|
Family
Violence Forum
Vol. 4, No. 1 Spring 2005
Table of Contents
About
the Family Violence Forum
This newsletter is the product of the
Family Violence Community of Practice-a collaborative
team of researchers, educators, and information
specialists with the mission of improving the justice
system's response to violence within the family. We are
pleased to introduce the latest issue of the Family
Violence Forum. For previous newsletters and a full
array of court-related information on family violence,
visit us at the Center
for Family Violence and the Courts.
A
Personal Note from the Editor
By Brenda K. Uekert
Welcome to the first issue of the Family Violence
Forum for 2005. This issue highlights technological
advances, primarily in the areas of protection orders
and domestic violence processes. For our readers who are
interested in learning more about court technology, we
invite you to sign up for the Ninth
National Court Technology Conference. The conference
will be held September 13-15 in Seattle, Washington. We
hope you will find this issue informative and useful for
your work.
|
|
|
How
Technology Is Being Used to Enhance Domestic Violence
Case Processing
By Dawn Marie Rubio
Courts across the country
are turning to technology, whether its hardware,
software, video technology, fiber-optic lines, Legal
XML, or Internet and Web-based access, to solve the
challenges associated with domestic violence cases.
In keeping with the theme
of technology for this issue of Forum, the NCSC
Family Violence Community of Practice asked courts to
identify how technology is being used in their
jurisdictions to improve the way domestic violence cases
are handled by the courts. According to these responses,
and a review of the literature in the area, it appears
that technology is being used for the following
purposes:
- to enhance victim
safety
- to boost the
accountability of offenders
- to decrease the
courts' response time to the needs of victims
- to improve the quality
of the courts' information and decision making
- to promote
collaboration with other justice system and domestic
violence partners
The use of technology to
improve domestic violence case processing appears to be
on the rise.
In Alaska, VAWA funds
were used to modify the court's current electronic case
management system to create a Domestic Violence
Index. Upon the filing of a petition for a
protection order, the Index allows judges and
court staff to search the court's database (by party
name) for related domestic violence cases. While the Index
has are some limitations (e.g., cumbersome process) and
unresolved issues (e.g., the perception that judges are
performing independent investigations), overall it
enables the court to make more informed and consistent
decisions regarding the pending protection order.
New Jersey has initiated
a Web-based temporary protection order system for police
known as E-TRO, which is currently in the pilot
stage with five police departments. Police complete and
electronically transmit temporary restraining order
forms to the court for docketing, case scheduling, and
case disposition. Current plans include the expansion of
E-TRO to every police department. However,
police departments must have adequate computer
capability. The police also have access to the Domestic
Violence Central Registry. This is a duplication of
certain data from the court's case management system
that allows police to see both active and dismissed
restraining orders statewide. All police departments
have access to this database 24 hours a day. Finally,
New Jersey is creating and distributing video and CD-ROM
educational materials for judges and staff to provide
required, ongoing desktop training for all staff and
judges assigned to domestic violence cases.
Several misdemeanor and
felony domestic violence courts across New York State
(Bronx, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Westchester, Suffolk, and
Queens) use the Domestic Violence Court Technology
Application and Resource Link. Developed by the
Center for Court Innovation, the Application is
a software program, which uses a secure Internet
connection to link the domestic violence courts with
other criminal justice, treatment, and social services
agencies. It enables these users to share
information instantaneously, thus allowing immediate
access to information about valid and expired protection
orders, protection order violations, treatment and
attendance participation, case status, and case
management and research.
A remote kiosk outside
Pierce County's courthouse in Tacoma, Washington, allows
on-site domestic violence counselors at the remote
location to assist victims with protection order
paperwork. Petitions are then transmitted to the main
courthouse using a software application developed in the
county's intranet.
Initial reports show
promise that the technology is achieving the intended
results in domestic violence case processing. The
possibilities are exciting as courts become more
comfortable with the technology options available to
them.
For more information,
contact Dawn Marie Rubio at drubio@ncsc.dni.us.
|
|
|
The
Potential of XML to Enhance the Recognition and
Enforcement of Protection Orders
By Denise O. Dancy
Protection orders are
designed to ensure the safety of domestic violence
victims in a timely fashion--ideally across state and
tribal lines. But court and law enforcement procedures
vary from one jurisdiction to the next--a fact that
often hinders the recognition and enforcement of
protection orders. A technological impediment is the
functional disparity in the electronic data-sharing and
case management mechanisms used in issuing, recording,
and tracking protection orders. This is especially true
in "foreign" protection orders (those that are
issued in one jurisdiction but enforced in another).
These differences are often evident in the appearance of
the protection orders themselves and in the types of
data entered, captured, and verified.
Many states have
protection order registries to receive and capture data
correctly. State registries, however, face ongoing
challenges related to technological capacity,
consistency in data entry, and compliance. The
terminating repository for all this protection order
data is intended to be the National Criminal Information
Center Protection Order File (NCIC POF). Data-entry
processes at the state and local levels are often
duplicative and, at times, simply fall short of reaching
their ultimate destination in the NCIC. The level of
participation from states (i.e., providing protection
order data to the NCIC POF) varies significantly in
volume, quality, and completeness. Tribal justice
systems and law enforcement agencies encounter even more
challenges with data sharing across jurisdictional
lines. For instance, many tribal protection orders do
not have an established conduit into state protection
order registries or the NCIC POF. This jeopardizes the
safety protection orders are intended to secure.
A missing component in
many current systems is cross-system interoperability
and effective systems communications. Computer systems
must be able "talk" to each other to
accurately capture and understand the information they
are exchanging. The various systems used in the local
jurisdictions, state protection order registries, and
NCIC do share some common "language" and
protocols for exchanging information. Nevertheless,
there are also many instances where they simply cannot
exchange information because of sheer system design.
There is, however, a way for these different systems to
"talk" to one another without extensive
overhaul: eXensible Markup Language (commonly known as
XML), a technical language that creates specific
vocabulary for sharing information. The development and
use of XML has been increasing in the business and legal
sectors. The justice sector is currently refining the
subset of data needed to accurately and consistently
capture and exchange data specific to justice-related
processes. The body of work that reflects those
processes and data definitions is the Global Justice
XML Data Dictionary (GJXDD). The GJXDD
is, in fact, an "XML-based framework to enable the
entire justice and public safety community to share
information at all levels of government-laying the
foundation for local, state, tribal and federal justice
interoperability" (see "Global
Resources for the Justice Decision Maker").
Much of this work around
the GJXDD is occurring within multidisciplinary
workgroups to develop commonly agreed-upon standards.
Several sets of open XML standards are at varying stages
of development and need adequate vetting by the full
justice community. Once standards have been established
and tested in real-world court operations, XML has the
potential to create an environment in which data can be
easily exchanged between various court case management
systems, protection order registries, and the NCIC POF.
XML can (1) create consistency in language and
appearance of data; (2) overcome software and hardware
compatibility issues; (3) comply to Internet-mandated
data coding for presentation of information; and,
perhaps most significantly, (4) facilitate nearly
simultaneous data entry and validation into case
management systems, state protection order registries,
and the NCIC POF.
The National Center for
State Courts (NCSC) is collaborating on two different
projects--Extending Project Passport and the Justice
Information Sharing and the Courts project--to
standardize protection order processes and data sharing.
The primary objectives of Extending Project Passport are
to enhance recognizability of protection orders (through
a model template first page with commonly agreed-upon
data elements) and to demonstrate the benefits of using
XML to exchange protection order data. A primary
objective of the Justice Information Sharing project is
to build upon current XML work in the justice system to
"produce a blueprint for data standards that can
support interoperability, electronic filing of documents
and the exchange of information with members of the
justice community, to advance architectures and other
components by which to accomplish that, and to test the
model in real world applications" (see
"Justice Sharing and the Courts," NCSC).
Protection orders are one of the key court processes and
documents that need this data standardization. Through
the regional meetings of Extending Project Passport,
ways to leverage current parallel efforts to define
those electronic exchanges specific to protection orders
are being explored, and feedback is being sought from
practitioners in the justice community who deal with
protection orders. A prototype XML-based first page has
been collaboratively developed specifically for
Extending Project Passport, and contributes to the
XML-based and NCIC-compliant protection order
information exchange package being developed for the
justice community and courts through the Justice
Information Sharing project.
This collaborative
initiative holds promise for enhancing the
recognizability and enforcement of protection orders and
for standardizing the timely and accurate electronic
exchange of protection order data through standardized
court-related XML processes. The result could satisfy
data requirements across systems and across geographic
and electronic jurisdictional boundaries, overcome
communication barriers, deliver data in real time,
facilitate enforcement of protection orders, and save
lives.
For more information,
contact Denise O. Dancy at ddancy@ncsc.dni.us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa's
Protection Order Registry: Connecting the Courts with
Law Enforcement
By Madelynn Herman
Iowa's statewide
protection order registry project was first conceived in
1995 and was fully implemented statewide in 1998. The
process for creating Iowa's statewide registry first
began with a recommendation from the Supreme Court's
Task Force on Courts' and Communities' Response to
Domestic Violence. A STOP Violence Against Women Act
grant helped fund the registry.
Standard and uniform
protection orders are used throughout the state and sent
to a statewide registry. Databases are linked between
the courts and the Department of Public Safety to send
and receive protection orders in a timely and accurate
manner. This cooperative venture between the Iowa
Judicial Branch and the Iowa Department of Public Safety
has been very effective. Receiving the registry of abuse
orders electronically within seconds of the information
being entered by a judge enables law enforcement to
respond within minutes to serve or enforce a violation
of the order.
Iowa's registry includes
a firearms provision, full-faith-and-credit legislation,
participation in NCIC (National Crime Information
Center), and a Brady indicator. Out-of-state and tribal
orders are also included.
Key
elements of Iowa's protection order registry project:
- Funding was present
and adequate.
- The Iowa Supreme Court
was committed to the project from its inception.
- The registry was a
multidisciplinary project in design, training, and
implementation.
- Law enforcement and
clerks work cooperatively and within their areas of
expertise.
- Iowa's Court
Information Services (ICIS) was closely involved
with the development of the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) database so that there would be no
later "surprises" when the ICIS side was
developed.
- DPS and ICIS made and
signed a contract regarding the basic elements of
what would be accomplished in the data transfer.
- The courts, through
their vendor, devised a mechanism to provide
protective order information in virtually real time
as opposed to the daily batch processing that is the
normal functioning of ICIS.
- Both the courts and
DPS continue to look for ways to improve the system.
On February 25, 2005,
Jennifer Juhler, the domestic abuse intervention
coordinator for the Iowa Judicial Branch, was
interviewed by this author.
MH:
Since the implementation of Iowa's Statewide Protection
Order Registry in 1998, how have things been going?
JJ: Very
well. One hundred percent of all orders are in the
statewide registry. It's proceeding so well, that I'm
not aware that it's there. Both the courts and the
Department of Public Safety are very happy with the
system. It's integrated into their work, and they rely
on the information that is provided. They are very
surprised when they find an error.
MH: How
many uniform orders are in the registry, and is it
difficult for judges and law enforcement to keep them
straight?
JJ:
There are code provisions in the registry for
dissolution, civil, and criminal protection orders.
There are separate orders for stalking and sexual abuse.
There are also variations to these orders such as orders
to modify, cancel, or extend the orders. It can be
difficult for both judges and law enforcement to keep
the 16 different uniform orders straight. But an
intranet was developed to provide instructions on which
orders to use, and how to fill out the uniform orders.
In addition, Lotus Notes allows judges to add specific
information about a case into the order. Initially, on
the law enforcement side, they were confused about their
role in enforcing civil protection orders. The registry
provides information on what constitutes a violation of
the order and largely sorts it out for them.
MH: What
are some of the benefits of having a protection order
registry that sends orders electronically from the
courts to law enforcement?
JJ:
There is greater overall systems accountability. Law
enforcement relies on this information when enforcing
protection orders across the state. This information is
also integrated into their missing persons/warrant data
so when someone is stopped for a traffic violation, they
can find out if there is an outstanding order of
protection on file. The protection order registry also
facilitates communication between the courts and law
enforcement.
MH: Do
you have any advice for states wanting to put together a
similar registry?
JJ: Keep
it simple. On the side of the courts, it is important to
keep the up-front protection order information sent to
the Department of Public Safety very simple and basic.
For additional information
on Iowa's Statewide Protection Order Registry, please
contact Jennifer Juhler at the Iowa Judicial Branch at
515-725-8036 or Jennifer.juhler@jb.state.ia.us.
A
Prototype of the Protection Order Process in
Pennsylvania: The Integral Role of the Protection from
Abuse Database
By Brenda K. Uekert,
Susan Keilitz, and Penney Wentland
In 1997 the Pennsylvania
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, with support from
the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and
in cooperation with the Administrative Office of the
Pennsylvania Courts, began to develop the Protection
from Abuse Database (PFAD).
As of February 28, 2005, 60 of Pennsylvania's 67
counties were participating in PFAD.
January 1, 2006, will
mark a major milestone in the evolution of how courts
and the Pennsylvania State Police process protection
from abuse (PFA) orders across the state. On that date,
all courts will be required to transmit PFA datasheets
and PFAs electronically to the Pennsylvania State Police
for entry into the statewide PFA Registry. This
important change will facilitate entry of potentially
life-saving information into the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) and the state police's
database in a timely manner that complies with state and
national standards for safety.
The PFAD was designed to
capture all PFA proceedings in the commonwealth, with a
computer archival system designed to complement the
Pennsylvania State Police's Protection Order Registry.
PFAD is an Internet-based system that allows 24-hour
access to the full text of PFAs, Affidavits of Service,
Indirect Criminal Contempt dispositions, and other court
orders and forms essential for effective enforcement of
PFAs and service provision. Providing the full text of
the PFA enhances the information accessible from the
state police's registry by providing information about
the specific terms of the order, including custody and
miscellaneous relief, which law enforcement officers in
the field may need to make decisions critical to victim
safety.
Last fall, the National
Center for State Courts completed an evaluation
of Pennsylvania's Protection from Abuse Database, with
funding from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency. The evaluation found that PFAD was an
indispensable tool in Pennsylvania, but vulnerable due
to its dependence on grant funding. Users reported high
levels of satisfaction with the implementation,
training, and technical assistance associated with PFAD.
An issue that affected
the consistency of PFAD use across counties was the lack
of standardization of PFA processes. As part of the
evaluation, the research team, along with PFAD
staff, developed a prototype, which uses a hypothetical
case and follows it through from the incident to getting
the PFA, service, and enforcement. While the prototype
is specific to Pennsylvania, it can easily be adapted to
other states.
Incident
Janet and Ed Patton live in County A and have a
two-year-old son and a six-year-old daughter. Ed has
been becoming increasingly abusive to Janet over the
past year, and on Sunday he punched her in the stomach
and told her she better "watch her back."
Janet wants to find out what she can do to prevent Ed
from hitting her again and to spend some time away from
him while he gets some help to stop his abusive
behavior.
On Monday Janet calls the
local domestic violence program in County A and learns
that she can petition the court for a PFA, that she can
start the paperwork either at the domestic violence program
offices or at the court, and that the whole process
should be finished in time for her to pick up son from
day care and be home when her daughter gets home from
school. She thinks the court might intimidate her, so
she decides to see an advocate at the domestic violence
program. Although she is afraid Ed might blow up at her
again, she decides she can wait until the next day, when
she has a day off and Ed is working the evening shift.
On Tuesday she goes to the domestic violence program,
telling Ed she is going grocery shopping.
Getting the PFA
1. At the domestic violence program, an advocate listens
to Janet's situation, explains the possibilities of PFA
relief and the process, including precautions Janet
should take if the court issues a PFA. Janet decides to
file a petition, and the advocate creates the petition,
proposed temporary order, notice of hearing, and
affidavit of service on PFAD.
2. The advocate calls the prothonotary for County A to
get a civil case number for the petition and the PFA
coordinator in court administration to alert her that
Janet will be coming over to the court with the PFA
paperwork.
3. Janet is willing to take the paperwork to courthouse,
so the advocate gives her a map to the court and a map
of the courthouse showing the PFA coordinator's office
(otherwise, domestic violence program staff would have
accompanied her or taken the paperwork for her).
4. The advocate advises Janet to return to the domestic
violence program office after she has the PFA to make
further arrangements, including creating an initial
safety plan for her current situation, arranging a safe
place for Janet and the children to spend the night, and
giving her referral information for legal services for
representation at the hearing on a final PFA.
5. Janet walks two blocks to the courthouse and follows
prominent and clearly understood signs to the PFA
coordinator's office.
6. At the courthouse, the PFA coordinator staff reviews
the paperwork and takes it to the judge assigned that
week to PFAs and other emergency matters.
7. The judge takes a break from the bench to review the
petition and temporary order and signs the order as
submitted.
8. PFA coordinator staff take the signed PFA, notice of
hearing, and affidavit of service to the prothonotary's
office.
9. The prothonotary enters the PFA into PFAD and makes
copies of it, giving three to Janet.
10. The prothonotary faxes the PSP datasheet and PFA to
the Pennsylvania State Police and the 911 dispatch
center. The prothonotary also sends a service packet to
the sheriff.
Service
1. A sheriff's deputy serves the order at Ed's
workplace and enters the affidavit of service into PFAD.
2. The domestic violence program advocate logs onto PFAD
and determines that Ed has been served.
Final Hearing
1. The DV program advocate calls legal services
to advise them of Janet's referral.
2. Janet calls legal services and makes an appointment
after discussing her situation.
3. Legal services staff accesses PFAD, prints out the
PFA, and starts a file for Janet.
4. An attorney meets with Janet, discusses her options,
and prepares a proposed final order; they also discuss
the possibility of filing for a divorce if Ed does not
complete a batterers intervention program.
5. Before the hearing Janet's attorney meets with Ed's
attorney, and Ed agrees to the terms in the proposed
order, but he wants time with the children every other
weekend.
6. The judge accesses PFAD at his bench to edit the
proposed final order. The courtroom clerk prints out the
PFA and the judge signs it; the clerk then sends an
e-mail to the prothonotary to tell her the PFA is
signed.
7. The prothonotary accesses PFAD, files the final
order, and makes copies of PFA, giving three to Janet
when she arrives a few minutes later.
8. The prothonotary faxes the PSP datasheet and PFA to
PSP and to the 911 dispatch center.
Enforcement
Process
1. The Tuesday after the hearing Ed takes their
son from day care; he drives to the house and parks in
the driveway; Janet calls the police.
2. The police officer assigned to the call accesses PFAD
through the dispatcher; she sees that Ed should not be
at the house or have the son on that day; she arrests Ed
after verifying the information in Pennsylvania's
Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network (CLEAN).
3. The police officer takes Ed to the station, pulls up
PFAD to complete an Indirect Criminal Contempt (ICC)
complaint and an Affidavit of Probable Cause, and then
takes Ed to the district justice for preliminary
arraignment.
4. The district justice accesses PFAD, reviews the
relief provisions in the PFA, searches for any previous
ICC convictions, incarcerates Ed, and completes the
hearing information on the contempt form on PFAD.
5. The district attorney accesses PFAD, reviews the
Final Order and Case History, and searches statewide for
any other ICCs pending or convictions. The district
attorney successfully prosecutes the ICC.
6. Janet moves to County B; Ed finds out where she lives
and comes to her house; Janet calls the police.
7. The police officer accesses PFAD, reads the PFA, and
arrests Ed after verifying the information in CLEAN.
8. The police officer completes an ICC complaint and
Affidavit of Probable Cause in PFAD and takes Ed to the
district justice, who finds the PFA and ICC conviction
in County A in PFAD, incarcerates Ed, and completes the
hearing information on the ICC form on PFAD.
9. The district attorney for County B accesses PFAD,
finds the PFA and prior ICC conviction in County A, and
successfully prosecutes the ICC.
10. The probation department uses PFAD to prepare a
presentence report, which includes the history of abuse
and the ICC conviction in County A.
11. The judge sentences Ed to six months in jail.
For more information,
contact Brenda Uekert at buekert@ncsc.dni.us.
Special thanks go to
Susan Emmons and staff at the Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Domestic Violence for refining the prototype.
|
|
|
Resource
Corner
Using Technology to Assist Judges, Communities, and
Victims of Domestic Violence
By Madelynn Herman
The use of technology to
assist victims of domestic violence has increased
dramatically over the last several years. Protection
order forms are available online on many court Web
sites. Some jurisdictions offer the electronic filing of
protection orders. Some provide sophisticated online
document preparation programs. One jurisdiction even
provides streaming video and audio instructions for
filing a protection order and includes a message
from the state's chief justice.
Other examples of how
technology is increasingly used to assist domestic
violence victims and communities include accurate and
timely service of protection orders through statewide
protection order registries, automated victim
notification programs, and videoconferencing to increase
victim access to the courts. Using XML (eXtensible
Markup Language) is the latest innovation for enhancing
the electronic sharing of protection order data. XML
improves the compatibility of data and is the wave of
the future.
In addition, technology
is also used to assist judges in their understanding of
the dynamics of domestic violence. There are online
benchbooks and educational courses on domestic violence
and protection orders for judges. Listed below are a few
examples of who's doing what around the country.
Online
Information, Forms, Instructions, and Assistance
- The Superior Court of
California, Contra Costa County, provides various
online guides for domestic
violence restraining orders, including
instructions via video and audio in four languages
(English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Korean). The
video includes an introductory message from Chief
Justice Ronald George.
- Court staff at the Domestic
Abuse Service Center, of Minnesota's Fourth
Judicial District Court, prepare, file, and process
documents for pro se litigants seeking assistance
with temporary orders of protection.
- Both New
York and Georgia
have statewide online domestic violence protection
projects that allow victims to seek a protection
order, plan for safety, find a lawyer, and learn
about shelters and domestic violence services from
one central Web site.
- The California
Courts Self-Help Center's Protection from Abuse Web pages
provide online access to numerous domestic violence
court forms (in four different languages), in
addition to providing answers to
domestic-violence-related questions.
Electronic Filing
- Jackson County,
Missouri, allows for electronic filing of protection
orders from a local shelter to the courthouse. See
the Techcourt.org article "Protection
for Domestic Violence Victims Via the Internet"
for further details on how e-filing works in Jackson
County.
- The Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo, uses the E-Z
Legal File technology to allow petitioners to
complete the paperwork for protection orders
electronically. E-delivery of the documents is
currently in the planning stages.
Use of
Videoconferencing Technology
- A partnership between
the courts in Tucson, Arizona, and two local
shelters (The
Brewster Center) allows victims of domestic
violence to testify before a judge via
videoconferencing for protection orders. Computers
connect the courts to the shelters to send signed
orders back to the victims without having to appear
in court in person. According to the shelter project
director, Julie Johnston, the videoconferencing
system allows for greater victim privacy,
confidentiality, and safety.
- In Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, local shelters and crisis centers have
teamed up with the district attorney's office to
provide round-the-clock access to protection orders
through videoconferencing. See the January 5, 2005, Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette article, "Video
Technology Put to Use for Domestic Violence Victims."
- Both Mesa and Phoenix
(Arizona) municipal courts use videoconferencing
technology for protection orders, which allows
victims of domestic violence to provide testimony
from the local police department.
Sharing
Information Through Registries and Databases
- Most states have
protection order registries. But not many states
have electronically connnected the courts with law
enforcement statewide for a seamless process of
sending protection orders. Iowa and Pennsylvania are
two states that offer this feature. For details on
Iowa's Statewide Protection Order Registry, see Domestic
Abuse, Stalking and Harassment Registry, on
the Iowa Judicial Branch Web site. See also
Pennsylvania's Protection
from Abuse Database for further information.
- Pennsylvania's
statewide database was recently evaluated and
recommend practices are provided for how orders are
processed across the state in "Recommended
PFA Practices in Pennsylvania," by Brenda
K. Uekert, Penney Wentland, Susan Keilitz, and Tracy
Peters (NCSC, October 5, 2004).
- XML technology creates
an environment in which data can be easily exchanged
with various court management systems, protection
order registries, and the National Crime Information
Center Protection Order File. See the NCSC project Extending
Project Passport and the Global
Justice XML Data Model. There are various
organizations currently using the XML data
model.
- For information on
developing protection order databases and
registries, see the CTC7 paper "Developing
Web-based Protection Order Databases for
Cross-jurisdictional Enforcement," by Susan
Emmons, Susan Keilitz, Cindy Southworth, and
Stephanie Trukenbrod.
- The white paper "An
Informed Response: An Overview of the Domestic
Violence Court Technology Application and Resource
Link," by Pamela Young (Center for Court
Innovation, 2001) will assist court planners in the
design and implementation of domestic violence court
technology.
Online Education
and Training
Don't forget to check out
the new Web site of the Forum, the Center
for Family Violence and the Courts.
|
|
|
National
Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147
701 17th St., Ste. 2900 Denver, CO 80202-3429
2425 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 350 Arlington, VA 22201
Association
Services (800) 616-6165
Consulting (800) 466-3063
Education (800) 616-6206
Government Relations (800) 532-0204
International Programs (800) 797-2545
Publications (888) 228-6272
Research (800) 616-6109
Technology (888) 846-6746
Information (800) 616-6164
Subscribe
to NCSC E-newsletters
webmaster@ncsc.dni.us
Copyright 2005 The National Center for State Courts. All
Rights Reserved.
Some online research provided by LexisNexis.
|
|
|
|
|
