Use of Violence Against Women Act STOP Funds to Courts

Transcription

1 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA Use of Violence Against Women Act STOP Funds to Courts Results of a Survey of State Court VAW Points of Contact August 11, 2015 Prepared for This project is supported by Cooperative Agreement No 2014-TA-AX-K045 awarded by the Office of Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice.

2 Executive Summary In February 2015, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) surveyed State Court Violence Against Women (VAW) Points of Contact to determine how Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) STOP funds are allocated to and used by courts. Under the STOP block grant program, each state or territory must allocate at least five percent of their STOP monies to court entities including state, local, and tribal courts. This report is based on survey responses from 46 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Three key findings are highlighted below. 1. Nearly all states have a designated VAW point of contact at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). According to the survey and responses to queries, only four states or territories American Samoa, Michigan, Northern Mariana Islands, and Wyoming were not able to identify a designated VAW Point of Contact in the AOC. This represents a significant increase since the first survey was carried out in 2003, in which about half of all states/territories (26) had a VAW Point of Contact. In most instances, the VAW Point of Contact is a formally recognized position. In other instances, the designation of an individual to serve in this capacity is an informal appointment and contingent on certain activities, such as completing a survey or participating in a Workshop or conference. 2. Most respondents reported improvements in the allocation of the five percent set-aside, their participation in planning and priority setting, and coordination with the STOP administering agency. Three data points suggest improved relations and dissemination of set-aside funds in most states. First, nearly three of every four respondents (74%) stated that the courts were receiving the entirety of the five percent set-aside a sizeable increase from the 53 percent reported in Second, the percentage of respondents indicating the AOC does not have a defined role in the distribution of STOP funds declined from a high of 38 percent in 2003 to an all-time low in 2015 of 16 percent (8 states). Third, the majority of respondents indicated that coordination between the AOC and the STOP administering agency had stayed the same (28) or improved (15) since the 2012 survey. Six states indicated, however, that coordination had worsened since STOP funds are most commonly used to support judicial and court staff training, especially in the areas of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The majority of respondents reported that STOP funds were used to train judges and judicial officers (73%) and court staff (67%). The use of STOP funds for court staff training is a marked increase from previous years, as are review/assessment of policies and procedures, hiring court staff, and developing judicial resource guides. By prevalence, the issues addressed in STOP-funded projects are domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, teen dating violence, human trafficking, and state-tribal coordination. Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 1

3 History and Background The STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program provides formula grants to states to develop and strengthen the justice system s response to violence against women and to support and enhance services for victims. Courts were not eligible for funds as direct recipients under the landmark 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In the 2001 reauthorization, a 5 percent set-aside in the state STOP grants was established for state courts, which was defined to include state, local and tribal courts. Some courts, however, had difficulty in accessing these funds for court-based initiatives. In 2013, VAWA was reauthorized and included a change in language that mandates that 5 percent of STOP funds be allocated to courts instead of for courts. The 2013 VAWA also mandates that the state STOP administering agency develop implementation plans after consulting and coordinating with enumerated entities within the State, including coalitions, victim services, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, representatives from underserved populations, and others. In 2009, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), in partnership with the Conference of State Court Administrators Courts (COSCA) Courts, Children and Families Committee, entered into a cooperative agreement with the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). Under this collaboration, in 2010 NCSC and COSCA convened the National Leadership Summit on State Court Responses to Domestic Violence in New Orleans, Louisiana. A key goal of the Summit was to foster communication between the grant administering agency and AOC in each state and territory and to encourage state court administrators to designate state court VAW points of contact. In 2014, NCSC, in consultation with a planning subcommittee from COSCA, entered into a new cooperative agreement with OVW. Under this agreement, NCSC s technical assistance program includes a partnership with Legal Momentum to provide resources on sexual assault, convening a workshop of State Court VAW Points of Contact, administration of a travel assistance fund, enhancement of the project website ( presentation of webinars on emerging issues, and documentation of STOP-funded court projects and activities. NCSC carried out STOP surveys of state court administrators or their designees in 2003, 2008, and In February 2015, NCSC surveyed state court VAW points of contact to assess their progress and any changes in how VAWA STOP funds are allocated and used by the courts (see Appendix A). A cover letter with a link to an online survey was sent to all members of COSCA. State court administrators were asked to identify the VAW point of contact, who completed the survey in most instances. Respondents representing 49 states/territories responded, for a response rate of 88 percent (see Appendix B for a list of respondents). When possible, results from the current survey are presented with results from prior years' surveys for comparison. 1 1 Only 21 states responded to all four surveys. Trend data in this report is based on the entire sample of respondents from each survey. Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 2

4 State Court VAW Points of Contact According to the survey and responses to queries, only four states or territories American Samoa, Michigan, Northern Mariana Islands, and Wyoming were not able to identify a designated VAW Point of Contact in the AOC. In most instances, the VAW Point of Contact is a formally recognized position. In other instances, the designation of an individual to serve in this capacity is an informal appointment and contingent on certain activities, such as completing a survey or participating in a Workshop or conference. Appendix C provides contact information for those who serve in this capacity. Responses from the 2003, 2012 and 2015 surveys, combined with our communications with state court administrators in states that did not respond to the survey, show that almost half of all states and territories (26 of 56) reported a designated VAW Point of Contact Position at the time of the 2003 survey. Exhibit 1 demonstrates that 16 additional states/territories created a Point of Contact position between the 2003 and 2012 surveys. Ten states designated VAW Points of Contact within the last three years. A number of states cited the 2010 National Leadership Summit as the impetus for designating a state court VAW Point of Contact. Exhibit 1: State AOCs with DV Points of Contact WA MT ND ME OR ID WY SD MN WI MI NY VT NH MA CT RI CA NV UT CO NE KS IA MO IL IN KY OH WV PA NJ MD DC DE VA AK AZ NM HI TX OK AS AR LA GU MS TN AL MP GA VI NC SC FL PR Time Period Before 2003 Between 2003 and 2012 Between 2012 and 2015 Did not respond to survey Survey Question: Does your state AOC have a designated point of contact on violence against women (VAW) issues (e.g., domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence)? 2 2 Information compiled from inquiries to state court administrators was used to supplement information from the survey. Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 3

5 Allocation of STOP Funds to the Courts Respondents were asked if they were receiving all of the five percent set-aside designated for the courts. In the 2015 survey, just under three-quarters of state respondents (74%) stated that the courts were receiving the five percent set-aside. Four states were not sure (Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota, and Texas) and nine states indicated they do not receive the entire setaside (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin). Eight states (16%) reported that their AOC must compete with local courts and other entities for the set-aside, while four states (8%) were unsure if this was the case. Exhibit 2 shows improvements in the allocation of STOP funds to courts over time. Exhibit 2: AOCs reporting state court receipt of the 5% STOP set-aside 74% 63% 65% 53% Yes No Unsure 18% 20% 19% 16% 24% 22% 18% 8% 2003 (N=40) 2008 (N=31) 2012 (N=45) 2015 (N=49) Survey Question: Are the courts receiving all of the 5 percent set-aside designated for the courts in your state? Distribution of STOP Set-Aside Funds Current VAWA legislation requires that 5 percent of STOP funds go to state courts (tribal courts are included in the definition of state courts. ) Exhibit 3 shows that almost 70 percent of respondents (34) indicated that the AOC received STOP court funds. One-third of respondents indicated that funds also went to local jurisdictions. However, some respondents indicated that STOP court funds were distributed to other agencies or organizations (such as law enforcement agencies, prosecutors offices, probation departments, and providers of judicial training) and/or non-profit organizations. There may be a number of reasons why some state court funds are distributed to non-court entities. For example, in some states the AOC and local courts may Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 4

6 feel that the small amount of funds available do not compensate for the burden of meeting the reporting requirements. In other states, the competitive nature of the grant-making process and/or the historical allocation of funds to non-profit victim advocacy agencies may deter the court from proactively seeking funds. Finally, anecdotal information suggests that some state STOP administering agencies may not be fully complying with the VAWA regulations. When the court set-aside funds go unclaimed, the state STOP administering agency may direct funds to non-court organizations. Exhibit 3: Allotment of STOP funds to organizations (N=49) AOC 34 Local Jurisdictions 16 Other 10 Nonprofits 8 Tribal Courts 2 Respondents could select more than one organization; therefore, the numbers exceed 49. Survey question: Where are the STOP court funds allotted? Check all that apply. AOC Roles in Grant Distribution and Priority Setting The role of the AOC in STOP grant distribution and in the identification of court needs and priorities varies among states. Exhibit 4 compares findings of the 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2015 surveys regarding the AOC role in these aspects of the STOP program. Since 2008, the number of states in which the AOC submits a single STOP application for the courts and distributes the STOP funds for statewide projects and local courts has remained consistent about 50 percent. The graph shows two positive trends. First, since 2003, the percentage of AOCs serving in an advisory role has doubled (up from 13% to 27%) and the percentage of AOCs that reported having no role in the distribution of funds or identification of priorities dropped by half (down from 38% to 16%). Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 5

7 Exhibit 4: AOC s Role in STOP Grant Distributions and Identification of Needs The AOC submits a single STOP application for the courts and distributes the STOP funds for statewide projects and to local courts. 23% 42% 50% 51% The AOC coordinates the local STOP applications, but has no role in the distribution of funds. The AOC serves as an advisory role to the state agency that makes the distribution decisions. The AOC has no defined role. 5% 3% 2% 4% 13% 16% 23% 22% 27% 23% 29% 38% 2003 (N=39) 2008 (N=31) 2012 (N=45) 2015 (N=49) Other 0% 4% 2% 23% Survey Question: What is the AOC s current role in STOP grant distributions and the identification of court needs and priorities? Please select the most pertinent role. Coordination Between the AOC and the STOP Agency The survey included a question regarding the level of coordination between the AOC and the state STOP administering agency. Respondents were asked to indicate any change in coordination since the previous survey on a scale that ranged from much worse to much better, with an option of no change. Results are shown in Exhibit 5. In 2015, over half of respondents (28) reported no change in coordination; eleven (22%) reported that coordination is better and four (8%) indicated it is much better. Respondents from five states indicated that coordination was worse (10%), and one reported much worse coordination. Communication was the primary impetus behind improved AOC and STOP administering agency coordination, with eight of the eleven states citing better communication and information sharing as the reason for improved coordination. Additional reasons for improvement include personnel changes, new federal rules governing strategic planning, the establishment of a single point of contact for STOP grant-related issues, and the addition of an AOC representative to the statewide STOP Planning Committee. Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 6

8 Respondents reporting declines in coordination attributed the deterioration to various factors, including high levels of staff turnover and vacancies within the AOC, lack of communication, the administering agency s decision to cease funding the AOC point of contact position and subsequent decisions to exclude AOC representation on the Planning Committee, and the administering agency s rejection of the AOC s 2014 application because it did not conform with the existing STOP project design. Exhibit 5: Changes in Coordination Between the AOC and State STOP Administering Agency between 2012 and 2015 (N=49) Much Worse Worse No Change Better Much Better Survey Question: In the last three years, how has coordination changed between the AOC and the state STOP administering agency? AOC Methods of Reporting as a STOP Sub-grantee In the past, some state court administrators expressed reluctance in proactively seeking STOP funds because they perceived the reporting requirements to be burdensome. To examine this concern, a question was added to the 2015 survey to document the types of reports AOC grant recipients were required to submit to STOP administering agencies. The analysis was limited to the 34 states in which respondents indicated that the AOC had received STOP funds. The state AOC may be responsible for completing more than one reporting form. In fact, respondents from nineteen of the thirty-four states (56%) indicated they use two different methods of reporting. The most common type of reporting is the OVW Progress Report Form, with twenty- Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 7

9 nine states (85%) indicating they use this method. The second most common type of reporting is the use of a statewide form developed by the STOP administering agency; twenty-three states (68%) report using this method. One respondent (3%) indicated that informal reporting methods were used. AOC Representation on the STOP Planning Committee Under VAWA 2013, state STOP administering agencies must consult and collaborate with courts in developing their STOP implementation plans. The Act does not require that the AOC specifically be consulted; some states include local jurisdiction judges in their planning efforts to meet this requirement. The inclusion of an AOC representative on a planning committee or implementation team however is a positive sign of collaboration. A new question on the 2015 survey asked respondents about the courts representation on the statewide STOP Planning Committee. Nearly three-quarters of the states (36) indicated that they have a representative from the AOC, while five (10%) do not, and eight (16%) were unsure whether they have AOC representation on the statewide STOP Planning Committee. Among the five states that do not have representation, three were unaware of the STOP Planning Committee s formal meetings, one was not asked to assign a court representative, and one state reported that the courts are represented by a staff person from a judge s office. Use of STOP Funds and Ongoing Technical Assistance Needs As demonstrated in Exhibit 6, training for judges and court staff are the most popular uses of STOP funds three of every four respondents stated that STOP funds were used for judicial training. On the one hand, the 2015 survey showed marked increases in the use of funds for court staff training, the review of policies and procedures, and hiring court staff. On the other hand, support for programs for victims declined, perhaps as a result of the change in statutory language clarifying that STOP court funds go to courts. Project details can be found on the website. Exhibit 6: Use of STOP Funds for State Courts N=40 N=31 N=45 N=49 Percentage of Respondents Training for judges and/or judicial officers Training for court staff Developing judicial resource guides (e.g., benchbooks) Review/assessment of policies and procedures Hiring court staff (e.g., clerks, coordinators, judicial officials) Technology acquisition and/or data collection (e.g., protection order registries, kiosks) Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 8

10 Supporting problem-solving courts or dockets (e.g., domestic violence courts) Supporting court participation in coordinated community responses Funding an AOC point of contact Supporting programs for victims (e.g., advocacy programs, visitation centers) Supporting programs for offenders (e.g., batterer intervention programs) Supporting pre-trial services Other Respondents could select more than one activity; therefore, the percentages exceed 100 percent. Survey question: How are the STOP funds used by the state courts in your state? Check all that apply. The 2015 survey was the first to inquire about the allocation of STOP funds to the various purpose areas of VAWA. As Exhibit 7 indicates, domestic violence is the VAW issue most commonly supported by STOP court funds (96%), followed by sexual assault (71%) and stalking (65%). Over a quarter of states are using STOP funds to address human trafficking, which is an issue of growing concern in state courts. Exhibit 7: States using STOP funds to support VAW issues (N=49) Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Stalking Teen Dating Violence Human Trafficking State-Tribal Collaboration Respondents could select more than one issue; therefore, the numbers exceed 49. Survey question: Please identify the issues supported by the court set-aside STOP funds. Check all that apply. Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 9

11 Promising Court-Based Programs The survey asked respondents to identify STOP-funded projects in their states/territories that appear to be promising (for more detailed descriptions of the projects funded by STOP funds in each state, see The identified projects and programs are summarized in the following categories: 1. Training Programs a. Training judicial officers, treatment providers, probation officers, and marshals (Guam) b. Training Family Court judges on trauma in domestic violence and sexual assault cases (Hawaii) c. Louisiana Protective Order Registry Regional Training Modules (Louisiana) d. Judicial training and education (North Carolina, Pennsylvania) e. Training judges and court staff on orders of protection (New Mexico) f. Domestic Relations Court Summit (Ohio) g. Court-wide domestic violence training (Utah) h. E-Learning for court staff (Wisconsin) i. Training for new judges and court staff (Nebraska) 2. Problem-Solving/Coordinated Approaches a. Domestic Violence Court (Arizona) b. Las Vegas Domestic Violence Justice Court (Nevada) c. Community Safety Assessment of the temporary restraining order process (Hawaii) 3. Risk Assessment Tools a. Bench guide for recognizing risk in potentially lethal cases (Virginia) b. Statewide implementation of the Lethality Assessment Project (New Hampshire) c. Development of a domestic violence and sexual assault risk factor tool (New York) 4. Technology Solutions and Protection Order Registries a. Duplicative and Conflicting Orders Project (Washington) b. Enhanced reporting of release conditions (Alaska) c. Protection Order Registry (Puerto Rico) d. Domestic Violence Registry (West Virginia) e. California Courts Protective Order Registry (California) 5. Programs for Victims and Offenders a. Domestic Violence Intake Center (District of Columbia) b. Protective Order Advocacy Representation Project (Maryland) c. Pro bono programs designed to provide legal assistance to survivors (Montana) d. Law Enforcement Advocates (Rhode Island) e. Funding for Batterer Intervention Programs (Connecticut, Missouri) 6. Relinquishment of Firearms a. Rules of court on relinquishment of firearms procedures (California) b. Surrender of firearms project (Washington) c. Firearms surrender protocol (Wisconsin) Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 10

12 Top Priorities Regarding the Usage of STOP Funds and Strategies to Address Priorities Survey respondents were asked to identify their top three priorities regarding the usage of STOP funds in their state or territory. Forty-three of the 49 survey respondents (88%) provided answers to this question. Training and education is the most common need by far, with 33 of 43 states (77%) identifying this priority. Technology solutions are the second highest category, with 8 states (19%) citing it as a top priority. Examples include information sharing, protective order registries, and e-filing. Two categories improved accessibility and victims services ranked as the third most common priorities; each was cited by 7 states (16%). Examples of improved accessibility include language services and interpreters, translation of forms, and services geared toward underserved populations. Victims services focused on legal representation and sexual assault services. Five states (12%) identified three additional priorities: coordinated community response efforts, improved data collection and analysis, and the development of judicial resource guides. The survey also asked if the AOC had implemented a formal strategy to address the state s priority areas. Twenty of the forty-nine states that responded to the survey (41%) have a formal strategy in place, while twenty-two (45%) do not. Respondents in 7 states (14%) were unsure if they have a formal strategy in place. Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts 11

13 Appendix A Please provide your contact information: Name: address: State/territory: 1. Would you like to receive a copy of the survey report when it becomes available? Yes No 2. Are you the designated AOC point of contact on violence against women (VAW) issues (e.g., domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence) for your state/territory? Yes No 3. Does your state/territory administrative office of the courts have a designated point of contact on VAW issues? Yes No Unsure 4. When was the designated VAW point of contact position established in your state/territory? Less than a year ago Between 1 and 5 years ago Over 5 years ago Unsure 5. How likely is your state/territory AOC to have a designated point of contact on violence against women issues in the foreseeable future? Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very Unlikely Unknown Current Allocation of STOP Funds for Courts 6. Are the courts receiving all of the 5 percent set-aside designated for the courts in your state/territory? Yes No Unsure 7. Does the AOC compete with local courts and other entities for the 5 percent set-aside? Yes No Unsure 8. Does the AOC have a representative on the VAWA state planning committee (the body responsible for developing the STOP implementation plan)? Yes No Unsure Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts A-1

14 9. Please indicate the reason the AOC currently has no representative on the VAWA state/territory planning committee. Check all that apply The AOC declined to send a representative. The AOC was not requested to assign a court representative to the planning committee. The AOC is not aware of formal meetings of the planning committee. The state/territory planning committee uses local court officials to represent the courts. Other, please specify: 10. What is the AOC's current role in STOP grant distributions and the identification of court needs and priorities? Please select the most pertinent role The AOC submits a single STOP application for the courts and distribute the STOP funds for statewide projects and to local courts. The AOC coordinates the local STOP applications, but has no role in the distribution of funds. The AOC serves in an advisory role to the state/territory agency that makes the distribution decisions. The A OC has no defined role. Other, please specify: 11. Where are the STOP court funds allotted? Check all that apply Administrative Office of Courts Local jurisdictions Tribal courts Nonprofit community-based organizations Other, please specify: 12. In the last three years, how has coordination changed between the AOC and the state/territory STOP administering agency? Much better Better No change Worse: Please specify how: Much worse: Please specify how: 13. What accounts for the change in the level of coordination between the AOC and the STOP administering agency? 14. Please select the reporting forms the AOC is asked to complete as a STOP sub-grantee. Check all that apply OVW Progress Report form Statewide form developed by the STOP administering agency Informal reporting methods rather than standardized forms There are no STOP-related reporting requirements for the AOC Other, please specify: Current Use of STOP Funds and Ongoing Needs 15. Please identify the issues supported by the court set-aside STOP funds: Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts A-2

15 Check all that apply Sexual assault Human trafficking Stalking Teen dating violence Domestic violence State-tribal court collaboration Other, please specify: 16. How are the STOP funds used by the courts in your state/territory? Check all that apply Training Review/assessment of policies and procedures Hiring/funding court staff (e.g., clerks, coordinators, judicial officers, VAW POC) Supporting court participation in coordinated community responses Developing judicial resource guides (e.g., "benchbooks") Technology acquisition and/or data collection (e.g., protection order registries, kiosks) Supporting pre-trial services Supporting problem-solving courts or dockets (e.g., domestic violence courts) Supporting programs for offenders (e.g., batterer intervention programs) Supporting programs for victims (e.g., advocacy programs, visitation centers, underserved populations) Improving language access by providing translation or interpretation services Other, please specify: 17. Who was trained using STOP funds? Check all that apply Judges and/or judicial officers Court Staff Other, please specify: 18. What staff were hired or funded using STOP funds? Check all that apply VAW point of contact Other state/territory AOC staff Local jurisdiction staff Other, please specify: 19. Please describe any technology acquisition and/or data collection products funded by the STOP grant. 20. Please describe any products developed using STOP funds. 21. Which STOP-funded project(s) in your state/territory, if any, appear to be promising in addressing violence against women? Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts A-3

16 22. In what areas do the courts want technical assistance regarding the STOP program? 23. What are your current TOP three priorities regarding the usage of STOP funds in your state/territory? Priority 1: Priority 2: Priority 3: 24. Does the AOC have a formal strategy for addressing those priority areas? Yes No Unsure 25. Please describe your progress in addressing those priority areas. Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts A-4

17 Appendix B Responding States and Territories in 2015 * Alabama * Illinois * Nebraska * South Carolina * Alaska * Indiana * Nevada * South Dakota * Arizona * Iowa * New Hampshire * Tennessee * Arkansas * Kansas * New Mexico * Texas * California * Kentucky * New York * Utah Colorado * Louisiana * North Carolina * Virginia * Connecticut * Maine * North Dakota * Washington * Delaware * Maryland * Ohio * Washington, DC * Florida * Massachusetts * Oklahoma West Virginia * Georgia * Minnesota * Oregon * Wisconsin * Guam * Mississippi * Pennsylvania * Hawaii * Missouri * Puerto Rico * Idaho * Montana * Rhode Island * Indicates that the responding state has an AOC Point of Contact on Violence Against Women issues Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts B-1

18 Appendix C VAW Points of Contact State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut VAW Point of Contact Karen Trussell karen.trussell@alacourt.gov Wendy Lyford wlyford@courts.state.ak.us Kay Radwanski kradwanski@courts.az.gov Rebekah Tucci rebekah.tucci@arkansas.gov Bonnie Hough bonnie.hough@jud.ca.gov Jennifer Mendoza jennifer.mendoza@judicial.state.co.us James De Bowes james.debowe@jud.ct.gov Delaware District of Columbia Florida Amy Quinlan amy.quinlan@state.de.us Cheryl Bailey cheryl.bailey@dcsc.gov Kathleen Tailer tailerk@flcourts.org Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts C-1

19 Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Stacey Seldon Erica Unpingco Dela Rosa Maureen Kiehm Amber Moe Margie Groot Ruth D. Reichard Rebecca Kinnamon Mark Gleeson Miriam Wagner Ramona Harris Hartwell Dowling David R. Shultie Anna F. Evans Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts C-2

20 Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Melia Garza Ta Shia S. Gordon Kelly Cramer Patty Fain Jennifer Kirkpatrick Jamie Gradick Sarah Fox David Broselli Patricia Galindo Hon. Deborah Kaplan McKinley Wooten Cathy Ferderer Ohio Diana Ramos-Reardon Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts C-3

21 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington Sue Tate Rebecca Orf Amy Kehner Carmen Sanfeliz Ramos Veronica Hobbs Tonnya Kennedy Kohn Denise Wilson Mary Rose Zingale Kim Piechowiak Valerie Paul Laura Dolgin Glendia Caines Madelynn Herman Pam Dittman Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts C-4

22 Wisconsin West Virginia Sara Ward-Cassady Angela Saunders Use of VAWA STOP Funds to Courts C-5