Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Confidentiality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grantee leaders warn that OVSJG contract language could put survivor data at risk; agency cites federal rules
Summary
Several witnesses urged the committee to remove or clarify a clause in OVSJG grant agreements that they say permits access to client-identifiable records; OVSJG said the clause aligns with federal record-retention and audit rules and described safeguards.
Multiple victim-service providers and coalitions raised alarm at the hearing about a provision in OVSJG grant agreements that they said allows the agency, the DC inspector general and the U.S. comptroller general to access grantee records that could include survivor-identifying information.
"This language is concerning because it requires client specific data, domestic violence survivor specific data, and conflicts with both DC code and the Violence Against Women Act," Mikaela Deming, policy director of the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, told the committee, asking Chair Pinto to "remove this clause immediately." Deming said the provision has been used and remains available to other DC agencies and federal bodies and could endanger survivors.
Director Jennifer Porter responded that the clause has been part of grant agreements since 2016 and reflects federal requirements (CFR Part 200, subpart D) governing record retention and access for grants. Porter said OVSJG and grantees build record-retention policies, require appropriate insurances and training, and try to avoid collecting unnecessary personally identifiable information in routine program reporting. "Where there are baseline requirements for the funding, we're not going to, again, our goal is to make sure that the minimum threshold in terms of impact to the survivor, but the maximum in terms of the protections..." Porter said.
Committee members asked OVSJG to provide a clearer written explanation of the clause and the safeguards the agency enforces to prevent improper disclosure. Several witnesses said the committee should evaluate whether statutory or federal-level changes are needed if legal conflict exists; others asked OVSJG to pursue procedural protections while the committee examines the issue.
At the committee's request, OVSJG agreed to follow up with a firmer list of safeguards, a description of who may legitimately access records under federal law and the exact statutory citations. The committee also flagged the issue for further oversight given the confidentiality stakes for survivors.
