Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994

This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs
 of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were
 available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to
 assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the
 population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization
 and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime
 characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to
 satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend
 improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to
 identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five
 different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000
 violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60
 homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1,
 Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the
 initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2,
 Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what
 type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether
 they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship
 to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents
 for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any,
 contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents
 were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the
 time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the
 overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the
 time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction
 regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling
 their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of
 financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state,
 local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to
 them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the
 physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic
 variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment
 status, and type of job of each violent crime
 victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and
 highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case
 files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each
 initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident
 characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail
 booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The
 variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors,
 and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected,
 and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3
 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the
 victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These
 services included counseling, explanation of medical and police
 procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing,
 psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court
 processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the
 incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims
 and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and
 sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are
 also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each
 suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were
 gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the
 three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis
 Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis
 and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness
 Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of
 the original questions was administered one year later to members of
 the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention
 Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services,
 Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey
 Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to
 provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the
 goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the
 types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours
 of training required, and the topics covered in the
 training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the
 specific types of services they provided to
 victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of
 variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions
 encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law
 enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the
 ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each
 respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the
 agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral
 agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service
 Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as
 Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement
 agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the
 type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service
 (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide
 survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral
 procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals,
 paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team,
 the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness
 Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service
 provider organization, as well as which California counties they
 serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services
 and asked if they provided any of those services to
 victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job
 placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to
 court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g.,
 employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the
 ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was
 distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido,
 San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement
 Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their
 familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the
 program, the extent to which they used or referred others to
 intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not
 calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various
 intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at
 crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to
 victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency
of each law enforcement respondent.