Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victim Services Sart topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council approves higher reimbursements for sexual‑assault forensic exams and directs steps to strengthen SART services
Summary
After a public hearing, the Los Angeles City Council voted to raise reimbursement for forensic sexual‑assault examinations and to require steps to direct victims to specialized Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) centers, with councilmembers and law‑enforcement and medical witnesses saying the change will improve evidence collection and prosecution
The Los Angeles City Council on April 25 voted to increase reimbursement for forensic sexual‑assault examinations and to seek procedures ensuring victims are taken to Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) centers, council members said.
Speakers at a public hearing told the council SART centers use specialized forensic techniques and trained examiners that produce evidence often missing from general emergency‑room care. "Hospitals can no longer carry the burden for what is considered 'a local government obligation,'" said Dr. Robert Splawn, a medical practitioner who described hospital SART work and the limits of private funding.
The council heard that specialized SART examinations commonly recover photographs of injuries and biological evidence through techniques such as ultraviolet lighting and dye staining, evidence that detectives and prosecutors said has increased the number of felony filings and guilty pleas. Detective David Lamkin of the Los Angeles Police Department said, "It's extremely important ... that SART centers are properly compensated so that they can continue to operate." Assistant Head Irene Wakabayashi of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's special crimes division told the council SART examiners make better court witnesses and have increased convictions.
Councilmember Mark Ridley‑Thomas, who brought the item forward, said the city reimbursed about $200 per exam while other jurisdictions pay considerably more, and urged the increase to avoid losing SART capacity. Several council members pressed for better crime‑lab capacity and faster DNA processing, and staff and speakers referenced state grant funding that requires local readiness to consume awards.
After debate, the council approved the motion to increase reimbursement and to direct measures that will steer victims to SART centers when appropriate. The motion passed on the roll call by the council with the tally recorded as 12 ayes. The council directed follow‑up on laboratory staffing and on integrating this reimbursement change into upcoming budget discussions.
Council members and speakers emphasized the vote was intended to preserve existing SART centers and improve the city’s ability to collect evidence for prosecution; they did not adopt a fixed dollar figure in the text of the public record during the hearing.
The council’s action will be implemented through the city budget and operational directives to relevant departments; councilmembers asked staff to include the item in the budget committee and to report back on lab capacity and deadlines attached to state funding.
