Intimate Partner Violence: Getting the Money to Those on the Front Line

Intimate Partner Violence: Getting the Money to Those on the Front Line Report #249 | April 2020 Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy www.lhc.ca.gov LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Dedicated to Promoting Economy and Efficiency in California State Pedro Nava Government Chairman The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Sean Varner Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Vice Chairman Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency. David Beier By statute, the Commission is a bipartisan board composed of Dion Aroner five public members appointed by the governor, four public Cynthia Buiza members appointed by the Legislature, two senators and two Bill Emmerson* assemblymembers. Assemblymember Chad Mayes In creating the Commission in 1962, the Legislature declared its Senator Jim Nielsen purpose: Assemblymember Bill Quirk ...to secure assistance for the Governor and itself in Senator Richard Roth promoting economy, efficiency and improved services in the Cathy Schwamberger* transaction of the public business in the various departments, Janna Sidley† agencies and instrumentalities of the executive branch of the state government, and in making the operation of all *Served on study subcommittee state departments, agencies and instrumentalities, and †Served as subcommittee chair all expenditures of public funds, more directly responsive to the wishes of the people as expressed by their elected COMMISSION STAFF representatives... The Commission fulfills this charge by listening to the public, Ethan Rarick consulting with the experts and conferring with the wise. In the Executive Director course of its investigations, the Commission typically empanels Tamar Foster advisory committees, conducts public hearings and visits government operations in action. Deputy Executive Director Krystal Beckham Its conclusions are submitted to the Governor and the Legislature Ashley Hurley for their consideration. Recommendations often take the form of legislation, which the Commission supports through the legislative Rachel Mattioli process. Sherry McAlister Contacting the Commission All correspondence should be addressed to the Commission Office: Little Hoover Commission 925 L Street, Suite 805, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-2125 | littlehoover@lhc.ca.gov This report is available from the Commission’s website at www.lhc.ca.gov. 2 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Table of Contents LETTER FROM THE CHAIR ................................................................4 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................5 IPV FUNDING: THE FENDERAL AND STATE RELATIONSHIP ........6 Roles and Responsibilities in Responding to Intimate Partner Violence 6 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (DVAP) FUNDING .............................................................................................7 WHY DVAP RECIPIENTS? ..................................................................7 THE PROBLEM: DELAYS BETWEEN PROVIDING SERVICES AND RECEIVING REIMBURSEMENT .........................................................7 From Service Delivery to Payment: The Reimbursement Process from the Provider’s Viewpoint ................................................................................8 THE CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................8 CURRENT ATTEMPTS TO MITIGATE IMPACTS OF REIMBURSEMENT DELAYS ...............................................................9 THE LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION’S VIEW ...................................9 RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................10 GET HELP (1-800-799-SAFE) ...........................................................10 APPENDIX A: HEARING WITNESSES AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ...................................................................11 APPENDIX B: NOTES ........................................................................13 INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: GETTING MONEY TO THOSE ON THE FRONT LINE | 3 Letter from the Chair APRIL 23, 2020 The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor of California The Honorable Toni Atkins The Honorable Shannon Grove Speaker pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Leader and members of the Senate The Honorable Anthony Rendon The Honorable Marie Waldron Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Leader and members of the Assembly DEAR GOVERNOR AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE: Every day, people across California are physically, emotionally, financially, and psychologically abused by their partners. Law enforcement agencies in the state field 457 domestic violence calls in an average day. The shelter-in- place orders imposed in response to COVID-19 have caused already distressing rates of intimate partner violence to climb even higher. Last fall, the Commission launched an assessment of the state’s response to the tragedy of such violence, and today we are submitting the first report stemming from this work. We anticipate an additional report on the topic of intimate partner violence later this year. During the course of its study, the Commission learned that organizations funded through the state’s Domestic Violence Assistance Program often face long delays in receiving their grants. As a result, providers – which tend to be nonprofits on tight budgets – often take out lines of credit to make payroll and keep the lights on until they’re reimbursed by the state. In this initial report, we advocate a relatively straightforward solution to this problem. Current law allows recipients of the Domestic Violence Assistance Program to receive a 25 percent advance on the state funds in their award. The Commission recommends that amount be increased to 100 percent of state funds. No reasonable person could believe that providers should have to borrow money and pay interest on that money, or reduce hours and staff, while they await state reimbursement. In effect, they become the bankers of programs to help some of our most vulnerable Californians. This could not have been any lawmaker’s intent when they pushed the green button to create a statewide domestic violence program, but this is the consequence of current law. It is the responsibility of the state’s policymakers to fix this and make it right. The Commission respectfully submits these findings and recommendation, and stands ready to provide additional information or work with you on this important issue. Sincerely, Pedro Nava, Chair 4 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Little Hoover Commission Intimate Partner Violence: Getting Letter from the Chair Money to Those on the Front Line After Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statewide Introduction shelter-in-place order, local officials and shelter Intimate Partner Violence (“IPV”) is profoundly staff around California began reporting significant harmful to Californians. One third of California increases in requests for assistance compared to women and one quarter of California men will the same time last year. In Sacramento, a crisis experience intimate partner violence during their response shelter reported a 17 percent increase in lifetimes.1 Most victims first experience IPV by age calls;8 a Los Angeles-based shelter reported a 20 24, setting the stage for a lifetime of impact and percent increase;9 a shelter based in San Francisco recovery. Transgender people are even more at risk: – which had been under a shelter-in-place order 54 percent will experience IPV in their lifetimes.2 IPV longer than other regions in California – reported is the leading cause of homicide against women, and calls nearly doubling,10 while the Fresno County approximately 15 percent of murdered women are Sheriff’s Department reported filing 77 percent more pregnant. A partner or ex-partner kills a woman in domestic violence-related reports compared to this California every 43 hours.3 time last year.11 Aside from the obvious harm to victims, IPV imposes a tremendous cost on society. Law enforcement “I spoke to a female caller agencies in California field an average of 457 in California that is self- domestic violence calls per day.4 Looking at just quarantining for protection one facet of domestic violence, sexual violence – 51 percent of female rape victims are raped by a current from COVID-19. ... Her partner or former partner – the California Coalition Against strangled her tonight. While Sexual Assault estimates it costs California taxpayers $2.9 billion each year, including police, courts, talking to her, it sounded like incarceration and other public services.5 she has some really serious This problem becomes yet more urgent in light of injuries. She is scared to go shelter-in-place orders in response to the COVID-19 to the ER due to fear around virus. Rates of IPV increase during times of stress, particularly economic stress, and when families catching COVID-19.” gather together, such as during Thanksgiving.6 COVID-19 social distancing measures combine both, More disturbingly, some professionals expect an and the emerging data and anecdotes reflect it: increase in domestic violence reporting after the “I spoke to a female caller in California that is self- shelter-in-place is lifted, for the simple reason that quarantining for protection from COVID-19 due victims sequestered with their abuser do not have to having asthma,” an advocate at the National the space to secretly request help. Katie Ray-Jones, Domestic Violence Hotline wrote in the organization’s CEO for the National Domestic Violence Hotline, told log book. “Her partner strangled her tonight. While CNN, “We’re really bracing for a spike post-Covid-19 talking to her, it sounded like she has some really – that’s when law enforcement and advocates and serious injuries. She is scared to go to the ER due to courts are going to hear the really, really scary stuff fear around catching COVID-19.”7 going on behind closed doors.”12 INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: GETTING MONEY TO THOSE ON THE FRONT LINE | 5 Understanding the need for an immediate, strategic and the state decides which programs and services approach to IPV, the Commission initiated its study to will receive federal money within the parameters understand if state government is organized in a way of the rules. Ultimately, California makes the final that most effectively serves Californians affected by call on which survivors in which locations receive IPV, and if the state has chosen the best way to fund services. IPV services. This initial report addresses a problem California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services which we believe has a fairly straightforward fix: the (Cal OES) administers federal funding for victim efficient and proper distribution of Domestic Violence services in consultation with three advisory Assistance Program grant funding. The Commission committees composed of subject matter experts. intends to release a larger report on more complex Responsibility for the final funding decision lies with problems, such as data collection, gun violence, and the Cal OES director. Cal OES currently administers strategic planning, later in 2020. about $84 million in federal funds for programs IPV Funding: The Federal and focused on domestic violence, and another $5 million in federal funds for programs focused on domestic State Relationship and sexual violence. In addition, it administers grants The relationship between the federal and state for seven federally-funded programs that allow government when responding to intimate recipients to choose which marginalized community partner violence is clearly delineated: The federal to serve; currently 146 out of the 353 subrecipients government provides most of the money and creates in those seven programs have programs or the rules about how the state may use that money, components of programs that assist IPV survivors.13 6 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In contrast, Cal OES administers $20.6 million in Why DVAP Recipients? state funds for IPV survivors, all of which goes to the Domestic Violence Assistance Program. This report focuses on potential changes to the DVAP program for the following reasons: Domestic Violence Assistance 1. It is the state’s primary IPV program; Program (DVAP) Funding 2. State IPV-related general funds only go to DVAP, When providing direction to Cal OES on the state’s so these recipients are the only group for whom comprehensive statewide response to IPV, the the state can quickly change the conditions of Legislature delineated three goals: their funding; and 3. DVAP recipients fall into a special category of 1. Provide local assistance to existing service noncompetitive grant funding. By statute, the providers; state must accept DVAP recipients’ reapplications 2. Maintain and expand services based on a for grant funding each year, barring severe demonstrated need; and performance failures. As part of that process, the 3. Establish a targeted or directed program for the Legislature has outlined specific monitoring and development and establishment of domestic technical assistance requirements for Cal OES violence services in currently unserved and to implement with DVAP recipients to ensure underserved areas. responsible stewardship of taxpayer money. It then outlined 14 services it deemed necessary Due to this oversight, the Commission believes to accomplish those goals, and directed Cal OES the state may lower bureaucratic hurdles for to provide financial and technical assistance to recipients to access their money without needing domestic violence centers providing those services.14 to create new monitoring regimes. Cal OES fulfills this charge through the Domestic The Problem: Delays between Violence Assistance Program (DVAP). Approximately Providing Services and $53 million is distributed to 102 shelter-based Receiving Reimbursement providers through this program. About 60 percent of the money ($33 million) comes from the federal Grant recipients face a straightforward problem: government; about 40 percent ($20.6 million) comes If service providers immediately and accurately from the state. complete their reimbursement request, and the state meets all of its statutory timelines in processing It is important to note that Cal OES administers reimbursements, then service providers wait about 23 programs with 369 sub-awards that focus on IPV.15 There are many grant recipients who do not 79 days from Day 1 of providing the service until receiving reimbursement. This assumes service receive DVAP funding who encounter the challenges providers complete their paperwork immediately discussed in this report. However, because the state after the 30-day reporting period ends and pay for contributes to DVAP, it has the opportunity to move overnight delivery to Cal OES. If service providers quickly on the portion it controls. need more than a day to complete their request, the wait can be up to around 109 days between Day 1 of providing services and reimbursement – providing everything runs smoothly. INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: GETTING MONEY TO THOSE ON THE FRONT LINE | 7 Not everything runs smoothly, of course. For instance, sometimes recipients fill out forms incorrectly, emergencies pull Cal OES staff away from grants management and recipients sometimes receive conflicting instructions, to their detriment. One member of the Commission’s advisory committee recounted that Cal OES instructed her to submit invoices one way, which she did, only to have them bounced back to her with instructions to submit them completely differently. New state IT ventures, such as Fi$Cal, outside of Cal OES’ control can interrupt prompt processing of payments. As a result, service providers wait even longer for payment. At the Commission’s October 2019 hearing, Beth Hassett, Executive Director for WEAVE, reported her organization was waiting on a million dollars in reimbursements from Cal OES. Some invoices had been submitted roughly four months earlier. For small organizations, long delays for such large amounts are a grave burden. ◊ Leaving money on the table. Service providers who doubt they can bridge the gap between The Consequences providing the service and being reimbursed sometimes choose to leave grant money unspent In the best-case scenario, service providers wait two – and victims unserved – to prevent more dire or three months to be paid for services rendered. consequences. One member of the Commission’s Most IPV service providers are small organizations advisory committee shared that she recently had that lack reserves to cover expenses until left $125,000 in grant funds unspent because she reimbursement checks arrive. Consequently, they had to choose between advancing the money on must make hard decisions that benefit neither those the state’s behalf for that project and paying her directly affected by intimate partner violence nor staff. “I chose to pay my employees,” she said. California as a whole. These include: ◊ Not applying for grants in the first place. ◊ Taking out lines of credit. One service provider Some smaller service providers do not apply reported paying approximately $900 per month for these grants at all because they cannot in interest to bridge reimbursement gaps for afford the lengthy wait for reimbursement. state and local grants. Another reported paying Worse, the Commission learned, these often are between $50 and $100 a week in interest for the programs working with the most marginalized same purpose without reimbursement. communities.16 ◊ Not all organizations qualify for lines of credit. Alternatively, organizations that receive funding Providers with shelters have some collateral directly from the federal Office of Violence Against they can put up for loans, but organizations Women see their reimbursements directly deposited that provide less tangible services, such as legal into their accounts within 72 hours of submitting assistance providers, have no such recourse. their reimbursement request. 8 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION received very many requests for advances.19 Current Attempts to Mitigate Impacts of Reimbursement Cal OES’ Subrecipient Handbook does not particularly Delays encourage requesting advances, stating: Once the Grant Subaward is approved, Subrecipients Reimbursement delays are a systemic problem and should receive payment within 45 days of receipt of the Commission does not cast blame on individual the Report of Expenditures and Request for Funds Cal OES staff members. The Commission found the (Cal OES Form 2-201). Therefore, it may not be staff members who work on IPV to be unfailingly necessary to request an advance since the timelines dedicated and hard working. They are smart, may be the same. The project should take this into capable, and understand the importance of the consideration prior to making an advance payment state’s response to IPV. request.20 Cal OES currently is conducting a pilot program The Little Hoover in which grant recipients can submit their reimbursement requests electronically by attaching Commission’s View them to an email. This does result in some quality It is unconscionable that organizations serving of life improvements for the 23 pilot participants: some of the most vulnerable people in California no mailing costs and the submission of electronic must incur borrowing costs because the state takes signatures instead of the wet signatures currently so long to reimburse them. These often are small required. This allows the organization’s finance organizations running on shoestring budgets, and officer and program manager to approve the forms the state should ensure that their resources go remotely. However, since many organizations pay for toward providing services. It is shocking that the expedited delivery services for their reimbursement state’s funding system frequently forces them to requests, this pilot program only knocks a day or borrow money, leave money unspent, or not apply two off of the reimbursement timeline, and does for it at all. nothing to address the need for borrowing by many organizations. As an immediate and simple step, the state should provide the DVAP recipients the state’s portion Organizations do have the ability to request up to a of their grant funding up front. Currently DVAP 25 percent advance of state grant funding received recipients receive about half a million dollars a year, through the DVAP program, minus matching funds, with roughly 60 percent of that coming from federal to help cover startup costs and bridge payment gaps. funds and the remaining 40 percent, or $200,000 per (The ability to receive advance funding, however, organization, from state coffers. applies only to DVAP recipients, not organizations receiving money through any other program.) Although a periodic reimbursement model is the To receive an advance, eligible organizations norm for many social service programs, the state must certify that the project is “unable to pay should not shy away from changing the norm to its outstanding debts and obligations.”17 Then, efficiently and effectively serve the public good. the organization must go through the standard California already allows for advance payments of reimbursement process.18 Cal OES witnesses did grants for some programs. For example, the 2019- testify that the agency will pay to expedite the 20 Budget Act, which includes language limiting the advance check if necessary, but that Cal OES has not advance of DVAP funds to 25 percent, provides for INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: GETTING MONEY TO THOSE ON THE FRONT LINE | 9 partial or full advance payment of grants for a variety of programs related to community corrections, emergency food delivery, and other topics. Even with an advance payment of the state portion of the DVAP grant, recipients would still face extensive, existing auditing and reporting requirements, which the Commission believes will suffice to guard against the rare cases of fraud in this area. Recommendation The Legislature should enact, and the Governor should sign into law, a mechanism through which recipients of Domestic Violence Assistance Program funding, or any future program implementing California Penal Code §13823.15, receive the entirety of state’s portion of the grant funding at the beginning of the grant period. Get Help If you, or someone you know, are experiencing domestic violence, please call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233). 10 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Appendix A: Hearing Witnesses and Advisory Committee Members Public Hearing on Intimate Public Hearing on Intimate Partner Violence: The Partner Violence: The State’s Perspective from the Field Response October 24, 2019 February 27, 2020 Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA Lucia Corral Peña, Senior Program Officer, Blue Stacy Alamo, Chief of the Safe and Active Shield Foundation of California Communities Branch, California Department of Public Health Jeffrey L. Edleson, Ph.D., Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Social Welfare, University of Leigh Bills, Chief, Victim Services and Public Safety California, Berkeley Branch, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Beth Hassett, Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director, WEAVE Gina Buccieri-Harrington, Assistant Director, Grants Management, California Governor’s Office of Matt Huckabay, Executive Director, The Center for Emergency Services Violence-Free Relationships Amy Durrence, Director of Law and Policy, FreeFrom Tracy Lamb, Executive Director, Nurturing Empowerment Worth Safety (NEWS) Domestic Senator Susan Rubio, California Senate District 22 Violence & Sexual Abuse Services Andrew Moore Krista Niemczyk, Public Policy Manager, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence Julia F. Weber, JD, MSW, Attorney/Fellow, Giffords Law Center & Adjunct Professor, Domestic Violence Law, Golden Gate University School of Law INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: GETTING MONEY TO THOSE ON THE FRONT LINE | 11 Appendix A Continued Advisory Committee | January 24, 2020 Sacramento, CA Lakin Ambriz, Housing Program Manager, Haven Michele Piller, Executive Director, Plumas Rural Women’s Center of Stanislaus Services Taylor Campion, Housing and Employment Justice Orchid Pusey, Executive Director, Asian Women’s Attorney, Family Violence Appellate Project Shelter Rachelle Currie, Associate Director, Haven Women’s May Rico, Executive Director, Haven Women’s Center Center of Stanislaus of Stanislaus Virginia Duplessis, Program Director, Health, Maricela Rios-Faust, Executive Director, Human Futures without Violence Options Paul Durenberger, Assistant Chief Deputy District Terra Russell-Slavin, Deputy Director, Policy and Attorney, Sacramento District Attorney’s Office Community Building, Los Angeles LGBT Center Karen Earl, Chief Executive Officer, Jenesse Center Yasi Safinya-Davies, Executive Director, Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments Elizabeth Eastlund, Executive Director, Rainbow Services Lidia Salazar, Co-Executive Director, Communities United Against Violence Louis Gill, Executive Director, Bakersfield Homeless Center, Alliance Against Family Violence & Sexual Erin Scott, Executive Director, Family Violence Law Assault Center Kate Hart, Director of Programs, Safe Alternatives to Cris Sullivan, Director, Research Consortium on Violent Environments Gender-based Violence, Michigan State University Angela Hauner, Batterer’s Intervention Coordinator, Jeanne Spurr, Chief Executive Officer, Empower Plumas Rural Services Tehama Keely Linton, Executive Director, Strong Hearted Anastacia Snyder, Executive Director, Catalyst Native Women’s Coalition Domestic Violence Services Gabriela López-Zerón, Associate Director, Research Richard Thomason, Policy Director, Blue Shield of Consortium on Gender-Based Violence, Michigan California Foundation State University Nilda Valmores, Executive Director, My Sister’s Erin Moore, Domestic Violence Unit Chief, Governor’s House Office of Emergency Services Janine Williams, Chief, Sexual/Domestic Violence & Krista Niemczyk, Public Policy Manager, California Underserved Victims Division, Governor’s Office of Partnership to End Domestic Violence Emergency Services Annie Olea, Housing First Manager, Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments 12 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Appendix B: Notes 1. This includes intimate partner physical violence, 7. Melissa Godin. March 18, 2020. “As Cities Around intimate partner sexual violence, and/or intimate the World Go on Lockdown, Victims of Domestic partner stalking. Violence Look for a Way Out.” Time. https://time. com/5803887/coronavirus-domestic-violence- 2. National Coalitions Against Domestic Violence. victims/. Accessed April 6, 2020. Domestic Violence in California. https://assets. speakcdn.com/assets/2497/california.pdf. 8. Molly Sullivan. March 23, 2020. “For Domestic Accessed June 19, 2019. Also, James, S. E., Violence Victims, Coronavirus Orders Mean Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., Isolation with Abusers.” The Sacramento Bee. & Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/ Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National article241341281.html. Accessed March 30, 2020. Center for Transgender Equality. Also, Breiding, 9. Luis Trejo. March 27, 2020. “Domestic M.J., Chen, J. & Black, M.C. 2014. Intimate Partner Violence Cases Rise During Coronavirus Crisis, Violence in the United States – 2010. National Organizations Say.” NBC Los Angeles Channel 4. Center for Injury Prevention and Control, https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. domestic-violence-cases-rise-during-coronavirus- Page 3. Accessed August 14, 2019. https://www. crisis-organizations-say/2336836/. cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_ report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf. 10. Molly Sullivan. March 23, 2020. “For Domestic Violence Victims, Coronavirus Orders Mean 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Isolation with Abusers.” The Sacramento Bee. Leading Causes of Death Reports, 1999-2017, for https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/ National, Regional, and States. https://webappa. article241341281.html. Accessed March 30, 2020. cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe. Accessed October 9, 2019. 11. Carmen George. March 26, 2020. “Domestic violence rises in Fresno County as coronavirus 4. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice spreads. Help is still available.” The Fresno Bee. Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2019. https://www.fresnobee.com/news/coronavirus/ Police Response to Domestic Violence, All article241472571.html. Accessed March 30, 2020. Counties, 2018. https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/ exploration/crime-statistics/domestic-violence- 12. Casey Tolan. March 4, 2020. “Some cities see related-calls-assistance. jumps in domestic violence during the pandemic.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/04/us/ 5. California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. domestic-violence-coronavirus-calls-cases- February 2018. “The Costs and Consequences of increase-invs/index.html. Accessed April 6, 2020. Sexual Violence in California.” http://www.calcasa. org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CALCASA_ 13. Gina Buccieri-Harrington Assistant Director, CCofSV_FINALSpreads_2018.pdf. Accessed July Grants Management, California Governor’s 17, 2019. Office of Emergency Services. February 27, 2020. Written testimony to the Commission. Page 3. 6. Amanda Taub. April 6, 2020. “A New Covid-19 Crisis: Domestic Abuse Rises Worldwide.” 14. Stats. 2013, Ch. 352, Sec. 438. (AB 1317) The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2020/04/06/world/coronavirus-domestic- violence.html. Accessed April 6, 2020. INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: GETTING MONEY TO THOSE ON THE FRONT LINE | 13 Appendix B: Notes Continued 15. Gina Buccieri-Harrington Assistant Director, Grants Management, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. February 27, 2020. Written testimony to the Commission. Page 2. 16. Krista Niemczyk, Public Policy Manager, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. October 24, 2019. Sacramento, CA. Testimony to the Commission. 17. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Form 2-202 Certification for Advance of Grant Funds. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/ GrantsManagementSite/Documents/2-202%20 Certification%20for%20Advance%20of%20 Grant%20Funds.xlsx. 18. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2020 Subrecipient Handbook. Pages 66-67. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/ GrantsManagementSite/Documents/2020%20 Subrecipient%20Handbook.pdf. 19. Gina Buccieri-Harrington Assistant Director, Grants Management, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. February 27, 2020. Sacramento, CA. Testimony to the Commission. 20. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2020 Subrecipient Handbook. Page 66. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/ GrantsManagementSite/Documents/2020%20 Subrecipient%20Handbook.pdf 14 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Little Hoover Commission Members CHAIRMAN PEDRO NAVA | Santa Barbara ASM. CHAD MAYES | Yucca Valley Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly John Pérez in April 2013 and reappointed by Speaker Toni Atkins in September 2015. Elected in November of the Assembly Anthony Rendon in 2017. Government 2014 to represent the 42nd Assembly District. Represents relations advisor. Former State Assemblymember from Beaumont, Hemet, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, 2004 to 2010, civil litigator, deputy district attorney and San Jacinto, Twentynine Palms, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley, and member of the state Coastal Commission. Elected chair of surrounding areas. the Commission in March 2014. SEN. JIM NIELSEN | Gerber VICE CHAIRMAN SEAN VARNER | Riverside Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. Committee in March 2019. Elected in January 2013 to Brown Jr. in April 2016 and reappointed in January 2018. represent the 4th Senate District. Represents Chico, Managing partner at Varner & Brandt LLP where he Oroville, Paradise, Red Bluff, Yuba City, and surrounding practices as a transactional attorney focusing on mergers areas. and acquisitions, finance, real estate, and general counsel work. Elected vice chair of the Commission in March 2017. ASM. BILL QUIRK | Hayward Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly DION ARONER | Berkeley Anthony Rendon in 2017. Elected in November 2012 Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules to represent the 20th Assembly District. Represents Committee in April 2019. Partner for Aroner, Jewel, Hayward, Union City, Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, Ashland, and Ellis. Former State Assemblymember from 1996 to Cherryland, Fairview, Sunol, and North Fremont. 2002, chief of staff for Assemblymember Tom Bates, social worker for Alameda County, and the first female SEN. RICHARD ROTH | Riverside president of Service Employees International Union 535. Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules Committee in February 2013. Elected in November 2012 DAVID BEIER | San Francisco to represent the 31st Senate District. Represents Corona, Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. Coronita, Eastvale, El Cerrito, Highgrove, Home Gardens, Brown Jr. in June 2014 and reappointed in January 2018. Jurupa Valley, March Air Reserve Base, Mead Valley, Managing director of Bay City Capital. Former senior Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, and Riverside. officer of Genentech and Amgen, and counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. CATHY SCHWAMBERGER | Calistoga Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules CYNTHIA BUIZA | Los Angeles Committee in April 2018 and reappointed in January Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly 2019. Associate general counsel for State Farm Mutual Anthony Rendon in October 2018. Executive director of Automobile Insurance Company. Former board member the California Immigrant Policy Center. Former policy of the Civil Justice Association of California and the Capital director for the American Civil Liberties Union, San Diego, Political Action Committee. and policy and advocacy director at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. JANNA SIDLEY | Los Angeles Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund BILL EMMERSON | Redlands G. Brown Jr. in April 2016 and reappointed in February Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. 2020. General counsel at the Port of Los Angeles since Brown Jr. in December 2018. Former senior vice president 2013. Former deputy city attorney at the Los Angeles City of state relations and advocacy at the California Hospital Attorney’s Office from 2003 to 2013. Association, State Senator from 2010 to 2013, State Assemblymember from 2004 to 2010, and orthodonist. Full biographies are available on the Commission’s website at www.lhc.ca.gov. INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: GETTING MONEY TO THOSE ON THE FRONT LINE | 15 “DEMOCRACY ITSELF IS A PROCESS OF CHANGE, AND SATISFACTION AND COMPLACENCY ARE ENEMIES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT.” Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, addressing the inaugural meeting of the Little Hoover Commission, April 24, 1962, Sacramento, California Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy www.lhc.ca.gov