Cook County task force proposes interagency data center to speed enforcement of protective orders

Katie Dunn, presenter for the Cook County Violence Against Women Task Force, proposed creating a public–private interagency data center to improve coordination on “high priority” court orders — protective orders, warrants and firearm-restraining orders — and to recommend that model to the Cook County Board and the city council this July. “The Cook County Violence Against Women Task Force is recommending a public private partnership to create a national model for an interagency data center focused on high priority court orders,” Dunn said during the task force meeting.

The recommendation would bring together court case information (Odyssey), Chicago and Cook County 9-1-1 systems, the Illinois State Police, FOID and concealed-carry reporting, the Secretary of State, the Cook County Clerk and the attorney general’s VINES victim-notification system. Dunn said the center’s aims are to increase the number of orders filed, improve service rates and expedite service timelines, and to implement evidence-based tools such as lethality assessments where appropriate.

The task force presented preliminary 2024 counts for emergency protective orders, which Dunn said will be verified: about 23,500 emergency domestic-violence orders of protection, 6,200 stalking/no-contact orders, roughly 300 civil no-contact orders, 18 firearm restraining orders and 154 workplace protection orders. Dunn argued those figures and operational gaps justify a central repository and clearer processes so local law enforcement can access relevant civil records where statute and policy permit.

Clerk of the Circuit Court Vivek Ananda cautioned that the clerk’s office is the central repository for filings and that many protective orders are not publicly visible until service is confirmed. “Any protective order where the statute allows for LEADS entry is given to the sheriff for LEADS entry,” Ananda said, noting that service and LEADS input depend on the statutory pathway for each order and that defendants’ rights and privacy rules limit what can be made public before service.

Other participants urged work on the operational side: Renata posted statutory language from the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (IDVA) clarifying that certain civil records are accessible pre-service to courts, petitioners, law enforcement and domestic-violence advocates, and argued that administrative remote‑access policies and inconsistent agency registration — not the statute per se — often block access in practice.

Advocates on the call also emphasized survivor-facing communication. Carmen, a task-force participant, said victims often do not receive clear, verbal explanations of options such as reinstating a dismissed order and that advocates are sometimes too overloaded to provide those conversations at intake.

Dunn said a companion public dashboard would provide aggregate, daily-populated data to stakeholders and the public while leaving individual-case access subject to clerk-office rules. She framed the center and dashboard as complementary deliverables intended to hold systems accountable, help service and enforcement, and provide data needed by service providers and grant applicants.

The working group agreed to continue refining scope, verify preliminary counts and follow up offline about training, portal access and statutory clarifications. Dunn said the working group will present recommendations to the Cook County Board and the city council in July and will continue technical and legislative work in the coming weeks.