The survey of victim service providers found that the programs described themselves as having similar missions, i.e., to provide direct services to crime victims, to educate the public about the victim services provided, and to be an advocate for crime victims. Significant differences were found, however, across the four types of victim service programs: victim-witness program, community-based victims services agency, domestic violence agency, and rape crisis center. These differences were mainly in the types of clients served and staffing issues. The random telephone survey of crime victims found that few victims used victim services. This can be attributed to a majority of victims reporting not having been notified about victim services, 40 percent of respondents not knowing what types of services are offered, victims not feeling a compelling need for services, and the tendency to rely on themselves or families in dealing with problems arising from a crime. The study did not indicate that those victims who received services after experiencing a Part I crime were more satisfied and better adjusted following their victimization than those who did not receive services. The evaluation suggests that victim programming could be more successful in meeting victims' needs if it were more timely and tailored to each victim, especially when they need immediate protection and/or financial assistance. Measures for preventing future similar victimization should also be addressed. The assessment involved a survey of the State's victim services programs and a survey of 654 crime victims throughout the State. 28 references and appended survey instruments and data tables