MENU TITLE: Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses. Series: NIJ Issues and Practices Published: February 1997 237 pages 515,220 bytes U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses 2nd Edition by Julie Esselman Tomz and Daniel McGillis -------------------- Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. -------------------- First Edition prepared by Peter Finn and Beverly Lee February 1997 -------------------- Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a publication series of the National Institute of Justice. Each report presents the program options and management issues in a topic area, based on a review of research and evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert opinion on the subject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in planning, implementing, and improving programs and practice in criminal justice. -------------------- National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director Samuel C. McQuade Program Monitor Advisory Panel Harold Boscovich, Director Alameda County District Attorney Victim Witness Assistance Division 1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 802 Oakland, CA 94612 Janet Fine Chief of Victim Witness Services Suffolk County District Attorney's Office New Courthouse, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Peggy Gusz, Executive Director Crime Victims' Center of Chester County, Inc. 236 West Market Street, Suite 2 Westchester, PA 19382 Philip Riccio, Supervisor Police Crisis Intervention Service 9065 E. Via Linda Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Joseph Ryan, Associate Professor Pace University 1 Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Marlene Young, Executive Director National Organization for Victim Assistance 1757 Park Road, NW Washington, DC 20010 -------------------- Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice by Abt Associates Inc., under contract #OJP-94-C-007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. -------------------- NCJ 163174 ____________________ Table of Contents Director's Foreword Acknowledgement Executive Summary Chapter 1: Crime Victims: Emerging Trends and Responses Evolution of Concern for Victims of Crime Developments Encouraging the Expansion of the Victims Movement Increasing Awareness of Effects of Victimization Increasing Awareness of Insensitive Criminal Justice System Treatment of Victims The Emergence of Community Policing What Do Victim Assistance Programs Do? Responsibilities of the Criminal Justice System Endnotes Chapter 2: Developing and Improving the Victim Assistance Program Obtaining Guidance Conducting an Initial and Periodic Needs Assessment Why Conduct a Needs Assessment? Consider Special Populations Who Conducts the Needs Assessment? How is a Needs Assessment Conducted? Formulating and Redefining the Program's Mission, Goals, and Objectives Identifying and Revising Target Populations General Guidelines for Selection Specific Guidelines for Selection Periodic Reexamination of Target Groups Selecting and Reevaluating the Service Mix Required Services Overview of Victim Assistance Services Procedures for Selecting and Modifying the Service Mix Stimulating and Maintaining Public Awareness and Support Endnotes Chapter 3: Structural Alternatives: Sponsorship and Staffing Deciding on Program Affiliation Selecting a Program Location Determining Funding Needs Staff Needs and Recruitment Estimating Staff Levels Stipulating Skills and Qualifications Using Volunteers What Volunteers Can Do Volunteers: Pros and Cons Recruiting and Screening Staff Endnotes Chapter 4: Developing Effective Relationships With Other Organizations Why Develop Relationships With Other Organizations? Cooperation Among Organizations Has Expanded Working With the Criminal Justice System Working With Law Enforcement Handling Referrals Serving as a Buffer Between Victims and Police Helping Locate and Protect Witnesses Providing Case Status Information Furnishing Better or More Evidence Implementing A Witness Alert Program for Police Working With Prosecutors Working With Judges Working With Corrections Addressing Potential Conflicts of Interest in Working With Justice Agencies Working With Social Service Organizations and Community and Support Groups Approaches to Working with Social Service and Other Organizations Difficulties in Networking with Social Service Organizations Working with Schools Endnotes Chapter 5: Conducting Outreach and Case Processing Establishing Case Processing Procedures Identifying Clients Establishing Contact with Victims and Witnesses Conducting Proactive Outreach Maintaining Contact Terminating Contact Pitfalls in Case Processing Conducting Outreach to Special Populations Elderly Crime Victims Ethnic and Minority Crime Victims Gays and Lesbians Endnotes Chapter 6: Providing Victim Services Role of the Criminal Justice System Range of Victim Services Emergency Services Counseling Personal Advocacy and Support Services Assistance in Filing for Victim Compensation and Restitution Court-Related Services Postsentencing Services Systemwide Services Endnotes Chapter 7: Training and Supervising Staff Conducting Staff Training Preservice Training In-Service Training Conducting Staff Supervision Assigning Cases Maintaining Volunteer Commitment Contending with Staff Burnout Endnotes Chapter 8: Maintaining Program Support and Assessing the Victim Assistance Program Monitoring and Evaluating Victim Assistance Services Record Keeping and Program Documentation Program Monitoring Process Evaluation Impact Evaluation Alternative Responses to Funding Changes Strategies for Coping with Changing Fiscal Environments Cost Effectiveness and Cost Benefit Analyses Factors Involved in Program Success Endnotes Chapter 9: Funding Victim Assistance Programs Federal Funding The Pioneering Role of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 The Violence Against Women Act Grant Program State and Local Funding Sources Private Funding Sources Endnotes Appendixes Appendix A: Victims Assistance Programs Contacted By Telephone for This Publication Appendix B: Selected Resources Appendix C: Sample Needs Assessment Questionnaire for Social Service Organizations Appendix D: Colorado Springs Police Department, Volunteer Job Description, Victim Contact Assistant Appendix E: Suffolk County Victim Witness Assistance Program Internship Description Appendix F: Police and Victim Services Information Card, Minneapolis Police Department Appendix G: Sample Letter Informing Victim of Case Status Appendix H: Sample Letter Notifying Victim of Offender's Status in Penal System Appendix I: Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Brochure and Training Curriculum Appendix J: Sample Verification Letter to Employer that Employee Was a Witness in a Criminal Proceeding Appendix K: Sample Parole Notification Letter to the Victim (Adaptable to Family Members of Homicide Victim) Appendix L: Sample Agenda for Prospective Volunteers Appendix M: California Victim and Witness Coordinating Council Victim Advocate Certification Application and Certificate Appendix N: Suffolk County District Attorney's Office Victim Witness Service Program Intern/Volunteer Contract Appendix O: Monthly Tally, Scottsdale, Arizona ____________________ Foreword This publication updates and expands the first edition of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice report originally published in 1987. During the first half of the 1980's, victim assistance programs and public awareness of crime victims' problems were beginning to spread rapidly across the country. In 1982, President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime issued its final report, which recommended the wider establishment of victim assistance programs. Recognizing the need for practical guidance for program development, NIJ requested the preparation of the first edition of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses to offer information on how to initiate, improve, and, when necessary, modify services for victims and witnesses. The original edition of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses combined suggestions regarding program development with detailed descriptions of six programs across the country. The publication proved to be popular among victim service providers. By 1994, however, it was clear that some of the information in the report had become outdated. Given the significant proliferation of programs, victims' rights legislation, and State constitutional amendments occurring since 1985 and given the need for current data regarding the structure and operations of these programs in 1994, NIJ commissioned this second edition of the report. The second edition provides a detailed discussion of strategies for planning, implementing, and refining victim assistance programs. Since the crime victims movement began over 20 years ago, considerable progress has been made in recognizing and meeting the needs of crime victims. Many talented program administrators and policymakers have fostered the growth of victim assistance programs over the years, and these efforts continue to evolve and grow to meet the compelling needs of our nation's crime victims. Most victim advocates argue, however, that considerable work still remains. It is noteworthy that the leadership in this movement comes largely from the Office for Victims of Crime, working in conjunction with State officials, local officials, and other components of the Department of Justice. As we approach the 21st century, the National Institute of Justice hopes that this second edition of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses will prove as useful as the first for promoting the development and improvement of victim services. Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice -------------------- Acknowledgements We thank the members of our advisory board, who provided valuable guidance at the onset of the project and helpful comments after reviewing a draft of the publication. The board included: o Harold Boscovich, Director Alameda County District Attorney Victim/Witness Assistance Division o Janet Fine, Chief Victim Witness Services Suffolk County District Attorney's Office o Peggy Gusz, Executive Director Crime Victims' Center of Chester County, Inc. o Phillip Riccio, Supervisor Police Crisis Intervention Service o Joseph Ryan, Associate Professor Pace University o Marlene Young, Executive Director National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) In addition, John Stein, deputy director of NOVA, generously provided assistance at the board meeting and during the early stages of the project. We are also extremely thankful to the many program directors who took the time to describe their program activities to us; the insights and information they provided make up the essence of this publication. These individuals are listed in appendix A. In particular, we want to thank the directors and other staff of the originally visited programs who reviewed the first edition and provided updated information about their programs' operations and services: Mr. Boscovich; Mr. Riccio; Marcia Barker, with the Greenville County Victim/Witness Assistance Program in South Carolina; Shelly Stoll, with the Multinomah County Victims Assistance Program in Portland, Oregon; and Kathleen Alme, with Citizens Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Samuel McQuade, project monitor at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), provided solid guidance throughout the project as well as helpful reviews of each draft. Cheryl Crawford and Virginia Baldau of NIJ, along with Laura Federline, Jackie McCann Cleland, and Susan Laurence of the Office for Victims of Crime, also provided useful comments. We are particularly grateful to our colleague at Abt Associates, Peter Finn, who directed the early stages of the project and closely reviewed the drafts, and whose preparation of the first edition (with Beverly Lee) made working on the second edition that much easier. Three other colleagues-- Tammy Enos, Ellen McCarthy, and Pam Murphy-- assisted with interviewing program directors. Backing us up throughout the project with superb and patient support were several Abt production assistants: Mary Ellen Perry, Winn Sinclair, Wendy Sanderson, Karen Minich, and Myraida Rivera. -------------------- Executive Summary The crime victims movement in the United States has grown progressively stronger over the past two decades. Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, 2nd Edition, provides a detailed discussion of strategies for planning, implementing, and refining victim assistance programs, with examples of program operations and activities, as well as suggestions of resources for further assistance. The publication is intended primarily as a guidebook for directors and other staff of existing victim assistance programs, planners designing a new program, and agency supervisors and administrators who may wish to sponsor a program. Emerging Trends and Responses Since 1985, there have been several major signs of the expansion of the crime victims movement, including the increased amount of Federal funding available for crime victim compensation and assistance; the ongoing success of private national organizations in the field; passage in 49 States of Victims' Bills of Rights and the enactment in 22 States of constitutional amendments requiring the provision of certain services to crime victims; and the creation by government agencies and private organizations of hundreds of general and specialized victim assistance programs. Expansion of the crime victims movement has been encouraged by an increasing awareness of the effects of victimization and of the shortcomings of the criminal justice system in responding to victims' needs, and by the emergence of community policing, which emphasizes "customer" service, especially for crime victims. While many programs remain focused on providing basic services to victims of crime, some programs have begun to extend their outreach and services to so-called "derivative victims," including traumatized witnesses to and survivors of violent crime and victims of environmental and other disasters. Developing and Improving Victim Assistance Programs In starting victim assistance programs, planners must assess victims' needs, develop appropriate program goals and objectives, identify target populations for services, develop the mix of services to be delivered, and stimulate and maintain public awareness and support. Program staff need to periodically reassess these factors to ensure that they are operating efficiently and providing needed services. Structural Alternatives Sponsorship is one of the most critical considerations for a victim assistance program, because it influences the program's mission, funding, staffing, and other key characteristics. Most victim assistance programs are affiliated with a prosecutor's office, law enforcement agency, or private non-profit organization. However, an increasing number of departments of corrections, probation, and parole are sponsoring victim assistance programs. Developing Effective Relationships With Other Organizations By developing close working relationships with a network of relevant organizations, victim assistance program staff can more easily accomplish their goals. Program staff can consider working with each component of the criminal justice system and with social service and community organizations, schools, victim support groups, and other community organizations that serve victims. Case Processing and Conducting Outreach In addition to examining criminal justice reports, mailing letters, and telephoning victims, program staff may wish to conduct proactive outreach by going to crime scenes, meeting the victims at the hospital or police station, and conducting home visits. Special outreach efforts may also be necessary for victims who face particular barriers to working with the criminal justice system, such as members of minority groups. Once victims have been identified for services, it is important that a program have clear objectives, policies, and procedures for handling and closing cases. Providing Victim Services The range of victim services provided generally includes emergency services, counseling, personal advocacy and support services, claims assistance, court-related services, post-sentencing services, and systemwide services. Some programs in recent years have begun providing services to large groups of individuals traumatized by crimes or other catastrophic events. These services primarily involve crisis intervention and critical-incident stress debriefing. An increasing number of victim assistance programs are providing or assisting with postsentencing services. Training and Supervising Staff Up-to-date, comprehensive training--both pre-service and in-service--is critical to the effectiveness of any victim assistance program. With increasing collaboration among victim assistance programs, criminal justice agencies, and community agencies and organizations, there are more opportunities to conduct interagency and multidisciplinary training. Training and supervision are receiving increased emphasis among victim service experts in an effort to professionalize the position of victim advocate. Maintaining Program Support and Assessing the Victim Assistance Program Monitoring can provide a number of benefits, including allowing program planners to assess goal achievement, improve staff transitions, and generate useful information for other agencies. Impact evaluations are particularly important for determining the effects the program has had on victims and for providing guidance in program improvement. Funding Victim Assistance Programs State and local governments are the primary funders of victim assistance programs. Obtaining funding from a number of public and private sources can help to maximize a victim assistance program's funding stability and its capacity to deliver services. Program administrators seeking Federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding should give careful consideration to the priority categories of victims targeted by the Act. _____________________________________________ Chapter 1 Crime Victims: Emerging Trends and Responses ______________________________________________ Using the Document: Read, Skim, Copy and Distribute, or Refer Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, 2nd Edition has several potential audiences: o Directors of existing victim assistance programs and other program staff who need help in resolving problems in providing services and who are interested in improving the assistance they provide to victims and witnesses; o Planners designing a new victim assistance program who need help in the complex and time-consuming task of establishing a program; and o Agency supervisors and administrators (including those in law enforcement, prosecutor's offices, the judiciary, corrections, and other government and independent agencies) who may wish to sponsor a program and who need policy guidance to determine what program features will conform best to their interests and needs. These individuals can use the document in one or more ways: o Read the document in its entirety. This method may be particularly useful for program planners and new program staff who need an introduction to victim services and detailed information on operating a program and providing services. o Skim the document for topics of interest. This approach may be particularly useful for experienced victim assistance program staff who already have a firm grounding in victim services but who may want to learn about other programs or expand or improve their own program. The detailed table of contents, index, and the key points summarizing the contents of each chapter can help readers locate topics of interest. o Copy chapters that are particularly pertinent and distribute them to staff. For example, rather than suggesting that new staff read the entire publication, a program director may want to distribute those chapters that are most relevant to the new staff person's work, such as the chapters on conducting outreach or providing victim services. o Refer to the document for information regarding particular problems or needs that arise. In addition to the information provided in the publication itself, appendixes list the names and telephone numbers of experienced program directors and organizations involved in victim services. Because readers may read only a section of the publication rather than read from cover to cover, some information and program descriptions appear more than once throughout the publication. -------------------- The crime victims movement in the United States has grown progressively stronger over the past two decades. According to one observer of this growth, "the fundamental basis of the power of the victim movement lies in public and political acceptance of the view that its clients are good people, done in by those who are bad. This belief alone has made its growth irresistible."[1] Although most victim advocates would agree that enormous strides have been made since 1975, much remains to be done to address victims' needs adequately. For example, there still remains a significant gulf between the level of resources dedicated to offenders and the level dedicated to victims, with no Federal tax dollars earmarked for services for crime victims.[2] Victim assistance programs, an important component of the nation's crime victims movement, have expanded in number and scope since first being established in the 1970's. They provide a diverse array of services intended to meet a variety of victims' needs, including immediate crisis intervention; counseling and general advocacy services; support services during criminal justice investigations, during prosecution, and after case disposition; and public education and training. This chapter reviews the growth of the victims movement and places victim assistance programs in historical perspective. Evolution of Concern for Victims of Crime During the 1970's, many individuals in the criminal justice system became concerned about the harmful effects of the insensitive treatment of victims and witnesses by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Studies revealed, for example, that a staggering proportion of crimes are never reported;[3] one probable cause of this silence is victims' dread of "getting involved" with the criminal justice system. Police failure to address victims' problems resulting from a crime may reduce the quality of evidence victims provide to investigating officers- -an alarming consideration, when the single most important determinant of whether a case will be solved is information that the victim supplies to patrol officers.[4] Finally, many witnesses are so inconvenienced or distressed by their involvement with the courts, or are so afraid that they will suffer reprisals from the defendant if they appear, that they fail to testify. As a result, cases are dismissed for lack of "prosecutability."[5] At the same time that criminal justice officials were beginning to recognize these consequences of the criminal justice system's lack of concern for victims and witnesses, community groups were becoming troubled by the psychological and financial burdens that crime imposes on its victims. Women's advocacy groups, in particular, were concerned about the double trauma of rape victims, who are first assaulted by the rapist and then often handled insensitively by the criminal justice system. Other organizations began looking into the special problems of battered women. In 1975 and 1976, social service providers and criminal justice personnel met in Fresno, California, to create the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) to promote a victim-oriented perspective in the administration of criminal justice. As a result of this heightened attention, there was a marked increase in the development of strategies to identify and address the needs of victims and witnesses, including mediation efforts to help resolve family and neighborhood disputes, victim compensation and restitution efforts, and victim assistance programs.[6] In 1974, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) of the U.S. Department of Justice funded eight victim assistance programs through the National District Attorneys Association; eventually, LEAA contributed $50 million to victim assistance programs nationwide. However, with the termination of LEAA in the early 1980's, Federal funding for victim programs declined. As a result, many programs, forced to switch from Federal to local government funding, experienced a decline in their budgets. With reduced funding, many programs had to curtail or discontinue some services (e.g., child care, security repair) and restrict others to only the most needy victims (such as the elderly). Even programs whose funding remained constant had difficulty coping with increasing salaries and operating costs. At the same time, however, the concept of providing specialized services to victims took hold in the public consciousness and in the minds of many police officers, prosecutors, and judges. One dramatic manifestation of this increased awareness was the appointment in 1982 of a Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime to investigate the needs of victims and the most effective means of addressing them. The Task Force recommended that Federal, State, and local governments, together with private sector organizations, undertake a series of sustained actions to improve the plight of victims, including creating mechanisms for ensuring permanent funding for existing victim assistance programs.[7] In 1984, Congress implemented one of the principal recommendations of the Task Force when it passed the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), which reestablished strong Federal leadership in victim assistance. The Act established the Office for Victims of Crime within the U.S. Department of Justice and, among other significant efforts, provided funding to States on a formula grant basis for allocating funds to qualified victim assistance and victim compensation programs. Major signs of the expansion of the victims movement are evident at all levels of government and in the efforts of diverse private community organizations across the nation. For example, the amount of Federal funds available through the Crime Victims Fund for victim compensation and assistance has increased substantially, and in 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, which funds a variety of measures to combat violence against women. Increasingly, too, States have been funding victim assistance programs on a regular basis from general revenues or by earmarking a percentage of fines imposed on criminal offenders. Since 1980, when California became the first State to enact statewide funding for general victim services, a majority of the States have made some provision for ensuring that general victim services are provided at the local level. Forty-three States have funded compensation programs from fees or assessments against offenders. Thus, while in many cases budgets decreased in the early 1980's as a result of reduced Federal support, since the mid-1980's funding has become increasingly secure and has even increased in some jurisdictions. Furthermore, 49 States have passed Victims' Bills of Rights, and 22 States have enacted constitutional amendments requiring the provision of certain services to crime victims. Locally, both government agencies and private organizations have created hundreds of general and specialized victim assistance programs. An additional sign of the continued growth of the crime victims movement is the ongoing success of major private national organizations in the field, including the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA), the National Victim Center, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and Parents of Murdered Children. In sum, the past decade has seen private organizations, as well as State and local officials responding to public pressure to address victim rights, and the Federal government resuming a strong leadership role in the victims' rights movement. Developments Encouraging the Expansion of the Victims Movement A variety of factors have encouraged the growth of the victims movement, including 1) increasing awareness of the effects of victimization, 2) greater recognition of the shortcomings of the criminal justice system in responding to the needs of victims, and 3) the emerging prominence of community policing as an important law enforcement philosophy in the United States. Increasing Awareness of Effects of Victimization The crime victims movement has significantly raised awareness of the effects of victimization, and this awareness has in turn encouraged the continued growth of the movement. Physical injuries requiring ongoing treatment and rehabilitation often accompany victimization and may involve pain, disfigurement, and disability. Indeed, someone is injured in nearly one-third of all violent crimes.[8] Victims may also experience financial losses in the form of property destruction, loss of money and other valuables, loss of income, medical expenses, and rehabilitation costs. However, research has increasingly shown that psychological stress may be the most significant consequence of victimization--and that unless attention is paid to these emotional problems, some crime victims may sustain long-term psychological damage. When describing practical problems such as stolen property, medical expenses, difficulties with employers, and disruption of daily routine, three-fourths of the victims in one study presented these consequences in psychological terms.[9] The shock of becoming a victim is often followed by feelings of fear, anger, shame, self-blame, helplessness, and depression, which may lead to immediate stress and sometimes to long-term psychological disabilities. Burglary victims may move from their homes, and survivors of homicide attempts sometimes live for years in a state of emotional paralysis. Other victims change their lifestyles in less dramatic ways, withdrawing from activities they enjoy or taking excessive preventive measures against further victimization. Symptoms such as sleeplessness, loss of concentration, and fear of being left alone may persist long after the crime occurred. To all this may be added social stigmatization from family, friends, or neighbors who may blame and shun the victim. Crime may have different effects on different victims. Battered women may require temporary shelter, while poor or uninsured victims may need immediate financial assistance. Most people, however, have similar emotional reactions to crises, and, as a result, there has been an increased recognition that most victims need comparable forms of counseling assistance. One study found that the incidence and intensity of crime-related problems were not even moderately associated with age, education, or revictimization, although women were more likely than men to report physical injury, problems with their family, and mental or emotional suffering.[10] Most victims, therefore, require the same psychological assistance--a sympathetic and trained ear to help them express their fear and anger, rebuild self-esteem, cope with a new or heightened perception of vulnerability, avoid self-blame and self-recrimination, reduce feelings of shame, and relieve uncertainty about their future involvement with the criminal justice system. Recognition of the need for this assistance has helped fuel the victims movement, particularly the need for victim assistance program counseling services. Increasing Awareness of Insensitive Criminal Justice System Treatment of Victims At the same time that they experience the impact of a crime, victims too often endure what has been called a "second victimization"--insensitive treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system. Advocacy groups have been successful in continuing to raise consciousness about the many ways in which both victims and nonvictim/witnesses may experience this type of secondary distress, including: o insensitive questioning by police officers; o police or prosecutor attitudes suggesting that the victim contributed to his or her own victimization; o delays in return of property kept as evidence or failure to retrieve the property at all; o fear of reprisal by the defendant; o lack of information about the status and outcome of the case; o frustration and inconvenience related to waiting for court appearances or appearing in court only to have the case continued or dismissed; o difficulty finding transportation and child care and taking time off from work in order to come to court; o lost wages due to time spent testifying in court; and o anxiety about testifying in open court, including hostile questions from defense attorneys and threatening behavior by the defendant's family or friends. Increasing recognition of this secondary victimization has encouraged policymakers to take steps to make the criminal justice system more sensitive to the needs of victims. The services provided by victim assistance programs are reviewed in chapter 6 and address the many problems listed above. The Emergence of Community Policing The emergence of community policing as the dominant law enforcement philosophy in the United States has also encouraged the further growth of the victims movement.[11] Community policing promotes crime prevention through police problem-solving in collaboration with communities, while strongly emphasizing "customer" and "client" services, especially for crime victims. Community policing has important implications for the relationship between victim service providers and law enforcement. 1. Victim referral. The strong community policing focus on customer service stimulates interest among law enforcement agencies in the types of assistance provided by victim service programs, since these programs can assist officers in meeting victims' needs. This focus may lead police departments to increase referrals and assistance to victim service programs. 2. Collaboration on crime prevention. Community policing's focus on creative problem-solving and crime prevention may result in increased police interest in victims' and witnesses' perceptions of how crimes can be avoided in the future. With community policing, community members are viewed as partners in the policing effort. Furthermore, some victim service providers may serve as a valuable source of information for the police regarding crime prevention options because they are familiar with the patterns of victimization. 3. Enhanced prosecution efforts. Police officers typically measure their success by their arrest rate. With community policing's emphasis on problem-solving, however, officers may show an interest in convictions, not just arrests. When that is the case, community policing officers may increasingly look to victim assistance programs for assistance in obtaining the cooperation of victims and witnesses. Subsequent chapters describe community policing innovations that illustrate how law enforcement and victim assistance programs can work together. What Do Victim Assistance Programs Do? Victim assistance programs provide a wide range of services to clients, from child care to crisis intervention. The National Organization for Victim Assistance has divided the services that victims and witnesses may need into eight stages during the criminal justice process, from crime scene assistance to postsentencing help. Figure 1-1 shows this process and the services that may be needed at each stage. The figure is helpful in associating discrete services with the critical stages many victims and witnesses experience. Figure 1-2 includes all of the services in the NOVA list but rearranges them into seven functional, rather than by chronological, groupings: emergency services, counseling, advocacy and support services, claims assistance, court-related services, postsentencing services, and systemwide services. Chapter 6 discusses these services in more detail. Victim assistance programs also engage in program planning, fund-raising, legislative lobbying, establishing working relationships with the criminal justice system and other social service providers, case monitoring, and evaluation. This publication addresses these aspects of initiating and maintaining a successful program in chapters 2, 4, and 8. Finally, victim assistance programs encourage and assist the criminal justice system, when appropriate, to assume responsibility itself for responding to the needs of victims and witnesses. Many programs provide instruction and training in victim needs and treatment to police, prosecutors, and judges. Chapter 4 addresses this activity. Victim assistance providers have traditionally focused on the delivery of services to the direct victims of crime. However, in recent years a number of programs have begun to extend their outreach and services to so-called "derivative victims." These victims include traumatized witnesses to and survivors of violent crime (e.g., students at a school where someone is murdered) and victims of environmental and other disasters (e.g., hurricane victims or survivors of bombings and plane crashes). Researchers have noted that in some sense all members of society are victimized by the fear associated with disorder and crime in their communities.[12] Since most victim assistance programs struggle with limited resources, steps to extend services beyond the direct victims of crime must be carefully considered. The precise characteristics of additional classes of victims to be served must be defined very clearly in order to avoid case overload and the generation of expectations that cannot be met. Subsequent chapters provide examples of services to derivative victims and illustrate how programs providing such services have circumscribed their efforts to avoid these potential problems. Responsibilities of the Criminal Justice System Initially, the response to the needs of victims and witnesses took the form of programs specializing in victim assistance. As the victim rights' movement has gained momentum, however, many police officers, prosecutors, and probation and parole administrators have recognized that fulfilling their obligations for meeting victims' needs requires the integration of victim services into the normal operating procedures of the criminal justice system, not just system cooperation with local victim assistance programs. For example, many police academies have made training in crisis intervention a standard part of recruit orientation, and some prosecutor's offices offer training in dealing with victims of crime. Judicial organizations and individual judges have taken steps to provide separate waiting areas for defense and prosecution witnesses, permit a victim's advisor to remain in the courtroom, and encourage and consider victim impact statements before sentencing.[13] The U.S. Attorney General's Office has also developed and issued guidelines for Federal prosecutors to follow in assisting victims and witnesses.[14] All U.S. attorneys' offices have been asked o to consult victims of serious crimes regarding plea negotiations, o to allow victims to address the court at sentencing, and o to advise victims on how they can express their opinions on sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. While this report focuses on the activities of victim assistance programs, it suggests throughout how police, prosecutors, judges, and correctional personnel can play a significant part in providing victim services, and how program staff can encourage and assist criminal justice professionals to do so. Endnotes 1. Gilbert Geis, "Crime Victims: Practices and Prospects," Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies, and Programs, eds. Arthur J. Lurigio, Wesley G. Skogan, and Robert C. Davis (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990). 2. Correspondence, Susan Laurence, U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, July 1995. 3. John H. Laub, "Patterns of Criminal Victimization in the United States," Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies, and Programs, 40-42. 4. See Philip H. Ennis, Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Report of a National Survey (Washington, D.C. : 1967). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992 (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994); U.S. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Comparison of the 1973 and 1974 Findings (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1976), 40-41; and David A. Lowenberg, "Your Clients Will Be There Next Year. Will You?", Victim/Witness Programs: Human Services of the 80's, ed. Emilio C. Viano (Washington, D.C. : Visage Press, 1980), 404-410. 5. National District Attorneys Association, Help for Victims and Witnesses: An Annual Report (Washington, D.C. : National District Attorneys Association, 1976); Kathleen B. Brosi, A Cross-City Comparison of Felony Case Processing (Washington, D.C. : Institute for Law and Social Research, 1979), 20; Roberta C. Cronin and Blair B. Bourque, Assessment of Victim/Witness Assistance Projects. National Evaluation Program Phase I Report (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1981), 3; American Bar Association, Reducing Victim/Witness Intimidation: A Package (Washington, D.C. : American Bar Association, 1979). 6. The use of the term "program" should be viewed as a short-hand reference, because many agencies do not define their victim assistance activities as programs. 7. President's Task Force on Victims of Crime: Final Report (Washington, D.C. : Executive Office of the President, 1982). 8. National Organization for Victim Assistance, Campaign for Victim Rights: A Practical Guide. (Washington, D.C. : National Organization for Victim Assistance, 1983). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992. 9. Richard D. Knudten, Anthony Meade, Mary Knudten, and William Doerner, "Victims and Witnesses: The Impact of Crime and Their Experience with the Criminal Justice System" (Milwaukee: Marquette University Victim/Witness Project, 1976), 24, 37; Kenneth Friedman, Helen Bischoff, Robert Davis, and Andrea Person, Victims and Helpers: Reactions to Crime. Summary (New York: Victim Services Agency, 1982), 6. 10. Knudten et al., "Victims and Witnesses," 27. 11. For background information on community policing, see Dennis Rosenbaum, ed., The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1994). 12. Wesley G. Skogan, Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990). 13. Statement of Recommended Judicial Practices, Plenary Session of the National Conference of the Judiciary on the Rights of Victims of Crime, the National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada, December 2, 1983. 14. Office for Victims of Crime, Victims of Crime Act of 1984 As Amended: A Report to Congress by the Attorney General, (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 1994), 39- 55. -------------------- Project Methodology This publication updates and expands the first edition of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, published in 1987. Much of the information that appeared in the original publication remains useful today and therefore was not changed. New and particularly interesting program activities are highlighted throughout the current text. Information for the second edition was obtained in several ways. o The 25 programs that were surveyed for the original publication were reinterviewed in 1994. o The six programs that were highlighted in the first edition provided detailed, updated information about their program activities. The programs are: Citizens Council Victim Services (formerly Crime Victim Centers), in Minneapolis-St. Paul; Victims Assistance Program, in Portland, Oregon; Victim/Witness Assistance Division, in Alameda County, California; Police Crisis Intervention Unit in Scottsdale, Arizona; Victim/Witness Assistance Program, in Greenville, South Carolina; and Victim Service Council, in St. Louis County, Missouri. o An advisory board of victim assistance program directors and experts (see acknowledgments) reviewed the first edition and provided information on changes in the victim assistance field. The board also reviewed a draft of the second edition. o Interviews were conducted with the directors of nearly 30 programs that were conducting activities that either were not addressed in the first edition or that required expanded discussion. _____________________________________________ Chapter 2 Developing and Improving the Victim Assistance Program ______________________________________________ Planning is an indispensable component of any victim assistance program. Sponsors want to know about a program's goals and activities before giving it money. Program directors must know what kind of staff to seek and what kinds of services staff should offer. Program development should be viewed as an endeavor that continues throughout the life of a program. Staff of existing programs need to periodically reassess their activities, identify ways to improve, and respond to changing fiscal and political circumstances. Without adequate planning, continuous reassessment, and willingness to change, programs may experience serious problems because staff fail to anticipate potential difficulties. The needs of victims may also change over time, requiring different services and staff expertise. o The Victims Assistance Program in Portland, Oregon, began in 1974 with a single target group-- rape victims--but later added other victims of violent crime to its mandate. Two years later, funding was secured to add a restitution component. In recent years, the program has obtained two Federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants to address the needs of victims of gang and hate crimes, and victims of juvenile offenders. o The Victim/Witness Assistance Program in Greenville, South Carolina, began by selecting victims on the basis of the gravity of the crime but later switched to the criterion of victim impact, so that highest priority was assigned to rape victims and the families of homicide victims. Then, in response to State guidelines and through increased staffing and funding, the program began contacting not only all victims of violent crime but all other victims of crimes in which an arrest was made. In addition, a VOCA grant enabled the director to hire an advocate to work solely with victims of domestic violence. Program development and modification may be divided into nine principal tasks. This chapter discusses six of these tasks: 1. obtaining guidance for program development; 2. conducting initial and periodic needs assessment; 3. formulating and redefining objectives; 4. identifying and revising target populations; 5. selecting and reevaluating services to be provided; and 6. stimulating and maintaining public awareness and support. Chapter 3 addresses the three remaining tasks: 7. determining service sponsorship and location, 8. estimating funding needs, 9. estimating staffing needs, and recruiting and changing staff. Program staff need not follow these steps in the exact order presented here. Rather, they can adopt a sequence that best accommodates their local planning constraints and opportunities. Obtaining Guidance Throughout all of the steps listed above, it is important that planners and staff seek guidance from individuals experienced in victim services. Program planners and staff almost always seek guidance from staff of other programs, both within and outside their State. For instance, to obtain ideas for starting the Greenville Victim/Witness Assistance Program, planners culled through 70 requests for Federal funding of victim assistance programs. Similarly, the founder of the Minneapolis--St. Paul program telephoned directors in Pima County, Arizona, and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for advice on where to locate the program. (See appendix A for contact names and for the addresses and telephone numbers of programs described in this publication.) Informal contact by phone or in person is, of course, the most common way to learn from other program staff. In addition, as the number of victim assistance programs has grown in recent years, national, State, and local networks of victim service providers have become more common, providing comprehensive sources of information for both new and existing programs. When the victim assistance coordinator for the Colorado State Patrol was first developing her program, she joined the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance. Members assisted her with the development of brochures and other program materials; she obtained further guidance during the organization's annual retreat and bimonthly training seminars. Written materials and conferences can assist both fledgling and established programs. National, State, and local victim service networks and organizations regularly host conferences; sometimes program planners and staff may also be able to obtain the written proceedings from past conferences. Some of the most useful recent publications are listed in the box on the following page, "How to Operate a Victim Assistance Program: Recent Comprehensive, `How-To' Publications." Additionally, State or national clearinghouses, such as the Federal Government's National Criminal Justice Reference Service, or the organizations mentioned above can locate up-to-date publications. University criminal justice and social science departments, as well as libraries, can also be useful sources. Internet sources of information can provide substantial assistance to program planners, including timely information regarding funding opportunities, descriptions of promising programs, and information on technical assistance. Two of the most valuable Internet information sources are the Partnerships Against Violence Network (PAVNET) and the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) databases. Both are operated by the U.S. Department of Justice and can be accessed through Internet listings of governmental sources of information. The PAVNET Online User's Guide is available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service ([800] 851-3420). Program advisory committees can provide expert advice on starting and improving a program. They can also help with: o identifying and gaining the support of resources in the local community; o avoiding duplication of effort; o advertising program services; and o securing leads to funding sources. In establishing an advisory board, it is important to include representatives of the criminal justice system, the social service agencies, and other community groups with which program staff most likely will be collaborating. The Victim Service Council in St. Louis County assembled an advisory board soon after it received first-year funding. The board included two police chiefs, a police captain, the prosecuting attorney, and the county court administrator. Its contribution was most helpful in areas involving long-term strategy and improving relationships with the criminal justice system. When, toward the end of their first year, program administrators expressed apprehension to the board about future funding, a police chief on the board suggested that they submit a three-year plan to county officials, a step that turned out to be an essential ingredient in the program's survival. Planners and staff need to consider which resources may be most helpful at various stages of program development. For instance, written materials may be most valuable during the early stages of planning. Advisory board contributions may be most critical during the planning and early stages of the program. Conferences can be useful both during the initial stages, when program planners can establish valuable contacts and obtain advice from experienced advocates, and after a program has been in operation several months, when staff can compare their own experiences with those of other, more established programs. Conducting an Initial and Periodic Needs Assessment Conducting a needs assessment is one of the most crucial tasks that program planners and staff can perform. The task involves two primary elements: 1. identifying the problems that victims in the program's jurisdiction encounter as a result of their victimization, and 2. determining the extent to which these problems are currently being addressed. It is usually best if program planners conduct a needs assessment as the first step in program planning. In the past, programs were often assured of funding from public sources and impatient to get the project up and running. Also, some victim advocates may think victims' needs are obvious. Nevertheless, experienced program practitioners usually stress the importance of beginning with a needs assessment and conducting periodic reassessments throughout the life of the program.[1] Why Conduct a Needs Assessment? There are six compelling reasons for conducting a needs assessment, whether as the initial planning step or as an ongoing activity: 1. To identify the specific needs of victims and witnesses in the jurisdiction. The Alameda County Victim/Witness Assistance Division learned through a survey that nearly 30 percent of victims whose stolen property was recovered by police never had it returned by the courts. Victim/Witness Services in Milwaukee discovered that nearly 45 percent of the victims it surveyed had difficulty finding transportation to the courthouse.[2] Without a needs assessment, program staff may begin by providing some services that are largely unnecessary while neglecting others that are badly needed. For example, a study of four victim assistance programs found a significant discrepancy between victims' reported needs and the programs' services: victims did not receive the security-related and financial assistance that they said they needed. The study also indicated that program staff need to find out which needs victims tend to satisfy through other sources. For instance, victims reported that their primary need after the crime was "to talk with someone." However, they were far more likely to fulfill this need through family and friends than through a victim assistance program.[3] 2. To determine which victims have the greatest need for services. Program planners and staff who omit a needs assessment can waste considerable effort directing services at clients with relatively minor problems while neglecting victims with serious problems. Failure to assist victims and witnesses in greatest need, with the help they most want, can be politically harmful to the program if funding authorities and other sources of support become concerned about its lack of initial achievement. 3. To determine whether these needs are being met-- or could be met--by other human service providers in the community, and to establish program ties where this is the case. Staff of the Greenville Victim/Witness Assistance Program knew that an existing Rape Crisis Council was effectively caring for victims of sexual assault at the scene of the crime, making it unnecessary for the program to provide immediate crisis counseling. By working with many community service providers, the director of the program is able to ensure that her program's services do not overlap with those of other programs. "Our plate is full as it is," this director stated. Program directors advise keeping in touch with other agencies to find out whether they have dropped or added any services. 4. To learn about other agencies' needs in dealing with victims and witnesses. In developing its child abuse unit, the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) District Attorney's Office Victim/Witness Service Program found that many criminal justice and social service officials were eager to have one agency coordinate the various interviews and services needed in child abuse investigations. 5. To generate information for promoting the program to potential and current sources of funding. Funding sources may be more likely to support a program if they see documented evidence of victims' needs and of the potential benefits of program services. Alameda County (California) program planners found that their needs assessment convinced prosecutors of the potential value of the program's services. Initially, district attorneys felt that the program would be a waste of Federal funds; but, after a survey revealed that victims' biggest complaint was lack of notification of case outcome, some attorneys began to see the project's value for increasing witness cooperation.[4] Information from a needs assessment can also be used later in the life of the program to demonstrate program effectiveness. 6. To highlight areas in which existing programs need improvement. New York's Victim Services Agency found from a survey that witnesses needed social services as well as assistance in court attendance. As a result, program staff shifted some of their efforts from witness management to victim services.[5] Some states have conducted statewide needs assessments in order to decide which programs should be funded under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA). For instance, before awarding any of its VOCA funds, Pennsylvania required each county to make its own determination of the need for victim services within its jurisdiction and then, using the results of this needs assessment, to solicit and evaluate proposals from eligible programs within its borders. Virginia has conducted a similar statewide assessment. Consider Special Populations Some program planners may from the outset want to target services to particular types of victim populations, such as children, minorities (including African-Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and other ethnic groups), or victims of workplace violence; such targeting may be needed because of funding requirements or because these groups are being neglected. Staff of well-established programs may want to consider refocusing their efforts on special populations, or needs assessment may reveal unexpected types of victims that have special needs or are underserved. To determine the needs of special victim populations, program planners or staff may want to survey only particular target groups, or they may wish to analyze the results of a survey of all types of crime victims for indications that certain groups need special attention. Consultation with local advocacy groups and social service agencies can also be useful. Who Conducts the Needs Assessment? Program planners and staff will usually find it most economical to develop and conduct the needs assessment themselves. However, it is important that they understand thoroughly how to conduct a comprehensive, credible, objective survey. The needs assessment may be considered biased if conducted in-house.[6] Program planners and staff must be sure that the information they receive is accurate so that they can respond to victims' most pressing needs and so that the results can stand up under the scrutiny of potential collaborators and funding sources. If resources permit, program planners or staff may want to consider using a consultant--who would likely be more knowledgeable about survey techniques and would be less apt to arouse charges of bias--to conduct the needs assessment. Local universities may be good sources of researchers or graduate students interested in designing and conducting an assessment, sometimes at little or no cost. How Is a Needs Assessment Conducted? Conducting a needs assessment need not be costly or time-consuming for an individual program. Each of the techniques described below can generate valuable and reliable information. Examine criminal justice data sources. Program planners and directors can secure data about specific crimes in the community from police, prosecutors, and local officials, and examine it for clues regarding victim services. Useful data might include: o proportion of cases' charges withdrawn because of victim/witness nonattendance or other reasons; o proportion of cases in which restitution is ordered and collected; o proportion of injured victims eligible and applying for crime victim compensation; and o number of home security checks conducted by police. This information can suggest activities that staff of a new or existing program might want to undertake or modify. For example, high rates of witness nonattendance may point to the value of establishing a witness management component. The information can also be used as a baseline against which to make comparisons after the program has been in operation. In addition to local statistics, findings of national and State studies regarding victims' needs can be useful. (See appendix B for selected national studies.) Government reports, such as the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization surveys, may also prove helpful. Interview criminal justice officials and staff. Talking with police officers, prosecutors, and judges, and with corrections, probation, and parole officers can: o familiarize program staff with the activities and needs of criminal justice agencies; o provide information on the needs of victims and witnesses; o reveal how criminal justice agencies can best participate in the effort to improve the treatment of crime victims; o help secure support from criminal justice system officials early on and establish ties for future collaboration; and o identify potential advisory board members and other potential collaborators. In general, it is a good idea to interview both agency administrators and staff--for example, the chief prosecutor and the assistant prosecutors, or the police chief and investigators and patrol officers. The program director for the Alameda County Victim/Witness Assistance Division discovered from police property clerks that they were experiencing considerable difficulty storing all the property assigned to them--a problem of which police administrators were unaware. The director secured the clerks' and then the chief's support for a system of photographing evidence instead of storing it, which benefited victims and police alike. (As in this example, it is best if program staff obtain the support of local authorities before attempting to change a procedure within the community's criminal justice system.) It is especially important to interview police investigators and prosecutors responsible for cases involving homicide, burglary, and sexual assault (including child molestation and incest). They know the needs of these particularly traumatized and vulnerable victims, and their cooperation is especially important for helping these victims. Officers with community policing responsibilities may be particularly willing to provide--and perhaps even be responsible for providing--information about victims' needs. Questions for criminal justice personnel generally fall into four categories: 1. their perceptions regarding victim and witness needs, and how these needs are being addressed; 2. problems that they experience working with victims and witnesses, and whether and how victim assistance program staff can help them execute their responsibilities; 3. whether and how the respondent's agency can refer victims and witnesses to the program; and 4. which agency (if there is a real choice in the matter) would be a good place to house the victim assistance program, and who should sponsor it. Interview social service agency staff and other community officials. Program planners need to identify the social service agencies in the community that are already serving victims and witnesses or could help them. The needs assessment with these groups serves both to identify service needs and establish program linkages. A list of potentially relevant agencies and organizations, and the role of each, may be found in chapter 4. College and university officials may be useful sources of information regarding student victims' needs in light of the passage of the Federal Student Right to Know Act of 1991, which requires colleges and universities to track and report campus crime. As with the criminal justice agencies, where possible, it is best if the director of each agency or group is interviewed along with one or two staff members who may have more direct or recent experience with service delivery, and who may be in a better position to act as a liaison between the program and the agency. Again, in-person interviews are typically the most effective approach to gathering information from human service delivery personnel. Topic areas to cover in interviews with social service personnel and other community officials include the following: o their perceptions of the needs of victims and witnesses; o difficulties they have experienced, both in terms of troublesome clients and problems working with the criminal justice system; o which kinds of services they offer or would be willing to offer to benefit victims and witnesses; o whether they will accept referrals from a victim assistance program, and how many they can handle; o what eligibility criteria they have for referrals and what fees they charge, if any; o how they wish referrals to be handled, and what kind of follow-up they would like from the victim/witness assistance unit; o whether they want to refer victims and witnesses to the program, and how many they are likely to refer; o their opinions regarding the best possible location and sponsor for a victim assistance program (if planners have some flexibility in the decision). Appendix C provides a sample questionnaire developed by the St. Louis County Victim Service Council for social service organizations. Staff of existing victim assistance programs can interview human service provider staff to update previously collected information. Some agencies' services and needs may change over time, requiring alterations in the victim assistance program's referrals to these agencies and modifications in the program's own services. It may also be worthwhile for staff of an established program to talk with social service agencies when the program changes its target victim population. When the new director of Suffolk County's Victim/Witness Services in Massachusetts revitalized the program's child abuse unit, she met with health professionals, social workers, and other service providers to coordinate interviews of child victims and the provision of services to them. Interview representatives of schools and other community groups. Schools, churches, support groups, and other community groups are increasingly providing outreach and services to crime victims. Victim assistance program planners and staff can interview representatives of such groups for their perceptions of victim needs and for information about services they provide. This can be particularly important when seeking to serve special populations, such as minority victims, with whom these organizations may work closely. Interviews with these representatives may also result in the recruitment of volunteer staff and may lay the groundwork for future collaborative efforts. Survey victims and witnesses.[7] In order to obtain systematic information, it is helpful to develop a questionnaire that elicits the following types of information: o type of crime or other victimization (assault, suicide in family, purse snatching, etc.); o immediate and long-term emotional impacts (fear, anger, guilt) as well as physiological disturbances such as nausea, headaches, and insomnia; o immediate and lasting physical injury; o financial losses (medical costs, wages, lock repair), and whether and how these were or will be recovered (insurance, compensation, civil recovery, restitution, borrowing); o experience with police and courts, and with probation, parole, and corrections departments (how treated, delays); o need for assistance in overcoming problems created by the crime (counseling, emergency repairs, short-term financial assistance, property return, transportation to court); o awareness of existing service agencies, and use of and satisfaction with their services; o availability and helpfulness of informal networks of support (family, friends, neighbors); and o future intentions with regard to reporting crime or taking crime prevention measures. It is also useful to include questions about the severity of problems so that services are targeted to the most pressing client needs. Some widespread difficulties may be relatively trivial (e.g., finding parking at the courthouse), while others may be infrequent but devastating (e.g., permanent physical injury). Demographic data may also be gathered--such as the victims' and witnesses' sex, age, income, marital status, education, and employment status, and whether the victim is a renter or home owner--but care should be exercised to avoid offending groups that may misunderstand the purpose of acquiring such information. Demographic information can be useful in anticipating victim and witness needs for temporary shelter, emergency repairs, financial assistance, and translation services. A questionnaire may be short and still provide useful information. The number of victims and witnesses who are interviewed can also be adjusted to reflect staff resources available for administering the questionnaire and analyzing the results. Victims and witnesses can be reached by mail, by telephone, or in person. Each approach may be used by itself or in conjunction with one or both of the other approaches. Program staff planning to telephone or visit victims and witnesses may find it helpful to send letters advising them of the survey in advance so as to avoid the resistance that surprise can arouse. Formulating and Redefining the Program's Mission, Goals, and Objectives Program administrators can articulate program aspirations at three levels: a mission statement that describes the overarching ambition of the program (e.g., to make victims' needs an integral focus of the criminal justice system); a set of goals (e.g., to counsel victims--perhaps identifying priority target groups--or to educate criminal justice personnel about victims' needs); and specific objectives, which are usually more operationally and empirically defined than goals (e.g., to provide counseling to at least 100 violent crime victims or to conduct at least 10 public education seminars over the next 12 months). Planners sometimes avoid or delay this task because the program purpose seems obvious or superfluous, the task is time-consuming, explicit objectives might inhibit change, or the planners are reluctant to state their true ambitions. However, it is important to establish in writing all three levels of program intent early in the planning process-- and to reestablish them as necessary--for several reasons: o Goals and objectives give other groups, including victims and witnesses, an idea of what to expect from the program and enable them to cooperate with it effectively. A strong mission statement gives program staff an inspiring ideal to guide their activities. o Well-defined goals and objectives help to encourage staff to focus their efforts on activities that will accomplish these aims. Consensus on program goals and objectives helps avoid inconsistent, conflicting, and superfluous activity. o A clear statement of mission, goals, and objectives may establish credibility with potential funding sources. o Evaluating program success is impossible unless a program's expectations have been identified. (Program objectives are more important than the general mission statement and goals for evaluating a program's accomplishments.) A program's mission can probably be developed at the earliest stage of program planning. The more specific program goals and objectives should flow naturally from the needs assessment and, once conducted, from the identification of target groups and determination of service location, program sponsor, and funding sources. Goals and objectives set forth what program staff plan to do to meet victims' and witnesses' needs. Sponsor wishes and funding levels also influence the selection of goals and objectives. For example, many programs operated by prosecutor offices include witness management as a primary objective in response to prosecutors' concerns about witness appearance in court. Experienced program staff recommend several approaches to facilitate establishing and modifying goals and objectives. Establish the extent to which staff will devote time to community-at-large goals, such as increasing awareness of crime prevention techniques or promoting legislation to improve the plight of victims and witnesses. Some practitioners add these goals only after their program has been in existence several months or even years. For example, after the Pima County (Arizona) Victim/Witness Program was well established and respected in the county, staff began providing stress debriefing services to traumatized witnesses of crime and to individuals in crime-ridden areas (for example., residents of an apartment complex where a rapist had attacked several women). Others have reduced their emphasis in these areas when funding cutbacks required a choice between activities designed to promote long-term benefits and those providing direct service delivery. Programs usually can achieve community-at-large goals and objectives only by collaborating with other service providers and community organizations. Decide how limited or comprehensive the program will be. Programs will vary in scope depending on: 1. whether staff provide direct services not only to clients but also to the criminal justice or social service system; 2. whether staff seek to achieve community-at-large goals and objectives or only those related to direct client assistance; 3. whether staff serve both victims and witnesses; 4. resources and funding mandates; and 5. related services provided by others in the community. In general, it is best to start small and begin with modest goals. The Victims Advocate Foundation, for example, was established to serve five counties in rural Indiana with only one full-time staff person. As a result, that person, the program director, concentrates his efforts on victims of violent crime, especially in emergency situations-- such as a battered wife who needs immediate assistance.[9] Be flexible. Goals and objectives should be regarded as provisional and subject to modification as experience, subsequent needs assessments, and evaluations indicate the need to change course. The Pima County Victim/Witness Program included among its original goals "increasing the willingness of victims and witnesses to cooperate with police and prosecutors after a crime has been reported." Program staff abandoned this goal when program priorities changed and early attempts at documenting "willingness" proved futile.[10] Be specific. Remember that the more operationally defined a program's objectives are, the more useful they will be as measures of achievement, statements of purpose, and guidlines for staff. Vague statements like "to promote improved relationships between the police, the courts, youth and adult services, and the general public" contrast sharply with an objective like "to notify 25,000 victims and police officers of the outcome of their cases and to thank them for their assistance." Identifying and Revising Target Populations Planners need to prioritize client types, either before the program begins operations or not long thereafter, because limited resources will probably make it impossible for staff to assist all the victims and witnesses who need help. An explicit policy, identifying target groups that program staff believe merit assured attention, will ensure that these individuals do not "slip through the cracks." Identifying specific target populations will also ensure that program staff do not raise false expectations among criminal justice officials and community groups regarding the victims it will serve and the services it will provide. (Program staff rarely refuse to help a victim who telephones, walks in the door, or has been referred by police, prosecutors, or other agencies. The choices program staff face are whether to initiate contact and how much time to spend with certain categories of victims.) General Guidelines for Selection Certainly, the needs assessment can help determine the program's target audiences. An assessment can reveal which types of crime victims are most prevalent and have the most pressing needs. It also can identify gaps in current service delivery to certain groups, such as children or minorities. The local political context can influence the selection of target groups in a number of ways. Program managers need to be sensitive to local political processes and stakeholders and, where necessary or appropriate, select client types that meet the concerns of special interest groups in the community. Funding constraints may also influence target populations and are often part of the local political context. The California Penal Code requires that State-funded programs serve victims and witnesses of all types of crime, with particular emphasis on elderly crime victims. The Federal Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) makes funds available to States for victim assistance with the mandate that programs serving certain target groups, including victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse, receive priority consideration. Amendments to VOCA in 1988 require States to also give special consideration to previously underserved victims of violent crime, including families and friends of homicide victims, victims of drunk driving accidents and physical assault, and Native American victims. The Victim Assistance in Indian Country Discretionary Grant Program was established by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) in 1988 with the express purpose of funding programs that would serve Native Americans on reservations.[11] The Victims Assistance Program in Portland, Oregon, obtained two VOCA grants to address the needs of victims of gang and hate crimes and victims of juvenile offenders. The Chicago Housing Authority Victim Assistance Program was funded by the city as one of many efforts to address the issues of drugs and drug-related crime in public housing. The program targets only victims who are residents in authority housing. Normally, planners and staff must make subjective value judgments regarding their priorities for serving victims and witnesses. If staff limitations require a choice between devoting major resources to victims of child molestation or to battered spouses, and neither the needs assessment nor the concerns of the community point to a clear-cut preference between the groups, then program planners and staff must rely on their own estimation of need and on the availability of other appropriate resources in the community to decide which group merits priority treatment. The suggestions of an advisory board can also be extremely useful. Specific Guidelines for Selection Planners and staff can also consider type of offense, client characteristics, and case status when determining which target populations to serve. In terms of offense categories, most programs give priority to victims of violent crimes, because of the physical impact on the victim and the emotional distress that typically results. Homicide, rape, aggravated assault, domestic violence, and child sexual assault are offense categories that program staff typically seek to address. Many program staff have found that they are being asked to handle increasing numbers of domestic violence cases, in part because of increased public awareness of the problem and to laws mandating the arrest of batterers. The Victim Service Council in St. Louis County, for example, experienced a dramatic rise in the number of victims who seek assistance in obtaining orders of protection. Many victim assistance programs on Native American reservations have caseloads filled primarily with victims of domestic violence. Tender Hearts, Inc., a victim assistance program on the Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota, operates primarily as a shelter for battered women and children. Domestic violence victims make up the majority of clients served by the Kickapoo Victims of Crime Assistance Program, which serves Native Americans and other individuals throughout Kansas. Property crimes are generally not high-priority categories for victim assistance programs. However, staff of Citizens Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul believe that the impact of property crimes is underestimated, particularly for victims who live alone. As a result, program staff regularly provide services to victims of burglary as well as to victims of violent crime. For example, program staff and volunteers help operate an independent victim-offender reconciliation project that mediates restitution agreements between burglars and their victims. Until the program's mobile unit became too costly, staff used to visit the homes of elderly burglary victims to temporarily board up broken windows or secure damaged doors. Staff now use their own vehicles, when possible, to provide these services. Victims of workplace violence have received increasing attention from some victim assistance programs and other agencies that provide counseling and other services. Bank robbery in particular has been the focus of several programs' services, owing in part to the increasingly violent nature of this crime. The victim/witness coordinator for the U.S. attorney's office in the Eastern District of Wisconsin formed a support group for bank tellers who had been victims of or witnesses to a robbery. Post Trauma Resources, a private counseling group in South Carolina, trains bank managers on how to provide support for tellers in the event of bank robbery; after a robbery, the group provides debriefing, counseling, and other support services for victimized tellers. Local law enforcement officers and victim assistance program staff refer victim tellers to this group of therapists. The victim/witness specialist of the U.S. attorney's office in the district of Oregon has developed a bank robbery victims response network that includes both volunteer advocates who contact and assist victims and referral sources that provide victims with counseling and other help. The Counseling Team, a group of mental health professionals in San Bernardino, California, has contracts with 15 area banks and credit unions to provide critical incident debriefing services. In 1995, when a bank teller was shot, the team conducted debriefing sessions with other employees and counseled the victim's mother and boyfriend. Also in California, victim advocates located in U.S. attorney's offices have provided robbery response training for other victim service providers throughout the State. Another criterion for selecting client groups is client characteristics, independent of the crime involved. Certain types of victims--such as the elderly, children, minorities, and the handicapped- -may experience the effects of victimization more severely than other groups, or may not be receiving adequate assistance from human service providers in the community. For example, many victim advocates place a priority on helping elderly victims, recognizing that the emotional and financial impact of even minor crimes is often greater for this group than for younger victims.[12] Northwest Victim Services in Philadelphia frequently assists not only elderly crime victims (including victims of elder abuse) but also elderly individuals who need help obtaining social services. Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Victim/Witness Services staff coordinate interviews of and services to child abuse victims so that the children do not have to go from the police department to the prosecutor's office to the mental health clinic to child protective services for repeated questioning. Another potential client group is witnesses. Many programs provide some witness-related services, both to clients who are victims and to witnesses who are not themselves crime victims but who are referred by prosecutors for special assistance. Program staff must also decide whether they will target witnesses in general as a priority. Many programs (typically those sponsored by district attorneys) provide services to all civilian witnesses, whether or not they are victims. Some programs provide direct assistance to police officers. Typically, they place police witnesses on standby notice so that the officers can avoid waiting long periods in court or showing up only to have a case continued or dismissed. This service saves the community overtime pay associated with these delays. Finally, programs may choose target groups on the basis of case status. That is, program staff may provide assistance to all victims regardless of whether they report the crime; only to victims who report the crime; only to victims who report the crime and whose case is charged; or only to victims whose case is prosecuted (not dismissed). The Alameda County (California) program provides assistance to victims of violent crime regardless of whether their case goes to court. All victims of property crime receive letters notifying them of the availability of the program's services; victims who then request help or are referred to the program by criminal justice officials receive assistance. A decision to limit services to victims who report the crime may reflect lack of access to nonreporting victims or a reluctance to devote staff time to individuals who have been victimized but who do not attempt to bring the offender to justice. Some programs accept certain groups of victims regardless of whether they report the crime--for example, rape victims--but refuse to serve victims of other violent crimes who fail to press charges. To some extent, a program's ability to select clients on the basis of case status is determined by its location or sponsor. Citizens Council Victim Services, one unit in a large, independent organization in Minneapolis-St. Paul that addresses criminal justice issues, initially reached victims regardless of whether they had reported a crime by maintaining four storefront offices where victims could walk in for assistance. Staff found, however, that most crime victims contacted the program through its crisis telephone line rather than by going to an office. Program staff now concentrate their operations in one office but continue to serve victims who have not reported the crime, frequently by going to the victim's home to provide home repair, counseling, or other services. Assisting victims who may be at least partially culpable has proven troublesome for some programs. Staff members sometimes avoid these clients because helping them exceeds the program's mandate to assist "victims" or conflicts with the goals of the sponsoring agency. Participants in barroom assaults, for example, are sometimes assigned to this nebulous category. Some programs are increasingly being asked to assist victims who have themselves been involved in crime, particularly drug dealers who become victims. The Victim/Witness Assistance Program in Atlanta used to refuse services to any victims who were drug-involved. With the increase in such cases, however, program staff now serve them and their families. In general with these cases, it is important that staff members talk personally with victims, since police officers' and prosecutors' judgments of which victims share responsibility for victimization may be erroneous or irrelevant in deciding whom to help. The director of the Alameda County program pointed out that it is important that program staff treat all victims and their families in a professional manner, even if it is only to refer them elsewhere for help. Periodic Reexamination of Target Groups To ensure that victims and witnesses continue to receive appropriate attention, program staff may want to reexamine their target groups periodically. An infusion--or withdrawal--of funds may also create a need to determine whether new target groups can be added to, or old ones dropped from, a program's existing clientele. For example, some programs that had previously assisted only battered spouses have, with funding from the Federal Victims of Crime Act of 1984, been able to add staff who can serve other victims. Victim Service Council in St. Louis County staff began targeting victims of juvenile crime after noting a rise in such cases and after the state passed a statute requiring the provision of victim services in juvenile court. Program staff can reassess client categories formally, by means of an ongoing needs assessment, or informally, by being sensitive to the needs expressed in the local press, in the complaints of current clients, and in talks with criminal justice and social service system personnel. Selecting and Reevaluating the Services Mix One approach to determining which services to provide is to review the services provided by victim assistance programs across the country, and victims' needs identified in research studies. A more beneficial approach is to implement a step-by-step service selection procedure that reflects conditions in the local community. Required Services Some program sponsors, particularly government agencies, require or recommend that programs provide certain services. The California Penal Code, for example, requires that State-funded victim assistance programs carry out a number of activities, including home visits, translation services for non-English-speaking victims and witnesses and the hearing-impaired, coordination of volunteer participation, and services for elderly crime victims. In addition, the code requires the provision of primary services--such as crisis intervention, direct counseling, assistance with claims, court escorts, and public presentations-- and recommends the provision of several optional services, such as child care, intervention with the client's creditors, crime prevention services, and witness protection. The optional services, however, may be offered only if the program already adequately provides all of the primary services. Overview of Victim Assistance Services Chapter 1 presented a list of services that victim assistance programs may provide. Figure 2-1 shows how many of the 23 to 25 programs contacted in the 1986 and 1994 surveys provide each service. As the figure indicates, most of the programs provide many of the same services. A few interesting changes occurred in service delivery between the two surveys. The number of programs providing food and shelter assistance increased significantly (from one-third to nearly two- thirds). However, a dramatically smaller number of programs reported that they are providing mediation services, legal and paralegal counsel, witness fee assistance, and child care. Other research indicates that corrections-based services, such as notification of parole hearings and victim-offender reconciliation, are becoming more prevalent.[15] A survey of nearly 200 programs conducted in 1985 found that the most frequently reported services were explaining the court process, making referrals, providing a court escort for the victim, and helping the victim with victim compensation applications. Of the services listed in the questionnaire, those provided least often were child care while the parent testified, emergency financial assistance, and repairing or replacing broken door locks. The study includes descriptions of programs that offer some of these services.[16] A Federal survey of 319 programs conducted in 1990 found that the majority of victims served received information on their rights, information on the criminal justice system, notification of court dates, assistance with applications for state victim compensation, and referrals to social service agencies.[17] These studies may have arrived at different results because of inconsistency in the research methodology, lack of random sampling, or other research limitations. Program staff often find that services that are time-consuming on a per-client basis (such as witness escort and transportation) are not necessarily those on which they actually spend the largest proportion of their time. For example, crisis intervention or witness notification may require only a few minutes, but these services may be furnished so often that cumulatively more staff time is spent on them than on any other single service. It is therefore instructive to know not only what the most commonly provided services are but also how much staff time is devoted to furnishing them. Another perspective from which to examine service selection is how important the services are in meeting clients' needs. Some surveys of victim assistance program staff and of victims themselves have indicated that crisis intervention, follow-up counseling, and protection from intimidation are among the more commonly reported needs.[18] At least two studies, however, have found that among victims' most urgent needs are improved security and financial assistance. (See the box, "Victims' Needs May Not Be What You Expect.")[19] Research findings, along with anecdotal information obtained from program directors across the country, indicate that most programs provide a core of services that includes counseling, crisis intervention, referrals, and personal advocacy in the criminal justice system. Beyond this core, program staff must decide for themselves which services are most necessary in their jurisdiction. Before expanding into services that seem innovative (such as providing stress debriefings to individuals traumatized by a crime in their school or workplace), victim service experts recommend that programs ensure that they are providing high-quality basic services to actual victims of violent crime.[20] Procedures for Selecting and Modifying the Service Mix How program planners and staff identify which services to furnish varies considerably. When Alameda County (California) program managers found from a needs assessment that expedited property return procedures and case disposition notification were the most urgently expressed victim needs, staff began by concentrating on meeting these two needs. Over time, the program added other services as it added personnel, selecting services based on informal staff perceptions of recurring needs among the victims and witnesses they were already assisting. By contrast, Citizens Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul was mandated by the State to provide specific services as part of its funding conditions. These services included 24-hour on-scene crisis intervention, transportation, financial assistance (primarily through advocacy to public agencies and other sources of emergency financial assistance), public education, and system advocacy. Some newly established programs in correctional facilities are in direct response to legislative statutes mandating the provision of certain services to victims, such as notification of parole hearings. What follows is a straightforward process for determining which services a new program should provide. This procedure, while retaining the flexibility to add and discard services as needed, introduces a structure to the selection process. Step One: List the victim and witness problems identified in the needs assessment. As emphasized several times in this chapter, program planners and staff need to determine which problems are experienced by victims and witnesses in their community. Planners and staff may wish to distinguish between problems that many victims and witnesses experience (incidence) and problems that victims and witnesses experience as serious (intensity). Step Two: Identify which services will address each problem. In some cases, only one service is appropriate for a given problem (for example, property return for dealing with victims' possessions being kept as evidence). In other cases, several services can help resolve a problem (for example, fear of the criminal justice system can be reduced by court orientation, witness reception, escort services, and public education). Step Three: Identify services already being provided effectively in the community. These services can be excluded as a responsibility of the victim assistance program. In addition, program planners and staff need to consider the extent to which informal support networks, such as family members, friends, and neighbors, are capable of providing some of the services that victim assistance program staff would otherwise have to furnish. Reliance on these individuals, however, should be tempered by evidence that helpers from an informal network may themselves experience considerable stress and financial burdens trying to meet the needs of victims.[21] Step Four: Identify which services will most significantly, or most visibly, meet the needs of the criminal justice system as well as the needs of victims and witnesses. Providing courtroom assistance, for example, may help prosecutors to present their cases more effectively; on-scene crisis intervention may enable officers to spend more time investigating the crime. Step Five: Identify which services will meet the needs of any target groups singled out for priority assistance. Providing transportation services assists not only victims and witnesses who do not have the means to get to court but also battered women who need transportation to stay with a friend or enter a shelter. Interpretation services will assist minority victims who do not speak English. Step Six: Record the cost or amount of time required to provide each service on a per client basis. Categorize services as expensive, moderately expensive, or inexpensive. Keep in mind that new staff will eventually be able to perform many services much more productively as they gain experience. (Chapter 3 provides additional indications of the relative cost of services.) Because a single need can often be met by more than one service, program planners and staff have some flexibility in substituting less expensive services for higher priced ones if they are constrained by limited resources. Once they have displayed this information clearly in chart form, program planners and staff can take the seventh and final step in selecting services. Step Seven: Balance all of the above, sometimes conflicting, considerations, keeping in mind the amount of funding and other resources the program expects to have available.[24] There is no formula for weighing all these considerations and developing a "correct" mix of services. Subjectivity and a certain amount of guesswork are inevitable. The goal is to inject as much rationality as possible into the process of selecting services so that the program is able to offer the maximum benefit to the greatest number of victims and witnesses and still remain viable. Three final considerations may be useful while identifying which services to furnish. First, start relatively small and, if appropriate, expand later. In general, most experts advise that, if a program can provide only limited assistance to victims, it should reduce the range of services it undertakes while still assisting as many types of victims and witnesses as possible.[25] Such an arrangement is feasible because victims and witnesses tend to have common needs, regardless of their background and personality or the nature of the case. Another additional guideline in selecting or modifying the service mix is to be flexible and open to change based on a number of contingencies: o Some services may require more time than is warranted relative to the benefits they provide. o Clients may reveal a need which program planners did not anticipate in the planning stages. o Services provided to enlist the support of police or prosecutors may no longer be required once cooperation has been secured. o The political climate or research findings may signal the need for an increase in certain types of services, such as on-the-scene crisis counseling for rape victims. o Additional volunteers may present an opportunity to expand services. o Program changes among other service providers, or the creation or demise of other social service organizations, may render an existing program service redundant--or an absent one necessary. o Increased staff productivity may create time in which to provide additional services. o It may be possible to expand services if funding increases, or it may be necessary to curtail services if funding is cut back. A final consideration in selecting or modifying services is the administrative ease with which they can be furnished. Services that are operationally difficult to administer may be less attractive for planners and staff than those that can be delivered easily. Stimulating and Maintaining Public Awareness and Support Both new and established programs share the common, constant need to stimulate and maintain awareness and support of victim needs and services among the criminal justice system, other service providers, and the community at large. Publicity and public education can accomplish three vital goals: 1. Generate clients; 2. Create support for the program itself; and 3. Increase public knowledge about specific crimes (such as rape, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse), the experience of victimization, the operations of the criminal justice system, and crime prevention techniques. Generating clients and support for the program are considered publicity efforts, as opposed to increasing public knowledge, which relies on public education. A variety of publicity avenues are open to victim assistance programs: o securing news coverage, o making television appearances and radio broadcasts, o posting advertisements, o making presentations to community groups, o attending community meetings, and o distributing program literature. Publicity can enhance program visibility and acceptability, as well as generate program support in the form of financial contributions or in-kind donations. Many programs also use publicity to recruit volunteers. As a program becomes more established and develops regular referral sources, staff may find further publicity useful but not as necessary. The director of the Victim/Witness Assistance Program in Atlanta has tried to encourage local media to publicize topics like stalking and domestic violence. When a local radio station whose primary listeners are young African-Americans requested an interview, the director convinced the station to produce an entire day of programming on location at her office in the courthouse. Starting at 6:00 a.m., the station conducted interviews with the sheriff, judges, victims, and others on the topic of victims and violence. In an attempt to reach the community more effectively and to highlight the benefits of her program to police and politicians, the director has established a publicity committee which plans to develop a speaker's bureau, public service announcements, and short articles for local publications (including "newsletters" for subway riders). Some programs have found that publicity can result in a barrage of calls from people needing assistance that is not necessarily appropriate for a victim assistance program to provide. As a result, directors caution program staff to be realistic and accurate in their publicity efforts and not to offer more than the program can provide. The director of the Atlanta program adopted the position, however, that it is better to have more calls than no calls. To conduct public education, program staff often give lectures at universities, churches, senior citizen centers, and local community clubs. Citizens Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul organized "Blockwatch," a public education campaign on crime prevention for neighborhoods and apartment complexes. Meetings, led jointly by a staff member from the program and a police officer from the local precinct, were attended by over 18,000 people in a three-year period. The program also showed a short film for senior citizens on how to avoid getting mugged. In conjunction with public education lectures, many programs use written materials, such as brochures and pamphlets. It is important that program literature be available in other languages if a large part of the community does not speak English. Encouraging the spread of information about the program through word of mouth can also be useful. Victim assistance programs can consider using volunteers to give presentations or working with other human services providers and members of the criminal justice system to engage in joint publicity or public education activities. The program director of the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Victim/Witness Services program conducts local community forums with criminal justice officials and local service providers to increase community awareness of victim needs and support for program services. She also tries to publicize Victim Rights Week and program activities among small local newspapers, which are more receptive to events in their communities than are the large Boston newspapers. The Pima County, Arizona, program sponsored a victim's rights poster and essay contest which drew almost 400 entries from local school children. The program also developed three victim services public service announcements, featuring volunteer staff, that aired on local television channels. The next chapter addresses three other major aspects of program planning: determining service sponsorship and location; estimating funding needs; and estimating staffing needs and recruiting and changing staff. As with the planning tasks discussed in this chapter, programs need to address these issues not only during the planning process but throughout the life of the program. Endnotes 1. Carol Holliday Blew and Robert H. Rosenblum, An Exemplary Project: Witness Information Service, Peoria, Illinois (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1980), 55; Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to Prosecution and Victim Assistance A Training and Resource Manual (Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center, 1994); Marlene Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1993). 2. Abt Associates Inc., Exemplary Project Screening and Validation Reports: Four Victim/Witness Programs (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Abt Associates Inc., 1978), 53. 3. Wesley G. Skogan, Robert Davis, and Arthur Lurigio, Victims' Needs and Victim Services: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, ( Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1990. 4. Abt Associates Inc., Exemplary Project Screening and Validation Reports. 5. Blair B. Bourque, Constance Corley, Roberta Cronin, Robert Krug, Jane Schubert, and William Trencher, "National Evaluation Program Phase I Assessment: Victim/Witness Assistance Projects: Site Reports" (Washington, D.C. : American Institutes for Research, November 1979), C-33. 6. Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals, 142. 7. For discussions of more sophisticated ways to interview victims and witnesses, see James Garofalo, Local Victim Surveys: A Review of the Issues (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, 1977). 8. Kenneth Friedman, Helen Bischoff, Robert Davis, and Andrea Person, Victims and Helpers: Reactions to Crime. (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1982). 9. For a discussion of the problems faced by victims of domestic violence in rural areas, see K. Fahnestock, "Not in My County," Judges' Journal, 31, no. 3 (1992): 10-17, 32-36. 10. David C. Bolin, "The Pima County Victim/Witness Program: Analyzing Its Success, Evaluation and Change, Special Issue, 1980, 124. 11. For a discussion of crime on Native American reservations, see R. Bachman, Death and Violence on the Reservation: Homicide, Family Violence, and Suicide in American Indian Populations (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1992). 12. See Issues Affecting Crime Victims: Background, Current Status, and Implications for Older Persons (Washington, D.C. : American Association of Retired Persons, 1990). 13. Kerry Healey, Victim and Witness Intimidation: New Developments and Emerging Responses, Research in Action (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1995); Peter Finn and Kerry Healey, Preventing Witness Intimidation: A Practical Guide, Issues and Practices (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming); Frank J. Cannavale. Jr. and William D. Falcon, Improving Witness Cooperation: Summary Report of the District of Columbia Witness Survey and a Handbook for Witness Management (Washington, D : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1976), 11. 14. Robert C. Davis and Madeline Henley, "Victim Service Programs," in Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies, and Programs, eds. Arthur J. Lurigio, Wesley G. Skogan, and Robert C. Davis (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990), 164. 15. National Victim Services Survey of Adult and Juvenile Corrections and Parole Agencies: Final Report (Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center, 1991). 16. Albert R. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims: Research, Policy, and Practice (Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990), 47. 17. Tom McEwen, "Understanding the Needs of Victim Assistance Programs," National Institute of Justice, Unpublished Report, August 1994. 18. Friedman et al., Victims and Helpers, 9. 19. Skogan et al., Victims' Needs and Victim Services, and Friedman et al., Victims and Helpers. 20. Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals. 21. Friedman et al., Victims and Helpers, 14-15. 22. Ibid. 23. Skogan et al., Victims' Needs and Victim Services. 24. Program planners who have already identified or hired their staff, and directors of existing programs, may need to determine whether their personnel have or can develop the necessary skills and interest to provide certain services, such as legal/paralegal counseling, security repair, and on-scene counseling. 25. John Hoilister Stein, "Better Services for Crime Victims: A Prescriptive Package," Washington, D : Blackstone Institutes, 1977, 106. Friedman et al., Victims and Helpers, 17-18; Richard D. Knudten, Anthony Meade, Mary Knudten, and William Doerner, "Victims and Witnesses: The Impact of Crime and Their Experience with the Criminal Justice System" (Milwaukee: Marquette University Victim/Witness Project, 1976); Steve Chesney and Carole S. Schneider, "Crime Victim Crisis Centers: The Minnesota Experience," Perspectives on Crime Victims, eds. Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1981), 400; Arthur D. Little, "Final Evaluation Report: Commission of Victim/Witness Assistance" (Washington, D.C. : Arthur D. Little, 1977), 49. -------------------- Sources of Guidance for Program Development and Improvement o Other programs --informal contacts by phone, in writing, or in person --national, State, and local networks of victim service providers (for example, through training seminars, meetings, program contacts) o Written materials and conferences --for example, materials and statewide, regional, and national conferences produced or sponsored by the Office for Victims of Crime, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Victim Center, and other agencies and organizations --research studies and manuals o Internet sources of information --the Partnerships Against Violence Network (PAVNET) and the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) databases on the Internet are valuable sources of information on programs, funding sources, and related topics o Advisory committees --include representatives of criminal justice system, social service agencies, and other community groups involved in victim services (e.g., support groups) -------------------- How To Operate a Victim Assistance Program: Recent, Comprehensive, "How-To" Publications o Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to Prosecution and Victim Assistance, A Training and Resource Manual (Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center, 1994), $45.* Contact the National Victim Center at (703) 276-2880. o Marlene Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1993), $34.95.* Contact NOVA at (202) 232-6682 or Kendall/Hunt Publishers at (800) 228-0810. o Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System: A Program Handbook (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1991), $15. Contact the National Victims Resource Center, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, in any of the following ways: phone:(800) 627-6872 or (800) 851-3420 fax:(301) 251-5212 mail:NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000 email:askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com * The first two publications listed above are also available through the National Victims Resource Center on interlibrary loan. -------------------- What Characterizes a Good Program? Using Program Standards as a Guide As the number and breadth of victim assistance programs have increased in the past 20 years, the Federal Government and some State governments have developed program standards to guide the establishment, operation, and improvement of programs. The National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) developed a "Model Victim Assistance Program" that outlines essential developmental steps and provides performance guidelines for activities in the areas of planning, management, service, and evaluation. This categorization can help staff in new programs develop realistic standards for themselves and can enable staff in established programs to better assess their strengths and weaknesses. (See the box, "National Recommendation of Ranges of Services," later in this chapter.) The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency's (PCCD's) State-funded Victim Service Program, which administers grants to improve the State criminal justice system's treatment of victims and to enhance community-based services to crime victims, developed a resource manual that outlines minimum and model standards for various victim assistance program activities and characteristics. The Commission encourages programs in the State to use the manual for self-evaluation and to ensure that they are at least meeting all of the minimum standards before they strive for the model standards. The Commission also uses the standards as a uniform basis for monitoring State-funded programs. For example, the Commission established the following standards for staff training: Minimum standard: All victim service staff, both full-time and part-time, within sixty days of their hiring, shall receive and successfully complete 40 hours of orientation training. It will be the responsibility of the PCCD to establish a training schedule. Model standard: In addition to the above 40 hours of orientation training, new hires, both full-time and part-time, will attend 40 hours of "victimization training" within their first year of employment. Victim service staff will obtain 40 hours of continuing education training on an annual basis. More information on the NOVA standards is available through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, (800) 851-3420. Or contact NOVA, (202) 232-6682 to obtain a copy of Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals, by Marlene Young, Executive Director. The Pennsylvania standards can be found in the Standards and Procedures Manual for Victim/Witness Assistance Programs, July 1992, available from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Victim Services Program, (717) 787-8559. -------------------- Identifying Victims and Witnesses for a Needs Assessment Survey Victims and witnesses can be identified through police and court records. (Relying only on court records, however, misses individuals whose cases have not been charged.) To the extent possible, it is best if victims and witnesses are selected randomly. In addition, a stratified sampling helps to ensure that victims of each major type of crime- -rape, homicide (survivors are interviewed), assault and battery, and major property crimes--and victims representing different ethnic and demographic groups are included. Program staff may wish to consult with a professional survey design expert to identify whom to interview. Planners for the Minneapolis-St. Paul's Citizens Council on Victim Services telephoned 451 victims and witnesses to determine needs for services. Individuals were selected on a random basis from victims who had reported crimes to the police during a three-month period before the program opened and again nine months after. New York City's Victim Services Agency conducted a mid-course assessment to discover ways to improve its service delivery. Staff interviewed 274 recent victims from a pool of 1,919 police complaint reports. A follow-up interview was conducted with 182 of the victims to assess their needs four months after they had been victimized.[8] These examples illustrate the importance of conducting needs assessments not only before but also after a program is under way to ensure that victim and witness needs are being adequately met. (See chapter 8 on program monitoring and evaluation.) -------------------- Sample Victim Assistance Program Mission and Goals: The Marion County (Oregon) District Attorney's Victim Assistance Program The mission of the Marion County District Attorney's Victim Assistance Program is to involve crime victims and the community in a restorative process that diminishes the devastating impact of crime. The goals of the program are to: 1. Provide direct victim services. We offer support, accompaniment, and advocacy to victims and their loved ones, as well as [to] many witnesses during the criminal justice process; 2. Advocate for victim rights. We represent victims' concerns and needs in the enactment, implementation, and accessibility of victims' rights; 3. Offer volunteer opportunities. We provide a learning environment for community members to participate in, better understand, and assist in the criminal justice process; 4. Provide education and awareness. We disseminate victimology and criminal justice information to the community through written, visual, and oral presentations and trainings; and 5. Promote professional and agency communication. We seek to improve the quality of care and response to crime victims by encouraging and supporting agency and individual communication and cooperation. Note: Excerpted from Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to Prosecution and Victim Assistance (Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center, 1994). -------------------- Prioritizing Targeted Victim Groups Reasons to Prioritize Victim Groups o Focuses limited resources o Identifies victims with whom to initiate contact o Ensures that the neediest victims and witnesses are served o Ensures that false expectations for the program are not raised Considerations for Prioritizing Victim Groups General Considerations: o Results of needs assessment o Local political context o Funding constraints o Subjective value judgments Specific Criteria: o Type of offense (violent crimes, homicide, rape, aggravated assault, bank robbery, domestic violence, child molestation, threats/harassment, property crime) o Client characteristics (age, ethnic group, disabled witnesses, residents of crime-ridden communities) o Case status (crime unreported, reported to police, filed for prosecution, prosecuted, sentenced) -------------------- Victims of Trauma: A Target Population for Victim Assistance Programs? Most victim assistance program staff struggle to provide basic services to violent crime victims. As some programs have gained experience, credibility, and additional financial and staffing resources, however, staff have begun to conduct outreach to individuals who are not themselves victims of crime. When a high school student in Arizona held a class hostage, Pima County Victim/ Witness Program staff were called in to work with students as they were released from the class. The principal of the school later asked program staff to work individually with other students in the school who were traumatized by the incident. The program now has a critical incident stress debriefing team, consisting mainly of trained volunteers, that targets its services to individuals involved in crisis situations. For instance, the team conducted nine debriefings for college students and faculty after a professor was killed and debriefed residents of apartment complexes where a serial rapist had attacked several women. The program has recently expanded its target population even further by using youth peer advocates to work specifically with youth who have been involved in crises or who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods. What these "nontraditional" clients usually have in common is the experience of trauma or fear as a result of crimes or disasters. As discussed in chapter 1, this new type of target population may be categorized into three general groups: Derivative victims. These include individuals-- themselves not victims of crime--who have been traumatized by a crime, such as family and friends of homicide victims, survivors of attempted suicide, traumatized witnesses to crime who need more than court-related services, residents of apartments in which a burglary or violent crime has taken place, abandoned children, and employees of banks and other workplaces where a robbery or other crime has occurred. Victims of environmental and other disasters.[14] These victims include disaster relief workers, survivors of plane crashes, and individuals in an area destroyed by a hurricane, tornado, or other disaster. Residents of high-crime areas. These include students in schools with high rates of violent crime and residents of neighborhoods that are intimidated or traumatized by gang violence, graffiti, drug use, and similar conditions. Programs that serve these groups usually provide counseling services, crime awareness and prevention presentations, critical incident stress debriefings, and referrals to other sources of help. Not all programs have the resources to provide more than referrals to victims of trauma, and staff of many programs may not even be able to provide consistent referrals. Even programs that do target nontraditional victims usually make direct victims of violent crime their priority. -------------------- National Recommendation of Ranges of Services The National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) developed a set of general performance guidelines for the range of services that a program can provide, ranging from "basic" to "excellent" services.[22] For example, guidelines for crisis intervention services include the following: o Basic: Crisis intervention counseling; emergency referrals or direct assistance for medical care, shelter, and food; emergency referrals or direct assistance for substance abuse treatment; accessible services for the hearing impaired, seeing impaired, other people with disabilities, and populations whose first language is not English. o Good: All of the above, enhanced by emergency referrals or direct assistance for at least three of the following: clothing, money, child care, property repair, transportation, death notification, body identification, crime scene clean-up, protection through temporary restraining orders, and notification of loved ones. o Very Good:The above plus at least three more of the above list. o Excellent: All of the above, plus special outreach to underserved victim populations and attention to effective cross-cultural service delivery. Program staff's abilities to provide "basic" through "excellent" services will depend to a large extent on available resources. Nevertheless, these guidelines can help to prioritize basic services over those that would be helpful but are not essential. -------------------- Victims' Needs May Not Be What You Expect: One Study's Result A 1987 study revealed a significant mismatch between the reported needs of victims interviewed in four cities and the services provided by victim assistance programs in those cities.[23] The researchers asked nearly 500 victims of burglary, robbery, and assault about 17 categories of assistance. Some of the victims had used program services while others had not. Over half of the interviewed victims said they had none or only one of the suggested needs. Among those who expressed at least one need, the following needs were reported most often: o someone to talk to about feelings that were troubling you (28%); o information about how to avoid becoming a victim again (18%); o protecting yourself from offenders (14%); o repairing a broken door or lock (13%); and o installing better locks or improving security (13%). Although most of the programs focused on counseling services, victims reported that family and friends usually fulfilled the need to talk about troubling feelings. The other four needs remained largely unmet by any sources of assistance. In addition, over two-thirds of the victims reported that they received no assistance with