Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gender Based Violence Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews gender-based violence contracts and prevention funding as budget cuts loom; staff asked to identify efficiencies and outcomes
Summary
Committee received a multi-agency report detailing gender-based violence services, related contracts and prevention spending and asked staff to return with contract-level outcomes, efficiency options and evidence-based priorities before board budget decisions.
Get email alerts on the Gender Based Violence Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Children, Seniors and Families Committee on Tuesday reviewed a cross-departmental report that mapped county funding and contracts supporting survivors of gender-based violence and prevention services. Committee members urged staff to prioritize efficiency, identify outcome measures, and protect core safety-net services as the county confronts projected budget shortfalls.
Deputy County Executive Casey Helkin and colleagues presented an inventory of services and contracts administered through the Office of Gender-Based Violence Prevention and other departments. The report grouped county-funded work into seven categories (including 24-hour crisis response, emergency and supportive housing, long-term advocacy and therapeutic care) and identified roughly $13.7 million in contracted funding for the office’s core categories; additional related contracts across other departments were summarized separately.
Assistant District Attorney James Gibbon Shapiro said reported domestic violence and sexual-assault calls have risen over the past decade but that 2025 data suggest fear of contacting police may have reduced 911 calls in San Jose in early 2025. He highlighted the county’s reductions in domestic-violence deaths over decades as evidence the county’s interventions can be effective, even while demand rises. The county also described substantial increases in children served by the Children’s Advocacy Center, noting a site expansion planned for South County.
Supervisors emphasized the difficulty of choosing which service to cut if budget reductions are needed. Chair Arenas described the decision as akin to “choosing which body part to cut off,” stressing a preference to find efficiencies, alternative revenue and program realignment so that core safety services remain intact. Several service providers and advocates urged the committee to preserve the full “safety net” of services — crisis response, shelter, long-term case management and legal services — and warned that cuts across categories reduce overall effectiveness.
Probation clarified it had additional probation officer staffing and services linked to domestic violence response beyond what the written packet initially listed; staff pledged to correct the record and return with more complete information. The committee asked departments to identify evidence-based services, list measurable outcomes per contract, and surface potential operational efficiencies and revenue (including fees/charge reviews) before the full board considers budget instructions. The committee voted to receive the report and requested follow-up materials.

