Automated Victim Notification of Protective Order Status

April 18, 2007

Anne Hamilton US Dept. of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women

Travis A. FritschMary Byron Foundation, Inc.

Learning Objectives

• To describe the technical assistance projects supported by the USDOJ/OVW.

• To identify principles, policies and protocols critical to safe and effective automated victim notification of protective order status.

Learning Objectives

• To identify 3 models of information-sharing systems and how ‘human factors’ complete the best practices to notifications to high-risk and traditionally underserved populations.

Learning Objectives

• To describe 4 options for monitoring protective order notifications as part of comprehensive risk management.

• To identify 5 outcome measures to assess the value and services of an automated protective order system.

OVW Technical Assistance Program

• Mission

• Description of Services– Overview

– Grants Programs

– Technical Assistance (TA)

• Technical Assistance – Violence Against Women Act II (VAWA II)

– Technology and Victim Safety• Examples

– TA Providers

OVW Technical Assistance Program

Anne Hamilton

Anne.Hamilton@usdoj.gov

www.usdoj.gov/ovw

Domestic Violence Protective Orders

• Purpose as a legal remedy or tool

• Range of protected parties

• Range of protected acts

• Enforcement strengths and limitations

Differences in Court Orders

• Protective Orders– 24/7 access

– No attorney

– No fees

– Central repository• Known to police

• Enforceable by police and courts

• Restraining Orders– Business hrs access

– Attorneys

– Fees

– No central repository• Not known to police

• Only enforceable by the courts—after atty file motion to be heard on violation

Statement of NeedØ Victim’s risks are increased @ service

Ø Protective orders are not enforceable until served

Ø Victims lack access to info critical to their safety

Rarely contacted about service—esp. ‘real-time’

Limited information about status of orders

Never notified about expiration of full orders

Professionals lack information to enforce orders

Ø Victim safety/confidentiality = guiding principles

Human Factors• 24/7 Operators/Victim Service Representatives

• Scripting

• Central victim service referral –all calls– Ensure seamless connection vs. victims making multiple calls

• Appriss Operations Center

• Feedback for problems, enhancements, and assessment

• Additional voices for victims

Step 5. Permanent Order issued

Possible amendments/violations

Step 5. Order expires

Basic Protective Order Process

Step 4. Court Hearing

Step 3. Service of Order

Step 2. Emergency order or summons

is issued

Step 1. Victim petitions for relief

Points of concern1. Victim risk increases (and risks to others)

2. Protection of victim safety, privacy, confidentiality

3. Order unenforceable without notice/service

4. Limited access to order status

5. Unaware of abuser’s attempts to amend orders

6. Remembering order expiration

7. Full faith and credit recognition

Step 4. Notification triggered immediately following service of order

Proposed Technology Solution

Step 1. Order information captured electronically

Step 2. Victim registers for notification

Step 3. Current order status becomes available via phone or web

Step 5. Notification continues until delivered to victim

Step 6. Notification tracking

PROTECTIVE ? Orders

• Are protective orders effective in enhancing the safety and well-being of adult and child domestic violence victims?

• How are protective orders made effective in reducing the risk of further harm to domestic violence victims?

Progress on the

National Protective Order Notification Pilot Program

August 15, 2006

Program Review• Grant awarded July of 2005 – June 2006

• Goal:– To administer, manage, and report on a national

pilot program of automated victim notification on civil protective order status

• Objective/Outcome– To submit a detailed program assessment to

correlate the outcomes to the program objectives

Partnerships for Success

UniversitiesProg EvalResearch

ApprissTechnology

AgenciesImplement CollaborateFeedback

OVWFunding

MBFAdministerTech Asst

Report

OVW/MBF Project Partners

• Participants - 40 counties – (2) KY, (3) AR, (3) NC,

(3) TX, (29) UT

• Technology– Appriss, Inc.

• Research – – UofK Center for Research on

Violence Against Women

• Participants - 126 counties– (120) KY, (3) AR, (3) NC

• Technology– Appriss, Inc.

• Research – – UK Dept. on Behavioral

Services

– UofL Kent School of Social Work

ORIGINAL REVISED

Victim Notification: Guiding Principles

• Victim focused• Safety driven• Provide for confidentiality• Provide for autonomy

– Right to accept/decline services at any time in the process, without consequences

Report

Assess Outcomes

Adapt/Apply Technology

Review Protocols / Safety Audit

Implementation Process

ResultsLessons Learned

Best Practices

Sec

ond

ary

Ben

efit

s

Protective Order Information-Sharing Systems

• No central repository; state level or NCIC feed– County level; separate or interfaced

• County data entry—feed to state with pass-thru to NCIC

• County data entry—feed to state—copy to NCIC

KY VPO Flow Chart

#2 Agency Assigned Service and Entering AgencyEntry into the LINK DV File

#3a Service on RespondentUpdate to LINK

#1 Domestic Violence Summons and/or Emergency Protective Order Issued by Court

#4 Update service to Court

#3b Notification generated to registered petitioners

VINE Protective Order

• Outbound Notifications– Service on the respondent

– Hearing reminder

– Hearing changes

– Pending expiration

• Inbound Information– 24/7 toll-free number

– Computer system info• Type of order

• Service status

• Hearing date/location

• Expiration date

– Operator assistance• Registration assistance

• Referrals

VPO v. VINE VINE Protective Order

– Data is protective order-based

– Restricted access and registration

– No access to victim information

– 24/7 access to trained Operators

VINE– Data is offender-based

– Open access and public registration

– No access to victim information

– 24/7 access to trained Operators

Who can register?

• Petitioners (DV protective orders)

• Other at-risk persons per the petitioner– Family members– Friends– Co-workers– Advocates

Petitioner Notification Types

• Service of a Temporary or Emergency Protective Order (EPO)

Petitioner Notification Types

• Hearing reminder—

3 days in advance of the scheduled hearing date

Petitioner Notification Types

• Alert on pending expiration of full, long-term or permanent protective order

Points of Victim Contact: VPO• Application for protective order

• Contact w/ victims’ advocates

• Contact w/ VPO Operators

• Advised of rights/services by police, prosecutors, judges, attorneys, corrections, etc.

• Print resources in community– Victim oriented

– Victim service providers

– Community/family

• Community education

• Professional training

• Media

VPO Brochures/Information

• Simply understandable

• Focused, practical info

• White space

• Critical phone numbers (double check)

• Space for notes/crisis card

• Language/culturally appropriate

Comprehensive victims’ Comprehensive victims’ rights resourcerights resource

Caution Indicators

• Risk scenarios to identify potential risks and safeguards re

• Notifications

• VPO data/information

• Potential abuses/misuses of VPO by:– Respondents– Others

Implementation: Cautions• Collaborative review of development features and print resources• Prep testing in-house w/ vendor

– Validation of data and protocols (vendor; tech; paperwork)

• Prep training and testing w/ pilot site– If statewide---must be small scale testing – Assess prep testing and make changes if needed

• Train for full VPO launch• Launch of full VPO services (staggered)

– If statewide—must be small scale and w/o press– Assessment of small launch—when successful, prep notifications to users and

distribute print resources – Authorize full-service launch

• Maintain communication/monitoring system w/ personal regist.• Full media attention

Comprehensive Risk Management

• Personal monitoring

• Vendor monitoring – Average number of

notifications– Other alerts via Appriss

Operations Center (AOC)

• Data reports

• Victim Service Representatives

• Liaisons with victim service organizations, law enforcement, justice professionals, etc.

• Feedback and focus groups with victims/survivors– Collaborative research

• Liaisons between users at pilot sites (OVW grant and non-grant)

Lessons Learned• Victims do want notification and information

• Officers, advocates and other responders support automated notification

• Communities struggle with protective order protocols– Poorly defined with role confusion and conflicts– Gaps and inconsistencies– Unresolved legal questions

Lessons Learned• Basic protective order protocols

• Forms—especially the need for standardized forms and ‘Passport’ 1st page

• Data entry

• Information-sharing

• Access to victims’ advocacy services

Lessons Learned (cont’d)

• Lack of standardized forms creates notification and enforcement problems

• Lack of FUNCIONAL state-level centralized repository and protocols for prompt, consistent data entry creates problems for everyone—especially re victim safety

• Technology needs are varied and numerous

– General: Web entry v. interfaces w/ existing state database

– Local: multiple entries, security and training issues, and victim support

– State: lack of accessible, reliable state database

Preliminary feedback supports value of the safety/information of pilot VPO services

Lessons Learned (cont)

Quantitative Outcomes• First 5 county-level sites (rural sites)

– 282 orders served to date– 228 registrations

• Some are multiple registrations per person• Registrations are confidential

– 81% of notifications are confirmed• phone / email for service, hearings, expiration

– 19% of notifications unconfirmed– 308 inbound calls for information

• Petitioner• Law enforcement

Quantitative Outcomes

• Addition of 120 Kentucky counties will significantly increase the numbers– KY had ------- DV orders in FY 2005

• Other measures to be collected and analyzed . . .

Qualitative Outcomes• Supportive

– Feedback from victim/survivor focus groups– Survey of practitioners: services, protocols– Spontaneous feedback– Secondary benefits for pilot sites and deferred sites

• Cautions– Identification and prevention of notification errors– Follow-up on security and protocol problems

National Impact of VPO

This pilot has stimulated national focus on protective order notification

– Legislation requiring protective order notification

• South Carolina passed the nations first law requiring victims be notified when protective orders are served

The seed has been planted…..

SAVIN ProgramPartial Victim Notification

Partial Victim Notification

Statewide Protective Order Notification

Critical that the technology be supplemented with best practices

Future --Protectnology™ Goals• To continue and expand the pilot program for DV

victims, other at-risk parties, and professional service providers who strive to protect/support them.– Include expanded TA, training, and information-sharing

between existing sites and potential sites.

• To expand VPO to traditionally underserved populations/communities.

• To expand the language capability of VPO.

• To provide for firearms notifications (state/Federal)

Future --“Protectnology™” Goals

• To report reliable data on safe, effective, automated DV victim notification:

– Impact on victim needs for safety and information

– Impact of state/Federal laws, protocols, information

– Identification of best practices• Protocols• Technology• Information Safeguards• Assessment Practices

Future --Protectnology™ Goals

To secure additional funding—

– To support long-term project evaluation and research• Comprehensive distribution of findings, industry standards,

and lessons learned • Secure valuable long-term data (implementation lessons)

– To identify additional county-level systems and at least one more statewide VPO site

– To provide computer-based/on-line training and website information

Contact Information

Travis A. Fritsch, Project ManagerMary Byron Foundation, Inc.10401 Linn Station RoadLouisville, KY 40223

502/815-3884 (work)

859/229-7245 (cell)

travis@marybyronfoundation.org

In Memory of . . .• Mary Byron• Bertie Jefferson• BJ Jacobs• Officer Bobby Palmer• Cammie Pigman• Oease Cornett• Officer Regina Nichols• Linda Culp• Lt. Brenda Cowan• Officer Eddie Mundo, Jr• Karen Duncan• Virginia Tech victims and survivors