Automated Victim Notification of Protective Order Status

1. Automated Victim Notification of Protective Order Status April 18, 2007 Anne Hamilton US Dept. of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women Travis A. Fritsch Mary Byron Foundation, Inc.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. Anne Hamilton Anne.Hamilton@usdoj.gov www.usdoj.gov/ovw OVW Technical Assistance Program

7. Domestic Violence Protective Orders • Purpose as a legal remedy or tool • Range of protected parties • Range of protected acts • Enforcement strengths and limitations

8. ProtectiveOrders 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 Differences in Court Orders

9. Statement of Need • Victim’s risks are increased @ service • Protective orders are not enforceable until served • 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 • Victim safety/confidentiality = guiding principles

10. 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

11. Step 2. Emergency order or summons is issued Step 3. Service of Order Step 4. Court Hearing Step 5. Permanent Order issued Possible amendments/violations Step 5. Order expires Basic Protective Order Process Step 1. Victim petitions for relief

12. Points of concern • Victim risk increases (and risks to others) • Protection of victim safety, privacy, confidentiality • Order unenforceable without notice/service • Limited access to order status • Unaware of abuser’s attempts to amend orders • Remembering order expiration • Full faith and credit recognition

13. Step 1. Order information captured electronically Step 2. Victim registers for notification Step 3. Current order status becomes available via phone or web Step 4. Notification triggered immediately following service of order Step 5. Notification continues until delivered to victim Step 6. Notification tracking Proposed Technology Solution

14. How are protective orders made effective in reducing the risk of further harm to domestic violence victims? PROTECTIVE ? Orders • Are protective orders effective in enhancing the safety and well-being of adult and child domestic violence victims?

15. Progress on the National Protective Order Notification Pilot Program August 15, 2006

16. 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

17. Partnerships for Success

18. 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 OVW/MBF Project Partners REVISED ORIGINAL • Participants - 126 counties • (120) KY, (3) AR, (3) NC • Technology • Appriss, Inc. • Research – • UK Dept. on Behavioral Services • UofL Kent School of Social Work

19. 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

20. Results Lessons Learned Best Practices Secondary Benefits Implementation Process

21. 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

22. KY VPO Flow Chart #4 Update service to Court #3b Notification generated to registered petitioners

23. 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 VINE Protective Order

24. 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 VPO v. VINE

25. Who can register? • Petitioners (DV protective orders) • Other at-risk persons per the petitioner • Family members • Friends • Co-workers • Advocates

26. Petitioner Notification Types • Service of a Temporary or Emergency Protective Order (EPO)

27. Hearing reminder— 3 days in advance of the scheduled hearing date Petitioner Notification Types

28. Alert on pending expiration of full, long-term or permanent protective order Petitioner Notification Types

29. 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 Points of Victim Contact: VPO

30. 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’ rights resource

31. Caution Indicators • Risk scenarios to identify potential risks and safeguards re • Notifications • VPO data/information • Potential abuses/misuses of VPO by: • Respondents • Others

32. 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

33. 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) Comprehensive Risk Management

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. Lessons Learned (cont) • 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

38. 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

39. 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 . . .

40. 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

41. 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

42. The seed has been planted….. Critical that the technology be supplemented with best practices SAVIN Program Partial Victim Notification Statewide Protective Order Notification Partial Victim Notification

43. 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)

44. 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

45. 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

46. Contact Information Travis A. Fritsch, Project Manager Mary Byron Foundation, Inc. 10401 Linn Station Road Louisville, KY 40223 502/815-3884 (work) 859/229-7245 (cell) travis@marybyronfoundation.org

47. 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