DCCADV Comments, Recommendations and Concerns Regarding the
Preliminary Draft of the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence Act of 2009.
Submitted to Councilmember Kwame Brown on April 13, 2009
DCCADV and our partners and local allies commend Councilmember Brown’s proactivity
to enhance the safety and protections for victims of domestic violence. We greatly
appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the initial draft of this legislation and
stand prepared to work alongside CM Brown and his staff to identify, craft and
implement solutions to the epidemic of domestic violence in the District, and to ensure
that his staunch commitment continues to be recognized by his colleagues and
constituents.
However, DCCADV is seriously concerned that the proposed registry and creation of a
new GPS tracking system for repeat domestic violence offenders will not achieve the
desired and intended consequences of advancing victim safety and perpetrator
accountability, and may have unintended harmful consequences on domestic violence
victims and their families.
To assist Councilmember Brown and his staff in evaluating this proposal in a broader
context, the Coalition’s Policy Department conducted extensive research into the other
jurisdictions’ experiences with GPS monitoring systems and Domestic Violence Registry
initiatives. Additionally, we have included in the comments below information about
existing programs and services in the District of Columbia which we believe accomplish
some of what is intended to be accomplished under the draft proposal. It is our hope
that this information will help to put our recommendations, questions, and concerns
about the draft bill into greater context.
We strenuously advocate that Councilmember Brown seriously consider the following
background, comments, and recommendations as he pursues the creation of an online
database for perpetrators of domestic violence.
We support elimination of the sunset provision of the Interstate Enforcement
of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act.
The Coalition is extremely supportive of the proposal to repeal the sunset provision of
the Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, and we are very
thankful to Councilmember Brown for his initiative in addressing this issue.
Instituting a Registry of Repeat Domestic Violence Offenders is duplicative and
the cost and resources necessary to establish and maintain an online database
may divert limited and critical victim services funding at a time of
unprecedented fiscal strain on District programs.

The Coalition is deeply concerned about this proposal, for reasons that we
outlined at length when the idea was first raised to us (attached).

Furthermore, additional research reveals that the District of Columbia (“D.C.”) is
already expending valuable resources on a database of people subject to
protection orders.
-2
D.C. already has a database of people who are subject to protection orders,
known as the Washington Area Law Enforcement System (WALES).1 When the
D.C. Superior Court issues either a Temporary Protection Order (“TPO”) or Civil
Protection Order (“CPO”), the information is immediately entered into WALES by
court personnel.

Only law enforcement (Metropolitan Police Department) has access to WALES and
it is accessible via patrol car and through dispatch. When responding to a scene,
it is standard protocol for police officers to run the names of the people they find
on the scene through WALES to determine if there are any outstanding warrants,
etc. When responding to a domestic-related call, it is standard protocol for
officers to check WALES to see if any TPOs/CPO’s are in effect, and the history
and nature of police interaction with the couple/family.

As WALES is a critical and commonly utilized resource for MPD officers, all officers
must be trained on how to properly use the system. Thus, this is already a
system that is very resource rich, both in terms of the amount of financial
resources to sustain, and the amount of time that must be devoted to officer
training.

The Court is currently working to link WALES with Courtview,2 thereby allowing
police officers to see if persons have had any involvement in the court system.
When completed, police officers on the scene of a crime will not only be able to
see if a person has been arrested or is subject to a protection order, but can also
see if he has a current CPO case pending.
Instituting a new GPS Tracking System for Repeat Domestic Violence Offenders
is duplicative and the cost and resources necessary to establish and maintain
an online database may divert limited and critical victim services funding at a
time of unprecedented fiscal strain on District programs.

The D.C. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) is already
utilizing GPS technology for domestic violence offenders.

In 2005, CSOSA created a policy for tracking domestic violence offenders using
GPS technology. CSOSA is currently monitoring offenders (including sex
offenders and domestic violence offenders).3

However, the monitoring in D.C. is passive rather than active: even for those
offenders deemed “high risk,” teams of Community Service Officers are only
required to review the GPS tracking daily.4
Please see attached Metropolitan Police Department General Order 302.6 (April 30,
1992)
2
In 2002 CourtView Justice Solutions helped the courts by providing an integrated court
case management solution bringing cost savings and efficiencies to both the courts and
the legal community. With this new system, the D.C. implemented an eFiling system
that integrated in CourtView Justice Solutions court management system. Users are now
able to file, track, send, and receive court documents electronically over the Internet—
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
3
Please see attached CSOSA Policy Statement 4008
4
More on the distinction between so-called “active” and “passive” monitoring systems
will follow. “Active” monitoring, the most effective and responsible model, has been
instituted in other jurisdictions. Again, this is something that requires a strong
infrastructure and significant resources to support – resources that we would much
1
-3-

Only offenders under the purview of CSOSA are eligible for GPS monitoring. As
CSOSA is the parole/probation agency in D.C., only those individuals who have
been convicted of a crime or are on probation (per a plea agreement, etc) are
eligible.

Currently offenders who are subject to protection orders are not eligible to be
placed under GPS monitoring unless a judge orders it and both the Assistant U.S.
Attorney and the offender’s defense counsel agree.

When GPS tracking is ordered for domestic violence offenders, the maximum
amount of time it can be authorized is 90 days.
There are different ways to monitor offenders by GPS technology which vary in
methodology, cost, and effectiveness.

There are generally two ways one can monitor GPS activity: “passively” or
“actively.” A passive monitoring system enables the responsible authority to
review the subject’s whereabouts periodically -- most commonly, this is done at
most once a day. By contrast, in an active monitoring system, the responsible
authority or subcontractor consistently monitors subject’s whereabouts
throughout the day, and thus, in theory, can respond immediately upon an
infraction.
When it comes to GPS Tracking Systems, states get what they pay for – and so
do the victims that will come to rely on this promise of an additional layer of
protection.


There are many factors that have a direct bearing on the cost of a GPS tracking
system for offenders. Just a few of these include:
o
The type of tracking system (passive vs. active) 5;
o
Existing and necessary infrastructure for the responsible implementation
and monitoring of the tracking system6; and
o
The availability of personnel and resources to support timely and effective
response by law enforcement and other first responders in the event of a
breach.
Because of the high costs associated with a comprehensive GPS tracking system
for offenders, other jurisdictions have deemed proposals of this nature costprohibitive in today’s economic climate.
rather see go, at this time, towards prevention and intervention services for victims of
domestic violence.
5
While active monitoring is far more safe and useful than passive monitoring, it is on
average also more costly. For example, in Connecticut it costs $12.95 per day for active
GPS tracking of offenders and $6.45 a day for passive tracking. In Minnesota it costs
$17 per day for active and $12 for passive. In Colorado it costs $15.50 for active
monitoring of offenders and $8.50 for passive. Active monitoring in Iowa costs between
$4.75 to 7.25 daily. Passive monitoring in Louisiana costs $2.50 a day. In New York City
for example, it costs $15.00 a day to pay for monitoring an offender with a GPS device.
6
Some estimates are between $10 and $300 a month to monitor offenders in order to
pay for the bracelets, GPS servers and software, and salaries for people operating the
computers.
-4-
o
For example, while the California General Assembly is interested in
advancing legislation similar to the draft bill, the economic climate has
forced them to put the idea on hold until they have the resources
necessary to responsibly institute and support a GPS monitoring system.
D.C. does not currently have in place the resources to establish an effective
GPS monitoring system. This proposal may divert limited and critical victim
services funding at a time of unprecedented fiscal strain on District programs.

A jurisdiction typically contracts with a company to monitor GPS, purchase the
GPS equipment, paying the salaries of high-risk assessors, etc before the courts
are authorized to require defendants to participate in GPS monitoring. These
contracts are costly and must be taken into account.

Furthermore, unlike sexual offenders, domestic violence abusers are often
evaluated on the basis of “high-risk” versus “low-risk” to determine who should
get a bracelet. Therefore, if this type of assessment program is utilized, costs
must also be built in to pay the salaries of those professionals who conduct these
specialized, yet critical tests.

D.C. should not pass this legislation without a secure, identified funding
mechanism for its implementation. Other states which have passed laws without
dedicated funding have seen negative consequences.
o
For example, Hawaii passed legislation to establish GPS tracking for
offenders, but did not including a funding mechanism. The Hawaii statute
provides the judiciary has one year to implement the GPS provisions.
o
In March of 2009, a woman who received a protection order against an
abuser was brutally killed by the offender.
o
In the aftermath, members of the HI judiciary were interviewed and
stated that the offender had no GPS because there is simply no money to
implement the system.
D.C. does not currently have in place the necessary infrastructure for the
successful implementation of this type of legislation.

Several jurisdictions around the country have special community teams that are
trained to assess high-risk sex offenders. When judges refer offenders to
undergo a danger assessment to determine whether it is appropriate for a
particular offender to be subject to GPS monitoring, these teams are usually the
agencies that conduct this assessment.

Because the decision about which persons should be subject to GPS monitoring is
critical to ensuring victim safety, it is incredibly important that competent
professionals provide this screening and assessment. Unfortunately, D.C. does
not have these types of teams, nor do the anti-domestic violence organizations in
the District have the capacity to carry out this function.

GPS technology has limitations if there is poor cell phone coverage (how would
this work for the metro system when the person with the GPS is underground
and doesn’t have cell reception for instance?).
-5
Furthermore, monitored zones must be large enough so that victims can be
alerted of a breach with sufficient time to react. In D.C., a relatively condensed
city, this may be difficult to accommodate.

This legislation might have unintended consequences for D.C.’s jails, which are
under-resourced and operating beyond capacity.

The majority of states who have implemented GPS programs allow a pretrial defendant the option to choose and pay for GPS monitoring as a
condition of getting out of jail. If the defendant cannot afford to pay for
the monitoring, then they must stay in jail. This system creates a
number of problems for D.C. since our jail system are already
overburdened and at capacity.

Many states require that an offender pay for his bracelet or stay in jail. 7
If the defendant can’t afford to pay the costs of the GPS bracelet and/or
monitoring system in those states often he must remain in prison. In the
District of Columbia, jails are overcrowded and defendants are already
being released for lack of capacity. This might create or exacerbate a
situation that D.C. does not have the resources to address.
As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill which authorize judges in civil
proceedings to impose conditions of release are impracticable.

Domestic violence victims can seek relief/accountability through civil court as well
as criminal court. Protection orders are obtained through civil court, and
convictions for acts of domestic violence (Intrafamily Offenses) occur in criminal
court.

In civil proceedings, judges do not have the authority to impose conditions of
release on the defendant because as it is a civil process, the defendant is not
being released from any criminal justice facility.

It appears that the intent of the legislation may be to hold repeat domestic
violence offenders more accountable, which we strongly support. If so, the
legislation should give criminal judges the ability to impose these conditions.

The overwhelming majority of states with existing GPS legislation only allow for
GPS devices to be used in criminal cases, whether pre-trial or post-trial, and
rarely is GPS available for civil protective orders.
At this time several states are considering GPS legislation but are running into
substantial and varied obstacles.
For example: Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan (unless defendant agrees to do community
service), New Hampshire (generally), Oklahoma (if ordered by the court), Utah (if
ordered by the court), Washington (if ordered by the court), New York City and, to a
lesser degree, Massachusetts. This also raises the issue that the bill, as currently
drafted, does not make it sufficiently clear who would be responsible for the cost of the
tracking mechanisms, nor are there any guidelines as to which authorities within the
District would be responsible for monitoring the implementation of this system and/or
the proposed offender database.
7
-6
States that have already implemented programs to monitor domestic violence
offenders with GPS technology have run into unintended and unforeseen
problems.
o
For example, Michigan has not been able to actually implement the
program in many jurisdictions because of a lack of financial resources.
This proposal could have unintended negative consequences for
victims/survivors of domestic violence.

The institution of a GPS tracking system will send victim/survivors the message
that D.C. has the resources and ability to jump to assist them at the simple
signal of a tracking device. While the Metropolitan Police Department and other
first responders do a tremendous job responding to domestic-related calls, they
are already operating under extremely tight budgets and may not be amenable to
a mandate that they might not realistically be able to meet.

Conversely, even a single incident if law enforcement is unable to reach a victim
in time to assist in the event of a breach by the defendant and/or a technical
error which causes the GPS tracking device to fail, will send the message to
victims/survivors that despite all of these high-tech mechanisms, the system is
truly unable to protect them.

Furthermore, this proposal appears to be premised on the assumption that (and
send the message to victims/survivors) that simply because victims/survivors will
have advance notice that their abuser is violating the order or terms of release
that they’ll be safer. Area providers and programs are already struggling to
make ends meet and in serious need of resources to stabilize existing programs
and services. Where will a victim/survivor who has been panicked turn? With
extremely overburdened social service systems and a lack of existing resources,
where will they go when panicked by the triggering of the monitoring device?
The draft legislation contains at least one erroneous cite to D.C. law and we are
happy to offer technical assistance to resolve this.

While we understand that the language we have reviewed is in draft format, the
Coalition has identified some technical drafting issues, including an improper cite
to the Intrafamily Offenses Act. We are more than happy to provide technical
assistance to resolve these issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer our comments and feedback on this
legislative proposal. As a result of these concerns, we respectfully ask that
CM Brown reconsider the proposed registry and GPS tracking system, and
work with DCCADV and its members to identify and implement an
appropriate alternative.
Please contact Rebecca O’Connor, DCCADV Policy Director, at 202.299.1181
or boconnor@dccadv.org with questions, concerns, and for technical
assistance.