Earlier today, the State’s Attorney General William Tong announced Connecticut has entered into a $15,000 settlement with a company that falsely marketed one of its courses as being a state-approved pretrial diversion program.
“This program was never vetted and never endorsed by the state for any court-related Family Violence Education Program,” said Tong. “That anyone would seek to mislead families and those in need with unqualified training is a sad and cynical affront to anyone who has experienced domestic violence or learned from these programs.”
The settlement follows a recent state audit revealing numerous shortcomings in the state’s Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) use or administration of pretrial diversion programs, including several instances of prosecutors referring defendants to non-approved domestic violence treatment programs.
Per the Attorney General’s Office’s statement, the company, eLearning Systems, LLC, marketed its “Course for Violence” as a program that would satisfy the Pretrial Family Violence Education Program’s (PFVEP) requirements imposed in criminal domestic violence cases. PFVEP allows those facing trial for domestic violence to avoid criminal charges in exchange for two years of supervision by the state’s Court Support Services Division’s family violence intervention unit and completion of court-ordered programming requirements.
Per the state’s General Statutes 46b-38c, PFVEP “shall inform participants of the basic elements of family violence law and applicable penalties,” and is only applicable to defendants who have never been convicted of a family violence crime, nor been granted accelerated rehabilitation (another diversionary program) for a family violence crime, after 1986. Furthermore, it is only applicable to defendants who have not had a previous case assigned to PFVEP. Defendants charged with class A, B, or C felonies, or any felony worth up to ten years imprisonment, are also disqualified.
Per the settlement, the Orlando, Florida-based company was alleged to have charged $25 to $85 per domestic violence course, depending on course length, and advertised its course to Connecticut residents looking to meet programming requirements for PFVEP, by saying that “our Domestic Violence Class may satisfy that requirement.” On its website for the class, the company included a list of every county in Connecticut with green checkmarks next to them, and even included the state’s seal, to imply the course was state-approved.
“The State contends that by stating, suggesting, or implying that the Domestic Violence Course satisfies Connecticut pretrial education requirements, including the family violence education program, and charging money for said course, Respondent has engaged in an unfair and/or deceptive trade practice in violation of CUTPA,” reads the settlement.
The settlement notes that the company “denies that it has engaged in any unlawful or otherwise inappropriate business practices,” yet has also removed the allegedly misleading advertisements from its website, agreed not to use similar advertising in the future, and agreed to pay $15,000 to the State Treasurer.
The issue of non-state-approved diversionary programs was recently noted in a state audit, which found that in the fifteen domestic violence cases it reviewed, seven defendants were referred to programs not approved by the state. The audit found that there was no set process for prosecutors, or defendants, who themselves are tasked with finding state-approved programs, to determine whether or not a program was state-approved. In cases where family violence defendants were referred to state-approved programs, they were also found to have been frequently referred to the wrong ones.
Furthermore, the audit also found that the Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and Enhancement Advisory Council has been approving programs without the statutory authority to do so, and without any written guidelines by which to follow when doing so.
Elizabeth Benton, Director of Communications for the State’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO), told Inside Investigator that the AGO has no purview over the DCJ or its use of pretrial diversionary programs, nor could they comment on their practices. Benton said the eLearning Systems case was brought to the AGO’s attention by the state’s Judicial Branch, and that they are unaware of any other companies involved in similar practices at this time.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
