Senate Government Oversight Committee, February 26, 2026

Transcript

284 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:16:59

   I think we're close to quorum anyway, but we're not hearing any bills. This is a hearing only. Uh, before we get started, Senator Robertson, will you, uh, lead us in a quick prayer?

2. 0:17:08

   I will.

3. 0:17:11

   Uh, Tim, if you would, uh, be so kind to bow your head. Dear Heavenly Father, we approach you, Lord God, on this beautiful day. We thank you for the rain. We thank you for the blessings. We thank you for the joy that you bring into each and every one of our lives each day. We pray for those, Lord God, that walk through life and look for that same joy, and we ask, God, that you bring the light that they need. We ask today that you open our hearts and our minds, Lord God, that we listen and absorb the information we're given today so that we can turn around and use it to better the lives of others.

4. 0:17:42

   We ask all these things in the name of your Son, our Savior, our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.

5. 0:17:50

   Thank you, sir. Appreciate everyone showing up today. Um, again, this is a hearing in regards to a Department of Audits report that was done in December of 2024 by the request of the, um, House Appropriations Committee. Uh, before we get started, I do wanna say this is not a blame game. This is just about getting information where we need to go. 'Cause this c- commission that we're gonna be discussion, discussing today, the State Victim Service Commission, was actually approved back in 2004.

6. 0:18:24

   That was before any of us up here was elected. Um, I came in 2005, so it's been a while, and this com- commission has never been formed, never met. It has a very important job. It was supposed to g- provide oversight to our LVAP program. So, um, when we looked over this audits report, we thought it was gon- we thought it would be important for the oversight committee to have this hearing. We're gonna ask questions, and we're gonna get the folks together, and let's get some guidance to see where we need to go.

7. 0:19:00

   Is the commission still the best way? If it's not, what is the best way? Is it forming this commission and getting it in place to make sure we have the oversight and the reporting mechanisms in place to make sure the LVAP funds are going where they need to be? Those are the type of things that we wanna hear today. So I think the best way to get started, um, is it Kieffer or Kiefer?

8. 0:19:23

   Kiefer.

9. 0:19:23

   Kiefer. Lisa Kiefer from the, um, Department of Audits is gonna give us an overview of the audit that was performed. I believe you have a PowerPoint that you're gonna go through this as well. So just come to the front. If you need anyone to come with you, if you would please introduce yourselves, and we'll go ahead and let y'all get started.

10. 0:19:49

    Thank you.

11. 0:20:04

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Lisa Kiefer. I'm the executive director with the Georgia Department of Audits of the Performance Audit group, and I'm here with Kristen Castagna.

12. 0:20:18

    We appreciate the opportunity to present the, to the committee our report on the Local Victim Assistance Program. This report, as you said, was released in December of 2024, and it was in response to a House Appropriations Committee request.

13. 0:20:34

    The report was completed, um, and based on the questions that were posed by the committee. So we looked at how funding's collected and remitted, how the funds were distributed and expended, and what oversight's in place.

14. 0:20:52

    Just for a bit of context, as of, of the time of the report, there were 232 LVAPs operating in the state, and the bre- the breakdown by type is shown in this exhibit. Local victim assistance programs are, um, designed to provide information, assistance, support to victims of crime throughout the criminal justice process. And LVAP agencies primarily include governmental entities and such as the victim witness assistance programs in district attorney or solicitor general offices and in nonprofit programs such as domestic violence shelters.

15. 0:21:30

    District attorneys and solicitor general programs usually employ victim, uh, advocates who coordinate services such as crisis intervention and support during the trial process. And nonprofit programs may provide services for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault or child abuse and, or other types of services. In fiscal year 2024, two-thirds of the certified LVAP agencies were nonprofit organizations.

16. 0:22:02

    Prior to 1995, the, most of the funding that was provided for these types of programs was through federal grants, through the, uh, Victims of Crime Act and the, um, Violence Against Women Act. And in 1995, state legislation was passed that established the 5% fee, and that's a penalty that's added to all fines in criminal, uh, imposed on criminal cases. And those fees were designated specifically for the local victim assistance programs.

17. 0:22:33

    The funds are distributed one of two ways. If the county where the fines were collected operates or participates in a certified program, then those funds go to the county governing authority from the court, and then the county governing authority is responsible for dispersing them to the local victim assistance programs in their area as they see fit. If the county where the funds were collected does not operate or participate in a program, then the court sends the funding to the district attorney's office.

18. 0:23:05

    It should be noted that these are court fees. They're not state funds. And in, um, at the time of the report, the fee revenues were increasing since twenty twenty and totaled eleven point two million dollars. That was in twenty twenty-three. So got a minute.

19. 0:23:26

    There are two state entities with statutory responsibilities related to the local victim assistance programs. It's the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and the Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Cooperative Authority. CJCC is responsible for certifying the LVAP programs. So the programs submit an application which CJCC reviews, and if approved, the certification is good for two years, and then the, um, agencies are required to come back to be recertified.

20. 0:23:56

    The certification allows, um, a local victim assistance program to apply for funding, but it does not guarantee that they will receive funding. CJCC is also responsible for compiling reports. It receives monthly reports on court from the courts, um, semi-annual reports from counties, and annual reports from the local victim assistance programs. It's also responsible for submitting an annual compliance report to the General Assembly.

21. 0:24:29

    Courts report their, um, LVAP collections to the Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Cooperative Authority each month, and the authority's fine and fees system automatically generates a monthly report on those collections that is sent to the CJCC.

22. 0:24:49

    Overall, uh, our report found that oversight of these LVAP funds is, is limited. There's a lack of guidance on how the funds can be used most effectively. There's, um, there are also problems with the data, and we identified, um, enough problems that it meant it really wasn't possible to confirm that the funds were appropriately collected, distributed, or used. But in two thousand and four, as you mentioned, the State Victim Services Commission was established, and when we looked at the responsibilities for this one, we thought that, uh, it would potentially address some of the problems that we were seeing.

23. 0:25:29

    It was, well, established in two thousand and four, um, and comprised of a number of stakeholder groups. The only, uh, member that was ever appointed was the district attorney from PAC, so it has never been assembled in its entirety.

24. 0:25:45

    In the next few slides, I'll cover the issues that we identified in more detail, but I wanted to show here what the responsibilities, um, and the statutory authority that was provided to the commission covered. We, like I said, thought that this could potentially address a lot of the areas that we identified. For example, the commission is, um, is allowed to create a statewide plan, which we thought could provide guidance to these entities, and it can review collection and disbursement processes, which we thought could help drive improvements in data collection, and it can assess the provision of services, which we thought would help ensure that the services are provided as intended.

25. 0:26:31

    So now we'll dig a little bit more into the specifics of the report. Um, as I noted earlier, there aren't clear guidelines for how funds are spent, and we found that the LVAP agencies generally did spend the funds on victim services activities. This data is from the twen- the twenty twenty-three survey that we did, uh, for the report, and programs, uh, about a hundred and twenty-six the programs responded to our survey. The darker bars that you see there represent the district attorney's and the solicitor general's responses, and the lighter bars represent the nonprofit programs' responses.

26. 0:27:07

    So we grouped the types of services that these entities reported, um, providing into these three categories. It was the blue bars are the administrative and operating, um, types of services. The orange bars are victim service provision, and then other is in the gray category. Most of the expenses were reported in the admin and operating category. As you can see there, eighty-seven percent of the district attorney and solicitor general programs we surveyed reported spending funds on victim advocate salaries.

27. 0:27:41

    For the nonprofit programs, the, um, largest group reported that sixty percent reported spending, uh, most of their funding on operational expenses.

28. 0:27:57

    In the commission's absence, um, there's no entity that's responsible for establishing spending guidelines or reviewing the extent to which the funds are spent on direct services, so pr- programs are left to make these decisions. Absent the commission, we noted that the General Assembly could consider clarifying the purposes, the int- the intended purposes in the law, um, and we noted that CJCC could develop a set of guidelines. But as I noted, uh, the commission does have authority that seems like it would, it would cover this area as well.

29. 0:28:33

    Next, we noted that data, um, issues meant that we couldn't confirm that funds are appropriately collected, distributed, and used. As it currently stands, oversight's limited to CJCC and the clerk's authority, um, s- responsibilities for compiling the data that is submitted to them from the courts and the counties and the programs. We found gaps and errors in that reporting that, that made the data unreliable. Um, this chart is really just an example that was in the report, and it, it shows the, it shows the problems that we saw with the data because it just simply doesn't look like you would expect.

30. 0:29:10

    Here you see agencies reported receiving more funds than were either collected by the courts or distributed by the counties, so not, not what you would expect.

31. 0:29:24

    We identified several causes for the problems with the reporting. A lack of accountability for entities that either failed to comply with the requirements or that provided, um, incomplete information was one area. CJCC did note, um, during the project that they, um, that their ability to hold these entities responsible was difficult, partly due to resource constraints. We also noted that, uh, staff that we identified at the counties and the program level, um, didn't always understand the requirements for reporting.

32. 0:29:59

    And I mean, a good example of that was we talked to, um, a director at a local victim assistance program, and she thought that the reporting was for the federal grants. So the numbers that she wa- was reporting was, were limited, I mean, were, um, focused on the VOCA and VAWA grants, not on the local victim assistance program fees. We also found that difficulties in the funding processes, uh, created some challenges. So for example, in some cases, the district attorneys' offices are receiving these funds from the courts directly and distributing the funds, but they don't, um, necessarily adhere the same reporting requirements that the counties do when they receive the funds.

33. 0:30:41

    And so that creates some gaps in the, in the data as well. And finally, there's a lack of standards and validation checks within the data, and that means that errors can occur. Um, CJCC, sorry, CJCC staff, uh, noted that they do look for obvious errors, but again, um, the, their staff capacity limits what they can do in some of these areas.

34. 0:31:08

    We did look to see if there was, you know, one area that was, um, that represented most of the problems, and there isn't. The, the issues were ac- across all the entities that were responsible for reporting. We found between twelve and thirty-eight percent of the entities didn't comply in some way with the reporting requirements. So our recommendations in this area were largely directed at CJCC and the, and the Clerk's Authority. However, there also could be a role for the State Victims Commission, um, Services Commission were functional and operating.

35. 0:31:46

    So in addition to the areas that we've already discussed, um, we identified some inconsistencies in roles and processes that created issues, too. Um, these areas were a little less likely to be, I think, solved through the, uh, establishment of that commission, but we wanted to just run through them with you as well. We saw district attorneys and solicitor general programs make up about twenty-eight percent of the certified agencies, but in the period that we were reviewing, they were receiving about seventy-three percent of the funding.

36. 0:32:19

    Some of the disparities that we saw in funding may be because of roles and, um, processes that exist. And finally, we found counties were retaining funds, um, in some cases that were out- outside the statutory provisions that we saw for the, around the purposes and the amounts that could be retained. So I'll go into just a little bit more detail on these.

37. 0:32:44

    So as noted earlier, state law's been interpreted to require that cour- counties receive these funds when a certified LVAP is operating in their, within their boundaries. The state law says that the county governing authority should receive the funds if, quote, "The county where the fine was imposed operates or participates in any victim assistance program certified by the CJCC. Otherwise, the funds go to the DA's office." The CJCC's rules reinforce this interpretation.

38. 0:33:17

    Um, they state that the county must notify CJCC if it's disbursed funds directly to the DA because it, quote, "Doesn't have a certified program." And GSCCCA's training documents also reinforce this, um, when they state that, quote, "All counties have CJCC certified victim assistance programs, so LVAP money should be remitted to the county governing authority for all counties." If the intent was that nonprofit local victim assistant programs were the recipients of these funds and that counties were the ones receiving and disbursing them, that's not always happening.

39. 0:33:56

    Um, we found that courts distributed to district attorneys and solicitor generals and also saw where counties had deferred all of their responsibilities to the DA's offices and the, all the responsibilities for receiving and disbursing those funds.

40. 0:34:15

    So just as an example of the effect of those processes, um, fifty-five district attorney and solicitor general programs responded to a survey question of ours regarding distribution of funds from, that they received from the courts, and twenty-two percent, or twelve programs, said that they keep all the funds. Uh, they don't distribute to any of other local victims', uh, assistance programs in tho- their area. And according to CJCC data, about half of the counties disperse LVAP funds only to district attorney and solicitor general programs.

41. 0:34:50

    Ambiguity in the statute was cited as a reason for some of this, and we, uh, noted in the report that the General Assembly could consider clarifying that language, um, by noting its intention regarding the roles for district attorneys and county governing, um, authorities in, in adminis- in administering this funding.

42. 0:35:14

    When funds are distributed by the counties, um, we saw a, a good bit of variety in the way that that is done. For the majority, there were informal agreements with the programs that guided the distribution. Um, others had formal policies or used budget information to make the decisions. In some cases, the distribution processes have been in place for a long time and, um, back to when the programs began, and there really isn't a policy or protocol for making changes to the system as it currently existed, exists.

43. 0:35:46

    Um, we identified several counties that have implemented processes to improve transparency and allow more opportunities for LVAPS, um, that may become eligible for funding. One example was a county created an advisory committee to review applications and to make funding recommendations based on the number of victims that were served. This is an area that we thought, um, again, logically could be s- part of a state plan if the, um, State Victim Services Commission were i- in operation.

44. 0:36:23

    And then finally, um, the LVAP enabling legislation permits counties to retain a portion of the, um, fees for contingency purposes. It specifies that the reserve amount isn't to exceed 5% of the s- of the funds received by the county in the prior year, nor is it to be used for administrative purposes. However, we found instances of both things occurring. The chart that you're seeing here is based on CJCC, uh, county survey data, and it's from 2020 to '23.

45. 0:36:58

    Each line was a county with a reserve at the time, and the range was from about $200 to $375,000. Um, what you see there in the orange and brown lines, they show up a little bit better, um, it's 14 counties that had reserves that exceeded $50,000. While the statute, um, only authorizes county governments to retain funds, we did find, uh, two district attorneys offices that had also retained funds.

46. 0:37:27

    Ms. Kieffer, can I stop you for one question-

47. 0:37:29

    Sure

48. 0:37:29

    ... for, for a moment? Did you say there were some with up to 375,000 in reserves?

49. 0:37:35

    There was one, yes.

50. 0:37:37

    Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

51. 0:37:42

    Sorry for interrupting you. Go ahead.

52. 0:37:44

    You're fine. That was the, uh, last slide. So the, what I wanted to do here was just recap our recommendations from the report. Um, generally, it was that the State Victim Services Commission being implemented could address some of the issues that we saw, and there was a opportunity for the General Assembly to consider clarifying the roles of, uh, counties and district attorneys and the intended purpose of the funds if so, if they so choose. Um, we said that CJCC could improve, uh, data collection and review processes and provide a guidance, provide additional guidance that aligns with the statute.

53. 0:38:23

    And then, uh, to the Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Cooperative Authority, we noted that they could modify reports to capture, um, to capture more information on which entities the courts, uh, the counties, I'm sorry, which entities the courts are distributing the funds to, and then that could be used to follow up, um, if there are questions that arise.

54. 0:38:48

    So that concludes our presentation. I did wanna recognize, uh, Jana Abraham, Jennifer Morgan, and Peyton Johnson, who are here, who did the work on this report. And, um, and we thank you again for your time and interest in it, and we're happy to take any questions you have.

55. 0:39:04

    We only have a few questions. I do wanna say thank y'all for all your work. Greg Griffin, you got a great team with you that does an amazing job, and we appreciate everything that you do. Um, first question's gonna be from Senator Kirkpatrick. Is that you, number six?

56. 0:39:17

    Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have two quick questions. One is, um, is it possible to get the breakdown of the counties that are, where the DAs and the solicitor generals are keeping the funds and not distributing them?

57. 0:39:32

    Yes, ma'am. We can provide that.

58. 0:39:32

    That'd be great to have. And follow-up, um, on the data piece, uh, we've run into this in another setting with, um, something out of children and families, and, uh, my question is, are there any consequences, understanding there are educational issues and whatever, but for counties that aren't reporting anything or agencies that aren't reporting anything, are there any consequences currently in the law?

59. 0:39:56

    There weren't, there aren't any in the law, no, ma'am.

60. 0:39:59

    Thank you.

61. 0:40:02

    Senator Robertson.

62. 0:40:06

    Thank you. I appreciate your presentation. I'm shocked that Greg didn't do all this work by himself since he's, he's such a beast and he's everywhere all the time. Um, did, the funds that y'all normally audit that are similar to these, do you normally find such a disproportionate amount being used for salaries and operations as opposed to going to the, the individuals that we're targeting?

63. 0:40:32

    So one thing too, um, that we were considering when looking at these funds is the federal funds often prohibit the use of their, of that money for things like salaries, and so state funds m- often don't have those same restrictions, so it can be used for salaries, and that can then be matching for those federal dollars. So we do see, um, state funds and, and fees sometimes being used in that way.

64. 0:41:01

    Um, do, does, do most of these that, that y'all audited or do you know how many of them are also r- receiving federal funding?

65. 0:41:12

    I don't... Do we have that information?

66. 0:41:14

    I don't believe so.

67. 0:41:16

    I think we ... I don't think we have complete information on each of the program's, uh, source of funding-

68. 0:41:22

    Right

69. 0:41:22

    ... and, and able to, being able to categorize it like that. But we can take a look and see what we do have.

70. 0:41:27

    And, and, and finally, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, when, when you completed your report and you submitted the recommendations to the House Appropriations Committee, are you aware of any movement, uh, from over there to address any of these issues?

71. 0:41:38

    We're actually in the process of doing the follow-up right now, um, to find out what actions have been taken, but, but we have just sent the letters requesting information, so I don't have, I don't have full information on that right now.

72. 0:41:50

    Okay. I do appreciate it. And, and thank y'all again for this work. And I, I will tell you, um, and I, and I think the chairman understands, um, my concern and I know his concern is, um, that we had a commission put together that has not been fully staffed, and that, um, it seems to be the Wild Wild West of ... There, there's no consistency in how this is being done. But we would not realize the full scope of this if y'all had not done this incredible work, and I thank you for that.

73. 0:42:22

    Thank you.

74. 0:42:25

    Who's number 13? Senator Harbin.

75. 0:42:28

    Thank you. Thank you for your work and, uh, bringing this. Could I ask this question? You, you talked about victim service activities. Can you define what that is? I mean, uh, that's a broad term that's kinda generic in nature. Can you give me that? Is that, um-

76. 0:42:44

    Let me think about that for a second.

77. 0:42:46

    Try- trying to get an idea of what that, that, that involves.

78. 0:42:49

    So the categories that we, um, that we had kind of outlined in the report were training for staff volunteers, um, and direct shelter supplies, so for people who show up at a shelter if they need clothing or, um, toiletries, that sort of thing. Um, and then direct fi- financial assistance. I think that was things like if someone needed a hotel room, um, while a trial was going on or something like that. I think those are some examples of the different types of services.

79. 0:43:21

    Any other things?

80. 0:43:22

    Um, therapy and counseling services is another big one. Um ...

81. 0:43:27

    That would all be defined as victim service activities.

82. 0:43:30

    Yes, sir.

83. 0:43:31

    Could, could you give me this as ... I w- I was looking at ... Let's, if I could take 2024, 'cause, um, your numbers on the audit is not 2025, I believe. What ... Am, am I correct? Or 2024?

84. 0:43:41

    The, the, uh, numbers in the report are from 2023 and 2024. The, because the report was re- released-

85. 0:43:48

    Okay

86. 0:43:48

    ... in December.

87. 0:43:49

    What was the total amount allocated to the program versus what was the amount that went to victim service activities from that standpoint? Did we ... What was our top number, and then how did it come through the, through, through to the bottom?

88. 0:44:04

    Victim services activities?

89. 0:44:05

    Victim services.

90. 0:44:07

    That might ... I think that's something that we'd have to go back and see if we have it broken down like that in the working papers. It's not, that's not how we reported it in the report.

91. 0:44:15

    Okay.

92. 0:44:16

    Um, but I can, we can go back and see if we have that information.

93. 0:44:18

    But, but am I correct is that the purpose of the program is to help the victims?

94. 0:44:23

    Yes, sir.

95. 0:44:23

    And if we're here, and hear what percentage is coming to the, to the bottom is my, my question.

96. 0:44:29

    Mm-hmm.

97. 0:44:29

    And then, uh, fin- final question is, what, how much of the total is going towards administrative salaries, things of that nature, as a percentage of the total amount being spent?

98. 0:44:42

    I would just add to the first question, like, th- that was part of, one of our findings about the financial reporting is the numbers didn't make sense because the LVAPS that were receiving funds didn't understand, you know, how they were supposed to report it. So we, it didn't seem ... We couldn't reconcile-

99. 0:44:59

    Mm-hmm

100. 0:44:59

     ... okay, the courts received this, and this much was dispersed to the counties, and then this is how much the LVAPS received. Um, and then your second question about administrative expenses, um ... Did you wanna take that one or is that ...

101. 0:45:13

     Um, so, so we broke it down into administrative operating and service, and then victim service provisions, and then other costs. Um, and when we did the county and LVAP survey, we asked, um, what percentage or, or what categories you spent on. So we didn't have a dollar amount that went to admin. We just asked them, like, what categories are you, you spending on? Um, and for example, administrative personnel, personnel salaries, it was about 22% of DA's said that they used funds for that.

102. 0:45:44

     The total funds for '23, '24, the whole, the whole thing, what was that-

103. 0:45:50

     But we didn't put a dollar amount to it. It was more of, of here are the categories of spending.

104. 0:45:55

     We, we don't know the, the total amount of money then-

105. 0:45:58

     That's right

106. 0:45:58

     ... that we're dealing with. Am I correct?

107. 0:46:01

     I think Jenna has the answer.

108. 0:46:04

     Okay.

109. 0:46:04

     There is no central data source. Uh, Could, could you come on up to the front please?

110. 0:46:09

     Mm-hmm.

111. 0:46:09

     Sorry. Just make sure all the thousands listening at home can hear you.

112. 0:46:16

     Sneak right here. There is no statewide data source, which is part of the resource issue. So CJCC or any entity was not able to say, "This is the amount collected in total," confidently. And all of the data that CJCC receives is self-reported.

113. 0:46:32

     Mm.

114. 0:46:33

     So that's why we weren't able to. We would have loved to report that.

115. 0:46:37

     It's just hard to know where you are if you don't know where you've been. And-

116. 0:46:40

     Yes

117. 0:46:40

     ... and I mean, this is, um, I won't say concerning, but if you look at it is that you could not run any kind of private operation and you shouldn't be using the people's money that way. And that's not your fault because they, we wouldn't know this unless we looked at it. But I just was trying to get to, are we getting the money to the people who really need it? And that's the issue I think we're dealing with.

118. 0:47:00

     I think what we have is we were able to put together the amount of funds that were reported, and then we had questions about that reporting.

119. 0:47:08

     Right. Okay.

120. 0:47:08

     And then that's why we moved to a survey to try to look at-

121. 0:47:11

     Gotcha

122. 0:47:11

     ... where they say the funds are being expended. But again, the, the dollar amounts were not reliable.

123. 0:47:17

     Wow. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you for your work.

124. 0:47:20

     Sure.

125. 0:47:23

     Senator Howard.

126. 0:47:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this report. This is incredible information. I just have a couple of questions just for clarity's sake. It looks like, um, 20- uh, 1997 is when the House implemented this, uh, 5% penalty to go toward our victims.

127. 0:47:41

     Mm-hmm.

128. 0:47:42

     Um, when did we actually start collecting the money? Did that happen around the same time that next year?

129. 0:47:49

     S-

130. 0:47:49

     Maybe 1998?

131. 0:47:51

     I, I believe so.

132. 0:47:51

     Okay. So if I were to say our state started collecting money on fees to help victims in 1998, that would be accurate. Is that ... Like, around 1998, that's when we started collecting money. That's-

133. 0:48:08

     The co-

134. 0:48:08

     ... generally accurate?

135. 0:48:10

     Mm-hmm.

136. 0:48:10

     Yeah.

137. 0:48:10

     I think they can an- the co-

138. 0:48:11

     'Cause I, I wanna, like, walk through timeline. There's some major gaps. I feel like I'm reading scripture and, like, Jesus is 12 and then he was 30.

139. 0:48:19

     Good morning. I'm Rachael Rice. I'm the executive director of the GSCCCA. So we are charged with being the central repository to collecting this data from the courts. So that total collected in 2023, y'all pointed out, was about 11 million, 2024. So we've been in this role since 2004. Um, so I would s- I'd have to go check our records, but I know we have, uh... What we instruct courts is that whatever the effective date, any offense that occurred on or after the effective date would be subject to this surcharge.

140. 0:48:53

     So if it went into effect in 1997, then from that point forward, all courts should be-

141. 0:48:59

     Understood

142. 0:49:00

     ... collecting that surcharge.

143. 0:49:00

     And it, and understandable to s- uh, we'd just like to acknowledge if we have big question marks. It's just nice for everybody to know we have question marks. From what I'm hearing, we have very big question marks, 1998, 2000, 2005. We see there's some adjustments in the House Bill 2004, 2006. And then we get all the way to where we start collecting some self-reported data in 2000 to 2003, you know, so that area. So excuse me, 2020 to 2023.

144. 0:49:31

     Mm-hmm.

145. 0:49:31

     So it looks like we have over 20 years of very large question marks where we just don't know. And then when we start asking really important questions, and you can correct me anywhere in this, when we start asking very important questions through this commission over the last few years, then we start getting... We still have question marks, but at least we have some data, and that data is self-reported. So there's not much objective, a lot of subjective information. And, and to the great senator's point here,

146. 0:50:06

     w- there's so many alarming things about this that I, I would pause if anyone, um, is... We move casually about this. Like, uh, what I'm saying is a huge invitation to say, "Oh, we actually need to s- to make sure we have a full investigation." It sounds like we have a very highly trained folks doing an investigation, and what we uncovered was that there is so much more that we don't know.

147. 0:50:38

     And I understand that that can be, like, landminey, you know. Like, nobody wants to point the finger. But at the end of the day, if we're principled folks and we're about taking care of the least of these, this sounds like we have a lot of questions and we need a part two to go deeper, because I'm hearing a lot of question marks, and with big dollar signs connected to it, which is statewide. Who wants to touch it? We should, 'cause that's our job.

148. 0:51:09

     Um, so would I be inaccurate in anything that I said there? 'Cause I don't want to use any hyperbole. I just want to see if I'm accurate. I don't want to leave here with inaccurate sentiment.

149. 0:51:19

     Well, Senator Howard, I'll tell you this much. This is the first hearing. There will be, there will be follow-ups 'cause we're going make sure this money's going where it needs to go. And-

150. 0:51:27

     Yeah

151. 0:51:27

     ... Department of Audits did a great job on getting this information together.

152. 0:51:31

     Yes.

153. 0:51:31

     And this is the first meeting of probably several. But we want to make sure that there's oversight. This is where that commission-

154. 0:51:38

     Yes

155. 0:51:38

     ... was probably supposed to come into play in 20- or 2004.

156. 0:51:42

     Okay.

157. 0:51:42

     And was just never set up. So, um, I wanna say thank y'all again. We do want to bring up CJCC and s- and the courts again to ask them some questions, let them make some comments. And, uh, but we appreciate that very much 'cause, um-

158. 0:51:56

     Thank you

159. 0:51:56

     ... it's 8:40, so-

160. 0:51:58

     Okay

161. 0:51:58

     ... but we-

162. 0:51:58

     I would-

163. 0:51:59

     This is not a short report, and it's something that, yes, we need to move quick, but we also want to make sure we move right and do it correctly, so.

164. 0:52:06

     And I would, I would just note that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council has been overseeing the programs, and they have been collecting information and, and doing oversight of these programs. I think a lot of the problems that we saw were related to a lack of resources for doing that, and the variety and lack of clarity within some of the requirements or the statutory requirements. And so, uh, the programs haven't been operating without any oversight. I just want to make sure that that's, that that's clear. Okay.

165. 0:52:35

     Thank y'all.

166. 0:52:36

     Thank you.

167. 0:52:38

     Director Jay Neal and Rachael Rice, if y'all could come on up. Oh, she's already up.

168. 0:52:49

     Jay, I think we've known each other for a while, but-

169. 0:52:51

     Yes

170. 0:52:51

     ... if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself, and Ms. Rice, if you want to introduce yourself and who you're with, we'd greatly appreciate it.

171. 0:52:57

     I'm Jay Neal, the executive director of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

172. 0:53:01

     And I'm Rachael Rice, the executive director of the Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Cooperative Authority.

173. 0:53:08

     A lot of initials going in there.

174. 0:53:10

     Yes.

175. 0:53:11

     Um, I know that me and, uh, Director Neal have spoke in the past about this commission. Um, I think to you, but to the courts. But if you would, uh- Briefly kind of give us a breakdown, 'cause without this commission, it kind of defaults back to y'all. Um, what kind of reporting do you have? How do you check on these things, make sure it's being done properly? And just kind of give us an overthr- overview on how this commission could help.

176. 0:53:41

     So f- f- first of all, let me just say that, uh, that I think the Department of Audits did a really good job outlining the statutory authorities that we have, uh, at CJCC. We have very limited authority. Uh, we really have no authority, uh, statutorily. Uh, we are to certify the victim service programs, um, and, and we do that. We already have to do that through, uh, our responsibility as a administrator of the federal, uh, victim service, uh, grant.

177. 0:54:13

     Uh, uh, so, uh, that's, uh, just something that we already did anyway. Uh, but we have the, the responsibility of certifying the LVAP programs. Uh, and then we collect reports and we post reports. Um, we have no appropriations at all, uh, to, to manage this, um, so we have to utilize, uh, uh, employees that are being paid, um, through our, our state appropriations in general, uh, which is not, uh, uh, a significant amount.

178. 0:54:49

     A lot of our staff, uh, is paid by the grant programs that they're operating on. And we are very specific with our time sheets. Any work that they do has to be assigned to that grant. Um, we're able to pull some state appropriations to, uh, to, to get the work that we need just to, to comply with our, our statutory responsibilities. There's no resource for us to do anything more than that. I w- I will say this just to clarify a little bit about the victim services.

179. 0:55:22

     Um, victim ... Th- there, there's ... I, I felt like there was some confusion in that conversation about what is victim services and what is not. Uh, we administer the, the federal grant programs, VOCA, VAWA, other grant programs that provide, uh, victim services. Employees who are providing direct victim services are considered, uh, victim services through those grant programs. So when you're talking about some of these employees that are being paid by these funds, if they are providing direct victim services, that is a victim service.

180. 0:56:01

     Um, victim services is more, although it's part of it, it's more than the financial assistance and the other things. It is, it's also the advocate that's facilitating that, the advocate that's working with that victim to make sure that they're getting connected to those resources. Uh, even an administrator can have a portion of their salary charged to victim services for the time that they spend supervising the people that are providing those direct victim services.

181. 0:56:32

     With our grant programs, uh, the, the employees that are funded through VOCA and VAWA, which we can speak a lot to that because we're, we're funded and we do a lot of oversight. We're, we have a lot of authority there. Those individuals that are providing direct victim services have to show very clearly on their time sheet what time they're putting into to those direct victim services. So an agency may have an employee that part of their time goes to admin, admin, part of their time goes to victim, uh, services, and they have to show that very clearly on their, on their time sheet.

182. 0:57:06

     I, I hope you're following me. Kind of like a lawyer's billable hours, right? So for those victim advocates, uh, even for those in administration overseeing victim advocates, for those that are providing direct victim services, that portion of their salary is considered victim services.

183. 0:57:25

     Thank you for that.

184. 0:57:27

     Um, so our role is just a little bit different in that we are working in conjunction with the courts. There are about 1,100 courts in the state of Georgia where we're collecting both funds and data. One of which the funds is the LVAP monies, um, the Local Victim Assistant Program. And so as part of what we do, um, we do have an audit provision on the data that we receive, so we do annual audits of reports. We have some automated version, so when we see anomalies that come out, uh, we try to, we put, compile those, and then, um, our manager of our Fines and Fees division, she reviews the data and determines whether a follow-up is required, whether it's a, a, you know, a single anomaly, whether all those kind of things.

185. 0:58:10

     So we do some, we try to have some oversight with the court system. That, uh, provision became effective in 2007, so we started that kind of high-level audit. It's not a deep audit, but it's a high-level audit. Um, we also provide training to the courts. We do annual class, or excuse me, biannual. Every other year, we do classroom training. We have an online training program that's free of charge for all courts that's available 24/7, that has data available. Um, and then this year, we're also offering a free, uh, online what we call a webinar, just a one-hour training that's available to all courts.

186. 0:58:48

     And so we send out notices to all courts every year that we have new trainings available in person or online, and then as part of our annual training that we do, whether it's in conjunction with other government entities like ICJE for certification programs for municipal courts or what have you, um, we just try to incorporate this as part of our education for the courts so that they're aware not only of this fund, it's all funds that, that are, and all data that's reported or remitted to our office.

187. 0:59:19

     But this is one of the, the points that we try to interact with the clerk- courts. Um, so we're dealing with all 1,100 courts as far as, like, records and data and compliance and, uh- Those kind of things. And then as, as was noted, um, before, we have an automated report that we were able to... A couple years ago, we revamped, we worked in conjunction with CJCC so that we could provide it in a format where they could automatically import it and, um, be able to digest the data a little bit more easily for, for their purposes.

188. 0:59:53

     You said the reports that y'all get are monthly or annually?

189. 0:59:56

     Monthly.

190. 0:59:58

     On these high-low audits, how many would you say are in compliance-

191. 1:00:03

     So-

192. 1:00:03

     ... percentage-wise?

193. 1:00:04

     Right. So as far as, uh, it... That's kind of a, a... As far as compliance, I can speak more to a monthly compliance. We send out courtesy monthly compliance notifications. So I would say on an average month, and, and that's a 30-day compliance notice, you probably have about 100 to 150 courts that are non-compliant. Um, what we have there is a provision for severely non-compliant courts. That number drops drastically. That's a 90-day window, and when you start getting into that, you're talking, like, a dozen, maybe 20 courts out of 1,100 that are in a severely non-compliant status.

194. 1:00:41

     Um, but as soon as we get the data, it is parsed out in such a way for CJCC that they see not only this was the monies reported, but the r- associated report month. So even a court could send in, you know, 10 reports in one month if they were severely non-compliant and they get caught up. Each one of those would be parsed out individually in the data we send them.

195. 1:01:03

     So all the reporting data, they have s- s- specific guidelines that they're familiar with that they gotta report to-

196. 1:01:11

     Correct

197. 1:01:11

     ... to make sure that gets done.

198. 1:01:12

     Most, most courts have a software system that they input all their, their monies in through, and then it generates our, the forms that we promulgate by rule. Um, and that's the data that we receive.

199. 1:01:25

     See any questions from the committee?

200. 1:01:29

     Matt, Representative Howard, I believe you beat... Who's on number four? Go ahead.

201. 1:01:36

     Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um, it sounds like we're, we've done a good job over the last couple of years starting to collect some data, and we have something to work with. Uh, I'm still just kinda going back, just so I can make sure I understand. Um, the 20 years before 2023, it sounds like we have very, very limited information of what was going on.

202. 1:01:58

     Uh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

203. 1:02:01

     I, I would say that's not accurate. The, the, the audit specifically looked at a couple of years. Uh, it's not that there was not information available for them to look, but, but an audit's not gonna go back 24 years when they're doing an audit. Uh, so I, I, I, I don't think that's accurate to say that there's, that there's no information prior to just the last few years.

204. 1:02:23

     I was saying limited information.

205. 1:02:25

     Um, I, I don't know that it's that much more limited, quite frankly. Um, the, uh, the, the, the reporting has, uh, has continued to come in. Uh, they've-

206. 1:02:36

     Understood

207. 1:02:36

     ... they've reported. We've, uh, uh, we've collected those reports and, and, and we've posted, uh, those port- reports. So I, um, I, I, I just don't... The flashlight wasn't shining on it, but-

208. 1:02:49

     Understood

209. 1:02:49

     ... but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

210. 1:02:50

     Well, and if, if I may interject.

211. 1:02:52

     Please.

212. 1:02:52

     We have a Fines and Fees website called courttrax.org, and we, uh, all the data that we collect, both the funds that we collect and the monies that are reported to our office, is available on that website. And we also have all the historical year-end numbers going back to fiscal year 2005, when we began the project. So the project began for us at the beginning of fiscal year 2005.

213. 1:03:16

     Mm-hmm.

214. 1:03:16

     That's all available online. So you can see the reported LVAP data from all the courts, at least that our office... Initially, it was remitted to us, so initially it was monies we collected and then we turned back over to, whether it was the county or the district attorney. But in 2006, that changed. So we have this data.

215. 1:03:34

     That's very helpful. We have the data, but for the audit, the audit only went back a couple of years, and that audit found thing, a lot of gaps and errors, some unreliable data, a lot of self-reported data. Um, and this is why earlier I mentioned it seems like a, a significant invitation to say, "Hey, let's start going back to the reporting that is available," as you said, that goes back to 20- uh, 2004. Uh, so I- I'm just glad that we have an audit. The audit was very limited in scope as far as years.

216. 1:04:04

     Right.

217. 1:04:04

     Um, and it has significant question marks, but it sounds like there's even bigger question marks from the 20 years of 2003 to 2023. Uh, so just, it's a testament to the great work that you're doing, because sometimes when you do good work, it reveals more questions. I feel like we took this program to the doctor, and we took a, we did a couple of tests, and we're looking at the X-ray and MRI, and we're like, "Okay, we need to talk to a few specialists." So that's, that's what I'm, I'm hearing here.

218. 1:04:39

     So it's a testament to your great work, but it's also a, a blinking red light that says, "Hey, uh, we, we have a lot more work to do before we can know how deep this rabbit hole goes." Thank you.

219. 1:04:51

     Uh, Senator Kemp.

220. 1:04:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, everyone. Um, while I was party, I was listening to the presentation earlier, so, uh, thank you all. Um, when I was listening earlier, you know, some concern was about the fact that so much money was being spent on operating costs. And so I appreciate your color and perspective-

221. 1:05:12

     Mm-hmm

222. 1:05:12

     ... given that, you know, the biggest piece in here was victim advocate salaries, uh, under the operating costs and-

223. 1:05:19

     And, and much, much of their time is dedicated to providing direct services.

224. 1:05:23

     Yes.

225. 1:05:23

     So, so even though it's classified there as operation, uh, the federal government, for example, with VOCA and VAWA, would not classify that as operational. They would classify that as direct victim services.

226. 1:05:33

     Right. And so I was gonna ask that, coming from an education background.

227. 1:05:36

     Mm-hmm.

228. 1:05:36

     If we were to replace that with teacher salaries, that's still direct classroom, uh, spending. So can you give us just a little more, uh, color as to what, what victim advocates do? If, I don't know if you, if you can. If not, then that's okay. Uh, we can get that, that question answered later

229. 1:05:53

     So, s- it's, it's a great question.

230. 1:05:54

     Yeah.

231. 1:05:55

     And, and, uh, th- the reality is, uh, it is such a broad, um, scope of services that they provide. Uh, victim advocates are there from the very beginning. Um, uh, ideally. The, ideally you want a victim to, to be introduced-

232. 1:06:12

     Yeah

233. 1:06:12

     ... to a victim advocate as soon as possible in the process. Uh, depending on where the victim advocate is, the victim advocate may be in a district attorney's office, and in the district attorney's office, the victim advocate may be more focused on, what kind of service can I provide this victim as it relates to the, the prosecutorial process and, and their role as a victim in that legal process? And by the way, uh, prosecutors are required by our Constitution to have victim advocates, and they were never funded by the state.

234. 1:06:45

     Um, so that's one of the reasons you see so many DA's offices using this funding for victim advocates. We, through our, our federal grants, uh, have provided through the years a significant amount of money to DA's to also help them with that. I think it was about 13 or 14 million, uh, at the, at the peak. A few years ago, the state, uh, gave $5 million. Uh, so now the state does have some investment in victim advocates within the, the prosecutors, but it still s- it's still a minor portion of it.

235. 1:07:19

     But that's one area where you're gonna see the victims, uh, uh, victim advocates working in that legal arena. Even there, those victim advocates could still be providing other services for the victim. It could be transportation. Uh, it could be connecting them to a therapist. Uh, it could be helping them with clothing or with food. Uh, it could be helping them with, uh, with, uh, sh- with housing or shelter. Especially if that victim is a domestic violence, uh, victim, then they may no longer have a place to live.

236. 1:07:53

     Uh, so there, there's a, a wide range of things that a victim advocate does for those, uh, for those victims. So it's a lot more than just the rent check, uh, or the, the, uh, bag of groceries, uh, or, or whatever else that financial assistance may be. It's, uh, it is very broad.

237. 1:08:15

     Thank you.

238. 1:08:16

     Does that help?

239. 1:08:17

     Yes. Thank you.

240. 1:08:23

     I know we are run- Did you have a question? Did you accidentally hit that?

241. 1:08:26

     I just gonna say, Chairman-

242. 1:08:27

     Okay, go ahead

243. 1:08:28

     ... I think the vic- if I'm correct in that, I think vic- victim advocate, they spend a lot of time in the court too, during the trial, if I'm correct. A lot of times.

244. 1:08:37

     Uh, and, and, and sometimes the greatest support a victim can have during that trial is that victim advocate that's sitting beside them-

245. 1:08:45

     Yeah

246. 1:08:45

     ... uh, providing comfort, providing guidance. B- what... It's such a traumatic experience as a victim, and those victim advocates are trained in victard- victim-centered and, and trauma info- uh, informed, uh, uh, abilities to be able to come in and support them. Uh, so a lot of time when, when they're, when they're work- l- look at their time sheet, a lot of their time is indeed provided in, in those direct victim services.

247. 1:09:14

     Thank you. Appreciate it.

248. 1:09:16

     I know we are pushing close for time, but I want the committee to know that on page nine is all the members that should be on this commission. Um, Mr. Isaac and Director Neal, I appreciate very much. I'm gonna have, uh, Pete Skandalakis come up from, uh, the Prosecuting Attorney Council real quick. Okay, I'm gonna act like a teacher here. I'm gonna call out some, uh, agencies. If you're part of this and you're here, please let us know. The ACCG. I talked to Mr. Edwards earlier. He was not going, going to make it.

249. 1:09:49

     Children's Advocacy Centers of Georgia. I'm here. Thank you. ACCG's here. Oh, there he is. Sorry. Todd, you look different. Uh, Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Thank you. Georgia Commission on Family Violence.

250. 1:10:05

     Here.

251. 1:10:05

     Thank you. GMA, I saw y'all. Thank y'all for being here. Georgia Network to End Sexual Assault. Uh, Georgia Sheriff's Association, I talked with them a little bit earlier. They had a meeting they had to attend. And GSCCA, y'all are here. So, um, thank y'all for being here. Mr. Skandalakis, how you doing today?

252. 1:10:27

     I'm good, Mr. Chairman. How are you?

253. 1:10:29

     Uh, for those that may not know you, introduce yourself, but I've known him for over, well over 20 years.

254. 1:10:35

     My name's Peter John Skandalakis. Most of y'all know me around the capital as just Pete, so that's, that's good 'cause Skandalakis is a mouthful. I am the executive director for the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia. I've been in that role since, uh, January 1st of 2018. Prior to that, I was the elected DA in the Coweta Judicial Circuit for 25 years. Coweta Judicial Circuit is a five-county circuit that includes Carroll, Coweta, Heard, Meriwether, and Troup.

255. 1:11:05

     Um, last year the legislature split that circuit, so it's now two circuits, and I was begging for that while I was DA for 25 years and didn't get it done. I know Chairman Bearden going back a long time because he used to be in law enforcement, um, so he and I go way back. Um, I'm here to answer any questions you have. Uh, we started a victim's assistance program in 1992 when I was elected DA. Um, at that point, we had, uh, two, two contract victim advocates, um, that we were paying with, uh, a grant.

256. 1:11:40

     And thanks to, um, Carroll County Commissioner Trent North Um, we finally got full-time victim advocates. Uh, only had two to cover five can- counties in multiple, multiple courts. Um, Executive Director Neil has given you some background of what victim advocates do. They're vital, uh, to the services we provide and since 1992, um, victim advocate programs have exploded across the state, and it's been a blessing.

257. 1:12:11

     Well, does anyone have any questions real quick for Mr. Scanlalakis? 'Cause I'm ... I'd like for you just to ... I thought, believe you said y'all have a best practices that you give-

258. 1:12:19

     We do

259. 1:12:20

     ... to the DAs.

260. 1:12:21

     We do. Uh, on our PAC website, and I'll be glad to provide it to the chair so he can get it out, we've formed a committee of district attorneys and solicitor generals to develop what is called the best practices. Um, and that is what you should use your 5% funds if you receive them. Um, and DAs do receive them. Uh, some go to the counties, as y'all's already heard, and then the counties decide who gets what portion and where the, what programs they'll, they'll fund. Um, but we do have a 5% best practices guidelines, and I'll provide that to the chair.

261. 1:12:57

     Senator Howard. We're running close, quick on time, so, um-

262. 1:13:01

     Very brief, Mr. Chair. Um, do you have a date for when those best practices to spend that 5% was formed?

263. 1:13:08

     I will have to look back 'cause I cannot recall off the top-

264. 1:13:10

     Approximate, like within the last few years, 10 years, 20 years?

265. 1:13:13

     Within probably within the last 10 years.

266. 1:13:14

     10 years. Okay. Thank you.

267. 1:13:20

     I said I know we're running close on, on time here. Actually, it's 9:00. This is not gonna be the first or last meeting.

268. 1:13:26

     I can come back anytime.

269. 1:13:27

     Well, I'm about to task you with a, with, with something, and, uh, ho- hope you're willing to accept that.

270. 1:13:33

     Chief, thank you.

271. 1:13:34

     No problem. Um, so-

272. 1:13:35

     I, I've learned-

273. 1:13:35

     Sounds like you volunteered

274. 1:13:36

     ... well, let, before you even ask, I've learned not to say no to chairman of committees, okay? So what, what is it you would like me to do?

275. 1:13:45

     I would like to see, we got someone here from everyone that's supposed to be on this commission. If we could come up with, through your office, a point person, and almost come up with a task force to get someone from all the commissions that's makes up this commission and start letting us know what we need. Is it, do we need something from Appropriations to help out on some of the software to getting this set up? Apparently, we do need the oversight, and this commission unfortunately never formed.

276. 1:14:19

     And thankfully to the PAC, they did appoint one. Now, this is a across-the-board. Governor has a pick. Lieutenant Governor has a pick. Speaker has a pick on this board. But I think it's very apparent that to have oversight guidelines in place, someone or group that's, that people could go to, to make sure this is being done properly, which I think everyone has the intent for it to be done properly. We just wanna make sure it is being done that way.

277. 1:14:51

     And, um, kind of come ba- not kind of, but come back with us with thoughts and ideas that this committee can look at. Is there something legislatively that we need to do with legislation to make sure this is set up and being done properly? So, um, I don't know yet when our next meeting will be, but if you could help us on, on that end, I would be greatly appreciative.

278. 1:15:14

     I'll be happy to help you.

279. 1:15:15

     And the sad point is I've known you so long and I trust you so much, that's why it's like, let's save Pete for last and, uh, ask him to do this for us.

280. 1:15:22

     Well, thank you. I-

281. 1:15:22

     To help us out on this committee

282. 1:15:23

     ... I apologize for being a little bit late. I got my schedules mixed up.

283. 1:15:27

     No, you're absolutely fine on that end. Um, I appreciate the committee being here this morning. I appreciate everyone in the audience. Um, Department of Audits, thank you for s- everything that y'all do. Um, we will have another hearing, don't know when, but I do wanna see, um, this little task force get put together soon. So, um, we'll be keeping in touch on that. And with that, we will be adjourned. And thank y'all again so much for being here today.

284. 1:15:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.