VAWA Forensic Compliance Project Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies and Systems Survey Results.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Environmental Health Tracking Technical Team Meeting 1 Future Assessment and Needs Assessment Advisory Discussion Craig Wolff IT/GIS Manager March 5, 2003.
Advertisements

The Investigatory Process 2013 NCSBN IRE Conference
Governance for REDD+ Crystal Davis Governance of Forests Initiative World Resources Institute REDD Civil Society Coordination Seminar CIFOR campus, Bogor.
Workplace Occupational Health, Safety and Security
Violence Against Women Act Forensic Compliance Issues.
Jane Doe Rape Kit Act: Meeting the Challenge. Objectives: Gain a better understanding of the Violence Against Women Act thru Historical perspective Overview.
Process and Procedure Documentation. Agenda Why document processes and procedures? What is process and procedure documentation? Who creates and uses this.
Principles of Standards and Measures
Module 8: Lab Accreditation, Protocol, & Audits Module 8: Lab Accreditation, Protocol, & Audits presented by James E. Klaunig TOXICOLOGY, SCIENCE & EXPERT.
Andrea Sundberg Dorene Whitworth Violence Against Women Act State law NRS NRS
Capability Cliff Notes Series PHEP Capability 5—Fatality Management What Is It And How Will We Measure It?
Monitoring Accommodations in Florida Karen Denbroeder Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services.
VAWA Compliance Presented by: VAWA Reauthorization Compliance Requirements The 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) contained.
Developing a Records & Information Retention & Disposition Program:
Office for Planning, Strategy and Coordination Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System Joyce.
Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Data
CAMA  Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Account  Signed Into Law 2000  DHS Contracts - 10 Years  Free Standing Multidisciplinary Teams  Child Advocacy.
Introduction to Standard 9: Recognising and Responding to Clinical Deterioration in Acute Health Care Nicola Dunbar Program Director April 2013.
April 2, 2013 Longitudinal Data system Governance: Status Report Alan Phillips Deputy Director, Fiscal Affairs, Budgeting and IT Illinois Board of Higher.
Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive Discretion and Judgement: HSE’s approach Mike Cross 3 June 2014.
State of Maine: Quality Management and National Core Indicators.
Chapter 3 Interfacing with EMS and Other Medical Personnel.
Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive Regulation of distribution and farm level uses Paul Adamson & Helena Cooke.
Kingdom of Morocco High Commision for Planning Directorate of Statistics 1 International Association for Official Statistics IAOS 2014 STATISTICS OF TRANSPORT.
Local Contributing Factor Tool for SPP/APR Compliance Indicators C-1, C-7, C-8, C-9/B-15, B-11 and B-12: Collecting and Using Valid and Reliable Data to.
Collaborative Assessment Tool.  Overview of the CAT ◦ History of CAT ◦ Purpose of CAT  Structure of the CAT ◦ Reflective Practice ◦ The Process ◦ Documentation.
S.T.O.P. VAWA Measuring Effectiveness Initiative “aka The Muskie Report” Oklahoma District Attorneys Council Federal Grants Division December 2008.
Presented by Margaret Robbins Program Director, TMCEC.
Module N° 8 – SSP implementation plan. SSP – A structured approach Module 2 Basic safety management concepts Module 2 Basic safety management concepts.
IDENTITY THEFT. RHONDA L. ANDERSON, RHIA, PRESIDENT ANDERSON HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Dr. David Mowat June 22, 2005 Federal, Provincial & Local Roles Surveillance of Risk Factors and Determinants of Chronic Diseases.
Best practices in combating hate crime on the ground osce.org/odihr.
Copyright 2014 Open Networking User Group. All Rights Reserved Confidential Not For Distribution Six Steps To A Common Open Networking Ecosystem Common.
Introducing Regulatory Impact Analysis into the Turkish Legal Framework “Training the Trainers” November 2008 Session 8 Standard Cost Model and RIAs.
California Afterschool Outcome Measures Project California Afterschool Outcome Measures Project UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Executing Environmental Judgments in Criminal Proceedings.
Fostering Positive Health Outcomes After the Forensic Exam Karen D. Carroll, RN, SANE-A, NY-SAFE Associate Director, Bronx SART.
Oregon Department of Education Leadership/Central Services Presenters: Dave Fajer, Director, Management Services Mark Hunt, Director, Human Resources Presentation.
Crime Scene Investigation. Basic Premise The actions taken at the onset of an investigation are vitally important to the successful resolution of the.
Introduction to the Tribal Child Support Enforcement Program.
Technology Initiatives in Corrections Presented by Julius Dupree Policy Office.
The Access Initiative and the Partnership for Principle 10 World Resources Institute Nathalie Eddy.
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in OECD countries: a policy tool to manage the flow of regulation Regional Capacity-Building Seminar on “Drafting Legislation.
Anonymous Reporting Models For Forensic Compliance A Report for the Forensic Compliance Ad Hoc Committee November 2008.
IFTA BEST PRACTICES LAW ENFORCEMENT GUIDE BY IFTA LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE.
Welcome Expert Panel on Isolation and Quarantine June 2-3,
Restricted Use Recordkeeping Survey MSU Pesticide Education Program 2010.
Navigating the Justice System. 4-1  Describe the seven phases of the criminal justice process.  Identify at least two key victims’ rights in each phase.
Risk Management and Risk indicators working group 16th EPSO conference, Copenhagen, September 17th 2013.
Educause Live! August 3, USA PATRIOT Act and Beyond: How Higher Education Institutions and Libraries are Cooperating and Coping Marilu Goodyear CIO.
Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation – the European Approach Europol Rob Wainwright Director Europol Unclassified - Basic Protection Level Europol Public.
PMRM Revision Discussion Slides Illustrations/Figures 1-3 o Model, Methodology, “Scope” options Functions, Mechanisms and “Solutions” Accountability and.
Survey of IACUC Administrative Staff. Survey Results 2005 – 132 Respondents 2012 – 63 Respondents.
FBI Phoenix Computer Crime Squad SA Tom Liffiton 10/23/2003 Maricopa Association of Governments Telecommunications Advisory Group.
Leveraging technology to strengthen Continuous Quality Improvement C. BERNARD MANAGING DIRECTOR IBHAR HEALTHCARE
How Does a Bill become Law? Requirement for a New Law It must be approved by both Houses of the Legislature It must be identical - word for word It cannot.
Moving Beyond Response Multi-Disciplinary Teams and Strategies for Preventing Abuse.
2 Laws 1 Responsibility Worker safety for NJ public employees Brian Heineman Supervisor of Science and Technology Ridge High room 613, ext. 164.
IJIS Institute National Projects IJIS Institute National Projects Paul Wormeli Executive Director IJIS Institute Global Advisory.
Juvenile Legislative Update 2013 Confidential Records and Protected Disclosures.
Enforcing Firearms Surrender
Learning Objectives Describe the seven phases of the criminal justice process. Identify at least two key victims’ rights in each phase of the criminal.
CMS and State Enforcement
DRILL: What are some things you have see on TV about the field of forensics?
HSA 530 RANK Education Your Life - hsa530rank.com.
Outline What is governance and what does it comprise?
Navigating the Justice System
SOURCES OF LAW Constitution -- “Fundamental Law
Future of Public Health in Kansas: Local Pilot
Office of the Head of Mission •
Presentation transcript:

VAWA Forensic Compliance Project Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies and Systems Survey Results

Forensic Evidence Collection Policies & Systems: Forensic Evidence Collection Policies & Systems: The Process Survey Tool Development Drafted * Piloted at OVW Conference Refined * Web-based Distributed * STOP Administrators * Coalition Executive Directors

Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Survey Responders N = 60 N= 60 There were a total of 60 Survey Responders 33 out of 56 (59%) States/Territories were represented by the Survey Responders

13 Responders indicated that the identity of the First Responder may vary within their state. Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems First Responders to Victim N = 36

9 Responders indicated kit tracking mechanisms vary within their state. Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Kit Tracking Mechanism N = 34

7 Responders indicated that responsibility for Narrative collection varies within their state. Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Narrative Collection N = 33

12 Responders indicated the evidence storage location varies within their state. Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Evidence Storage N = 35

11 Responders indicated responsibility for transporting evidence varies within their state. Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Evidence Transportation N = 28

Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Processing Anonymous Cases through CODIS Only 5 Responders indicated their state or a local jurisdiction within their state was currently processing or considering processing “anonymous” cases through CODIS

21 Responders indicated SAFE exam time limits Vary. Other Responders specified: decision of medical personnel; and no statute of limitations. Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems SAFE Exam Time Limitations N = 29

11 Responders indicated storage limits for SAFE Exam kits vary. Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems SAFE Exam Storage Limitations N= 19

Forensic Evidence Collection Policies & Systems: Forensic Evidence Collection Policies & Systems: Who Communicates Options to Victim? N= 36

Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Tracking and Monitoring Q: Does your State track/monitor the ‘anonymous’ cases and record what percent of victims decide to report to law enforcement and participate in the system? 21 States/Territories responded …. Of those 21, only 4 jurisdictions indicated that, yes, they do track ‘anonymous’ cases.

Forensic Evidence Collection: Policies & Systems Tracking and Monitoring Q: Does your State track/monitor ‘anonymous’ cases and record what percent of victims reported & are participating in the system, and successfully prosecute their case? 19 States/Territories responded… Of those 19, only 1 Territory indicated that, yes, they are tracking ‘anonymous’ cases through prosecution.

Forensic Evidence Collection Policies & Systems: Forensic Evidence Collection Policies & Systems: SAFE Payment Procedures N= 36

Forensic Evidence Collection Policies & Systems: Evidence Collection Type N= 39

Forensic Evidence Collection Policies: & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection Policies: & Systems Enabling Legislation for Exam Procedures (in place, or expected to be, in 2008) N = 28

Forensic Evidence Collection Policies: & Systems Forensic Evidence Collection Policies: & Systems Statewide Legislation or Protocols (in place, or expected to be, in 2008) N = 24