person, the officer or civilian personnel there, could run a sort of check for whether or not they have any registered weapons, run a check for prior warrants, run a check for this, that and the other thing, so before the officer even got to the scene, they'd know whether or not the person has warrants, which may require a different 33 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 response than one officer taking the abuse victim, et cetera, because often the abuse victim may not know that the person has prior warrants. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. No. 7 That would be an excellent idea. The more information I give a police officer before he's walking in any situation, the better. So, yeah, if I could do a complete run on the individual prior to him walking in the door, I know what I'm walking into. I know if I have a cop fighter. I know if I have a whole bunch of things, yes.

Okay. So when a person arrives at the police district to request service of a PFA, how is the officer dispatched to the scene? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Basically, the 9-1-1 Operations Room will call 9-1-1 and have an officer dispatched, because that is our -- that's the way all our officers are dispatched and monitored.

So from the 34 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 person who goes to the district and from the district, 9-1-1 is called? LIEUTENANT HEALY: If there's no available -- what happened was, if there's available officers in the district -- like let's say an officer walks in, he's dropping off paperwork for another assignment. They'll say, Officer Healy, do me a favor, serve this PFA, and I would do that. And then what they'll do is, they'll call radio or I'll go over radio and say, Hold me out serving a protection order at 123 Main Street. If there's no people available in or around the district, the Operations would call 9-1-1 and have the first available car come to headquarters to serve the order, yes.

Okay. So by doing it that way, we're putting calls into the 9-1-1 system for some things that could be scheduled outside of an emergency-type call. Would you say that's -- 35 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 LIEUTENANT HEALY: See, now, this is personally me. These are emergency calls to me. These are emergency orders that have been signed by a judge that need to be served as soon as possible. So it's not something -- and like I said, this is me personally -- that should be scheduled for an appointment. It should be done the first available police officer should be serving these orders, because the judge has determined there's a credible risk of threat or harm. Therefore, making an appointment doesn't necessarily sound -- number one, it just doesn't sound right. Number two, these orders deserve the priority that they get. Of course, we have shootings and homicides and stuff like that get prioritized with them, but they are definitely a 9-1-1 response call. These aren't the final PFAs where the defendant has walked into court with an attorney and they're being 36 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 ultimately served or they didn't show up and being served. These are the emergencies most often, the emergency and temporary, that need to be served quickly.

And if we had a centralized office, they could as well dispatch through 9-1-1 or in a similar process without people having to go to the police district. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Theoretically, yes. Yes.

Or use some other dispatch system, whether it's right away or not. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Yeah.

Okay. Those are all the questions I have, Lieutenant. Thank you very much. I know you need to get out of here.

For the record, I just want to state that Councilman Jones, a member of the Committee, is also in attendance. 37 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 I have a couple questions. How many police officers are attacked by abusers? Is there a record? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'm sorry. How many are attacked?

Yes, by the person that you're serving the Protection From Abuse order. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, we wouldn't track it that way. It would actually be tracked as an assault on police. You'd have to actually read through each report to see how it emanated. But I believe just from my own personal experience, once you walk in, especially when you're evicting people, if you don't have a sufficient number of officers there, usually a minimum of two -- that's how we serve things, but even those times, if the officers are small, I mean, it can make a difference on their attitude towards the police. Often times they realize they're in trouble at that point. They're not in 38 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 trouble, but they're getting kicked out. Many times more often than attacking us per se, they actually try to go through us to get to the victim. They know the victim is down the street, or sometimes the victims won't stay where we ask them to stay and they'll come up the steps yelling and screaming, and often times we actually have to try to separate them again. Even though we put the victim two blocks away, she wants to be involved in it. So there is a lot -- it is probably one of the most volatile situations the officers walk into. They know they're walking into a potential violent situation. If they're willing to hit their personal spouse, loved one, they're not going to hesitate to sure as heck hit the police. We know that when we walk in there.

Do you have any idea -- or maybe some of the advocacy groups might know -- what 39 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 happens to those 7,000 that don't get served? I know there's a portion that changes their mind. I know that. But I'm talking about those that somehow, some way fall through the cracks and never get their order served. And do you have to serve it within 48 hours? LIEUTENANT HEALY: There's a timeframe for service, but as the Councilman is aware, we met with the First Judicial District, and I believe they said approximately 50 percent of the ones issued ultimately end up in hearings. Now, saying that they all fall through the cracks I think might be a misnomer. Some people may be ignorant enough and not understand how it has to be served, and those ones we need to reach out and make sure they get what they need. But there is a handful, a large component of those, that probably once they get the order, they've done what they wanted to do, they've accomplished whatever goal they wanted, 40 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 and they just never proceed. So they don't have any interest in serving the order, and apparently -- this is anecdotal from the Court, as we said. Some of these people, once they get the order, that's all they ever want. They never plan on going any further. So those ones I don't see as slipping through the cracks. Those ones are probably more cluttering the system than the pure victim. But there is probably a small cadre of victims that don't understand what to do. But the Family Court, they told me -- and, actually, I think this is the way she said it -- you'd have to be Helen Keller not to understand -- or even Helen Keller would understand what a victim needs to do to have a protection order served in Philadelphia when they leave the court system. So they're very clear that you call 9-1-1. And, quite frankly, we have no problem serving any order that we're given. The problem is, sometimes 41 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 the bad guy is not there, and this is a problem for the victim. The victim needs to try to track him down and then call the police that are in that district to serve it again. That is problematic. I'd like to see that somehow cleaned up. But the problem is, we got to get service on them, and I can't have an officer from the 15th District going to the 14th District across the City. So the victim is forced to actually go to the nearest pay phone, call 9-1-1, and we'll dispatch another officer on the scene. Hopefully, like I said, we'd like to get direct service on the individual. Now, theoretically, we could leave it in the door with people and stuff like that, but in our personal view, that compromises the victim, because the bad guy comes to court and said, I never got notice, and they get raked through the bureaucracy again. So we need to try to hammer home this process, make sure we give personal 42 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 delivery on the defendant. That means sometimes that we run around a little bit more than we probably have to, but I think it serves the victim in the long run that they have actually service on the bad guy.

Is there any data that talks about how many men or abusers ignore the orders? I had a neighbor who had an order and her husband kept coming back to the house. I mean, it was crazy. He just kept coming back. LIEUTENANT HEALY: I don't have any statistics, but what we did is, we amended our policy several years back, and what used to happen is -- and this was kind of a loophole that we fixed in the Police Department. If you assaulted an individual and you were on location -- I'm sorry. You assaulted a loved one and you were on location, it's kind of a loophole, it's easy, you get locked up. Cops come. It's a warrantless arrest, not a problem. 43 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 The problem came up -- when you had a PFA, the guy was on scene, that's not a problem, you lock him up. The problem came is, most of these people aren't man enough to basically stand there. They run when the police come. So the officer with the PFA, an individual -- let's say I had a PFA and a girlfriend was harassing me and she ran away, and the cops would come and they'd say, Well, what do you want me to do? There's nothing I can do, she's not here. Well, the reality is, that's not true. What can be done is, it's a warrant for violating the PFA. That is something the Police Department really never got into prior to the change in the directive in the mid '90s. So as it stands now, if you come on scene, I'm a police officer and you say, My husband just -- he was here, he violated the PFA, all I need is prima facie evidence basically to conclude that the order was broken and I'll take you, 44 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 the victim, down to the detectives, we'll serve out a warrant and we'll go serve a warrant on him and lock him up for that. Because exactly what you just explained is what happened perpetually. They knew all they had to do as soon as they hear the cops coming up the street, they would run out the back door. We're trying to address that by going after them with a warrant, because these are the easiest warrants to ever serve. We know your name, we know where you live, we know where you work. So we get you. That's the point of our domestic violence teams in the Divisional Detective Bureau. There's detectives specifically trained and assigned to handle these type of things. So they understand the nuances of these relationships. They understand the importance of getting warrants for these type of things. In the hierarchal thing of crime and all, this is very important, because it's a preventive measure. I 45 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 mean, instead of having to be reactive, these are one of the few areas that we can actually be very preventive in reducing violence inside the home. We want to take full advantage of it.

Thank you. Councilman Jones.

Good afternoon -- well, good morning, Lieutenant. How are you? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Good morning, sir.

Some years ago an employee of the Mayor's Office of Community Service named Maim Shamsadine (ph) was at, I believe, the corner of 52nd and Chestnut Street where an incident cost her her life. She was shotgunned by a person who had an outstanding Protection Against Abuse order against them. It was during the tail end of the Goode Administration. It was a big thing. And I don't believe to 46 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 this day -- and I may be wrong -- her murderer was ever apprehended. And with that in mind, I ask the following questions. Can you describe for me and maybe members of this Committee the difference between an Emergency Protection Against Abuse order and the regular Day Unit Protection Against Abuse order. And I think that's an important distinction we need to make. LIEUTENANT HEALY: There's basically three types of protection -- I'm sure Carol Tracy can actually -- if I misspeak, she can clear it up for me. There's an emergency, there's a temporary and then there's a final. The emergency order is very limited in scope. I believe it covers a short period of time. It's for those holidays and weekend period of times, is basically what it covers. So theoretically, you get the emergency order and it covers you until like Monday regular business day. 47 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 The temporary protection order is a two-week order that's issued. You go there 9:00 to 5:00 and the court's in session and you get your PFA from the Court directly.

Can you hold it? So if on the weekend after an Eagles game something happens and someone goes down and gets a temporary order because the Day Unit is closed -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: No. They would be getting an emergency order.

They get an emergency order. Come Monday, they have to go get a second order? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'm not 100 percent sure of that, but I believe that theoretically that's the process.

I'm going to help you out. Yes. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. But they would get the protection over the weekend. We would serve it on them -- as soon as they got the order, they come 48 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 back, and we would serve the emergency order on the defendant.

I think it's important for this Committee to understand the steps and hurdles victims have to go through. And this is not directed at you, but directed at the process. LIEUTENANT HEALY: You might want to check with Carol Tracy. I'm not sure. I don't know if it's automatically certified. Is the emergency order automatically certified?

Yes. LIEUTENANT HEALY: That's what I thought. Yes.

Say that again for the record. LIEUTENANT HEALY: The emergency order apparently is automatically certified on the Monday. So it basically theoretically goes for like the weekend or the holiday and then 49 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 the temporary is issued for two weeks, with a hearing date scheduled after that.

But they have to go down physically. LIEUTENANT HEALY: I don't think so anymore.

No. 9 (Audience member speaking without microphone.)

I'm going to wait. You want to come up? Someone want to come up and help us? (Audience member speaking without microphone.)

You actually have to come up to the table and identify yourself. We cannot hear you. But if you want to hold the question until they come up.

Put a pin in that one.

Because she's on the next panel.

You got it. 50 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 All right. So at that point, they have a temporary and then a permanent. What is the standard of proof during the emergency protection order versus the regular stay-away day protection order? What is the standard of proof in order to receive a Protection From Abuse order? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'm not exactly sure. I mean, it's not like beyond a reasonable doubt. It's much lower. I don't know whether it's preponderance or it's a reasonable belief. I'm not certain. It's actually -- the orders are issued out of 34 -- I'm sorry. The emergencies are out of the basement of the CJC. I'm not sure of the actual standard, quite frankly. I'm not certain.

Which is there has to be some -- it's similar to when the officer comes on the scene, that there has to be some physical evidence of abuse, is what I understand. 51 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 LIEUTENANT HEALY: I think the standard is much lower for the order. That's for an arrest. I need probable cause.

I just want to put these things on the record of what is and what we're dealing with. LIEUTENANT HEALY: These are civil orders, which are a much lower standard than what I do when I come up to make an arrest. When I make an arrest under 2711 of the Crimes Code, which is a warrantless arrest for domestic violence, my standard is probable cause. I need a probable cause standard to make an arrest. But to actually get an order, the standard is much lower. And I believe the Courts are very sympathetic, as well they should be, to the victims in issuing the orders. It's better to issue an order to be on the safe side than rather fight with them and not give one.

So the protection order then leads them to a 52 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 hearing; is that correct? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Ultimately, yes.

Describe that process, bring us forward with that. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, I'm not involved in the hearing process, but the hearing process is done through Family Court and then basically -- up to those two hearings, the emergency and the temporary, are what's called an ex parte. That's where it's just the victim testifying to the Court or making affidavits to the Court. The final hearing is when actually both people get to basically plead their case and a judge makes a determination on whether or not there is a credible risk or threat to the individual and then will issue an order or he may not issue a final order. A final order has a lot of ramifications for the victim -- I'm sorry; for the abuser.

And what 53 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 happens if the abuser, alleged abuser, does not show up? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I believe then the order would be granted.

The order is automatically assumed to be true and granted? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. As long as there's good service, he's defaulted, I believe the order would be issued by the Family Court. The issue is service. That's why it's important that the victims have the service to prove that he was served and did not show. If they don't have the service, the Court can't issue a final order. Procedurally that would be incorrect.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilman Jones. I just want to say, years ago when people got Protection From Abuse orders, I don't think they were taken as 54 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 seriously by the abuser, by the system, period, and I'm hoping that -- I know that it has improved, and you've stated that, and now that Deputy Commissioner Council is going to really focus in on -- that's one of the areas that she'll be focusing in on in her new role. Because I was wondering, I think sometimes people avoid it. I don't know. Something happens to men. They just seem to go like crazy once they get these protection orders filed against them. They go nuts. So I'm just hoping that judges and people will -- I guess one of the things that I think makes it more effective, if they end up incarcerated because they violate and continue to violate and violate. LIEUTENANT HEALY: You're preaching to the choir.

My neighbor's husband used to kick her door in. I mean, kick the door off the hinges, all kinds of crazy things. LIEUTENANT HEALY: You're 55 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 actually preaching to the choir here. And this is the reason why in the past often times the Police Department would come on scene and the woman that's going through all the hurdles and finally got the order served, but he's coming and he's harassing her. He's coming back and forth all night long. Once a broken window, next a flat tire, coming and going constantly all night long, and every time the police come, they're not there. What happened is, the weight of that order actually -- people look at you as a police officer and say, Well, this isn't worth the paper I wrote it on.

Point of information, Madam Chair.

Sure. Councilman Jones.

Question, abuse doesn't just happen between men and women, right? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Oh, absolutely not. 56 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

There are parent and child, there is -- I mean seniors in particular. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Yes.

And some of those seniors happen to be men. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. There's men-men, women-women, any domestic situation, yes.

I want for the record that this abuse system spans a number of demographics and a number of genders. And so -- I mean that on the record. It's important to note, and here's why it's important to note: That a lot of people don't come forward because in fact they're embarrassed. They're embarrassed, and they shouldn't be. Abuse is abuse, and it shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. Because I've heard of seniors who are embarrassed because their children are abusing them. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct.

I mean, it's 57 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 a heck of an admission that your child and the parenting process somewhere went terribly wrong. So I want for the record for us to kind of acknowledge that as well. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. Yeah. The standard that we see it for abuse is the woman. I mean, that's the classic picture we see, but it covers a much bigger spectrum, parent-child, child-parent, grandparents. It's the whole mix. Boyfriend-girlfriend. I mean, obviously that's a lot. And actually Carol Tracy -- and I'll say this -- she was very instrumental. There was a disconnect between -- there's a civil code, which is the PFA issue, and then there's the criminal side, which is the 2711 of the Crimes Code. Well, there was a point in time where the definition of protected people were different. So I could come on scene. If you lived with someone previously and there was some signs of abuse, I could 58 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 make a site arrest, but if you were boyfriend and girlfriend and never lived together, statutorily I was prohibited from making an arrest. I would have to basically advise you to go get a private criminal complaint. Thanks to Carol Tracy and her group, now the definitions are the same. So if I come on scene and there's a, for lack of a better word, a domestic relationship, whether you've lived with each other or not, I can still make that site arrest, and that was instrumental. That's important for me as a police officer, because there would be a lot of times where you would have boyfriend-girlfriends and it's the crazy boyfriend that are probably more off the wall that we need to protect against and we should be able to arrest, and we couldn't do so. Now we can. So that's one of the great things we've done working together. Like I said, we're always looking to find better ways. 59 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

Thank you. I'd also like to note for the record that Councilman Clarke, who is a member of this Committee, is now in attendance. Councilman Green.

Thank you. I know you have to run, Lieutenant. Just two quick questions about some of the things you've said in response to Councilman Jones. I just note that you mentioned women being on the scene or abuse victims being on the scene even if they're two blocks away, often they follow up. That creates a safety problem for the police officer, escalates the scene, and I just wanted to note that you did mention that, and that's one of the things we're working to try to prevent. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Absolutely, but, like I said, there's a balance there. How we fix that balance is 60 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 something we should work on.

I understand. And the other thing you mentioned is that if someone violates an order, that the abuse victim basically is then taken to detectives or has to go to detectives, and I'm wondering, is there a different process that could take place so that they wouldn't have to leave their kids and go down to the detectives? I mean, is there something -- is there a way to do that on site so that you just take the complaint and they don't have to go to the detectives, the detectives can call them if there's questions? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, the way we're currently set up -- and I'm not saying it can't be looked at and addressed, but a crime has occurred, and they're basically a witness to a crime at that point, complainant. Our detective divisions are the ones that process it. There's not a crime scene there 61 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 necessarily to process, so detectives aren't coming out to the scene. With like any other victim, you have a robbery victim, they're taken to detectives. A rape victim is taken to Special Victims. I mean, they're transported just like any other victim would be treated. That way, they're interviewed by the detective. They get the warrant, the affidavit for the warrant and send it to the DA's Office, and that's our process to get warrants. I mean, could we modify the process to facilitate it for the victim? We can always look at everything. I mean, that's the bottom line. But we have a system in place that I wouldn't want to see them -- and I say this because I don't want to see them put out on a separate tangent and then somehow they get lost in the mix. We have a system that works very well, and that once they get to the detectives -- I mean, it's a process. We 62 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 get the warrants and we're out the next day with our warrant locking this guy up, and that's what makes the weight -- and that's what I was talking about. The weight of these papers need to have value. They have value when I come knocking on the door the next day saying, I know where you were at last night, you violated the order, you're locked up. That puts value and weight on the PFAs that actually has to be there, and that's important. So it's important.

I just -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: Could it be amended?

The potential for the use of technology there is tremendous, because hand-held PDAs that have a wi-fi connection, a report can be written on it, the person can sign it, it can go to the detectives. If they have questions, they can follow up. There's lots of ways to use technology. LIEUTENANT HEALY: We can look 63 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 at that, too, but there's also very sensitive victims, special victims. We take them down as well. They have to be taken to a hospital in addition to --

I'm just -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: We can always look at anything to make it better.

Thank you very much, Lieutenant. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Thank you, sir.

Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Lieutenant. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Good morning, sir.

A couple of questions. I'm sorry I missed the first part of your testimony. You may have touched on it. The individual or individuals 64 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 who make the determination as it relates to the first complaint, be it for an emergency or on that Monday, who is that person or persons? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Who issues the order?

Yeah. What's the -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: The orders are first issued out of 34 South 11th Street.

And who is that person? LIEUTENANT HEALY: I believe they're Hearing Masters that actually hear the cases. AUDIENCE MEMBER: They're judges. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Judges now.

It's a judge? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Yeah.

Okay. Because I wasn't clear. 65 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 (Audience member talking without microphone.)

I can see --

You have to come up to the table. You can't answer questions from behind the bench. You want to deal with that now or do you -- because they're coming up next. Or you want to come up to the table? Does someone want to come up?

I just need to get a better understanding of the system. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Identify yourself for the record and you can answer the question.

Good morning. I'm Molly Callahan, Legal Center Director at Women Against Abuse. Just to be clear, the emergency 66 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 filing site is in the basement of the Criminal Justice Center, and that is for when the court is closed, so weekends, holidays, and an Emergency Master sits in that room and issues the orders.

The Emergency Master is a?

It's a lawyer who has then been hired as a Master to --

So it's not a judge?

It's not a judge, correct. And then that order is actually certified the next business day that the court is open to 34 South 11th Street, to Family Court, and the judge will then review that order and make any changes necessary and issue a temporary order.

Okay. So the Master, other than being a lawyer, member of the Bar, what are the other qualifications for that individual as it relates to the subject matter? 67 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

Right. Well, I'm not --

Because I thought I heard in the earlier testimony that there's some level of discretion that's given to the person to determine whether or not the order should be issued. So I'm wondering -- and the Lieutenant said that there's not really a specific standard.

Well, the standard for the emergency order is immediate and present danger. So when a petitioner comes in, they have to show -- they have to tell what happened, they fill out an order, and the Master determines if there's immediate and present danger to this petitioner. If there is, they issue the order. It's an emergency order that then is certified to court. If they believe --

Wait a minute. So that Master -- excuse me for jumping in. 68 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

Sure.

That's, unfortunately, the way I question people. So that Master, based on the information provided, makes a determination that this order should be issued.

Yes.

And my question, with respect to the Master, do they operate off of a set of guidelines or is there specific training to that individual? I mean, if I'm a lawyer, a person comes in, I don't necessarily know as to whether or not I could determine whether or not this order should be issued.

They look at the black eye.

Well, sometimes there's not obvious physical damage to the individual, and it could be mental abuse, it could be verbal abuse, but in some instances, that's sometimes 69 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 as detrimental as physical abuse. What criteria, what qualifications does that person have beyond just being a lawyer?

Unfortunately, I can't answer that. I'm not sure if anyone -- perhaps Carol knows.

For the record, I'm Carol Tracy from the Women's Law Project. I think that's something the court has to answer for you. It's definitely not a police matter.

So I can't get that answer today. Okay.

Not from us.

Okay. Nobody is jumping, chomping at the bit out there, so I'm assuming nobody else has that answer. I'm just trying to get a sense of the system. Do we have a set of guidelines, a set of standards? Does that person operate off of that set of standards? Is this person trained in 70 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 this particular issue? I mean, there's just a lot of things, because it's not in some instances, as I said earlier, it's not an obvious physical damage to a person, but that person needs some protection.

The guidelines are the Protection From Abuse Act.

So that's --

Oh, yes. There's a legal -- there is a Pennsylvania statute called the Protection From Abuse Act.

Does it spell out in very clear terms what that person should operate from?

Clear enough, I believe.

Excuse me one second. I know that you have to leave, Lieutenant Healy. Councilman Clarke, do you have any more questions? 71 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

The Lieutenant has to leave. I'm okay. I probably will have some other questions, but that's okay, Lieutenant. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Councilman, what I'll do is, I will reach out. I'm certain -- actually, I can't guarantee, but I would say without a doubt that the individuals that are sitting down at -- or in the basement of the Criminal Justice Center receive some type of training from the court. I'll reach out to Judge Dougherty and find out what that is and get back to you.

I'm just interested, because I know when people get elected to judges, they actually go to judge school for six months or whatever. LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'll make sure either I follow up directly with you or I'll have Judge Dougherty follow up.

One real quick, Lieutenant, before you leave. 72 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 With respect to jurisdiction in terms of the ability to influence this process, this is a county issue? Is it a county issue in terms of the statute? LIEUTENANT HEALY: No. 2711 is under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. That's a statewide law.

So it's a statewide and it can be enacted by the Court. LIEUTENANT HEALY: The PFA rules are also -- I'm sorry; the laws are also statewide. The rules for service are statewide rules. So that's that the victim can actually serve the order themselves, have a competent person do it. There's a litany of people that can serve. That's the statewide Rules of Civil Procedure.

Okay. All right. Thanks, Lieutenant. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Thank you, sir.

Thank you 73 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 for coming, Lieutenant. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Thank you.

You know what? Why don't I just call the other panel members, three people that should be at the table. We have Carol Tracy from the Women's Law Project; Cynthia Figueroa, Molly Callahan, Women Against Abuse; and Susan Pearlstein, Philadelphia Legal Assistance. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning. Thank you for coming. Don't forget, when you testify, please state your name for the record. Thank you.

Would you like me to begin?

You can begin, Ms. Tracy, yes.

Good morning. My name is Carol Tracy and I'm the Executive Director of the Women's Law Project in Philadelphia. I'd like to say at the 74 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 outset we appreciate the ongoing attention of the Public Safety Committee of City Council to issues concerning domestic and sexual violence. This Committee has played a major role in improving the Philadelphia Police Department's response to sex crimes through public hearings related to allegations of miscoding and inadequate investigations in 1999. As a result of the hearings held by this Committee, significant improvements were made and a state-of-the-art facility was created for the important police work dealing with sex crimes and child abuse. In addition, four advocacy groups -- the Women's Law Project, Women Organized Against Rape, the Support Center for Child Advocates and the Philadelphia Children's Alliance -- conduct an annual unprecedented case review each year of police files, and it is actually currently underway. We now have a very productive collaboration with the Special 75 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Victims Unit of the Police Department, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the Public Safety Committee for recognizing the importance of the issue. The Public Safety Committee has also held numerous hearings on domestic violence services in Philadelphia, which led to the creation by former Mayor John Street of a citywide Domestic Violence Task Force, which I had the honor to co-chair with former Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson. Accomplishments from the Task Force include increases in funding for a consolidated hotline and a new and larger shelter. In addition, under the auspices of the Task Force, we obtained a $950,000 grant from the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women to improve the law enforcement response to domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault in Philadelphia. This grant enabled us to provide training for almost 600 police supervisors, added personnel to enhance 76 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 prosecution and probation efforts, and increase the number of civil attorneys in Protection From Abuse proceedings. A Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Committee meets monthly to coordinate the grant and other related activities and to evaluate and monitor progress of these efforts. We currently also have the full support of the Nutter Administration in all of this work. So I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today, and the testimony -- most of my testimony relates to the issue at hand, which is the issue related to service. It's quite clear from the questions that this Public Safety Committee would like a much broader discussion, I think, about domestic violence, and I think as you hear from me and from other advocates, this is a very complex system that would take much more than two hours to explain, and already I think there's a great deal of confusion between the police and 77 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 criminal process and the civil process and where and how they overlap. So I would urge that we have more meetings. My testimony is lengthy. It is in writing, and I will try to highlight the testimony so that others have an opportunity to speak. I do just want to say that representatives from the Women's Law Project and Women Against Abuse conferred with Councilmember Green's staff prior to today's hearing. We believe we helped clarify the process followed in Philadelphia to serve Protection From Abuse papers. When the resolution was adopted, Councilmembers appeared to be under the mistaken impression that plaintiffs were required to serve these papers themselves and that they misuse the 9-1-1 phone system to obtain police assistance. I think that has been clarified. Accompanying our written testimony, however, is an outline of all the legal provisions related to service 78 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES.

080219 of process of PFA petitions and orders in Philadelphia for your review. In Pennsylvania, service of process and domestic relations matters is governed by court rules. In Protection From Abuse matters only, the rules additionally permit any adult, including the party, to make service. It is not required, but it is permitted. We believe Pennsylvania intentionally made it possible for any adult to make service in PFA cases in order to improve the plaintiff's ability to accomplish service within the time period within which a hearing must be held. Under the PFA Act, a hearing must be held within ten days. Allowing a plaintiff or other private individual to make service gave plaintiffs more options to achieve service and obtain the relief that they needed. The police have made it a priority to assist with service, and police records indicate, as Councilman 79 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Green mentioned in the beginning, that 7,000 to 8,500 requests for assistance in serving petitions each year. However, the sheer number of petitions filed in Philadelphia, more than 13,000 annually, supports preserving multiple options for making service, including the option for a party to arrange service for herself. Service comes into play once the Family Court or Emergency Protection From Abuse sites schedule a hearing on a Protection From Abuse petition. I also want to mention the Emergency Protection From Abuse petitions are not issued by Family Court. They're issued by Municipal Court, and I didn't want to correct Lieutenant Healy, but it is Judge Presenza, not Judge Dougherty who can answer the questions about training. The Philadelphia Police Department has been assisting litigants with the service of PFAs for many years. Under a protocol agreed upon between the 80 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 court system and the Philadelphia Police Department, the Court notifies the plaintiff that the defendant must be served with a petition and notice of hearing, informs the plaintiff that the Police Department is available to assist with service, and encourages the plaintiff to avail herself or himself of police assistance by going to the police district where the defendant can be found. In February 2005, the Police Department worked with Philadelphia Family Court personnel to prepare a video to train its officers. We believe the impetus for the development of this video was the need to clarify the procedure for patrol officers in particular to make clear that there was no limit to the number of times a plaintiff could request assistance to accomplish service and that assistance was to be obtained by going to the police district rather than using the 9-1-1 call system. 81 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 The video is available for viewing by City Council. I think Councilman Green's staff has a copy of the video. Since the training has been developed, there's been an improvement in the handling of requests to assist with service, but that doesn't mean we don't periodically encounter problems. That doesn't mean that this is not a system that could use significant support and perhaps change, but it is just one element that needs a lot of oversight, I think. In light of the concerns raised by City Council about how service of PFA petitions and orders is accomplished, we've researched how service of process for civil protection petitions is accomplished, both inside and outside of Pennsylvania. As Councilman Green mentioned, for all other jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, other than Philadelphia, service of a temporary order and petition 82 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 is accomplished through a sheriff's office or local police, without the assistance of the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff does not accompany the police for purposes of identification.

In some of these counties, the plaintiffs complete a form providing the sheriff's office with identifying characteristics to help them verify the identity of the defendant. None of the other Pennsylvania counties, however, compare to Philadelphia in terms of overall population of PFA filings. 4 million. Allegheny County is the second highest to Philadelphia with approximately 3,000 petitions filed annually, and the other 65 counties range from a high of 1,700 to a low of 30. And I also will add that in many cases, the court and the sheriff's 83 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 office are in the same building in small counties. That makes this much easier to do than it is here. For jurisdictions outside of Pennsylvania, we obtained information in two ways. We solicited information from the American Bar Association's Commission on Domestic Violence and then we identified a number of jurisdictions which compare to Philadelphia in population served. We ended up with information from other jurisdictions 14 and 15 other states, and we've attached 15 charts of our findings to date of this 16 testimony. 17 We found a number of different 18 practices, but Pennsylvania appears to be 19 unique in permitting the plaintiff to 20 serve the petition herself. All of the 21 jurisdictions examined outside of 22 Pennsylvania explicitly prohibit a party 23 to a matter from serving process in a 24 domestic violence matter. Some permit an adult other than the plaintiff to serve, 84 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 but often this is only by court order, and many require service to be done by law enforcement. To the extent that we're able to determine how many petitions were filed in the jurisdictions outside of Pennsylvania, we could only find two that had filings near the number filed in Philadelphia: Suffolk County, New York and Wayne County, Michigan. We are concerned if service were placed solely in the hands of the Philadelphia Police Department, the sheer volume might make it impossible for them to serve the volume of PFA petitions annually in a timely way. This could result in repeated continuances of hearings, the needs for plaintiffs to repeatedly miss work, find daycare and do all of the other things required to show up in court and delays in obtaining necessary protection from families. Later today you will hear testimony from Lutheran Settlement House 85 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 of what we have developed of the Jane Doe Case Log to talk about the complexities of dealing with this system and the time constraints that families are under. We also are concerned that there are times when petitioners want to change their mind, and a number of the people we have talked about nationally have also expressed some concern about that if the entire process is taken out of their hands. At the same time, we believe that systems can be put in place that would better address the safety of litigants in connection with the service of PFAs, as well as accomplish service in a more efficient and effective manner while preserving as many options as possible for the plaintiffs. As you will hear from other witnesses today, intervention in domestic violence is both complex and dangerous, including potentially dangerous to law enforcement. Service of petitions is 86 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 just one element of a complicated legal and social framework. Changes in one element may have unintended consequences in another. And I think that is part of what Lieutenant Healy was also discussing. We believe that the issue should now be on the agenda of the Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Committee, which is currently composed of police, prosecutors, probation officers, court personnel and advocates, where we can thoroughly review our research, evaluate our findings and develop recommendations for improvement. And we certainly welcome any member of City Council who would like to participate in this.

This Law Enforcement Domestic Violence Committee is an outgrowth of the Domestic Violence Task Force. It's part of the grant that we have obtained, and it is the first time in Philadelphia that 87 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 all of the parties, all of the law enforcement parties and the advocates, come together to meet on this issue and really try to improve and expand our services for victims of domestic violence. So I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony and look forward to working with you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We want to hear from everyone on the panel and then we'll have questions.

Thank you. I'm Cynthia Figueroa. I'm the Executive Director of Women Against Abuse and I, again, appreciate the ongoing support of the Public Safety Committee to address issues of domestic violence. Our testimony in 2003 helped the creation of the Domestic Violence Task Force, and subsequent hearings have kept this on the radar screen, and thank you to Councilman 88 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Green for introducing this resolution. We're very eager to work with the Public Safety Committee as well as other members of Council to look at what can be a best practice model in Philadelphia. Women Against Abuse is the largest program service provider for domestic violence in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and last year alone, we served over 11,000 individuals through all of our initiatives. Of that number, 4,500 of those individuals were provided services through our Legal Center. I'm going to let the majority of the testimony be provided by Molly Callahan, who is the Legal Center Director, who will talk a little bit about the complications outside of just the service issue. While the service issue is a matter that we are concerned with and we are eager to address what can be a best practice model that I know all the members involved are willing and 89 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 interested to look closely at, I think another important factor is what it takes before you even get to the service issue, which is something that we would like to highlight because of our unique role in Family Court. So with that...

Excuse me just one second. Can you highlight the testimony? We want to try and get everybody. Okay?

Yes.

Whomever. It doesn't matter. Thank you.

Again, I'm Molly Callahan, Legal Center Director of Women Against Abuse, and thank you for your attention to this matter. Just to give you a brief overview, the Legal Center provides legal representation and advocacy to victims of domestic violence in both civil and criminal courts in Philadelphia. We have advocates in the criminal and civil 90 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 courts. We have attorneys who represent clients in protection from abuse, custody and child support matters, and we also have a telephone counselor who actually speaks to over 100 callers each month. The services that the Legal Center provides are absolutely vital. Studies have shown that a victim who has an attorney is much more likely to safely leave and remain free of the abuser, and this is certainly not surprising to those of us who work at the Legal Center. We know the Protection From Abuse law offers really important vital remedies, such as prohibiting the abuser from having contact with the victim, evicting the abuser from the residence and granting temporary child custody and support to the victim. However, without an attorney, too often victims are unable to meaningfully access the court and they're unable to avail themselves of these important protections that would allow 91 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 them to leave a dangerous relationship. In Philadelphia, the Police Department is responsible for serving Protection From Abuse petitions when the petitioner requests assistance. In recent years, Women Against Abuse as well as other advocacy organizations have worked with the police and helped to train them so that they are better able to effectively serve the orders. While there may still be isolated issues and problems with service, we believe that continued training will continue to improve the police response. And we understand that while service can be a difficult and confusing process, we actually believe that the court process itself is even more confusing and difficult for the victim. After the abuser has been served, the victim must come back to court and prove her case. Victims often face intimidation by their abuser. The abuser may have told the victim that if 92 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 she ever tells anyone about the abuse, he will kill her, and he has warned her that if she leaves him, he will take the kids and she will never see them again. She knows better than anyone else what the abuser is capable of. He has most likely told her that no one will ever believe her, and she believes him. She is absolutely terrified, and now she must stand next to him and tell a judge, a perfect stranger, some of the most personal details of her life. I think looking at this process, it's no wonder that so many victims feel that without attorney representation, they simply cannot go through with this process. And, of course, pro se victims are often not equipped to represent themselves. They don't know the law and they're not sure which evidence is relevant and which is not. They do not know whether it is important for the 93 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 judge to hear of past abuse, and they don't know the Rules of Evidence. Many think that a signed letter from a witness will suffice and do not understand that that is inadmissible hearsay. They may not know to bring in medical records or pictures, things which could make all of the difference in their case and in being able to escape the abuse. In Philadelphia, we are overburdened by the sheer number of petitions filed in cases listed each day. Given the volume and the complexity of the cases, it is absolutely crucial for victims to have skilled representation. Indeed, it can be the difference between escaping a dangerous relationship and continuing to be abused by the batterer. A quick story illustrates the importance of an attorney.

An unrepresented victim did not realize that she could ask for sole custody in her PFA and so she agreed to give the abuser custody of the infant every other 94 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 weekend. After going before the judge and being too scared to voice her concerns in front of the abuser, she spoke to the Women Against Abuse advocate, who then referred her for attorney representation. The attorney then asked the judge to reconsider the decision because the abuser had been convicted of murder in the past. Under the custody statute, someone who has been convicted of murder, as well as other enumerated offenses, cannot be granted custody until he has had counseling and is deemed safe. Thankfully, the judge did reconsider the decision and the child is now safe. But without an attorney, this victim never would have known about the statute prohibiting the abuser from having custody and she never would have thought to tell about that murder conviction because it didn't relate directly to the abuse against her. Stories like this happen every day, and every day the Women Against 95 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Abuse attorneys and advocates have a real and tangible effect on the cases and the lives of victims and their children. In Fiscal Year 2007, the Legal Center attorneys represented 578 clients and the advocates helped 3,803 victims. Although we do so much, unfortunately there is still so much more to do. In Philadelphia, over 90 percent of petitioners who file for a PFA are unrepresented. Tragically, each month the Legal Center must turn away victims because we simply do not have the resources to represent all of those who desperately need and deserve our help. Again, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thank you, Ms. Callahan. Ms. Pearlstein, identify yourself for the record and proceed. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Susan Pearlstein. I am the 96 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 supervising attorney of the Family Law Unit at Philadelphia Legal Assistance. Thank you, Councilman Green, for inviting me to testify today at this hearing. Philadelphia Legal Assistance, known as PLA, is a non-profit, private legal services agency. We receive federal funding from the Legal Services Corporation and other local, state and federal sources to provide civil legal assistance to low-income residents of Philadelphia County in housing, public benefits and family law services. The Family Law Unit provides advice, pro se litigation assistance and attorney representation in domestic relations matters, which include child custody, child and spousal support, divorce and protection from abuse. We provide these services to approximately 2,000 low-income Philadelphians each year. The Family Law Unit is currently staffed by three attorneys and four paralegals. These three attorneys 97 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 cannot represent the great majority of litigants seeking our services. Therefore, our staff, along with law students from the Custody and Support Assistance Clinic, provides extensive pro se advice and litigation assistance to the many litigants who must represent themselves in domestic relations matters. Aside from Women Against Abuse, who you just heard from this morning, there are very few additional resources in the City of Philadelphia for low-income residents seeking assistance in family law matters. Given the overwhelming demand for assistance with domestic relations matters, we must prioritize our attorney representation for those cases in which there is family violence and focus on the representation of the most disenfranchised within those populations, specifically immigrant women and language minorities. As you have heard, service in protection from abuse matters is governed 98 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which state that original process may also be served by an adult, as well as a competent adult or sheriff as in all other domestic relations matters. This means in protection from abuse matters only, service may be done by a party to the action. As you have heard from others today, we feel it is very important this means of service remain an option for plaintiffs in protection from abuse matters. It is agreed among domestic violence advocates that a survivor of family violence is always the best judge of how to proceed and which course of action is safest for her and her family. The option for a plaintiff to serve process herself in a protection from abuse matter may in some circumstances be the best option, and we must leave that decision to the plaintiff. Accomplishing service in a timely manner is especially important in 99 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 this area, as hearings must be held within ten business days of the filing of a petition, according to the Protection From Abuse Act. We agree with Councilman Green that it is extremely important there be a safe and efficient way for plaintiffs to effectuate service in these matters. While problems do continue to occur, as you have already heard, there has been much progress with police assistance in recent years in our city. Much work has been done by domestic violence advocates in conjunction with the Police Department to educate and train officers, and we look forward to continuing to work on these issues through the Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Committee. The training and protocol for officers on serving these documents has lessened the frequency of many problems, including officers serving process in protection from abuse matters but failing to properly fill out the 100 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Affidavit of Service documenting that service was actually accomplished.

It has also, for the most part, lessened the prevalence of the misconception that attempting service three times equals good service. However, after I sent in this testimony yesterday, I learned of another case wherein a police officer just told a victim that, Well, if you try three times, that's considered good service. So that misconception is still out there, although there really has been a lot of progress. One problem plaintiffs continue to incur is confusion about which police district should be attempting to make service on a defendant. It is my understanding the protocol is for the plaintiff to go to the police district in which the defendant works or resides. However, many plaintiffs continue to encounter difficulties. For example, we recently assisted a plaintiff who was 101 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 properly informed by the Court to request police assistance in making service. She first went to the district where she resides. Then she was told she must go to the district where the defendant resides, which was for this woman very far, as the parties resided in complete opposite ends of the City. After traveling on public transportation with her small children to the district in which the defendant resided, she was then mistakenly sent back to the district in which she resided. Eventually the police in the proper district were able to assist this plaintiff in making service, but it was very difficult for this poor single mother to travel across the City several times in order to accomplish service. In addition, she was required to appear in court to request a continuance of her hearing on her Protection From Abuse petition because she was not able to make service prior to the hearing date. 102 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Such a delay in proceedings is especially problematic and possibly dangerous for a plaintiff who was not granted a temporary protection order by the court or who may have a temporary protection order but without eviction. These problems, in addition to plaintiffs often having to expend a great deal of time, sometimes hours, in obtaining police assistance in making service, continue to exist and may discourage victims from following through to obtain a final protection order. However, it is our experience that police officers are able to and do assist a great many of plaintiffs without delay, and police assistance continues to be the safest way for accomplishing service for many plaintiffs. We hope this assistance will continue to be available and that we can continue to work in coordination with the Police Department to address areas of concern and/or problems through the 103 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Committee. It is important to recognize that there are additional means of serving process that are underutilized in Philadelphia County. The Court may, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure, authorize alternative means of service, such as service by mail when personal service cannot be completed. In our experience, many pro se plaintiffs are not aware of this option, which is also underutilized in cases where there is attorney representation. When appropriate, we must advocate for plaintiffs by requesting service by alternative means and also by requesting the Court accept as good service serving an adult member of the family with whom the defendant resides as the Rules of Procedure allow. There is also a need to formulate a protocol and train law enforcement on service and enforcement of 104 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 foreign protection orders. The Protection From Abuse Act provides for full faith and credit for foreign Protection From Abuse orders. The Act states the Court must recognize and enforce a valid protection order issued by another court and that a plaintiff may file a certified copy of a foreign protection order with the prothonotary in any county in which enforcement may be necessary.

In addition, Philadelphia County rules state the courts of Philadelphia must recognize and enforce a valid temporary or protection order of a court of another county within the Commonwealth. Again, it is our experience there are misconceptions in the community and within law enforcement regarding foreign protection orders from abuse. On several occasions, we have learned of plaintiffs seeking to serve or enforce a foreign protection order being told that that foreign order is not valid in 105 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Pennsylvania and then instructed to file 3 a new petition here in Philadelphia. Misinformation in this area may put a victim at great risk of further harm and may cause undue delay and confusion. It is critical that provisions regarding foreign protection orders become an integral element of the training law enforcement officers receive. Lastly, I would like to address an area which is not directly related to service of process in Protection From Abuse matters, but which affect many of our clients and is the cause of many domestic disputes. Survivors of family violence are very frequently faced with attempting to enforce a custody order or with obtaining physical custody of a child when no custody order exists. This issue arises in a myriad of situations, many times between parents but also in disputes between parents, third-party caregivers and grandparents, as well as 106 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 other family members. Grandparents, caregivers and other family members cannot keep physical custody of a child unless there is a court order giving them custodial rights. However, we have many clients seeking our assistance in obtaining physical custody of a child from a non-parent, and if police assistance was sought, these parents are invariably told the police cannot assist. There is often a temporary custody provision within a temporary or final Protection From Abuse order, and plaintiffs are frequently in need of law enforcement assistance in enforcing these orders. Many misconceptions exist within the community as to what can and cannot be done by parents, relatives and law enforcement regarding child custody. Police officers are often summoned to assist a parent in obtaining custody of a child, either with or without a custody order, but law enforcement assistance is unavailable unless a litigant has 107 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 obtained an order specifically instructing law enforcement to assist in enforcing the custody order, which is only included in a custody order if the Court deems it necessary and must be specifically requested by the party. It is my understanding there is currently no training for police officers regarding their role in enforcing child custody of children or regarding if police are permitted to enforce a custody order and, if so, how to do so. Unfortunately, we know many disputes regarding custody do become violent, and while this is a complicated area, it is one which we must address as a community to protect children as well as adult victims of domestic violence from physical harm. We are very grateful for the opportunity to address these issues before the Public Safety Committee. We are encouraged by the attention being brought today on those attempting to 108 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 escape family violence, and look forward to continued cooperation and dialogue between advocates, the court and law enforcement and for the Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Committee to continue to address these vital issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks to all of you for your testimony. I just have a question. I was on the Internet just researching, looking at some of the domestic violence -- I don't know what you call them. I know they're not blogs, but whatever, whatever is there, and I noticed there was a list of states that the protection order can be served out of state, but Pennsylvania was not listed. And I think you touched on it, Ms. Pearlstein, when you talked about foreign orders. What about state to state or out of state?

Well, yeah. That's what I meant by foreign protection 109 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 orders, and I do believe that within the State of Pennsylvania, the police and service should be accomplished of a foreign order in the same manner as a domestic order issued in Pennsylvania. Regarding service outside the Commonwealth of an order issued within Pennsylvania, there are specific rules within the Rules of Civil Procedure for domestic relations matters for how to effectuate service.

One other question. Do you know how many orders include a weapon ban, and is that something --

We don't know that. There's a lot of research and a lot of data that is needed in Philadelphia, and this is one of the most important areas, because the confiscation of weapons can be permitted and we think that it is probably greatly underutilized. One of the issues I think that's related to this that concerns us, 110 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 though there are 13,000 petitions filed, approximately only 4,000 result in final orders. So there's 9,000 that are withdrawn or dismissed, and we don't know why. We don't know if it has to do with service. We don't know if people are told they have to get a PFA. There are some social service workers who will require that, and it may not be in the plaintiff's interest to do that. It may create more danger. So what we have -- the Women's Law Project and PLA with Drexel law students now are -- just set up a project in the Filing Unit of the emergency site and 34 South 11th to try to get more information and to follow up for two or three phone calls with the individuals to find out if they're following through; if not, why not, because we need to know and that -- we have the lowest percentage in the state, only 27 percent, of the PFAs wind up in final orders. And we have been reviewing this for the last several 111 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 years. It's declined by ten percent in the five-year period. So something is really wrong here. I mean, I think you've highlighted an important issue, but there are lots of gaps in the services that we need to figure out why. We also need to figure out why so many people do come for PFAs. Some states have laws that permit a PFA in a criminal proceeding. In Pennsylvania, although there's a stay-away order that can be issued in a criminal proceeding, it isn't a PFA, it isn't part of a statewide registry and it doesn't have the same weight, which requires the petitioners or the plaintiffs to be in two systems simultaneously. So that's an issue that I think is really important. And I think the issue that you raised about when the police are meeting face-to-face, are they also checking to see if there are outstanding warrants, is a critical issue, and if the face-to-face with the police remains an important 112 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 element in this, that part certainly should be added to it. I think that's something that we have been talking about and thinking about, but the coordination of efforts, although we have begun, it still requires a lot more depth.

The coordination of efforts is really key.

Pardon?

The coordination of efforts is really the key to making this a more effective service. Is the question asked on the Protection From Abuse order about weapons? Is there a question?

Yes, there is, and there is actually a separate attachment that is included in all Protection From Abuse petitions that ask the plaintiff to specifically list any weapons.

Okay. Good. All right. Councilman Green. 113 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Tracy, one of the things the Court mentioned or suggested that may be responsible for -- and this is all, of course, anecdotal because there is no 8 data, as you mentioned -- responsible for the large number of petitions filed that aren't followed up on or that a significant drop-off between filings and actual final protection orders issued is that there may be people that come in and, as you say, decide not to proceed or have that paper and decide not to proceed, so they never issue it. And for the court system, that's pretty inefficient to schedule 14,000 hearings and have 4,000 or 5,000 people show up. And one of the thoughts in this process is that if police are required to deliver every single one and the person knows when they come in that if they get this order, it will be served, that that will -- the decision point will be then 114 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 and not after the order is given and then not followed up on, and that that might be good for the system. Any comment on that?

Well, I think that's something that we're not sure about, and I think that's one of the reasons that we're trying to develop more information about it, because, as I said, some people are told they have to get a PFA, and it may be that it creates more danger for them, and that's why we feel it's very important that she have control over this. Also, in some of the interviews that we have done with people in Washington, DC, for example, the person is asked whether or not they want the police to serve the PFA or someone else. So there may be options.

That's all we're suggesting here.

I understand that. We're not -- I understand and I think we 115 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 all understand that we need to look at it. I don't think -- I would also suggest that you might want to visit 34 South 11th sometime and --

I worked there --

Oh, that's right, you did work in the Filing Unit.

-- when I was in law school.

Well, it's probably even more chaotic now than when you were there, Councilman. And we are desperately trying to get a new Family Court facility, because the facilities are terrible and it's very hard to get in that court, and many people come with support people, and support people are turned away at the door. There are lots of barriers in the systems and disincentives to following through, and I think all of the advocates want at least to keep the option open right now. 116 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

I wasn't asking you to sort of tell me what you think the solution is, just that the Courts are saying maybe if they know service is going to be effectuated, it may put less into the system. That's all. And I know we don't know the answer.

Can I address that also briefly?

If you can briefly, yes.

I can briefly. One of the reasons I just want to mention about why it's so vital that it remain an option and that it not automatically go through is, sometimes there's a temporary order --

I think we're all in agreement, but go ahead.

Sometimes there's a temporary order issued and a hearing scheduled, sometimes there's no 25 temporary order, and sometimes there's a 117 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 temporary order issued but without eviction. That circumstance is often extremely dangerous for a plaintiff, to have the temporary order but with no 6 eviction.

Right.

Or for a hearing only. And then she would have to go and serve the abuser with whom she resides and say, Okay, in seven days we're going to have a hearing, but I can't have you evicted out of the home. So in those circumstances, it's --

I think we all agree with that.

Okay. I just wanted to make that clear.

I do want to make the point, though, that currently victims of abuse are required to see that service is effectuated. They are not required to serve, but they are in fact -- and this was our original understanding when we first proposed 118 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 this, so I don't think there was a misunderstanding on anybody on Council's part. They are required to see that service is effectuated. In other words, they leave with the order, they go to the police, they accompany the police often usually, they are given the signed Affidavit of Service on the order, they are responsible for getting it back to the court system to show proof of service. So they are required to effectuate service. They're just not required to physically serve the person.

In person.

They can go to the police. But the fact is, they are required to do it currently, and what we're looking at is a way to give an option that would be some sort of central intake where they would just take it over to somebody else, give the information to the police, leave and then are out of the process of effectuating service. 119 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

If I could just add one other thing. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the police taking the affidavit and giving it back to the victim, and in some ways it would make sense to give it to -- the police to give it directly to the court, but the victim also needs to know immediately when service has been made. So whatever process we decide to put in place has to let that victim know, because often the abuser has been evicted from the house and she wants to get -- she needs to get right back in there. They need to know right away.

Absolutely, and one of the things we're looking at is using the 3-1-1 system so that people could call in and check, which we don't have yet, but -- or a call-in number where people could call in and has service been effected, has service been effected, and they would have the track of that by name, database and by number, 120 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 which we'd have to work out a system with the courts. But, yes, we understand that's very important. But for someone to have to take -- many people are low income. If they're working, they're working poor, and to go get the order is time consuming. To take a day off to go to the police district is time consuming, and we want to try to make the process as smooth as possible without requiring the involvement in the entire process of the victim of abuse. That would be the thing we're looking at.

And I think that's one of the issues that we've been discussing that's sensible. I also think that the information that Lieutenant Healy presented from their experience of the face-to-face with the police is something that I think we also need to take into consideration. It could be that --

And as we 121 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 said --

Yeah. And it could be that we have, if we had many more resources in Philadelphia, a more optimal way of doing that where there is face-to-face with the police and we find out more about the perpetrator and the whole system is made more efficient and more effective and safer for everyone involved, and I think that's where we all are in agreement.

Right. And a central intake, I guess, is the best option. When we've looked at other counties, it seems to be the most reasonable solution to that, where a policeman or a trained person can ask the questions the police would ask. They can be trained by the police however the police would like. They can also do a registered weapons check, a warrant check and all that other stuff before a policeman is sent into this situation. So I think it would actually increase 122 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 safety of everybody. And also as Lieutenant Healy testified, the proximity often creates more problems for police, the ride-along, than is necessary because --

And one of the issues is, we don't know. I mean, there's so much information that we simply don't know. I don't know that police officers have ever been asked that, that anyone has accumulated any of that information. I mean, the last several years I think we have really -- and thanks to this Committee, frankly. We have been able to escalate in Philadelphia the policy discussions about domestic violence and sexual violence that had not been taking place for quite a few years in the City. So I think we as advocates are thrilled to be able to be here and to start these kinds of additional discussions that have more depth.

I'd like 123 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 to just say something to that. I think it was like years ago I was involved 4 with domestic violence organizations, 5 advocacy groups. It's probably more than 6 25 years ago. I'm trying to think. I 7 can't remember, but I can think of one of 8 my daughter's ages. She wasn't even 9 born. But I must say, we've come a long 10 way. Back then, I worked for Women in 11 Transition. I was on the Board for a 12 short time of Women Against Abuse, and I 13 was a member of the Pennsylvania Domestic 14 Violence Statewide Coalition, and the 15 things that we dealt with back then, 16 we've come a long way. I mean, there's 17 still a lot of work to do, but we must 18 admit that we've come a long way, 19 particularly in dealing with the police 20 and the cooperation. And your task force 21 is great, and I guess eventually we'll 22 get there, but I did want to say that. 23 When I read and talk -- when 24 you were here before and you talked about 25 the task force, I thought that was really 124 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 great. I haven't been directly involved with this issue for many, many years. However, we have come a long way. That's really good. I know we need additional resources. But I was just wondering, if you train the supervisors with the grant that you have, how is that trickling down to the actual officers that serve the warrants and what are the continuing needs? And you're right, we do need to have more dialogue. I don't know whether it needs to be a public hearing, but we do need to have more dialogue, and I'm glad to see that Councilman Green has taken up this issue. And we all are interested, that's for sure, and want to see things improve. This violence is as serious as the other violence that's going on here in Philadelphia.

I would suggest it's probably the same.

It is. I mean, it absolutely is. 125 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

I do want to mention about the 600 supervisors. The grant we got enabled us to do that, and, of course, as supervisors -- these are the supervisors, the first responders. We have another grant pending that would start doing more patrol officers, and we think that we also need to get more of this training into the Police Academy. And also, the State does municipal police officer training. It's mandated training every year, and our Police Department has talked to us several times about trying to get us to do advocacy at the state level, because the State hasn't done any since the early '90s, and it's particularly relevant since the stalking statute has changed since that time and there's still a lot of misinformation about that. So we're interested and they're interested in more training, because the example that Susan just gave of some police officer still thinking because 126 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 there must have been some training program somewhere that said three times of attempts work, you know, and undoing that is really critical.

Okay. Councilman Green, do you want to continue? I know --

Those are all the questions I have anyway.

Thank you. Councilman Greenlee also has questions. One thing I do want to bring to everyone's attention, there is another public hearing scheduled here at 1 o'clock. So we really need you to condense your testimony so we can make sure we hear from everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one question, and I know we have other testifiers. Ms. Pearlstein, in your 127 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 testimony you raised the language issue, I believe, and I know when the courts come in here, they feel very confident they can handle just about any problem with a language, they have various interpreters, but I don't know in these kind of situations if they have people available. I'm thinking some of the Southeast Asian companies, residents that come over here, Eastern European, whatever. Have you found that a big problem?

I can say that things have improved a great deal in the past several years. There is a language access project in the City that is working very closely with the courts. New provisions were enacted to certify interpreters with the courts recently in Pennsylvania. So there has been a great deal of improvement. We used to see problems where if we sent -- or if a plaintiff went down to 242 to file a protection order or to 128 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 the CJC for an emergency protection order and did not speak English, it was often very difficult for them to even file 5 their petition. However, there has been a good deal of improvement in using services such as Language Line to have an interpreter available.

And I would guess just along those same lines that having a problem with the language coming from another country, you're more reluctant anyway to get involved with the system, if you will. So I would think as easy as you can make that, it would help.

Yeah. And as you'll hear from the Jane Doe Log, there are barriers and problems in each aspect of this process, which is very complicated and complex and hard for plaintiffs to understand, and adding a language barrier and possibly immigration issues on top of that is very difficult for many women to even seek assistance at all, to even call police or ask for a 129 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 protection order.

Got you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you for coming. Thank you for all you do. We have Nicole Lindemyer, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Ana Lisa Yoder, Beatriz Vieira, Lutheran Settlement House Bilingual Domestic Violence Program; and Julie Cousler-Emig. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Is there anybody else here that's here to testify that we didn't call your name? (No response.)

Okay. Great. Hi. Good afternoon. How are you doing?

Good morning. 130 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Thanks for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Nicole Lindemyer. I'm the Policy Manager at the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The Coalition is the statewide network of 61 domestic violence programs throughout all of Pennsylvania. These programs provide shelter, counseling, hotlines, legal and medical advocacy, and many other services to victims of domestic violence and their children all across Pennsylvania. The Coalition is grateful for the opportunity to participate in your efforts to strengthen Philadelphia's systemic response to the epidemic of domestic violence, and indeed we enthusiastically commend all of you for your attention to this critical matter. Pennsylvania's -- I want to emphasize, I have summarized my testimony from the written version and want to really focus particularly on the 131 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 statewide context of Philadelphia as one among 67 other counties, what's working in those other counties and how we can learn from that to really import some of the best practices here. As a matter of background, Pennsylvania's Protection From Abuse Act, or PFA Act, was first enacted in 1976 to provide civil restraining orders for victims of domestic abuse; that is, abuse committed by a family or household member or intimate or sexual partner. The PFA Act has been amended a handful of times and is presently one of the strongest protection order statutes in the country. Each year in Pennsylvania, approximately 40,000 PFAs are filed. Of those, approximately 40 percent are in fact granted and become final PFA orders. These PFA orders offer critical protections to victims and are recognized as one of the most effective tools in preventing future violence. The service of PFA orders in 132 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Pennsylvania is governed primarily by local policy and practice and, hence, it varies from county to county. In the vast majority of counties, not all 66 other than Pennsylvania, but the great majority, it is the local sheriff's office that serves PFA orders on defendants. Now, notably, the PFA Act defines "sheriff" differently in Philadelphia County as it does in the remaining 66 counties. The Act states, quote, "In a city of the first class, 'sheriff' means the chief or head of the police department," end quote. So that specifically recognizes that the sheriff's department may not serve the same role here in Philadelphia as it does in other counties in the state. In a smaller proportion of counties, the city or municipal police officers serve the PFA orders either all or some of the time, such as after hours when the sheriff's office is closed. In Philadelphia County, as you know, law 133 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 enforcement assists the plaintiff in serving the order, requiring that the victim bring the order to the Police Department, wait for an available officer and accompany that officer as they locate and serve the defendant. While it's indisputable that Philadelphia's law enforcement officers play an integral role in ensuring the service of PFAs on defendants, there is serious concern about the safety issues that arise from existing practices. However, it is critical to stress that any solution to this issue must be guided by the needs of domestic violence victims, and those needs vary greatly depending on the particular circumstances of each case. Therefore, sound policy decisions to issues involving domestic violence require flexibility and a range of options to accommodate those varying circumstances. In some situations, as we've heard from other testimony, service of 134 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 the PFA by a police officer may not be the best practice or may in fact increase the safety risks faced by a victim.

Therefore, maintaining the option of having service accomplished by either a plaintiff or another competent adult, in addition to having law enforcement serve, is the recommended best practice. It is in those cases in which victims choose to have law enforcement serve PFAs that are the focus here. The time of service of PFA orders presents acute issues of victim safety. Because domestic violence is a pattern of coercive control often reinforced through violent abuse, it is not surprising to any of us that many defendants react very violently when served with a court order that curbs their control over victims. Additionally, where eviction from a shared residence is ordered, the presence of law enforcement is especially necessary to ensure that the defendant 135 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 actually leaves as ordered. Furthermore, the PFA Act provides judges with discretion to order a defendant to turn over his firearms, and if that is ordered, if relinquishment of firearms is ordered, the time of service may provide a critical opportunity for law enforcement to take possession of firearms. Although that is not required to do so right at that time, it's an opportunity to do so. All of these circumstances underscore the grave threats to victim safety that arise at the time of service of PFA orders. In addition to these victim safety concerns, the time of service simultaneously implicates PFA enforcement issues. When served with a PFA, if a defendant is evicted but refuses to leave, or if the defendant responds to the order with assaults or threats, these acts would constitute violation of the order, warranting arrest and charge with indirect criminal contempt. Having 136 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 police officers serve PFA orders thus not only reduces the immediate threat to victim safety, but also ensures that violation of orders is immediately addressed through legal enforcement. Finally, in addition to the grave concerns about victim safety, firearms relinquishment and swift enforcement, there's another profound benefit to having law enforcement serve PFA orders. Having a uniformed officer of the law personally serve a defendant with a court order clearly communicates the severity of the situation. PFAs are not merely pieces of paper. They are court orders specifically directed at ending abusive conduct, with serious legal consequences for violation. That message is delivered quite powerfully when it comes directly from an officer of the law, who brings an inherent authority that underscores the fact that PFA orders must be abided by. Given the severity of the 137 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 issues involved in service, best practices dictate that law enforcement bear the primary responsibility for serving PFA orders in Philadelphia County, not the exclusive responsibility, but the primary one, at the victim's option. In researching how this best practice may be implemented, the Coalition has reviewed the practices of the 66 other counties in the state, discussed these practices with the domestic violence programs and other invested professionals in the Philadelphia area, and makes the following recommendations to the City Council to improve the service of PFAs in Philadelphia County. First, instead of having victims accompany police during PFA service, we recommend use of a hard copy data sheet attached to every PFA to be served and use of JNET to identify PFA defendants. As you know, the current practice is to have victims accompany 138 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 officers during service. This practice raises a number of concerns on behalf of victims, the most obvious being the intense fear victims have of confronting or even encountering their abusers, fear that may discourage victims from following through with service.

It also requires substantial time and resources for victims to travel first to the courthouse to obtain the PFA, then to the local police precinct waiting for an available officer, then accompanying that officer to the location of the defendant. This process may span days, requiring victims to take time off of work, if time off is available, or lose their jobs if time off is not available. Child care is also a concern, as navigating the City is difficult enough on one's own, but becomes a complicated ordeal with young children in tow. Additionally, riding along in a marked police vehicle and personally 139 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 pointing out the defendant to the police creates the perception that it is the victim who is responsible for the existence of the PFA rather than the defendant's own abusive conduct. Sensitivity to the needs of victims is essential to ensuring the PFA process works, so appreciating these barriers is critical to making the system work for victims. At the same time, understandably, police officers may require the victim's assistance in identifying the defendant so that the proper individual is in fact served. However, that goal of proper identification can be effectuated without requiring that victims ride along with the cops. One means of doing so is using a data sheet. A data sheet is a comprehensive document that contains detailed identifying information about defendants so that law enforcement 140 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 officers may readily identify them. Sample forms of this data sheet are attached to the testimony that you've received. The first is the form generated automatically through the statewide Protection From Abuse Database, which is a project of PCADV that allows electronic access to all PFA orders issued or registered in the State of Pennsylvania. That data sheet is electronically transferred right to the State Police, and in those counties where the sheriff's department serves PFA orders, the sheriff's department can also access that data sheet electronically. However, the sheriff's offices in some counties actually create their own data sheet based on the particular concerns in that area, and two different forms of that are also attached to my testimony, and you can see the kinds of information that are asked for include the defendant's work schedule, use or ownership of a gun, known hangouts or 141 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 alternative addresses. We heard testimony from a police officer earlier -- I'm sorry; a police lieutenant earlier saying that other issues are also relevant, like drugs and alcohol, like the presence of children. Those kinds of issues could be included in a hard copy data sheet. So the third and fourth attachments that you've seen are examples of those, and as is evident, each county has the flexibility to modify that form to accommodate that county's needs. The second recommendation to aid police in identifying defendants is the use of JNET. That's the Pennsylvania Justice Network. This is a resource that is probably quite familiar to those who already are working in law enforcement. It's a tool they have access to. JNET is an electronic portal through which authorized users in the criminal justice systems can electronically access an array of records and information from 142 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 multiple databases. It is a kind of in-depth electronic clearinghouse containing information gathered from various municipal, county, state and federal agencies. It provides access to records from PennDOT, including millions of driver's license photos, photo ID cards, and driving and vehicle histories. It also includes access to mugshots from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, and it also includes the Commonwealth Photo Imaging Network, or WebCPIN, which has photo images of identifying characteristics as specific as scars, marks, tattoos, hair and high color and dozens of other traits.

JNET also includes photos from arrest, booking, prison and parole records from county and state prisons, probation and parole offices, municipal and state police and multiple local, state and federal agencies throughout the New York/New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency. 143 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 The array of photographic records contained in JNET would provide Philadelphia's law enforcement officers with a wealth of resources from which they can draw when identifying PFA defendants. Indeed, many police departments already have access to JNET from their police vehicles, so they can use this as a resource right there in their squad cars. Using JNET is yet another means by which law enforcement can accurately identify PFA defendants instead of having the victim accompany. Move along? The second recommendation we have is establishing a centralized location or repository for PFA orders ideally at or near the courthouse where PFA orders are issued. Councilman Green already mentioned having this centralized location. In other counties throughout Pennsylvania, typically service is done by the sheriff. The sheriff's office is located within the courthouse. The 144 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 victim simply gets the paperwork, walks over to the sheriff's office, drops it off. From there, the sheriff serves. The sheriff completes the Affidavit of Service, faxes it to the court, and the victim need only show up at the hearing next. The difference that would be made in implementing this can't be overstated, because we know that there are so many obstacles within accessing our justice system that deter victims from following through. In fact, statewide statistics reveal that Philadelphia County has a disproportionately high number of PFA filings, yet the lowest percentage of final orders issued. While there's no 20 single reason for these discrepancies, one factor among many that may explain them is that victims file and receive emergency or temporary PFAs, then do not appear at the hearing ten days later to obtain final orders. When a process is 145 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 unduly burdensome on victims, it's both predictable and justified that victims do not follow through with that process. Unfortunately, given the nature of domestic violence as a pattern of abuse, often escalating in frequency and severity, the same victims may be returning to court repeatedly because they're getting only short-term temporary relief. Again, this is not to imply that the PFA service issue entirely explains the disproportionate numbers in Philadelphia, but it undoubtedly contributes to the problem. A third and final recommendation is one already mentioned by Councilman Green, and, that is, providing -- I'm sorry. It was mentioned earlier by Molly Callahan -- providing victims with notice once service is completed. This is especially important in cases where eviction has been ordered. Victims may be staying with friends or relatives, staying in a shelter for 146 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 domestic violence victims, staying in a homeless shelter or merely on the run going from place to place waiting for him to leave. So when the PFA defendant is served, the victim needs some standardized way of being notified of that so she knows when it is relatively safe to return home. In most counties, victim notification of service is effectuated by telephone and others by fax. It is typically done by the sheriff calling either the victim or calling the victim services program or having some way for the victim to call the sheriff's office and get that information quickly. It can be done automatically, of course, as well. I hope this information about recommended best practices is helpful to your deliberation. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have about best practices from other 147 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES.

080219 counties in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.

Thank you. We're going to hear from everyone on the panel, then we'll have questions. Beatriz, are you next?

Thank you. Good afternoon almost -- or now. My name is Beatriz Vieira. I'm the Executive Director of Lutheran Settlement House. In our testimony with Ana Lisa Yoder, the Director of Domestic Violence Program, you have a chart about the Jane Doe Case Log, and hopefully you will see how complicated just by looking at this chart the process is for victims. So I'm going to help you by shortening my testimony quite a bit. So I just want to say that this Case Log came out of the Law Enforcement Subcommittee of the Domestic Violence Task Force, which was originally co-chaired by Lutheran Settlement House. 148 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 So this is an effort for everybody at the table to look at what would a victim have to go through, and the interesting thing that happened in this discussion is that not one person at the table, including lawyers, including the DA's Office, including the police and victim services, could actually -- had the entire picture together. So that's how this came about. So the Jane Doe Case Log is going to -- takes victims through the various systems, from the 9-1-1 call through the end for prosecution. For Jane, unlike many victims, each system provides an ideal response based on existing police detectives, court processes and departmental policies. So this is our ideal scenario. It represents the most straightforward situation, unencumbered by the reality of limited resources and large volume of the systems and that make quick and effective responses unusual. Jane Doe is also unaffected by 149 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 those individuals within each system who might mirror society's biases towards victims of domestic violence, holding her responsible, not believing her or discounting her for not responding the way a victim should, nor is Jane hindered by the many other common barriers faced by victims of domestic violence who need help from Philadelphia systems, including a very valid fear of retaliation by the abusive partner, lack of resources or social support, illiteracy, limited-English proficiency, biases towards victims of the same sex relationships, immigration issues and far others. In setting out to create the Jane Doe Case Log, the Committee made up of lawyers, police thought this would be simple and yet turned out it was not. Jane's saga begins when she dials 9-1-1 to report that her partner is beating her in her home. It ends a little more than a month later when Jane 150 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 decides not to prosecute, but only after five visits to court, six calls or visits with the police and contact with 5 different people in ten different systems 6 or organizations. As we walk a little 7 further through Jane's process with the 8 Philadelphia systems, I'd ask you to 9 remember the trauma she has just 10 experienced at the hands of her intimate 11 partner, likely not for the first time, 12 and imagine her navigating the systems in 13 the midst of her own terror, flashbacks, 14 nightmares or shame, all very normal and 15 common responses to trauma. 16 Since her abuse happens on the 17 weekend -- we had much conversation about 18 this -- Jane must go to the emergency 19 filing site for her emergency order and 20 back again on Monday to Family Court to 21 pick up her temporary order. She 22 successfully gets an emergency order and 23 is given a court date for the final 24 hearing nine days later. In the 25 meantime, her abusive partner is released 151 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 after making bail and he manages to snatch her child, telling Jane that she will never see her child again. In the midst of all this, Jane must also serve her abusive partner with a PFA order and asks for help from the police. Unlike many victims who go through this process, she is able to serve it only after two attempts. Jane accompanies the police during each attempt.

Prior to her final PFA hearing nine days after the initial incident, Jane also has to attend and testify at the preliminary hearing for the aggravated assault charge against her partner in front of a different judge and in a different location from the PFA hearing through an entirely separate process. When she does have her final PFA hearing, as so often happens, it is continued so that her abusive partner can get a lawyer. Jane must come back to court again and go before the judge again in order to get her final PFA. In the end, Jane does successfully get a PFA 152 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 against her abusive partner. However, for each visit to the police to serve her protection order, for each visit to court, for each appointment with a lawyer, she has to find child care, transportation and take time off of work. Jane, unlike many victims of domestic violence, has a lawyer to help her through the PFA process. She also gets help from the Philadelphia Domestic Violence Hotline run by the four domestic violence agencies in the City: LSH, Congreso de Latinos Unidos, Women Against Abuse and Women in Transition. Unlike many victims, Jane's partner does not stalk her or threaten to retaliate against her if she continues with the PFA or criminal processes. He also does not call her and beg for forgiveness, promising to change, telling her that her children needs their father. She does not have to face him threatening to have her deported, as is common for undocumented victims of domestic 153 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 violence. And yet even without all of those very common struggles, Jane Doe illustrates that the system faced by Philadelphia's victims of domestic violence, even in the simplest forms, is complex and cumbersome. Yet the question we most often hear from community members as well as those charged with helping victims in these systems is why do victims not follow through with prosecution or with the PFA hearing. I hope that if Jane Doe does nothing else, it helps to give one answer to this question. The burden should be on those of us within these systems to make it more likely that she is able to follow through, not bogged down by impossible barriers created by a confusing system. For every barrier that our systems remove, victims are one step closer to following through with obtaining PFAs and to using the criminal justice system effectively to hold the abusive partner 154 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 accountable for their behavior. I want to reiterate our hope that Councilmembers will allow the existing Law Enforcement Subcommittee to plan and establish the best practice model for the PFA service and other Philadelphia systems accessed by victims of domestic violence. Thank you again.

Thank you. Who is next?

Good morning -- good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Julie Cousler-Emig. I'm from Congreso de Latinos Unidos and I'm the Vice-President for Health and Wellness overseeing our domestic violence program. On behalf of Congreso and the Latino community, I'd like to thank the Public Safety Committee of City Council for your interest in improving the PFA legal process for victims of domestic violence in 155 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Philadelphia. Domestic violence is a very complicated social problem that has tremendous repercussions for all those involved. The systems charged with responding to domestic violence are no 8 exception. We in the domestic violence community have been very pleased with the system improvements made over the last five years, largely in response to the establishment of the Mayor's Task Force in 2003 following two days of testimony before this Committee. We look forward to continued attention placed on this issue to facilitate a best practice response to domestic violence in Philadelphia. Congreso is a large multi-service organization in Eastern North Philadelphia that serves about 20,000 annually. Domestic violence presents itself in all of our 70-plus programs, impacting all aspects of individuals' pursuits for better outcomes 156 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 for themselves and their families. Congreso's Latina Domestic Violence Program reaches nearly 2,000 adult and child victims of domestic violence annually through our child and adult counseling services, our medical advocacy education and response in the area health centers and through our 24-hour domestic violence hotline run collaboratively with our three sister agencies. Congreso reaches 2,000 more annually with prevention education targeted to children, youth, adults and service providers. This prevention work serves as an important portal for victims of domestic violence to receive services, sometimes learning for the first time that they are a victim of domestic violence. Domestic violence cuts across all races, cultures and levels of socioeconomic well-being, but as with each of these characteristics, there are nuances among Latinos' experience with 157 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 domestic violence that present unique challenges for those of us charged with helping. Many Latinos have the obvious challenge of having limited-English proficiency, which significantly impacts their ability to obtain assistance. From the first responders to the courthouses to the police district where individuals must go for assistance serving a PFA, obtaining and serving a PFA, many victims do not have adequate translation either via the use of Language Line, a trained interpreter or even bilingual police and court staff. It's not uncommon for an abuser to be the one to speak to the responding officer, conveying a very different reality to the officer and victim, sometimes threatening deportation to uninformed victims where appropriate. In the 25th and 26th Police District Stations, an area most Latinos in Philadelphia live, there are often surprisingly few Spanish-speaking officers on a shift, if any. Similarly, 158 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 at Family Court, one Spanish interpreter creates backlogs in a normal day, but creates significant problems when the individual is out for just the day or on temporary leave. The court-appointed interpreter is also usually the same for a victim as for abuser, further escalating the fear in this experience. Congreso had a counselor located at Family Court three days a week from 1998 to 2005. During this time, we worked actively with the court to improve the signage in Spanish and to increase the gestures of sensitivity and privacy to these individuals presenting for help.

However, with annual funding cuts since 2001, Congreso no longer offers this support for Spanish-speaking individuals at Family Court and instead relies on the under-resourced services of Women Against Abuse, who is at Family Court, to meet the information and communication needs for all victims beyond the capacity of the court. 159 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Many Latino victims don't even come forward for help for a variety of reasons. Many don't know that resources and rights exist. Many Latinos come from countries where corruption is rampant through the police system and great distrust exists for the department designed to protect them and their rights. Many fear, with great legitimacy, that they will be ostracized from family, friends and even church for reporting their partner's abusive behavior to the police, and many fear for their safety once they do seek assistance, again with great legitimacy. We understand that this hearing was first called in response to the perception that victims of domestic violence must serve their abusers with a protection order. While that's not the case, many victims do think that they must serve their abuser, particularly among limited-English proficiency populations. Victims of domestic 160 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 violence are often confused, emotional, overwhelmed and scared when they present at Family Court. Language barriers complicate an already confusing process, even for individuals who speak English but for whom Spanish or another language is their first language. Information is communicated quickly and few retain all of the information. Congreso's experience with these challenges is primarily with the Latino community, but clearly these issues exist with other immigrant communities where the likelihood that victims will reach out for help is probably even less for all the reasons cited above. It is imperative that victims have all the information provided to them at all points verbally and in writing in their native language through bilingual staff, trained interpreters, including Language Line, and translated materials. All of those responsible for intervention at each critical juncture must convey 161 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 accurate information. For example, first responders must communicate to victims -- must not communicate to victims that three attempts at service of the PFA is good service. A typo in my written testimony. And victims of domestic violence should have skilled representation in order to increase positive outcomes, including follow-through with prosecution. The entire process from civil to criminal response is complicated, even for those of us working within the system. It is absolutely imperative that we create simple systems to convey accurate information consistently. We look forward to the ongoing work of the Law Enforcement Subcommittee and the leadership of this Committee in helping to make Philadelphia a safer place for all. Thank you.

Thank 162 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 you. Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Also, once again, I do just want to make clear that it was the understanding of this Council and the people that proposed the resolution that victims of abuse are required, must, see that a Protection From Abuse order is served, and that was the purpose of these hearings, to try to provide an option other than the responsibility being placed upon the victim. I understand that they don't have to physically serve, that there are other options, but that was the purpose of these hearings, just for clarity. You heard the questions I asked before about a central intake. Obviously it was one of your suggestions. Do any of you have any comment on that?

I guess I think there are a lot of different things that 163 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 we've talked about amongst ourselves here in Philly and particularly in the Law Enforcement Subcommittee, and I really feel like it would be --

Excuse me. Can you identify yourself for the record?

I'm sorry. My name is Ana Lisa Yoder. I'm the Director for the Bilingual Domestic Violence Program at Lutheran Settlement House. And I guess I would just agree with what I think most people have been saying here, which is that we really need to look at all options and sort of think through, because we can certainly sit here and say we think this particular option is going to work, but we need to be working with the different systems, that we're coordinating well.

I completely agree and that's why we've met with the Police Department and the First Judicial District and other people and we asked 164 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 you to testify here today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have one question. In the state, which city does it the best?

There's 67 counties, 62, 61 domestic violence programs in the Coalition. I can't be pulled that many ways. I can't answer one. I can tell you there are counties that are doing an absolutely fabulous job, and in those counties where the practices are most effective, it's because law enforcement has really stepped up to the plate and said, Tell me what we need to do. For example, in -- oh, goodness. Let me find it. It's Warren County. They have a sheriff who is personally involved. He is the sheriff of the county.

What's their population? 165 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219

It's very small.

It must be ten.

It's very small. It's not going to be comparable to Philly, because there are other barriers that they face in terms of much more physical distance. Some other practices in other counties that are very promising, not just with regard to service, but an issue that came up earlier was weapons confiscation. Bucks County has every Wednesday a hearing on weapons-related ICC, indirect criminal contempt, charges. So if a defendant is ordered to turn over his weapons and he doesn't, it is automatically -- he is going to be issued an ICC charge. He's going to be warranted if he doesn't come up to court. He'll be arrested and charged with that. So they automate it. They systematize it and it becomes routinized 166 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 and not so varying in case by case by case, and it really helps the predictability of the system and it helps victims access that when they know what to expect.

Does any of the counties have a judge specifically assigned just to hear domestic violence cases?

Yes, many.

That works well?

The Law Enforcement Subcommittee also made a visit to Brooklyn, where actually PFA hearings are heard in front of the same judge and criminal hearings are also held in the same location in front of the same judge, and it was a very interesting visit.

Do you think it's an effective way of doing things?

I think it makes for a lot more consistency and better 167 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 communication between the different systems, which we don't have currently in Philadelphia. Absolutely.

But in Philadelphia we have two judges generally who see all the cases at Family Court.

Oh, okay. That's good.

If I may, there's one other point that I wanted to make that was raised in a question asked earlier by Councilman Green, and that was about the overlap between outstanding warrants for other criminal charges and ICC charges for violating a PFA. While there is no data directly on that, I can tell you an anecdote based on the experiences of Pittsburgh, which is the most analogous area to Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Their police department was specifically doing a gang sweep. They were trying to crack down on people who were known gang affiliated, but they 168 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 wanted to get at those defendants through looking at other outstanding warrants and criminal issues. They looked specifically at ICC charges, and they brought in hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of defendants, and there was a pronounced charge, a surge in the number of ICC hearings there were. There was such overlap between people who were considered to be violent criminals and people who were also abusing their partners. They're one and the same in many cases. Certainly not all, but in many cases, yes.

I would think they would be too one and the same.

I'm not certain I know what ICC stands for.

It's stands for indirect criminal contempt. It's the charge that is filed for violating a PFA. It's a quasi criminal charge.

Thank you.

169 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 Councilman Green, is that it for you?

Yes.

I want to thank everybody for coming in. These kind of hearings are always a way to educate and spread the word about information. So I am sure that every Councilmember would welcome any literature or information that you have that they can distribute to constituents or post in their office on the bulletin board or put in their newsletter. So you can send it to me as Chair of Public Safety or you can send information to Councilman Green, and we'd be happy to help and do whatever we need to do in any way we can. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. (Thank you.)

I forgot to say this: This Committee is recessed to the call of the Chair. (Committee on Public Safety 170 5/7/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 080219 adjourned at 12:25 p.m.) - - - 171 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 7, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)