EDMUND G. BROWN JR.                                                                          MIKE DAYTON
GOVERNOR                                                                                  ACTING SECRETARY

                           CHILDREN’S JUSTICE ACT (CJA) TASK FORCE

                                               June 8, 2012
                                                 9:30 AM
                                 California District Attorneys Association
                                  921 11th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento

                                             Meeting Minutes

      Members Present: Harry M. Elias (Chair), Kathleen Cady, Leigh David Casey, Elizabeth
      DeRouen, Michael Grogan, Garry Ichikawa, Lee Ann Kelly, Annie Lynn, Carol O’Callaghan,
      Karl Porter, Richard Ruiz, Jay Smith, Wendy Wright, Melinda FurFuro, and Edwin Weaver.

      Members Not Present: Catherine Stephenson, Donald Cohon, Susan Torrence, and M. Tina

      Cal EMA Staff Present: Sonia Banales, Janine Williams and Richard Bunch

      I.    CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS – Honorable Harry M. Elias

            Minutes reviewed and approved as submitted


             a. Cal EMA Update – Sonia Banales

                i.   Secretary Mark Ghilarducci attended a victim services conference.
               ii.   All Victim Services/Public Safety Division vacancies have been swept,
                     which means that Cal EMA is not able to hire at this time.
              iii.   There will be some cuts in VOCA and VAWA
              iv.    $1.7 million will continue to be set aside for reimbursement of forensic
                     exams each year. There were 5 requests in the previous year; the balance
                     of funds will be re-allocated into the programs.

b. Program Updates – Janine Williams/Richard Bunch

  i.    Human Trafficking Program (HM) – Community Services Program (CSP) – The
        project is on track to spend down all of their 2010 CJA funds by September 30,
        2012. The Law Enforcement training DVD was sent to 216 Chiefs of Police
        throughout the State. The Emeryville PD immediately responded with a request
        for a training that was scheduled for June 18, 2012. They are currently surveying
        past training participants on how the training has impacted their approach to their
        job. The website is still under construction but they are close to completing the
        re-design phase. The program is being moved from a calendar year to the federal
        fiscal year and has requested an extension on their current funding cycle.

  ii.   Native American Children Training Forum (CF) Program – National Indian
        Justice Center are on target to spend the CJA 2010 funds by August 31, 2012.
        They are on track with activities identified to meet the objectives. They have
        begun forming their panel of experts and developing the needs assessment survey.
        They have administered two of the surveys to test out the questions and scope of
        responses and feel they can safely say that the needs are obvious from the
        responses. They will be meeting to tweak a couple of questions before
        publicizing the survey. They have also started to post info about the program on
        their website

  iii. The Prevent Child Abuse California Program (IT) – This program has been on a
       monthly progress report schedule since the December task force meeting. The
       specialist attended the Steering Committee Meeting for this program on June 5th.
       The project has made progress but will not meet their timeline of having the
       product done by June 30, 2012, but is now stating that the product will be
       complete by the end of the grant period which is September 30, 2012. The project
       is requesting a 1 year funding cycle extension with $150,000 funding or a 2 year
       funding cycle extension at $75,000 each year. The task force noted that this
       request came in the recipient’s second year of funding. The parameters state that
       the request for a funding cycle extension can only occur in the third year of

        Some task force members shared that they were aware that the product demo has
        been sent to some doctors to gain feedback; however, the request appeared
        hurried and unorganized. In addition, there is a concern that the wrong doctor
        audience is being targeted.

        The task force wanted to know who will own the finished product once it’s done.
        It was determined that the finished product will belong to Cal EMA and the CJA
        Task Force.

        Task force members will continue to receive updates as they occur in regards to
        this recipient.

iv. The Statewide Multidisciplinary Interview Center Coordinator Program (MDIC) –
    The program is on course in regards to Cal EMA’s program parameters. Cal
    EMA received an update from the Executive Director of Center for Innovation
    and Resources, Inc. (CIR), Rebecca Bevan. The program had recently received a
    site visit from Cal EMA and wanted to report that they have distributed the
    Checklist for the Minimum Standards Protocol at Child Forensic Interview
    Trainings, California Child Advocacy Centers via email and other specialized
    technical assistance events.

     The program also acknowledged that their request to extend their funding cycle
     was denied and requested the task force to re-consider their decision.

     The task force received a letter from California Network of Child Advocacy
     Centers (CNCAC) in regard to the MDIC Program. The CNCAC is not a
     recipient of CJA funds but does contract with CIR for their State Coordinator
     position. The purpose of the letter was to express their accomplishments that are
     a direct result of working with CIR on the MDIC Program and wanted to express
     their desire to continue with this partnership.

v.   The Children Exposed to Domestic Violence Programs – All three recipients have
     met the majority of their objectives. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department
     submitted a request to extend their funding cycle but missed the Feb. 28th deadline
     and Cal EMA did not receive the letter until after the March CJA meeting. The
     letter was submitted at this meeting for funding cycle extension consideration. In
     addition, the LA Sheriff’s Department issued a Purchase Order for the evaluation
     contractor that does not meet the requirements of a contract; hence Cal EMA is
     working with the recipient for a purchase order that does meet the requirements of
     a contract. The National City Police Department asked to be able to address the
     task force at this meeting due to not being extended for another year.

vi. Child Abduction Training and Technical Assistance Program – The Child
    Abduction Intervention and Resource Trainings have been going well. A recent
    training has 95 attendees and 13 attendees utilized travel scholarships. The next
    training is in Fresno in August. The website is still being used as a resource for
    professionals. Santa Barbara County has requested a specialized California
    Missing and Abducted Children’s Initiative (Cal MACI) Training planned for July
    or August.

     The Public Service Announcement has been developed and approved by Cal
     EMA and production is under way.

     The Child Abduction Task Force added two new members at their March
     meeting. Another member addition will be voted on at their June meeting.

            In response to a question from this task force, Bill and Georgia Hammond’s
            contract expired on 9/30/11 and was not renewed. Georgia’s knowledge and
            experience may be used in the future.


   In June 2011, Cal EMA released an announcement offering the option for CJA funded
   programs to apply to go from a 3-year funding cycle to a 5 year funding cycle. Cal EMA
   has received several requests. The task force agreed on the following parameters for this
   kind of request at the March Meeting:
    Written request to Cal EMA
    Cal EMA will bring each request to the task force
    Requests can only be made in the 3rd year of funding
    New programs will be evaluated by the task force at their inception on whether they will
     be a 3 or 5 year funding cycle.
    New programs that begin as a 3 year project, the original RFP will state that the program
     is a potential 5 year project but will begin as a 3 year project.
    The 4th and 5th year of the funding cycles will be to focus on expansion, replication and
     mentoring of the accomplishments of the first 3 years of the program.
    The task force will choose 1 of 3 options when considering an extension: Extend, Extend
     and Fund, or Not Extend or Fund.
    Additional information may be requested of the recipient.
    A letter will be sent by the specialist to the recipient with outcome and new components
     requirement. Future RFAs will include new components.

   After the funding cycle parameters were set and the funding cycle requests were decided
   upon, it became evident that additional parameters were needed. The following parameters
   were discussed and added to the funding cycle extension parameters:
       When a program’s recipients are denied an extension, the program’s future needs to
           also be discussed at that time.
       If a program is continued and a RFP will be issued, can past recipients compete for
           these funds again?

   Below is the status of all Funding Cycle Extension requests and re-considerations:

           Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department requested that their Children Exposed to
            Domestic Violence be extended for another year. This request was denied by the
            task force.
           National City Police Department requested that the decision from the March
            meeting to not extend this program be re-considered. After re-consideration, this
            request was denied by the task force.
           The MDIC Program’s request to re-consider the denial to extend funding was
            granted. After re-consideration, this request was denied by the task force.
           IT Program requested to have their funding cycle extended by one year and
            possibly 2 years with fewer funds. This request was not submitted in the

                   program’s third year of funding, so this request is not being considered at this
                  HM Program submitted a request to extend their funding cycle and the task force
                   did not get a chance to discuss this or vote on a decision. The decision is pending.

     Based on the new parameters, two programs needed to be discussed. Three new RFPS
     resulted from this discussion.

                 CEDV Program – two recipients are not continuing and 1 recipient has been
                  extended for 1 year.
                       The task force decided to continue the program with a new RFP with all
                         new recipients, any past recipients will not be able to compete for these
                         funds. Vote = Motioned by Garry Ichikawa and seconded by Wendy
                         Wright, all ayes.

                 MDIC Program – The 1 recipient will not continue with this program
                     The task force decided to continue the program with a new RFP and anyone
                       can compete for these funds, including past recipients. Vote = Motioned by
                       Garry Ichikawa and seconded by Melinda FurFuro, all ayes.

                 Evaluation Program – The task force decided to take the evaluation component out
                  of the CEDV Program and instead asked Cal EMA to do an RFP for a sole
                  evaluator to evaluate past, current and present CEDV Programs. Language for this
                  new RFP will be brought to the September CJA meeting for review by the task
                  force. Vote = Motioned by L. David Casey and seconded by Annie Lynn, all ayes.


     a.       2010 Balances – Three recipients have balances as of 6/5/12.
               CEDV/LA - $20,000
               CEDV/National City - $20,344
               CEDV/Fresno - $1
               Human Trafficking - $22,525

     The CEDV programs balances are currently being switched to their 2011 grants
     which resulted in a balance of $40,345 of 2011 funds which will be used for the
     first year of the new Evaluation Program.

     The balance of $22,525 could not be switched with their current 2011 grant due to
     the timeframe left to spend the funds. Cal EMA asked their program specialists to
     ask their programs to submit a brief justification on how they could use and spend
     these funds by September 30, 2012. Cal EMA received 2 requests, both from
     Center for Innovative Resources, Inc, 1 each for both of their programs, AC and
     MD. The task force considered both requests and voted to allocate the funds to the
     MD program for an extra training in a rural area. Motioned by Jay Smith and
     seconded by L. David Casey, Kathleen Cady abstained, all ayes.

      b.   2011 Balances – All funds have been allocated accept $450,000 (IT and CF),
           these programs do not begin until later this year and next year, respectively.


      a.    National City Police Department Children Exposed to Domestic
            Violence – Detective Jim White

      Detective White called into the task force to discuss the CEDV Program at the
      National City P.D. Detective White shared that program has been a great asset to
      National City P.D. and if the money were to go away, he would be able to stay in
      place with his role in the program. However, they would like to continue the
      program and feels that they have done a good job. The task force asked some

      Q: What kind of institutional changes have you made that will stay if the money
         goes away?
      A: Policy changes to how they investigate, improved communication between
         investigators and patrol officers. The mindsets have changes.
      Q: Will partnerships continue?
      A: Yes, South Bay Community Services will continue, officers have a better
         understanding of what South Bay does and will continue to work with South
         Bay. In addition, they are working better with Child Welfare Services they
         have a social worker that comes in once a week for half a day. They also
         connect with the District Attorney (DA) on a regular basis.
      Q: Have any partners agreed to continue without the funds?
      A: The Chief of National City P.D. is behind the program and wants the
         connections to continue and so does South Bay Community Services and the
      Q: Is this part of your written protocol? A: Yes
      Q: Do you have Memorandum of Understandings with the other entities?
      A: South Bay, Yes; DA, No; They were working on one with a middle school but
         it didn’t happen.
      Q: Are you on track to spend all your funds? A: Yes

      The task force agreed to stay with the original decision to not extend their funding

      b.    Child Abuse Prevention Center Child Abuse Identification Health Care
            Provider – Gina Roberson, Dr. Angela Rosas, and Robin Morgan

      The most recent version of the product demo was shared, the link had a glitch and
      a CD was used to show the program. Once the demo was complete, there was a
      question and answer session between the task force and the representatives of this

    Program: Target date was set June 2011 to be complete by June 2012 and they
    are trying to make it the best product possible and the task is hard to obtain when
    all the steering committee members do not always agree. There has been a lot of
    refining to the product.
    Task Force: At some point you have to finish the product. Why not put a product
    out with new versions later?
    Program: Working on the doctors being able to earn CME units for completing
    this program, but that will not hinder the release of the product.
    Task Force: The product seems to be a good product but it needs to get out there
    an needs to get to general practitioners. How will you get it out and vetted to the
    right population?
    Program: There was a learning curve with the software and are now up to speed
    with how to create and finish the product. They don’t know how to speed up the
    process and are open to suggestions.
    Task Force: Did you get feedback that navigation was difficult?
    Program: The training is 1.5 hours; the target date for a web launch is now
    September 2012. They have purchased a database of all the doctors in the state.
    They have received enthusiastic responses at conferences. The first year and a
    half, the program sat and all who are working on it now, were not on it then.

    The packet that was handed out will be scanned and emailed to the task force.

    The task force will review this program for a finished product and fund balance at
    the September 21, 2012 task force meeting.

    The task force agreed to allow this program to be augmented $37,500 and
    extended for 3 months after their grant period ends on September 30, 2012. The
    purpose of this augmentation and extension is for the program to release the
    product that should be complete on September 30, 2012.


    a.   Pamela Wallach – Expressed interest in the position of Defense Council and Juvenile
         Court Representing Parents and Kids. Although the resume was forwarded to task
         force members in March, the item was left off the June agenda. Harry stated that Ms.
         Wallach is from the San Diego area and some task force members expressed concern
         that there may be too much southern California representation on the task force. An
         email will be sent to the task force members asking for their vote on this person for

    b.   Heather Zenone resigned her position of the representative for the Former Victim of
         Child Abuse/Neglect on May 16th, due to a new job reallocation to Washington D.C.

    c.   Donald Cohon requested the task force to consider whether he can still be an asset to
         the task force based on his availability since retiring and becoming a consultant that
         requires a lot of travel. The task force decided that they would like Donald to stay on

          the task force and the expressed that his expertise in evaluation criteria will be most
          helpful with the new Evaluation Program.

    d.    Annie Lynn expressed interest in moving to represent the category for the Former
          Victim of Child Abuse/Neglect. The task force agreed to allow Annie to represent
          both categories at this time and advertise for the Court Appointed Special Advocate.

    The vacancy letter will be updated, emailed to task force members and posted to the CJA
    webpage on Cal EMA’s website.

    Harry encouraged all members to reach out to colleagues and said he would do the same.


         a. CJA Annual Meeting and Conference – good annual meeting, Janine was
            asked to share the Human Trafficking program and people were quite
            impressed. A judge was on the panel with Janine and asked for a copy of
            the presentation.

         b. 2012 Application Update – submitted on 5/30/2012, Governor’s letter was
            submitted on June 13, 2012.

         c. Travel Arrangements and Expense Claims
                  i. Sorry for the hassles, we try to accommodate but we know it can
                     be daunting at times.
                 ii. Reimbursement rates – food, $6, $10, $18 with or without receipts
                     that is the cap.
                iii. Always include Airline Reservations
                iv. Do not pay for flights with credit card

         d. Future Meetings:
             September Meeting – San Diego, September 21, 2012
             December Meeting – Sacramento, December 14, 2012

VIV. ADJOURNMENT -              Meeting adjourned at 1:54 p.m.


To top