1 / 18

SAVIN Conference

SAVIN Conference. April 2007. Lessons Learned: Implementing and Maintaining the Texas Statewide Automated Victim Notification Service (SAVNS) April 17, 2007.

padma
Download Presentation

SAVIN Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SAVIN Conference April 2007

  2. Lessons Learned:Implementing and Maintaining the Texas Statewide Automated Victim Notification Service (SAVNS) April 17, 2007

  3. Are we asking too much if we ask to be told when and where the trial will take place? Are we asking too much if we want to be notified of plea bargaining before we read it in the paper?--a victim • President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, 1982

  4. Meeting the Challenge Exploration in Texas The Texas Attorney General decided to explore the feasibility of establishing a single statewide system that could: • Ensure consistency and accuracy of information. • Be available to as many victims as possible. • Provide an effective use of resources.

  5. Meeting the Challenge The Questions in Texas • Is a statewide service feasible for Texas? • If so, what would be its most efficient design and administration? • What will be the source of funding to meet victim needs and benefit service providers?

  6. Answering the Questions:The Pilot - A Demonstration Project • The purpose of the pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a statewide automated service that could provide victims of crime with accurate information and timely notification regarding the status of a county jail inmate and related court events. • Five counties were selected for participation in the pilot study representing the ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic diversity of Texas. These counties had varying population sizes, crime rates, number of victim services staff, and types of automation and technology.

  7. Selected SAVNS Pilot Counties Collingsworth County – Offender pop. - 17 Childress County – Offender pop. - 24 Dallas County – Offender pop. – 7,666 El Paso County- Offender pop. - 2464 Harris County – Offender pop. – 9,164

  8. The Statewide Automated Victim Notification Service (SAVNS) Mandate in 2001 In HB 1572, the Texas Legislature… • Continued funding for pilot counties • Appropriated funds to implement SAVNS • Recommended that the OAG work with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and/or Office of Court Administration to implement the system

  9. Project Goals • Contract with a vendor or provider of service. • Develop a business model that would reimburse counties for costs incurred while participating in the Texas SAVNS Program. • Implement a single entry point (one toll-free statewide number) for victims. • Provide financial, monitoring and implementation support to the counties and TDCJ.

  10. The Challenges • Implement and maintain service in each of the 254 counties in Texas. • Find creative solutions for implementing and maintaining notification services in the most difficult counties.

  11. Number of Participating Counties to Date by Fiscal Year Sub-Total Total • 2002/03 43 43 • 2003/04 82 125 • 2004/05 24 149 • 2005/06 5 154 • 2006/07 1 155 • Withdrawn 12 143

  12. Current SAVNS Counties

  13. What have we learned? About Texas Counties: • Counties do elect to discontinue their participation in the service. • Some counties remain technically challenged. A number of counties in Texas are without access to computer based software. • Staff turnover in the jail and the court causes the system to break down. This happens because there tends to be limited transfer of knowledge regarding the program subsequent to promotion or transfer within an agency.

  14. What have we learned? About Texas Counties continued: • Providing the program cost free to the county tends to reduce their commitment to the service. • There have been a number of events causing local notification issues. These include improper coding, release prior to data entry, and spelling names incorrectly. • Expectations for the OAG to provide on-site customer service, technical assistance, training, monitoring, and testimony before Commissioner’s Court explaining the nature and scope of the program.

  15. Where do we go from here? • How to keep counties interested in participating in the program. Since this program is voluntary and fully funded by the State, there is very little local incentive to effectively and efficiently maintain the program at peak levels. • Establish and maintain statewide plans for responding to emergency events throughout the state (i.e.: Katrina).

  16. Where do we go from here? • Develop and implement competency-based training for jail and court personnel. • Provide training often on a regional basis to all stakeholders. • Work with service providers to minimize technical errors.

  17. Where do we go from here? • Help rural counties establish computer based Jail Management Systems (JMS) and Record Management Systems (RMS) when and where possible. • Maintain and expand commitments in order to assure maximum statewide coverage. • Work with the vendor and counties to ensure good communication.

  18. Contacting Texas Staff Dr. Gary M. Walker, Project Director, gary.walker@oag.state.tx.us 512-936-1236 Chris Gersbach, Project Specialist, chris.gersbach@oag.state.tx.us 512-936-1653

More Related