SAVIN Performance Measures & Victim/User Feedback

1. SAVIN Performance Measures & Victim/User Feedback Michael Dever & Elizabeth Zwicker, BJA; Anne Hamilton, OVW; Debbie Allen, NC SAVAN; Travis A. Fritsch, MBF, Ken Ogden, AR Corrections

2. SAVIN Measures: Goal • To increase attendees’ awareness about the: • Purposes of SAVIN measures • Performance measures set forth by funding sources • Capabilities of Computer Assisted Telephone • Opportunity for collaborative information-sharing with SAVIN conference attendees

3. Purposes of Performance Measures & Victim/User Feedback Performance Measures • Describe service types & usage • Time specific & trends • Accountability to funding sources & public • Assessment of service capabilities and needs • Alerts to potential problems or critical events Victim/User Feedback • Assess status of victim/user safety & confidentiality • Assess if SAVIN service implementation is operating as intended, especially for victims • Collect reports of how SAVIN is/is not working for all users • Collect recommendations on how SAVIN can be changed • “Must have” & “would like to have”

4. Statewide Automated Victim Information & Notification (SAVIN) Performance Measures Michael Dever, Policy Advisor Elizabeth Zwicker, Program Specialist

5. Performance Measure #8 • Data Grantee Provides: • 8.a) As of the last day of the reporting period, what was the total number of subscribers enrolled in program? • 8.b.) As of the last day of the reporting period, what was the total number of new subscribers who enrolled during the previous six month reporting period? • Measure: • Percent increase in program subscribers

6. Performance Measure #9 • Data Grantee Provides: • 9.a.) Number of Facilities in your state that participate in SAVIN? • 9.b.)Total number of facilities in your state? • Measure: • Percentage of progress towards full statewide SAVIN implementation

7. Performance Measure #10 • Data Grantee Provides: • As of the last day of the reporting period, how many user-initiated notifications were there for the previous six month reporting period? • Measure: • Percentage of user-initiated notifications

8. Performance Measure #11 • Data Grantee Provides: • As of the last day of the reporting period, how many notifications triggered by change in offender status were there for the previous six month reporting period? • Measure: • Percentage of notifications triggered by change in offender status.

9. Performance Measure #12 • Data Grantee Provides: • As of the last day of the reporting period, how many notifications required operator assistance? • Measure: • Percentage of notifications requiring operator assistance. • Total number of notifications is gathered by adding Measures 10+11+12

10. BJA Contact Information • Senior Policy Advisor David Lewis • Phone: 202-616-7829 • Policy Advisor Michael Dever • Phone: 202-616-9188 • Program Specialist Elizabeth Zwicker • Phone: 202-514-9380 • State Policy Advisors: http://www.ojp.gov/BJA/resource/stcont.pdf

11. Definitions • Facility: a prison or jail • Notification: the act of informing the subscriber(s) of a status update for the offender. A notification is triggered by a change in offender status or by request from subscriber and made via internet, telephone or mail. • Notifications triggered by change in offender status: these may be automatic outbound calls, emails or correspondence that is sent to subscribers as a result of a change in offender status. Notifications can be automated or may require assistance from operators or other trained personnel

12. Definitions continued: • Operator assistance: assistance from trained operators that is available to users who need additional information. • Reporting period: the six month BJA reporting period, either from January 1 – June 30; or July 1 – December 31. • Subscriber: a person who signs up to be notified of offender status updates. A subscriber may be a victim, victim’s family member or member of society at large.

13. Definitions continued: • User: a person who contacts the SAVIN system for information or other assistance (e.g. referrals, searches, calls). A user may not have a subscription to SAVIN and may be a member of the broader criminal justice community.

14. BJA Contact Information • Senior Policy Advisor David Lewis • Phone: 202-616-7829 • Policy Advisor Michael Dever • Phone: 202-616-9188 • State Policy Advisors: http://www.ojp.gov/BJA/resource/stcont.pdf

15. Office on Violence Against Women Ms. Anne Hamilton, Program Manager Office on Violence Against Women

16. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) • Purpose of VAWA • Role of the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) • Relevant VAWA Funding Options • Services, Training, Officers and Prosecutors (STOP) • Grants to Encourage Arrests & Enforcement of Protective Orders (GTEA) • Rural Domestic Violence, dating Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking Assistance Program (Rural) • Technical Assistance (supports all OVW grantees)

17. VAWA Measuring Effectiveness Initiative (MEI) • Purpose of VAWA MEI • To assist in fulfilling the Department’s responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Public law 103-62 applicants who receive funding under any OVW Solicitations must provide date that measures the results of their work. • Core data elements will be reported by all OVW-funded initiatives, but each grant program has data elements tailored to reflect the work and impact of that specific program. • Ex: Arrest Program - number and percentage of arrests relative to the number of police responses to domestic violence instances; Rural Program - number of referrals between child protective service workers and victim advocates.

18. OVW Reporting Requirements • Narrative Progress Reports – submitted twice a year for the periods of January – June and July - December. This captures basic performance measures and funding specific activities. • Financial Status Reports – submitted quarterly to report unobligated funds and drawdown amounts. • Audit requirements – submitted yearly to the Audit Clearinghouse.

19. Computer Assisted Telephone InterviewsPractitioner & Victim/User Feedback Ms. Debbie J. Allen, M.S.W. SAVAN Coordinator North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission Evaluating NC SAVAN: Impact & Recommendations

20. SAVAN Study - Purpose • 2004 Program Evaluation • NC SAVAN • Network Activity and Usage • Establishing and Maintaining the System • Impact • Victims • Criminal Justice Agencies

21. SAVAN Study - Method • Evaluation Instruments • 22-item Paper Survey: • Sheriffs’ Offices (N=29) • District Attorneys (N=18) • Random Telephone Survey: • 83 completed • court notification group (N=41) • offender movement group (N=42)

22. SAVAN Study - Findings • Paper Survey • Respondents were asked to rank SAVAN on 11 process measures. • On a scale from 1 (poor) to 10 (outstanding), the average score of these factors was 7 or greater. • Findings: • Technical Assistance (x = 7.56) • Responsiveness of SAVAN Operators (x = 7.35) • Accessibility of Services (x = 7.29)

23. SAVAN Study - Findings • Telephone Survey • 80% of victims in the court notification sample group revealed that using the SAVAN system provided them with a sense of safety & security. • 85% of victims in the custody status sample group reported that knowing the custody status of a specific offender gave them a: • greater degree of security; and, • more pronounced level of perceived safety.

24. SAVAN Study: Recommendations & Outcomes • Greater and more intensified PR campaign • Study frequency and magnitude of technical problems • Introduce legislation for sustained SAVAN funding • 86% of all respondents favored legislative support

25. Quantitative & Qualitative Victim/User Feedback Ms. Travis A. Fritsch, Mary Byron Foundation Mr. Ken Ogden, Arkansas Dept. of Corrections

26. Purposes of Performance Measures & Victim/User Feedback Performance Measures • Describe service types & usage • Time specific & trends • Accountability to funding sources & public • Assessment of service capabilities and needs • Alerts to potential problems or critical events Victim/User Feedback • Assess status of victim/user safety & confidentiality • Assess if SAVIN service implementation is operating as intended, especially for victims • Collect reports of how SAVIN is/is not working for all users • Collect recommendations on how SAVIN can be changed • “Must have” & “would like to have”

27. Victim/Survivor Feedback • Victim safety and confidentiality issues • Human Subject Protection • Institutional Review Boards and other protective oversight • Types of information needed • Prioritize and condense • Most basic language(s) • Make this a 2-way opportunity for exchange of information • Collaboration w/ victims’ advocacy community and other service providers • Development of the assessment instrument & protocols • Collaboration on analysis and reporting

28. General Data Categories & Significance SAVIN Usage to determine: the nature and extent of SAVIN usage how and which services are utilized, who may be using the services (generically), and what types of additional activities are performed on behalf of victims/users and practitioners General Outbound Data Registrations Cautions: confidentiality complications Notifications Cautions: confirmed v. successful General Inbound Data Calls and callers Types of usage (computer, operator) Operator response activities Programmed into the SAVIN system for reporting that is comprehensive, accurate and near real-time.

29. Other Victim/User Feedback Survey Opportunities Automated survey as SAVIN component of notification Automated survey as part of another victim/public assessment Hard copy survey instrument(s) provided at various points throughout the justice or service process Direct victim/user interaction Organized Focus Groups Face-to-Face interviews On-going Collaboration with victims’ advocates and justice professionals and vendor Clarification on how data will be shared and applied e.g., action plans for reform Basic to all Victim/User Feedback Human subject protection With or without Institutional Review Board Put yourself in the shoes of the person(s) who will be responding! Outreach to traditionally underserved populations Confidentiality (data, participants) Collaboration throughout process Strive to develop data consistent with national assessment standards while tailoring as needed for unique needs Timely and appropriate dissemination of data/findings Availability of support resources, if needed

30. Performance Measures &Victim/User Feedback Open Collaboration Opportunity Full Panel & Conference Attendees

31. In Memory of . . . Mary Byron Bertie Jefferson BJ Jacobs Officer Bobby Palmer Cammie Pigman Oease Cornett Deputy Regina Nichols Linda Culp Lt. Brenda Cowan Officer Eddie Mundo, Jr Karen Duncan