J

r

in

■ !.

Current Efforts, Statistios ana Future
J

k'

5

9.

•t

1

I
I
f

t
)

Santa Cfara
Violence Prc

Approvedf

Adopted

Denied-- P/sss

ByjbVb^ARD of;supervisc)rs.
OF^J^E COUNtY OF SAHTA CU;RA
'iPhv[lis
a)■!Piroz,
Cfork of. the Board.
'■j- '.
^ »•' . J

■■'X
f

Novemlier ©» 1
\

/

■fi
T

fepui^Cle.

}

■O'

Date. ]

i

i

•i

I

1
1 >

-1

\

i

Q
I

v'

jH Work in Progress

■J
.'I

i

EB 0 3 1998
C
i

A

I

Report
Raise awareness

Violence is a problem in our community. This report is one element of broader efforts ofthe
Violence Prevention Council to increase awareness about the impact violence has in our community
and to bring the community together to address the issue of violence. The Council’s ultimate goal is
to prevent violence and promote a safe and healthy community.

Drive community planning with data

Community planning efforts to prevent violence must be based on solid data. An important function
ofthe Violence Prevention Council is to assess the current situation using available data sources as
well as to recommend and facilitate new tracking and monitoring systems that will provide accurate
information upon which to base future planning efforts and upon which to evaluate these efforts.

Describe current understanding of violence in SCC

This report is the Council’s first attempt to comprehensively chronicle violence in our county. Not all
forms of violence are tracked. Some violent acts are tracked in isolation of other important contextual

information, making a complete assessment difficult.

Recommend directions for future

This report will provide a preliminary set ofrecommendations. These recommendations will help to
guide the development of tracking and monitoring systems needed to accurately portray and

ultimately prevent violence in our county. These recommendations also identity' opportunities for
violence prevention efforts.

1.

3.

Introduction

a

Executive Summary

6

The Violence Prevention Council

10

i

Definiticns: Prevention & Violence

/1

Violence Prevention Council: Planning Prccess.. . 13
a.

3.

i
6.

Summary: Cpportunites for Violence Prevention ... . 22
Profiling Violence in SCC

25

Where We Are

26

Where We Want to Be

26

Santa Clara County Demographic Information

I
I

23

County Demographics

29

Demographics Related to Violence

30

1

7.

i

i

8.

9.

Current Information on Violence in SCC

32

Violence Data Related to Youth

32

Violence Data Related tc Adults

a2

Vidence Data Related to the Elderly

49

Additional Perspectives on Violence ........

51

Risk behaviors and perceptions of violence

51

Recommendations for Improving Violence Data

54

Appendices

57

1
Introduction
Over the past decade, violence has increasingly been recognized as among the biggest
health threats in the United States. Each day an average of65 people in the US die from

interpersonal violence, and more than 6,000 people are physically injured. Particularly
alarming is the fact that young people are the only population in the United States whose
death rates have increased in the last twenty years. Most ofthese deaths are due to violent
injuries.

Today, the state of California has the unenviable distinction of being one of the first states
to report that gunshot wounds have become the leading cause ofinjury death, surpassing
motor vehicle crashes. It is clear that violence has reached epidemic proportions, invading
our homes, schools, and streets.

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Clara County Violence
Prevention Council both firmly believe that violence is preventable and that all

opportunities to reduce and prevent violence in Santa Clara County should be pursued.
Accordingly, during the County’s budget hearings in June 1997, the Board voted to fund
and institutionalize violence prevention as a program in the Public Health Department and
asked that an action plan be developed. This request was the impetus for the formation of
the Violence Prevention Council.

For a number of years in Santa Clara County, community agencies, councils and

government departments have been coordinating a variety of violence prevention efforts.
These collaborative efforts have put us on the pathway to reducing and preventing
violence. The responsibility of preventing violence to provide a safer community,

however, rests with the entire community. Thus, the Violence Prevention Council of Santa

Clara County has undertaken the charge of helping to create a safer and healthier county

through community action planning.
The Violence Prevention Council now joins with cities, school districts, community

organizations, and community members throughout the county 1) to help change the

culture of violence in our community and 2)to increase our community’s commitment to
violence prevention strategies, public policies, and programs.

In do doing, we must work hard to maintain our county’s status as one of the safest urban
areas in the country. But safety is not guaranteed for all people living and working in
Santa Clara County. There are numerous populations that are disproportionately affected
by violence in our community, including: women, adolescents, and elders. Additionally,
we only know the extent of some forms of violence because no uniform conventions exist

for reporting violence. Even in areas where our community appears to be doing better than
other communities, the question we must always ask ourselves is, “What level of violence
will we tolerate?”

This document. Violence Prevention in Santa Clara County, is based on the premise that
violence is a health issue. As a health issue, violence requires attention not just to the

outcomes of violent injury, but to the symptoms and, ultimately, to the prevention of
violence. Therefore, this Council recommends the systematic integration of community,
private, and public entities in the development of solutions.

Violence prevention is an effort that will require long term commitment. This first report
serves as a starting point for the fulfillment of the Santa Clara County Violence Prevention
Council’s vision of a safe, healthy, and economically viable community for all.

For more information about the Violence Prevention Council, please call the Violence
Prevention Program at the Public Health Department — (408) 885-4202.

About The Violence Prevention Council

This document is part of the evolving work ofthe Violence Prevention Council, whose
mission is to prevent violence and its related injury, psychological trauma, death, disability
and crime through the implementation of multiple levels of prevention and intervention,
and through collaborative county-wide action in order to create a safer, healthier and more
economically viable community.

The Council has selected a planning process guided by models which require that
decisions are made based on data. Some ofthe data with which to drive the planning
process are

presented herein, but they only depict that violence which is actively reported

and tracked.

Summary Findings:

Opportunities for Violenoe Prevention
The following information illustrates numerous opportunities for violence prevention in

our county. These statistics can provide guidance for the different Violence Prevention
Council committees (policy, public awareness, and community based initiatives) as they
set forth to develop their action plans.

■ Child Abuse referrals totaled 22,376 in 1996,

with the most frequent referrals being for physical abuse, followed by general neglect
and sexual abuse. ^

Ju^renile felony arrest r'srfeshave increased steadily from 1985 to
1994. There has been a dramatic increase in assault and robbery charges among

juvenile offenders. ‘
Ju'krenile arrest rates for weapons wolations]mwQ

increased 117%. Also, during the same time period, homicides perpetrated by juveniles

involving firearms have increased threefold. ’
In Santa Clara County, 9 of 1 1 city law
24

enforcement agencies reported gangs.
JX majority of Juv^enHe probation cases
1

Iwe in childhood po^rerty zones,according to 1995 figures from

the Probation Department’s Gang Violence Suppression Unit. These same youth
accounted for 45% of all the juvenile violent crime in the county. Eight percent(8%)
ofthese juveniles were repeat offenders committing two or more serious violent
crimes within the last two years.

Schools report battery is the most common

violent act perpetrated at elementary, middle and high schools. Most offenses
14

occur on campus.

Firearms were responsible for 7S% of

homicides against children{< 21 years of age) between 1993 and
1994.

25

One in S homes in Santa Clara County have a
21

gun. Ofthose homes, 31.9% have unlocked handguns.

yfioient crime rates ccntinue to rise among

adults and Juveniles,aggravated assault continues to be the highest
violent crime.

17

■

Males aged 15-34 ha^re a much higher rate of

homicides(10.B per 100,000)compared to
same age femaies(3,1 per 100,000),

males

aged 15-34 have the highest rate of homicide (20.9/100,000), followed by Asian males
(10.2/100,000) and white males (5.5/100,000).
■

in 41% Of re'viewed domestic irioience reiated
31

deaths, children were present.
■

% of domestic woience

Guns were used in

reiated death incidents as reviewed by the Death Review Committee.
■

31

Domestic woience reiated deaths among Asians

are more than doubie the group’s presence in
31

the totai popuiation.

■

In 1096, 4,604 cases of domestic woience
were fiied with the District Attorney’s Office.

Between January 1, 1997 and September 30, 1997, there were 16 cases of same-sex
domestic violence filed with the District Attorney’s Office.

33

■ In October 1997, there were 3,300 active

cases of aduits on probation for domestic
32

Vioience offenses. Of those 760 are under intensive supervision.

■ In FY96/97, 5% of active probation cases

invoived charges of domestic vioience

■ Dependent aduit(16-64 years)abuse is infiicted
by others 60% of the time, and self-inflicted in 40% of
31

documented cases.

■

With the growing number of seniors in our

GOmmunity, the rates of reported elder abuse are expected to rise.
■

26

In 1396, 1,264 cases of elder abuse(>64

years) were reported, 45% of those cases were

self-abuse(failure to take medication, failure to eat, etc.).
■

19

The most common self-inflicted injury

hospitalization among those 65 years and o^rer
was for poisoning-

20

Recommendations for Improving Violence Data
i

f

In the compilation of this report, it has become clear that numerous gaps and limitations in
existing data sources exist. It is also clear that the current reporting system has not
captured the full scope and magnitude of violence in our community. Not only is the
current reporting system fragmented, but it also captures the more 'severe' episodes of
violence at which point only tertiary prevention strategies - if any - can be applied. The
true level of violence in our county is very likely to be under-estimated, particularly among

certain sub-populations in the county. Thus, there is a need to identify and report all forms
and outcomes of violence - from the minor injuries to deaths - in order to truly prevent
violence.

A first step toward the development of a comprehensive violence surveillance system
would be to address the gaps and limitations as detailed in the final chapter of this report.

The Violence Prevention Council
About The Violence Prevention Council

This document is part of the
mmm

evolving work of the
Violence Prevention

Council, whose mission is

to prevent violence and its
related injury, psychological
trauma, death, disability and
crime through the

implementation of multiple
levels of prevention and
intervention, and through

collaborative county-wide
action in order to create a

safer, healthier and more
economically viable
community.
The Council has

selected a planning process
Committees;

designed to widen the circle

• PoUcy
• PubUeA^

from the Violence

• Cc

Prevention Council to a

rrness A Edueetion
BastdlnUaHtes

* Cemruinty AsuamfHt A Dala

Figure A

county-wide collaborative
10

partnership as shown in Figure A. The planning process is guided by models which require
that decisions are made based on data. Some ofthe data with which to drive the planning

process are presented here, but they only depict those violent incidents which are actively
reported and tracked.

Working Definitions

The Council has adapted working definitions for violence and prevention to guide its
work. These are:

Violence

Pre^rention

The threatened or actual use

Multiple levels of prevention and intervention are
critical to a comprehensive continuum of effort among
an array of health, education, welfare and human
service providers in partnership with law and justice

of physical or psychological
force or power against
another person, against
oneself, or against groups or
community that either results
in, or has the high likelihood
of resulting in injury

Prevention addresses attitudes, behaviors, conditions
and environments and focuses on early identification or

(physical or psychological),

intervention. Tertiary Prevention relates to reactive

death or deprivation.

efforts and intervention where there are recognized

{Adaptedfrom the Centers
for Disease Control and

problems {Adaptedfrom Technology ofPrevention,
1991; Chronic Disease Epidemiology and Control,

Prevention)

yPPi;

systems. Primary Prevention is the proactive process
which keeps people safe and healthy. Secondary

Violence Prevention, 1995).

Models for Violence Prevention Planning
A Matrix for Comprehensive Violence Prevention

The matrix on the following page describes several levels of violence prevention strategies

(primary, secondary, tertiary). It is based on an approach which analyzes the phases ofthe
problem from several perspectives (perpetrators, victims, and environmental and
community risk factors) and offers preventive actions that can be taken across the
spectrum.

11

Matrix for Comprehensive Violence Prevention *
Environmental Risk Factors
Level of

Phase of

Potential attackers/

Risk Factors

(risk factors influencing

Prevention

Violence

perpetrators

(means and occasions

perpetrator, victim)

:?reat.ih!g::0:RP:P:rtHhitieS).
Primary

Pre-violence

Create conditions

to keep people
safe and healthy

- Teaching parenting
skills/violence-free relationships
-Teaching nonviolent dispute
resolving skills

- Reducing access to

- Reducing poverty/ oppression

weapons

- Reducing disorder of cities/

- Reducing access to

alcohol/drugs

- Early psychiatric interventions

- Regulating public
drunkenness

communities/ counties

- Using architecture to promote
a sense of community
-Teaching media literacy
- Reducing violence in the media
- Raising awareness of

violence in the community
Secondary
Address risk

During violent
event

reduction/ early

- Using nonviolent means of

- Eliminating weapons at

- Address attitudes and

control

scene

desensitivity to violence

- Teaching self-defense to victims

- Mobilizing
police/justice system

- Police/justice system rapid

- Mobiiizing intervention

- Community/neighborhood

identification/
intervention

for victims / witnesses of
violent acts

response

alertness

- Collaborative agency and
community response

After violent event

Intervention effort

- Emergency medical treatment
- Incapacitation/ Incarceration

- Relationship/family
counseling in domestic

targeted to

- Rehabilitation

assault

Tertiary

- Family/relationship
therapy in child abuse

identified

problems

and neglect

- Providing jobs and counseling to
poor families

- Anger management classes
unsafe
- Adding street lighting in
areas

- Creating living shelters

- Providing parenting classes
- Stress management classes

for elderly

- Respite for caregivers

* Sources: Adaptation of the Haddon Matrix for Violence Prevention, National Committee for Injury Prevention and Control (1989:8).; Lofquist. Technology of Prevention. 1991; Violence
Prevention. 1995; APHA. Chronic Disease: Epidemiology and Control. 1993; and Contra Costa County, 1994.

12

)

The Planning Process

The working definitions and prevention matrix comprise only two elements guiding the
Violence Prevention Council’s work. The model below depicts the planning process
i

used to guide the overall process. The process begins with assessment - this report is
one product of this planning phase. The next phase is identification of strategies and
tactics used by others to solve similar problems - or identification of“Best Practices.
The working definition of“Best Practices” is illustrated in the continuum. Upon
determining best practices, appropriate actions can be selected. Evaluating the results
ofthose actions is the next step, which findings can then be used to guide future work.
55

I
>
!

)

I

13

i

The Violence Prevention Council

Since its formation in May 1997, the Violence Prevention Council has identified four
areas of emphasis which resulted in the formation offour committees: Policy, Public
Awareness & Education, Community Based Initiatives, and Community Assessment &
Data. The context for each of these committees has been formulated using the
previously described matrix.

To build a pathway for change, a framework has been adapted to describe “the big
picture” and set forth the planning process to achieve identified results. This
framework is described below:

Context Setting Model

Pathway

Source: Interaction Associates

Context: The “big picture,” clarifies importance ofthe issue.
Current Situation: Where we are. The issues or opportunities needing attention or requiring action.

Definition ofSuccess: Where we want to go. The desired impact, result or outcome of any action taken.
Pathway to Change: How we will get there. The process to get from where we are to where we want to go.

The diagrams on the following pages summarize the overall Council’s mission and the
focus of its committees. These summary frameworks are intended to guide further
collaboration as common ground action planning is undertaken.

14

:Ci

I'i

y^''

m

ill

r/r;

i^Y4/;

<?>

s«w«««««««««««?<«««<i««^^

General Context: Violence is a preventable problem tliat impacts multiple systems, disciplines,jurisdictions and communities. Violence
Prevention will require county-wide action because of tlie multiple factors wliich directly or indirectly create conditions for it to occiu-.

Where We
Are Now

How We Will Get To Where

Where We

We Want To Be

Want To Be

Broad Prevention Focused

• Various Groups/
Organizations/
Jurisdictions

Addressing Violence
Problem

Independently
• Fragmentation
(activities, serviees,
initiatives)

Collaborative Countywide Action
Planning Based on “Best Practices

55

Community Assessment & Data

Safe, Healthy
economically viable
community for al .

Public Awareness & Education

Community Based Initiatives

.Iniurv'’

Policy

(psychological, physical)

V,'

u'U.i'l

itii

November 6th

A

Action Planning Conference

• Laek of Adequate
Countywide System
Focus

> Cb and

1998 Community Forums

psychological)
November 1997

Violence Prevention Council ofSanta Clara County

* See Matrixfor Comprehensive Violence Prevention

15

Policy Committee
Context: Policy at multiple levels can assist to proactively address factors which create conditions and influence the

occurrence of violence. These levels include service provider organizations, systems, community and/or public policy to
address primary, secondary and tertiary prevention and factors which create the means and opportunities for violence or
influence the occurrence of violence for the person(s) committing the violent act, victims and witnesses of the violent acts.

Stakeholders: Key groups in community who need to be involved in the development of policy: elected officials; health
and human services; education; law;justice; faith community; neighborhood groups; and the media.
Where We

■ ;/Vre"iNaw^;^

•

I

Gaps/Fragmented Policies
Across Systems,
Jurisdictions and Organizations

How We Will Get To
Where We Want To Be

• Access to Guns

• Violence Free Relationships

Want To Be

Examine current magnitude & scope of tire violence
problem and identify opportunities of highest priority
for policy

Comprehensive
Violence

Priority Areas:
• Alcohol

Where We

Prevention
Examine “Best Practices” in policy

i
Compare Santa Clara public policy \vitli“Best
Practices” in policy

Policy
Strategy

I
Inadequate identification and
tracking of known “Best

Identify opportiuiities for policy action based on data
and “Best Practices”

t

Practices.”

Action Planning

Violence Prevention Council of
Santa Clara County
November 1997

16

Public Awareness & Education Committee
Context: Public Awareness & Education strategies can help in violence prevention by making people aware of the full scope and
magnitude of tlie violence problem. It can also include the role that multiple players and sectors can play in the full spectnun of the problem
and tire factors which direcdy or indirectly contribute and/or influence the occurrence of tlie phases of violence.

Key Stakeholders: Key groups in community who need to be involved in tlie development of public awareness and education strategies:
elected officials; health and human services; education; law;justice; faitli community; neighborhood groups; and the media.

Where We
Are Now

Gaps in Public Awareness &
Education vis avis

How We Will Get To
Wliere We Want To Be

Examine violence problem profile and identify
key areas where tliere are opportunities for Public
Awareness and Education

Violence Prevention

Lack ofcomprehensive picture of the
violence problem

Examine “Best Practices” in Public Awareness

Awareness &
Compare Santa Clara Public Awareness and
Education efforts with“Best Practices”

of known “Best Practices.”

Education

Strategies
Identify opportunities for Public Awareness &
Education action in Santa Clara County

I
Inadequate identification and tracking

Prevention
Public

escalate.

Weak collaborative and systematic
efforts in public awareness & education

Comprehensive

efforts

factors that directly and indirectly
conditions where violence can occur or

Want Eo Be

Violence

Lack ofcommon awareness of all
create conditions or influence

Where We

Action Planning

Violence Prevention Council of
Santa Clara County
November 1997

17

Community Based Initiatives Committee
Context: Whereas violence impacts the whole county, it occurs at tlie community level and it disproportionately impacts some geographic
and subpopulations. In these geographic and subpopulation levels, tliere are opportunities to hilly explore the appropriate community-based
actions to address tire phases of violence as well as the means and occasions creating opportunities for violence and/or environmental risk
factors influencing the occurrence of violence.

Key Stakeholders: Key groups in community who need to be involved in tire development ofcommunity based initiatives: elected

officials; healtlr and human services; education; law;justice; faitli community; neighborhood groups; and the media.
Where We
Are Now

T

• Violence problem disparities
(geographic, subpopulation)

• Lack of balance in need/problem
orientation with community

How We Will Get To

Where We

Where We Want To Be

Want To Be

Examine profile of the scope /magnitude ofthe
Violence problem; identify opportunities where
community-based initiatives could be targeted

Comprehensive
Examine “Best Practices” in Community Based
Initiatives

assets/resources

• Fragmentation of Violence

Compare Santa Clara Efforts in Community
Based Initiatives to “Best Practices”

Prevention activities, services &
initiatives

Data Driven

Targeted
Community
Based

Initiatives
Identify community strengths

• Lack of adequate partnership
with community

I
Identify opportunities for action

• Inadequate identification and
tracking of known “Best

I
Action Planning

Practices.

Violence Prevention Council of
Santa Clara County
November 1997

18

Community Assessment & Data Committee
Context: Data can assist us in guiding decision making for county-wide action. Collaborative assessment efforts can

assist us in : 1) better understanding the full scope & magnitude ofthe violence problem; 2) preventing it; and
3) evaluating our efforts. A systematic approach will be necessary to accomplish these three things.
Key Stakeholders: Key leaders who play a role in “keeping” and maintaining data bases for select aspects of the
violence problem, including: elected officials; health and human services; education; law;justice; faith community;
neighborhood groups; and the media.
Where We

AreNow

I

How We Will Get To
Where We Want To Be

Four Phase
• Various community organizations
capturing various parts of violence
problem

• Profile of violence problem
fragmented.
• Lack comprehensive profile of
available resources.

• No tracking of individuals accessing
various aspects of the system.

Where We
Want To Be

Comprehensive

Development:

1. Scope/Magnitude
ofProblem

Violence

Surveillance

System

11. Precursors to

Problem

• No systematic evaluation effort.

III. Tracking System

• Inadequate identification and tracking

IV. Evaluation

of known “Best Practices.”

Violence Prevention Council of
Santa Clara County
November 1997

19

Community Assessment & Data Committee
A four-phase approach to collecting data on

violence is proposed:
The Community Assessment and Data Committee recommends that the Violence
Prevention Council implement a four-phase process to develop a comprehensive
violence surveillance system in Santa Clara County. The committee is currently

working in the first phase: documenting the prevalence and impact of violence.

Phase I - Violence Problem

Through collaboration and interagency agreements, Phase I will involve the collection
of data on an ongoing basis of violent events (threatened and actual), using the
variables based on an adaptation ofthe Los Angeles County model described in
Chapter 5. This would have the overall purpose of constructing a comprehensive
profile ofthe violence problem based on elements of data collected from multiple
sectors in the community. From this profile, it will be possible to have a clearer
picture of specific community problems and needs. Phase I will also include an
assessment and mapping of resources to show the strengths ofthe community.
Additionally, it will utilize survey methods to determine attitudes and perceptions
about community safety and community perceptions of high priority areas for violence

prevention efforts. Another important Phase I action is the identification ofBest
Practices. Finally, the first phase will begin to define objective outcome goals as
defined through the initial action planning activities of the Violence Prevention
Council.

Phase II - Violence Precursors

Phase II will focus more intensely on the course of events and behaviors which lead to
violent events. It will involve the collection of data on the precursors and antecedents

of violence, for the purpose of designing interventions and activities which will curtail
and/or minimize these antecedents.

20

Phase III - TracMng System
The third phase will develop a more sophisticated comprehensive information

gathering system among multiple agencies, in order to coordinate more effectively in
data analysis and comparisons, program planning, and service delivery.

Phase IV - Eiraluation

The final phase will use data collected in Phases I through III to plan, develop, and
evaluate programs to prevent violence and to monitor progress of community action
undertaken.

21

Opportunities for Vioience
Prevention

The information presented in the next chapters will begin to provide a picture of the
violence problem in Santa Clara County. Some ofthe notable facts that may provide
direction for the community planning process are presented below.
Child Abuse referrals totaled 22,376 in 1996,

with the most frequent referrals being for physical abuse, followed by general
neglect and sexual abuse. ^
duvenlle felony arrest rates have increased steadily from
1985 to 1994. There has been a dramatic increase in assault and robbery charges

among juvenile offenders. ‘
Uuv^enile arrest rates for weapons violations

have increased 117%. Also, during the same time period, homicides perpetrated by

'
juveniles involving firearms have increased threefold.

In Santa Clara County,9 of 1 1 city law
24

enforcement agencies reported gangs.

A majority ofJuvenile probation cases CSA%),
22

//ve in childhood poyrerty zones,according to 1995 figures
from the Probation Department’s Gang Violence Suppression Unit. These same
youth accounted for 45% of all the juvenile violent crime in the county. Eight
percent(8%)ofthese juveniles were repeat offenders committing two or more
serious violent crimes within the last two years.

■

Schools report bettery is the most common
violent act perpetrated at elementary, middle and high schools. Most
14

offenses occur on campus.
■

Firearms were responsible for 76% of
homicides against children(< 21 years of age) between 1993
and 1994.

■

25

One in S homes in Santa Clara County have a

gun. Of those homes, 31.9% have unlocked handguns.
■

21

Violent crime rates continue to rise among

adults and juveniles,aggravated assault continues to be the highest
violent crime.

17

■ Males aged 15-34 have a much higher rate of
homicides(10.6 per 100,000)compared to
same age females(3.1 per /OO,

Hispanic

males aged 15-34 have the highest rate of homicide (20.9/100,000), followed by
Asian males(10.2/100,000) and white males (5.5/100,000).
■ in 41% of reviewed domestic violence related
31

deaths, children were present.
■

Guns were used in 57% of domestic violence

related death incidents as reviewed by the Death Review Committee.
■

Oomestic violence related deaths among

Asians are more than double the group’s
23

31

31

presence in the total population.
■

In 1996, 4,604 cases of domestic wo/e/foe

were filed with the District Attorney's Office
Between January 1, 1997 and September 30, 1997, there were 16 cases of same33
sex domestic violence filed with the District Attorney’s Office.
■

in October 1997, there were 3,500 actwe

cases of adults on probation for domestic

\fiolence offenses. Ofthose 760 are under intensive supervision.32
■

in FY96/97, 5% of actwe probation cases
in^foi'ired charges of domestic woience

■

Dependent adult(10-64 years)abuse is
inflicted by others 60% of the time, and self-inflicted in
31

40% of documented cases.

■

With the growing number of seniors in our
26
community, the rates ofreported elder abuse are expected to rise.

■

in 1996, 1,264 cases of eider abuse(>64

years) were reported, 45% of those cases
were seif-abuse(failure to take medication, failure to eat, etc.).
■

The most common self-inflicted injury

hospitalization among those 65 years and
o^rer was for poisoning.

24

20

19

RrofUing Violence in SCO
The Violence Prevention Council has formed the Community Assessment and Data
Committee to assist in the assessment of the current status of violence in the

community and to give direction to the collective action planning. The committee was
given the following charge;
To design a comprehensive violence surveillance
system to measure and track: violence
To compile available data and information on
violence in Santa Clara County

To identity gaps in data and information

To develop outcome measures which evaluate
actions taken by the Council for violence prevention

25

Where We Are
Phase I of Community Assessment & Data Committee
Work

Fragmented tnformation-

The information needed to provide a complete picture ofthe impact of violence on the
people of Santa Clara County must come from a wide range of sources, including law
enforcement, Social Services, community based organizations, the Department of
Justice, the Office ofEducation, hospital and medical providers, and the Public Health
Department. What we currently have available are data which describe distinct aspects
of violence - discrete perspectives on aggressive acts by or against certain groups of
individuals. Unfortunately, these data cannot be integrated to provide a
comprehensive profile of the violence problem.

Variable Quality Data-

Because of the numerous sources of data, there is great variability in the quality and
integrity of the information currently being gathered. This means the accuracy,

uniformity, and completeness of information cannot be guaranteed, and caution must
be used when drawing conclusions and attributing causal relationships to different sets
of data. A more detailed discussion of data limitations can be found in Chapter 9.

Despite these shortcomings, available data can provide valuable information on how
extensively violence impacts our community. It can point us to those areas where
violence prevention and intervention action is needed; and, it can help us to assess the
impact those activities have on levels of measured violence.

Where We Went to Be

The development of a comprehensive profile of violence in Santa Clara County will
require a collaborative effort among agencies responsible for gathering various forms
of data on violence. Such a system is being developed by the Los Angeles County
Public Health Department, and is being presented in Table 1. This system will be used
as a starting point for local efforts.

26

Table 1. Violent event variables recommended by LA County
Viotim &

Alleged
Peroetrator

Age
Race/Ethnicity
Address
Income

Nature &

Unique

' Identifiers

Severity of
Injury

Event

Characteristics

for

Injury outcome
(disability,
fatality)

Victim

Date

Perpetrator

Time

Event

Location address

Acute care required
Chronic care required
Severity of injury
Psychological and
emotional impact

Type of location
Alcohol involvement

Drug involvement
TjqDe of drug involved
Injury mechanism
(weapon used)
Gang involvement
Relationship between
perpetrator and victim
Victim and perpetrator’s
living arrangement

Data Committee recommended additions to Event Characteristics:

Presence of children

Children in common between perpetrator and victim
History of domestic violence
Previous domestic violence arrests

Violence Surveillance System: Elements

In addition to the above data points, a complete violence surveillance system would
also include:

Mapping of communities and neighborhoods hardest
hit by violence.

Comparison of local violence data to state and
national trends.

Identification of antecedent behaviors and

circumstances which lead to violent events.

m

Identification of resources available to address
27

various aspects of violence.

\

Bench marking best practice strategies to reduce
violence and to support victims.
Outcome evaluation capabilities to assess the
success of prevention efforts.

E
1

)

i

I

28

Santa Clara County Information
County Demographics
For a complete breakdown of Santa Clara County demographics please see Appendix
A. Below are highlights describing demographic trends in the county.
• Santa Clara County oan oontinue to expect a
1 0% population increase per decade, based on current trend
analyses (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1993).

• Nearly 40% of the school age population

(243,534 students) is white, with Hispanic
students comprising the second largest group
(31.49%) as of October 1995 I
•

Between 1 990 to 1 994, Asian and Pacific
Islanders shew the greatest increase in

population (29%); African-Americans(7.9%) and Hispanics(14.8%)
also showed increases

• Among men, the population of youths (15-34)
decreased, while the proportion of elderly

(85+)showed the greatest increase, between 1990
to 1994 I

29

•

Unlike men, the proportion showing the

greetest increase among women were those
aged 45-54. There was also a decrease in the proportion offemale

teenagers and young adults(15 to 34 years) between 1990-1994. ^
•

By the year 2020 the 60+ population is

projected to increase by 1 70% ^ By the year 2010, the

65+ population is estimated to double in the city of San Jose (and nationally). ^

Demographic Data Related to Violence

i

It is important to understand how violence relates to age, gender, race, income,
location of crimes, and residence of victims. These variables help to provide a profile
of who is most impacted by violence. The various agencies responsible for gathering
demographic data on violence-related events often have different policies on
demographic information gathered, and many have different types of classification
coding systems, making comparisons across data systems difficult.
Age

Information about the age of victims and alleged perpetrators of violence comes from
many different sources:
New child abuse data system

Hospital records

Law enforcement records

Death certificates

Trauma Registry

Elder Abuse Reports

Gender

Many types of violence are gender specific. For example, most ofthe victims of sexual
assaults/rapes and domestic violence are women. It is important, however, to track the
gender of both victims and perpetrators as awareness ofissues such as same sex
30

IC

BpjQ siooqas 3JUS

KJKQ agjBqosiQ IBJldsojJ

ALijsi§9H Huinujx
spj039^ JU31U30J0JU3 AVBq

j40d3H asnqv PI!q3

qrejsp JO S33jg3p

SuiAjba qjiAV sssBqBjBp guiMonoj sqj ui punoj si ‘uiipiA sqj oj guipjoooB ‘uoipooq
Ajisigs'a BUinBJX 3q; pUB uoipqojd ojiuoAnf oj sjBxisjgj ‘3snqB ppqo uo Bpp

Xousgv S30TAJ3S IBIOOS ISSOJIIOS Bpp JO JSquinU B UI 3iqB{lBAB 3JB S3p00 dl^ SjnSBSUI
Axojd B SB pssn 3jb sspoo diz ‘sjnooo 30U3|oia sjsq/A sssssjppB oqpsds jo soussqB
3qj UJ BjBp sgjBqosip jBjTdsoq sqj ui psyodsj jou Apusnbs^ 3JB sspoo sqj!AoBjnooB
JO 93jg3p Aub qjiAV jou jnq ‘/Ainfui/iusppoB jo uopBOOi 3jou op ssunfui jbujsjxs joj
(6-Q3i)6 UOISJ3A S3p03 SSBSSIQJO U0IJB0IJISSBI3 IBUOUBUJSJUI SpJOOSJ JU3UI33JOJU3
AVBJ UI pUB S3JB0IJ1P30 qjBOp UO AjUBUIud punOJ SI SJU3A3 JUSpiA JO UOUBOOJ 3qx
uoneao^ oiiidefjBo^s^

3UIOOUT uBpsui guipuodsajjoo sqi qjiAV spoo diz

Xq uoijBqojd spusAnf oj s]Bjj3J3J sjsq jBqj 3[qBj b jo uuoj sqj ui Aousgv sotajss ppos
sqj UIOJJ S3UIOO 3UIOOU1 uo sjqBiiBAB UOIIBUIJOJUI 3iBg3jggB 3qx (DaJV)U3-ipiiq3
;u3pu3d9a qjiAV S91IIUIBX 01 p^/ guiAp99J 9JB soqiiUBj 9SoqM spuisip jooqos UI

siuopnis JO J9quinu gqi pUB ^ sogjBqo ppdsoqjo JoXBd XjBuiud 9qi 9JB Aiuno3 bjbi3
BiuBS UI 9]qB|iBAB s9jnsB9ui Axojd OAvi 9qx posn 9JB S9jnsB9ui 9iBg9jggB puB Axojd
‘pg 01 qnoijgip si oouopiA qiiM poAjOAUi 9soqijo 9uiooui 9qi uo BiBp pnpB osnBoog

&UIOOUI

[iBpp JO pA9|iB9jg B qiiAV Aippqp Aq pozpBgjo 9q oi
guipBis M.OU SI BiBp 9snqB PJP3 Aipiuqp puB 90bj inoqB uoiiBimojui opnpui soojnos

BlBp ISOpV SOIJOgoiBO Oiuqp pUB 90BJ UO pBpp JO S99jg9p guiAjBA 9ABq S90Jn0S BIBQ
SOGU puG Apo!Uiit3

•pBJ Aq p90Bjd9J 9JB 99U9I01A pUB J9pU9g inOqB SUOIlduiUSSB
IBqi 9JnSU9 01 dpq [[IM UOIIBUUOJUI Siqi gui^JOBJX ■guiSB9J0UI si OOUOJOIA OIlS9UIOp

)

Current Information on Violence

in Santa Clara County
Information on violence in Santa Clara County is presented below by age groupings

(children & youth, adults, and the elderly)from the perspective of general community
risk behaviors, attitudes and perceptions, and according to regional concentration of
reported violence.

Violence Deta Related to Children and
Adolescents

Examples of Data Sets:
Child Abuse & Neglect Reports
Youth Victims of Sexual Assault

Child Homicide & Suicide/Death records/ChUd Death Review
Team
*

Child and Youth Crime/Department of Justice/Juvenile Hall
School-Related Crimes
Youth Violent Crime

Youth Perpetrators of Sexual Assault
*

Children Exposed to Violence

*

Juvenile Hall Admissions

*

Probation/District Attorney's Office

32

Child Abuse and Neglect
A total of 22,376 children were reported to the Santa Clara County Child Abuse

and Neglect Referral and Reporting Center in 1996.^ Child abuse reports are
divided into seven categories of allegations:* sexual abuse, physical abuse, general
I

neglect, severe neglect, emotional abuse, exploitation, and caretaker absence or
incapacity. (For definitions please see Appendix B).

Physical abuse (38.6%) and general neglect(20.3%) were the two most common
reasons for child abuse reports.^ There were very few cases of exploitation reported (o
1

the Social Services Agency(38 cases).

Number of Child Abuse & Neglect Cases
Santa Clara County, 1989-1995
Cases (per 1,000 Children)

100.0

69.0

80.0

64.6
60:2

M

56.3

A

fi

m.
m.

60.0

1

40.0

I
20.0

1

f

i

0.0
1989

1994

1992

1995

National (1994): 43.0

State (1995); 75.1
Source: Kids In Common. 1997 Santa Clara County Children's Report Card

33

- }

Reporting of child abuse cases is higher in low-income areas. The zip codes with the
highest number of referrals for child abuse and neglect are also the areas that have the
lowest median income and highest number of AFDC, MediCal and food stamp
recipients (please see Appendix C). This only reflects the fact that more reports are
made for these areas and not that there are more confirmed cases in these areas.

Youth Violent Crime

According to statistics provided by the California Department of Justice State Profile
in 1994, juvenile violent arrest rates in Santa Clara County have increased between
1989 and 1995, increasing from 1362.7 arrests per 100,000 population in 1985, to
2603.2 per 100,000 in 1994. In addition, certain types of violent crimes have more
dramatic increases. Assault and robbery, in particular show significant increases since
1990.

34

Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates
Santa Clara County. 1985-1994

Felony Arrests (per 100,000)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1985

I Felony Arrest Rate EO

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1362.7 1480.7 1428.4 1560.5 1820.3 2030.2 2472.3 2363.3 2371.2

1994
2603.2

Source: California State Department of Justice State Profile, 1994

Juvenile Felony Arrests for Violent Offenses
Santa Clara County, 1985-1994
Number of Arrests
700

600

500
400

300

200

100
0

Homicide

Forcible Rape

-e-

Robbery
Assault

Kidnapping *♦"
Source: Department of Justice State Profile, 1994

More detailed information about youth arrests in the county is available from the
California Department of Justice (DOJ). For example, the 1994 DOJ profile has tables
of specific offenses by age, jurisdiction, and gender, and by crime type and rates by
category for the past ten years.
35

Data on the disposition of cases prosecuted by the District Attorney’s office is
available in various forms, such as by zip code, for;
■

The number of referrals to juvenile probation

■

The number of citation referrals

■
■

The number of referrals resulting in juvenile hall custody
The number of diverted juvenile citations

■

The number of violent crimes.

These data have not been summarized for this report, but will be made available to
provide a more detailed perspective on youth crime.
According to the Juvenile Justice Action Plan, 1997, certain zip code areas have a
greater frequency of crimes committed. Those are listed below.

Top Zip Codes for Violent Crimes Perpetrated by Juveniles in Santa Clara County:
Number of Violent

Zip Code

City

95127

San Jose

169

95116

San Jose

162

95111

San Jose

159

95122

San Jose

153

95020

Gilroy

147

95112

San Jose

141

95035

Milpitas

124

95121

San Jose

110

95132

San Jose

103

95123

San Jose

98

Crimes

)

Source: Santa Clara County Juvenile Justice Action Plan, 1997

36

Ju^fenile Hall Admission Data

As can be seen from the following bar chart, felony assault in both FY95 and FY96
accounts for the largest group of serious crimes against persons committed by

juveniles who are admitted to Juvenile Hall.’ It is interesting to note that while youth
felony assault charges have dramatically increased, admissions to Juvenile Hall of
1

those charged with felony assault have actually decreased by 7%. Admissions have

I
I

i

increased for robbery(20%), homicide/attempted homicide(37%), rape(188%), and
kidnaping(54%)while admissions for felony assaults and other felonious sex offenses
have decreased. A further analysis is needed to more accurately determine the

relationship between overall rates of crime by type, and custody admissions by crime
type.

Felony Offense Breakdown of Juvenile Hall Admits
Santa Clara County, 1995-1996
400

/T

300
i

200
I

100

0

1995

1996

Felony Assault

365

339

Robbery

216

259

24

33

Homicide, Attempted Homicide

RapeE3

9

26

Other Sex Offenses ^23
Arson Cli

41

39

34

11

Kidnapping Ei3

11

5

Domestic Violence E3

n/a

24

Source: Santa Clara County Juvenile Justice Action Plan, 1996

While Juvenile Hall admission data does not necessarily reflect crime rate increases or
decreases, or differences in rates of crimes that occur in the community, it does

suggest which charges present most risk to community safety.

Gang-Related V^iolence
37

Youth gang membership is clearly related to delinquent behavior and must be

considered in the county violence prevention effort. A gang is defined by five factors:
1)formal organizational structure (not a syndicate), 2) identifiable leadership, 3)
identified with a territory, 4)recurrent interaction and 5) engaging in serious violent

behavior. ® The Rochester Youth Development Study*® found that gang members
were more likely than non-gang members to use drugs and alcohol, to engage in
crimes of property, violence, drugs and public disorderliness. Also, gang members
were more likely to engage in serious delinquent acts.

A national survey in 1995 by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Prevention found that
California has:^'*

- the second highest number of Sheriffs Departments reporting gang activity;
- the highest number of police departments reporting gang activity; and
- the highest number of gangs and gang members reported by sheriff and police
departments in comparison to any other state.

Locally:
16

■ Since 1991, the San Jose Police Department has identified 250 juvenile gangs.

■ In 1995, within the county’s childhood poverty zones,juveniles accounted for
54% ofthe cases in the Probation Department’s Gang Violence Suppression Unit.
These same youth accounted for 45% of all the juvenile violent crime in the

county. Eight percent(8%)ofthese juveniles were repeat offenders committing
two or more serious violent crimes within the last two years.

■ In 1995, there were 3 gang-related (the precipitating event was gang-related,
however this does not mean that the relationship of the victim to the offender was

gang membership) homicides ofjuveniles(17 years and under) in Santa Clara
County. In 1996, there was 1 gang-related homicide ofa juvenile in Santa Clara
County.

■ According to the 1995 National Youth Gang Survey, 9 ofthe 11 local city law
. 24

enforcement agencies reported gangs:
38

;

Gilroy
Los Gatos
■

Milpitas
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose

Santa Clara

Sunnyvale

)

Teen Domestic Violence/Relationship V^ioience

■

In 1995 there were 5 juvenile arrests for spousal abuse charges reported in Santa
Clara County; this number increased to 12 in 1996.

■

1.3

In FY96, there were 24 juvenile hall admits for domestic violence offenses.

15

The incidence ofteen domestic/relationship violence is unclear because there is no

mechanism for identifying and reporting incidents. The San Jose Police Department,
for example, does not keep statistics on domestic violence based on the perpetrator’s
or victim’s age, making juvenile domestic violence indistinguishable from adult.

39

;

School-ftelatGd ^Aiolent Events

The Santa Clara County Office of Education, reports that in academic year 1995-1996
on school property there were:
■

699 cases of battery

89 assaults with a deadly weapon
28 robberies or extortions
I

I

36 sex offenses

265 cases of weapons possession

Crimes Against Persons Among School Students
Santa Clara County, 1995/96 School Year
Number of Cases
500

400

300

200

100

0
Elementary School

Middle SphQol

High School

E3

26

27

35

Battery ■
Robbery/Extortion O
Sex Offense(s) C3

76

275

330

Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Total: Crimes Against Person

E3

4

14

10

5

11

20

327

395

111

School Level
Source: California Safe School Assessment

40

Location of School-Related Crimes Against Person
Santa Clara County, 1995-1996
Percent(%)
100%

80%

SiSi
60%

M

'
/' ''

m

40%

0.

/

%

'0 V

0

■ Directly to/from

1''' '

'■%

ESlSchool Bus

□ Off-campus
E30n-campus

V

0 W0M

20%

m

W‘.
/LSI

0%

.s^
SsS

6®'

/
Source; California Safe Schools Assessment, 1995-1996

School-related violence is highly variable with respect to reporting methods and

accuracy. There are thirty-three distinct school districts in the county, each with their
own reporting systems, and varying technologies. Most cases of school-related crimes
against persons occur at school and during school hours.

41

Violence Date Related to Adults

Examples of Data Sets:
f

Adult Violent Crime

4

Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance

4

Domestic Violence D.A. Cases Filed

4

Hospital Data on Assault Victims

4

Death Review Committee

4

Adult Protective Services

4

Needs Assessment

4

Trauma Registry

4

Law Enforcement

Adult Violent Crime

J

In 1995, there were 9,716 reported violent crimes in Santa Clara County, up from
9,036 in 1994.

17

In FY95-96, there were 203 adults on probation for violent offenses.

42

15

In 1995 (these data are derived from death records and hospital discharge data);
Homicide rates among the general population were 3.9 per 100,000
people

Homicide rates among males aged 15-34 were 10.8 per 100,000

people; and among women aged 15-34 3.1 per 100,000.
Homicide rates among Hispanic males aged 15-34 were 20.9 per
100,000 people; among Asian males 10.2 per 100,000; and among
white males 5.5 per 100,000.

Suicide rates among the general population were 7.6 per 100,000
people

Suicide rates among youth aged 15-19 were 7.7 per 100,000 people
Suicide rates among white males aged 65 and older were 33.5 per
100,000 people

Among residents age 12 and older, there were 324 hospitalizations
due to assault(109 were men, 215 were women).

569 rapes and attempted rapes were reported in 1995; 95 of those
cases were attempted rape

688 self-inflicted injury hospitalizations and 423 assault injury

hospitalizations occurred in 1995. More women were hospitalized for
self-inflicted injuries than men; more men were hospitalized for assault
injuries then women.

In 1995, firearms contributed to 96 hospitalizations for intentional and
unintentional injuries.

Hate Crimes-

Since July 1994, the attorney general has been collecting data regarding crimes
motivated by the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or physical
mental disability as reported by local law enforcement agencies. The data
below reflect the first full year of this kind of data gathering. This information
should be used with caution as program participants gain experience in

or

identifying, documenting, interpreting, aggregating and displaying the
information. Numerous jurisdictions report hate crimes to the state - ranging
28

43

from the transportation agency, to cities, to campuses.

!

A hate crime is defined as any criminal act or attempted criminal act which causes
physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage where there is a
reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by

the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical/mental
disability.

16

Number of Hate Crimes*
San Jose, 1991-1996

Number of Investigated Hate Crimes

100

82

80

62

60

\%
%

40

27

25

.23

21

20

0

1991

1992

1994

1993

1995

1996

•Number of investigated crimes that are actual hate crimes(as opposed to the number of reported hale crimes).
San Jose Police Department. Crime Analysis Unit. 1991-1996

In 1995, 7 hate crime complaints were filed with the DAs office, 6 of which
28

resulted in guilty pleas or convictions.

In 1995, Santa Clara County reported 47 hate crimes, resulting in 51 offenses, 81
victims and 47 known suspects.

Dependent Adult Abuse •
44

!

A dependent adult is defined as any person who is not less than 18 years of age,
but not more than 65 years of age, who has a physical or mental limitation that
restricts his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her
rights, including, but not limited to, any person who has physical or
developmental disabilities, or whose physical or mental capacities have diminished
29

because of age.
I

A total of447 confirmed case of abuse of dependent adults occurred between July
1996 and August 1997.

The majority(60%)of confirmed cases of dependent

adult abuse was inflicted by others and included: physical and sexual abuse,
neglect, abandonment, mental suffering and fiduciaiy abuse.

i
Confirmed Cases of Dependent Adult Abuse Perpetrated
by Others by Type of Abuse
Santa Clara County, FY1996
Sexual
3.7%

Physical

\

27.8%

Neglect
27.2%

Fiduciary

IIP

Abandonment

13.8%

4.6%

Mental Suffering
22.9%

Source: Department of Social Services. Research & Statistics: Monthly Statistical Reports, July 1996 through
August, 1997

45

Domestic Violence

In recent years, domestic violence has gained recognition as a serious problem, afFectin
for the most part, women. As the information below indicates, there are numerous ways
to track domestic violence related data. Presently, there is no centralized system that can
track all aspects of domestic violence incidents.

According to the Probation Department, the California Code specifies that domestic
violence is abuse perpetrated against the following persons: spouse or former spouse,
cohabitant or former cohabitant, person with whom one is having or has had a dating

relationship, person with whom one has had a child, any person related by consanguinity
(relationship by marriage or a close relationship) with the second degree.
In October 1997, there were 3,500 active cases of adults on probation for
32

domestic violence offenses. Ofthose 760 are under intensive supervision.

In 1995, 8,850 calls for assistance were made to law enforcement agencies.

17

In 1996, 7,500 crisis calls were made to domestic violence
30

shelters/providers.

A total of4,604 domestic violence cases were filed with the District Attorney’s
Office in 1996.

30

In 1996, there were 8 deaths (homicides and suicides) as a result of domestic
46

violence, of which 4 occurred in the presence of children. In 1995, there were
18
16 deaths where domestic violence was a contributing factor.
■ For FY 1996-97, approximately 5% of active probation cases involved charges
of domestic violence.

15

■ In 1996, 854 Emergency Protective Restraining Orders(EPROs) were granted
by the Santa Clara County Family Court; an increase from 1994(288 EPROs)

and 1995 (683 EPROs).

30

■ Between January 1, 1997 and September 30, 1997, there have been 16 cases

of same-sex domestic violence charges filed with the District Attorney’s Office.
Currently, cases of domestic violence occurring among same-sex couples are
indistinguishable from those of heterosexual couples in law enforcement data.
■ In 1996, approximately 490 women and 635 children received medium term
(30-45 days) housing in Santa Clara County safe shelters due to domestic
violence; 19 women and 41 children were in long term (2 years) housing
during 1996.

i

18

■ The Santa Clara County Death Review Committee examined 51 cases

involving “domestic violence related death” going back to 1993. The study
found that.

31

- In 21 of the cases - 13 homicides and eight suicides - children were present
- Guns were used in 29 ofthe incidents

- Temporary restraining orders may play a role in preventing DV-related
death. None of the women that had died had received a restraining order;

whereas in every case in which men committed suicide the woman had
received or was obtaining a restraining order.
- Ofthe 51 deaths, 17 involved Asians, a rate more than double the

group’s presence in the total population.
■ The Domestic Violence Council Medical Committee estimates that

approximately 30% of all Emergency Room patients are victims of domestic
violence. Although this figure has not been substantiated, ifit were valid, there
would be more than 88,200 DV incidents annually. Only 5,800 are reported to
the police.

18

Needs /Kssessment of Victims/Surv^iv^ors of
Domestic V^ioienoe

47

The Housing Committee of Santa Clara County’s Domestic Violence Council is

conducting a needs assessment of survivors of domestic violence. This survey will
provide valuable information on the possible risk factors and precursors to violence,
as well as, opinions about domestic violence including perceptions of where to get
help and needed resources. The survey will be conducted from July through
October of 1997.

48

Violence Date Reieted to the Elderly
Examples of Data Sets:
#

Elder Abuse Reports/Adult Proiective Services

#

Hospital Discharge Data

#

Law Enforcement Data

In 1996, 1,264 cases of elder abuse (occurring among those over the age of64)in Santa
Clara County were reported to the State of California. Ofthese cases, 45% were

identified as “self-abuse”, including not eating, failure to take medication etc., and 55%
of cases involved abuse by another, including physical, sexual, emotional and/or fiduciary
19

abuse.

■

In 1994 and 1995, 60 seniors (aged 65+) were hospitalized for self-inflicted injuries.
The most common injury was poisoning.

20

i

■

A total of26 assault hospitalizations occurred in 1994 and 1995; the most common
20
reason for hospitalization was injury from “unarmed fights or brawls.

49

The

reported cases are an under-representation of the true number of abusive events in Santa
I

Clara County. Abuse in the older population is impacted by numerous factors: culture,
social norms, civil rights, lack of adequate regulations, unavailability of affordable
housing, community ignorance of elder abuse, care givers’ lack of knowledge of available
resources and lack of available shelter.

Although protection mechanisms for elderly victims of abuse do exist, elder abuse is a
complex issue. Legal safeguards are in place allowing for abused elders to be removed

from unsafe situations, but appropriate shelters for elderly who have special medical and
daily care needs are lacking. Mentally competent elders may choose not to be removed

from what appears to be an abusive situation to others. Due to the complexity of the
issue, elder abuse is not only under-reported but also under-identified by victims, abusers,
and the community.

50

1

8
Additional Rerspecti'tres on

Examples of Data Sets:
Risk Behavior Surveys

Community Surveys on Attitudes Toward Violence
Community Survey on Perceptions of Violence and
Safety

Behavioral Risk Factor Survey(BRFS)
The Behavioral Risk Factor Survey was conducted by the Santa Clara County Public

Health Department in 1997 to assess the prevalence of risky health related behaviors in
the adult(18 years of age or older) population of Santa Clara County. Part ofthis survey
included identifying ownership and maintenance offirearms in the home. The results are
summarized below. In 1997

19% ofthe BRFS study population reported a firearm (rifle, shotgun, or handgun)
in the household; 11% reported more than one gun in the household; the median
number ofguns in households is two.

51

About 37% of households with handguns also have children under 18.
31,9% of handguns are not kept locked.
Of households with handguns, 16% of guns were kept locked and loaded; 7.5%

were kept unlocked and loaded.

The top two reasons for keeping a handgun in the house are: safety and protection
(39.8%); and hobby, target practice, or recreation (36%).

Youth Risk: Beha^rior Surrey
During the fall 1997, the Public Health Department conducted the Youth Risk Behavior

E

Survey(YRBS)of Santa Clara County schools to develop a profile of risk behaviors
among youth. This survey, developed by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, determines the prevalence of risk behaviors among middle and high school
students. The YRBS addresses critical health behaviors: seat belt and helmet wearing,

driving while drinking, weapon possession and use, suicide attempts, alcohol and drug
use, tobacco use, sexual activity, fighting on and off school grounds, feelings of security
on school campus, nutrition, and exercise. The results ofthis survey, which targets 6,000
middle school students and 6,000 high school students, will be reported in the spring of
1998.

In addition to information about violent events, it is important to know a community’s

perception of violence and safety and the prevailing attitudes about violence prevention.
Below are some sources of community perceptions of violence and safety.

52

California Wellness Foundation

22

In 1996, the California Center for Health Improvement conducted a survey to learn about
attitudes about community health issues. Ofthe 200 Santa Clara County residents that
were polled:

71% rate our county as either an excellent or good place “to raise a family.
74% rate our county as either an excellent or good place “to live safely/free of
crime.”

86% say that collecting community health data is important or a top priority

46% say that current spending on “preventing illness and promoting health” is
effective(15% had no opinion)
75% say that programs to collect health data are effective

1

40% say that health plan spending on health promotion and preventive services
should be increased (12% had no opinion)
California Wellness Foundation:

Resources for Youth

23

In 1997, a telephone survey of 250 registered voters in Santa Clara County revealed the
following attitudes and perceptions dho\xi youth violence.

78% think that there is no age at which it is too late to help a young person who
has become involved in violence and crime.

Gang membership (52%), breakdown ofthe family(53%), drugs/alcohol (46%),
gun availability (36%), lack of self-esteem (35%) and sexual/physical/emotional
abuse(34%)were considered important contributing factors to youth violence.

55% felt that the juvenile justice system in California was too lenient.
38% felt that juvenile crime levels in their community had stayed the same.
Crime was felt to be the most serious problem facing the community.

53

Recommendations for impro^ring

In the compilation ofthis report it has become clear that there are numerous gaps and
limitations in existing data sources. It is also clear that the current reporting system has
not captured the full scope and magnitude of violence in our community. Not only is the
current reporting system fragmented, but it also captures the more 'severe' episodes of

violence at which point only tertiary prevention strategies - if any - can be applied. The
true level of violence in our county is very likely to be under-estimated, particularly
among certain sub-populations in the county. Thus, there is a need to identify and report
all forms and outcomes of violence - from the minor injuries to deaths - in order to truly
prevent violence.

A first step toward the development of a comprehensive violence surveillance system
would be to address the gaps and limitations as identified below.
Gaps:

•

There is a lack of reliable statistics around violence stemming from gang activity.

• Enhanced data collection in emergency rooms to document incidents and
outcomes of violence is lacking. Although Emergency Room physicians believe

30% of their patients are victims of domestic violence, there are no systems that
can substantiate these claims.

54

•

No information about violence among incarcerated populations is included in this
report due to lack of consistent, accessible surveillance systems.

•

The inconsistent collection ofincome data results in heavy reliance on proxy
measures.

•

Youth relationship violence and same-sex relationship violence is often not
differentiated from adult or heterosexual relationship violence. This gap makes it
difficult to understand the magnitude ofthe problem facing these populations.

•

Data on workplace violence is not included in this report due to reporting
discrepancies associated with this type of violence. Violent events taking place at

a worksite are often not reported in context, rather they are often seen as isolated
incidents of assault, trespassing or even domestic violence. We are cautioned that
any statistics pertaining to workplace violence are most likely an under
representation ofthe current situation. Lack of cross-reporting of violent incidents
at the worksite makes it difficult to,form an accurate account of occupational
12

violence as well as domestic violence at the work place.

•

There is no centralized system to track cases of domestic violence or gang-related
violent events. In the case of domestic violence, reporting from different sources

(i.e. police departments, sheriffs, district attorney, shelters, emergency room, etc.)
will not give a complete picture of domestic violence. Figures from some sources
may underestimate the magnitude ofthe problem and there is no way to know
which instances are duplicates.

Limitations

• Some databases are more complete than others in reference to perpetrator and
victim demographics and location of violent events.

•

Not all data are current, because data from sources that are not tracked at the
county level take longer to get (as much as two years).

55

•

Because the data are currently in different formats (cases, rates, percentages,

aggregate, categories etc.), it is not possible to make comparisons across sources.
•

Data do not cover the same time frames (fiscal vs. calendar year).

•

Data based on referrals are not as interpretable as data based on confirmed cases.

•

Various data systems may duplicate cases.

f

56

Appendix A.

Santa Clara County Demographios
1990

Total Population*

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1,504,400

1,522,300

1,549,900

1,574,700

1,588,000

Male

762,940

772,090

786,110

798,700

805,370

1,603,300
813,070

Female

741,460

750,210

763,790

776,000

782,630

790,230

White

875,360

877,220

881,120

882,850

882,110

882,410

Hispanic

316,000

324,230

336,200

346,330

353,690

361,450

Asian/Pacific Islander

253,300

260,190

270,560

282,410

288,520

295,180

53,000

53,850

55,140

56,160

56,690

57,210

6,750

6,810

6,880

6,940

6,990

7,040

Total

307,830

317,440

328,140

337,200

344,390

350,560

White

143,990

147,120

149,620

151,100

152,070

152,550

Hispanic

89,820

93,580

98,230

102,370

105,890

109,000

Asian/Pacific Isiander

59,890

62,370

65,680

68,920

71,630

74,330

African-American

12,790

13,040

13,300

13,520

13,520

13,410

1,270

Ethnic diversity

African-American

American Indian, Aleut,
Children Under age 15

American indian, Aieut,

1,340

1,320

1,310

1,299

1,280

129,780

133,960

138,350

142,600

146,130

150,340

106,200

107,870

109,910

Population Aged 65+

Total
White

99,670

101,780

Hispanic

13,460

14,370

15,240

16,200

17,040

18,120

Asian/Pacific islander

14,790

15,850

16,940

18,010

18,900

19,860

1,600

1,680

1,770

1,850

1,940

2,030

260

280

310

340

380

420

African-American

American Indian, Aleut,

104,090

Age Distribution

25,480

27,480

27,690

26,710

26,190

25,750

1-4

90,360

93,720

98,820

103,290

106,230

107,330

5-9

101,830

103,580

106,520

108,600

111,190

114,900
193,860

<1

10-19

192,550

188,000

186,960

189,150

190,970

20-24

127,530

123,440

121,040

117,730

110,960

103,940

25-44

561,760

570,140

575,900

580,200

579,630

579,450

45-64

275,100

281,980

294,620

306,430

316,690

327,730

65-74

79,000

81,600

84,180

86,500

88,160

90,100

75-84

38,830

40,060

41,290

42,640

43,920

45,590

85+

Total

11.950

12.300

12.880

13.460

14.050

14.660

1,504,400

1,522,300

1,549,900

1,574,700

1,588,000

1,603,300

Note: Totals may appear to be incorrect because of rounding.

Source: Santa Ciara Valiey Heaith and Hospital System, Public Health Department, Data Management and Statistics;

57

Appendix: B, Definitions of Child Abuse ^
Sexual Abuse - The sexual assault of a minor; severe sexual abuse refers to any single act of
sexual abuse which causes significant bleeding, deep bruising, or significant external or internal
swelling.

Physical abuse - Serious physical harm inflicted non-accidentally; severe physical abuse refers to
any single act of abuse which causes physical trauma of sufficient severity that, ifleft untreated ,
would cause permanent physical disfigurement, permanent physical disability, or death.
General neglect - The willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child
with adequate food, shelter or medical treatment or supervision where no physical injury has
occurred to the child.

Severe neglect - The negligent failure of a parent or caretaker to protect the child from severe
malnutrition or medically diagnosed non-organic failure to thrive.

7

1

Emotional abuse - Severe emotional damage as evidenced by depression, withdrawal or
untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others as the result of conduct such as verbal assault,
unpredictable responses, continual negative moods, constant family discord and double-message
communication by the parent or guardian.

Exploitation - Sexual exploitation includes conduct or activities related to child pornography c
prostitution.

Caretaker absence or incapacity - Inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular ca
to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, substance use or
incarceration.

58

Appendix C. Zip Codes with Reported Child Abuse Cases
2 / p

Papula

code

tion

Median
Mousehole
Income

AFDC

RA

Medical

RAN

Food

R

Alcohol

Active
Clients

NK

Active

K

Stamps

NK

& Drue

Clients

Active

RANK

Juven

RANK

I I e
Proba

Open

Child

RAN

Abus

K

e&

95122

52,519

$41,286

8,919

1

3,556

1

10,379

1

429

5

876

1

1,171

4

95111

48,040

$42,015

7,201

2

2,743

3

8,370

2

447

4

808

2

95116
95112

95127

1,294

2

46,786

$28,456

6,296

3

3,502

2

7,312

3

494

3

742

4

1,254

3

46,454

$25,190

5,520

4

2,403

4

6,924

4

667

1

572

6

1,478

1

$48,463

4,418

5

2,263

5

5,045

5

419

6

801

3

1,128

5

50,400

95121

32,564

$54,424

3,549

6

1,519

9

4,116

6

483

8

95020

39,877

$41,916

3,428

7

1,922

6

3,996

7

546

2

622

5

1,072

6

95123

54,591

$53,655

2,697

8

3,041

8

297

7

539

7

984

7

37,548

$57,027

2,444

9

2,813

10

95133

23,969

$43,305

2,397

10

2,888

9

94086

56,221

$41,859

431

9

95126

24,838

$32,983

236

9

95035

50,898

$51,613

277

8

95110

17,496

$26,853

232

10

95148

1,221

10

1,586

8

1,683

7

Source: Santa Clara County Juvenile Jiustice Council, Fiscal Year 1995 and 1990 Census.

59

539

7

710

8

661

9

References

'Santa Clara County Juvenile Justice Council, Santa Clara County’s Juvenile Justice Action
Plan. March 14, 1997.

"Department of Finance Population Projections, 1996.

^City of San Jose, Office on Aging,“Discussion of Senior Needs and Funding for the United
Way”. August 29, 1997.

''Public Health Department, Emergency Medical Services
^Social Services Agency, Child Abuse and Neglect Referral and Reporting Center.
CWS/CMS System.

^Public Health Department, 1995 Hospital Discharge Data.
’Probation Department, Juvenile Justice Action Plan, Page 69.
^Crime Prevention Center, Office ofthe Attorney General. Child Abuse Prevention
Handbook, March 1993.

’Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Fact Sheet #12: Gangs. This fact
sheet is based on a paper by James C. Howell, PhD entitled “Recent Gang Research:
Program and Research Implications”.

'°US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention,Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 1997; Rochester Youth
Development Survey.
Kids in Common 1997 Santa Clara County Children’s Report Card.
12
Personal Communication, Domestic Violence Council, Workplace Violence Committee.
13
California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center.

'''California Department of Education, California Safe Schools Association, 1995/1996 Rep.
Year.

'^Probation Department, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1995-1996.
'®San Jose Police Department.
17

18

California Criminal Justice Profile 1995: Santa Clara County
Santa Clara Coimty Grand Jury. Review ofPublic and Private Agency Responses to

Domestic Violence, 1996-1997.

'’Personal communication with Dr. Steven School, Council of Aging.
’“Public Health Department, Hospital Discharge Data , 1994-1995.
21

Public Health Department, Behavioral Risk Factor Survey, 1997.
’’California Wellness Foundation, The Field Institute ,and the California Center for Health
Improvement;“Spending for Health: Californians Speak Out About Priorities for Health
Spending:.
’^California Wellness Foundation, Resources for Youth: Santa Clara County Survey, March
1997.
24

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995 National Youth Gang Survey,

August 1997.
25

Death records 93 & 94

26

Personal communication, Michelle Greenfield, Elder Abuse Task Force, October 1997.
27
Department of Soeial Services, Research and Statistics, Monthly Status Reports, July 96Aug. 1997.

28

California Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Justice Information Seivdces, Hate

Crimes, 1995.
29
AB288, Ch. 913, 2/22/96, Article 2, 15701.15.
30

Santa Clara County Health Department, Fact Sheet on Domestic Violence, 1996.
Department of Social Services, Research and Statistics, Monthly Statistical Reports,
July 1996 -August, 1997.
60

32
33

Santa Clara County Probation Office, Domestic Violence Unit, October 1997.
Office of the District Attomeiy, October 1997.

r I
i

1
I

!

f
J

]

61

II

I.

!

i

4.

■<
■. f’

.-s'

t

K

%

I

I

1

.r

r

/►

'■<
...^

■fr

■V

I

5
i..

H
C.

I
•

•V

•>

X-

1

t

■>

■.Iv

•A

i.

f

•\.

r