Chapter 11

Collaboration for Victims' Rights and Services

Anne Seymour, Marti Anderson, and Kevin Lowe, Ph.D.[^1]

*This chapter explores the foundational research and key concepts of
collaboration, along with recommended strategies for successful
collaborative efforts to enhance public safety and to improve services
for victims and survivors of crime. One of the ultimate strengths of
America's victim assistance field is its willingness and capacity to
collaborate with allied professionals, volunteers, and organizations. To
best identify and meet the needs of crime victims and survivors,
victim-serving professionals have created unique partnerships that
recognize and respect differences yet, at the same time, establish a
common vision and goals that promote crime victim assistance, support,
and safety. Both public- and private-sector entities have joined in
collaborative efforts that enhance victims' rights and the comprehensive
delivery of victim services.*

Collaboration is critical to the ongoing success of the crime victim
assistance field in America and around the world. It embraces
differences, yet it recognizes the many commonalities that unite efforts
to help victims and survivors of crime.

In the early days of the victims' rights movement, there was often a
pervading sense of "us against them"---that is, victims and service
providers struggling for dignity and acknowledgment against a variety of
barriers: offenders' rights taking precedence over victims' rights, lack
of understanding within communities about victim suffering and trauma, a
justice system that was not designed to protect the interests of victims
nor involve them in key processes that affected their lives, limited
laws that protected victims' rights and interests, and limited financial
and human resources to support victim-related initiatives. The pioneers
of victims' rights looked to past civil rights movements for guidance to
build both an agenda and a constituency.

The lessons learned from women who fought for the right to vote and
civil rights activists who struggled for equality proved to be
invaluable. While many elements contributed to the success of these
historical efforts, one common theme emerged: The ability to collaborate
and find supporters who shared a common vision and goals was critical to
success. Perhaps most important was to reach beyond the core
constituencies affected by injustice (in these cases, women who could
not vote and persons of color who were treated as second-class citizens)
and build a powerful, diverse collaborative network of allies and
partners.

Like these earlier groups who strived for equal justice, crime victims
had a significant weapon in their struggle for dignity, respect, and
recognition: the power of the personal story. With hundreds of thousands
of individuals in America personally hurt by crime, there was a core
constituency of real people with real pain to whom many ordinary people
could relate: the family whose grandparents were killed in a fiery
drunk-driving crash (which was not even considered a crime 30 years
ago); the rape victim who was blamed and shamed for the violent assault
committed against her; the mother whose teenage son was molested by his
soccer coach, who found limited protection under the law; and the
countless families whose children were abducted, often found murdered,
and sometimes never recovered at all. Some of the most crucial networks
that resulted were victims helping victims by providing mutual support
and validation. The grassroots network of victims and their
collaboration with caring and concerned professionals joined to create
an effective social activism that has come to change the face of how
justice and public safety are viewed in America.

This historical foundation has provided important guidance to
professionals and volunteers who serve crime victims, and serves as a
basis on which to build important partnerships that ultimately benefit
victims and survivors of crime.

**RESEARCH ABOUT COLLABORATION**

Within the past decade, significant research has examined general trends
and strategies in collaboration, as well as trends specific to victim-
and justice-related collaborative initiatives. A range of findings are
helpful to understand what works in collaboration and what strategies
are most effective in forming successful partnerships and coalitions
that benefit crime victims and those who serve them.

**Collaboration: What Makes It Work**

In *Collaboration: What Makes It Work*, Mattessich, Murray-Close, and
Mooney (2001) synthesize a considerable body of research to identify 20
factors that influence the success of collaborations formed by nonprofit
organizations, government agencies, and other organizations (see chart
on next page). Within collaboration research, these factors are
considered the standard for the discipline of collaboration.

A more detailed summary of this checklist for success can be accessed
online at: www.pfdf.org/collaboration/challenge/pdfs/mtcc-appxc.pdf.
Benefits of successful collaboration are included in Appendix A.

**Criminal Justice and Collaboration**

In *The Emergence of Collaboration as the Preferred Approach in Criminal
Justice*, the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) and State
Justice Institute make a strong case to suggest that "justice can be
more effectively served when those tasked with carrying it out define
their roles, responsibilities, and relationship to one another
differently and work together in pursuit of shared visions, missions,
and goals" (Carter, 2005, pp. 3\--5). In addition, seven challenges to
forming collaborative relationships in an "adversarial system" are
identified:

1.  Adversarial foundation of our legal system.

2.  Competition for resources among those at the table.

3.  Political pressure on elected officials.

4.  Creation of overlapping bodies by the requirements of different
    authorities.

5.  Need for leadership in an independent system of justice.

6.  The critical role of facilitator/convener of collaborative teams.

7.  Special place of the judicial branch of government.

*The Emergence of Collaboration as the Preferred Approach in Criminal
Justice*, which includes suggestions to meet the seven challenges
described here, can be accessed online at:
www.cepp.com/work/quals.asp?type=2#entry88.

**Impact of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) on Collaboration**

A National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report, *State and Local Change
and the Violence Against Women Act*, examined outcomes of Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) funding that are specific to collaboration
within four prosecutors' offices in Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts,
and Oregon (Chaiken, Boland, Maltz, Martin, and Tragonski, 2005). One of
the major benefits of VAWA cited by practitioners interviewed for this
study was "a dramatic rise in collaboration and cooperation addressing
domestic violence" (p.32). This study also examined how cooperation is
achieved:

> To cooperate effectively, prosecutors and victims' advocates have had
> to recognize and respect (if not agree with) their different
> perspectives and goals. Prosecutors in the jurisdictions studied saw
> enactment of VAWA as an opportunity to increase victim safety and
> offender accountability. They viewed the victim service provisions,
> primarily, as services that would ensure the victim's immediate safety
> and facilitate the collection of appropriate statements and evidence
> to secure a conviction. Victims and their advocates looked to the law
> for direct short-term aid, such as shelter, and for long-term
> assistance that would allow the victim to become psychologically,
> emotionally, socially, and financially independent of the abuser. (p.
> 32)

This study indicated that prosecutors and advocates often view new
programs differently and that VAWA helped stimulate initial discussions
and ongoing mechanisms for resolving these concerns, often spearheaded
by prosecutors.

A summary of *State and Local Change and the Violence Against Women Act*
is available online at:
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/252/anxieties_print.html.

**Establishing and Maintaining Successful Researcher-Practitioner
Collaborations**

In 1999, the National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center,
in conjunction with the National Victim Assistance Academy, conducted a
series of focus groups with "victim advocates, practitioners, and
researchers to examine ways these groups could work together more
effectively to produce sound and practical research about violence
against women" (Kilpatrick, Resick, and Williams, 1999, p. 5). This
research examined the needs and expectations of practitioners and
researchers relevant to violence against women; characteristics of
successful collaborative relationships; ways to initiate collaborations
and establish goals for research on prevention of violence against
women; ethics, confidentiality, and safety when conducting
victim-related research; and dissemination of research findings.
Mouradian, Mechanic, and Williams (2001) offer the following eight key
tips for making collaboration work.

**New Models of Collaboration for Public Service Delivery**

In a working paper that examined worldwide trends in collaboration,
including trends in the United States, "collaboration for public service
delivery" refers to "the reciprocal and voluntary support that two or
more distinct public sector agencies, or public and private
administrations, including nonprofit organizations, provide each other
in order to deliver a 'public' service, i.e., one that is part of the
government mission" (Prefontaine, Ricard, Sicotte, Turcotte, and Dawes,
2000, p. 6)). This research found that very often such support
translates into a formal agreement between the parties as to the purpose
of their collaboration and the sharing of both tangible and intangible
responsibilities, resources, risks, and benefits. As a general rule,
such formal written agreements are for a specific period of time and
most often are presented in contract form. The models of collaboration
generally have the following characteristics:

-   A minimum of two distinct administrators---one from the public
    sector, the other from the private, public, or nonprofit sector.

-   A formal written agreement for a definite term.

-   A common objective aimed at the delivery of a public service.

-   Shared responsibility consisting of shared risks, resources, costs,
    and benefits---both tangible and intangible.

This study also highlights six critical success factors or "dimensions"
of collaboration for public service delivery:

1.  Political, social, economic, and cultural environment.

2.  Institutional, business, and technological environments.

3.  Partners' objectives and characteristics.

4.  The collaboration process.

5.  Models of collaboration (mode of governance).

6.  Performance of the project and the collaboration model (p. 9).

The working paper, which offers detailed guidelines for achieving the
six dimensions, can be accessed online at:
www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/online/new_models/
reference/new_models_wp.pdf.

**Evaluating the Collaborative Process**

The research on collaboration clearly states the need for effective
strategies to evaluate the overall process and outcomes of collaborative
efforts. Several simple evaluation tools and strategies have been
developed that can help assess the effectiveness of victim-related
collaboration initiatives, including the following:

-   The Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory includes 42 questions
    designed as a tool for assessing the 20 factors that influence the
    success of a collaboration. (See the previous section
    "Collaboration: What Makes It Work" in this chapter). The online
    inventory, which takes about 15 minutes to complete, can be accessed
    from the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation at
    [surveys.wilder.org/public_cfi/index.php](http://surveys.wilder.org/public_cfi/index.php).

-   "Assessing Your Collaboration: A Self Evaluation Tool," an article
    in the *Journal of Extension* of the U.S. Cooperative Extension
    System, offers a simple collaboration progress checklist at:
    www.joe.org/joe/1999april/ index.html.

-   *Evaluating the Collaboration Process*, an Ohio State University
    fact sheet, describes potential areas for evaluation at
    http://ohioline.osu.edu/bc-fact/ 0007.html.

**TYPES OF WORKING RELATIONSHIPS**

Many phrases are used in the victim assistance community to describe
efforts that bring people together with a common cause. George Keiser of
the National Institute of Corrections (1998) describes these terms and
their meanings:

> Some recurring words are often used in a very cavalier fashion to
> describe types of working relationships. It is important to be clear
> about the depth of involvement contained in the meaning of these
> various words, and then to use the appropriate word for the relevant
> circumstances. These words include cooperation, coordination,
> collaboration, and partnership.
>
> **Cooperation**
>
> Cooperation does not require much depth of relationship from the
> parties involved. Typically, a couple of people identify how what they
> are doing in their organizations would benefit each other. They agree
> to share what they do, but are not required to do anything
> differently. The activities engaged in are very informal. No resources
> are transferred, and the life of those involved goes on much as it
> has. This may be the initial point of developing relationships between
> the involved organizations. A key element for initiating cooperation
> is personal trust.
>
> **Coordination**
>
> Like cooperation, the depth of involvement between organizations is
> not required to be great. The relationship tends to be more definitive
> with specific protocols or conventions commonly being established. The
> business of the various organizations does not change significantly.
> The number of people involved in the process is increased, and the
> participants are more cognizant of how their independent activities
> can be integrated for common benefit or can influence the work of
> another organization. This level of working together requires more
> discipline and more formal structure in following the established
> protocols. The importance of integrity of the various participants and
> their activities becomes more apparent.
>
> **Collaboration**
>
> Collaboration introduces the concept of organizations coming together
> to create something new, commonly a new process. Generally, the
> organizations bring a business they already know well and identify
> how, by joint actions, they can redesign a process to their mutual
> benefit. There must not only be trust and integrity as a foundation,
> but the parties now need to understand the perspectives of the other
> collaborators' self interest(s). This understanding suggests a greater
> depth of involvement between organizations. It is not merely
> exchanging information, but also developing a sense of awareness for
> whom the other parties are, what motivates them, and what they need
> out of working together. Unlike cooperation or coordination, for the
> first time something new is being developed through the relationship
> of organizations. Even with the increased intensity of involvement,
> the various organizations retain their independent identities.
>
> **Partnership**
>
> Partnership is the bringing together of individuals or organizations
> to create a new entity. This may be the extreme extension of
> collaboration. The depth of involvement is reflected by a commitment
> referred to as ownership. No longer are there independent
> organizations agreeing to work together on some initiative as long as
> it is convenient. Nor is this a group of organizations buying into
> someone else's plan. With a partnership, there is an agreement to
> create something new which, through joint ownership, requires that the
> partners make it succeed. One measure of success is whether the
> partnership makes all the partners successful.

Keiser (1998) also clarifies the nature of working relationships based
on the following elements:

-   Characteristics of the relationship.

-   Nature of the relationship.

-   Involvement.

-   Resource investment.

-   Control over resources.

-   Authority to make decisions.

This is shown in Exhibit XI-1.

.**[Exhibit XI-1]{.smallcaps}**

**[Overview of Characteristics of Working Relationships]{.smallcaps}**

+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| ########   |            |            |                |            |
|  Continuum |            |            |                |            |
|  Ranging f |            |            |                |            |
| rom Cooper |            |            |                |            |
| ation to P |            |            |                |            |
| artnership |            |            |                |            |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| **[Ele     | **[Cooper  | **[Coordin | **[            | **[Partne  |
| ments]{.sm | ation]{.sm | ation]{.sm | Collaboration] | rship]{.sm |
| allcaps}** | allcaps}** | allcaps}** | {.smallcaps}** | allcaps}** |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| **Chara    | Trust and  | Integrity  | Understanding  | Commitment |
| cteristics | r          | and        | and            | and        |
| of         | eliability | discipline | selflessness   | ownership  |
| Rela       |            |            |                |            |
| tionship** |            |            |                |            |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| **Nature   | Informal,  | Semiformal | Formal         | Formal,    |
| of         | ad-hoc     |            |                | legal      |
| Rela       |            |            |                | inc        |
| tionship** |            |            |                | orporation |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| **Inv      | As few as  | Several,   | Several, many  | New or     |
| olvement** | two people | maybe      | horizontal and | refined    |
|            |            | horizontal | vertical       | or         |
|            |            | orga       | organizational | ganization |
|            |            | nizational | slices         |            |
|            |            | slice      |                |            |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| **Resource | Minimal    | Moderate   | Major          | Major      |
| In         |            |            |                |            |
| vestment** |            |            |                |            |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| **Control  | Unchanged  | Modified   | Shared or      | Legally    |
| Over       | original   | original   | transfer to    | binding    |
| R          | org        | org        | new unit       |            |
| esources** | anizations | anizations |                |            |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| *          | Retained   | Retained   | Transfer to    | Create new |
| *Authority | by         | by         | new unit       | structure  |
| to Make    | original   | original   |                |            |
| D          | org        | org        |                |            |
| ecisions** | anizations | anizations |                |            |
+------------+------------+------------+----------------+------------+

## CHALLENGES TO SUCCESSFUL WORKING RELATIONSHIPS

Whether victim assistance professionals cooperate, coordinate,
collaborate, or partner with allied professionals, volunteers, and
communities, there are 10 common challenges that can hinder the success
of these important working relationships. These challenges are:

-   Lack of a shared vision or mission.

-   Lack of agreement about the problem or issue to be addressed.

-   Lack of incremental successes on the pathway to an ultimate goal.

-   Egos.

-   Lack of diversity among group members working toward a common goal.

-   Not having the right players at the table.

-   Lack of understanding and implementation of change management
    techniques.

-   Lack of resources.

-   Lack of measures to evaluate success.

-   Lack of understanding about victim trauma, rights, and needs.

**1. Lack of a Shared Vision or Mission.** When people work together
toward a common goal, it should be clearly understood, easily
communicated, and shared by all involved parties. If a vision or mission
is preestablished by an individual or a small faction of a larger group,
it may not achieve the ownership that is needed by the whole group to
ensure success. It is crucial to take time and establish a process to
create a shared vision or mission with all stakeholders and determine
common goals and objectives that are supported by all.

**2. Lack of Agreement About the Problem or Issue To Be Addressed.**
While diversity is one of the essential elements of collaborative
efforts, it also results in differing and often unique perspectives
about the basic issue that is being addressed. In developing good
working relationships, stakeholders must seek a consensus that respects
different views and opinions.

**3. Lack of Incremental Successes on the Pathway to an Ultimate Goal.**
Too often, people working together aim for one definitive goal that, in
their view, connotes success. It is necessary to determine incremental,
smaller successes that can help stakeholders ensure that they are headed
in the right direction and to evaluate possible alternatives along the
way to the ultimate goal, if warranted.

**4. Egos.** The concept of egos as barriers is familiar to most victim
advocates and others who assist victims of crime. When such conflicts
expand to incorporate even more stakeholders (and more egos), the
results can be highly damaging to collaborative efforts. All interested
parties must be willing to check their egos at the door in their mutual
attempts to reach a common vision and/or goals.

**5. Lack of Diversity Among Group Members Working Toward a Common
Goal.** If it is true that great minds think alike, it is likely that
different minds think even better. One of the greatest strengths of
professionals and volunteers involved in public safety and victim
assistance issues is their diversity---by gender, age, culture, sexual
orientation, profession, socioeconomic status, and geography. The many
different viewpoints and perspectives of victim advocates and allied
professionals are a key asset to collaborative efforts; without them,
such efforts are doomed to fail. Victim-serving professionals must
mirror the victims and survivors whom they serve to build and maintain
trust. Diversity is essential to this goal.

**6. Not Having the Right Players at the Table.** In too many public
safety initiatives, crime victims and their representatives are missing
from collaboration forums. It is helpful to adopt a global view of the
problem or issue that is being addressed in terms of all the
stakeholders who are affected: victims, offenders, the community, system
professionals, public policy-makers, and the like. If a person or group
of people is affected by a problem, it is critical that they be involved
in developing a solution. For a collaborative initiative to be
successful, it must be victim-driven and victim-centered, which requires
the participation from and buy-in of crime victims and survivors. (See
the section "Range of Partners for Collaboration" later in this chapter
to determine the key stakeholders who constitute the right players.)

**7. Lack of Understanding and Implementation of Change Management
Techniques.** Most working relationships seek change in justice
processes, service delivery, engagement of key stakeholders, and
community involvement. If the road to a solution does not address the
specific changes that will occur as a result and institutionalize these
changes for the future, the outcomes will not be successful in the long
run. Managing change is one of the most difficult yet most important
elements of collaborative efforts.

**8. Lack of Resources.** If time, level of commitment, and human or
financial resources are not adequate to achieve a shared goal, failure
is likely. Throughout the collaborative process, considerable attention
should be paid to what type of resources are needed, at what point, by
whom, and for how long.

**9. Lack of Measures to Evaluate Success.** As stakeholders in
collaborative processes begin their joint efforts, evaluation must be a
key tenet of all their activities. Stakeholders' vision, goals, and
objectives should all be measurable in concrete terms, and their plan
should be flexible enough to accommodate changes that result from
evaluative data that show a need to change course. (See the previous
section "Evaluating the Collaborative Process" in this chapter.)

**10. Lack of Understanding About Victim Trauma, Rights, and Needs.**
While most collaborative efforts related to improving public and
personal safety are well intentioned, some lack an overall understanding
of how victims are affected by crime. It is important to incorporate
information and training about crime victims' rights, needs, trauma, and
sensitivity into any collaborative initiative that addresses public
safety issues. The involvement of crime victims as active participants
or advisors to guide the planning and implementation of such initiatives
is also helpful.

## COLLABORATING FOR VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND SERVICES: KEY RELATIONSHIPS

Crime victims, service providers, and allied professionals work together
at the local, state, and national levels in a number of ways, which are
discussed in the following paragraphs.

**Fiduciary Relationships.** These primarily involve financial support
from government sources for victim services from the federal level to
the states and localities and from states to local jurisdictions.

**Public Policy Initiatives.** These have led to the passage of more
than 30,000 federal and state victims' rights statutes. Often, good
ideas for laws cross jurisdictional boundaries. For example, when
California passed the nation's first antistalking statute in 1990, the
other 49 states followed suit within 18 months. The strength of
America's victim assistance field has also been instrumental in
organizing to support key federal initiatives, most notably the
successful passage and subsequent reauthorizations of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994.

**Implementation of Victims' Rights.** This helps ensure that no matter
where a victim lives or what type of crime he or she has been hurt by,
help is available. With more than 10,000 victim assistance programs
operating in the public and private sectors and advocacy services
provided by numerous national organizations, collaborative efforts have
strengthened crime victims' ability to understand and seek
implementation of their rights.

**Research Initiatives.** These increasingly involve partnerships
between researchers and victim assistance practitioners. National and
regional public opinion surveys, research on specific victim
populations, and focus groups have been conducted by national, state,
and local practitioners and researchers, with the results guiding the
development of innovative and effective approaches to victim services.

**Training and Technical Assistance.** These are used to develop
curricula and training tools, with significant support from the Office
for Victims of Crime (OVC), and have helped increase professionals' and
volunteers' knowledge of victims' rights and services. Standardized
training programs have been developed for law enforcement, the
judiciary, prosecutors, institutional and community corrections, and
juvenile justice professionals as well as for allied professionals such
as mental health and public health practitioners, faith communities, and
educators.

**Information and Referral Services.** These constantly cross
jurisdictional boundaries to provide timely resources and referrals to
victims in every region of the nation. The use of technology and the
Internet, national toll-free telephone numbers, and the U.S. Department
of Justice-sponsored Resource Centers have greatly enhanced the ability
to provide information and referrals to crime victims and concerned
citizens.

**Written Interdisciplinary Protocols.** These change the face of how
business is done in responding to crime victims. Policies and procedures
are altered by each agency to better serve the crime victim. These
protocols have established some of the most sweeping changes within the
criminal justice system in the last 20 years.

## RANGE OF PARTNERS FOR COLLABORATION

"Leave no stone unturned" is an appropriate motto for crime
victim-related collaborative projects. Since crime and victimization, in
ways large and small, affect most segments of the population of America,
the potential for collaborative partnerships is seemingly endless and
can be categorized into six key areas:

-   Crime victims and survivors.

-   Criminal and juvenile justice agencies.

-   Victim assistance programs.

-   Public policymakers.

-   Allied professions.

-   Community.

**Crime Victims and Survivors**

Crime victims and survivors have been the driving force behind many of
the successes and accomplishments of America's victim assistance field.
Their personal experiences and insights have helped guide the
development of myriad programs, policies, and protocols and the passage
of thousands of federal and state laws and constitutional amendments.
Examples of collaborative initiatives involving victims and survivors
include:

-   Establishing Victim Advisory Councils to guide program and policy
    development and implementation for both system- and community-based
    agencies.

-   Conducting focus groups or group field interviews of victims and
    survivors to determine their most critical needs, as well as
    solutions to meet such needs.

-   Conducting legislative testimony panels that include, for example, a
    justice professional and a victim advocate, with a victim/survivor
    testifying to personalize the need for the proposed law.

-   Engaging victims and survivors in commemorative observances, such as
    National Crime Victims' Rights Week and National Domestic Violence
    Awareness Month, with activities sponsored that allow victims to
    share their personal experiences.

**Criminal and Juvenile Justice Agencies**

Within the criminal and juvenile justice systems at the federal, state,
and local levels there are eight key agencies that can enhance
collaborative initiatives for improving victims' rights and assistance:

-   **Law enforcement agencies.** These serve as first responders to
    victims and handle the investigative portions of criminal and
    juvenile cases.

-   **Prosecutors' offices.** These collaborate with law enforcement on
    investigations, prepare and implement the prosecution of cases
    within the court system, and often have programs to facilitate the
    participation of victims and witnesses.

-   **Defense counsel.** Their primary purpose is to represent people
    who are accused or convicted of crime; they also negotiate terms of
    sentences with prosecutors and the judiciary.

-   **The judiciary and court administrators.** They oversee the
    administration of justice and facilitate decisions in cases that are
    processed by the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

-   **Probation agencies.** These supervise convicted offenders who are
    sentenced to community supervision and often provide information,
    assistance, and referrals to victims of probationers.

-   **Institutional corrections agencies.** These house offenders who
    are sentenced to periods of incarceration and provide support and
    services to crime victims through corrections-based victim
    assistance programs.

-   **Paroling authorities.** They make decisions related to the
    potential release of incarcerated offenders (with input from
    victims) and, upon release of parolees, provide supervision of
    offenders within the community.

-   **Attorneys General offices.** In most states, these offer
    appellate-level review of some criminal cases and provide victim
    assistance services through designated programs.

**Victim Assistance Programs**

There are more than 10,000 victim assistance programs in the United
States today. These include:

-   Community-based victim assistance programs.

-   System-based assistance programs.

-   State coalitions and associations.

-   National coalitions and associations.

-   Federal agencies.

**Community-based Victim Assistance Programs.** These serve a variety of
crime victims, including victims who report crimes and go through the
justice system as well as those who do not. Examples include:

-   Rape crisis centers and sexual assault awareness programs.

-   Programs and shelters for battered women and their children.

-   Homicide support groups (e.g., Parents of Murdered Children
    chapters).

-   Drunk-driving victim assistance programs (e.g., Mothers Against
    Drunk Driving \[MADD\] or Remove Intoxicated Drivers \[RID\]
    chapters).

-   Children's Advocacy Centers, which provide multidisciplinary
    services to victims of child abuse and neglect.

-   Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs, which advocate for
    abused and neglected children.

-   Elder protection programs, which assist victims of elder abuse and
    neglect.

**System-based Victim Assistance Programs.** These operate within the
context of the criminal or juvenile justice system or state agencies
that oversee victim assistance programs, help victims understand and
exercise their rights, and offer referrals to other victim assistance
services. Examples include:

-   Victim assistance programs in law enforcement, prosecutors' offices,
    courts, probation, parole, institutional corrections, and Attorneys
    General offices.

-   State victim compensation programs. (Information about and links to
    victim compensation programs are available from the National
    Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards at
    [www.nacvcb.org](http://www.nacvcb.org/).)

-   State VOCA assistance administrators, who oversee victim assistance
    funding authorized by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA)
    through fines, fees, and forfeitures collected from convicted
    federal offenders by the Crime Victims Fund, which is administered
    by the OVC within the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
    Justice. (Information about and links to state VOCA administrators
    are available from the National Association of VOCA Assistance
    Administrators at [www.navaa.org](http://www.navaa.org/).)

**State Coalitions and Associations.** These advocate for local
victim-specific programs and issues. Examples include:

-   General victim assistance coalitions, which involve all types of
    crime victims and those who serve them.

-   Sexual assault coalitions.

-   Domestic violence coalitions.

-   State offices of MADD.

-   State associations of victim/witness professionals.

-   State offices of Adult Protective Services.

-   State offices of Child Protective Services.

**National Coalitions and Associations.** These address a wide range of
crime victim assistance issues, many of which sponsor national toll-free
information and referral telephone lines, as well as comprehensive Web
sites for victim assistance, information, and referrals.

**Federal Agencies.** Their primary or collateral role is assisting
crime victims. Federal agencies include the OVC and Office on Violence
Against Women within the U.S. Department of Justice and allied federal
agencies at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S.
Department of Transportation, and U.S. Department of State).

**Public Policymakers**

At the local, state, and national levels, public policymakers are
important partners in identifying the need for laws as well as passing
laws that promote public safety and define and protect victims' rights.
Collaboration with public policy and legislative bodies over the past
three decades have contributed significantly to more than 32,000
constitutional amendments, state statutes, and local laws and ordinances
that protect victims' rights. Key public policymakers include:

-   City and municipal-level councils.

-   County boards of supervisors.

-   State legislators.

-   Tribal councils.

-   U.S. Congress.

**Allied Professions**

Nearly any profession can be considered a potential partner in
collaborative efforts that benefit victims of crime. The pervasiveness
of crime and victimization has created specialized efforts within a
number of allied professions, including:

-   **Health professionals.** These include physicians, nurses,
    emergency medical technicians, and emergency room staff who tend to
    the physical wounds of victims in the aftermath of crime, as well as
    many professionals who have specialized training in treating
    victims.

-   **Mental health professionals.** They help victims cope with the
    psychological impact of crime in the immediate-, short-, and
    long-term aftermath of crime.

-   **Addiction professionals.** They often collaborate with victim
    assistance professionals to serve victims who have correlated
    problems with the use or abuse of alcohol and other substances.

-   **Faith-based communities** **and victim assistance programs.**
    These are increasing in both number and scope of services and help
    victims of different faiths cope with the spiritual impact of crime
    and provide other support and assistance.

-   **Businesses and labor unions.** Many of these have developed
    policies and protocols that specifically address crime prevention
    and responses to incidents when employees have been victimized both
    on and off the job.

-   **Legal professionals and associations.** They often offer pro bono
    assistance and services to victims of crime.

-   **Education professionals.** They have helped focus attention as
    well as program and policy development on safety in schools.

-   **Academia.** Members of this group have partnered with victim
    assistance and justice professionals to conduct research and
    evaluation specific to crime and victimization and helped formalize
    victimology as a standardized curriculum component within higher
    education.

###### Community

Crime and victimization are commonly recognized as a community problem
that requires a collaborative community solution. The adage "think
globally, act locally" directly applies to important partnerships that
can be developed with community-level collaborators, including:

-   **Civic organizations.** These often partner with victim assistance
    professionals to encourage voluntarism for crime victims among their
    members and help publicize community resources that assist victims
    of crime.

-   **Associations.** Both volunteer and professional associations
    represent the interests of various community constituencies and
    provide a wealth of resources for collaboration, volunteers, and
    program development and implementation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **News media.** Members of this group have partnered with victim
    assistance and justice professionals to sponsor public service
    campaigns about community safety, victim assistance, and crime
    prevention.

**THE COMMUNITY AS A PARTNER IN COLLABORATION**

A theory that is gaining much credence across America is that when
neighborhoods or communities are given the opportunity to be involved in
measures to prevent crime, intervene with at-risk youth, and assist
victims, they will take advantage of that opportunity. It makes great
sense that the people who are most affected by a problem are the ones
who have the greatest stake in developing effective solutions.

In 1997, Joseph Lehman, the former secretary of the Department of
Corrections in the State of Washington, said that "the community must
own justice." This sense of ownership of the problems related to justice
as well as the potential solutions has provided a strong foundation in
many communities that have involved their members in collaborative
measures to combat crime and help victims. National trends toward
community policing, community prosecution, community courts, and
community justice have resulted in strong partnerships among justice
practitioners, community members, and neighborhood groups. Victim
service providers can have a significant role in such collaborative
endeavors. To do so, they need to develop contacts with allied community
groups and professionals (where applicable) and seek avenues of
involvement.

In the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) *Community Partnerships*
*Bulletin*, the National Crime Prevention Council (1994) points out:

> ...Working in partnership with community members and groups is an
> effective and productive way to address a community's problems and
> needs. This effectiveness can translate into less crime, less fear of
> crime, and a greater sense of community power and cohesion. Law
> enforcement officers have long known that they cannot successfully
> deal alone with the twin issues of responding to crime and correcting
> the conditions that generate crime. Partnerships to prevent crime can
> get something done about an immediate problem, build a base for
> dealing with future problems, gain new resources for action, and
> increase or sustain the community's social and economic health. They
> are among the most promising assets in the ongoing struggle against
> violence and other crimes.

The National Crime Prevention Council also offers an excellent example
of how partners in public safety are identified:

> Potential partners will come from among those groups directly affected
> by the current problem, those who must deal with its aftermath or
> consequences, and those who would benefit if the problem did not
> exist. For example, if graffiti are the problem, those directly
> affected include business owners and home owners, other area
> residents, and highway and park departments. Those who must deal with
> the consequences include insurers, residents, traffic control
> personnel, elected officials, and law enforcement. People who would
> benefit if the problem did not exist include realtors, the chamber of
> commerce, neighborhood residents, and school and youth programs that
> could use funds otherwise spent on cleanups. All these people are
> potential partners.

Community collaborations often involve partnerships with both the
government and nonprofit organizations, which require significant
oversight and management. The Nonprofit Risk Management Center offers an
overview of joint projects that engage private and public sectors and
includes a risk management checklist and a checklist to create a
memorandum of understanding among partners in a collaborative
initiative. It is available at: www.nonprofitrisk.org/mc/collab.htm.

When the engagement of the community in forming partnerships is applied
to who is affected by crime and victimization, the list of potential
partnerships is seemingly endless. Everybody has a stake in individual
and community safety and, as such, everybody has a similar stake in
ensuring that people who are hurt by crime have comprehensive, quality
services to assist them.

# COLLABORATION IN ACTION: SIX STEPS

As noted throughout this chapter, collaboration occurs at various levels
involving both private and government entities and has proven to be an
effective strategy for the successful implementation of and advocacy for
victims' rights and services. So how do victim-serving organizations
begin the collaborative process?

An effective collaboration model helps organizations move from being
problem-driven to being vision-driven, from muddled roles and
responsibilities to defined relationships, and from activity-driven to
outcome-focused (National Network for Collaboration, 2006). The
following model for collaboration draws on research and successful
components of several national models and proven collaboration
strategies and takes practitioners through a series of activities to
answer the following questions:

-   Why and when should we collaborate?

-   Who should be at the table?

-   How do we get going?

-   What are we going to do?

-   Did we meet our goals?

-   What's next?

The model is also supported by key factors for implementation and 20
factors that make collaboration work, as discussed in this chapter, and
Austin's (2002) seven "Cs" of strategic collaboration. These guidelines
provide practitioners with key factors to consider both during and after
the collaboration process.

###### Step 1: Why and When Should We Collaborate?

The power of collective versus independent efforts is well documented
and emphasized by noted leaders throughout America's history. As Oliver
Wendell Holmes said, "Many ideas grow better when transplanted into
another mind than the one where they sprang up," or as Henry David
Thoreau put it, "It takes two to speak the truth---one to speak, and
another to hear."

In spite of the inherent power of the many over the few, most
organizations do not seek collaborative relationships until a current
problem or crisis propels them into action. A section from the
University of Kansas (2003) *Community Tool Box*, "Coalition Building I:
Starting a Coalition," provides a variety of reasons to build community
coalitions that are applicable to collaborative efforts within the field
of crime victim assistance. These reasons are to:

-   Address an urgent situation.

-   Empower elements of the community, or the community as a whole, to
    take control of its future.

-   Actually obtain or provide services.

-   Bring about more effective and efficient delivery of programs and
    eliminate any unnecessary duplication of effort.

-   Pool resources.

-   Increase communication among groups and break down stereotypes.

-   Revitalize the sagging energies of members of groups who are trying
    to do too much alone.

-   Plan and launch communitywide initiatives on a variety of issues.

-   Develop and use political clout to gain services or other benefits
    for the community.

-   Create long-term, permanent social change.

It is important not only to share and collect information but also to
share decisions and ownership. Collaboration allows for shared
leadership, decisions, ownership, vision, and responsibility. It
discovers solutions and expands capacity within the organization and the
community (Petersen, 2003). As noted earlier in the chapter, there are
additional ways that crime victims, service providers, and allied
professionals can work together at the local, state, and national
levels: fiduciary relationships, public policy initiatives,
implementation of victims' rights, research initiatives, training and
technical assistance, and information and referral services.

The impetus to pursue a collective or collaborative approach often comes
as the result of several factors in an organization's immediate business
environment---a current crisis or problem, the new knowledge of a shared
vision between organizations, and/or a specific desired outcome. The
University of Kansas (2003) *Community Tool Box* identifies seven
immediate conditions that prompt coalition building:

1.  When dramatic or disturbing events occur in a community.

2.  When new information becomes available.

3.  When circumstances or rules change.

4.  When new funding becomes available.

5.  When there is an outside threat to the community.

6.  When a group wishes to create broad, significant community change.

7.  When you have not only a good reason for starting a coalition but
    also the possibility that one can be started successfully in the
    community.

Key collaboration strategies for Step 1 include the following:

-   Complete an organizational assessment. (A Collaboration Assessment
    Survey is available online from the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation at
    http://2005.nacdnet.org/presents/CollaborationAssessmentSurvey.doc.)

-   Determine capacity for collaboration.

-   Establish a core work group. (See the previous section "Range of
    Partners for Collaboration" in this chapter to identify potential
    members.)

-   Identify the reason for collaboration.

-   Determine strategic benefits of and barriers to collaboration. This
    can be accomplished by conducting a Strengths Weaknesses
    Opportunities Threats (SWOT) or situation analysis, which is
    described in Section 2 of the OVC Training and Technical Assistance
    Center (TTAC) Strategic Planning Toolkit, available online at:
    www.ovcttac.org/taResources/stratplan.cfm.

###### Step 2: Who Should Be at the Table?

National victim advocate Anne Seymour often remarks that when you are
meeting on victim-related issues, "unless victims are at the table, you
can't serve supper!" When establishing collaborative relationships to
address victim- and justice-related issues, it is critical to involve
crime victims and survivors from the beginning, including membership
within the core work group identified in Step 1.

This chapter lists several conventional stakeholders: crime victims,
service providers, and juvenile and criminal justice officials and
agencies. Nontraditional partners include members of the clergy, mental
health and public health professionals and agencies, public
policymakers, news media, and researchers and practitioners in the field
of substance abuse. Who else should be at the table?

When addressing public safety issues, the National Crime Prevention
Council (1994) indicates that "potential partners will come from among
those groups directly affected by the current problem, those who must
deal with its aftermath or consequences, and those who would benefit if
the problem did not exist." The potential partners identified in the
National Crime Prevention Council's *Community Partnerships* *Bulletin*
(which can be accessed online at: www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/wpcg.txt)
should be assessed in Step 2.

Diversity is another component to be addressed when determining
membership in collaborative efforts. The "collaboration framework"
developed by the National Network for Collaboration (2006) suggests:

> Valuing diversity honors the uniqueness, gifts, and talents that each
> person, group, and organization brings to the collaboration. It opens
> the door to gaining an understanding of how all the elements fit
> together and how each is important to the whole. Diversity brings a
> critical balance to any level of collaboration. When a real diversity
> of people and opinion occurs in a group, a reverence for the shared
> vision often takes hold. It becomes easier to understand each member's
> perspective on current reality, and each other's ideas about courses
> of action. People whose lives are affected by decisions must be
> equally represented in the decision process.

Key collaborative strategies for Step 2 include the following:

-   Identify stakeholders (traditional and nontraditional).

-   Address questions: Who is affected? Who must deal with the
    aftermath? Who would benefit?

-   Ensure diversity.

###### Step 3: How Do We Get Going? 

The time has come for the collaborative process to begin. After
determining the when and where of the initial meeting, the first step is
to **identify who will conduct the meeting**. Depending on resources and
availability, organizations should consider the use of a skilled
facilitator. An effective facilitator and supporting staff can help
advance the work of a collaborative group and contribute to its success
(Gilligan and Carter, 2006). In addition to helping collaborative teams
to conduct effective meetings, a neutral facilitator allows all
collaborative members to be actively involved in and contributing
members of the meeting process. The planning and organization of
collaborative meetings are critical to their success. Appendix B in this
chapter includes guidelines for conducting effective meetings.

The next step in the process is to **conduct a multidisciplinary
assessment** that helps identify the current environment (the "as is"),
with a focus on reaching consensus about strategic goals and objectives
(the "to be"). Guidelines for developing an assessment process,
including effective tools to assess the current environment, are
included in the OVC TTAC Strategic Planning Toolkit, which can be
accessed online at: www.ovcttac.org/taResources/stratplan.cfm.

Another step in the process is to **set the strategic direction**. This
can be accomplished by developing a comprehensive strategic plan or, at
the very least, guiding statements (values, mission, and vision
statements), goals, and objectives. Establishing shared values and a
collaborative mission statement and vision unifies the group and
promotes joint effort toward a shared vision. Under the guidance of a
skilled facilitator, initial meetings focus on developing these guiding
statements, which should be documented and prominently displayed during
future meetings and open to updates and revisions as needed. Detailed
information about strategic planning, developing guiding statements, and
action planning can be found in the OVC TTAC Strategic Planning Toolkit
available online at: www.ovcttac.org/taResources/stratplan.cfm.

A skilled facilitator can guide the collaborative effort through the
process of developing goals (measurable and readily observable end
results) and objectives (measurable steps to reach goals). Specific
objectives (short-term and long-term) with assigned responsibility and
benchmarks allow collaborative initiatives to gauge success and make
modifications as necessary.

In a collaborative process, the primary attention is often given to
determining group membership, developing and accomplishing goals and
objectives, and monitoring progress. Too often, the critical role of the
leader receives much less attention. The complexity of facilitating,
planning, and managing the meeting requires the skills of a designated
leader. Value-based dedicated leadership is essential for anything
lasting, significant, and positive to be accomplished, as stated by the
National Network for Collaboration (2006):

> One of the major responsibilities of leadership is to \[ensure\] that
> appropriate members have been brought to the collaboration. A diverse
> membership should encompass potentially impacted groups and
> individuals....Norms of operation must be established that include
> protocols, conflict resolution, political and cultural sensitivity,
> structure, and roles and responsibilities. Leadership should
> facilitate and support team building and capitalize upon diversity and
> individual, group, and organizational strengths.

Additionally, the specific roles and responsibilities of collaborative
partners should be delineated clearly and accepted by all members.

Key collaborative strategies for Step 3 include the following:

-   Consider and recruit a skilled facilitator.

-   Develop guiding statements, goals, and measurable objectives.

-   Develop an action plan (tasks, responsibilities, deliverables, and
    timelines).

-   Designate leadership.

-   Delineate roles and responsibilities.

Other tips for conducting effective meetings can be found in Appendix B.

###### Step 4: What Are We Going to Do?

Petersen (2003) lists 13 principles that are important for this phase of
community collaboration:

1.  Coordinate---organize.

2.  Show respect for people and time.

3.  Consider logistical needs of others.

4.  Be open-minded. Share ownership. Empower others. Share leadership.

5.  Build relationships.

6.  Communicate.

7.  Motivate.

8.  Take responsibility and give credit.

9.  Stick with it. Persevere. Work.

10. Let go, forgive.

11. Focus on continuity, consistency, dependability.

12. Be flexible.

13. Show gratitude.

The key to capacity building and sustainability within a collaborative
effort is the ongoing support of existing members and the identification
of new members when current trends or issues call for expansion or
change. It is essential that systems be instituted to provide sustained
membership, resources, and strategic program planning (National Network
for Collaboration, 2006).

The University of Kansas (2003) *Community Tool Box* recommends allowing
time before and after meetings for visiting, which can often be as
important as the meeting itself. Such simple things as serving
refreshments, acknowledging members, and sending thank-you notes can go
a long way in building relationships. In addition, the *Community Tool
Box* offers some general process guidelines: "Communicate, be as
inclusive as possible, network like crazy, be creative about meetings,
be realistic and keep your promises, and acknowledge diversity among
members and among their ideas and beliefs."

Key collaborative strategies for Step 4 include the following:

-   Establish meeting protocols.

-   Build relationships.

-   Communicate.

-   Identify needed resources and the sources to obtain them.

###### Step 5: Did We Meet Our Goals?

A critical component of a collaborative effort is measuring what the
collaboration achieves (evaluation). The collaborative effort is
initiated to work collectively toward a shared vision defined by a set
of goals and objectives. If a collaborative initiative fails to conduct
some level of analysis of whether stated goals and objectives are
accomplished, the question becomes, "Why does the collaborative exist?"

Evaluation is not concerned with summarizing collaborative
accomplishments so much as understanding whether the collaborative
effort accomplished what the group said it would accomplish. Evaluation
asks, "Did we do what we set out to do?" and "What was the impact of our
activity?" (National Network for Collaboration, 2006).

Excellent evaluation tools specifically developed for collaboration are
available online. For example, check out the following:

-   Collaboration Rubric
    edweb.sdsu.edu/triton/tidepoolunit/Rubrics/collrubric.html

-   *Managing for Results Workbook,* Tennessee Office of Criminal
    Justice Planning*\
    *www.state.tn.us/finance/rds/victimshomepage.htm

-   *OVC TTAC Strategic Planning Toolkit,* Section 6: Evaluate
    www.ovcttac.org/taResources/stratplan.cfm

-   OVC, National Victim Assistance Standards Consortium, *Standards for
    Victim Assistance Programs and Providers*
    www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=190688

Key collaborative strategies for Step 5 include the following:

-   Develop an evaluation strategy.

-   Collect data.

-   Revise goals and objectives, as needed.

-   Recognize and celebrate success.

###### Step 6: What's Next?

For a collaborative effort to continue, it must continue to fulfill a
shared purpose. Sponsors can continually seek to bring in new members
and resources to enhance the collaborative effort, revise goals and
objectives as needed, and consider additional strategic goals.

Communication from the collaboration to the broader community must be
established through the outreach venues of participating individuals and
organizations, news media, and other formal information channels.
Marketing of the collaboration efforts must also be conducted to obtain
community support and acquire needed resources (National Network for
Collaboration, 2006).

Key collaborative strategies for Step 6 include the following:

-   Conduct an assessment of the overall collaborative effort, and
    revise goals and objectives as needed.

-   Identify and recruit new members.

-   Gather new resources.

-   Communicate and market outcomes and successes.

-   Constantly work to rejuvenate and sustain the collaborative effort.

A matrix that highlights the key strategies and recommended guidelines
for these steps is included in Appendix C in this chapter.

## PROMISING PRACTICES IN COLLABORATION FOR VICTIM SERVICES

## Integrated Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse Services for Women

The Iowa Integrated Services Project focuses on developmental processes
necessary for collaborative work between domestic violence shelters and
substance abuse agencies. The VAWA-funded project is based at the
University of Northern Iowa and has been evaluated by the Iowa
Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation at the University
of Iowa.

Women who turn to domestic violence and substance abuse programs for
advocacy and treatment often have life issues in both arenas. Domestic
abuse and substance abuse workers often have their work questioned in
communities because many of their clients require repeated assistance
before results are seen. These service fields have traditionally not
formed collaborative relationships to better serve their common clients.

The Integrated Services Project concluded that this hesitancy to work
together emerged from myths surrounding the work of each field; lack of
communication arising from concern that their questions may be
inappropriate; lack of information about each others' capabilities; and
lack of information regarding the issues faced by each others' clients.

Two communities worked collaboratively with the Integrated Services
Project to develop better practices, cross-train staff regarding
battered women and substance abuse, and establish integrated services to
work more effectively with battered women who are substance abusers. In
each community, meetings were conducted to identify common missions,
goals, and issues, as well as to build relationships and respect among
the workers. A minimum of 12 hours of cross-training was conducted with
90 percent of the staff members of both fields.

In the beginning, 91 percent of the workers thought that their agency
could meet the needs of clients with joint issues. However, 55 percent
of the substance abuse workers felt unable to develop a safety plan, and
83 percent of the domestic violence workers felt unable to develop a
relapse plan.

After training, 91.8 percent stated that they had received new
knowledge, and 92.7 percent felt that they would be better able to serve
women with both issues. Support groups for substance abuse were
established in the domestic violence programs, and domestic violence
support groups were started in the substance abuse program, using staff
from the other. The substance abuse programs stopped couples counseling
with domestic violence clients and provided gender-specific support
groups for the women. Intake forms in both types of programs were
amended to include the issues of domestic violence and substance abuse.
Cross-training has been embedded in the operations of both fields.

Professor William Downs of the University of Northern Iowa was awarded
funding from the NIJ and Office of Violence Against Women for this
project. Based on the results of the work in the original communities,
several other communities in Iowa are replicating this model of
collaboration on behalf of victims of domestic abuse who have substance
abuse problems and needs.

For additional information, please visit
http://iconsortium.subst-abuse.uiowa.edu/ new_Projects.html#DVSA.

**Victim Services 2000 (VS2000)**

In the late 1990s, funds became available from the OVC to create
seamless, integrated victim service delivery systems. The Denver Victim
Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) board had a history of
collaborating over the years on distinct projects and smaller scale
initiatives. VALE recognized this opportunity to improve services to
crime victims and convened its planning committee of more than 50 victim
service providers, allied professionals, and victims and survivors to
acquire funds for Denver Victim Services 2000 (VS2000).

VS2000 provided the first opportunity for metrowide collaboration with
participation from the full spectrum of service and justice systems.
Three goals for VS2000 were established:

-   The creation of a seamless, comprehensive, coordinated,
    interdisciplinary system of service delivery for victims of crime,
    with emphasis on services for victims previously underserved or
    unserved.

-   The establishment of a training institute that integrates
    technology, cross-training among victim service providers, and
    training for allied professionals who work with crime victims.

-   The application of relevant technology to the delivery of services
    for victims of crime.

Critical to the success of VS2000 was the fact that the VALE board
already had in place the leadership necessary to facilitate this complex
collaboration. VALE convened the VS2000 Planning Committee, supported
the development of the project financially, and arranged for the housing
and administration of the project by the Denver District Attorney's
Office. In the first month of its work, VS2000 adopted its guiding
vision, "When crime victims in Denver look for services, there will be
no wrong door for them to open. Wherever they turn, a quick, reliable
connection will be made to get them to the most appropriate services."

The structure of VS2000 was critical to its success. Each agency
involved had a seat on the VS2000 Steering Committee. Agencies also
participated on working teams that addressed the core issues of
collaboration: technology, network development, and training.
Subcommittees addressed more specific issues and made recommendations to
the working teams, which then submitted them to the Steering Committee
for approval.

A culturally diverse staff, which reflected Denver's demographics and
had experience in both criminal justice and community-based victim
service organizations, was hired to demonstrate a commitment to cultural
competency and meeting the needs of all victims of crime.

Long-term changes emerged from VS2000 that benefit victims and survivors
of crime, including:

-   Development and implementation of a collaborative, Internet-based
    directory of resources available for use by all service providers.

-   A needs assessment that surveyed victims of crime on how services
    might better meet their needs.

-   Training, technology, and community advocacy initiatives.

-   Coordination of specialized service providers so victims receive
    services that are networked and interconnected.

-   Development and support of community advocacy programs as well as
    community advocates who are members and residents of the community
    they serve. These advocates are known, respected, and involved in
    their communities and are responsible for linking victims with
    available services.

Collaboration changes the way professionals think and work and requires
a profound shift in thinking about how change is created. In VS2000,
collaboration shifted organizational focus from competing to consensus
building, from working alone to including others, from thinking about
activities to thinking about results and strategies, and from focusing
on short-term accomplishments to demanding long-term results.

VS2000 provides training and technical assistance to jurisdictions
across the United States on adapting the model to the unique aspects of
each community.

For additional information, please visit
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/ bulletins/mcwedvs2000/pg3.html.

**Collaboration Between Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs) and
Victim Advocates**

Community-based rape and sexual assault service centers have long worked
to eliminate the lack of consistency in emergency medical forensic
examination of sexual assault victims. Sexual assault victim advocates
have led efforts to promote the sexual abuse nurse examiners (SANE)
model, recognizing that it offers the potential of consistency paired
with compassion in the medical-legal response to victims. A strong
alliance between advocates and SANEs has facilitated a comprehensive and
timely community medical response to sexual assault that is truly
victim-centered.

Agencies engaged in community response systems to sexual assault have
worked together to revise protocols that ensure effective service
delivery by SANEs. The groundwork to build trust and embed SANE services
in a community response involves collaboration between sexual assault
services, hospitals and community health providers, law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, courts, and funders. The absence of cooperation
from any one of these entities will create a formidable barrier to
enhanced medical-legal services to sexual assault victims.

Where SANEs are used, law enforcement officers recognize the increased
efficiency in the evidentiary exam process. SANEs contribute to an
investigation by providing meticulously collected forensic evidence and
extensive documentation that complement crime scene evidence and witness
statements. Ultimately, the work of SANEs increases the chance that law
enforcement will be able to move a case forward to prosecution.

Prosecutors find SANEs to be credible witnesses who have a positive
impact on outcomes in sexual assault criminal cases. Thorough evidence
collection and testimony by SANEs help prosecutors obtain increased
numbers of guilty pleas and convictions. A Wisconsin SANE program
reported that during a 3.5-year period, they had a 100 percent
conviction rate in cases where a SANE conducted the medical examination
and testified at trial.

As SANE-involved cases go to trial and result in an increased number of
convictions, state and federal appellate courts review constitutional
and evidentiary challenges by defendants. To date, the courts have
rejected all defense challenges to convictions based on SANE testimony.

Regional SANE programs have been established in many rural areas. By
serving a larger regional area, SANEs see more clients and complete a
sufficient number of exams to develop and maintain clinical competence.
Recognizing the vital service that SANEs provide in sexual assault
cases, some hospitals have expanded the SANE's role to include
evidentiary exams of domestic violence victims, accident victims, and
other populations.

SANEs, victim advocates, and justice professionals understand that there
is more than enough work for everyone involved in community response to
sexual assault. By recognizing the benefits of working collaboratively,
resolving differences, and clarifying roles, they support one another in
better serving the victim. For instance, the need for an advocate to
monitor the forensic examination is greatly diminished with SANEs.
Trusting in sensitive and competent care, advocates can more fully
concentrate on providing crisis counseling, emotional support, and
information to victims and their families.

For additional information, please visit www.sane-sart.com and
www.ovc.gov/ publications/bulletins/sane_4_2001/welcome.html.

Coordinating Criminal Investigation and Prosecution and Treatment in
Indian Country

The complexity of multiple jurisdictions in Indian Country poses special
challenges to reducing the number of interviews a child victim endures.
Collaboration can be established with the goal of improved investigation
and prosecution that limits additional trauma to the child victim.
Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) develop protocols, provide training to
all agencies involved, participate in workshops and tribally sponsored
training, plan panels and review committees, and provide informal
interaction with tribal service providers.

Criminal jurisdiction for the investigation and prosecution of child
sexual abuse in Indian Country requires coordination of tribal, state,
and federal officials. The possibility for multiple forensic interviews
of child victims is obvious, given the number of jurisdictions and
agencies that have a legitimate interest in these cases. In the absence
of careful collaboration, a child may be interviewed by six separate
individuals in six or more separate interviews.

In addition, the advocacy and treatment of the child victim and the
family can be disjointed. Basic financial and food needs, housing,
childcare, job services for the nonabusing parent or guardian,
counseling, medical care, and spiritual guidance are only a few of the
services that might be required after a child reveals or exhibits
symptoms of child sexual abuse.

Participation in MDTs was made mandatory for federal agencies under the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 and the Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 101--630). The development of
MDTs in Indian Country is an important vehicle for coordinating the
investigation, prosecution, and disposition of child sexual abuse cases.
To be effective, MDTs must have the participation of all law
enforcement; prosecutors; and social services, medical, child welfare,
victim assistance, and judicial agencies with jurisdiction over child
sexual abuse cases, as well as the tribal representation.

Lack of access to information regarding the status of cases has long
been a problem for tribal police and prosecutors, but the MDT offers an
appropriate forum to share information and plan strategies. On an MDT,
representatives from the U.S. Attorneys' or local prosecutor's offices
meet with tribal prosecutors and determine the best venue for initial
criminal prosecution. Information on the status of various
investigations is regularly available.

In addition, the MDT is a vehicle for child protection, social service,
medical and mental health, and spiritual advisors to collaborate in
providing effective services and reducing the chaos in the life of the
child and his or her family.

Tribal, state, federal, and human services collaboration in
investigation and prosecution, as well as in treatment of the child
victim and his or her family, better ensures successful resolution of
child sexual abuse cases for the family and child.

For additional information, please visit
www.ovc.gov/publications/infores/tribal/ tribalbult.htm.

Sexual Assault Resource Service (SARS)

The Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault (CASA), like many
centers across the nation, started as a collaborative response to
victims and survivors of sexual assault. CASA convenes monthly meetings
of their collaborators including 11 law enforcement agencies, hospitals,
prosecutors, and other victim service programs. CASA and its partners
developed the Sexual Assault Resource Service (SARS) out of their
commitment to provide the best practice community response to victims of
sexual assault.

SARS is a 24/7 hospital response team for victims and survivors of
sexual assault as well as their families and loved ones. In addition to
providing immediate crisis intervention, advocacy, and effective
evidence collection, SARS also facilitates survivors' entry into both
longer-term support and the Arizona's criminal justice system. The
success of SARS relies on significant communitywide collaboration. Until
recently, SARS was the only program of its kind in the state of Arizona.

CASA provides the advocacy and sexual assault forensic exam components
of the SARS response. Trained SARS advocates respond to all local
hospitals to provide survivors with immediate support, information, and
referral services. Law enforcement calls on trained sexual assault
forensic examiners (SAFEs) to respond to medical exam sites.

All law enforcement agencies in the area call CASA's crisis line at any
time, day or night, by protocol. An advocate is dispatched to the
hospital where he or she meets the law enforcement officer and the
victim. CASA provides many important services to victims of sexual
assault, but it is this service that contributes to law enforcement's
ability to prevent future victimization by identifying and apprehending
criminals.

CASA has placed specialized equipment in two local hospital emergency
departments designed for detailed, state-of-the-art forensic evidence
collection. When law enforcement brings a victim to either of these
emergency departments and a forensic exam is ordered, they again call
the crisis line to dispatch one of CASA's SAFEs to perform the
examination.

CASA's SAFEs provide consistent, high-quality evidence collection for
the Pima County Attorney's Office. The nature of evidence collection
demands specificity and specialized methods required in the prosecution
of a case. The CASA SAFEs also testify in subsequent criminal cases.

This level of community collaboration requires that the professionals
involved communicate openly, trust one another's professional integrity,
and have authority from their offices to interact in a meaningful
manner. Moreover, the collaboration requires a common vision that
providing victim-centered, coordinated services will best serve the
victim and the community.

For additional information, please visit www.sacasa.org/history.htm.

The Intimate Violence Enhanced Services Team (INVEST)

The Intimate Violence Enhanced Services Team (INVEST) is a collaboration
created in response to a recommendation from the Jacksonville, Florida,
Mayor's Domestic Violence Task Force report, *Strategy to Eradicate
Domestic Violence*. The mission of INVEST is to identify and intervene
in the most potentially lethal domestic violence cases.

The city of Jacksonville contracts with the local domestic violence
program and shelter, Hubbard House, to provide advocates and with the
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office to provide one officer specifically
assigned to the INVEST office. The city's Community Services Department
provides a program coordinator and planning technician for INVEST.

All domestic violence police reports and referrals from other agencies
are reviewed daily and assessed for potential lethality. Assessment
includes the use of the Threat Assessment Checklist, which is completed
by the police and referral sources. Cases identified as high risk for
lethality are followed up by INVEST advocates and the deputy sheriff who
work together to provide services to victims and accountability for
perpetrators. Client participation is completely voluntary and
confidential, and all services are free. 

INVEST clients receive intense case management and advocacy throughout
civil and criminal justice processes. The case management continues
until their situations become safer or they choose to exit the program. 

The INVEST collaborative serves as the advisory council to the INVEST
program staff. The collaborative participants establish policies and
ensure comprehensive services to clients from all participating
agencies. The collaborative includes representatives from the City of
Jacksonville Community Services Department, Victim Services Division,
Animal Care and Control, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Hubbard House,
Florida Department of Children and Families, Navy Northeast Region,
State Attorney's Office, Women's Center of Jacksonville, Salvation Army
of Northeast Florida, Jewish Family and Community Services, University
of North Florida/Police and Public Safety, Neptune Beach Public Safety
Division, Jacksonville Beach Police Department, Atlantic Beach Police
Department, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Family Nurturing Center, and
Planned Parenthood of Northeast Florida.

This program of collaboration was developed to decrease fatalities among
women and men exposed to domestic violence. The specialized second
review and intervention in these cases have a significant potential to
save lives.

For additional information, please visit www.coj.net/Departments/
Community+ Services/Victim+Services/INVEST+Program.htm

Faith-Based Collaborations for Crime Victims

Many victims of crime report that they turn to their faith as a source
of personal strength. They call on faith communities for assistance,
support, and guidance. Faith leaders are often the first source of
comfort for victims of crime. There is a need for a seamless
collaboration between the victim service agencies and the faith
community.

To assist victims, faith leaders need to know the resources in their
community, and they need to develop a relationship of trust with victim
assistance professionals to whom they can make referrals. Victim
assistance providers need to learn from faith leaders about the
spiritual crisis that results from victimization and how to address each
victim's spiritual needs.

Diversity of spiritual beliefs and practices in the United States must
be considered in collaboration to assist crime victims. Joining a
religious group in today's society often means crossing boundaries
previously set by expectations of family members, ethnic groups, and
social classes. Spirituality is an emotion-laden issue for victims of
crime, and how it is addressed can harm or help the victim in his or her
recovery. The way the issue is addressed can cause strengthening or
diminishing of the victim's faith.

Respect for individual and unique faith perspectives is more than
tolerance; it includes genuine appreciation and competent spiritually
sensitive services. Services will be significantly enhanced and will be
far more effective when training and collaboration incorporate an
understanding of the racial and ethnic groups within a community as well
as their value systems, spiritual beliefs, practices, and historical
traditions.

Members of the clergy are often experienced with issues arising from a
range of social justice problems, such as poverty, homelessness, drug
abuse, and even offender rehabilitation. However, they are frequently
not trained to understand and deal with the particular dynamics of crime
victimization.

In contrast, victim assistance programs and professionals possess the
knowledge and practical resources for responding to the immediate needs
of victims, but they may not be able to address the profound spiritual
crisis brought on by criminal victimization.

The Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center (MCVRC) received a grant
from the OVC to create systems of services that link faith-based
organizations and victim service programs in five high-crime urban
neighborhoods. The project will create collaborative models for local
victim assistance programs in conjunction with faith-based organizations
in high-crime urban settings to improve the range, quality, and
accessibility of services to crime victims.

Activities planned for the project communities include creation of links
between faith-based organizations and victim assistance programs,
increased awareness of the spiritual needs of crime victims, coalition
building, volunteer training, cross-training for victim assistance and
faith-based organizations, needs assessment, elimination of service
gaps, establishment of ongoing programs, improvement of the range and
accessibility of services to crime victims, faith breakfasts, community
roundtables, and development of resource guides and conferences.

For additional information, please visit www.mdcrimevictims.org/\_pages/
f_faith_based/f2_faith_sites.htm.

REFERENCES

Austin, J. 2002. "The Seven Cs: Questions for Partners." In *Meeting the
Collaboration Challenge Workbook,* Appendix B, eds. P. F. Drucker and J.
E. Austin. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Carter, M., ed. 2005. *The Emergence of Collaboration as the Preferred
Approach in Criminal Justice.* Alexandria, VA: State Justice Institute
and Center for Effective Public Policy.

Chaiken, M., B. Boland, M. Maltz, S. Martin, and J. Tragonski 2005.
*State and Local Change and the Violence Against Women Act.* Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Gilligan, L. and M. Carter. 2006. *The Role of Facilitators and Staff in
Supporting Collaborative Teams.* Retrieved June 11, 2006, from
www.collaborative justice.org/docs/The Role of Facilitators and Staff in
Supporting Collaborative Teams.doc.

Keiser, G. 1998. *Types of Working Relationships.* Washington, DC:
National Institute of Corrections.

Kilpatrick, D., P. Resick, and L. Williams. 1999. *Fostering
Collaborations to Prevent Violence Against Women*. Columbia, SC:
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, Medical
University of South Carolina.

Kovener, M., E. Startk, and B. Woodward. December 2002. "Making
Collaboration Work: The Experiences of Denver Victim Services 2000."
*OVC Bulletin.* Retrieved September 4, 2007, from
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/bulletins/\
mcwedvs2000/welcome.html..

Mattessich, P. W., M. Murray-Close, and B. R. Mooney. 2001.
*Collaboration: What Makes It Work,* 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H.
Wilder Foundation.

Mouradian, V. E., M. B. Mechanic, and L. M. Williams. 2001.
*Recommendations for Establishing and Maintaining Successful
Researcher-Practitioner Collaborations.* Wellesley, MA: National
Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, Wellesley College.
Retrieved September 4, 2007, from www.musc.edu/\
vawprevention/general/rec_report.pdf.

National Crime Prevention Council. September 1994. "Working as Partners
with Community Groups." In *Community Partnerships* *Bulletin.*
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from
www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/wpcg.txt.

National Network for Collaboration. 2006. *National Network for
Collaboration Training Manual.* Retrieved June 10, 2006, from
http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/ cd/framew.htm.

Petersen, C. R. 2003. *Coming Together: Building Collaboration and
Consensus.* Retrieved June 10, 2006, from
www.communitycollaboration.net..

Prefontaine, L., R. Ricard, H. Sicotte, D. Turcotte, and S. Dawes. 2000.
*New Models of Collaboration for Public Service Delivery: Worldwide
Trends*. Quebec City, Canada: CEFRIO.

University of Kansas. 2003. "Coalition Building I: Starting a
Coalition," in *Community Tool Box,* Part B, Chapter 5, Section 5.
Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://ctb.ku.edu/tools/en/section
1057.htm.

Appendix A

Benefits of Successful Collaboration

The professionals and volunteers engaged in collaborative efforts to
enhance victims' rights and services should mirror the populations they
seek to serve. Just as crime victims and survivors are remarkably
diverse by age, gender, geography, race, ethnicity, faith, sexual
orientation, and socioeconomic status, partners in collaboration must
*reflect* and *respect* diversity.

Instead of asking, "Who should be at the 'table of collaboration,'" a
more appropriate question is, "Who is traditionally missing?" Too often,
the answer includes people who represent and serve populations who are
diverse and often left out of the mainstream of efforts to promote
positive change.

It is helpful to identify the benefits of seeking diversity within
collaborative efforts in order to establish a strong foundation for
diversity within partnerships. In *Working with Diversity in*
*Collaboration: Tips* *and Tools*, the authors outline nine motive
forces that build the business case for working with diversity in a
meaningful way:

-   Enhanced innovation, creativity, and problem-solving capacity.

-   Stronger collaborative modes of working.

-   Broader access to clients, beneficiaries, investors, and other
    stakeholders.

-   Responsiveness to changing workforce demographics.

-   Better retention of high-quality staff.

-   Enhanced operational effectiveness.

-   Promotion of social justice and equity.

-   Responsiveness to organizational mandates and directives.

-   Superior performance and industry reputation.[^2]

Within the fields of victim assistance and allied professions, there are
at least seven actions collaborators can take to enhance diversity:

1.  Commit through a shared vision, mission, values, and goals to
    diversity as a key foundation of all collaborative efforts.

2.  Engage in collaborative initiatives crime victims and survivors who
    represent the diverse nature of crime victims.

3.  Identify "gatekeepers" who can serve as liaisons to communities that
    are diverse by race, ethnicity, faith, and socioeconomics and engage
    them in leadership roles in meaningful ways throughout all
    collaborative activities.

4.  Examine all key collaboration issues through a "diversity lens," and
    be aware of the impact of all outcomes on diverse populations.

5.  Provide resources for interpreters (including American Sign
    Language) to encourage participation from non-English-speaking and
    deaf participants.

6.  Rotate the locations of meetings and key activities, and sponsor
    some in neighborhoods with diverse populations or different faith
    community institutions.

7.  Ensure that meeting spaces are in compliance with the Americans with
    Disabilities Act to facilitate participation by people with
    disabilities.

The *Working with Diversity in Collaboration: Tips and Tools* handbook,
which includes many practical tools, can be accessed at:
www.genderdiversity.cgiar.org/publications/genderdiversity_WP39.pdf.

Appendix B

How to Conduct Effective Meetings

Information in this appendix is derived from Seymour (2005).

Victim service providers spend a considerable amount of time in
meetings, as both sponsors and participants. Consider for a moment
meetings that you look forward to attending versus meetings that you
dread attending. The differences between the two can be summarized by
the following five "Ps":

1.  **Planning.** This should create buy-in from participants and ensure
    that all advance and onsite logistics are adequately addressed.

2.  **Process.** This should address advance, onsite, and follow-on
    activities and ensure the meeting is conducted in a professional
    manner.

3.  **Personality.** A skilled facilitator should adhere to a clearly
    stated agenda and engage all participants.

4.  **Participants.** Participants should contribute to achieving the
    goal of the meeting and be willing to assume responsibilities for
    any follow-on activities.

5.  **Products.** Any products that result from the meeting should be
    prepared and disseminated in a timely manner.

Two elements for a successful meeting are to (1) determine if a meeting
is needed and (2) have a clear agenda to guide both participants and the
meeting process. To do this, follow these guidelines:

-   Call a meeting only if there is business that cannot be conducted by
    telephone or e-mail communications.

-   Have a concise meeting agenda that includes a clearly stated meeting
    goal.

-   Seek input in advance from meeting participants about the goals and
    objectives to achieve their buy-in. A meeting sponsor can also
    develop a draft agenda for circulation to participants so they can
    add agenda items.

-   For a 2-hour meeting, limit agenda items to four key issues with
    specified time limitations on each issue.

-   Determine in advance the meeting participants who are responsible
    for facilitating or contributing to each key issue, and work with
    them to prepare their presentation within the time allotted.

-   Distribute the meeting agenda, which should include key topics,
    persons responsible for presentations and discussions, and so forth,
    along with the meeting logistics (e.g., date, beginning and ending
    times, location, and directions) at least 1 week before the meeting.
    Remind participants to bring their calendars or personal digital
    assistants (PDAs) for scheduling purposes.

###### MEETING LOGISTICS

By identifying and addressing key logistics, you can increase the
likelihood of a meeting running smoothly. To do this, follow these
guidelines:

-   Try to hold your meetings at a central location that is accessible
    by mass transit, has ample parking, and is disability-accessible.
    Provide information about the various methods of getting there to
    participants before the meeting.

-   Set up the meeting room in a manner that is conducive to group
    discussion (e.g., round table or horseshoe shape, not theater
    style).

-   Provide signage that clearly directs participants to the meeting
    location.

-   Provide a sign-in sheet that documents who is attending the meeting.

-   Arrange for audiovisual equipment, which may include:

    -   Tear sheet pads and felt pens in different colors.

    -   Overhead projector or LCD equipment and screen (e.g., for any
        presentation of goals).

    -   Audio or video recording equipment (including adequate number of
        tapes and batteries).

    -   Laptop computers to record notations from the discussion.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Arrange for specific needs of participants, which may include:

    -   Accommodations for persons with mobility access needs.

    -   Sign language interpreters for participants who are deaf.

    -   Interpreters for participants who speak a language other than
        English.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Arrange for onsite participant resources, which may include:

    -   Any written resources or handouts relevant to the discussion.

    -   Pads of paper.

    -   Pens or pencils.

    -   Name tags.

    -   Name plates on card stock.

    -   Boxes of tissues.

    -   Refreshments (water and coffee at a minimum; if the group is
        conducted during lunch or dinner hours, a light buffet or boxed
        meal before the session is a good idea).

    -   Individual worksheets (if applicable).

**ONSITE MEETINGS**

Follow these guidelines for onsite meetings:

-   Never penalize the people who arrive on time. Start the meeting at
    the time designated on the agenda. End on time as well.

-   Stick to the agenda to respect participants' time and commitment.

-   Include a "parking lot" for meeting participants on a piece of tear
    sheet posted on a wall. Provide each participant with sticky notes
    to jot down issues they think about---which may or may not be
    related to the topic at hand---and post them on the parking lot.
    Allow at least 15 minutes at the end of the meeting to address
    parking lot issues, if needed.

-   Designate a staff member or volunteer to document the meeting by
    taking minutes. It is also helpful to designate a recorder to
    document key issues on tear sheets posted on the walls.

-   Provide individual worksheets for key issues so that all
    participants can give their input. This process engages participants
    who are less likely to participate verbally and helps obtain
    additional data to address the meeting's key issues. The facilitator
    can describe the type of information that is sought, provide a time
    limit for completing the worksheet, collect the worksheets, and
    assure participants that their input will be reflected in the
    meeting's minutes.

-   Document the meeting's proceedings through minutes, and distribute
    the minutes to participants within 1 week of the meeting. Either
    highlight action items or include a list at the end of the minutes
    with assignments and deadlines for persons who are responsible for
    each action item.

###### 

###### CONDUCTING THE MEETING

A well-managed meeting always has a designated facilitator or leader.
This person should be at the site at least 30 minutes before the meeting
to set up the room and welcome participants. Effective meeting
facilitation includes:

-   Welcome from the sponsor and/or facilitator and an opportunity for
    participants to introduce themselves by name and agency affiliation.

-   "Housekeeping" announcements (e.g., where bathrooms are located,
    information about reimbursements).

-   An icebreaker that immediately engages participants, if time
    permits. For example:

    -   "From the agenda we sent you in advance, I'd like each of you to
        identify one expectation you have of this meeting."

    -   "From the agenda we sent you in advance, I'd like each of you to
        identify one challenge to accomplishing our goal."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Review of the agenda, with an opportunity for clarification if
    needed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Review of general rules; these can be posted on a tear sheet on the
    wall. For example:

    -   Everyone's participation is welcome and encouraged, but please
        refrain from overparticipating.

    -   Raise your hand when you wish to speak.

    -   Silence your cell phones and pagers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Facilitation of the agenda that respects time limitations and
    participants' contributions. (See the text box, "Useful Tips for
    Meeting Facilitators," in this appendix.)

-   Providing time before the end of the meeting for summary,
    clarification, and thanking the participants.

###### 

###### FOLLOW-UP TO THE MEETING

It is critical to prepare written minutes as soon as possible for
dissemination to participants. Too often, a meeting ends with little or
no follow-up, which makes participants ask, "What happened? " "What are
the results?" "Was this meeting worth my time?"

Meeting minutes essentially follow the outline of the agenda and clearly
summarize action items with individual responsibilities and deadlines.
The meeting host or facilitator is responsible for reminding individuals
of their commitment to follow-up activities.

###### REFERENCE

Seymour, A. 2005. "How To Conduct Effective Meetings." In *VOCA
Administrators' Toolkit.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, and Office for
Victims of Crime.

Appendix C

**[Collaboration in Action: Six Steps]{.smallcaps}**

**Information in this appendix is derived from Austin (2002), Burnley
and Murray (1997), and Seymour et al. (2002).**

+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| ## Step    | **Strategy**            | **Guideline**                 |
+============+=========================+===============================+
| **1. Why   | 1.  Complete an         | The problem(s) or issue(s) of |
| and when   |     organizational      | concern is clearly defined    |
| should we  |     assessment.         | (Seymour et al., 2002).       |
| colla      |                         |                               |
| b-orate?** | 2.  Determine capacity  | Connection with purpose and   |
|            |     for collaboration.  | people (Austin, 2002).        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            | 3.  Establish a core    | Clarity of purpose (Austin,   |
|            |     work group.         | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            | 4.  Identify the reason |                               |
|            |     for collaboration.  |                               |
|            |                         |                               |
|            | 5.  Determine strategic |                               |
|            |     benefits and        |                               |
|            |     barriers to         |                               |
|            |     collaboration.      |                               |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2. Who   | 1.  Identify            | Victim involvement (Burnley   |
| should be  |     stakeholders        | and Murray, 1997).            |
| at the     |     (traditional and    |                               |
| table?**   |     nontraditional).    | All potential stakeholders    |
|            |                         | and key leaders/change agents |
|            | 2.  Address questions:  | have been invited to          |
|            |     Who is affected?    | participate in the            |
|            |     Who must deal with  | collaborative initiative:     |
|            |     the aftermath? Who  | people who live with the      |
|            |     would benefit?      | problem, people who have the  |
|            |                         | power to change the problem,  |
|            | 3.  Ensure diversity.   | people who have the technical |
|            |                         | expertise to address the      |
|            |                         | problem (Seymour et al.,      |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Diversity among stakeholders  |
|            |                         | is sought and respected as a  |
|            |                         | key tenet of collaboration    |
|            |                         | (Seymour et al., 2002).       |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **3. How   | 1.  Consider/recruit    | Clear definition and          |
| do we get  |     facilitator.        | delineation of roles (Burnley |
| going?**   |                         | and Murray, 1997).            |
|            | 2.  Develop mission and |                               |
|            |     vision statements,  | Efficient and streamlined     |
|            |     goals, and          | coordination of agency tasks  |
|            |     objectives.         | (Burnley and Murray, 1997).   |
|            |                         |                               |
|            | 3.  Develop action      | A mission or vision statement |
|            |     plan.               | that identifies the critical  |
|            |                         | problems or issues and        |
|            | 4.  Designate           | possible collaborative        |
|            |     leadership, and     | solutions is developed and    |
|            |     delineate roles and | shared by all key             |
|            |     responsibilities.   | stakeholders (Seymour et al., |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | The problem or issue is       |
|            |                         | analyzed to develop theories  |
|            |                         | about why it is occurring and |
|            |                         | what can be done to change    |
|            |                         | the situation (Seymour et     |
|            |                         | al., 2002).                   |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Possible strategies or        |
|            |                         | solutions are brainstormed    |
|            |                         | among key stakeholders, with  |
|            |                         | consensus built around the    |
|            |                         | most sound approaches to      |
|            |                         | problem-solving or            |
|            |                         | intervention (Seymour et al., |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | The consensus strategy is     |
|            |                         | divided into strategic goals  |
|            |                         | and measurable objectives     |
|            |                         | (Seymour et al., 2002).       |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Goals and objectives are      |
|            |                         | assigned an order of          |
|            |                         | priority, with a sense of     |
|            |                         | urgency given to the highest  |
|            |                         | priority issues (Seymour et   |
|            |                         | al., 2002)                    |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Responsibilities for action   |
|            |                         | are developed and assigned to |
|            |                         | the relevant stakeholders,    |
|            |                         | with clear understanding of   |
|            |                         | the interrelationships among  |
|            |                         | goals and objectives (Seymour |
|            |                         | et al., 2002).                |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | A time schedule for           |
|            |                         | completion of goals and       |
|            |                         | objectives is developed that  |
|            |                         | includes tasks, persons       |
|            |                         | responsible, deliverables,    |
|            |                         | and deadlines (Seymour et     |
|            |                         | al., 2002).                   |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | If necessary, memoranda of    |
|            |                         | understanding and/or          |
|            |                         | interagency agreements are    |
|            |                         | drafted to clarify roles,     |
|            |                         | responsibilities, and         |
|            |                         | interrelationships needed to  |
|            |                         | accomplish the goals and      |
|            |                         | objectives (Seymour et al.,   |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Congruency of mission,        |
|            |                         | strategy, and values (Austin, |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| ##         | 1.  Establish meeting   | Effective communication and   |
| ## 4. What |     protocols.          | cooperation among the         |
|  are we go |                         | criminal justice agencies and |
| ing to do? | 2.  Build               | professionals (Burnley and    |
|            |     relationships.      | Murray, 1997).                |
|            |                         |                               |
|            | 3.  Identify resources  | Routine and regular flow of   |
|            |     needed and sources. | information and data (Burnley |
|            |                         | and Murray, 1997).            |
|            | 4.  Communicate.        |                               |
|            |                         | Participation and             |
|            |                         | accountability by all parties |
|            |                         | involved in the process       |
|            |                         | (Burnley and Murray, 1997).   |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | A list of resources needed    |
|            |                         | for success is developed      |
|            |                         | (Seymour et al., 2002).       |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Stakeholders involved in the  |
|            |                         | collaborative effort assume   |
|            |                         | responsibility (often         |
|            |                         | jointly) for developing       |
|            |                         | and/or providing resources    |
|            |                         | that have been identified as  |
|            |                         | critical to success (Seymour  |
|            |                         | et al., 2002).                |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Methods of ongoing            |
|            |                         | communications and regular    |
|            |                         | meetings for status reviews   |
|            |                         | are institutionalized         |
|            |                         | (Seymour et al., 2002).       |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Creation of value (Austin,    |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Communication among partners  |
|            |                         | (Austin, 2002).               |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| #### 5. Di | 1.  Develop evaluation  | Significant attention is paid |
| d we meet  |     strategy.           | to evaluation measures that   |
| our goals? |                         | can delineate success or      |
|            | 2.  Collect data.       | failure. Flexible approaches  |
|            |                         | are in place to allow for     |
|            | 3.  Revise goals and    | revision of original goals    |
|            |     objectives, as      | and objectives, based on      |
|            |     needed.             | evaluation results. This is   |
|            |                         | an ongoing process (Seymour   |
|            | 4.  Celebrate success.  | et al., 2002).                |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | A commitment to managing the  |
|            |                         | change that results from the  |
|            |                         | collaborative is              |
|            |                         | institutionalized, with       |
|            |                         | consensus on how stakeholders |
|            |                         | will each educate their       |
|            |                         | professional peers and        |
|            |                         | volunteers about the positive |
|            |                         | aspects of the change and     |
|            |                         | help them adjust to new       |
|            |                         | policies, procedures, and/or  |
|            |                         | programs that result (Seymour |
|            |                         | et al., 2002).                |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Small successes and           |
|            |                         | achievements are celebrated,  |
|            |                         | and barriers to success are   |
|            |                         | viewed as surmountable        |
|            |                         | challenges (Seymour et al.,   |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Continual learning (Austin,   |
|            |                         | 2002).                        |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **6.       | 1.  Conduct assessment; | An assessment of the overall  |
| What's     |     revise goals and    | collaborative effort is       |
| next?**    |     objectives.         | conducted, with participation |
|            |                         | of all key stakeholders       |
| ####       | 2.  Identify and        | (Seymour et al., 2002).       |
|            |     recruit new         |                               |
|            |     members.            | Recommendations for revising  |
|            |                         | or fine-tuning ongoing        |
|            | 3.  Gather new          | strategies for success, based |
|            |     resources.          | on the overall evaluation,    |
|            |                         | are developed (Seymour et     |
|            | 4.  Communicate and     | al., 2002).                   |
|            |     market.             |                               |
|            |                         | Efforts are made to identify  |
|            | 5.  Rejuvenate the      | other initiatives that could  |
|            |     collaborative.      | benefit from the              |
|            |                         | collaborative efforts of key  |
|            | 6.  Dissolve            | stakeholders involved in this |
|            |     collaborative, if   | initiative (Seymour et al.,   |
|            |     appropriate.        | 2002).                        |
|            |                         |                               |
|            |                         | Commitment to the partnership |
|            |                         | (Austin, 2002).               |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+

**REFERENCES**

Austin, J. 2002. "The Seven Cs: Questions for Partners." In*Meeting the
Collaboration Challenge Workbook,* Appendix B, eds. P. F. Drucker and J.
E. Austin, eds. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Burnley, J. N., and M. A. Murray. 1997. *Restitution Reform: The
Coordinated Interagency Approach.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office for Victims of Crime.

Seymour, A., M. Murray, J. Sigmon, M. Hook, C. Edmunds, M. Gaboury, et
al., eds. 2002. *National Victim Assistance Academy Textbook.*
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime.

[^1]: Authors of this chapter are Anne Seymour, Justice Solutions,
    Washington DC; Marti Anderson, Iowa Office of the Attorney General,
    Des Moines, IA; and Kevin Lowe, Ph.D., Sacramento, CA.

[^2]: Gormley, W., and L. Spink, 2003, *Working with Diversity in
    Collaboration: Tips and* T*ools*. Nairobi, Kenya: The CGIAR Gender
    and Diversity Program.