Office of Victim and Witness Rights; Legal Services for Domestic Violence Victims

Shall the City create an Office of Victim and Witness Rights that would provide or coordinate existing City services and seek to establish programs that provide free legal services for domestic violence victims?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: San Francisco provides services to victims of violent and nonviolent crime, survivors of sexual violence, and victims of gender-based violence and discrimination through many agencies and departments.

The Proposal: Proposition D would create an Office of Victim and Witness Rights (Office) as a new City department. The Office would provide or coordinate existing services for victims and witnesses of all types of crimes.

The Office would introduce an ordinance establishing a one-year pilot program to provide free legal services for domestic violence victims, starting by July 1, 2023.

The Office would seek to establish a permanent program to provide free legal services for domestic violence victims, subject to further legislation. The domestic violence victim must either reside in the City or be the victim of a domestic violence incident that occurred in the City.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to create an Office of Victim and Witness Rights that would provide or coordinate existing City services and seek to establish programs that provide free legal services for domestic violence victims.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to establish this Office.

Controller's Statement on "D"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition D:

The cost of the proposed ordinance, should it be approved by the voters, is dependent on decisions that will be made through the budget process, as an ordinance cannot bind future Mayors and Boards of Supervisors to provide funding for this or any other purpose. In my opinion, the cost of fully funding the programs created in the proposal, should future policymakers do so, is likely to be significant.

The proposed ordinance would establish a new City department, the Office of Victim and Witness Rights (the Office). The Office would be authorized to provide a variety of services to victims and witnesses of crime and to coordinate similar services being provided by other City agencies. The ordinance specifies that the Office survey and report on the quality and scope of services to clients, perform a needs analysis in this area and make recommendations on how to address unmet needs. One year after the Office is established it would be required to introduce an ordinance consolidating all services for victims and witnesses under its direction.

The proposed ordinance would establish a right to civil legal representation for victims of domestic violence in San Francisco and create a pilot program to provide such representation. The Office of Victim and Witness Rights would coordinate free legal services for this purpose, administer the pilot program, evaluate its effectiveness after one year, and propose an ordinance to establish the future of the program based on that evaluation.

The ordinance specifies a Department Head for the new Office, at a likely cost of approximately $340,000 annually. The programs and coordination work specified by the ordinance will require staffing at an estimated minimum cost of approximately $700,000. The ordinance specifies that only free legal services will be used for the pilot year of legal counsel for domestic violence victims, however in future years, should the City fund the program, the cost could be significant.

As stated above, an ordinance cannot bind future Mayors and Boards of Supervisors to provide funding for this or any other purpose. Under the City Charter, the ultimate cost of this proposal depends on decisions made in the City’s annual budget process.

How "D" Got on the Ballot

On January 14, 2022, the Department of Elections received a proposed ordinance signed by the following Supervisors: Haney, Mandelman, Safai, Stefani.

The Municipal Elections Code allows four or more Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.

This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition D

Proposition D will help all victims of crime in San Francisco.

Last year, more than 75,000 San Franciscans reported being victims of crime. Not only have we seen an increase in crime overall, but we’ve also seen a stark rise in domestic violence incidents. In 2021 alone, there were 7,241 domestic violence calls to 911 in San Francisco. Yet almost 90% of domestic violence cases aren’t charged, leaving victims and their children vulnerable.

The current system in our city forces victims and witnesses – who are already suffering from the emotional, physical and financial aftermath – to navigate a complicated and bureaucratic system through multiple departments. Ultimately, many are turned away with no support. We must give a voice to all victims and allow them the opportunity to recover what was taken from them physically and emotionally.

Proposition D will provide critical services and support to all victims of crime, ensuring they can understand and access their legal rights. It will provide comprehensive services by establishing the Office of Victim and Witness Rights and the Right to Civil Counsel for Victims of Domestic Violence. It will connect victims of crime to financial assistance, medical reimbursement, and mental health support, and consolidate existing victims’ services across all public safety agencies to reduce red tape.

Victims of domestic violence face complicated legal needs, especially those from low income households. In many cases, the perpetrator isn’t charged and returns to the home where the victim lives, often with children who are witnesses to and victims of abuse. Establishing a right to civil counsel for victims of domestic violence will ensure that those in need can obtain protective orders, child support or custody, and housing.

Help all victims of crime in San Francisco. Vote yes on Proposition D.

SFVictimsRights.com

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition D

Please vote NO on Proposition D.

There's no dispute that crime is a problem and that victims and witnesses do not always get the help and support that they need. The disagreement here is whether Proposition D is the best solution.

Let's be clear. This measure would do absolutely nothing to reduce crime. It would not increase crime prevention, neighborhood patrols or programs, or prosecutions. It would not decrease recidivism or otherwise deter repeat offenders.

It would create a new office to "coordinate services provided by the City to victims and witnesses of all types of crime", with an annual survey, an evaluation plan, and a consolidation plan. It's a lot of bureaucracy, without a lot of new services. Proposition D is not the best approach to this issue.

This ordinance should be heard and considered by the Board of Supervisors. If a survey, evaluation, and consolidation are needed, do it now. Crime victims and witnesses need help, not more bureaucracy.

Nothing prevents City departments that already provide victim and witness services from coordinating better. That sounds like a good idea.

We don't need new City Departments, unnecessary spending, or other gimmicks during a pandemic or at any other time. We should be using existing resources and oversight mechanisms more effectively.

Please vote NO on Proposition D. Thank you.

David Pilpel

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition D

Please vote NO on Proposition D.

Proposition D is an ordinance that would create a new Office of Victim and Witness Rights. While this may be an interesting and perhaps popular concept, it's not something the voters need to approve. I respectfully suggest that Proposition D is not the best approach to this issue.

An ordinance like this can be passed by the Board of Supervisors and approved by the Mayor, after one or more hearings to fine-tune the proposal. The legislative process is important, to consider all views and use the best ideas and language to make a concept real and meaningful.

This proposal was never introduced at the Board of Supervisors to my knowledge, as a hearing or as legislation. It went straight to the ballot, it proposes a new office with staff to coordinate existing services, and it would add more bureaucracy, without directly improving victim and witness rights.

A better approach would be to consider this at the Board of Supervisors, hold hearings, craft a proposal, and actually increase resources or reassign functions in this area. A ballot measure like this is not a good solution to a problem that may be real but is not well-defined.

Meanwhile, various City departments already provide some victim and witness services. More information on what they do would be useful, and I'm sure the Mayor and department heads could direct that better coordination occur in this area.

We don't need new City Departments, unnecessary spending, or other gimmicks during a pandemic or at any other time. We should be using existing resources and oversight mechanisms more effectively.

Please vote NO on Proposition D. Thank you.

David Pilpel

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition D

A letter from domestic violence survivor Karen Miron:

“My name is Karen Miron. I’m a mother, daughter, and domestic violence survivor. I want to tell you why Proposition D is necessary for every person who has been in my situation.

My ex-boyfriend was abusive. When he was mad, he would hit me; I’ve had a fractured nose, multiple black eyes, and bruises all over my body. In 2015, I had our daughter, Avi. One day he started shoving me again and I picked up Avi and left. I saw the fear in her eyes and realized I didn’t want to continue the cycle of abuse that I had experienced.

I fought for full custody, but my ex-boyfriend abused the system. Like many domestic violence survivors, I felt lost and stuck. If my ex-boyfriend had custody, I was sure Avi would be in danger. But I had no money to protect her. Many women like me don’t have resources or help. So they stay, thinking it’s their only option.

I was lucky to get help from Open Door Legal. They fought alongside me to get full custody, and we won. But not every domestic violence survivor is as lucky as I was. I am so excited to hear that our city wants to protect survivors like myself and my daughter. Legal services helped me protect my family and build our future.

Please vote Yes on Proposition D to provide a right to legal counsel for domestic violence survivors like me.”

Executive Director Adrian Tirtanadi, Open Door Legal, non-profit legal service provider

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition D

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Women Leaders Support Proposition D

Vote Yes on Proposition D to help provide critical services and support to victims of crime, and give all victims of domestic violence legal counsel to protect them.

In 2021 alone, there were 7,241 domestic violence-related calls to 911 in San Francisco. In many domestic violence cases, the perpetrator is not charged and returns to the home where the victim lives, often with children who are witnesses to and victims of abuse.

Proposition D will provide much-needed support and comprehensive services to all victims by establishing the Office of Victim and Witness Rights as well as the right to civil counsel for victims of domestic violence. It will connect victims of crime to financial assistance, medical reimbursement, and mental health support.

As women leaders in San Francisco, we urge you to support Proposition D to help crime victims.

Former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Malia Cohen*

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Former District Attorney Suzy Loftus*

City College Trustee Thea Selby*

City College Trustee Shanell Williams*

City College Trustee Aliya Chisti*

Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany*

Democratic County Central Committee Member Nancy Tung*

Former San Francisco Unified School District Board Member Rachel Norton

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Join Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. and Support Proposition D

Our city must do better when it comes to victims of crime. This is key to building a safer, more just city.

Proposition D will remove red tape by consolidating and improving city services, so we are doing more for the many people in San Francisco who are victims of crime. It will protect victims of domestic violence, who are often faced with complicated legal needs.

Join me and vote Yes on Proposition D.

Former Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr.*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Family of Victims for Prop D

On Jan 28, 2021, my 84-year-old father was brutally shoved to the ground and killed in the Anza Vista neighborhood. I experienced a long delay in receiving Thai language interpretation services, which was essential for me to understand the details of this criminal case. Thanks to the strength of our city's Asian community, I was finally provided with these services. Yet, a lack of transparency remained throughout the investigation. With crime on the rise, the city must do more to support victims. This measure is for the safety of all San Franciscans and the families of victims, just like me. Please vote Yes.

Monthanus Ratanapakdee

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Protect LGBTQ Victims: Vote Yes on Prop D

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and gender non-conforming people are nearly four times as likely to be victims of crime. It is critical that we help LGBTQ survivors access financial assistance, medical reimbursement and mental health support, so they can recover what was taken from them physically and emotionally.

Proposition D will help provide critical services and support to LGBTQ victims of crime, ensuring they can understand and access their legal rights. The consolidated Office of Victim and Witness Rights will eliminate the red tape to accessing services by providing a centralized place for all victims to receive protection.

Join us in support of LGBTQ victims of crime and vote Yes on Proposition D

State Senator Scott Wiener

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

City College Trustee Shanell Williams*

Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany*

SFMTA Board Director Manny Yekutiel*

Former Co-Chair, Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, Lou Fischer*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Stop Asian Hate

The sad reality is that many Asian residents are victims of crime in our city. With hate crimes against Asians on the rise, we have to do more to support victims and witnesses of crime. This is key to creating a safer San Francisco. Join us and vote Yes on Prop D.

Former Democratic County Central Committee Chair Mary Jung

Democratic County Central Committee Member Nancy Tung*

Chamber of Commerce President Rodney Fong*

United Playaz Founder Rudy Corpuz, Jr.*

Edwin M. Lee Democratic Club

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

African American Leaders Urge Yes on Proposition D

African American people are more likely to be victims of homicide and more likely to experience violent crime than other races. Yet, when African American people are the victims, these crimes are less likely to be cleared by police and less likely to receive news coverage. We need to do more to support African American crime victims in San Francisco and help them advocate for justice.

Proposition D will create the Office of Victim and Witness Rights to connect all victims of crime in San Francisco with the supportive services they need. It will help victims advocate for themselves through restitution and sentencing, and connect them with direct financial, medical and mental health assistance.

Join us and vote Yes on Prop D.

Former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Malia Cohen*

City College Trustee Shanell Williams*

Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany*

Healing 4 Our Families & Our Nation Founder Mattie Scott*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Business Leaders Support Proposition D

San Francisco businesses are struggling with the increase in crime. The city must do more to serve all victims of crime, and that’s what Proposition D will do.

Proposition D will consolidate and coordinate existing victims’ services across all public safety agencies, and connect victims of crime to financial assistance, medical reimbursement and mental health support. It will provide much-needed support and comprehensive services to all victims by establishing the Office of Victim and Witness Rights as well as the right to civil counsel for victims of domestic violence.

On behalf of businesses throughout San Francisco, we urge you to vote Yes on Proposition D.

Chamber of Commerce President Rodney Fong

Small Business Commission President Sharky Laguana*

Small Business Owner Manny Yekutiel

Bar Owner Ben Bleiman

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Victims Rights Advocates for Prop D

We must give a voice to all victims so that they can recover what was taken from them physically and emotionally. This measure will help provide critical services and support to all victims of crime, ensuring they can understand and access their legal rights.

Vote Yes on Prop D

Healing 4 Our Families & Our Nation Founder Mattie Scott*

United Playaz Founder Rudy Corpuz*

Executive Director Adrian Tirtanadi, Open Door Legal*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Neighborhood Leaders Support Prop D

The rise in crime in San Francisco is affecting every person in every neighborhood. In the last year, more than 75,000 San Franciscans have reported being victims of crime. We must protect victims of crime and give them the support they need to recover.

We support Proposition D because it will provide critical services and support to all victims of crime. It will reduce red tape and make it easier to access financial, medical and mental health programs for victims. Vote Yes on Proposition D.

Joel Engardio, Stop Crime SF*

Jason Pellegrini, Marina Community Association*

Greg Scott, Former Pacific Heights Residents Association President*

Eleanor Carpenter, Union Street Association Vice President*

SOAR-D1

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco For Victims' Rights.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Luis Belmonte, 2. Natasha Dolby, 3. Anne Long.

End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition D

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition D

No Paid Arguments AGAINST Proposition D Were Submitted

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Legal Text

Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to establish the Office of Victim and Witness Rights, and to establish a right to counsel for domestic violence victims in civil proceedings related to limiting the economic, familial, and other harms resulting from domestic violence, and a pilot program to provide civil counsel in such domestic violence-related proceedings through legal services and pro bono attorneys.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in ~~strikethrough italics Times New Roman font~~.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:

Section 1. Findings.

(a) In the fourth quarter of 2020, the San Francisco Police Department reported 19,892 crimes with victims in San Francisco. During this same timeframe, 2,051 arrests across all categories of crimes were presented to the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, and the District Attorney filed 980 new cases in total.

(b) In 2020, the District Attorney’s Office’s Victim Services Division served 8,212 individuals.

(c) A number of categories of serious crime in San Francisco increased from 2019 to 2020; burglary by 52%, arson by 40%, motor vehicle theft by 37%, and homicide by 17%.

(d) Crime is threatening all parts of our community, but minority communities are particularly hard-hit. In 2020, people of color were 73% of aggravated assault victims, 70% of battery victims, 83% of robbery victims, 63% of burglary victims, 88% of homicide victims, and 67% of sexual assault victims.

(e) During the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco has seen an increase in domestic violence service needs. For example:

The number of calls to the five San Francisco supported crisis lines was 8,647 in Fiscal Year 2019 and 11,829 in Fiscal Year 2020.

There was a 166% increase in calls to W.O.M.A.N., Inc. Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic from April to June of 2020.

From Fiscal Year 2019 to Fiscal Year 2020, there was a 78% decrease in cases resolved through jury trial for domestic violence, stalking, and elder abuse.

(f) From Fiscal Year 2015 to Fiscal Year 2020, police arrests in response to reported incidents of domestic violence in San Francisco have remained steady at a rate of between 53%-57%. In FY 2020, only 28% of cases presented were prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office.

(g) Domestic violence survivors with legal representation in child custody cases generally receive more favorable outcomes than those who are not represented.

(h) As of August 2016, the state of California had approximately 40,000,000 inhabitants, including almost 260,000 lawyers. Of those, only 960 were funded by IOLTA (Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts) to represent people who cannot afford to pay for legal representation.

Section 2. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Article XXVII in Chapter 2A, consisting of Section 2A.430, to read as follows:

ARTICLE XXVII: OFFICE OF VICTIM AND WITNESS RIGHTS

SEC. 2A.430. OFFICE OF VICTIM AND WITNESS RIGHTS.

(a) Establishment. There shall be an Office of Victim and Witness Rights (the “Office”) to coordinate services provided by the City to victims and witnesses of all types of crime. The Office shall be a department of the City, and shall include such officers and employees as are authorized pursuant to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter. The Mayor shall appoint a Director of the Office (the “Director”). The Director shall be a department head, and shall have the powers and duties given to a department head under the Charter and Municipal Code.

(b) Duties and functions. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, and in addition to any other duties assigned by ordinance or pursuant to Charter Section 4.132, the Office shall have the following duties:

(1) Services to Victims and Witnesses. The Office shall itself provide, or shall monitor and coordinate the provision of, comprehensive services to victims and witnesses (referred to, collectively, as “clients”) of all types of crimes. Such comprehensive services shall include but not be limited to translation services for non-English-speaking victims and witnesses and interpretation services for the deaf or hard of hearing; follow-up contact to determine whether a client received necessary assistance; field visits to a client’s home, place of business, or other location, whenever necessary to provide services; facilitation of volunteer participation in the provision of client services to encourage community involvement; and services for elderly clients, as appropriate to their particular needs.

(2) Consultation and coordination with public safety agencies. The Office shall consult and coordinate with all relevant City agencies, including but not limited to the Police Department, District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, Adult Probation Department, Department of Public Health, Human Rights Commission, and Department on the Status of Women, as needed to provide effective services in the areas listed in Section 2A.430(b)(1) above.

(3) Survey. On at least an annual basis, the Office shall survey clients served by the Office for feedback regarding the quality, adequacy, and scope of services to clients provided, monitored, or coordinated by the Office. In conducting this survey, the Office shall seek input from community groups in evaluating whether the services to clients have been culturally competent and tailored to meet the priorities of marginalized groups. No later than March 1 of each year, starting in 2023, the Office shall present to the Board of Supervisors a report summarizing the results of the survey covering the prior calendar year and the Office’s plan for adapting its operations to meet the needs identified in the survey, including the priorities expressed by members of marginalized groups. At the time it submits the report, the Office shall make available to the Board of Supervisors the raw survey results used to compile the report. Such data shall be presented in deidentified form and may, at the discretion of the Office, be presented in aggregate form.

(4) City service evaluation. The Office shall, in coordination with other City departments, analyze survey results and other data reflecting the needs of clients and the degree to which specific categories of needs are being met by current City services, and shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors policies for addressing identified unmet needs. The Office’s evaluation and reporting procedures shall comply with the standards set forth in Part 4, Title 6, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the California Penal Code, as may be amended from time to time.

(5) Consolidation plan. No later than one year after appointment of a Director of the Office, the Office shall introduce at the Board of Supervisors an ordinance that describes a proposed plan for consolidating all City services for victims and witnesses under the Office.

(6) Other duties. The Board of Supervisors may modify the duties of the Office set forth in subsections (b)(1) through (b)(5), and may add to those duties or transfer any of those duties to other City departments, by ordinance approved by a majority of the Board.

Section 3. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 58A, consisting of Sections 58A.1, 58A.2, 58A.3, and 58A.4, to read as follows:

CHAPTER 58A:

RIGHT TO CIVIL COUNSEL FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

SEC. 58A.1. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Chapter 58A, the following definitions apply:

“Domestic Violence” has the meaning set forth in Section 6211 of the California Family Code, as may be amended from time to time.

“Domestic Violence Victim” means a person against whom an act of Domestic Violence has been perpetrated.

SEC. 58A.2. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING RIGHT TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CIVIL COUNSEL PILOT PROGRAM.

No later than three months after the Director of the Office of Victim and Witness Services (the “Director” of the “Office”) is appointed, or by January 1, 2023, whichever is sooner, the Office shall introduce at the Board of Supervisors an ordinance setting forth recommendations regarding the creation of a San Francisco Right to Domestic Violence Civil Counsel Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”) to be administered by the Office and to take place for one year in Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

SEC. 58A.3. RIGHT TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CIVIL COUNSEL PILOT PROGRAM FUNDING, ADMINISTRATION, AND EVALUATION.

(a) It shall be City policy that, consistent with the legislative, budgetary, and fiscal provisions of the Charter, in Fiscal Year 2023-2024, the City’s fiscal commitment to the Pilot Program shall be limited to the cost of staff support for program coordination among the City, the Superior Court, non-profit organizations, and others involved in the Pilot Program. The legal services provided under the Pilot Program shall be provided by pro bono and legal services attorneys, under the direction of the Office.

(b) Prior to the commencement of the Pilot Program, the Director shall develop a work plan and a process for independent evaluation of the Pilot Program, and shall coordinate among all parties involved in the Pilot Program to ensure that all such parties participate in the evaluation. The Director shall submit this evaluation to the Board of Supervisors within four months of completion of the Pilot Program. The evaluation shall include the following: (a) analysis of data collected regarding the impact of the Pilot Program on demand for City services; (b) feedback from Domestic Violence Victims; (c) assessment of the effectiveness of the Pilot Program in improving outcomes for Domestic Violence Victims, and assessment of whether there is a continued need for the Pilot Program; and (d) strategies and recommendations for maximizing the benefit of civil legal services for Domestic Violence Victims in the future. If the evaluation finds that the Pilot Program is generally successful, the Office shall, within six months of completion of the Pilot Program, introduce an ordinance at the Board of Supervisors to request that the Board consider extending, expanding, and/or making permanent the work of the Pilot Program.

SEC. 58A.4. PROVISION OF CIVIL LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

(a) Provision of legal representation. Consistent with the legislative, budgetary, and fiscal provisions of the Charter, the City shall establish and operate a program, under the direction of the Office, to provide Domestic Violence Victims with legal representation in civil legal matters addressing the impacts of Domestic Violence at no direct cost to the Domestic Violence Victims. This free legal representation shall be available to any Domestic Violence Victim (1) who resides in the City regardless of the location of the Domestic Violence incident, or (2) is the victim of a Domestic Violence incident in the City regardless of whether the Domestic Violence Victim resides in the City, provded that the victim has filed a report of Domestic Violence with the San Francisco Police Department or other law enforcement authority with jurisdiction, and at least until such time as the report or complaint is withdrawn, the prosecuting authority has made a determination not to pursue criminal charges, or the prosecuting authority has concluded its prosecution of the matter. This free legal representation shall also be available to any person who resides in the City and has either sought a restraining order based on fear of Domestic Violence within the prior year, or has obtained a restraining order based on fear of Domestic Violence that has been in effect within the prior year.

(b) Implementation. The Office shall promptly take all necessary steps to fully implement the provisions of this Section as soon as practicable, but not later than January 1, 2025. The City shall have no obligation to provide legal representation under this Section where a state or federal program already provides civil legal representation to a Domestic Violence Victim with respect to the particular Domestic Violence-related matter or matters for which the victim is seeking representation.

(c) For the purposes of this Chapter 58A, the term “legal representation” shall mean civil legal representation provided to a Domestic Violence Victim by an organization or attorney as needed to protect the Domestic Violence Victim, the victim’s minor children, and the victim’s assets and/or property from the perpetrator of a Domestic Violence incident or incidents reported as set forth in Section 58A.4(a) above, in civil legal proceedings including but not limited to securing and enforcing restraining orders against the perpetrator(s) of the reported incident(s), child custody and visitation, child support, marital dissolution, immigration, housing, and consumer rights. The Office may limit the scope and duration of legal representation provided under this Section 58A.4 as reasonably necessary based on the Office’s assessment of available resources and areas of most urgent need.

Section 4. Undertaking for the General Welfare. In enacting and implementing this ordinance, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this ordinance or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Text-only version