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

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

Purposes of Performance Measures & Victim/User FeedbackPerformance 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”

Michael Dever, Policy AdvisorElizabeth Zwicker, Program Specialist

Statewide Automated Victim Information & Notification (SAVIN)

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Office on Violence Against Women

Ms. Anne Hamilton, Program ManagerOffice on Violence Against Women

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)

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.

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.

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

SAVAN Study - Purpose 2004 Program Evaluation

NC SAVAN Network Activity and Usage Establishing and Maintaining the System

Impact Victims Criminal Justice Agencies

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)

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)

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.

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

Quantitative & Qualitative Victim/User Feedback

Ms. Travis A. Fritsch, Mary Byron FoundationMr. Ken Ogden, Arkansas Dept. of Corrections

Purposes of Performance Measures & Victim/User FeedbackPerformance 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”

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

General Data Categories & SignificanceSAVIN 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.

Other Victim/User FeedbackSurvey 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

Performance Measures &Victim/User Feedback

Open Collaboration OpportunityFull Panel & Conference Attendees

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