ILNews

County restores original service

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

After the Indiana Department of Corrections switched in the summer of 2010 from one victims’ notification service to another as a cost-saving measure, one northern Indiana county has restored its program with the previous service provider.

Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers announced Jan. 7 that the county had restored the Victim Information and Notification Everyday system, or VINE, which is a product of Louisville-based Appriss.

Appriss previously provided the victim notification system to Indiana counties and the state until the DOC made the switch to an in-house system, Indiana SAVIN, Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry, and Alert Notification Services on July 1, 2010.

The reasons the DOC switched to an in-house system were: to serve more and spend less; to personalize the notification process; to improve information flow to victims, law enforcement, and other justice partners; and to leverage current technology, according to Brent Myers, director of registration and victim services for the DOC.

At the time of the switch, Myers said the contract with Appriss cost about $1 million per year. He said the in-house program would cost $375,000 per year using the Microsoft program Information Strategies.

A spokesman for Appriss said that Elkhart was the only county to switch back to the Appriss notification system as of Jan. 11.

Victim notification services provide information to those who register for information on specific offenders, including when the offenders move to another facility, if the offender has a hearing scheduled, or if the offender is released.

Rehearing "State changes victim alerts" IL July 21-Aug. 3, 2010
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT