MENU TITLE: Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses.
Series: NIJ Issues and Practices
Published: February 1997
237 pages
515,220 bytes

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice 

Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses
2nd Edition
by
Julie Esselman Tomz
and 
Daniel McGillis

--------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

--------------------

First Edition prepared 
by Peter Finn and Beverly Lee

February 1997

--------------------

Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a
publication series of the National Institute of
Justice. Each report presents the program options
and management issues in a topic area, based on a
review of research and evaluation findings,
operational experience, and expert opinion on the
subject. The intent is to provide information to
make informed choices in planning, implementing,
and improving programs and practice in criminal
justice.

--------------------

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis
Director

Samuel C. McQuade
Program Monitor

Advisory Panel

Harold Boscovich, Director
Alameda County District Attorney
Victim Witness Assistance Division
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 802
Oakland, CA 94612

Janet Fine
Chief of Victim Witness Services
Suffolk County District Attorney's Office
New Courthouse, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02108

Peggy Gusz, Executive Director
Crime Victims' Center of Chester County, Inc.
236 West Market Street, Suite 2
Westchester, PA 19382

Philip Riccio, Supervisor
Police Crisis Intervention Service
9065 E. Via Linda
Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Joseph Ryan, Associate Professor
Pace University
1 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606

Marlene Young, Executive Director
National Organization for Victim Assistance
1757 Park Road, NW
Washington, DC 20010

--------------------

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice,
U.S. Department of Justice by Abt Associates Inc.,
under contract #OJP-94-C-007. Points of view or
opinions stated in this document are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.

--------------------

NCJ 163174

____________________

Table of Contents

Director's Foreword

Acknowledgement

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Crime Victims: Emerging Trends and
Responses

 Evolution of Concern for Victims of Crime
 Developments Encouraging the Expansion of the
Victims Movement
 Increasing Awareness of Effects of Victimization
 Increasing Awareness of Insensitive Criminal
Justice System
 Treatment of Victims
 The Emergence of Community Policing
 What Do Victim Assistance Programs Do?
 Responsibilities of the Criminal Justice System
 Endnotes

Chapter 2: Developing and Improving the Victim
Assistance Program
 Obtaining Guidance

 Conducting an Initial and Periodic Needs
Assessment
  Why Conduct a Needs Assessment?
  Consider Special Populations
  Who Conducts the Needs Assessment?
  How is a Needs Assessment Conducted?
 Formulating and Redefining the Program's Mission,
Goals, and Objectives
 Identifying and Revising Target Populations
  General Guidelines for Selection
  Specific Guidelines for Selection
  Periodic Reexamination of Target Groups
 Selecting and Reevaluating the Service Mix
  Required Services
  Overview of Victim Assistance Services
  Procedures for Selecting and Modifying the
Service Mix
 Stimulating and Maintaining Public Awareness and
Support
 Endnotes

Chapter 3: Structural Alternatives: Sponsorship and
Staffing
 Deciding on Program Affiliation

 Selecting a Program Location
 Determining Funding Needs
 Staff Needs and Recruitment
  Estimating Staff Levels
  Stipulating Skills and Qualifications
  Using Volunteers
  What Volunteers Can Do
  Volunteers: Pros and Cons
  Recruiting and Screening Staff
 Endnotes

Chapter 4: Developing Effective Relationships With
Other            Organizations
 
 Why Develop Relationships With Other
Organizations?
  Cooperation Among Organizations Has Expanded
 Working With the Criminal Justice System
  Working With Law Enforcement
  Handling Referrals
  Serving as a Buffer Between Victims and Police
  Helping Locate and Protect Witnesses
  Providing Case Status Information
  Furnishing Better or More Evidence
  Implementing A Witness Alert Program for Police
  Working With Prosecutors
  Working With Judges
  Working With Corrections
 Addressing Potential Conflicts of Interest in
Working With Justice  Agencies
 Working With Social Service Organizations and
Community and Support Groups
  Approaches to Working with Social Service and
Other Organizations
  Difficulties in Networking with Social Service
Organizations
 Working with Schools
 Endnotes

Chapter 5: Conducting Outreach and Case Processing
 Establishing Case Processing Procedures

  Identifying Clients
  Establishing Contact with Victims and Witnesses
  Conducting Proactive Outreach
  Maintaining Contact
  Terminating Contact
  Pitfalls in Case Processing
 Conducting Outreach to Special Populations
  Elderly Crime Victims
  Ethnic and Minority Crime Victims
  Gays and Lesbians
 Endnotes

Chapter 6: Providing Victim Services

 Role of the Criminal Justice System
 Range of Victim Services
  Emergency Services
  Counseling
  Personal Advocacy and Support Services
  Assistance in Filing for Victim Compensation and
Restitution
  Court-Related Services
  Postsentencing Services
  Systemwide Services
 Endnotes

Chapter 7: Training and Supervising Staff

 Conducting Staff Training
  Preservice Training
  In-Service Training
 Conducting Staff Supervision
  Assigning Cases
  Maintaining Volunteer Commitment
  Contending with Staff Burnout
 Endnotes

Chapter 8: Maintaining Program Support and
Assessing the
 Victim Assistance Program
 
 Monitoring and Evaluating Victim Assistance
Services
  Record Keeping and Program Documentation
  Program Monitoring
 Process Evaluation
  Impact Evaluation
 Alternative Responses to Funding Changes
  Strategies for Coping with Changing Fiscal
Environments
  Cost Effectiveness and Cost Benefit Analyses
 Factors Involved in Program Success
 Endnotes

Chapter 9: Funding Victim Assistance Programs
 
 Federal Funding
  The Pioneering Role of the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration
  The Victims of Crime Act of 1984
  The Violence Against Women Act Grant Program
 State and Local Funding Sources
 Private Funding Sources
 Endnotes

Appendixes

Appendix A: Victims Assistance Programs Contacted  
 By Telephone for This Publication
Appendix B: Selected Resources
Appendix C: Sample Needs Assessment Questionnaire  
 for Social Service Organizations
Appendix D: Colorado Springs Police Department,    
 Volunteer Job Description, Victim Contact         
 Assistant
Appendix E: Suffolk County Victim Witness          
 Assistance Program Internship Description
Appendix F: Police and Victim Services Information 
 Card, Minneapolis Police Department
Appendix G: Sample Letter Informing Victim of Case 
 Status
Appendix H: Sample Letter Notifying Victim of      
 Offender's Status in Penal System
Appendix I: Critical Incident Stress Debriefing    
 Brochure and Training Curriculum
Appendix J: Sample Verification Letter to Employer 
 that Employee Was a Witness in a Criminal         
 Proceeding
Appendix K: Sample Parole Notification Letter to   
 the Victim (Adaptable to Family Members of        
 Homicide Victim)
Appendix L: Sample Agenda for Prospective          
 Volunteers
Appendix M: California Victim and Witness          
 Coordinating Council Victim Advocate Certification 
Application and Certificate
Appendix N: Suffolk County District Attorney's     
 Office Victim Witness Service Program             
 Intern/Volunteer Contract
Appendix O: Monthly Tally, Scottsdale, Arizona

____________________

Foreword

This publication updates and expands the first
edition of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, a
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Issues and
Practices in Criminal Justice report originally
published in 1987. During the first half of the
1980's, victim assistance programs and public
awareness of crime victims' problems were beginning
to spread rapidly across the country. In 1982,
President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime
issued its final report, which recommended the
wider establishment of victim assistance programs.
Recognizing the need for practical guidance for
program development, NIJ requested the preparation
of the first edition of Serving Crime Victims and
Witnesses to offer information on how to initiate,
improve, and, when necessary, modify services for
victims and witnesses.

The original edition of Serving Crime Victims and
Witnesses combined suggestions regarding program
development with detailed descriptions of six
programs across the country. The publication proved
to be popular among victim service providers. By
1994, however, it was clear that some of the
information in the report had become outdated.
Given the significant proliferation of programs,
victims' rights legislation, and State
constitutional amendments occurring since 1985 and
given the need for current data regarding the
structure and operations of these programs in 1994,
NIJ commissioned this second edition of the report.
The second edition provides a detailed discussion
of strategies for planning, implementing, and
refining victim assistance programs.

Since the crime victims movement began over 20
years ago, considerable progress has been made in
recognizing and meeting the needs of crime victims.
Many talented program administrators and
policymakers have fostered the growth of victim
assistance programs over the years, and these
efforts continue to evolve and grow to meet the
compelling needs of our nation's crime victims. 

Most victim advocates argue, however, that
considerable work still remains. It is 
noteworthy that the leadership in this movement
comes largely from the Office for Victims of Crime,
working in conjunction with State officials, local
officials, and other components of the Department
of Justice.

As we approach the 21st century, the National
Institute of Justice hopes that this second edition
of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses will prove
as useful as the first for promoting the
development and improvement of victim services.

Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice

--------------------

Acknowledgements
We thank the members of our advisory board, who
provided valuable guidance at the onset of the
project and helpful comments after reviewing a
draft of the publication. The board included:

o Harold Boscovich, Director
Alameda County District Attorney
Victim/Witness Assistance Division

o Janet Fine, Chief
Victim Witness Services
Suffolk County District Attorney's Office

o Peggy Gusz, Executive Director
Crime Victims' Center of Chester County, Inc.

o Phillip Riccio, Supervisor
Police Crisis Intervention Service

o Joseph Ryan, Associate Professor
Pace University

o Marlene Young, Executive Director
National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA)

In addition, John Stein, deputy director of NOVA,
generously provided assistance at the board meeting
and during the early stages of the project.

We are also extremely thankful to the many program
directors who took the time to describe their
program activities to us; the insights and
information they provided make up the essence of
this publication. These individuals are listed in
appendix A. In particular, we want to thank the
directors and other staff of the originally visited
programs who reviewed the first edition and
provided updated information about their programs'
operations and services: Mr. Boscovich; Mr. Riccio;
Marcia Barker, with the Greenville County
Victim/Witness Assistance Program in South
Carolina; Shelly Stoll, with the Multinomah County
Victims Assistance Program in Portland, Oregon; and
Kathleen Alme, with Citizens Council Victim
Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Samuel McQuade, project monitor at the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), provided solid guidance
throughout the project as well as helpful reviews
of each draft. Cheryl Crawford and Virginia Baldau
of NIJ, along with Laura Federline, Jackie McCann
Cleland, and Susan Laurence of the Office for
Victims of Crime, also provided useful comments.

We are particularly grateful to our colleague at
Abt Associates, Peter Finn, who directed the early
stages of the project and closely reviewed the
drafts, and whose preparation of the first edition
(with Beverly Lee) made working on the second
edition that much easier. Three other colleagues--
Tammy Enos, Ellen McCarthy, and Pam Murphy--
assisted with interviewing program directors.
Backing us up throughout the project with superb
and patient support were several Abt production
assistants: Mary Ellen Perry, Winn Sinclair, Wendy
Sanderson, Karen Minich, and Myraida Rivera.

--------------------

Executive Summary

The crime victims movement in the United States has
grown progressively stronger over the past two
decades. Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, 2nd
Edition, provides a detailed discussion of
strategies for planning, implementing, and refining
victim assistance programs, with examples of
program operations and activities, as well as
suggestions of resources for further assistance.
The publication is intended primarily as a
guidebook for directors and other staff of existing
victim assistance programs, planners designing a
new program, and agency supervisors and
administrators who may wish to sponsor a program. 

Emerging Trends and Responses

Since 1985, there have been several major signs of
the expansion of the crime victims movement,
including the increased amount of Federal funding
available for crime victim compensation and
assistance; the ongoing success of private national
organizations in the field; passage in 49 States of
Victims' Bills of Rights and the enactment in 22
States of constitutional amendments requiring the
provision of certain services to crime victims; and
the creation by government agencies and private
organizations of hundreds of general and
specialized victim assistance programs. Expansion
of the crime victims movement has been encouraged
by an increasing awareness of the effects of
victimization and of the shortcomings of the
criminal justice system in responding to victims'
needs, and by the emergence of community policing,
which emphasizes "customer" service, especially for
crime victims.

While many programs remain focused on providing
basic services to victims of crime, some programs
have begun to extend their outreach and services to
so-called "derivative victims," including
traumatized witnesses to and survivors of violent
crime and victims of environmental and other
disasters.

Developing and Improving Victim Assistance Programs

In starting victim assistance programs, planners
must assess victims' needs, develop appropriate
program goals and objectives, identify target
populations for services, develop the mix of
services to be delivered, and stimulate and
maintain public awareness and support. Program
staff need to periodically reassess these factors
to ensure that they are operating efficiently and
providing needed services.

Structural Alternatives

Sponsorship is one of the most critical
considerations for a victim assistance program,
because it influences the program's mission,
funding, staffing, and other key characteristics.
Most victim assistance programs are affiliated with
a prosecutor's office, law enforcement agency, or
private non-profit organization. However, an
increasing number of departments of corrections,
probation, and parole are sponsoring victim
assistance programs. 

Developing Effective Relationships With Other
Organizations

By developing close working relationships with a
network of relevant organizations, victim
assistance program staff can more easily accomplish
their goals. Program staff can consider working
with each component of the criminal justice system
and with social service and community
organizations, schools, victim support groups, and
other community organizations that serve victims. 

Case Processing and Conducting Outreach

In addition to examining criminal justice reports,
mailing letters, and telephoning victims, program
staff may wish to conduct proactive outreach by
going to crime scenes, meeting the victims at the
hospital or police station, and conducting home
visits. Special outreach efforts may also be
necessary for victims who face particular barriers
to working with the criminal justice system, such
as members of minority groups. Once victims have
been identified for services, it is important that
a program have clear objectives, policies, and
procedures for handling and closing cases.

Providing Victim Services

The range of victim services provided generally
includes emergency services, counseling, personal
advocacy and support services, claims assistance,
court-related services, post-sentencing services,
and systemwide services. Some programs in recent
years have begun providing services to large groups
of individuals traumatized by crimes or other
catastrophic events. These services primarily
involve crisis intervention and critical-incident
stress debriefing. An increasing number of victim
assistance programs are providing or assisting with
postsentencing services.

Training and Supervising Staff

Up-to-date, comprehensive training--both
pre-service and in-service--is critical to the
effectiveness of any victim assistance program.
With increasing collaboration among victim
assistance programs, criminal justice agencies, and
community agencies and organizations, there are
more opportunities to conduct interagency and
multidisciplinary training. Training and
supervision are receiving increased emphasis among
victim service experts in an effort to
professionalize the position of victim advocate.

Maintaining Program Support and Assessing the
Victim Assistance Program

Monitoring can provide a number of benefits,
including allowing program planners to assess goal
achievement, improve staff transitions, and
generate useful information for other agencies.
Impact evaluations are particularly important for
determining the effects the program has had on
victims and for providing guidance in program
improvement.

Funding Victim Assistance Programs

State and local governments are the primary funders
of victim assistance programs. Obtaining funding
from a number of public and private sources can
help to maximize a victim assistance program's
funding stability and its capacity to deliver
services. Program administrators seeking Federal
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding should give
careful consideration to the priority categories of
victims targeted by the Act.
_____________________________________________

Chapter 1
Crime Victims: 
Emerging Trends and Responses
______________________________________________

Using the Document: 
Read, Skim, Copy and Distribute, or Refer

Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, 2nd Edition
has several potential audiences:

o Directors of existing victim assistance programs
and other program staff who need help in resolving
problems in providing services and who are
interested in improving the assistance they provide
to victims and witnesses;

o Planners designing a new victim assistance
program who need help in the complex and
time-consuming task of establishing a program; and

o Agency supervisors and administrators (including
those in law enforcement, prosecutor's offices, the
judiciary, corrections, and other government and
independent agencies) who may wish to sponsor a
program and who need policy guidance to determine
what program features will conform best to their
interests and needs.

These individuals can use the document in one or
more ways:

o Read the document in its entirety. This method
may be particularly useful for program planners and
new program staff who need an introduction to
victim services and detailed information on
operating a program and providing services.

o Skim the document for topics of interest. This
approach may be particularly useful for experienced
victim assistance program staff who already have a
firm grounding in victim services but who may want
to learn about other programs or expand or improve
their own program. The detailed table of contents,
index, and the key points summarizing the contents
of each chapter can help readers locate topics of
interest. 

o Copy chapters that are particularly pertinent and
distribute them to staff. For example, rather than
suggesting that new staff read the entire
publication, a program director may want to
distribute those chapters that are most relevant to
the new staff person's work, such as the chapters
on conducting outreach or providing victim
services.

o Refer to the document for information regarding
particular problems or needs that arise. In
addition to the information provided in the
publication itself, appendixes list the names and
telephone numbers of experienced program directors
and organizations involved in victim services.

Because readers may read only a section of the
publication rather than read from cover to cover,
some information and program descriptions appear
more than once throughout the publication.

--------------------

The crime victims movement in the United States has
grown progressively stronger over the past two
decades. According to one observer of this growth,
"the fundamental basis of the power of the victim
movement lies in public and political acceptance of
the view that its clients are good people, done in
by those who are bad. This belief alone has made
its growth irresistible."[1] Although most victim
advocates would agree that enormous strides have
been made since 1975, much remains to be done to
address victims' needs adequately. For example,
there still remains a significant gulf between the
level of resources dedicated to offenders and the
level dedicated to victims, with no Federal tax
dollars earmarked for services for crime
victims.[2]

Victim assistance programs, an important component
of the nation's crime victims movement, have
expanded in number and scope since first being
established in the 1970's. They provide a diverse
array of services intended to meet a variety of
victims' needs, including immediate crisis
intervention; counseling and general advocacy
services; support services during criminal justice
investigations, during prosecution, and after case
disposition; and public education and training.
This chapter reviews the growth of the victims
movement and places victim assistance programs in
historical perspective.

Evolution of Concern for Victims of Crime

During the 1970's, many individuals in the criminal
justice system became concerned about the harmful
effects of the insensitive treatment of victims and
witnesses by police officers, prosecutors, and
judges. Studies revealed, for example, that a
staggering proportion of crimes are never
reported;[3] one probable cause of this silence is
victims' dread of "getting involved" with the
criminal justice system.

Police failure to address victims' problems
resulting from a crime may reduce the quality of
evidence victims provide to investigating officers-
-an alarming consideration, when the single most
important determinant of whether a case will be
solved is information that the victim supplies to
patrol officers.[4] Finally, many witnesses are so
inconvenienced or distressed by their involvement
with the courts, or are so afraid that they will
suffer reprisals from the defendant if they appear,
that they fail to testify. As a result, cases are
dismissed for lack of "prosecutability."[5]

At the same time that criminal justice officials
were beginning to recognize these consequences of
the criminal justice system's lack of concern for
victims and witnesses, community groups were
becoming troubled by the psychological and
financial burdens that crime imposes on its
victims. Women's advocacy groups, in particular,
were concerned about the double trauma of rape
victims, who are first assaulted by the rapist and
then often handled insensitively by the criminal
justice system. Other organizations began looking
into the special problems of battered women. In
1975 and 1976, social service providers and
criminal justice personnel met in Fresno,
California, to create the National Organization for
Victim Assistance (NOVA) to promote a
victim-oriented perspective in the administration
of criminal justice.

As a result of this heightened attention, there was
a marked increase in the development of strategies
to identify and address the needs of victims and
witnesses, including mediation efforts to help
resolve family and neighborhood disputes, victim
compensation and restitution efforts, and victim
assistance programs.[6] In 1974, the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) of the
U.S. Department of Justice funded eight victim
assistance programs through the National District
Attorneys Association; eventually, LEAA contributed
$50 million to victim assistance programs
nationwide. However, with the termination of LEAA
in the early 1980's, Federal funding for victim
programs declined. As a result, many programs,
forced to switch from Federal to local government
funding, experienced a decline in their budgets.
With reduced funding, many programs had to curtail
or discontinue some services (e.g., child care,
security repair) and restrict others to only the
most needy victims (such as the elderly). Even
programs whose funding remained constant had
difficulty coping with increasing salaries and
operating costs.

At the same time, however, the concept of providing
specialized services to victims took hold in the
public consciousness and in the minds of many
police officers, prosecutors, and judges. One
dramatic manifestation of this increased awareness
was the appointment in 1982 of a Presidential Task
Force on Victims of Crime to investigate the needs
of victims and the most effective means of
addressing them. The Task Force recommended that
Federal, State, and local governments, together
with private sector organizations, undertake a
series of sustained actions to improve the plight
of victims, including creating mechanisms for
ensuring permanent funding for existing victim
assistance programs.[7]
 
In 1984, Congress implemented one of the principal
recommendations of the Task Force when it passed
the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), which
reestablished strong Federal leadership in victim
assistance. The Act established the Office for
Victims of Crime within the U.S. Department of
Justice and, among other significant efforts,
provided funding to States on a formula grant basis
for allocating funds to qualified victim assistance
and victim compensation programs.

Major signs of the expansion of the victims
movement are evident at all levels of government
and in the efforts of diverse private community
organizations across the nation. For example, the
amount of Federal funds available through the Crime
Victims Fund for victim compensation and assistance
has increased substantially, and in 1994 Congress
passed the Violence Against Women Act, which funds
a variety of measures to combat violence against
women.

Increasingly, too, States have been funding victim
assistance programs on a regular basis from general
revenues or by earmarking a percentage of fines
imposed on criminal offenders. Since 1980, when
California became the first State to enact
statewide funding for general victim services, a
majority of the States have made some provision for
ensuring that general victim services are provided
at the local level. Forty-three States have funded
compensation programs from fees or assessments
against offenders. Thus, while in many cases
budgets decreased in the early 1980's as a result
of reduced Federal support, since the mid-1980's
funding has become increasingly secure and has even
increased in some jurisdictions.

Furthermore, 49 States have passed Victims' Bills
of Rights, and 22 States have enacted
constitutional amendments requiring the provision
of certain services to crime victims. Locally, both
government agencies and private organizations have
created hundreds of general and specialized victim
assistance programs. An additional sign of the
continued growth of the crime victims movement is
the ongoing success of major private national
organizations in the field, including the National
Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA), the
National Victim Center, Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers, and Parents of Murdered Children. In sum,
the past decade has seen private organizations, as
well as State and local officials responding to
public pressure to address victim rights, and the
Federal government resuming a strong leadership
role in the victims' rights movement.

Developments Encouraging the Expansion of the
Victims Movement

A variety of factors have encouraged the growth of
the victims movement, including 1) increasing
awareness of the effects of victimization, 2)
greater recognition of the shortcomings of the
criminal justice system in responding to the needs
of victims, and 3) the emerging prominence of
community policing as an important law enforcement
philosophy in the United States.

Increasing Awareness of Effects of Victimization

The crime victims movement has significantly raised
awareness of the effects of victimization, and this
awareness has in turn encouraged the continued
growth of the movement. Physical injuries requiring
ongoing treatment and rehabilitation often
accompany victimization and may involve pain,
disfigurement, and disability. Indeed, someone is
injured in nearly one-third of all violent
crimes.[8]

Victims may also experience financial losses in the
form of property destruction, loss of money and
other valuables, loss of income, medical expenses,
and rehabilitation costs. 

However, research has increasingly shown that
psychological stress may be the most significant
consequence of victimization--and that unless
attention is paid to these emotional problems, some
crime victims may sustain long-term psychological
damage. When describing practical problems such as
stolen property, medical expenses, difficulties
with employers, and disruption of daily routine,
three-fourths of the victims in one study presented
these consequences in psychological terms.[9] The
shock of becoming a victim is often followed by
feelings of fear, anger, shame, self-blame,
helplessness, and depression, which may lead to
immediate stress and sometimes to long-term
psychological disabilities. Burglary victims may
move from their homes, and survivors of homicide
attempts sometimes live for years in a state of
emotional paralysis. Other victims change their
lifestyles in less dramatic ways, withdrawing from
activities they enjoy or taking excessive
preventive measures against further victimization.
Symptoms such as sleeplessness, loss of
concentration, and fear of being left alone may
persist long after the crime occurred. To all this
may be added social stigmatization from family,
friends, or neighbors who may blame and shun the
victim.

Crime may have different effects on different
victims. Battered women may require temporary
shelter, while poor or uninsured victims may need
immediate financial assistance. Most people,
however, have similar emotional reactions to
crises, and, as a result, there has been an
increased recognition that most victims need
comparable forms of counseling assistance. One
study found that the incidence and intensity of
crime-related problems were not even moderately
associated with age, education, or revictimization,
although women were more likely than men to report
physical injury, problems with their family, and
mental or emotional suffering.[10]

Most victims, therefore, require the same
psychological assistance--a sympathetic and trained
ear to help them express their fear and anger,
rebuild self-esteem, cope with a new or heightened
perception of vulnerability, avoid self-blame and
self-recrimination, reduce feelings of shame, and
relieve uncertainty about their future involvement
with the criminal justice system. Recognition of
the need for this assistance has helped fuel the
victims movement, particularly the need for victim
assistance program counseling services.

Increasing Awareness of Insensitive Criminal
Justice System Treatment of Victims

At the same time that they experience the impact of
a crime, victims too often endure what has been
called a "second victimization"--insensitive
treatment at the hands of the criminal justice
system. Advocacy groups have been successful in
continuing to raise consciousness about the many
ways in which both victims and nonvictim/witnesses
may experience this type of secondary distress,
including:

o insensitive questioning by police officers;

o police or prosecutor attitudes suggesting that
the victim contributed to his or her own
victimization;

o delays in return of property kept as evidence or
failure to retrieve the property at all;

o fear of reprisal by the defendant;

o lack of information about the status and outcome
of the case;

o frustration and inconvenience related to waiting
for court appearances or appearing in court only to
have the case continued or dismissed;

o difficulty finding transportation and child care
and taking time off from work in order to come to
court;

o lost wages due to time spent testifying in court;
and

o anxiety about testifying in open court, including
hostile questions from defense attorneys and
threatening behavior by the defendant's family or
friends.

Increasing recognition of this secondary
victimization has encouraged policymakers to take
steps to make the criminal justice system more
sensitive to the needs of victims. The services
provided by victim assistance programs are reviewed
in chapter 6 and address the many problems listed
above.

The Emergence of Community Policing

The emergence of community policing as the dominant
law enforcement philosophy in the United States has
also encouraged the further growth of the victims
movement.[11] Community policing promotes crime
prevention through police problem-solving in
collaboration with communities, while strongly
emphasizing "customer" and "client" services,
especially for crime victims. Community policing
has important implications for the relationship
between victim service providers and law
enforcement.

1. Victim referral. The strong community policing
focus on customer service stimulates interest among
law enforcement agencies in the types of assistance
provided by victim service programs, since these
programs can assist officers in meeting victims'
needs. This focus may lead police departments to
increase referrals and assistance to victim service
programs.

2. Collaboration on crime prevention. Community
policing's focus on creative problem-solving and
crime prevention may result in increased police
interest in victims' and witnesses' perceptions of
how crimes can be avoided in the future. With
community policing, community members are viewed as
partners in the policing effort. Furthermore, some
victim service providers may serve as a valuable
source of information for the police regarding
crime prevention options because they are familiar
with the patterns of victimization.

3. Enhanced prosecution efforts. Police officers
typically measure their success by their arrest
rate. With community policing's emphasis on
problem-solving, however, officers may show an
interest in convictions, not just arrests. When
that is the case, community policing officers may
increasingly look to victim assistance programs for
assistance in obtaining the cooperation of victims
and witnesses. 

Subsequent chapters describe community policing
innovations that illustrate how law enforcement and
victim assistance programs can work together.

What Do Victim Assistance Programs Do?

Victim assistance programs provide a wide range of
services to clients, from child care to crisis
intervention. The National Organization for Victim
Assistance has divided the services that victims
and witnesses may need into eight stages during the
criminal justice process, from crime scene
assistance to postsentencing help. Figure 1-1 shows
this process and the services that may be needed at
each stage. The figure is helpful in associating
discrete services with the critical stages many
victims and witnesses experience. Figure 1-2
includes all of the services in the NOVA list but
rearranges them into seven functional, rather than
by chronological, groupings: emergency services,
counseling, advocacy and support services, claims
assistance, court-related services, postsentencing
services, and systemwide services. Chapter 6
discusses these services in more detail.

Victim assistance programs also engage in program
planning, fund-raising, legislative lobbying,
establishing working relationships with the
criminal justice system and other social service
providers, case monitoring, and evaluation. This
publication addresses these aspects of initiating
and maintaining a successful program in chapters 2,
4, and 8.

Finally, victim assistance programs encourage and
assist the criminal justice system, when
appropriate, to assume responsibility itself for
responding to the needs of victims and witnesses.
Many programs provide instruction and training in
victim needs and treatment to police, prosecutors,
and judges. Chapter 4 addresses this activity.

Victim assistance providers have traditionally
focused on the delivery of services to the direct
victims of crime. However, in recent years a number
of programs have begun to extend their outreach and
services to so-called "derivative victims." These
victims include traumatized witnesses to and
survivors of violent crime (e.g., students at a
school where someone is murdered) and victims of
environmental and other disasters (e.g., hurricane
victims or survivors of bombings and plane
crashes). Researchers have noted that in some sense
all members of society are victimized by the fear
associated with disorder and crime in their
communities.[12] 

Since most victim assistance programs struggle with
limited resources, steps to extend services beyond
the direct victims of crime must be carefully
considered. The precise characteristics of
additional classes of victims to be served must be
defined very clearly in order to avoid case
overload and the generation of expectations that
cannot be met. Subsequent chapters provide examples
of services to derivative victims and illustrate
how programs providing such services have
circumscribed their efforts to avoid these
potential problems.

Responsibilities of the Criminal Justice System

Initially, the response to the needs of victims and
witnesses took the form of programs specializing in
victim assistance. As the victim rights' movement
has gained momentum, however, many police officers,
prosecutors, and probation and parole
administrators have recognized that fulfilling
their obligations for meeting victims' needs
requires the integration of victim services into
the normal operating procedures of the criminal
justice system, not just system cooperation with
local victim assistance programs. For example, many
police academies have made training in crisis
intervention a standard part of recruit
orientation, and some prosecutor's offices offer
training in dealing with victims of crime. Judicial
organizations and individual judges have taken
steps to provide separate waiting areas for defense
and prosecution witnesses, permit a victim's
advisor to remain in the courtroom, and encourage
and consider victim impact statements before
sentencing.[13] 

The U.S. Attorney General's Office has also
developed and issued guidelines for Federal
prosecutors to follow in assisting victims and
witnesses.[14] All U.S. attorneys' offices have
been asked 

o to consult victims of serious crimes regarding
plea negotiations, 

o to allow victims to address the court at
sentencing, and 

o to advise victims on how they can express their
opinions on sentencing decisions through victim
impact statements.

While this report focuses on the activities of
victim assistance programs, it suggests throughout
how police, prosecutors, judges, and correctional
personnel can play a significant part in providing
victim services, and how program staff can
encourage and assist criminal justice professionals
to do so. 

Endnotes

1. Gilbert Geis, "Crime Victims: Practices and
Prospects," Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies,
and Programs, eds. Arthur J. Lurigio, Wesley G.
Skogan, and Robert C. Davis (Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, 1990).

2. Correspondence, Susan Laurence, U.S. Department
of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, July 1995.

3. John H. Laub, "Patterns of Criminal
Victimization in the United States," Victims of
Crime: Problems, Policies, and Programs, 40-42.

4. See Philip H. Ennis, Criminal Victimization in
the United States: A Report of a National Survey
(Washington, D.C. : 1967). See also Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United
States, 1992 (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994); U.S.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Criminal
Victimization in the United States: A Comparison of
the 1973 and 1974 Findings (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration, 1976), 40-41; and David A.
Lowenberg, "Your Clients Will Be There Next Year.
Will You?", Victim/Witness Programs: Human Services
of the 80's, ed. Emilio C. Viano (Washington, D.C. :
Visage Press, 1980), 404-410.

5. National District Attorneys Association, Help
for Victims and Witnesses: An Annual Report
(Washington, D.C. : National District Attorneys
Association, 1976); Kathleen B. Brosi, A Cross-City
Comparison of Felony Case Processing (Washington, D.C.
: Institute for Law and Social Research, 1979), 20;
Roberta C. Cronin and Blair B. Bourque, Assessment
of Victim/Witness Assistance Projects. National
Evaluation Program Phase I Report (Washington, D.C. :
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1981), 3; American Bar Association,
Reducing Victim/Witness Intimidation: A Package
(Washington, D.C. : American Bar Association, 1979).

6. The use of the term "program" should be viewed
as a short-hand reference, because many agencies do
not define their victim assistance activities as
programs. 

7. President's Task Force on Victims of Crime:
Final Report (Washington, D.C. : Executive Office of
the President, 1982).

8. National Organization for Victim Assistance,
Campaign for Victim Rights: A Practical Guide.
(Washington, D.C. : National Organization for Victim
Assistance, 1983). See also Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United
States, 1992.

9. Richard D. Knudten, Anthony Meade, Mary Knudten,
and William Doerner, "Victims and Witnesses: The
Impact of Crime and Their Experience with the
Criminal Justice System" (Milwaukee: Marquette
University Victim/Witness Project, 1976), 24, 37;
Kenneth Friedman, Helen Bischoff, Robert Davis, and
Andrea Person, Victims and Helpers: Reactions to
Crime. Summary (New York: Victim Services Agency,
1982), 6.

10. Knudten et al., "Victims and Witnesses," 27.

11. For background information on community
policing, see Dennis Rosenbaum, ed., The Challenge
of Community Policing: Testing the Promises
(Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications,
1994).

12. Wesley G. Skogan, Disorder and Decline: Crime
and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).

13. Statement of Recommended Judicial Practices,
Plenary Session of the National Conference of the
Judiciary on the Rights of Victims of Crime, the
National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada, December
2, 1983.

14. Office for Victims of Crime, Victims of Crime
Act of 1984 As Amended: A Report to Congress by the
Attorney General, (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department
of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 1994), 39-
55.

--------------------

Project Methodology

This publication updates and expands the first
edition of Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses,
published in 1987. Much of the information that
appeared in the original publication remains useful
today and therefore was not changed. New and
particularly interesting program activities are
highlighted throughout the current text.
Information for the second edition was obtained in
several ways.

o The 25 programs that were surveyed for the
original publication were reinterviewed in 1994.

o The six programs that were highlighted in the
first edition provided detailed, updated
information about their program activities. The
programs are: Citizens Council Victim Services
(formerly Crime Victim Centers), in Minneapolis-St.
Paul; Victims Assistance Program, in Portland,
Oregon; Victim/Witness Assistance Division, in
Alameda County, California; Police Crisis
Intervention Unit in Scottsdale, Arizona;
Victim/Witness Assistance Program, in Greenville,
South Carolina; and Victim Service Council, in St.
Louis County, Missouri.

o An advisory board of victim assistance program
directors and experts (see acknowledgments)
reviewed the first edition and provided information
on changes in the victim assistance field. The
board also reviewed a draft of the second edition.

o Interviews were conducted with the directors of
nearly 30 programs that were conducting activities
that either were not addressed in the first edition
or that required expanded discussion.

_____________________________________________

Chapter 2

Developing and Improving the Victim Assistance
Program
______________________________________________

Planning is an indispensable component of any
victim assistance program. Sponsors want to know
about a program's goals and activities before
giving it money. Program directors must know what
kind of staff to seek and what kinds of services
staff should offer.

Program development should be viewed as an endeavor
that continues throughout the life of a program.
Staff of existing programs need to periodically
reassess their activities, identify ways to
improve, and respond to changing fiscal and
political circumstances. Without adequate planning,
continuous reassessment, and willingness to change,
programs may experience serious problems because
staff fail to anticipate potential difficulties.
The needs of victims may also change over time,
requiring different services and staff expertise.

o The Victims Assistance Program in Portland,
Oregon, began in 1974 with a single target group--
rape victims--but later added other victims of
violent crime to its mandate. Two years later,
funding was secured to add a restitution component.
In recent years, the program has obtained two
Federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants to
address the needs of victims of gang and hate
crimes, and victims of juvenile offenders. 

o The Victim/Witness Assistance Program in
Greenville, South Carolina, began by selecting
victims on the basis of the gravity of the crime
but later switched to the criterion of victim
impact, so that highest priority was assigned to
rape victims and the families of homicide victims.
Then, in response to State guidelines and through
increased staffing and funding, the program began
contacting not only all victims of violent crime
but all other victims of crimes in which an arrest
was made. In addition, a VOCA grant enabled the
director to hire an advocate to work solely with
victims of domestic violence.

Program development and modification may be divided
into nine principal tasks. This chapter discusses
six of these tasks:

1. obtaining guidance for program development;

2. conducting initial and periodic needs
assessment;

3. formulating and redefining objectives;

4. identifying and revising target populations; 

5. selecting and reevaluating services to be
provided; and 

6. stimulating and maintaining public awareness and
support.

Chapter 3 addresses the three remaining tasks:

7. determining service sponsorship and location,

8. estimating funding needs,

9. estimating staffing needs, and recruiting and
changing staff.

Program staff need not follow these steps in the
exact order presented here. Rather, they can adopt
a sequence that best accommodates their local
planning constraints and opportunities.

Obtaining Guidance

Throughout all of the steps listed above, it is
important that planners and staff seek guidance
from individuals experienced in victim services.
Program planners and staff almost always seek
guidance from staff of other programs, both within
and outside their State. For instance, to obtain
ideas for starting the Greenville Victim/Witness
Assistance Program, planners culled through 70
requests for Federal funding of victim assistance
programs. Similarly, the founder of the
Minneapolis--St. Paul program telephoned directors
in Pima County, Arizona, and Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, for advice on where to locate the program.
(See appendix A for contact names and for the
addresses and telephone numbers of programs
described in this publication.)

Informal contact by phone or in person is, of
course, the most common way to learn from other
program staff. In addition, as the number of victim
assistance programs has grown in recent years,
national, State, and local networks of victim
service providers have become more common,
providing comprehensive sources of information for
both new and existing programs. When the victim
assistance coordinator for the Colorado State
Patrol was first developing her program, she joined
the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance.
Members assisted her with the development of
brochures and other program materials; she obtained
further guidance during the organization's annual
retreat and bimonthly training seminars. 

Written materials and conferences can assist both
fledgling and established programs. National,
State, and local victim service networks and
organizations regularly host conferences; sometimes
program planners and staff may also be able to
obtain the written proceedings from past
conferences. Some of the most useful recent
publications are listed in the box on the following
page, "How to Operate a Victim Assistance Program:
Recent Comprehensive, `How-To' Publications."
Additionally, State or national clearinghouses,
such as the Federal Government's National Criminal
Justice Reference Service, or the organizations
mentioned above can locate up-to-date publications.
University criminal justice and social science
departments, as well as libraries, can also be
useful sources.

Internet sources of information can provide
substantial assistance to program planners,
including timely information regarding funding
opportunities, descriptions of promising programs,
and information on technical assistance. Two of the
most valuable Internet information sources are the
Partnerships Against Violence Network (PAVNET) and
the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS) databases. Both are operated by the U.S.
Department of Justice and can be accessed through
Internet listings of governmental sources of
information. The PAVNET Online User's Guide is
available from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service ([800] 851-3420).

Program advisory committees can provide expert
advice on starting and improving a program. They
can also help with:

o identifying and gaining the support of resources
in the local community;

o avoiding duplication of effort; 

o advertising program services; and

o securing leads to funding sources.

In establishing an advisory board, it is important
to include representatives of the criminal justice
system, the social service agencies, and other
community groups with which program staff most
likely will be collaborating. The Victim Service
Council in St. Louis County assembled an advisory
board soon after it received first-year funding.
The board included two police chiefs, a police
captain, the prosecuting attorney, and the county
court administrator. Its contribution was most
helpful in areas involving long-term strategy and
improving relationships with the criminal justice
system. When, toward the end of their first year,
program administrators expressed apprehension to
the board about future funding, a police chief on
the board suggested that they submit a three-year
plan to county officials, a step that turned out to
be an essential ingredient in the program's
survival. 

Planners and staff need to consider which resources
may be most helpful at various stages of program
development. For instance, written materials may be
most valuable during the early stages of planning.
Advisory board contributions may be most critical
during the planning and early stages of the
program. Conferences can be useful both during the
initial stages, when program planners can establish
valuable contacts and obtain advice from
experienced advocates, and after a program has been
in operation several months, when staff can compare
their own experiences with those of other, more
established programs.

Conducting an Initial and Periodic Needs Assessment

Conducting a needs assessment is one of the most
crucial tasks that program planners and staff can
perform. The task involves two primary elements:

1. identifying the problems that victims in the
program's jurisdiction encounter as a result of
their victimization, and

2. determining the extent to which these problems
are currently being addressed. 

It is usually best if program planners conduct a
needs assessment as the first step in program
planning. In the past, programs were often assured
of funding from public sources and impatient to get
the project up and running. Also, some victim
advocates may think victims' needs are obvious.
Nevertheless, experienced program practitioners
usually stress the importance of beginning with a
needs assessment and conducting periodic
reassessments throughout the life of the
program.[1]

Why Conduct a Needs Assessment?

There are six compelling reasons for conducting a
needs assessment, whether as the initial planning
step or as an ongoing activity:

1. To identify the specific needs of victims and
witnesses in the jurisdiction. The Alameda County
Victim/Witness Assistance Division learned through
a survey that nearly 30 percent of victims whose
stolen property was recovered by police never had
it returned by the courts. Victim/Witness Services
in Milwaukee discovered that nearly 45 percent of
the victims it surveyed had difficulty finding
transportation to the courthouse.[2]

Without a needs assessment, program staff may begin
by providing some services that are largely
unnecessary while neglecting others that are badly
needed. For example, a study of four victim
assistance programs found a significant discrepancy
between victims' reported needs and the programs'
services: victims did not receive the
security-related and financial assistance that they
said they needed. The study also indicated that
program staff need to find out which needs victims
tend to satisfy through other sources. For
instance, victims reported that their primary need
after the crime was "to talk with someone."
However, they were far more likely to fulfill this
need through family and friends than through a
victim assistance program.[3]

2. To determine which victims have the greatest
need for services. Program planners and staff who
omit a needs assessment can waste considerable
effort directing services at clients with
relatively minor problems while neglecting victims
with serious problems. Failure to assist victims
and witnesses in greatest need, with the help they
most want, can be politically harmful to the
program if funding authorities and other sources of
support become concerned about its lack of initial
achievement.

3. To determine whether these needs are being met--
or could be met--by other human service providers
in the community, and to establish program ties
where this is the case. Staff of the Greenville
Victim/Witness Assistance Program knew that an
existing Rape Crisis Council was effectively caring
for victims of sexual assault at the scene of the
crime, making it unnecessary for the program to
provide immediate crisis counseling. By working
with many community service providers, the director
of the program is able to ensure that her program's
services do not overlap with those of other
programs. "Our plate is full as it is," this
director stated. Program directors advise keeping
in touch with other agencies to find out whether
they have dropped or added any services.

4. To learn about other agencies' needs in dealing
with victims and witnesses. In developing its child
abuse unit, the Suffolk County (Massachusetts)
District Attorney's Office Victim/Witness Service
Program found that many criminal justice and social
service officials were eager to have one agency
coordinate the various interviews and services
needed in child abuse investigations.

5. To generate information for promoting the
program to potential and current sources of
funding. Funding sources may be more likely to
support a program if they see documented evidence
of victims' needs and of the potential benefits of
program services. Alameda County (California)
program planners found that their needs assessment
convinced prosecutors of the potential value of the
program's services. Initially, district attorneys
felt that the program would be a waste of Federal
funds; but, after a survey revealed that victims'
biggest complaint was lack of notification of case
outcome, some attorneys began to see the project's
value for increasing witness cooperation.[4]
Information from a needs assessment can also be
used later in the life of the program to
demonstrate program effectiveness.

6. To highlight areas in which existing programs
need improvement. New York's Victim Services Agency
found from a survey that witnesses needed social
services as well as assistance in court attendance.
As a result, program staff shifted some of their
efforts from witness management to victim
services.[5]

Some states have conducted statewide needs
assessments in order to decide which programs
should be funded under the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (VOCA). For instance, before awarding any of
its VOCA funds, Pennsylvania required each county
to make its own determination of the need for
victim services within its jurisdiction and then,
using the results of this needs assessment, to
solicit and evaluate proposals from eligible
programs within its borders. Virginia has conducted
a similar statewide assessment. 

Consider Special Populations

Some program planners may from the outset want to
target services to particular types of victim
populations, such as children, minorities
(including African-Americans, Native Americans,
Asian Americans, and other ethnic groups), or
victims of workplace violence; such targeting may
be needed because of funding requirements or
because these groups are being neglected. Staff of
well-established programs may want to consider
refocusing their efforts on special populations, or
needs assessment may reveal unexpected types of
victims that have special needs or are underserved.
To determine the needs of special victim
populations, program planners or staff may want to
survey only particular target groups, or they may
wish to analyze the results of a survey of all
types of crime victims for indications that certain
groups need special attention. Consultation with
local advocacy groups and social service agencies
can also be useful.

Who Conducts the Needs Assessment?

Program planners and staff will usually find it
most economical to develop and conduct the needs
assessment themselves. However, it is important
that they understand thoroughly how to conduct a
comprehensive, credible, objective survey. The
needs assessment may be considered biased if
conducted in-house.[6] Program planners and staff
must be sure that the information they receive is
accurate so that they can respond to victims' most
pressing needs and so that the results can stand up
under the scrutiny of potential collaborators and
funding sources.

If resources permit, program planners or staff may
want to consider using a consultant--who would
likely be more knowledgeable about survey
techniques and would be less apt to arouse charges
of bias--to conduct the needs assessment. Local
universities may be good sources of researchers or
graduate students interested in designing and
conducting an assessment, sometimes at little or no
cost.

How Is a Needs Assessment Conducted?

Conducting a needs assessment need not be costly or
time-consuming for an individual program. Each of
the techniques described below can generate
valuable and reliable information.

Examine criminal justice data sources. Program
planners and directors can secure data about
specific crimes in the community from police,
prosecutors, and local officials, and examine it
for clues regarding victim services. Useful data
might include:

o proportion of cases' charges withdrawn because of
victim/witness nonattendance or other reasons; 

o proportion of cases in which restitution is
ordered and collected;

o proportion of injured victims eligible and
applying for crime victim compensation; and

o number of home security checks conducted by
police.

This information can suggest activities that staff
of a new or existing program might want to
undertake or modify. For example, high rates of
witness nonattendance may point to the value of
establishing a witness management component. The
information can also be used as a baseline against
which to make comparisons after the program has
been in operation.

In addition to local statistics, findings of
national and State studies regarding victims' needs
can be useful. (See appendix B for selected
national studies.) Government reports, such as the
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization
surveys, may also prove helpful.

Interview criminal justice officials and staff.
Talking with police officers, prosecutors, and
judges, and with corrections, probation, and parole
officers can:

o familiarize program staff with the activities and
needs of criminal justice agencies;

o provide information on the needs of victims and
witnesses; 

o reveal how criminal justice agencies can best
participate in the effort to improve the treatment
of crime victims;

o help secure support from criminal justice system
officials early on and establish ties for future
collaboration; and

o identify potential advisory board members and
other potential collaborators.

In general, it is a good idea to interview both
agency administrators and staff--for example, the
chief prosecutor and the assistant prosecutors, or
the police chief and investigators and patrol
officers. The program director for the Alameda
County Victim/Witness Assistance Division
discovered from police property clerks that they
were experiencing considerable difficulty storing
all the property assigned to them--a problem of
which police administrators were unaware. The
director secured the clerks' and then the chief's
support for a system of photographing evidence
instead of storing it, which benefited victims and
police alike. (As in this example, it is best if
program staff obtain the support of local
authorities before attempting to change a procedure
within the community's criminal justice system.)

It is especially important to interview police
investigators and prosecutors responsible for cases
involving homicide, burglary, and sexual assault
(including child molestation and incest). They know
the needs of these particularly traumatized and
vulnerable victims, and their cooperation is
especially important for helping these victims.
Officers with community policing responsibilities
may be particularly willing to provide--and perhaps
even be responsible for providing--information
about victims' needs.

Questions for criminal justice personnel generally
fall into four categories:

1. their perceptions regarding victim and witness
needs, and how these needs are being addressed;

2. problems that they experience working with
victims and witnesses, and whether and how victim
assistance program staff can help them execute
their responsibilities;

3. whether and how the respondent's agency can
refer victims and witnesses to the program; and

4. which agency (if there is a real choice in the
matter) would be a good place to house the victim
assistance program, and who should sponsor it.

Interview social service agency staff and other
community officials. Program planners need to
identify the social service agencies in the
community that are already serving victims and
witnesses or could help them. The needs assessment
with these groups serves both to identify service
needs and establish program linkages. A list of
potentially relevant agencies and organizations,
and the role of each, may be found in chapter 4.
College and university officials may be useful
sources of information regarding student victims'
needs in light of the passage of the Federal
Student Right to Know Act of 1991, which requires
colleges and universities to track and report
campus crime. 

As with the criminal justice agencies, where
possible, it is best if the director of each agency
or group is interviewed along with one or two staff
members who may have more direct or recent
experience with service delivery, and who may be in
a better position to act as a liaison between the
program and the agency. Again, in-person interviews
are typically the most effective approach to
gathering information from human service delivery
personnel.

Topic areas to cover in interviews with social
service personnel and other community officials
include the following:

o their perceptions of the needs of victims and
witnesses;

o difficulties they have experienced, both in terms
of troublesome clients and problems working with
the criminal justice system;

o which kinds of services they offer or would be
willing to offer to benefit victims and witnesses;

o whether they will accept referrals from a victim
assistance program, and how many they can handle;

o what eligibility criteria they have for referrals
and what fees they charge, if any;

o how they wish referrals to be handled, and what
kind of follow-up they would like from the
victim/witness assistance unit;

o whether they want to refer victims and witnesses
to the program, and how many they are likely to
refer; 

o their opinions regarding the best possible
location and sponsor for a victim assistance
program (if planners have some flexibility in the
decision).

Appendix C provides a sample questionnaire
developed by the St. Louis County Victim Service
Council for social service organizations. 

Staff of existing victim assistance programs can
interview human service provider staff to update
previously collected information. Some agencies'
services and needs may change over time, requiring
alterations in the victim assistance program's
referrals to these agencies and modifications in
the program's own services. It may also be
worthwhile for staff of an established program to
talk with social service agencies when the program
changes its target victim population. When the new
director of Suffolk County's Victim/Witness
Services in Massachusetts revitalized the program's
child abuse unit, she met with health
professionals, social workers, and other service
providers to coordinate interviews of child victims
and the provision of services to them.

Interview representatives of schools and other
community groups. Schools, churches, support
groups, and other community groups are increasingly
providing outreach and services to crime victims.
Victim assistance program planners and staff can
interview representatives of such groups for their
perceptions of victim needs and for information
about services they provide. This can be
particularly important when seeking to serve
special populations, such as minority victims, with
whom these organizations may work closely.
Interviews with these representatives may also
result in the recruitment of volunteer staff and
may lay the groundwork for future collaborative
efforts.

Survey victims and witnesses.[7] In order to obtain
systematic information, it is helpful to develop a
questionnaire that elicits the following types of
information:

o type of crime or other victimization (assault,
suicide in family, purse snatching, etc.);

o immediate and long-term emotional impacts (fear,
anger, guilt) as well as physiological disturbances
such as nausea, headaches, and insomnia;

o immediate and lasting physical injury;

o financial losses (medical costs, wages, lock
repair), and whether and how these were or will be
recovered (insurance, compensation, civil recovery,
restitution, borrowing);

o experience with police and courts, and with
probation, parole, and corrections departments (how
treated, delays);

o need for assistance in overcoming problems
created by the crime (counseling, emergency
repairs, short-term financial assistance, property
return, transportation to court);

o awareness of existing service agencies, and use
of and satisfaction with their services;

o availability and helpfulness of informal networks
of support (family, friends, neighbors); and

o future intentions with regard to reporting crime
or taking crime prevention measures.

It is also useful to include questions about the
severity of problems so that services are targeted
to the most pressing client needs. Some widespread
difficulties may be relatively trivial (e.g.,
finding parking at the courthouse), while others
may be infrequent but devastating (e.g., permanent
physical injury).

Demographic data may also be gathered--such as the
victims' and witnesses' sex, age, income, marital
status, education, and employment status, and
whether the victim is a renter or home owner--but
care should be exercised to avoid offending groups
that may misunderstand the purpose of acquiring
such information. Demographic information can be
useful in anticipating victim and witness needs for
temporary shelter, emergency repairs, financial
assistance, and translation services.

A questionnaire may be short and still provide
useful information. The number of victims and
witnesses who are interviewed can also be adjusted
to reflect staff resources available for
administering the questionnaire and analyzing the
results.

Victims and witnesses can be reached by mail, by
telephone, or in person. Each approach may be used
by itself or in conjunction with one or both of the
other approaches. Program staff planning to
telephone or visit victims and witnesses may find
it helpful to send letters advising them of the
survey in advance so as to avoid the resistance
that surprise can arouse.

Formulating and Redefining the Program's Mission,
Goals, and Objectives

Program administrators can articulate program
aspirations at three levels: a mission statement
that describes the overarching ambition of the
program (e.g., to make victims' needs an integral
focus of the criminal justice system); a set of
goals (e.g., to counsel victims--perhaps
identifying priority target groups--or to educate
criminal justice personnel about victims' needs);
and specific objectives, which are usually more
operationally and empirically defined than goals
(e.g., to provide counseling to at least 100
violent crime victims or to conduct at least 10
public education seminars over the next 12 months).

Planners sometimes avoid or delay this task because
the program purpose seems obvious or superfluous,
the task is time-consuming, explicit objectives
might inhibit change, or the planners are reluctant
to state their true ambitions. However, it is
important to establish in writing all three levels
of program intent early in the planning process--
and to reestablish them as necessary--for several
reasons:

o Goals and objectives give other groups, including
victims and witnesses, an idea of what to expect
from the program and enable them to cooperate with
it effectively. A strong mission statement gives
program staff an inspiring ideal to guide their
activities. 

o Well-defined goals and objectives help to
encourage staff to focus their efforts on
activities that will accomplish these aims.
Consensus on program goals and objectives helps
avoid inconsistent, conflicting, and superfluous
activity.

o A clear statement of mission, goals, and
objectives may establish credibility with potential
funding sources.

o Evaluating program success is impossible unless a
program's expectations have been identified.
(Program objectives are more important than the
general mission statement and goals for evaluating
a program's accomplishments.) 

A program's mission can probably be developed at
the earliest stage of program planning. The more
specific program goals and objectives should flow
naturally from the needs assessment and, once
conducted, from the identification of target groups
and determination of service location, program
sponsor, and funding sources. Goals and objectives
set forth what program staff plan to do to meet
victims' and witnesses' needs. Sponsor wishes and
funding levels also influence the selection of
goals and objectives. For example, many programs
operated by prosecutor offices include witness
management as a primary objective in response to
prosecutors' concerns about witness appearance in
court.

Experienced program staff recommend several
approaches to facilitate establishing and modifying
goals and objectives.

Establish the extent to which staff will devote
time to community-at-large goals, such as
increasing awareness of crime prevention techniques
or promoting legislation to improve the plight of
victims and witnesses. Some practitioners add these
goals only after their program has been in
existence several months or even years. For
example, after the Pima County (Arizona)
Victim/Witness Program was well established and
respected in the county, staff began providing
stress debriefing services to traumatized witnesses
of crime and to individuals in crime-ridden areas
(for example., residents of an apartment complex
where a rapist had attacked several women). Others
have reduced their emphasis in these areas when
funding cutbacks required a choice between
activities designed to promote long-term benefits
and those providing direct service delivery.
Programs usually can achieve community-at-large
goals and objectives only by collaborating with
other service providers and community
organizations.

Decide how limited or comprehensive the program
will be. Programs will vary in scope depending on:

1. whether staff provide direct services not only
to clients but also to the criminal justice or
social service system; 

2. whether staff seek to achieve community-at-large
goals and objectives or only those related to
direct client assistance;

3. whether staff serve both victims and witnesses;

4. resources and funding mandates; and

5. related services provided by others in the
community.

In general, it is best to start small and begin
with modest goals. The Victims Advocate Foundation,
for example, was established to serve five counties
in rural Indiana with only one full-time staff
person. As a result, that person, the program
director, concentrates his efforts on victims of
violent crime, especially in emergency situations--
such as a battered wife who needs immediate
assistance.[9]

Be flexible. Goals and objectives should be
regarded as provisional and subject to modification
as experience, subsequent needs assessments, and
evaluations indicate the need to change course. The
Pima County Victim/Witness Program included among
its original goals "increasing the willingness of
victims and witnesses to cooperate with police and
prosecutors after a crime has been reported."
Program staff abandoned this goal when program
priorities changed and early attempts at
documenting "willingness" proved futile.[10]

Be specific. Remember that the more operationally
defined a program's objectives are, the more useful
they will be as measures of achievement, statements
of purpose, and guidlines for staff. Vague
statements like "to promote improved relationships
between the police, the courts, youth and adult
services, and the general public" contrast sharply
with an objective like "to notify 25,000 victims
and police officers of the outcome of their cases
and to thank them for their assistance."

Identifying and Revising Target Populations

Planners need to prioritize client types, either
before the program begins operations or not long
thereafter, because limited resources will probably
make it impossible for staff to assist all the
victims and witnesses who need help. An explicit
policy, identifying target groups that program
staff believe merit assured attention, will ensure
that these individuals do not "slip through the
cracks." 

Identifying specific target populations will also
ensure that program staff do not raise false
expectations among criminal justice officials and
community groups regarding the victims it will
serve and the services it will provide. (Program
staff rarely refuse to help a victim who
telephones, walks in the door, or has been referred
by police, prosecutors, or other agencies. The
choices program staff face are whether to initiate
contact and how much time to spend with certain
categories of victims.) 

General Guidelines for Selection

Certainly, the needs assessment can help determine
the program's target audiences. An assessment can
reveal which types of crime victims are most
prevalent and have the most pressing needs. It also
can identify gaps in current service delivery to
certain groups, such as children or minorities.

The local political context can influence the
selection of target groups in a number of ways.
Program managers need to be sensitive to local
political processes and stakeholders and, where
necessary or appropriate, select client types that
meet the concerns of special interest groups in the
community. 

Funding constraints may also influence target
populations and are often part of the local
political context. The California Penal Code
requires that State-funded programs serve victims
and witnesses of all types of crime, with
particular emphasis on elderly crime victims. The
Federal Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) makes
funds available to States for victim assistance
with the mandate that programs serving certain
target groups, including victims of sexual assault,
domestic violence, and child abuse, receive
priority consideration. Amendments to VOCA in 1988
require States to also give special consideration
to previously underserved victims of violent crime,
including families and friends of homicide victims,
victims of drunk driving accidents and physical
assault, and Native American victims. The Victim
Assistance in Indian Country Discretionary Grant
Program was established by the Office for Victims
of Crime (OVC) in 1988 with the express purpose of
funding programs that would serve Native Americans
on reservations.[11]

The Victims Assistance Program in Portland, Oregon,
obtained two VOCA grants to address the needs of
victims of gang and hate crimes and victims of
juvenile offenders. The Chicago Housing Authority
Victim Assistance Program was funded by the city as
one of many efforts to address the issues of drugs
and drug-related crime in public housing. The
program targets only victims who are residents in
authority housing.

Normally, planners and staff must make subjective
value judgments regarding their priorities for
serving victims and witnesses. If staff limitations
require a choice between devoting major resources
to victims of child molestation or to battered
spouses, and neither the needs assessment nor the
concerns of the community point to a clear-cut
preference between the groups, then program
planners and staff must rely on their own
estimation of need and on the availability of other
appropriate resources in the community to decide
which group merits priority treatment. The
suggestions of an advisory board can also be
extremely useful.

Specific Guidelines for Selection

Planners and staff can also consider type of
offense, client characteristics, and case status
when determining which target populations to serve.
In terms of offense categories, most programs give
priority to victims of violent crimes, because of
the physical impact on the victim and the emotional
distress that typically results. Homicide, rape,
aggravated assault, domestic violence, and child
sexual assault are offense categories that program
staff typically seek to address. 

Many program staff have found that they are being
asked to handle increasing numbers of domestic
violence cases, in part because of increased public
awareness of the problem and to laws mandating the
arrest of batterers. The Victim Service Council in
St. Louis County, for example, experienced a
dramatic rise in the number of victims who seek
assistance in obtaining orders of protection. Many
victim assistance programs on Native American
reservations have caseloads filled primarily with
victims of domestic violence. Tender Hearts, Inc.,
a victim assistance program on the Standing Rock
reservation in North Dakota, operates primarily as
a shelter for battered women and children. Domestic
violence victims make up the majority of clients
served by the Kickapoo Victims of Crime Assistance
Program, which serves Native Americans and other
individuals throughout Kansas.

Property crimes are generally not high-priority
categories for victim assistance programs. However,
staff of Citizens Council Victim Services in
Minneapolis-St. Paul believe that the impact of
property crimes is underestimated, particularly for
victims who live alone. As a result, program staff
regularly provide services to victims of burglary
as well as to victims of violent crime. For
example, program staff and volunteers help operate
an independent victim-offender reconciliation
project that mediates restitution agreements
between burglars and their victims. Until the
program's mobile unit became too costly, staff used
to visit the homes of elderly burglary victims to
temporarily board up broken windows or secure
damaged doors. Staff now use their own vehicles,
when possible, to provide these services.

Victims of workplace violence have received
increasing attention from some victim assistance
programs and other agencies that provide counseling
and other services. Bank robbery in particular has
been the focus of several programs' services, owing
in part to the increasingly violent nature of this
crime. The victim/witness coordinator for the U.S.
attorney's office in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin formed a support group for bank tellers
who had been victims of or witnesses to a robbery.
Post Trauma Resources, a private counseling group
in South Carolina, trains bank managers on how to
provide support for tellers in the event of bank
robbery; after a robbery, the group provides
debriefing, counseling, and other support services
for victimized tellers. Local law enforcement
officers and victim assistance program staff refer
victim tellers to this group of therapists. The
victim/witness specialist of the U.S. attorney's
office in the district of Oregon has developed a
bank robbery victims response network that includes
both volunteer advocates who contact and assist
victims and referral sources that provide victims
with counseling and other help. The Counseling
Team, a group of mental health professionals in San
Bernardino, California, has contracts with 15 area
banks and credit unions to provide critical
incident debriefing services. In 1995, when a bank
teller was shot, the team conducted debriefing
sessions with other employees and counseled the
victim's mother and boyfriend. Also in California,
victim advocates located in U.S. attorney's offices
have provided robbery response training for other
victim service providers throughout the State.

Another criterion for selecting client groups is
client characteristics, independent of the crime
involved. Certain types of victims--such as the
elderly, children, minorities, and the handicapped-
-may experience the effects of victimization more
severely than other groups, or may not be receiving
adequate assistance from human service providers in
the community. For example, many victim advocates
place a priority on helping elderly victims,
recognizing that the emotional and financial impact
of even minor crimes is often greater for this
group than for younger victims.[12] Northwest
Victim Services in Philadelphia frequently assists
not only elderly crime victims (including victims
of elder abuse) but also elderly individuals who
need help obtaining social services. Suffolk County
(Massachusetts) Victim/Witness Services staff
coordinate interviews of and services to child
abuse victims so that the children do not have to
go from the police department to the prosecutor's
office to the mental health clinic to child
protective services for repeated questioning. 

Another potential client group is witnesses. Many
programs provide some witness-related services,
both to clients who are victims and to witnesses
who are not themselves crime victims but who are
referred by prosecutors for special assistance.
Program staff must also decide whether they will
target witnesses in general as a priority. Many
programs (typically those sponsored by district
attorneys) provide services to all civilian
witnesses, whether or not they are victims.

Some programs provide direct assistance to police
officers. Typically, they place police witnesses on
standby notice so that the officers can avoid
waiting long periods in court or showing up only to
have a case continued or dismissed. This service
saves the community overtime pay associated with
these delays.

Finally, programs may choose target groups on the
basis of case status. That is, program staff may
provide assistance to all victims regardless of
whether they report the crime; only to victims who
report the crime; only to victims who report the
crime and whose case is charged; or only to victims
whose case is prosecuted (not dismissed). The
Alameda County (California) program provides
assistance to victims of violent crime regardless
of whether their case goes to court. All victims of
property crime receive letters notifying them of
the availability of the program's services; victims
who then request help or are referred to the
program by criminal justice officials receive
assistance.

A decision to limit services to victims who report
the crime may reflect lack of access to
nonreporting victims or a reluctance to devote
staff time to individuals who have been victimized
but who do not attempt to bring the offender to
justice. Some programs accept certain groups of
victims regardless of whether they report the
crime--for example, rape victims--but refuse to
serve victims of other violent crimes who fail to
press charges.

To some extent, a program's ability to select
clients on the basis of case status is determined
by its location or sponsor. Citizens Council Victim
Services, one unit in a large, independent
organization in Minneapolis-St. Paul that addresses
criminal justice issues, initially reached victims
regardless of whether they had reported a crime by
maintaining four storefront offices where victims
could walk in for assistance. Staff found, however,
that most crime victims contacted the program
through its crisis telephone line rather than by
going to an office. Program staff now concentrate
their operations in one office but continue to
serve victims who have not reported the crime,
frequently by going to the victim's home to provide
home repair, counseling, or other services.

Assisting victims who may be at least partially
culpable has proven troublesome for some programs.
Staff members sometimes avoid these clients because
helping them exceeds the program's mandate to
assist "victims" or conflicts with the goals of the
sponsoring agency. Participants in barroom
assaults, for example, are sometimes assigned to
this nebulous category. Some programs are
increasingly being asked to assist victims who have
themselves been involved in crime, particularly
drug dealers who become victims. The Victim/Witness
Assistance Program in Atlanta used to refuse
services to any victims who were drug-involved.
With the increase in such cases, however, program
staff now serve them and their families. In general
with these cases, it is important that staff
members talk personally with victims, since police
officers' and prosecutors' judgments of which
victims share responsibility for victimization may
be erroneous or irrelevant in deciding whom to
help. The director of the Alameda County program
pointed out that it is important that program staff
treat all victims and their families in a
professional manner, even if it is only to refer
them elsewhere for help.

Periodic Reexamination of Target Groups

To ensure that victims and witnesses continue to
receive appropriate attention, program staff may
want to reexamine their target groups periodically.
An infusion--or withdrawal--of funds may also
create a need to determine whether new target
groups can be added to, or old ones dropped from, a
program's existing clientele. For example, some
programs that had previously assisted only battered
spouses have, with funding from the Federal Victims
of Crime Act of 1984, been able to add staff who
can serve other victims. Victim Service Council in
St. Louis County staff began targeting victims of
juvenile crime after noting a rise in such cases
and after the state passed a statute requiring the
provision of victim services in juvenile court.
Program staff can reassess client categories
formally, by means of an ongoing needs assessment,
or informally, by being sensitive to the needs
expressed in the local press, in the complaints of
current clients, and in talks with criminal justice
and social service system personnel.

Selecting and Reevaluating the Services Mix

One approach to determining which services to
provide is to review the services provided by
victim assistance programs across the country, and
victims' needs identified in research studies. A
more beneficial approach is to implement a
step-by-step service selection procedure that
reflects conditions in the local community.

Required Services 

Some program sponsors, particularly government
agencies, require or recommend that programs
provide certain services. The California Penal
Code, for example, requires that State-funded
victim assistance programs carry out a number of
activities, including home visits, translation
services for non-English-speaking victims and
witnesses and the hearing-impaired, coordination of
volunteer participation, and services for elderly
crime victims. In addition, the code requires the
provision of primary services--such as crisis
intervention, direct counseling, assistance with
claims, court escorts, and public presentations--
and recommends the provision of several optional
services, such as child care, intervention with the
client's creditors, crime prevention services, and
witness protection. The optional services, however,
may be offered only if the program already
adequately provides all of the primary services.

Overview of Victim Assistance Services

Chapter 1 presented a list of services that victim
assistance programs may provide. Figure 2-1 shows
how many of the 23 to 25 programs contacted in the
1986 and 1994 surveys provide each service. As the
figure indicates, most of the programs provide many
of the same services.

A few interesting changes occurred in service
delivery between the two surveys. The number of
programs providing food and shelter assistance
increased significantly (from one-third to nearly
two- thirds). However, a dramatically smaller
number of programs reported that they are providing
mediation services, legal and paralegal counsel,
witness fee assistance, and child care. Other
research indicates that corrections-based services,
such as notification of parole hearings and
victim-offender reconciliation, are becoming more
prevalent.[15] 

A survey of nearly 200 programs conducted in 1985
found that the most frequently reported services
were explaining the court process, making
referrals, providing a court escort for the victim,
and helping the victim with victim compensation
applications. Of the services listed in the
questionnaire, those provided least often were
child care while the parent testified, emergency
financial assistance, and repairing or replacing
broken door locks. The study includes descriptions
of programs that offer some of these services.[16]
A Federal survey of 319 programs conducted in 1990
found that the majority of victims served received
information on their rights, information on the
criminal justice system, notification of court
dates, assistance with applications for state
victim compensation, and referrals to social
service agencies.[17] These studies may have
arrived at different results because of
inconsistency in the research methodology, lack of
random sampling, or other research limitations.

Program staff often find that services that are
time-consuming on a per-client basis (such as
witness escort and transportation) are not
necessarily those on which they actually spend the
largest proportion of their time. For example,
crisis intervention or witness notification may
require only a few minutes, but these services may
be furnished so often that cumulatively more staff
time is spent on them than on any other single
service. It is therefore instructive to know not
only what the most commonly provided services are
but also how much staff time is devoted to
furnishing them.

Another perspective from which to examine service
selection is how important the services are in
meeting clients' needs. Some surveys of victim
assistance program staff and of victims themselves
have indicated that crisis intervention, follow-up
counseling, and protection from intimidation are
among the more commonly reported needs.[18] At
least two studies, however, have found that among
victims' most urgent needs are improved security
and financial assistance. (See the box, "Victims'
Needs May Not Be What You Expect.")[19]

Research findings, along with anecdotal information
obtained from program directors across the country,
indicate that most programs provide a core of
services that includes counseling, crisis
intervention, referrals, and personal advocacy in
the criminal justice system. Beyond this core,
program staff must decide for themselves which
services are most necessary in their jurisdiction.
Before expanding into services that seem innovative
(such as providing stress debriefings to
individuals traumatized by a crime in their school
or workplace), victim service experts recommend
that programs ensure that they are providing
high-quality basic services to actual victims of
violent crime.[20]

Procedures for Selecting and Modifying the Service
Mix 

How program planners and staff identify which
services to furnish varies considerably. When
Alameda County (California) program managers found
from a needs assessment that expedited property
return procedures and case disposition notification
were the most urgently expressed victim needs,
staff began by concentrating on meeting these two
needs. Over time, the program added other services
as it added personnel, selecting services based on
informal staff perceptions of recurring needs among
the victims and witnesses they were already
assisting.

By contrast, Citizens Council Victim Services in
Minneapolis-St. Paul was mandated by the State to
provide specific services as part of its funding
conditions. These services included 24-hour
on-scene crisis intervention, transportation,
financial assistance (primarily through advocacy to
public agencies and other sources of emergency
financial assistance), public education, and system
advocacy. Some newly established programs in
correctional facilities are in direct response to
legislative statutes mandating the provision of
certain services to victims, such as notification
of parole hearings.

What follows is a straightforward process for
determining which services a new program should
provide. This procedure, while retaining the
flexibility to add and discard services as needed,
introduces a structure to the selection process.

Step One: List the victim and witness problems
identified in the needs assessment. As emphasized
several times in this chapter, program planners and
staff need to determine which problems are
experienced by victims and witnesses in their
community. Planners and staff may wish to
distinguish between problems that many victims and
witnesses experience (incidence) and problems that
victims and witnesses experience as serious
(intensity).

Step Two: Identify which services will address each
problem. In some cases, only one service is
appropriate for a given problem (for example,
property return for dealing with victims'
possessions being kept as evidence). In other
cases, several services can help resolve a problem
(for example, fear of the criminal justice system
can be reduced by court orientation, witness
reception, escort services, and public education). 

Step Three: Identify services already being
provided effectively in the community. These
services can be excluded as a responsibility of the
victim assistance program. In addition, program
planners and staff need to consider the extent to
which informal support networks, such as family
members, friends, and neighbors, are capable of
providing some of the services that victim
assistance program staff would otherwise have to
furnish. Reliance on these individuals, however,
should be tempered by evidence that helpers from an
informal network may themselves experience
considerable stress and financial burdens trying to
meet the needs of victims.[21]

Step Four: Identify which services will most
significantly, or most visibly, meet the needs of
the criminal justice system as well as the needs of
victims and witnesses. Providing courtroom
assistance, for example, may help prosecutors to
present their cases more effectively; on-scene
crisis intervention may enable officers to spend
more time investigating the crime.

Step Five: Identify which services will meet the
needs of any target groups singled out for priority
assistance. Providing transportation services
assists not only victims and witnesses who do not
have the means to get to court but also battered
women who need transportation to stay with a friend
or enter a shelter. Interpretation services will
assist minority victims who do not speak English.

Step Six: Record the cost or amount of time
required to provide each service on a per client
basis. Categorize services as expensive, moderately
expensive, or inexpensive. Keep in mind that new
staff will eventually be able to perform many
services much more productively as they gain
experience. (Chapter 3 provides additional
indications of the relative cost of services.)
Because a single need can often be met by more than
one service, program planners and staff have some
flexibility in substituting less expensive services
for higher priced ones if they are constrained by
limited resources.

Once they have displayed this information clearly
in chart form, program planners and staff can take
the seventh and final step in selecting services.

Step Seven: Balance all of the above, sometimes
conflicting, considerations, keeping in mind the
amount of funding and other resources the program
expects to have available.[24]

There is no formula for weighing all these
considerations and developing a "correct" mix of
services. Subjectivity and a certain amount of
guesswork are inevitable. The goal is to inject as
much rationality as possible into the process of
selecting services so that the program is able to
offer the maximum benefit to the greatest number of
victims and witnesses and still remain viable. 

Three final considerations may be useful while
identifying which services to furnish. First, start
relatively small and, if appropriate, expand later.
In general, most experts advise that, if a program
can provide only limited assistance to victims, it
should reduce the range of services it undertakes
while still assisting as many types of victims and
witnesses as possible.[25] Such an arrangement is
feasible because victims and witnesses tend to have
common needs, regardless of their background and
personality or the nature of the case.

Another additional guideline in selecting or
modifying the service mix is to be flexible and
open to change based on a number of contingencies:

o Some services may require more time than is
warranted relative to the benefits they provide.

o Clients may reveal a need which program planners
did not anticipate in the planning stages.

o Services provided to enlist the support of police
or prosecutors may no longer be required once
cooperation has been secured.

o The political climate or research findings may
signal the need for an increase in certain types of
services, such as on-the-scene crisis counseling
for rape victims.

o Additional volunteers may present an opportunity
to expand services.

o Program changes among other service providers, or
the creation or demise of other social service
organizations, may render an existing program
service redundant--or an absent one necessary.

o Increased staff productivity may create time in
which to provide additional services.

o It may be possible to expand services if funding
increases, or it may be necessary to curtail
services if funding is cut back.

A final consideration in selecting or modifying
services is the administrative ease with which they
can be furnished. Services that are operationally
difficult to administer may be less attractive for
planners and staff than those that can be delivered
easily. 

Stimulating and Maintaining Public Awareness and
Support

Both new and established programs share the common,
constant need to stimulate and maintain awareness
and support of victim needs and services among the
criminal justice system, other service providers,
and the community at large. Publicity and public
education can accomplish three vital goals: 

1. Generate clients; 

2. Create support for the program itself; and

3. Increase public knowledge about specific crimes
(such as rape, domestic violence, and child sexual
abuse), the experience of victimization, the
operations of the criminal justice system, and
crime prevention techniques.

Generating clients and support for the program are
considered publicity efforts, as opposed to
increasing public knowledge, which relies on public
education. A variety of publicity avenues are open
to victim assistance programs:

o securing news coverage,

o making television appearances and radio
broadcasts,

o posting advertisements,

o making presentations to community groups,

o attending community meetings, and

o distributing program literature.

Publicity can enhance program visibility and
acceptability, as well as generate program support
in the form of financial contributions or in-kind
donations. Many programs also use publicity to
recruit volunteers. As a program becomes more
established and develops regular referral sources,
staff may find further publicity useful but not as
necessary.

The director of the Victim/Witness Assistance
Program in Atlanta has tried to encourage local
media to publicize topics like stalking and
domestic violence. When a local radio station whose
primary listeners are young African-Americans
requested an interview, the director convinced the
station to produce an entire day of programming on
location at her office in the courthouse. Starting
at 6:00 a.m., the station conducted interviews with
the sheriff, judges, victims, and others on the
topic of victims and violence. In an attempt to
reach the community more effectively and to
highlight the benefits of her program to police and
politicians, the director has established a
publicity committee which plans to develop a
speaker's bureau, public service announcements, and
short articles for local publications (including
"newsletters" for subway riders). 

Some programs have found that publicity can result
in a barrage of calls from people needing
assistance that is not necessarily appropriate for
a victim assistance program to provide. As a
result, directors caution program staff to be
realistic and accurate in their publicity efforts
and not to offer more than the program can provide.
The director of the Atlanta program adopted the
position, however, that it is better to have more
calls than no calls. 

To conduct public education, program staff often
give lectures at universities, churches, senior
citizen centers, and local community clubs.
Citizens Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St.
Paul organized "Blockwatch," a public education
campaign on crime prevention for neighborhoods and
apartment complexes. Meetings, led jointly by a
staff member from the program and a police officer
from the local precinct, were attended by over
18,000 people in a three-year period. The program
also showed a short film for senior citizens on how
to avoid getting mugged. In conjunction with public
education lectures, many programs use written
materials, such as brochures and pamphlets. It is
important that program literature be available in
other languages if a large part of the community
does not speak English. Encouraging the spread of
information about the program through word of mouth
can also be useful.

Victim assistance programs can consider using
volunteers to give presentations or working with
other human services providers and members of the
criminal justice system to engage in joint
publicity or public education activities. The
program director of the Suffolk County
(Massachusetts) Victim/Witness Services program
conducts local community forums with criminal
justice officials and local service providers to
increase community awareness of victim needs and
support for program services. She also tries to
publicize Victim Rights Week and program activities
among small local newspapers, which are more
receptive to events in their communities than are
the large Boston newspapers. The Pima County,
Arizona, program sponsored a victim's rights poster
and essay contest which drew almost 400 entries
from local school children. The program also
developed three victim services public service
announcements, featuring volunteer staff, that
aired on local television channels.

The next chapter addresses three other major
aspects of program planning: determining service
sponsorship and location; estimating funding needs;
and estimating staffing needs and recruiting and
changing staff. As with the planning tasks
discussed in this chapter, programs need to address
these issues not only during the planning process
but throughout the life of the program. 

Endnotes

1. Carol Holliday Blew and Robert H. Rosenblum, An
Exemplary Project: Witness Information Service,
Peoria, Illinois (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1980),
55; Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to
Prosecution and Victim Assistance A Training and
Resource Manual (Arlington, Virginia: National
Victim Center, 1994); Marlene Young, Victim
Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals (Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1993).

2. Abt Associates Inc., Exemplary Project Screening
and Validation Reports: Four Victim/Witness
Programs (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Abt Associates
Inc., 1978), 53.

3. Wesley G. Skogan, Robert Davis, and Arthur
Lurigio, Victims' Needs and Victim Services: Final
Report to the National Institute of Justice, (
Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs
and Policy Research, 1990.

4. Abt Associates Inc., Exemplary Project Screening
and Validation Reports.

5. Blair B. Bourque, Constance Corley, Roberta
Cronin, Robert Krug, Jane Schubert, and William
Trencher, "National Evaluation Program Phase I
Assessment: Victim/Witness Assistance Projects:
Site Reports" (Washington, D.C. : American Institutes
for Research, November 1979), C-33.

6. Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and
Fundamentals, 142.

7. For discussions of more sophisticated ways to
interview victims and witnesses, see James
Garofalo, Local Victim Surveys: A Review of the
Issues (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice,
1977).

8. Kenneth Friedman, Helen Bischoff, Robert Davis,
and Andrea Person, Victims and Helpers: Reactions
to Crime. (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1982).

9. For a discussion of the problems faced by
victims of domestic violence in rural areas, see K.
Fahnestock, "Not in My County," Judges' Journal,
31, no. 3 (1992): 10-17, 32-36.

10. David C. Bolin, "The Pima County Victim/Witness
Program: Analyzing Its Success, Evaluation and
Change, Special Issue, 1980, 124.

11. For a discussion of crime on Native American
reservations, see R. Bachman, Death and Violence on
the Reservation: Homicide, Family Violence, and
Suicide in American Indian Populations (Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1992).

12. See Issues Affecting Crime Victims: Background,
Current Status, and Implications for Older Persons
(Washington, D.C. : American Association of Retired
Persons, 1990).

13. Kerry Healey, Victim and Witness Intimidation:
New Developments and Emerging Responses, Research
in Action (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, October
1995); Peter Finn and Kerry Healey, Preventing
Witness Intimidation: A Practical Guide, Issues and
Practices (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice,
forthcoming); Frank J. Cannavale. Jr. and William
D. Falcon, Improving Witness Cooperation: Summary
Report of the District of Columbia Witness Survey
and a Handbook for Witness Management (Washington,
D : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, 1976), 11.

14. Robert C. Davis and Madeline Henley, "Victim
Service Programs," in Victims of Crime: Problems,
Policies, and Programs, eds. Arthur J. Lurigio,
Wesley G. Skogan, and Robert C. Davis (Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990), 164.

15. National Victim Services Survey of Adult and
Juvenile Corrections and Parole Agencies: Final
Report (Arlington, Virginia: National Victim
Center, 1991).

16. Albert R. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims:
Research, Policy, and Practice (Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, 1990), 47.

17. Tom McEwen, "Understanding the Needs of Victim
Assistance Programs," National Institute of
Justice, Unpublished Report, August 1994.

18. Friedman et al., Victims and Helpers, 9.

19. Skogan et al., Victims' Needs and Victim
Services, and Friedman et al., Victims and Helpers.

20. Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and
Fundamentals.

21. Friedman et al., Victims and Helpers, 14-15.

22. Ibid.

23. Skogan et al., Victims' Needs and Victim
Services.

24. Program planners who have already identified or
hired their staff, and directors of existing
programs, may need to determine whether their
personnel have or can develop the necessary skills
and interest to provide certain services, such as
legal/paralegal counseling, security repair, and
on-scene counseling.

25. John Hoilister Stein, "Better Services for
Crime Victims: A Prescriptive Package," Washington,
D : Blackstone Institutes, 1977, 106. Friedman et
al., Victims and Helpers, 17-18; Richard D.
Knudten, Anthony Meade, Mary Knudten, and William
Doerner, "Victims and Witnesses: The Impact of
Crime and Their Experience with the Criminal
Justice System" (Milwaukee: Marquette University
Victim/Witness Project, 1976); Steve Chesney and
Carole S. Schneider, "Crime Victim Crisis Centers:
The Minnesota Experience," Perspectives on Crime
Victims, eds. Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson (St.
Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1981), 400; Arthur D. Little,
"Final Evaluation Report: Commission of
Victim/Witness Assistance" (Washington, D.C. : Arthur
D. Little, 1977), 49.

--------------------

Sources of Guidance for Program Development and
Improvement

o Other programs 

--informal contacts by phone, in writing, or in
person

--national, State, and local networks of victim
service providers (for example, through training
seminars, meetings, program contacts)

o Written materials and conferences

--for example, materials and statewide, regional,
and national conferences produced or sponsored by
the Office for Victims of Crime, the National
Organization for Victim Assistance, the National
Victim Center, and other agencies and organizations

--research studies and manuals

o Internet sources of information

--the Partnerships Against Violence Network
(PAVNET) and the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service (NCJRS) databases on the Internet
are valuable sources of information on programs,
funding sources, and related topics

o Advisory committees

--include representatives of criminal justice
system, social service agencies, and other
community groups involved in victim services (e.g.,
support groups)

--------------------

How To Operate a Victim Assistance Program: 
Recent, Comprehensive, "How-To" Publications

o Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to
Prosecution and Victim Assistance, A Training and
Resource Manual (Arlington, Virginia: National
Victim Center, 1994), $45.* Contact the National
Victim Center at (703) 276-2880.

o  Marlene Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and
Fundamentals (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Co., 1993), $34.95.* Contact NOVA at
(202) 232-6682 or Kendall/Hunt Publishers at (800)
228-0810. 

o  Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile
Justice System: A Program Handbook (Washington, D.C. :
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1991), $15.
Contact the National Victims Resource Center, a
component of the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, in any of the following ways:

phone:(800) 627-6872 or (800) 851-3420
fax:(301) 251-5212
mail:NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000
email:askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com

* The first two publications listed above are also
available through the National Victims Resource
Center on interlibrary loan.

--------------------

What Characterizes a Good Program? 

Using Program Standards as a Guide

As the number and breadth of victim assistance
programs have increased in the past 20 years, the
Federal Government and some State governments have
developed program standards to guide the
establishment, operation, and improvement of
programs. The National Organization for Victim
Assistance (NOVA) developed a "Model Victim
Assistance Program" that outlines essential
developmental steps and provides performance
guidelines for activities in the areas of planning,
management, service, and evaluation. This
categorization can help staff in new programs
develop realistic standards for themselves and can
enable staff in established programs to better
assess their strengths and weaknesses. (See the
box, "National Recommendation of Ranges of
Services," later in this chapter.)

The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency's (PCCD's) State-funded Victim Service
Program, which administers grants to improve the
State criminal justice system's treatment of
victims and to enhance community-based services to
crime victims, developed a resource manual that
outlines minimum and model standards for various
victim assistance program activities and
characteristics. The Commission encourages programs
in the State to use the manual for self-evaluation
and to ensure that they are at least meeting all of
the minimum standards before they strive for the
model standards. The Commission also uses the
standards as a uniform basis for monitoring
State-funded programs.

For example, the Commission established the
following standards for staff training:

Minimum standard: All victim service staff, both
full-time and part-time, within sixty days of their
hiring, shall receive and successfully complete 40
hours of orientation training. It will be the
responsibility of the PCCD to establish a training
schedule.

Model standard: In addition to the above 40 hours
of orientation training, new hires, both full-time
and part-time, will attend 40 hours of
"victimization training" within their first year of
employment. Victim service staff will obtain 40
hours of continuing education training on an annual
basis.

More information on the NOVA standards is available
through the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, (800) 851-3420. Or contact NOVA, (202)
232-6682 to obtain a copy of Victim Assistance:
Frontiers and Fundamentals, by Marlene Young,
Executive Director.

The Pennsylvania standards can be found in the
Standards and Procedures Manual for Victim/Witness
Assistance Programs, July 1992, available from the
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
Victim Services Program, (717) 787-8559.

--------------------

Identifying Victims and Witnesses for a Needs 

Assessment Survey

Victims and witnesses can be identified through
police and court records. (Relying only on court
records, however, misses individuals whose cases
have not been charged.) To the extent possible, it
is best if victims and witnesses are selected
randomly. In addition, a stratified sampling helps
to ensure that victims of each major type of crime-
-rape, homicide (survivors are interviewed),
assault and battery, and major property crimes--and
victims representing different ethnic and
demographic groups are included. Program staff may
wish to consult with a professional survey design
expert to identify whom to interview.

Planners for the Minneapolis-St. Paul's Citizens
Council on Victim Services telephoned 451 victims
and witnesses to determine needs for services.
Individuals were selected on a random basis from
victims who had reported crimes to the police
during a three-month period before the program
opened and again nine months after.

New York City's Victim Services Agency conducted a
mid-course assessment to discover ways to improve
its service delivery. Staff interviewed 274 recent
victims from a pool of 1,919 police complaint
reports. A follow-up interview was conducted with
182 of the victims to assess their needs four
months after they had been victimized.[8] 

These examples illustrate the importance of
conducting needs assessments not only before but
also after a program is under way to ensure that
victim and witness needs are being adequately met.
(See chapter 8 on program monitoring and
evaluation.)

--------------------

Sample Victim Assistance Program Mission and Goals:
 The Marion County (Oregon) District Attorney's 
 Victim Assistance Program

The mission of the Marion County District
Attorney's Victim Assistance Program is to involve
crime victims and the community in a restorative
process that diminishes the devastating impact of
crime. The goals of the program are to:

1. Provide direct victim services. We offer
support, accompaniment, and advocacy to victims and
their loved ones, as well as [to] many witnesses
during the criminal justice process;

2. Advocate for victim rights. We represent
victims' concerns and needs in the enactment,
implementation, and accessibility of victims'
rights;

3. Offer volunteer opportunities. We provide a
learning environment for community members to
participate in, better understand, and assist in
the criminal justice process;

4. Provide education and awareness. We disseminate
victimology and criminal justice information to the
community through written, visual, and oral
presentations and trainings; and

5. Promote professional and agency communication.
We seek to improve the quality of care and response
to crime victims by encouraging and supporting
agency and individual communication and
cooperation.

Note: Excerpted from Focus on the Future: A Systems
Approach to Prosecution and Victim Assistance
(Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center,
1994).

--------------------

Prioritizing Targeted Victim Groups

Reasons to Prioritize Victim Groups

o Focuses limited resources

o Identifies victims with whom to initiate contact

o Ensures that the neediest victims and witnesses
are served

o Ensures that false expectations for the program
are not raised

Considerations for Prioritizing Victim Groups

General Considerations:

o Results of needs assessment

o Local political context

o Funding constraints

o Subjective value judgments

Specific Criteria:

o Type of offense (violent crimes, homicide, rape,
aggravated assault, bank robbery, domestic
violence, child molestation, threats/harassment,
property crime)

o Client characteristics (age, ethnic group,
disabled witnesses, residents of crime-ridden
communities)

o Case status (crime unreported, reported to
police, filed for prosecution, prosecuted,
sentenced)

--------------------

Victims of Trauma: A Target Population for Victim
 Assistance Programs?

Most victim assistance program staff struggle to
provide basic services to violent crime victims. As
some programs have gained experience, credibility,
and additional financial and staffing resources,
however, staff have begun to conduct outreach to
individuals who are not themselves victims of
crime. 

When a high school student in Arizona held a class
hostage, Pima County Victim/ Witness Program staff
were called in to work with students as they were
released from the class. The principal of the
school later asked program staff to work
individually with other students in the school who
were traumatized by the incident. The program now
has a critical incident stress debriefing team,
consisting mainly of trained volunteers, that
targets its services to individuals involved in
crisis situations. For instance, the team conducted
nine debriefings for college students and faculty
after a professor was killed and debriefed
residents of apartment complexes where a serial
rapist had attacked several women. The program has
recently expanded its target population even
further by using youth peer advocates to work
specifically with youth who have been involved in
crises or who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods. 

What these "nontraditional" clients usually have in
common is the experience of trauma or fear as a
result of crimes or disasters. As discussed in
chapter 1, this new type of target population may
be categorized into three general groups:

Derivative victims. These include individuals--
themselves not victims of crime--who have been
traumatized by a crime, such as family and friends
of homicide victims, survivors of attempted
suicide, traumatized witnesses to crime who need
more than court-related services, residents of
apartments in which a burglary or violent crime has
taken place, abandoned children, and employees of
banks and other workplaces where a robbery or other
crime has occurred.

Victims of environmental and other disasters.[14]
These victims include disaster relief workers,
survivors of plane crashes, and individuals in an
area destroyed by a hurricane, tornado, or other
disaster. 

Residents of high-crime areas. These include
students in schools with high rates of violent
crime and residents of neighborhoods that are
intimidated or traumatized by gang violence,
graffiti, drug use, and similar conditions.

Programs that serve these groups usually provide
counseling services, crime awareness and prevention
presentations, critical incident stress
debriefings, and referrals to other sources of
help. Not all programs have the resources to
provide more than referrals to victims of trauma,
and staff of many programs may not even be able to
provide consistent referrals. Even programs that do
target nontraditional victims usually make direct
victims of violent crime their priority. 

--------------------

National Recommendation of Ranges of Services

The National Organization for Victim Assistance
(NOVA) developed a set of general performance
guidelines for the range of services that a program
can provide, ranging from "basic" to "excellent"
services.[22] For example, guidelines for crisis
intervention services include the following:

o Basic: Crisis intervention counseling; emergency
referrals or direct assistance for medical care,
shelter, and food; emergency referrals or direct
assistance for substance abuse treatment;
accessible services for the hearing impaired,
seeing impaired, other people with disabilities,
and populations whose first language is not
English.

o Good: All of the above, enhanced by emergency
referrals or direct assistance for at least three
of the following: clothing, money, child care,
property repair, transportation, death
notification, body identification, crime scene
clean-up, protection through temporary restraining
orders, and notification of loved ones.

o Very Good:The above plus at least three more of
the above list.

o Excellent: All of the above, plus special
outreach to underserved victim populations and
attention to effective cross-cultural service
delivery.

Program staff's abilities to provide "basic"
through "excellent" services will depend to a large
extent on available resources. Nevertheless, these
guidelines can help to prioritize basic services
over those that would be helpful but are not
essential.

--------------------

Victims' Needs May Not Be What You Expect: 
 One Study's Result

A 1987 study revealed a significant mismatch
between the reported needs of victims interviewed
in four cities and the services provided by victim
assistance programs in those cities.[23] The
researchers asked nearly 500 victims of burglary,
robbery, and assault about 17 categories of
assistance. Some of the victims had used program
services while others had not.

Over half of the interviewed victims said they had
none or only one of the suggested needs. Among
those who expressed at least one need, the
following needs were reported most often:

o someone to talk to about feelings that were
troubling you (28%);

o information about how to avoid becoming a victim
again (18%);

o protecting yourself from offenders (14%);

o repairing a broken door or lock (13%); and

o installing better locks or improving security
(13%).

Although most of the programs focused on counseling
services, victims reported that family and friends
usually fulfilled the need to talk about troubling
feelings. The other four needs remained largely
unmet by any sources of assistance. In addition,
over two-thirds of the victims reported that they
received no assistance with insurance claims, while
about one-third said that their need for legal
advice went unmet. Overall, the top two-thirds of
services that the four victim assistance programs
provided accounted for less than one-third of the
needs reported by victims.

Another significant finding was that one-fourth of
victims who were aware of the victim assistance
program in their city did not seek help because
they did not have the time or means to travel to
the program's office. The study also found that
needs varied among types of victims. For instance,
female victims were more likely to want improved
security, while single victims were more likely to
report needing financial assistance.

--------------------

Key Points

o Planning is an indispensable component of any
victim assistance program's activities. 

o It is vital that victim assistance program staff
assess--and periodically reassess--the needs of
potential clients and how these needs can best be
met in light of changing crime trends (e.g.,
increases in violent crime by juveniles), available
resources (e.g., funding, volunteers), and other
local considerations (for example, State
constitutional amendments guaranteeing victim
rights). 

o To assess victims' needs, program staff may want
to contact not only criminal justice officials and
social service providers but also churches,
schools, universities, physicians and public health
officials, and local community organizations.

o It is important that program staff formulate
explicit written goals, objectives, policies, and
procedures. These will help to:

--inform clients and other groups of program
activities;

--focus program activities;

--make it possible to evaluate program success; and

--establish credibility with funding sources and
other criminal justice agencies.

o Program objectives need to identify the primary
types of program clients. Owing to limited
resources, staff of most programs concentrate on
the basic needs of victims of violent crime.
However, staff of some programs are able to develop
specialized services (e.g., for victims of domestic
violence) and to expand their concept of
victimization (e.g., to include traumatized
witnesses of crime, victims of environmental
disasters, or residents of crime-ridden
neighborhoods).

o It is important that program staff carefully
consider--and periodically reconsider--which
combination of services to provide. This decision
needs to be based on:

--the requirements established by funding sources;

--the results of the needs assessment, particularly
with respect to priority target groups;

--the types and quality of services already
available from other service providers or from the
victim's family and friends;

--the types of services that will also benefit the
criminal justice system (and hence help the program
win cooperation from criminal justice agencies);
and

--available funding and staffing resources.

o Victim assistance program planners and staff can
obtain valuable guidance and ideas for innovative
activities from many sources, including staff of
other victim assistance programs, victim service
networks, written materials and conferences,
advisory committees, law enforcement officers and
other criminal justice officials, and social
service providers.
__________________________________________

Chapter 3
Structural Alternatives
__________________________________

Three issues dominate any discussion of how a
victim assistance program is structured and
operates:

1. who sponsors it and where it is physically
located,

2. who funds it and at what level of funding, and

3. who works in it.

Of course, the level and types of services the
program will offer is another important
consideration with regard to program operations.
The mix and delivery of services are discussed in
chapter 2 and chapter 6. 

The above three issues, discussed in this chapter,
are intertwined: sponsorship can influence the
choice of funding sources and the nature of the
staff; funding levels determine the number and
experience of the staff; and the staff levels and
expertise needed can in turn affect the choice of
sponsor and the amount of funding to pursue. Thus,
although the issues of sponsorship, funding, and
staffing are treated separately and sequentially
below, in practice they need to be considered
concurrently and interactively.

Victim assistance programs are usually sponsored by
a police department, a prosecutor's office, or a
community-based agency. Surveys conducted in 1981
and 1985 found that a majority of programs--55 and
58 percent, respectively,--were based in city or
county attorneys' offices.[1] The 1990 Federal
National Assessment Program survey found that 86
percent of prosecutors' offices surveyed had victim
assistance programs, up from 77 percent in 1986.[2]
This prosecutorial locus likely occurred because
the victim assistance movement initially emerged as
an effort to help victims navigate the intimidating
and confusing criminal justice system process, and
to help prosecutors, police, and others in the
system function more efficiently. Furthermore,
victims usually have brief contact with the police
but extended contact with the prosecutor's office.

In recent years, the provision of court assistance
has come to be only one of many features of victim
assistance programs, with an increasing number of
programs providing crisis intervention and
counseling to victims with emotional and
psychological needs. In fact, the "restoring" of
victims to emotional and psychological well-being
was declared one of the four major goals of the
criminal justice system in a recent Federal report
on the development of a new paradigm for the
system.[3] According to some victim assistance
experts, programs based in law enforcement
agencies, where staff have immediate access to
traumatized victims and witnesses, have become
increasingly popular.[4] This trend has been
promoted to a large extent by State statutes and
constitutional amendments that require law
enforcement agencies to ensure basic victim rights
and by the emergence of community policing.

The number of departments of corrections,
probation, and parole that provide victim services
has increased dramatically. Whereas relatively few
programs were based in these departments during the
early years of the victim assistance movement, by
1991, 31 adult corrections agencies, 7 juvenile
corrections agencies, and 29 parole agencies were
providing notification services to victims
regarding offenders' status.[5] Departments of
corrections, probation, and parole are required by
statutes and constitutional amendments in some
States to provide certain victim services, such as
providing notification of the offender's status and
arranging payment of restitution. In 1988, the
American Correctional Association Task Force on
Victims of Crime issued 15 recommendations
regarding victim services that prisons should
provide.[6]

Deciding on Program Affiliation

Sponsorship determines who will have administrative
authority over a program and its level of funding,
both of which affect a victim assistance program's
ability to provide services successfully. Strong,
consistent private and public support from a parent
agency is also necessary for program survival. As a
result, it is important to select a host that not
only finds it politically advantageous to sponsor a
victim assistance program but whose interest will
last. Of course, officials in various criminal
justice agencies must decide whether their agency
is the best physical location for a victim
assistance program.

In many instances, the choice of sponsor is made
before planning begins. If a district attorney,
police chief, correctional official, or social
service agency administrator initiates the planning
process, he or she usually expects to sponsor the
program. Some agencies are mandated by law to
provide victim services. The U.S. Attorney
General's Guidelines for Victim and Witness
Assistance, for example, makes U.S. Attorneys'
Offices responsible for providing services to
victims of and witnesses to Federal crimes. A
number of different types of agencies and
organizations, however, have proven receptive to
operating victim assistance programs. 

If the sponsor is not predefined, selection of a
host is usually influenced by the needs assessment
and decisions about program objectives, target
audiences, and range of services. Considerations
that may play a role in selecting a sponsor
include:

o the sponsor's ability to provide or secure
funding;

o the sponsor's ability to provide access to
victims and witnesses when program planners wish to
contact them (for example, before arrest or after
charging);

o the planners' desires to effect changes in the
criminal justice system in order to improve the
treatment of victims and witnesses;

o the planners' wishes to be able to act as an
advocate for victims or witnesses;

o the planners' desired target group focus
(victims, witnesses, or both); and

o the opportunity the sponsor provides for housing
the program in a desirable location. 

The Crime Victims' Center in Chester County,
Pennsylvania, had the opportunity to be affiliated
with the district attorney's office or the
judiciary. However, program planners did not want
to be limited to working only with victims who
reported a crime and therefore chose to remain an
independent, nonprofit organization. On the other
hand, the Victim Service Council in St. Louis
County, Missouri, after operating as a private
non-profit organization for 18 years, began
integrating with the prosecuting attorney's office
in response to a Missouri statute requiring
prosecutors' offices to offer victim services. (The
Victim Service Council had already been receiving
county funding and was housed in the county
courthouse.)

The advantages and drawbacks to different
sponsorship are discussed below and summarized in
Figure 3-1.

o Prosecutor-affiliated programs generally seek to
meet the needs of prosecutors for timely witness
appearances and helpful testimony. Many
prosecutor-based programs also focus substantial
resources on the needs of victims. The principal
benefits of affiliation with a prosecutor's office
are quick and simple access to clients, and case
information, and the credibility that city or
district attorney sponsorship confers on program
staff in dealing with victims, witnesses, police,
and social service agency personnel. The most
serious drawbacks can be a tendency to focus on
victims in terms of their capacity to testify,
rather than as individuals in need, and the
restriction of services to victims whose cases are
brought to trial. Furthermore, victim services
providers who work out of a prosecutor's office may
feel under pressure to accept the prosecutor's
decision to prosecute or drop a case even if the
decision seems inconsistent with the victim's
needs.

o Law enforcement-based programs typically try to
help police officers and deputy sheriffs by
providing counseling to family disputants, sexual
assault victims, and other troubled people (such as
traffic accident victims, runaways, and mentally
disturbed individuals) who law enforcement officers
believe should not be their responsibility or whom
they are uncomfortable assisting. Law enforcement-
based programs provide early intervention to
clients because police may be more likely to call
program staff to the scene and because they have
easy access to arrest reports. This access enables
program staff to provide immediate crisis
intervention services to victims and traumatized
witnesses alike. 

With the emergence of community policing in many
law enforcement agencies, victim assistance program
planners may find police and sheriff's departments
a more useful and appealing sponsor. The community
policing approach places a stronger emphasis on
victims' needs than do traditional policing
methods. Some departments with community policing
have designated officers as victim assistance
officers. For example, the Philadelphia Police
Department has assigned to each district a victim
assistance officer, who works closely with the
community's victim assistance program. Police and
sheriff's departments that have implemented
community policing may be useful sponsors because
their increased focus on problem-solving involves
working closely with other community agencies and
organizations.

Like prosecutor-based programs, however, programs
hosted by law enforcement agencies may have
conflicts with grassroots organizations, which
sometimes distrust police. Affiliation with a
police agency may also discourage program staff
from focusing on victims' needs after the
investigation is over.

o Probation- and corrections-based programs often
focus heavily on restitution issues, since staff
deal directly with convicted defendants.
Increasingly, programs may be located in
corrections, probation, or parole departments to
help these departments comply with legislative
mandates to notify victims of offender status,
including parole hearings, and to facilitate the
provision of victim impact statements. The
correctional system may also be an important place
in which to designate a program or staff member to
identify and provide assistance to inmates who
become victims of sexual abuse.[7]

Because corrections-based programs sometimes gain
access to victims at a very late stage of the
criminal justice process, they may be unable to
provide other victim-related services in a timely
manner. However, some corrections- and
probation-based programs have incorporated crisis
intervention into their services. Staff of programs
affiliated with departments of correction may also
experience conflict between their concern for
victims and their sponsor's offender orientation.

o Community-based organizations often offer
advantages that affiliation with the criminal
justice system precludes or constrains, including
familiarity with other sources of assistance for
victims in the community, experience with direct
service delivery to needy clients, and an advocacy
perspective on behalf of the disadvantaged. As
"outsiders," however, free-standing programs often
have difficulty building credibility with police
and prosecutors, and they may have no built-in
funding. Local considerations may warrant
affiliating a new program with a medical center, a
local unit of government, or a university.

Selecting a Program Location

Program location usually follows naturally from the
selection of a sponsor: programs sponsored by
district attorneys are typically housed in the
prosecutor's office; those affiliated with law
enforcement agencies have offices in the police
department's or sheriff's headquarters; and
programs run by community-based organizations share
space with their host or rent offices in the
community.

If planners believe that a particular location for
their program is important for achieving their
goals, that judgment may influence who the program
sponsor should be. For example, if a storefront
operation is desired, a community-based
organization accustomed to street-level operations
may be the best sponsor. With the emergence of
community policing, however, which sometimes
involves the establishment of neighborhood
substations, law enforcement sponsorship may also
be suitable for establishing a storefront
operation.

There are exceptions, of course. Citizens Council
Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul, although
operated by the Minnesota Citizens Council on Crime
and Justice with major funding from the State
corrections department, for several years used
storefronts for its sites, until financial
restrictions led the program to centralize its
offices in one location. St. Louis County's Victim
Service Council, while sponsored until recently by
a community-based organization, is housed in the
county courthouse. Each program has found its
unorthodox arrangement to be an advantage rather
than a drawback. For Citizens Council Victim
Services, the arrangement combined the benefits of
institutional affiliation with open access to the
general public; for the Victim Service Council, it
has afforded both institutional independence and
close contact with prosecutors and judges.

When there is flexibility in choosing sites, the
following issues merit consideration:

o Locating in criminal justice system offices
provides access to police, prosecutors, files, and
victims themselves. Program planners who want to
provide crisis counseling should probably be
located in a law enforcement agency, where victims
are brought for questioning. Furthermore, operating
from a criminal justice system office can result in
continuous formal and informal contact with
criminal justice system personnel that can help
build credibility and secure referrals.

o Victim assistance services housed in buildings
outside the criminal justice system do not appear
to experience problems because of their location.
Proximity to the court is helpful, however, for
witness-oriented programs, both for greeting and
directing witnesses and for accommodating program
activities to changing court and prosecutorial
schedules.[10]

o Storefront locations make programs particularly
accessible to people who may be unfamiliar with
social welfare agency services and intimidated by
large bureaucracies and the criminal justice
system. Local satellite offices also can increase
accessibility for the poor, who are often
segregated geographically and frequently have
limited means of transportation. 

Occasionally, programs have offices in more than
one location, but they typically start with a
single site and then expand as they gain experience
and acquire additional financial support. Outposts
can bring services to more victims, and to more
police and prosecutors, than can a single office.
Multiple sites can also reduce travel time to meet
with and transport victims and witnesses. However,
multiple locations can increase problems in
overseeing work quality and may prevent staff from
feeling that they are in the mainstream of program
activities. They also increase supervisor travel
time and overhead costs.

The Alameda County (California) program, for
example, closed its subunit in the southern part of
the county for several of these reasons. The
caseload in the south was less than that in the
northern office, and, with limited personnel, the
program was sometimes short-handed in the north
while at the same time not very busy in the south.
In addition, the program director found it
difficult to supervise staff in the southern office
and to juggle staff when vacation or sick leave was
taken. Finally, staff in the subunit felt isolated
and out of touch with their colleagues in the main
office, with limited opportunities to debrief or
vent their frustration together. Citizen Council
Victim Services Minneapolis, St.-Paul (Minnesota)
closed its four storefront locations when staff
found that most crime victims continued to contact
the program primarily through its crisis line. The
added cost of maintaining the storefront offices
was not worth their limited benefits.

An option potentially available to any program is
to establish a victim and witness reception area in
the courthouse to contact clients who may otherwise
slip through the cracks. This approach has the
advantage of reducing court trips whenever a victim
or witness needs assistance. To set up a reception
area, the program may want either to assign a
full-time staff person or to train volunteers to
provide this service. The court must experience
enough traffic flow to warrant this allocation of
staff time, and court administrators must be able
and willing to provide space for the service.

Determining Funding Needs

Funding is a concern that planners must consider
from the moment they decide to establish a program
and a worry that is never far from the minds of
directors of existing programs. There are three
principal steps in developing strategies for
securing funds:

o estimating program costs,

o identifying promising funding sources, and

o preparing grant proposals to each potential
source.

Planners must develop cost estimates for all
program services and materials, even ones they
expect to be free. Program administrators should be
able to document the dollar value of gratis and
in-kind contributions in case these contributions
are discontinued and administrators need to apply
for funding to purchase them.

Generating cost estimates compels planners and
staff to examine all anticipated or existing
activities in detail. Figure 3-2 lists the major
items a victim assistance program should consider
in estimating expenditures. New programs should
estimate costs not only for the start-up year but
also for each of the following two years, since
expenses for subsequent years are typically much
lower. Existing programs, too, should estimate
their expenses a few years into the future.

One study concluded from several site visits that
certain program activities are associated with
higher costs:[11]

o 24-hour, 7-day-a-week availability;

o crisis intervention at the crime scene as the
preferred contact strategy;

o multiple contacts with a client, rather than
one-time-only intervention;

o emphasis on direct service rather than referral;
and

o allocation of significant resources to nonclient
services such as research, training, public
relations, and lobbying for statutory changes.

The results of a small survey conducted for this
publication provide another yardstick for
estimating costs. Figure 3-3 provides the estimated
annual budgets, staff levels, and caseloads served
by five programs visited for the study. A detailed
discussion of potential approaches to receiving
program funding is provided in chapter 9.

Staff Needs and Recruitment

Identifying and recruiting staff, typically the
final planning step, is perhaps the single most
important task planners face. The discussion below
provides guidelines for determining how many people
to hire, what skills and qualifications to require,
how to recruit and screen staff, and what role
volunteers can play. Chapter 7 discusses issues of
staff training and supervision.

Estimating Staff Levels 

In practice, planners and directors will be
constrained in their staffing decisions by the
available funds. When there is flexibility in
deciding how many people to hire, the
considerations addressed below may be helpful for
estimating the number of staff needed.

Among the limited sample of relatively large
programs surveyed for this publication, the number
of staff has generally risen in the past decade
(see figure 3-4), with the average number of
full-time staff increasing from 4 to 14, and the
average number of part-time volunteers up from 5 to
18. However, because these programs provide a wide
range of services, they have atypically large
staffs. Other surveys with larger samples of
programs have found that most programs have fewer
staff. According to the 1990 Federal National
Assessment Program (NAP) survey of 319 victim
assistance programs, the average number of
full-time paid service providers was 2 per program.
In a 1985 survey of 184 programs, nearly
three-fourths employed 5 or fewer full-time staff,
and 19 programs did not have any full-time staff
but instead relied on part-time employees and
volunteers.[12]

One way to estimate staff needs is in terms of the
population to be served and the services to be
provided. St. Louis County's (Missouri) Victim
Service Council calculated that 2 staff members and
15 to 20 volunteers could provide service to 1,000
clients a year.[13] Other studies have suggested
that 6 to 10 staff members are required for a
population of 500,000.[14]

The type of services a program plans to provide, of
course, will also substantially influence the
number of staff required. One approach to
estimating staff needs, therefore, is to divide
services into those that require considerable staff
time on a per-client basis (which will depend in
part on staff skills and qualifications), those
that require relatively little staff time, and
those that fall somewhere between. Figure 3-5
provides such a breakdown. To arrive at an estimate
of needed staff hours, program planners can
multiply the time needed for each service by the
number of clients who need it. New programs can
estimate service needs from the results of a needs
assessment; existing programs can determine service
needs by examining their actual service delivery
experience.

Indirect services (such as system advocacy, public
education, and training of police and prosecutors)
and administrative time should also be calculated.
Typically, 10 to 25 percent of a program
administrator's time is spent on purely managerial
activities, and another 10 to 35 percent on liaison
with other organizations. Finally, after
professional staff needs have been calculated,
secretarial needs must be added. Generally, one
full-time secretary is needed for each two to six
full-time paid staff members, but more will be
required if clerically oriented services like
witness notification are to be provided.

Figure 3-6 provides an exercise for estimating
staff needs based on the above guidelines. After
completing the exercise, planners can compare their
findings with the staffing patterns presented in
figure 3-3 to see if there is at least rough
comparability in staff levels. Of course, volunteer
services may substitute for paid staff to a
considerable extent (see below.)

Stipulating Skills and Qualifications

Requisite staff skills depend on the services and
other activities to be performed. For example, if
crisis intervention is required, individuals with
experience in emergency counseling will be
necessary; if paralegal or legal counseling will be
undertaken, staff with a background in the law will
be essential.

Employment history or education may be helpful in
assessing applicants' qualifications for working in
a victim assistance program, but there is no
empirical evidence to support specific experience
or training as a job requirement. A 1985 study
found that more than 90 percent of staff members of
the programs surveyed had bachelor's degrees; more
than one-fourth of these staff had graduate
degrees, usually in social work, sociology,
criminal justice, or counseling.[15] The study,
however, did not investigate the need for formal
education in order to be an effective victim
advocate. According to many experienced victim
advocates, staff can have very different
backgrounds, personalities, and work styles and
still be effective, so long as they have the
following characteristics:

o the ability to integrate well with existing
staff;

o the capacity to relate to victims in situations
of stress without making judgments;

o emotional stability, assertiveness,
self-confidence, and common sense;

o strong assessment skills; and

o the resilience and flexibility to deal with a
variety of problems on short notice, to work
overtime, and to accept failure with many clients.

Special talents are essential for the program
director. He or she must not only have management
and supervisory skills but also a gift for public
relations. A victim assistance program director
must work simultaneously with the police
department, the prosecutor's office, the judiciary,
the correctional system, human service provider
agencies, and the media. Victim assistance program
directors also need entrepreneurial skills, given
the unending need to enlist support, in-kind
services, funds, and other assistance in a time of
fiscal retrenchment and competition for limited
resources. Resourcefulness, energy, and commitment
are needed to resolve the typical range of client
problems, from repairing broken locks to finding
emergency food rations.

A program director must have good direct service
delivery skills, since he or she will frequently be
called on to fill in for absent staff or to handle
especially difficult cases. Finally, where
possible, it is helpful if the director of a
criminal justice system-based program is recruited
from within the system to facilitate acceptance of
the program by police, prosecutors, judges, and
correctional officers, and to eliminate the
start-up delays that occur when a newcomer learns
the ropes.

Using Volunteers

As noted above, some programs use no volunteers and
others use as many as 120. (Programs funded with
Federal VOCA money must use volunteers unless the
State grantee determines that there is a compelling
reason to waive this requirement.) During its first
two years of operation, the Pima County Victim
Witness Program (Arizona) recruited and trained 128
volunteers, who assisted paid staff with virtually
every aspect of program operation; by 1993, a total
of over 3,000 volunteers had been trained. About
100 volunteers regularly commit their time to
driving unmarked police cars in the evening to
respond immediately to police requests for help at
the scene of a crime. On the other hand, the
Alameda County (California) program, despite its
relatively large size, has never used more than
four volunteers at any one time and on occasion has
had none.

What Volunteers Can Do

Volunteer activities also vary dramatically across
programs, ranging from purely clerical tasks to
rape crisis intervention at hospital emergency
wards. The volunteer job descriptions shown in
appendixes D and E include examples of volunteer
activities. In some programs, volunteers are
restricted to a single activity, such as assisting
victims with compensation claims; in others, they
engage in a variety of tasks. Citizens Council
Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul uses some
volunteers for office work while others are on-call
overnight to provide assistance by phone to crime
victims who do not need immediate help in person.
Staff may also want to encourage neighborhood
residents to form neighborhood watch groups and
provide information and support to neighbors who
are victimized.[16]

Generally, volunteers perform tasks reflecting the
personal qualities they bring to the job, the
amount of training they have received, and the
supervision they are given. Volunteers who are
interns or college students typically do not have
the experience to engage in many of the
victim-oriented tasks that older volunteers can
manage. However, those who are studying criminal
justice or related issues may bring an unmatched
enthusiasm to their assignments. The coordinator of
the Colorado Springs Police Department's
Victim/Witness Office said that her student
volunteers are often willing to do extra work and
that she is "not sure if we could function without
them." The director of the Pima County (Arizona)
program recently began training youth between 12
and 17 years old as peer advocates to talk with
young crime victims and witnesses. This service was
spurred by the director's experience debriefing
residents of an apartment complex where a child had
been murdered and seeing how well her young
daughter, who went with her, interacted with the
children in the complex. The director said she is
careful, however, to be sure that the youth are not
asked to handle a situation that could traumatize
them.

The more training and supervision a program can
provide for volunteers, the more complex and
sensitive are the tasks they can undertake. Some
program administrators recruit volunteers with
specialized skills. Citizens Council Victim
Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul has volunteer
locksmiths and carpenters on call 24 hours a day.
Some programs do not expect much from volunteers--
and, as a result, do not get much. Programs that
expect a lot tend to get a lot.

Volunteers: Pros and Cons 

The two major reasons for using volunteers are to
save money and to expand service delivery. The
California guidelines for State-funded victim
assistance programs require programs to increase
their use of volunteers as a purely fiscal measure.
By training volunteers to handle victims of sexual
assault, Portland's Victims Assistance Program has
been able to provide 24-hour crisis intervention to
rape victims at hospital emergency wards
immediately after the crime. When the grant amount
awarded to the Victims Advocate Foundation in
Indiana declined, volunteers paid for their own gas
to transport victims to shelters or court, and they
donated office supplies for the program director.

Several programs have found that using volunteers
serves as a valuable method of screening for
potential paid staff. Program directors have an
opportunity to view volunteers' abilities and
commitment first-hand, and volunteers have a chance
to find out whether they enjoy the work. A former
case coordinator in the Greenville (South Carolina)
program began as a volunteer in 1979, was offered
part-time pay in 1980, and became a full-time staff
member in 1981. The director of the Victims
Advocate Foundation in rural Indiana volunteered
his time to help the program's founder with
start-up activities and then took charge of the
program after the founder moved to another state. 

Several considerations, however, are disincentives
for using volunteers, or using them more
extensively.

o Time required. Finding appropriate candidates can
be time-consuming, and for volunteers to be
effective in anything beyond simple clerical tasks,
they need extensive training. Providing training
can be difficult, however, for volunteers who come
in only once or twice a week. Making the trade-off
between volunteer training and supervision and
devoting that same time to program activities may
lead to short-changing the volunteers. Scheduling
volunteers can also be time-consuming and
frustrating. And expending time on volunteers may
be of questionable value if they leave before the
investment produces payoffs in service delivery.

o Uncertainty of commitment. Some volunteers are
undependable or lose interest because of
unrealistic expectations of what the job entails,
because they feel no obligation to an assignment
for which they are not being paid, or because their
original intentions were unrelated to the work
required--if, for example, they were seeking only a
stepping stone to paid employment or a supplement
to their resume. Student interns typically spend
only short periods with a program. 

o Unprofessional attitudes or behavior. Some
volunteers may express hostile opinions of the
criminal justice system to victims, thereby
jeopardizing the ability of paid staff to work with
police and prosecutors. Many programs have access
to sensitive information which volunteers may
abuse. Also, some practitioners caution that for
some volunteers who have been crime victims
themselves, their prior experience may interfere
with their ability to provide effective,
professional services.

Programs that have used volunteers extensively and
effectively have demonstrated that these drawbacks
can be minimized, if not eliminated, with careful
screening, thorough training, and close
supervision. Timing is also important. It may be
advisable not to involve volunteers until the
program has firmly established its objectives,
target groups, caseload, and services, and until
paid staff have enough free time, after the
start-up period, to train and supervise volunteers
properly.

A large pool of volunteers with the Pima County
Victim Witness Program was utilized infrequently
during the first year because paid staff wanted to
establish confidence and rapport with other
community agencies before sending volunteers into
unfamiliar territory. Even well-established
programs may find it difficult to divert staff time
from direct service delivery to involving
volunteers in program activities. Staff may have to
reduce their current activities in order to find
and use volunteers who, in the long run, can free
them to concentrate on previously neglected
activities.

Program directors must carefully weigh the
long-term benefits of involving volunteers against
the very real short-term inconvenience involved in
preparing volunteers for work. Generally, program
directors find that volunteers need to remain with
the job for at least a year to repay the investment
in preparing them; expecting volunteers to commit
themselves to a longer stint is usually
unrealistic. Some programs have retained volunteers
for several years, but turnover is inevitable in
most cases. As a result, programs must develop
permanent mechanisms to replenish their cadre of
volunteers.

Recruiting and Screening Staff 

Recruiting methods for hiring paid staff are
diverse. Greenville's (South Carolina) Victim
Witness Assistance Program chooses to follow county
hiring procedures and fields many phone calls from
individuals inquiring about potential jobs. The
program director asks for their resumes and
explains the county application process. Portland's
(Oregon) Victims Assistance Program hires
exclusively from civil service lists, since all
paid staff must be county employees. Citizens
Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul has
recruited by placing newspaper advertisements,
circulating announcements among its funding
agencies, and posting notices in college placement
offices. Program staff do extensive recruiting in
minority communities through neighborhood agencies
and organizations, churches, and ethnic newspapers.
The Alameda County (California) program usually
hires staff from the agencies with which it has
been coordinating activities, because in the
process of using these individuals as resources,
program staff become very familiar with their
capabilities. 

As in most occupations, the single most common
method for locating paid staff is word of mouth.
Pima County (Arizona) Victim Witness Program staff
prepared public service announcements for
television and radio, encouraged newspaper
reporters to write about the program, and presented
the program to university classes and civic
organizations--until it developed a waiting list of
applicants. The Suffolk County (Massachusetts)
Victim Witness Assistance Program director provides
a written job description to local universities'
internship offices (see appendix E).

Many program directors allow current staff to
interview candidates for paid and volunteer
positions. For example, after initially screening
applicants, the Alameda County program director has
his staff interview the most promising candidates.
His policy is not to hire anyone whom current
personnel do not find acceptable. The Suffolk
County program director and a victim advocate
screen potential college interns together. In
addition, many program directors advise running a
criminal history background check on potential
staff and volunteers.

Endnotes

1. Roberta C. Cronin and Blair B. Bourque,
Assessment of Victim/Witness Assistance Projects.
National Evaluation Program Phase I Report
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1981), 9; Albert R.
Roberts, Helping Crime Victims: Research, Policy,
and Practice (Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, 1990), 41.

2. Barbara A. Webster and J. Thomas McEwen,
Assessing Criminal Justice Needs, Research in Brief
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, August 1992), 5.

3. John J. DiIulio, Jr., Rethinking the Criminal
Justice System: Toward a New Paradigm, A Discussion
Paper from the BJS-Princeton Project (Washington, D.C.
: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1992), 11.

4. This development was reported by the advisory
board for this publication. Note, however, that the
1990 National Assessment Program survey found that
the percentage of programs located in police
departments declined slightly from 34 percent in
1986 to 28 percent in 1990.

5. National Victim Services Survey of Adult and
Juvenile Corrections and Parole Agencies: Final
Report (Arlington, Virginia: National Victim
Center, 1991).

6. American Correctional Association, Task Force on
Victims of Crime: Final Report (Laurel, Maryland:
American Correctional Association, 1988); see also
American Correctional Association, Report and
Recommendations on Victims of Juvenile Crime
(Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional
Association, 1994).

7. F. Sepler, "Victim Advocacy and Young Male
Victims of Sexual Abuse: An Evolutionary Model," in
The Sexually Abused Male: Prevalence, Impact, and
Treatment, vol. 1, ed. Mic Hunter (1990), 73-85.

8. Blair B. Bourque and Roberta C. Cronin, Helping
Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice
System: A Program Handbook (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, April 1991), 2.

9. Bourque and Cronin, Helping Victims and
Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System, 7.

10. Roberta C. Cronin and Blair B. Bourque,
National Evaluation Program Phase I Assessment.
Victim/Witness Assistance Projects (Washington, D.C. :
American Institutes for Research, 1979), 53, 71.

11. Cronin and Bourque, National Evaluation Program
Phase I Assessment, 119.

12. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims, 89.

13. Marjorie Susman and Carol Holt Vittert,
"Building a Solution: A Practical Guide for
Establishing Crime Victim Service Agencies" (St.
Louis: National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis
Section, 1980), 19.

14. Emilio C. Viano, Herbert Jones, Margaret Neuse,
James Schiller, Ora Spaid, and Sheldon Steinberg,
Victim/Witness Services Participant's Handbook
(Washington, D.C. : University Research Corporation,
1977).

15. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims, 92.

16. Neighborhood Watch Victim Assistance: A Program
Manual, National Sheriffs' Association Victim
Assistance Program (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department
of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 1987).

17. Janet Reno, "AmeriCorps: A Call to Service,"
Research in Action (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November
1993), 2; Catherine Milton, "National Service:
Secret Weapon in the Fight Against Crime," Public
Management (July 1994), 8, 10; " National Service
and Public Safety: Partnerships for Safer
Communities" (Washington, D.C. , National Crime
Prevention Council, March 1994), 20.

______________________________________________

Victim Services in the Juvenile Justice System

Many rights and services extended to victims of
adult offenders have not been extended to victims
of juvenile offenders because of the due process
and confidentiality protections given to juveniles.
Few programs have been established specifically to
assist this victim population, and many victim
assistance programs in the adult court system have
handled only a small number of juvenile cases.[8]
In addition to the difficulty of providing certain
information to victims regarding juvenile
offenders, the juvenile court system may be even
more difficult for victims to understand than the
adult system.

With the increased recognition of these problems
and the rising number of crimes committed by
juveniles, more programs are being established
within the juvenile justice system to assist
victims. The Columbia (South Carolina) Department
of Youth Services Victim Assistance Program, for
example, was established in 1987 to serve victims
of juvenile violent crime. The one full-time staff
member identifies clients by screening juvenile
cases referred to the department.[9] Legislation is
being enacted in some States to grant the same
rights and services to victims of juvenile crime as
have been won by victims of adult offenders (e.g.,
to know the identity of the accused and to be
notified of and attend all hearings). 

Program planners and staff who want to establish a
program for victims of juveniles or include
services for these victims in an existing program
should consult their State's juvenile code and any
other State statutes regarding crime victims for
potential obstacles to working in the juvenile
justice system (such as restricted access to
information). 

Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile
Justice System: A Program Handbook, (Washington, D.C.
: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1991), provides
information regarding the operation of a victim
assistance program for victims of juvenile
offenders. Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile
Justice System: Assessment Report, (Washington, D.C. :
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1989), presents
the results of the first phase of the agency's
Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice
System Development Program. The report includes
information on legislation pertaining to victims
and witnesses in the juvenile justice system and
case studies of programs serving this clientele.
Both OJJDP documents can be ordered through the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service at
(800) 851-3420. 

Individuals interested in establishing a program
within a correctional institution for victims of
juvenile offenders may want to consider Report and
Recommendations on Victims of Juvenile Crime,
(Lanham, Maryland: American CorrectionAssociation,
1994). Contact the ACA at (301) 206-5100.

___________________________________________

Sponsorship by Corrections, Probation, 
and Parole Departments: The "Last Frontier" in
Victim Assistance?

Programs based in departments of corrections and
departments of probation and parole have become
more popular in recent years, owing in part to
legislative statutes and State constitutional
amendments that require that victims receive
notification of offender status, be permitted to
attend and submit impact statements to parole
hearings, and receive other services after
conviction of the offender. Because of the
relatively late start among departments of
corrections, probation, and parole to establish
victim services, some victim services experts refer
to corrections as the "last frontier" in victim
services. (See chapter 4 for a more detailed
discussion of networking with these departments.)

In Pennsylvania, individuals involved in victim
services observed that victims had needs even after
the person who committed the crime against them had
been sentenced. In the early 1990's, the state
passed a law mandating the provision of certain
services to victims after conviction. In 1993, the
Crime Victim Input and Notification Program was
established in the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections and Board of Probation and Parole. The
program's office is part of the central
administrative offices of the Department, and the
program is funded as part of the department's
general operating budget. 

Similarly, in 1991, the California Youth Authority
established the Office of Prevention and Victim
Services, with four full-time victim service staff,
and other staff who work partly on victim services
and partly on crime prevention activities. The
program is based in the California Youth
Authority's Sacramento headquarters.

Also in 1991, the Office for Victims of Crime
(OVC), part of the U.S. Department of Justice,
funded two national corrections-based training and
technical assistance programs, focusing on both
institutional and community corrections. By 1995,
intensive training had been provided to 15 States,
Department of Defense correctional officials, and
the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Less intensive
training and technical assistance were provided to
approximately 20 additional States.

For more information about the extent of
corrections-based victim assistance programs across
the country as of the early 1990's and the services
the programs offer, see National Victim Services
Survey of Adult and Juvenile Corrections and Parole
Agencies: Final Report and Crime Victims and
Corrections: Setting the Agenda for the 1990's (a
notebook from a national conference), both of which
can be obtained through the National Victim Center
at (703) 276-2880. For more information about OVC's
training and technical assistance programs, call
the National Victims Resource Center at (800) 627-
6872.
____________________________________

Multicultural Staffing: 
Matching Staff and Clients

Some victim assistance program administrators find
it particularly important that staff be of similar
ethnic background as the majority of clients, in
order to reduce any linguistic or cultural barriers
that might discourage victims from using program
services. Also, victims may feel less intimidated
by the criminal justice system if they are
receiving assistance from someone who they feel
understands them and their background. 

Because staff of the Lummi Victims of Crime program
in Washington State are Native American and have
lived on the reservation, they are able to conduct
outreach in the community and at cultural
activities and help victims move through the tribal
court system. Furthermore, they are familiar with
the tribe's spiritual healers, to whom victims
sometimes are referred. The Victim Service Unit of
the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office has
both a Vietnamese and a Cambodian coordinator, who
are responsible for conducting outreach to the
city's Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. The
coordinators also help Vietnamese and Cambodian
victims move through the court system--for example,
by providing court accompaniment and
interpretation.

Color of Justice, by Brian Ogawa, director of the
Maui Victim/Witness Assistance Program in Hawaii,
examines multicultural issues in the criminal
justice system. The book includes a chapter on
redesigning victim services. To order the book,
contact the California Office of Criminal Justice
Planning, 1130 K Street, Suite 300, Sacramento,
California 95184, (916) 324-9100.

________________________________________

A New Source of Victim Service Volunteers:
AmeriCorps

The Clinton Administration's national service
program, AmeriCorps, has channeled thousands of
individuals into volunteer positions within the
criminal justice system. The program was formed
through the National and Community Service Trust
Act of 1993, which established the Corporation for
National and Community Service (CNCS). In what is
commonly referred to as a domestic Peace Corps,
volunteers devote two years to community service in
one of four priority areas: education, public
safety, human needs, or the environment. They
receive financial aid in return for their service.

It has been suggested that victim assistance
programs use AmeriCorps volunteers to monitor
community restitution programs, provide support in
neighborhood courts, help victims and witnesses
navigate the court system, assist victims with
obtaining support from social agencies and support
groups, and notify victims of the progress of their
case or the status of the offender. The CNCS
suggests that volunteers become part of a
comprehensive community policing strategy which
incorporates victim support and assistance and
attempts to solve social problems that lead to
crime and community-wide victimization.[17]

For example, the Montgomery County (Maryland)
Police Department's Victim Advocate Program uses
AmeriCorps volunteers to explain legal options and
court procedures to domestic violence victims and
to work directly with the police department's major
crime unit in providing general assistance and
referrals to victims. Several volunteers are
assigned to the county's five police districts to
provide outreach to victims and notify them of
available services within the department and the
community.

Funds are provided by CNCS to national
organizations and State commissions, which then
distribute the money to local programs that apply
to sponsor a volunteer or volunteers. Sponsoring
programs are expected to provide matching funds.
The money covers such expenses as training, a
living allowance for the volunteer, and health
insurance costs.

National Service and Public Safety: Partnerships
for Safer Communities is a handbook that describes
AmeriCorps and gives examples of the services that
AmeriCorps volunteers can provide. The book
includes phone numbers and contact names for State
commissions. It can be obtained through the
National Crime Prevention Council, 1700 K Street,
NW, Second Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 466-
6272. More information about AmeriCorps may be
obtained by calling (800) 94-ACORPS.

--------------------

Key Points

o Sponsorship is one of the most critical
considerations for a victim assistance program,
because it influences the program's mission,
funding, staffing, and other key characteristics.

o While most victim assistance programs have
traditionally been affiliated with prosecutors'
offices, sponsorship by law enforcement agencies
appears to be gaining in popularity. This may be
because:

--Programs are increasingly focused more on meeting
a wide array of traumatized victims' needs rather
than just providing court assistance;

--Affiliation with law enforcement agencies helps
advocates reach victims soon after the crime has
occurred; and

--The emergence of community policing as a guiding
philosophy for many police departments has led
police to look for ways to better attend to
victims' needs and to cooperate with victim service
providers.

o An increasing number of departments of
corrections, probation, and parole are sponsoring
victim assistance programs. In addition, programs
that provide services exclusively to victims of
juvenile crime have emerged.

o It is important to select a host that finds it
politically advantageous to sponsor a victim
assistance program, is willing to dedicate
resources, and whose interest will last.

o It is imperative that program staff budget
expenses and funding needs realistically, not only
for the start-up or upcoming year but for several
years into the future. 

o Programs may find it easier to obtain funding if
they have clear objectives and plans that are based
on a needs assessment in their community.

o  Victim assistance programs are increasingly
relying on volunteers to provide low-cost services.
However, program directors should carefully weigh
the advantages and disadvantages of using
volunteers. If volunteers are recruited, it is
important that they be screened, trained, and
supervised. 

o Identifying and recruiting staff, typically the
final planning step, is perhaps the single most
important task that planners face. Many programs
find it helpful to have staff who are of the same
ethnic background or come from the same community
as most of their clients. However, some program
directors maintain that it is even more important
that staff first and foremost be sensitive and
dedicated individuals.

________________________________________

Chapter 4

Developing Effective Relationships 
With Other Organizations
_________________________________________

Most successful victim assistance programs maintain
mutually beneficial relationships with each
component of the criminal justice system and with
other human service providers and community groups
(including other victim assistance programs).
Working together effectively usually involves two
elements:

o All parties secure some advantages from and
provide some benefits to each other--or at least
are prepared to reciprocate if called on for help.

o The parties have an explicit agreement about how
cooperation will be implemented. The understanding
may be informal (based on telephone calls or
meetings) or highly codified (written into
contracts or memos of understanding).

As the discussion below makes clear, program
collaboration may occur at a number of levels, from
simple, informal approaches (such as mutual
referrals) to sophisticated, formal relationships
(such as coordinating services to child abuse
victims).

Why Develop Relationships With Other Organizations?

There are five major reasons to establish networks:

o To gain access to victims and witnesses. Often
police and prosecutors--and to a lesser extent
social service and other agencies or organizations-
-may be able to refer clients or provide access to
records that can be used to identify clients.

o To identify other resources in the community that
can help victims and witnesses. Few programs are
able to provide all the help their clients need.
Other organizations that can fill these service
gaps must be found.

o To improve the treatment of victims and witnesses
already served by other organizations. Working with
criminal justice and social support system agencies
can provide an opportunity to assist these groups
to respond to specific needs of crime victims and
witnesses.

o To develop and institutionalize program support.
Demonstrating to criminal justice agencies how
services to victims and witnesses typically benefit
them can motivate them to support program funding.

o To share information and strategies. Working with
criminal justice and social service agencies and
with other community organizations can lead to the
discovery of improved or innovative ways of helping
victims and witnesses and to new sources of
information and technical assistance (e.g., through
training seminars). Program staff can also work
with personnel from other agencies to achieve
common goals, such as legislative changes to assist
and benefit crime victims. 

Programs that receive funding through the Federal
Victims of Crime Act are encouraged by the Office
for Victims of Crime to coordinate their activities
with other agencies. 

Cooperation Among Organizations Has Expanded

In the last ten years, cooperation among victim
assistance programs, the criminal justice and
social service systems, and community groups has
increased significantly for a number of reasons: 

o By the mid-1990's, State constitutional
amendments ensuring victim rights were adopted in
20 states. As a result, officials in the criminal
justice system have found themselves required by
law to provide certain services to victims of crime
(such as notifying victims of case status), and
they have looked to victim assistance programs for
training and assistance in carrying out these
requirements.

o Because victim advocacy has been more widespread
in the last two decades, victim advocates have
found it easier to gain acceptance and cooperation
from other organizations. (Programs that struggled
to prove their worth to agencies (especially to law
enforcement) have helped pave the way for newly
developing programs throughout the 1970's and
1980's.) In some jurisdictions, victim assistance
programs have become an integral part of the
criminal justice system. 

o The emergence of community policing among many
police departments has often resulted in a closer
working relationship between law enforcement and
victim assistance programs.

o The rapid expansion of victim services into the
correctional system has opened up another arena for
cooperation. Many correctional, probation, and
parole departments have begun providing services to
crime victims, as well as to victimized
correctional staff. The California Youth
Authority's Office of Prevention and Victim
Services, for example, notifies victims of juvenile
offenders of the offender's parole or release
hearings, conducts classes for offenders on the
impact of crime on victims, and performs other
related services.

o Most victim assistance programs struggle with
limited resources just to serve victims of violent
crime. In recent years, however, as mentioned
elsewhere in this publication, a number of programs
have begun extending outreach and services to
derivative victims of crime, including traumatized
witnesses to violent crime, victims of
environmental and other disasters, and residents of
crime-ridden communities. Usually victim assistance
advocates find that cooperating with other
organizations affords the best opportunities for
serving these kinds of victims. Pima County
(Arizona) Victim/Witness Program staff, for
example, worked with school officials in providing
critical incident stress debriefing sessions for
college students when a professor was killed. 

o Some programs have expanded their networks in
order to undertake crime prevention activities--
for example, by giving presentations at schools and
neighborhood meetings. The coordinator of the
Colorado Springs, Colorado Police Department's
Victim/Witness Office worked closely with faculty
in designing curriculums for the area's largest
school district on personal safety and conflict
resolution.

The apparent expansion of working relationships
with other organizations notwithstanding, all of
the program staff, criminal justice system
personnel, and victim experts contacted for this
publication stressed the importance of being
realistic in establishing and maintaining networks.
Specifically, they spoke of the need to be
sensitive to potential sources of friction or
difficulty in working with different groups, to
recognize that building networks and establishing
credibility take time, and to guard against being
naively optimistic or prematurely discouraged.

Victim assistance program staff are in a unique
position to encourage and help the criminal justice
system and social service agencies to meet the
needs of victims and witnesses. There are a number
of services to victims and witnesses that police,
prosecutors, judges, correctional officers, and
social welfare workers can undertake as a normal
part of their jobs. By establishing and sustaining
close and mutually beneficial relationships with
these groups, victim service providers will best be
able to help them provide such services.

Working With the Criminal Justice System

Most victim advocates find that concerted efforts
are necessary to gain the cooperation of the
criminal justice system, even if their program is
sponsored by a criminal justice agency. In recent
years, as mentioned above, the criminal justice
system has taken significant strides toward
attending to victim needs by changing the way
personnel deal with victims and by working more
closely with victim assistance programs. The
Federal Government's proposed regulations governing
grants to combat violent crime against women, using
funds available through the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994, encourage a "partnership" among law
enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, victim
advocates, and service providers. There are a
number of strategies that program staff can
implement and pitfalls they should anticipate when
working with the criminal justice system.

Working With Law Enforcement

Whether a victim assistance program is based
directly within a police or sheriff's department or
operates out of another agency or as a private
nonprofit organization, securing the support and
cooperation of law enforcement is essential to a
program's ability to serve victims effectively. 

Approaches to gaining cooperation. There are a
variety of ways in which program staff can
initiate, strengthen, and maintain a strong working
relationship with law enforcement agencies and
individual police officers.

1. Contacting police for planning and liaison
purposes requires a good understanding of the
nature of police work and of the idiosyncrasies of
law enforcement agencies. This can be achieved in a
number of ways, including interviews, informal
chats, and direct observation. 

Ride-alongs can be particularly beneficial for
learning first-hand what police work entails and
for building rapport between program staff and
individual officers. Both the Minneapolis
(Minnesota) and Scottsdale (Arizona) programs used
ride-alongs for these purposes; indeed, Scottsdale
staff spent one shift per week for a year on the
road with police officers. Ride-alongs are also
useful at any time to refresh staff about what goes
on in the field and to maintain rapport between
program staff and officers. Program staff can also
ask the police to provide training or orientation
sessions for them, focusing on the nature of law
enforcement and the problems officers experience
with victims and witnesses.

2. Involving police representatives in program
planning at an early stage can be very useful.
Guidelines for how the police and the program will
work together can be developed by mutual agreement
from the start, dealing with issues such as whether
and how the police will share arrest reports and
whether program staff may talk with victims before,
after, or while police investigators question them.
The Victim Service Council in St. Louis (Missouri)
County formed an advisory board that included three
police representatives, including the county
superintendent of police and the police chief of
the largest municipal police department in the
county. The police members of the board helped
program administrators develop a reliable method
for screening clients.

In working with law enforcement agencies,
designating a single person in the program and one
person in the police or sheriff's department to act
as liaisons between the two organizations helps
prevent miscommunication and diffusion of
responsibility by providing a centralized,
accountable source of information. 

3. Finding the "right" people to talk with in a law
enforcement agency is essential. These may include
the police chief or sheriff, whose approval and
active support are essential, key policymakers who
are sympathetic to the concept of victim services
and are respected by the department hierarchy, and
line officers who will benefit directly from the
program, have the respect of their colleagues, and
are not afraid to advocate for change within the
department.

When Scottsdale (Arizona) program staff found that
the willingness of police officers to work with the
program was contingent on the attitude of their
sergeants, it targeted sergeants for special
attention. Program personnel that plan to engage in
on-the-scene assistance will need to work with
patrol officers; staff that expect to become
involved at the investigation stage will want to
cultivate rapport with detectives. The order in
which to approach these individuals will vary
according to their attitudes and accessibility--and
depends as well on the focus of program services.
Program directors point out that, rather than
approaching the chief first, it is sometimes wiser
to secure the support of another officer whom the
chief respects and uses as an "idea person."

4. Providing training for police can facilitate
working together in two ways. First, it makes
officers aware of the program, informs them of what
it does, indicates when they can call on the
program for help, and points out how the program
can benefit them. Second, training helps police
identify strategies for responding to victims and
witnesses that may increase cooperativeness,
improve the quality of evidence, and reduce police
stress.

Staff of Scottsdale's Police Crisis Intervention
Unit provide four hours of training for every new
officer and assist with in-service training in such
areas as child abuse and domestic violence. The
director of the Middlesex County (Massachusetts)
Victim Witness Service Bureau, with the assistance
of the police chief of the largest city served by
the program, arranged workshops for officers on the
problems of working with rape victims. Forensic
experts and the director of a local hospital rape
crisis center discussed the preservation and
testing of evidence. Two days after one of these
sessions, an officer who had just worked with a
rape victim reported that, as a result of the
training, he felt more confident in what he was
doing, did not rush the interview, and, recognizing
the importance of making the victim feel safe,
avoided asking accusatory questions. 

Many victim service providers conduct 10- or 15-
minute briefing sessions at roll calls to take
advantage of the one time when all officers are
easily accessible. Staff of the Minneapolis-St.
Paul program initially found that attending the
midnight shift roll call helped convince police
that they were dedicated. As officers' workload
increased, however, they became less willing to
allow presentations during roll call. When staff
are able to schedule roll call sessions, it may be
helpful to plan in advance for a police officer to
describe how the program has benefited him or her
so that other officers hear the story from one of
their own. Victim assistance program staff can also
try to schedule training during police academies.

After--or as part of the process of--establishing a
secure working relationship with the police,
program staff can arrange with the chief or sheriff
to train law enforcement staff in victim witness
issues and services, such as crisis intervention,
working with sexual abuse victims and children, and
expediting property return. 

As a matter of strategy, staff may want to avoid
emphasizing concerns over the emotional well-being
of victims or officers and instead focus on
concrete benefits to the police department. More
generally, it is important that program staff make
a concerted effort to avoid the "bleeding heart"
image many police may initially--and for a long
time--have of staff. (At the same time, staff
should not downplay the advantages they expect to
gain by cooperating with the police. Law
enforcement officers know that most people who come
to them want help, and they prefer that people be
straightforward in asking for what they want.)

5. Program staff can capitalize on previous
contacts to establish their own informal contacts
with line officers with whom they hope to work. His
eight years' experience as an Oakland (California)
police officer and current peace officer status
sometimes makes local police departments more
receptive to working with the program director of
the Alameda County (California) Victim/Witness
Assistance Division. The director of the Portland
(Oregon) Victims Assistance Program is also chief
deputy of the family justice division within the
district attorney's office, a position that helps
her in her dealings with law enforcement officers. 

Staff can encourage police to stop by the program
office to chat, and can themselves go to the
station house to talk with officers. For example,
staff of Citizens Council Victim Services in
Minneapolis-St. Paul had an open house for police
at the program's inception and encouraged them to
stop in at any time for coffee. As metropolitan
area police departments have begun implementing
community policing, victim services staff have
occasionally worked out of police substations.
Scottsdale (Arizona) program staff spend an hour or
two per week meeting with officers in the law
enforcement center to strengthen relationships.

6. Most victim service providers have found that
the single most effective means of securing and
maintaining cooperation with police is word of
mouth among police officers. When one officer has a
good experience with the program, he or she can
pass the information on to other officers with a
degree of credibility that no program sales pitch
can match.

o The robbery detail in Alameda County (California)
was very cool toward the Victim Witness Assistance
Staff Division's mobile crisis unit until a staff
member worked with an officer on a sexual assault
and robbery case. She established a good rapport
with the officer based on her personality and her
ability to relieve the pressure on him to deal with
the victim's emotional and financial problems. As a
result, the program began receiving regular calls
from the other officers in the robbery unit. 

o When a new officer in the Greenville (South
Carolina) Police Department admitted that the
family of a homicide victim was "driving me nuts,"
an experienced officer was overheard telling him to
call the Victim/Witness Assistance Program for help
in supporting the family. The program now obtains
referrals frequently from throughout the police
department.

7. Finally, thanking officers who have been
particularly helpful and cooperative, and publicly
praising them to their superiors, can go a long way
toward nurturing a constructive, positive working
relationship and encouraging continued future
assistance. Conversely, avoiding public criticism
of officers, and instead dealing with most problems
privately, can help build trust among initially
reluctant officers.[1]

Ultimately, establishing and maintaining a useful
working relationship with the police depends on
doing things for officers that benefit them.

Program activities that benefit police. Victim
assistance programs can perform at least six
activities that not only assist victims and
witnesses but also have direct benefits for police.
The benefits include reducing police stress,
permitting quicker redeployment, providing
additional or better evidence, and saving money.

1. Handling Referrals

The most common and beneficial service to police
departments is for the program to handle victims
referred by officers. Police requests can range
from on-the-scene comforting of distraught victims
to legal aid in a civil suit, to free meals for
victims until their stolen food stamps have been
replaced. Accepting these referrals may save police
officers time and reduce their stress.

Statutes in many States now require officers to
provide victims with information on victim
services; victim service providers can help
facilitate officers' efforts to comply with this
requirement. For example, the staff of the
Minneapolis-St. Paul program collaborated with
officers from the Minneapolis Police Department to
develop a Police and Victims Services Information
card that contains information on victim rights and
local service providers, including phone numbers
for victim services, a sexual violence center,
battered women's shelters, and criminal justice
agencies (see appendix F). Officers are mandated by
statute to distribute the information on the card.
Because of its usefulness, the card was distributed
statewide by the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety.

Although more and more departments are training
officers to respond to victims, many police still
feel uncomfortable consoling distraught victims or
question the extent to which providing consolation
should be part of their job. Often they are
relieved to have support in this task. Accepting
police referrals, especially when they occur on the
scene, can also enable police officers to return to
their beat more quickly. Victim advocates based in
the Seattle (Washington) Police Department assist
detectives in the sex crimes unit during interviews
with rape victims by orienting the victims to the
criminal justice process and providing general
support.[2] Until State budget cuts made it
unaffordable, the Alameda County (California)
program operated a mobile crisis intervention unit
from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. seven days a week to
respond to police requests from assistance from
crime victims. Unit staff worked out of the Youth
Services Division of the Oakland (California)
Police Department, where office space was provided
at no cost. Patroling the city in an unmarked
county vehicle equipped with a police radio, staff
were able to provide on-scene emergency assistance
quickly.

Up to one-third of police referrals may be from
individuals who are not the direct victims of a
crime,[3] including witnesses to crime, victims of
environmental and other disasters, families and
friends of homicide victims, or mentally ill or
agitated individuals who are creating a disturbance
or require assistance. Law enforcement officers,
after all, respond to all people in trouble. Nearly
two-thirds of the clients in the Scottsdale
(Arizona) Police Crisis Intervention Unit have not
been victims of crimes immediately prior to
referral; rather, they comprise such people as
juvenile runaways, emotionally disturbed
individuals, and the homeless. Other programs, such
as the Pima County (Arizona) Victim Witness
Program, serve victims of automobile accidents,
survivors of suicide attempts, and traumatized
victims of and witnesses to violent crime. 

Program staff may need to set limits on helping
noncrime victims referred by police officers in
order to avoid overextending themselves. Two
considerations are important when deciding whether
to provide assistance. First, officers may be
testing a new program to see if staff are truly
willing and able to help them. If program staff
feel they are being tested, they may want to
provide assistance initially and later, after a
firm working relationship has been established,
tactfully decline to handle selected or all
referrals that they feel they cannot or should not
help with. For instance, the Minneapolis-St. Paul
program was asked to deal with a family that was
disturbing a neighborhood and to board up a house
that had burned down. Staff assisted with the first
request, but not the second.

Second, the benefits that programs derive from
their relationship with the police may be too
substantial to allow them to turn down such
requests. Although Pima County (Arizona) Victim
Witness Program staff did not originally plan to
assist noncrime victims, they decided to do so when
they discovered that police expected program staff
to assist them if the program was serious about
wanting to be helpful. As a result, the program
included nonvictims among its target audiences.

2. Serving as a Buffer Between Victims and Police

Victim assistance program staff can also aid police
by comforting and assisting victims and by helping
victims to understand police procedures, so that
officers have more time to investigate the crime.
Until it hired its own victim advocate, the
Greenville (South Carolina) Police Department's
homicide unit used the Victim Witness Assistance
Program in the county courthouse for comforting
victims' families so that detectives could work
uninterrupted while examining the crime scene and
questioning witnesses. 

Portland (Oregon) police officers indicate that
victim assistance staff can reduce public
hostility--for example, by explaining to victims
why no arrest has been made in a case (e.g.,
because police have not completed their
investigation) or why charges will not be filed
(e.g., because a legal technicality prevents
prosecution). In serving as a buffer, victim
assistance programs can increase victims' and
community residents' confidence and trust in the
police and in the rest of the criminal justice
system. 

3. Helping Locate and Protect Witnesses

Police who are serving subpoenas or seeking
witnesses in order to gather evidence often find
that victims and witnesses have moved without
leaving a forwarding address or gave a false
address when questioned about the crime. Victim
assistance program staff can provide a valuable
service by tracking down witnesses for police. In
addition, witness intimidation has become an
increasing problem for many police and prosecutors.
Staff can help address this problem in traditional
ways--by counseling witnesses and accompanying them
to court--or through more targeted approaches, such
as helping to relocate threatened witnesses and
their families. Police in Las Vegas (Nevada), for
instance, refer threatened witnesses and their
families to the Clark County Victim Witness
Assistance Center, whose director arranges for
motel or other accommodations, as well as for
escort from the police department or prosecutor's
office when the witness testifies.[4]

4. Providing Case Status Information

Police sometimes do not hear the results of the
cases in which they have been involved and are
therefore unaware of the outcome of their efforts
in making an arrest or interrogating victims and
witnesses. Without learning the outcome of cases,
police cannot gauge how to handle a victim who
comes to their attention a second time--for
example, a battered spouse who previously refused
to press charges. Where desirable, victim/witness
program administrators can establish procedures for
routinely informing police of the outcome of each
case or of certain types of cases. As a police
inspector in Philadelphia noted, officers who spend
their time trying to bring about justice like to
know the results of their efforts, in terms of both
the offender and the victim.

5. Furnishing Better or More Evidence

Many law enforcement officers report that victim
service providers improve the information and
evidence provided by victims and witnesses. A staff
member who can calm people and address their
emotional and financial needs may enable them to
concentrate better on providing accurate
information. Training police in how to handle
victims with sensitivity may also serve to improve
the quality of the information or evidence victims
provide. 

Police have cited instances in which program staff
discovered information--for example, from children-
-that investigating officers had been unable to
obtain. Staff can also provide information that can
help police assess how credible severely upset
witnesses will be if called on to testify in open
court.

Program staff must be careful, however, not to act
as investigators. Information passed on to police
should usually be limited to what they learn
inadvertently, as part of advocacy or counseling
activities, or what police have explicitly asked
them to find out from a client.

Some program staff have developed special interests
or skills that make them particularly valuable to
police in interrogating victims and witnesses. For
several years, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Citizens
Council Victim Services employed a member who was
skilled in sign language, a talent that police
found helpful in a city where a school for the deaf
has attracted several thousand deaf and
speech-impaired residents.

6. Implementing a Witness Alert Program for Police

Several programs have established a stand-by system
for notifying police shortly before their testimony
is needed in court in order to reduce the time
officers have to spend waiting in court for their
case to be called and to eliminate unnecessary
trips when a case is continued or dismissed. Of
course, many police officers like working overtime
because of the extra money they earn. As a result,
program staff need to exercise caution about
whether and with whom they advertise the
availability of such a service. In the long run,
however, the courts can best perform this activity
and, in the process, demonstrate their commitment
to improving police efficiency and reducing law
enforcement costs by minimizing the time police
witnesses spend waiting in court.

Potential difficulties in working with police.
Program staff, especially those at newly
established programs, should be prepared for
potential roadblocks in working with law
enforcement agencies. Alameda County's
(California)Victim/Witness Assistance Division
experienced minor problems even though its director
was a former police officer, and Scottsdale
Arizona's Police Crisis Intervention Unit
encountered difficulties even though the police
department initiated and administered the program.

Some of the difficulties program staff may
encounter result from attitudes that researchers
and many staff report as common among law
enforcement officers,[5] including:

o Distrust of outsiders. Officers may be
particularly skeptical of "social workers," whom
they may view as naive and unsympathetic to the
needs of law enforcement.

o Resistance to change. Officers may fear that
outsiders will interfere with or question their
procedures, challenge their competence, or create
additional work for them.

o Placement of blame on the victim. Police
officers, like many others, may find it difficult
to sympathize with advocacy on behalf of victims
whom they see as at least partly blameworthy.

o Skepticism of government and volunteer programs.
Officers may see such programs as wasteful and not
worthy of support until they have proven their
stability and seriousness.[6]

Some departments legitimately believe that it is
legally or ethically improper for them to disclose
information about victims to individuals they may
consider outside the criminal justice system.[7]
This concern has a statutory basis in some
jurisdictions. Some law enforcement officers are
also doubtful that program staff will keep
information confidential, thereby jeopardizing the
investigation--if not the merits of the case in
court. In addition, police investigators may be
afraid that staff will engage in activities beyond
their authority--for example, by asking leading
questions in cases of child abuse which could lead
to contamination of the witness and thereby
preclude use of the child's testimony. Finally,
many victim services providers have found that
working with the police is hampered when officers
are unfamiliar with what their program does or have
an erroneous impression of its purpose,
availability, and the restrictions and
qualifications of its staff.

Working With Prosecutors

Establishing liaison with prosecutors is often more
quickly accomplished than with police, because the
benefits to deputy district attorneys tend to be
more obvious and immediate. Administrators of
programs that operate either within or outside of
prosecutors' offices may want to consider the
following approaches and activities in networking
with prosecutors.

Approaches to gaining cooperation. Many of the
general strategies for establishing and maintaining
a working relationship with police serve equally
well with prosecutors:

o learning about their attitudes and their problems
in the local community;

o asking them to train program staff in how cases
are handled;

o contacting the most receptive individuals in the
office first;

o involving prosecutors in program planning;

o being available to work with prosecutors during 
evenings and on weekends;

o training assistant district attorneys to use the
program; 

o relying on word of mouth to stimulate expanded
use of the program.

In addition, program staff report having found the
following specific strategies useful for gaining
prosecutor cooperation:

o Conduct a needs assessment or draw on existing
research[9] to document how victims and witnesses
fail to cooperate fully with prosecutors because
they are dissatisfied with the way they are treated
by the criminal justice system.

o Provide orientation to the program for newly
hired prosecutors; have the district attorney
introduce and endorse the program. Also, present
valuable case information as soon as possible to
establish the benefits the program can bring to
case processing.

o Never disagree with prosecutorial decisions about
how to handle a case. Build trust first; once trust
has developed, present alternatives, when
appropriate, to how the case is being handled, but
do not give advice or instructions.

o Do not be overenthusiastic about cases or appear
to be emotionally involved in them, unless the
prosecuting attorney shares the excitement or
concern. Be business-like and low-key.

o Do not underestimate the initial impression made
by dress, manner, and tone. In the courthouse,
especially, prosecutors expect decorum.

o Do not take notes of conversations with victims
and witnesses if the program is in a jurisdiction
in which staff can be subpoenaed and required to
produce their "work product" in court.

As with police, the most effective strategy for
establishing and maintaining collaboration with
district attorneys is to focus, at least initially,
on some of the victim and witness services which
also provide the most benefit to prosecutors. A
knowledge of these types of assistance is essential
for gaining cooperation from district and city
attorneys.

Program activities that benefit prosecutors. Victim
assistance program personnel can assist prosecutors
in a number of ways, the most common and helpful of
which are to explain court procedures to witnesses
and notify witnesses of court dates. The end result
may be increased conviction rates--or at least
fewer dismissals for lack of complaining witnesses
or poor witness cooperation.

By allaying some of the fears victims and witnesses
may have about testifying, and by instilling a
positive attitude toward the criminal justice
system, court orientation enables prosecutors to
concentrate on providing good evidence, rather than
spending a lot of time explaining court procedures
to victims and witnesses.

A second benefit to prosecutors is witness
notification. Taking on some or all of the
responsibility for contacting witnesses helps
ensure that they appear in court and appear on
time, reducing the burden on prosecutors for
conducting this essentially clerical task.
Providing telephone alert services was ranked the
single most important help to district attorneys by
prosecutors in eight prosecutor-based programs.[10]
Appendix G shows a sample letter used by the
Alameda County (California) program to inform
witnesses that they may be asked to provide
information regarding a case.

Counseling victims and witnesses is another
significant help to prosecutors. Many attorneys
feel that providing emotional support or giving
advice is tangential to their jobs or feel they are
not qualified to do counseling. Many district
attorneys are uncomfortable talking with rape
victims, battered spouses, and victims of child
molestation. They appreciate it when program staff
can calm anxious victims, prepare them for the
embarrassing questions prosecutors may have to ask
them, "desensitize" them to the necessity of
providing explicit descriptions of what happened to
them, and in general create a positive attitude
toward the criminal justice system--all of which
improves the motivation and ability of witnesses to
testify effectively.

Closely related to this activity is helping victims
to "hang tough" in the face of significant
incentives to drop the case. The St. Paul
(Minnesota) City Attorney used to inform all
battered women who wanted to drop charges that they
first had to go to Citizens Council Victim Services
for an evaluation of their problem and for
information on the possible consequences of not
seeing the case through; program staff then
attempted to assist the victim in continuing the
case and recommended to the prosecutor whether to
dismiss or prosecute based on the victim's
willingness and ability to proceed. (Another
program in St.Paul that works specifically with
domestic abuse victims now conducts this activity.)

Program staff at times provide valuable witness
information to prosecutors. As noted above, a
program sometimes uncovers information from sexual
assault victims that leads to additional charges
against an accused rapist. Even passing comments
can be revealing and helpful to the prosecutor.
Program staff in the Alameda County Victim/Witness
Assistance Division learned that an elderly rape
victim was mentally ill, had once been a madam, and
had accepted $5.00 from the defendant after the
assault. Forewarned with this knowledge, which had
not been revealed in the preliminary hearing, the
district attorney decided to make a pretrial offer
rather than expend resources on a trial he felt he
would be very unlikely to win. Some prosecutors are
wary of program staff securing evidence, partly
because this is the prosecutor's job and partly
because they fear that program involvement at this
level may compromise the legality of a case by
making it seem that outside influence was exerted
on witnesses to testify in certain ways.
Determining the preferences and policies of
individual prosecutors will help staff to
collaborate most productively.

Many victim service providers can provide
information that can help prosecutors assess
victims' and witnesses' ability to testify,
particularly the ability of children, rape victims,
and elderly victims. When the person responsible
for handling child molestation cases for the
Alameda County (California) program is not sure
whether a child is able to withstand the rigors of
a trial, she makes an appointment to visit the
victim at the family's home. After talking with the
child, the staff member reports to the assistant
district attorney whether the child appears to know
the difference between a lie and the truth, is
articulate, needs to build rapport with the
prosecutor before the preliminary hearing, can sit
still without squirming or losing interest, and
requires (or would be embarrassed by) the presence
of family or program staff in the courtroom.

Program staff often act as a buffer between
prosecutors and victims and witnesses, just as they
do for police. Staff can prepare victims for
judicial decisions to release a defendant on bail
and can explain why a case was dismissed or why an
offender was acquitted or received a light
sentence. A staff member of Portland's Victims
Assistance Program was asked to console a murder
victim's father, who was requested to stay out of
the courtroom because the district attorney was
afraid the man might create a disturbance; the
investigating police officer had tried talk to the
father and only alienated him further. The program
staff person did the job, in part by promising to
sit in on the trial and keep the father informed of
what transpired.

Program staff can also assist prosecutors with
witness management activities (see the box on the
following page, "Witness Intimidation: How One
Victim Assistance Program Helps"). These include:

o providing transportation for witnesses who would
otherwise be unable or unwilling to appear;

o handling travel and accommodations for
out-of-town witnesses; and

o obtaining relief for victims and witnesses who
have been threatened by defendants or the
defendants' families.

Programs can furnish some or all of these services
to victims and witnesses in part as a benefit to
prosecutors. In the long run, however, district and
city attorney offices, like law enforcement
agencies, are best suited to provide a number of
these services, such as orienting witnesses to the
criminal justice system, placing selected witnesses
on call, and explaining potential or actual
unfavorable trial outcomes. For example, program
staff can begin by offering to counsel sexual
assault victims and witnesses; ultimately, however,
it is best if the district attorney trains
prosecutors in questioning rape victims and victims
of child molestation effectively. Program staff can
offer either to conduct the training or to secure
expert trainers from another organization.

Potential difficulties in working with prosecutors.
Some prosecutors share the same reservations that
some police have about working with a
victim/witness program, including suspicion of
outsiders and concerns about confidentiality and
case control. Much of this reluctance to cooperate
stems from the desire of many prosecutors to
exercise complete control over their cases--over
who talks with witnesses, who has access to files,
who contacts defense attorneys, and who confers
with judges and probation officers. Program staff
and prosecutors contacted in this study reported
that prosecutors may anticipate the following
troublesome scenarios:

o Victim/witness program staff will be watchdogs,
looking over the prosecutor's shoulder, ready to
criticize his or her handling of a case.

o Program staff may secure information from victims
and witnesses that is discoverable in court and
that may compromise a case.

o Staff may give the victim a false impression of
how strong the case is (because they hear only the
victim's side or are unaware of a legal problem
that weakens the case), whether the case will be
prosecuted, or what the sentence will be. An
embarrassed district attorney may then have to
explain why the case was plea-bargained, dismissed,
or lost, or why a light sentence was imposed.

o Program staff may urge prosecutors to pursue
cases that have insufficient evidence or that
present legal barriers to prosecution.

o Less often, staff may urge district attorneys to
dismiss certain cases--for example, those involving
a reluctant rape victim or a distraught victim of
child molestation--which the district attorney
feels should be prosecuted.

o Program staff may discuss confidential case
information with friends or, worse, with defense
attorneys or defendants.

Working with Judges

Victim assistance programs can also benefit from
judicial involvement.[13] For example, judges alone
can provide an opportunity to advocate on behalf of
victims at sentencing, allow program staff to
accompany troubled victims during court
proceedings, and expedite trials of cases involving
sensitive victims.

Program staff who work with judges assist them
principally by helping witnesses to maintain
emotional control in the courtroom. Many judges
dislike interruptions from witnesses who become
distraught on the stand and appreciate a program's
ability to facilitate the smooth operation of the
proceedings. A judge in Alameda County
(California), noticing that a witness was trembling
severely when taking the oath, allowed a program
staff member to sit next to her during the trial.
In cases where a witness has become too upset to
continue, judges in several jurisdictions have
called for a program staff member to come to the
courtroom, take the witness aside, and help her or
him regain composure so the trial can proceed.

Another service some programs provide to judges is
the preparation of victim impact statements and
recommendations for restitution. Some judges
request that program staff be present during
sentencing in important cases to provide impact
reports. In a case in which three rape victims were
too frightened to explain to the judge directly how
the crime had affected them, a staff member of the
Middlesex County (Massachusetts) Victim Witness
Service bureau had the women submit letters of
explanation; the judge also called the staff member
to testify as to how the crime had affected the
victims' personal and professional lives, and how
they feel the case should be disposed.

Establishing working relationships with the
judiciary can be difficult, however, in part
because the areas in which cooperation can be
useful are limited, and in part because judges tend
to avoid activities they consider an infringement
of their autonomy. After staff from one program
sent case disposition notices to clients, some of
the victims telephoned judges to complain about
what they thought were lenient sentences. Staff of
the same program also invited victims to attend
sentencing procedures. Both activities infuriated
several judges. Staff resolved the conflict by
handling victim complaints themselves, thereby
shielding judges from the ire of disappointed
victims. Detailed information was also included in
disposition letters, clarifying the ways in which
conditions can make a probation sentence a more
severe penalty than might otherwise appear to be
the case. This was not an ideal solution, however,
since some judges need to realize how important
their sentencing practices are to victims. Sitting
down and talking with the judiciary before
instituting practices that may affect judges is
essential to prevent misunderstandings and identify
areas of mutual benefit.

Working with Corrections

A victim's rights and needs within the criminal
justice system do not end once the offender has
been convicted and sentenced. Often victims want to
be kept informed of the offender's status in the
correctional system. Also, victims of an offender
who has been ordered to pay restitution will want
to obtain payment.

The correctional system has traditionally been
concerned primarily with the punishment or
rehabilitation of offenders; it has only been since
the late 1980's that both institutional and
community corrections have become significantly
involved in addressing victims' needs. Some in the
victim assistance field, in fact, consider
corrections the "last frontier" in the victim
assistance movement. Twenty-two States now have
constitutional amendments that guarantee victims'
rights; these amendments typically require
corrections systems to notify the victim of changes
in an offender's status in the system and to
provide the victim an opportunity to be present at
parole hearings. For instance, the Texas Crime
Victims' Bill of Rights ensures victims the right
to have a victim impact statement considered by the
parole board prior to any parole action, to be
notified about parole proceedings, and to submit
information for consideration by the Board of
Pardons and Paroles. The American Corrections
Association (ACA) and the American Probation and
Parole Association (APPA) have actively begun to
encourage agencies across the country to become
more responsive to victims' needs and to pursue
collaboration with already existing victim
assistance programs. The APPA, in a position
statement released in 1994, suggested the
appointment of a "victim liaison officer" to
provide victims with information, assistance, and
referrals to other agencies. The Office for Victims
of Crime, within the U.S. Department of Justice,
has funded two national corrections-based training
and technical assistance programs, operated by the
National Victim Center and the APPA. (See appendix
B for contact information.)

In general, corrections departments are now much
more likely to view victims, as well as offenders,
as part of their responsibility. Moreover, they are
more likely to realize that victim programs can
benefit their own staff members who may be
victimized within a correctional facility. As of
1991, 26 adult corrections agencies, 15 juvenile
corrections agencies, and 22 parole agencies had
representatives in victim services coalitions,
while 19 adult corrections agencies, 12 juvenile
corrections agencies, and 20 parole agencies were
providing direct assistance to crime victims.[15]
The California Youth Authority Office of Prevention
and Victim Services, for example, has three
full-time staff victim advocates but has also
trained over 80 personnel within the Youth
Authority in victim services and conducted classes
for offenders on the impact of crime on victims.
The director of the youth authority's Office of
Prevention and Victim Services considers this "web
of people" throughout the agency essential to the
provision of effective services to victims.

Approaches and activities. Victim assistance
program administrators who wish to network with the
corrections system (both adult and juvenile
branches), including departments of probation and
parole and correctional facilities themselves,[16]
can implement the approaches recommended above for
working with law enforcement, prosecutors, and
judges.

Victim advocates can assist corrections officials
with the provision of victim services through the
following activities:

o Develop a victim information brochure or fact
sheet that describes the corrections, probation, or
parole department (or all three) and explains the
services each can offer to victims. The brochure
may include other sources of assistance available
from correctional staff both within and outside the
department. The California Youth Authority
developed a crime victim information brochure,
available in both English and Spanish, that answers
common questions about the agency, parole, and
victims' rights, and provides resources for further
information and assistance. The California
Department of Corrections produced a videotape
concerning crime victims' rights within the
correctional system and distributed it to local
victim assistance programs and other community
service providers.

o Offer victim notification services to keep
victims informed of changes in the offender's
status within the system. Because of the
confidential nature of this information,
correctional staff will likely need to provide this
service themselves. However, victim assistance
program staff can assist the agency with setting up
the service--for example, by developing
notification forms or making the forms available to
victims. In the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, the Office of Victim Services operates
a Crime Victim Input and Notification Program which
notifies victims of all postsentencing release
decisions or outcomes, including work release
furlough, parole, pardon, community corrections,
placement, commitment to a mental health facility,
or escape. In one and a half years, 3,500 victims
have registered with the program. The Crime
Victims' Center of Chester County, Pennsylvania,
ensures that all victims of a personal injury crime
have the opportunity to register a request for
notification with the Chester County Prison.
Appendix H shows a sample letter that the
Washington (State) Department of Corrections'
Victim/Witness Notification Program uses to notify
crime victims of the offender's status.

o Provide support to victims during parole and
other hearings. The corrections agency may provide
a room in which crime victims can wait without
running the risk of seeing the offender or his or
her family. Victim advocates may accompany victims
to the hearings, help them prepare a victim impact
statement, and support the victim during
presentation of the statement. 

o Make arrangements for payment of restitution to
the victim. Restitution can be difficult to secure,
given many offenders' sparse resources.
Nevertheless, many correctional agencies have
developed effective methods of collection and
payment. 

o Conduct classes for offenders on the impact of
crime on victims. Some program staff believe that
classes can deter some offenders from future crime.
The California Youth Authority's Office of
Prevention and Victim Services has been conducting
these classes for over 10 years. Using a six-week
curriculum and videotapes of victims discussing
their losses, instructors review various types of
crimes and their impact on victims. Victims also
speak directly to the classes about the impact of
crime on their lives.

o Offer victim-offender mediation to victims who
want to speak with their offender face-to-face to
discuss the impact of the crime, restitution, and
other matters.[17] Victim-offender mediation, which
is also called victim-offender reconciliation
(VORP) and restorative justice, has gained
increasing popularity in recent years. It remains a
controversial practice, however, in part because of
the potential second trauma to which it may expose
the victim. Nonetheless, some victim service
providers report that mediation is beneficial to
both victims and offenders. (See chapter 6 for a
more detailed discussion of mediation services.)
Both parties must agree to the mediation, which
uses a trained mediator, before the meeting takes
place.

Potential difficulties in working with corrections.
Victim assistance program staff may encounter
resistance among corrections personnel because
consideration of victims' needs may be relatively
new to many correctional agencies and because
corrections staff may view offenders as the primary
recipients of their limited resources. Probation
officers, for instance, may be committed to the
rehabilitation of the offenders they supervise and
have little desire, time, or ability to work with
victims. Furthermore, the time that correctional
staff feel they can divert to victim services may
decrease as they come under increasing pressure to
provide more intensive supervision of offenders,
whose numbers have been increasing rapidly in the
last two decades.[18] The collection and payment of
restitution may be particularly difficult, owing
primarily, as noted above, to offenders' lack of
money, but also because of the low priority that
corrections staff may be willing to assign to
restitution when faced with other pressing
responsibilities.[19]

Victim program staff may encounter special
difficulty in working with corrections to assist
victims of juvenile offenders. Some offender
information, such as notification of status, is
considered confidential in the case of juvenile
offenders. Moreover, most of the statutes that
protect crime victims' rights do not extend to
victims of juvenile crime.[20] Because of these
barriers, the American Correctional Association
Victims Committee has recommended that victims'
rights be the same regardless of the age of the
offender. Given the rise in violent juvenile crime
in recent years--and the expected continuation of
this trend--the issue of victims' rights in these
cases may become an increasing problem for victim
assistance programs.

Finally, collaboration with corrections may be
constrained by the fear and mistrust many victims
feel toward the correctional system, which they may
view as threatening and uncaring because offenders
are often released on parole or work furlough after
serving only a portion of their sentence. Even
victim advocates within the correctional system may
be perceived as being on the offender's side.
Correctional staff and victim advocates alike must
be able to explain to the victim their
responsibility under the law to respect offenders'
rights as well as victims' rights.

Addressing Potential Conflicts of Interest in
Working With Justice Agencies

For the most part, victim service providers have
found that serving victims and witnesses
simultaneously benefits the criminal justice
system. However, there are potential conflicts
between doing what is in the victim's best interest
and processing cases successfully.

The most frequent dissension occurs with
prosecutors. As noted above, program staff
sometimes disagree with prosecutors about whether
to prosecute a case. A city attorney in Minneapolis
(Minnesota) refused to file charges in a case in
which a paranoid schizophrenic woman had been
assaulted, because he felt she would not be a
credible witness in court; program staff arranged
to have a complaint issued, and because it then
appeared that the case would go forward, the
defendant confessed. In Alameda County
(California), Victim/Witness Assistance Division
staff occasionally differ with prosecutors
regarding the ability of mentally retarded victims
and children to testify. 

Defense attorneys may also present obstacles to
victim services. For instance, when the Colorado
Springs (Colorado) Police Department Victim/Witness
Office was first established, defense attorneys
occasionally accused its staff of preparing
witnesses for testifying and tried to keep
advocates out of the courtroom. Over time, such
problems have become less frequent, in part because
the program coordinator instructs her staff to be
fully cooperative and professional with the
attorneys and to refrain from negative comments
about them.

A second area in which conflict may arise with
prosecutors is in terms of sentencing severity,
with victim services providers sometimes hoping for
a stronger sentence than district attorneys are
prepared to seek. Some program staff oppose pleas
bargains in which no jail time is included and
disagree with reductions in charges that will
result in relatively mild punishment.

Some victim services providers have also
experienced conflicts with judges and defense
attorneys. In one case, a victim advocate was
sitting in court with the mother of a homicide
victim. The defense attorney noticed the mother
grabbing the advocate's hand while listening to
graphic testimony and moved for a mistrial. Victim
services providers suggest that continued education
for criminal justice officials on the role of
victim advocates may prevent such conflicts.

Some disagreements with criminal justice system
personnel are inevitable for program staff who
engage in victim advocacy. Ultimately, the program
is intended to serve victims and witnesses. If
programs do engage in victim advocacy, they may
need to be guided by certain limitations spelled
out in criminal justice policy and procedures
manuals. While ensuring the goodwill and
cooperation of police and prosecutors will on
occasion require accommodating their concerns and
interests, program staff should be able to draw the
line when they feel a client's problem is too
important to be sacrificed for expediency. The
program director can set the example of making
victim and witness needs the highest priority and
be receptive to discussing such dilemmas with the
staff objectively and nonjudgmentally. In most
cases, it is best if staff explain candidly and
carefully their strong desire to act in a manner
that may be contrary to the preferences of other
criminal justice professionals.

Working With Social Service Organizations and
Community and Support Groups

Nearly all programs must gain the cooperation of
other community resources that can provide services
that the program itself does not furnish. Alameda
County (California) program staff, for example,
routinely refer victims and witnesses to other
programs and organizations, most frequently to
private counseling and therapy groups, shelters,
and government social service agencies such as the
welfare department and worker's compensation
agency. It also makes referrals for legal services
related to divorce, child custody, restraining
orders, and administrative matters such as
intervention with the social security system. Other
programs have developed networking ties with
funeral directors, doctors, dentists, other medical
providers, and professional associations.

With the rapid development of victim assistance
programs, statewide victim services networks have
developed, enabling victim services providers to
share training, technical assistance, and support,
and to join in efforts to encourage legislative and
community efforts to help victims.[21] Joining a
State network can be particularly useful for new
programs. The victim assistance coordinator for the
Colorado State Patrol obtained assistance from
other members of the Colorado Organization for
Victim Assistance in the development of brochures
and other program materials. She also has found the
network helpful for gaining an entree with other
service providers. Victim services providers with
Tender Hearts, Inc., a victim service program
located on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in
North Dakota, work closely with the Multi-Agency
for Non-Violent Families in North and South Dakota,
which includes local and tribal police, schools,
social workers, and other tribal programs.

Many victim services providers make referrals to
self-help groups such as Parents United (for
parental child abusers), Parents of Murdered
Children, and Al-Anon (for spouses of alcoholics).
Church groups, many of which have become
increasingly active and organized in providing
assistance to crime victims, can be valuable
sources for practical assistance such as emergency
food and shelter.[22]

Program staff are increasingly working with
churches, volunteer agencies, and especially,
schools in violence prevention efforts. The
director of the Essex County (Massachusetts)
Victim/Witness Assistance Program, based in the
district attorney's office, supervises the office's
violence prevention program coordinator. The
coordinator organizes collaborative efforts, such
as conferences and presentations on violence
prevention, among the Victim/Witness Program staff;
other staff within the district attorney's office;
parents and staff of community agencies,
businesses, and other organizations, and local
schools. Violence prevention is also another area
in which victim assistance programs, in conjunction
with community-based programs, can collaborate with
community policing efforts to solve community
problems.

Approaches to Working With Social Service and Other
Organizations

Most program staff have found it helpful to contact
other organizations by telephone or (preferably) in
person. During these calls or meetings, program
staff can inform each other of their current
activities to avoid duplication of effort.

Many victim services providers have developed and
maintained ties with social service organizations
by setting up or joining coalitions and task forces
of community groups that coordinate services for a
particular kind of victim--for example, battered
women, sexual assault victims, or child victims
(see box "Working With Community Agencies To Help
Child Abuse Victims"). In addition, program staff
sometimes join the board or attend the meetings of
other local social service groups, where they can
exchange information with their colleagues and
become familiar with each other. The director of
the Victim Witness Assistance Program in Suffolk
County (Massachusetts) sits on the board of the
National Network of Children's Advocacy Centers. A
supervisor with the Alameda County (California)
Victim/Witness Division is a board member of the
local chapter of Families of Homicide Victims.

By meeting a group's representative at board or
task force meetings, or just by having coffee or
lunch together, program administrators may be able
to cut through red tape in the future when the
agency's assistance is needed for a victim or
witness. Alameda County (California) Victim/Witness
Assistance Division staff find it useful to attend
regular meetings of local cultural organizations
(e.g., Hispanic and Southeast Asian groups) and
networks of specialized victim services providers
(e.g., agencies that work with victims of sexual
assault, domestic violence, or child abuse). The
director of the program serves on the California
Mothers Against Drunk Driving advisory council, and
one of his staff members is on the board of a local
shelter. Victim assistance program personnel are
also better able to assess a group's
appropriateness for referrals if they have held
in-person meetings rather than relying on telephone
contacts or promotional literature. Alameda County
program staff interview counselors who ask to be
placed on its referral list to determine what kinds
of victims they prefer to work with and to appraise
their ability and skills.

It is also important that program staff send only
those victims and witnesses to outside groups who
meet the organizations' eligibility criteria. This
helps maintain the victim assistance program's
credibility and cultivates goodwill. Alameda County
program staff found that, if they carefully
screened the women they sent to local shelters,
their referrals would be accepted when other groups
were having difficulty finding bed space. The State
of California requires the victim assistance
programs it funds to develop written memorandums of
understanding with agencies with which they work,
outlining the services that each will provide. The
director of the Alameda County program has found
that these memos help to build goodwill among
agencies and to ensure that one service provider
does not interfere with or overlap the services of
another provider.

Ultimately, building and maintaining good
relationships with social service agencies and
groups in the community requires open
communication, resourcefulness, and hard work.
Alameda County program staff enlisted the support
of a rape crisis center that was hostile to the
criminal justice system by hiring a person
half-time who had helped found the center and was
still a volunteer with it. On another occasion, a
staff member went to a private child care clinic to
secure day care and counseling for a young Asian
victim and was told that the clinic needed a letter
from the Chinese Community Center, verifying that
the child needed immediate care. The staff member
secured the letter, returned it to the child care
clinic, and obtained the services for the child.

By accepting referrals from other social service
agencies, victim services providers gain access to
clients they might otherwise be unable to reach,
while at the same time doing a favor for other
human services providers that may be reciprocated
in the future.

o Domestic violence shelters in Portland (Oregon)
refer victims to the Victims Assistance Program for
possible prosecution of the abuse and for court
orientation; the shelters accept referrals from the
program of women who need counseling and shelter. 

o Scottsdale Aizona's Police Crisis Intervention
Unit has helped a local home for runaway girls on
several occasions. When three girls ran away and
got into an accident in a stolen car, the home
called a crisis unit worker to find out what
happened; the program staff member called a police
contact and then called the home back in ten
minutes with all the details of the case. As a
result of such assistance, the home later waived
its usual waiting requirements to accept a girl
that the program needed to place immediately
because she was being molested by her father.

More generally, social service agencies are usually
delighted to have a contact in the district
attorney's office or police department whom they
can call for information regarding their clients'
problems with the criminal justice system.
Victim/witness programs are often well positioned
to serve as this point of contact. In Suffolk
County, Massachusetts, for example, social workers
and other professionals usually worked with the
district attorney's office on child abuse
allegations, but they felt that coordination among
the agencies involved could be improved. The
office's victim witness program director now
coordinates a multidisciplinary team approach to
child abuse cases. (See box, "Working With
Community Agencies To Help Child Abuse Victims.")

Many victim services providers also assist social
service agencies by providing staff training in how
to deal with victims of crime, including
specialized sessions on battered women and rape
victims. A program staff member and a human
services provider may conduct joint training
sessions, which staff from both organizations
attend. In this manner, program staff can also help
social service organizations to meet the needs of
crime victims. Suffolk County's (Massachusetts)
Victim Witness Assistance Program, for example,
coordinates training seminars for criminal justice,
health, and social service agencies on issues
related to child victimization and domestic
violence. Northwest Victim Services in Philadelphia
(Pennsylvania) conducts training on victimization
and crime prevention at local hospitals and for
senior citizen, church, and other community groups.
Program staff recently began training 911 operators
on how to respond more effectively and sensitively
to crime victims. As part of the training, a
volunteer who had been raped describes the
sensitive response of the 911 operator with whom
she spoke.

Difficulties in Networking With Social Service
Organizations 

The most serious difficulty in establishing a
social service resource network is identifying the
agencies and organizations that provide the
services that victims and witnesses need. In many
jurisdictions there is a shortage of precisely
those services that victim assistance programs are
typically unable to furnish, such as food, shelter,
financial aid, and free or inexpensive long-term
counseling services.

Many program staff also run into red tape in
referring victims and witnesses to certain agencies
for assistance. Some agency staff feel that they
are already doing the best job they can; as a
result, they may interpret attempts by a victim
assistance program to streamline relations as an
effort to get them to be more responsive than they
feel is possible.

If their program is sponsored by a district
attorney's office or a law enforcement agency,
victim services providers may be suspected by other
human services providers of placing the interests
of "the system" over those of victims. Sometimes
these conflicts are unavoidable. A rape crisis
center in one city wanted a sexual assault case
prosecuted, but a polygraph suggested that the
victim had lied and the defendant had not; program
staff could not ethically reveal this information,
however, as an explanation for why they would not
urge the district attorney to pursue the case,
leaving center staff to conclude that the program
was biased.

Some victim services providers experience conflict
when grassroots organizations regard them as
newcomers invading their territory with the
advantage of government funding. In addition,
grassroots groups may see a publicly funded program
as perpetuating the problems it is purportedly
trying to correct--such as rape and spousal abuse--
by failing to work for social change to address the
root causes of these injustices.

Working With Schools

In recent years, colleges, high schools, and
elementary schools have become increasingly
involved in crime prevention efforts and in
providing services to students who become crime
victims, owing in part to the rise in the number of
crimes committed on school grounds and the public's
enhanced access to this information. Between 1987
and 1992, there was a nearly 25 percent increase in
the number of juvenile victims of violent
crime.[24] The Student Right To Know Act of 1991
mandated that schools receiving Federal funding
report crime rates to Federal authorities, and the
Campus Sexual Assault Victim Bill of Rights of 1992
required colleges to have formal policies for
addressing sexual assault on campus and to notify
victims of their rights and available services.

In light of increased crime against students and
efforts by many schools to help these victims,
victim assistance program staff may wish to network
with schools in the following ways:

o Provide direct assistance to student crime
victims and witnesses. Victim assistance program
staff can provide counseling, crisis intervention,
or other forms of assistance to victimized students
and witnesses. As discussed elsewhere in this
report, when a University of Arizona professor was
killed, Pima County Victim Witness Program staff
conducted nine critical incident debriefings
(providing information, counseling, and support)
for faculty and students over the course of five
days. Staff of the same program also worked with
students at a high school where a student had held
a class hostage. Other victim services providers
may be able to provide assistance to students on a
smaller scale--for instance, by helping individual
students whom the school has been encouraged to
refer to the program.

o Provide training to students, teachers, and
school officials. Educating students, teachers, and
administrators about victimization, crime
prevention, and related topics can enable schools
themselves to address victimization more
effectively and can also generate referrals for the
program. Staff of the Victim/Witness Office in the
Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department, for
example, make many personal safety presentations in
local schools and train a student victim assistance
team at Colorado College. Program staff have also
designed curricula for courses on personal safety
and other crime prevention and victimization issues
and have worked with teachers on violence
prevention techniques and conflict management. The
Pima County (Arizona) program sponsored a victims'
rights poster and essay contest in the Tucson
school system to raise victim awareness. The
Citizens Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St.
Paul (Minnesota) conducts outreach to high school
students in collaboration with crime prevention
programs. Staff make a one-hour presentation on
victim issues to nearly every ninth grade social
studies class in the St. Paul school system and
collaborate with other victim services programs in
similar educational efforts in Minneapolis. Victim
services providers may want to look into
collaborating with medical schools and students,
many of whom are taking an increased interest in
violence prevention, particularly among youth. Law
schools may be interested in collaborating with
victim assistance programs on teaching courses that
address victim issues, providing a valuable
opportunity for staff to establish contacts,
recruit volunteers, and train upcoming lawyers.

o Recruit volunteers from schools, particularly
undergraduate and graduate interns. Criminal
justice, social work, and other students may be
interested in volunteering with a victim assistance
program to gain experience or possibly school
credit. Program administrators may wish to contact
campus volunteer centers or departments to arrange
collaboration on either a formal or informal basis.
The Suffolk County victim witness program in
Massachusetts, for example, offers about 10 student
internships each semester for undergraduate and
graduate students. The coordinator of the Colorado
Springs (Colorado) victim assistance program finds
that the several student interns that she has on
staff at any one time are essential to program
effectiveness and are almost always willing to do
extra work. She recruits volunteers while making
presentations at colleges on victimization,
particularly sexual assault.

Developing and maintaining good relationships with
law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices,
judges, the correctional system, social welfare
organizations, schools, and other community groups
are essential if a victim assistance program is to
be an effective advocate for victims and witnesses.
Cooperation is also indispensable because these
other groups may control access to clients or have
resources for helping victims and witnesses that
program staff themselves cannot develop. Building
effective working relationships with other groups
thus serves the dual function of mitigating the
negative impact of criminal acts on the victim or
witness and capitalizing on the availability of
other resources in the community. In addition, such
efforts can serve as a first step toward
encouraging criminal justice and social service
agencies to meet victim and witness needs more
effectively.

Endnotes

1. Marlene Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and
Fundamentals (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, 1993).

2. Joel Epstein and Stacia Langenbahn, The Criminal
Justice and Community Response to Rape, Issues and
Practices (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1994).

3. Epstein and Langenbahn, The Criminal Justice and
Community Response to Rape, 30.

4. See Kerry Healey, Victim and Witness
Intimidation: New Developments and Emerging
Responses, Research in Action (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, October 1995); Peter Finn and Kerry
Healey, Preventing Witness Intimidation: A
Practical Guide, Issues and Practices (Washington,
D : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, forthcoming); and Claire Johnson,
Barbara Webster, and Edward Connors, Prosecuting
Gangs: A National Assessment, Research in Brief
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1995).

5. Harry O'Reilly, "Victim/Witness Services: The
Police Perspective," Victim/Witness Programs: Human
Services of the 80s, ed. Emilio C. Viano
(Washington, D.C. : Visage Press, 1980), 14-35; Ahrens
et al., "Law Enforcement and Victim Services," 21;
Eleanor Chelimsky, "Serving Victims: Agency
Incentives and Individual Needs," Evaluating Victim
Services, ed. Susan Salasin (Beverly Hills,
California: Sage Publications, 1981), 86; John
Hollister Stein, "Better Services for Crime
Victims: A Prescriptive Package" (Washington, D.C. :
Blackstone Institute, 1977), 106.

6. For an analysis of the factors that contribute
to the formation of police attitudes, see William
A. Westley, Violence and the Police (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1970); Jerome H.
Skolnick, Justice Without Trial (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1966); John Van Maanen, "Working
the Street: A Development View of Police Behavior,"
The Potential for Reform of Criminal Justice, ed.
Herbert Jacob (Beverly Hills, California: Sage
Publications, 1974).

7. Ahrens, et al., "Law Enforcement and Victim
Services," 32-33, 47-48.

8. Arthur D. Little, "Final Evaluation Report:
Commission of Victim Witness Assistance"
(Washington, D.C. : Arthur D. Little, 1977), 43.

9. For example, R.F. Kidd and E.F. Chayet, "Why Do
Victims Fail To Report? The Psychology of Criminal
Victimization," Journal of Social Issues, 40
(1984), 39-50; D. Kilpatrick, et al., The
Psychological Impact of Crime: A Study of Randomly
Surveyed Crime Victims (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1983).

10. Arthur D. Little, "Final Evaluation Report,"
43.

11. Ibid., 2.

12. For a more complete discussion of how judges
can work with a victim assistance program, see
Peter Finn, "Collaboration Between the Judiciary
and Victim-Witness Assistance Programs," Judicature
69 (4): 192-198; also, Focus on the Future: A
Systems Approach to Prosecution and Victim
Assistance: A Training and Resource Manual
(Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center,
1994).

13. Victoria O'Brien, Civil Legal Remedies for
Crime Victims, Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, Office
for Victims of Crime, December 1992), 9.

14. Healey, Victim and Witness Intimidation, Finn
and Healey, Preventing Witness Intimidation.

15. "Crime Victims and Corrections," National
Victim Center Infolink at a Glance 1 (10): 1.

16. "Incorporating Victim Services," Perspectives,
Special Issue, 18, no. 3 (American Probation and
Parole Association, 1994); P. Horner and G.L.
Ingram, "Victims and Witnesses: The Newest
Constituency, the Newest Challenge," Federal
Prisons Journal, 1, no. 3 (Spring 1990).

17. Mark Umbreit, Victim Meets Offender: The Impact
of Restorative Justice and Mediation (Monsey, New
York: Willow Tree Press, 1994).

18. Tracy Godwin, "An Introduction to the
Management and Collection of Restitution,"
Perspectives, Special Issue, 18, no. 3 (American
Probation and Parole Association, 1994), 41.

19. Report and Recommendations on Victims of
Juvenile Crime" (Laurel, Maryland: American
Correctional Association, August 1994).

20. Gordon Basemore, "Developing a Victim
Orientation for Community Corrections: A
Restorative Justice Paradigm and a Balance
Mission," Perspectives, Special Issue, 18, no. 3
(American Probation and Parole Association, 1994),
19.

21. Young, Victim Assistance, 333.

22. For a thorough presentation of the ways in
which clergy can provide support and assistance to
crime victims, see David Delaplane and Anne
Delaplane, Victims: A Manual for Clergy and
Congregations, 3rd ed. (Sacramento, California: The
Spiritual Dimension in Victim Services, n.d.).

23. For a more detailed discussion of the
investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse
cases, see Debra Whitcomb, When the Victim Is a
Child, Issues and Practices, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.
: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, March 1992).

24. Joseph Moone, Juvenile Victimization: 1987-
1992, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Fact Sheet No. 17 (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, June 1994), 1.
_____________________________________________

Key Points

o Developing effective relationships with other
organizations is one of the most important initial
activities that staff at new programs undertake,
and is an ongoing priority for staff of established
programs.

o Program staff should consider working with each
component of the criminal justice system and with
social service and community organizations,
schools, victim support groups, and other community
organizations that serve victims. 

o By developing close working relationships with a
network of relevant organizations, victim
assistance programs can more easily accomplish
their goals. 

o Developing extensive relationships with a network
of organizations has become more commonplace in
recent years. 

o The maintenance of effective working
relationships with other organizations requires
continuous monitoring; program staff should never
take networks for granted.

o It is important that program staff explain what
they can and cannot provide to other organizations
and that they deliver on their promises.

o Working with other organizations will almost
always involve obstacles. Programs may encounter
resistance from other groups (for example, because
of perceived interference or competition for
funding) and experience conflicts (for example,
over the proper handling of a criminal procedure).
Program staff need to anticipate these barriers and
develop strategies for dealing with them.[1]

_______________________________________________

Guidelines for Developing Working Relationships 
With Other Organizations

It is important that program planners and staff
keep five general considerations in mind as they
develop and maintain their networks.

1. It is not necessary to secure the cooperation of
all--or even the majority--of the individual police
officers, prosecutors, or social workers in an
agency in order to develop a constructive working
relationship with that organization. Also, the
degree of cooperation with each person in the
agency does not need to be uniformly high.
Typically, some prosecutors work frequently with
the staff; many work with them only occasionally;
and a few never interact with them.

2. It is usually helpful to identify key
individuals in an organization--not necessarily
only supervisors--who have the respect of their
colleagues, and to work hard to gain their support
in the hope that they will recommend the program to
other personnel. In establishing conflict
resolution classes for high school teachers, the
coordinator of the Colorado Springs, Colorado
Police Department's Victim/Witness Office
frequently bypassed administrators in favor of
approaching individual teachers who had already
expressed interest in the program.

3. Networks are never established once and for all.
They require continuous monitoring and adjustment
as organizations change their objectives, services,
or staff.

4. Approaches that serve to establish cooperation
will not necessarily maintain good relations. Some
program staff begin by responding to police
requests for assistance with nonvictims in order to
build a working relationship with law enforcement
agencies but are later compelled by limited
resources to restrict their service to bona fide
crime victims. Even the Scottsdale (Arizona) Police
Crisis Intervention Unit, sponsored by the police
department, eventually had to turn down requests
from officers to help with drunk and disorderly
cases.

5. The successful building of relationships
requires reliability, accessibility, and
accommodation.

Reliability: program staff need to do what they say
they will do. 

Accessibility: it is best if staff are available
immediately, and at all hours, to answer requests
for help, at least in the initial stages of a
program.

Accommodation: wear appropriate attire, do not
promote points of view that may be interpreted as
politically or socially unacceptable, and bend
program rules at times to handle referrals that may
not be within a program's mandate, such as victims
of automobile accidents and attempted suicides.

--------------------

Collaborating with Community Policing Efforts 
in Philadelphia and Los Angeles

Policing in many cities and counties has changed
dramatically in the last decade with the
implementation of community policing. Some
departments have adopted a few components of the
philosophy, while others have based a total
departmental reorganization of structure,
management, and service delivery on the principles
of community policing. Law enforcement agencies
operating on the basis of community policing may be
better equipped and more likely to address the
needs of crime victims and witnesses.

Northwest Victim Services, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

Victim assistance program personnel can capitalize
on the movement toward community policing by
collaborating with law enforcement officers
dedicated to the ideals and strategies of community
policing. One of the Philadelphia Police
Department's first steps toward community policing
was the establishment in 1987 of a network of
victim assistance police officers (VAO's), crime
prevention officers, and community relations
officers assigned to individual districts. Staff of
Northwest Victim Services, a private, nonprofit
agency that provides services throughout four
districts in the northwest part of the city, work
closely with the VAO assigned to each of these
districts (see appendix A for contact information).
For instance, they conduct home visits to victims
of crime together, hold joint meetings with other
service organizations in the area or with
neighborhood residents, and share information. When
police in one district realized that a scam was
operating in their area, they notified victim
assistance staff, who in turn developed public
service announcements and alerted police in nearby
districts to the problem.

Although the VAO's may be called off their beat to
attend to other duties, the police department tries
to ensure that the officers have time to attend to
victim services in the district to which they were
assigned. In addition to working directly with the
VAO's and other officers assigned to the four
districts, program staff train all new northwest
police officers regarding victim assistance
services. 

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Victim
Services

The Los Angeles County Victim Witness Assistance
Program, which operates out of the district
attorney's office, works closely with several law
enforcement agencies that have adopted community
policing (see appendix A for contact information).
For example, the director of the program assigned
victim advocates to specific Los Angeles Police
Department patrol areas in south central Los
Angeles. The advocates frequently make
presentations to the officers, accompany them on
their beats, and accept referrals from them. 

The program also operates an intervention service
for minority youth at risk for becoming involved in
the criminal justice system. When the Inglewood
Police Department implemented community policing,
community policing officers were assigned to work
with the Victim Witness Assistance Program's
intervention for high-risk youth. Officers stop by
the location where intervention services are
provided to talk with youth and create a positive
relationship between youth and law enforcement. In
addition, the program director sits on a task force
charged with developing a victim component of
community-based policing statewide, looking at ways
to train officers regarding victims issues and
resources.

___________________________________________

Secure the Support of the Chief Prosecutor

It is especially important to secure the active
support of the chief prosecutor. An evaluation of
eight programs sponsored by district attorneys
concluded that the most important factor in making
victim assistance units viable and productive was
the support and interest of the district attorney:
"If the victim/ witness effort is clearly one of
his priorities and he contributes both moral and
organizational support, its chances of success are
greatly increased. His support alone will not make
it go . . . but, absent that support, the chances
of its success are virtually non-existent."[8]
_______________________________________

Helping Victims Pursue Civil Litigation

An emerging issue in the field of victim assistance
is victims' pursuit of civil litigation as a means
of recovering losses from a crime. Certain types of
victims, such as abused women and children, and
victims of campus and bias crime, have in
particular been obtaining civil relief in recent
years.[11] Victim advocates have traditionally
helped victims obtain compensation and restitution
but are only now beginning to work with victims to
help facilitate civil recoveries.

Victim assistance program staff tread on uncertain
ground in their involvement with civil litigation
efforts because of the complexity and
technicalities involved in the process, the chances
of failure and hence revictimization, and possible
legal limits to their efforts (particularly if they
are based in the district attorney's office).
However, they typically can help victims navigate
the process by informing them about their legal
rights and options, and about legal resources in
the community. A victim advocate can assist a
victim in assessing his or her potential for
recovering losses in a civil suit and review the
civil litigation process and the factors to
consider in choosing an attorney. 

The decision to pursue civil litigation and the
choice of attorney should be left entirely up to
the victim. Also, victim advocates should be
careful not to provide specific legal advice
themselves and to investigate any prohibitions
against their making referrals to specific
attorneys.[12] If the victim does want to sue the
offender for damages, the victim advocate can
assist the victim and his or her attorney with the
collection and presentation of facts relevant to
the case. 

To provide effective services in the area of civil
litigation, victim assistance staff must learn
about the process and the circumstances that make
it worth pursuing. 

o The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), within the
U.S. Department of Justice, has produced a number
of resources on legal remedies for crime victims
that advocates may find useful, including Civil
Legal Remedies for Crime Victims (an OVC bulletin)
and "Legal Remedies for Crime Victims Against
Perpetrators: Basic Principles: A New Dimension in
Victim Advocacy," a conference training manual and
curriculum. Contact the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service at (800) 851-3420 for information
on how to obtain these and other relevant
materials.

o "The Attorney's Victim Assistance Manual: A Guide
to the Legal Issues Confronting Victims of Crime
and Victim Service Providers," a 1987 publication
of the American Bar Association, also may be
useful. Call (312) 988-5000 to obtain this
publication. 

o Contacts with attorneys and attorney groups can
also provide valuable information on civil
litigation.

______________________________________________

Witness Intimidation: How One Victim Assistance
Program Helps

Reported cases of victim and witness intimidation
have increased in number and severity in recent
years, particularly in cases of gang crimes.
Threats of retaliation and actual physical violence
intimidate many victims and witnesses into not
cooperating with criminal proceedings. Intimidation
represents another disturbing example of "second
victimization" that many victims suffer. In some
States, witness intimidation is now a crime in and
of itself.[14] 

Law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges
have traditionally responded to witness
intimidation through such methods as warnings to
the intimidators, prosecution of intimidation
attempts, and the Federal Witness Protection
Program. However, these strategies are often
insufficient. Victim assistance programs can play
an integral role in addressing victim and witness
intimidation by working closely with the rest of
the criminal justice system as well as with
community groups. Traditional victim services, such
as accompanying a witness to court and providing
counseling, can help encourage an intimidated
victim or witness to press charges or testify. 

Some victim service providers are beginning to make
special efforts to address intimidation. The
director of the Clark County Victim Witness
Assistance Center in Nevada, based out of the
district attorney's office, acts as a case manager
for intimidated victims and witnesses, assessing
their need for protection and lining up needed
services from her own program, the police or
prosecutor, or other sources (see appendix A for
contact information). She has eight full-time staff
but handles intimidation cases herself. She accepts
referrals only from police and prosecutors.
(However, all witnesses receive a booklet
suggesting that they notify authorities if they are
being intimidated.)

After the preliminary hearing, she suggests that
the witness stay with family or friends in another
location and offers financial assistance for
transportation. She requires that the witness keep
in touch, and she calls the family or friends to
verify that they will accept the witness.
Occasionally she calls the local police department
to verify their address. Although this is the least
accepted strategy, the director does relocate an
average of six gang-related witnesses each year.
The director also makes arrangements for
intimidated witnesses to stay in a motel for a few
nights or, for witnesses in public housing, for one
or two weeks, while she attempts to obtain
transitional housing for them through the city and
county public housing authority. In such cases, she
notifies the shift sergeant and the police gang
detail in the motel's jurisdiction so that they
will be aware of the likely problem if they are
called to the motel later. By doing ride-alongs
with officers and doing occasional
nonvictim-related work for them, the program
director has developed a good rapport with them.
Also, the program director is available by beeper
to police, prosecutors, and selected witnesses on a
24-hour basis. For instance, one night the police
called her for assistance after they learned that
defendants had threatened to firebomb the house of
the victim's family. The director moved the family
twice during the night and by morning was able to
arrange for them to stay in a location out of town.

The director works with the prosecutor or with law
enforcement officers to provide an escort for the
witness, after testifying on the first floor of the
courthouse, to the program's office on the fifth
floor. In this way, the witness does not have to
wait in a part of the courthouse where he or she
might be subjected to further intimidation. There
are limits to what program staff will do, however,
owing to the danger inherent in intimidation cases.
Protection remains the responsibility of the
district attorney's office. Program staff do not
leave the courthouse with intimidated witnesses but
instead arrange for the investigating district
attorney to provide transportation to wherever the
witness is staying. The director provides or
arranges for assistance in about four gang-related
cases per month. Funding for the program's witness
intimidation services comes largely from the county
and donations. The program spends about $8,000 to
$10,000 per year on witness intimidation expenses.

_______________________________________________

Establishing Support Groups: One Victim 
Assistance Program's Efforts

In addition to referring victims to support groups,
staff of some programs have set up support groups
on their own. Northwest Victim Services in
Philadelphia, for example, has for five years been
running a support group for elderly female crime
victims. Groups of 12 to 15 women meet on a weekly
basis at a local senior center, providing support
to one another and listening to occasional guest
speakers on topics of concern. A program staff
member facilitates the discussions. Northwest
Victim Services initially collaborated with the
Supportive Older Women's Network, a general support
group in the area, in running the victims group,
but program staff eventually assumed full
responsibility for coordination. Not all victims
may need or want to join a support group, however.
Based on victims' reported desire for some sort of
support network, a social work student intern with
Northwest Victim Services developed a support group
for general crime victims in the northwest area of
the city. Several facilitators were trained, and
victims who had received assistance from Northwest
Victim Services were notified of the support group.
Yet, despite the reported need, few victims have
attended these meetings. It is unclear why
attendance was low, but staff intend to publicize
the support groups better. 
________________________________________________

Working With Community Agencies 
To Help Child Abuse Victims

Some victim services providers have found it
helpful to network with other social service
providers and community groups to address the needs
of particular types of crime victims. The
Victim/Witness Assistance Program based in the
Suffolk County (Massachusetts) District Attorney's
Office operates a child abuse unit that, using
staff from a variety of local agencies, takes a
multidisciplinary approach to the investigation of
child abuse allegations, with the intent of
minimizing the time and trauma involved[23] (see
appendix A for contact information). For instance,
rather than subjecting the child to multiple
interviews in various locations concerning the
alleged abuse, the victim office's child interview
specialist conducts one interview with the child in
a room near the courthouse with a two-way mirror.
Other professionals--including representatives of
the district attorney's office and the police
department, medical and mental health
professionals, and a social worker--can watch and
listen to the interview. They can use a hearing
device worn by the child interview specialist to
prompt the specialist with questions they would
like the child to answer. The interview is
videotaped--which, the program director reports,
has led to an increase in the number of
prosecutions and guilty pleas due to the perceived
strength of the prosecutor's case. Following the
interview, the multidisciplinary team meets to
discuss the results and develop appropriate plans
for the investigation and prosecution of the case
and the care of the child. The team usually
reconvenes at a later date to conduct a case
review.

The director of the Victim/Witness Assistance
program noted that her experience as a victim
advocate and other agencies' desire for a "breath
of fresh air" in the handling of child abuse cases
facilitated the development of a multidisciplinary
team approach. Because the agencies already
interacted with the district attorney's office on
child abuse cases, the Victim/Witness office seemed
like a natural place to centralize the team
approach. The office conducts outreach to
hospitals, mental health agencies, schools, day
care centers, church groups, and other community
groups to encourage referrals and cooperation. The
agencies also participate together in training
sessions coordinated by the office. Each agency
that participates in the child abuse unit assigns
staff to the unit's investigations on a rotating
basis.

Friction sometimes occurs when agency
representatives have different opinions regarding
the best way to handle a case. Usually, however,
the agency with the final mandate on a particular
decision makes the final decision (e.g., the
district attorney's office decides whether to
prosecute, or the child protective services social
worker decides whether to remove the child from the
home).

The Victim/Witness office is planning to expand
this approach to child witnesses of homicide and
severe cases of domestic violence. The program is
in the process of formalizing the approach by
developing a nonprofit Children's Advocacy Center
of Suffolk County.

There is a growing number of similar programs. Many
receive training, technical assistance, and
networking opportunities provided by the National
Network of Children's Advocacy Centers, founded in
1987. Besides facilitating a single
multidisciplinary interview of child victims, the
centers provide a single location where children
can receive all needed social, medical, and mental
health services (see appendix A for contact
information).

____________________

Frequently Contacted Social Service and Other
Agencies

Counseling services

o private counseling services

o mental health agencies

o self-help groups

o women's groups

o churches

o rape crisis centers

Domestic violence shelters

Community crime prevention groups

Elderly and child abuse programs

Government social service agencies

o public welfare

o social security

o Medicaid/Medicare

o worker's compensation

o social workers

o legal aid services

Emergency food and financial aid services

Support groups

Health centers

--------------------

"What we're finding is that paying attention to
victimization helps us to build neighborhoods back.
If people feel the system has abandoned them, then
you don't get the same level of cooperation."

--Edward McLaughlin, Chief Inspector, Philadelphia
Police Department

--------------------

Chapter 5
Outreach and Case Processing
__________________________________________________

Key Points

o Although media coverage of crime victimization
makes it seem as if identifying victims and
witnesses would require almost no effort, program
staff need to actively ensure that they are
reaching all eligible clients.

o It is important that program staff use a variety
of strategies for identifying potential clients.
Generally, crime victims can be identified by

--examining reports and records from agencies in
the criminal justice system,

--accepting referrals from other agencies and
groups,

--generating self-referrals by publicizing the
program, and

--responding to calls for on-the-scene assistance.

o In addition to mailings and telephone calls,
program staff may want to conduct proactive
outreach. This may involve going to the scene of
the crime, meeting the victim at the hospital or
police station, or conducting home visits. 

o Knowing when to stop providing services can be
just as important as initiating and maintaining
contact with victims. To this end, it is important
that a program have clear objectives, policies, and
procedures; that supervisors review cases; and that
staff are trained regarding when to close a case.

o Special outreach efforts may be necessary for
victims who may face particular barriers to working
with the criminal justice system. Specially
targeted victim populations include the elderly,
members of minority ethnic groups, and gays and
lesbians, along with youth and the disabled.

Establishing Case Processing Procedures

Identifying Clients

Although media coverage of crime victimization
makes it seem as if identifying victims and
witnesses would require almost no effort, victim
service providers need to actively ensure that they
are reaching all eligible clients by:

o routinely examining police arrest reports and
prosecutor case records;

o accepting--and encouraging--referrals from
police, prosecutors, corrections officials,
hospitals, and community groups and other social
service organizations;

o generating self-referrals from telephone callers
or walk-ins; and

o responding to requests for on-the-scene
assistance.

Police reports and case records. Program staff may
be able to gain access to police reports and case
records in various ways:

o Some arrange to have record clerks automatically
forward copies of all police reports or all
prosecutor case records. It is time-consuming to
sort through all reports and records, but doing so
allows program staff to conduct their own initial
screening.  

o Other staff members request records clerks to
forward copies of reports or records only for
specific types of cases--for example, cases
involving personal injury resulting from violent
crime. 

o Alternatively, staff members may examine reports
and records in law enforcement, prosecutors',
corrections, and probation and parole offices.
While this method draws staff away from program
offices, it promotes their visibility among law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, and corrections
officials--who may, as a result, increase direct
referrals as they become familiar with staff
members as individuals.

Referrals from police; prosecutors; corrections,
probation, and parole officials; and social service
and community agencies. To generate referrals, it
is helpful for program staff to establish linkages
with these organizations--for example, by
conducting orientation sessions for criminal
justice officials and other agencies (see chapter
4).

Attending police roll calls is an effective method
of informing line officers about a victim services
program and how to use it. Some program staff have
distributed information cards to officers both for
their own information and to pass on to victims.
St. Louis (Missouri) County's Victim Service
Council staff found that the program's cards were
not consistently distributed by officers or used by
victims. In some States, however, police officers
are now required by law to provide information on
victims' rights and services. Staff of Citizens
Council Victim Services helped the Minneapolis
(Minnesota) Police Department complied with its
statute by developing a police and victim services
information card that provides basic information on
victims' rights, available services, and criminal
justice system contact numbers. (This card is
reproduced in appendix F.)

Providing training at police academies can be a
useful method of informing officers about a program
and of encouraging referrals. Pima County (Arizona)
Victim/Witness Program staff routinely provide
training in crisis intervention, human relations
skills, and victimology in the academies for the
Tucson Police Department and the Arizona Law
Enforcement Training Academy. This activity, along
with the program's commitment to immediate (15-30
minutes) response to law enforcement calls, 24-hour
staff availability, and a proven ability to be
helpful and cooperative, is said to have aided the
program in gaining acceptance among many law
enforcement officers. Referrals from police to the
program increased from 840 in 1977, shortly after
the program began, to 15,000 in 1992. In fact, it
was at the request of law enforcement officers that
the program began accepting referrals for noncrime
victims, such as victims of car accidents. Now,
staff and volunteers patrol the streets during the
evening in unmarked police cruisers, responding to
emergency referrals from law enforcement
dispatchers over car radios. 

In addition, program staff encourage law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, corrections
officials, and employees of social service or
community agencies to give them the names and phone
numbers of victims and a brief account of
incidents. Sometimes officers or prosecutors
personally deliver copies of reports or records to
program staff. Referrals also occur informally,
when program staff pass officers and attorneys in
the courthouse or meet human services workers on
social occasions. Many program staff reported that
until police, prosecutors, and social workers fully
understood eligibility criteria, these referrals
included cases not involving crimes, such as lost
or disoriented persons. Most programs initially
accept all referrals, however, in order to gain the
organizations' support. Furthermore, as mentioned
in other sections of this report, an increasing
number of programs are now actively targeting
individuals who are not victims of crime but who
have been traumatized by a crime that happened to
someone they know or that occurred where they work,
go to school, or live.

Self-referrals. Clients may also call or visit
program offices on their own. Several programs are
able to staff a 24-hour hotline. The Pima County
(Arizona) program, for example, relies to a large
extent on its volunteers, equipped with beepers, to
provide around-the-clock assistance. To generate
public awareness and encourage victims to call or
visit, program staff actively inform the community
of their services by conducting public education
sessions and publicity campaigns (see chapter 2).
Word-of-mouth referrals from former clients are
also important. These are especially effective
approaches for obtaining clients who may be
reluctant or unable to seek help, notably the poor
and minorities. While public education sessions and
publicity campaigns increase program visibility,
they have the disadvantage of sometimes generating
an excessive number of calls. 

As noted elsewhere in this publication, to reach
the young, black population of Atlanta, the
director of the city's Victim/Witness Assistance
Program encouraged a radio station that targets
this audience to build an entire day of programming
around the issue of violence and victimization. As
a result, the program was deluged with calls for
assistance or information.

Although some staff feel it is inappropriate or
unnecessary to undertake an explicitly
minority-oriented outreach effort, many program
staff have made special efforts to encourage
minority victims to use program services. Outreach
to minorities and other special victim populations
is discussed at length later this chapter.

Responding to police requests for on-the-scene
assistance. Finally, some victim service providers
identify victims by responding to police requests
for on-the-scene assistance. Paid staff or
volunteers of Portland (Oregon)'s Victims
Assistance Program respond at any hour to meet rape
victims in hospital emergency wards. Trained
volunteers with Scottsdale (Arizona)'s Police
Crisis Intervention Unit respond around the clock
to police requests for help with all types of
victims. The volunteers patrol the streets in
unmarked police cars equipped with a radio to
receive police requests for assistance. Volunteers
and staff also wear beepers so that they can be
paged by police and police dispatchers. Programs
that identify victims in this manner usually
provide follow-up assistance by telephone, at the
program offices, or in the courthouse.

Establishing Contact With Victims and Witnesses

All programs use a combination of techniques to
establish contact with victims, such as letters,
telephone calls, face-to-face contact at program
offices, intervention at the scene of the crime,
and home visits. Most programs, however, rely
primarily on mailings and phone calls, which allow
them to establish more contacts than does
face-to-face interaction.

Phoning helps to ensure that services are offered
to victims on a consistent and equitable basis.
Staff with St. Louis County (Arizona)'s Victim
Service Council reported they have had "amazing
success using phone contacts. Once victims
understand the program's purpose, they are usually
very open and pour out their problem."[1] As the
sole means of establishing contact, however,
phoning may not be effective in reaching all
potential clients. Some clients may simply be
difficult to reach, while others may not have phone
service. Letters, then, are necessary.

Between 1993 and 1994, Alameda County (California)
program staff mailed over 14,000 letters offering
victims services and describing the status of their
cases. As a means of establishing initial contact,
however, mailings alone may be ineffective if
victims are reluctant to take the initiative to
seek help. In addition, victims without permanent
or stable residences can, obviously, be difficult
to locate. Furthermore, in writing to victims of
spousal abuse, rape, and child sexual abuse,
program staff must take special care not to
embarrass or endanger the victim by informing
others of the crime or of the victim's attempt to
secure help. In general, however, program staff
have found that letters are a useful supplement to
phone calls as a means of establishing program
credibility.

Conducting Proactive Outreach 

The Alameda County (California) District Attorney
Victim/Witness Assistance Division conducts an
average of 325 home visits to victims each year. In
fact, the California Office of Criminal Justice
Planning, from which the program receives a large
share of its funding, requires that staff in funded
programs make field visits to a client's home,
place of business, or other location whenever
necessary to provide services.

The director of the Victims Advocate Foundation,
which serves five rural counties in Indiana,
frequently receives calls from the police late at
night to go to the scene of a crime, usually a
domestic violence incident. If the crime occurs in
Parke County, where he lives, he drives to the
location; if it occurs in one of the other
counties, he calls a volunteer to respond. This
service is important in these rural counties, where
it can sometimes take up to 20 minutes for police
to travel to the scene of a crime. The director
often drives battered women to a shelter outside
his county because there are no shelters in the
immediate area. Transportation is usually a problem
on Native American reservations, as well. Staff of
Tender Hearts, Inc., which serves primarily
domestic abuse victims on the Standing Rock
Reservation in North Dakota, use their own vehicles
to travel to clients throughout the 2.8 million
acres of territory the program covers. 

"One-stop shopping" is another method of conducting
proactive outreach, by providing or coordinating
multiple services to victims in one location, such
as a courthouse or hospital. Children's advocacy
centers are becoming popular approaches for
enabling alleged victims of child abuse to be
interviewed by criminal justice officials and
health and social service professionals at one time
and to receive needed services, such as mental
health and medical evaluations, at the same
location. The director of Victim/Witness Services
in the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) District
Attorney's Office is leading a coordinated effort
by prosecutors, victim advocates, social service
workers, mental health and medical professionals,
school personnel, police, and other community
service providers to establish such a center (see
the box on "Working With Community Agencies To Help
Child Abuse Victims" in chapter 4). Already she
coordinates the joint interview of alleged child
abuse victims by the police, the prosecutor, mental
health professionals, and others, the interview is
held in a child-friendly setting at the district
attorney's office. Enabling children and their
parents to go through the interview process and
receive services in one place may limit the
traumatic effects of the abuse and investigation,
as well as streamline the criminal investigation,
the prosecution, and service planning.

The logistics of face-to-face outreach need to be
kept simple to avoid excessive transportation
expenses and the need for additional staff to cover
the office while other staff are in the field. When
funding for the Parke County (Indiana) program
dropped slightly one year, the director had to cut
down on the amount of transportation he and his
volunteers undertook to crime scenes, shelters, and
courts. Several volunteers, however, chose to pay
for transportation expenses themselves rather than
not provide the services.

Situations warranting on-the-scene response and
home visits are likely to be more volatile than
those initiated by mail, telephone, and office
contacts. On occasion, staff have been threatened
or even attacked by irate husbands in spousal abuse
cases. As a result, it is usually best if staff
providing assistance to victims in the field travel
in teams and receive training in crisis
intervention and self-protection. Some program
staff make it a practice to tell others in the
office to send the police to the home they are
visiting if they do not call in or return after a
specified period of time. Others approach the scene
and notify police that they are standing by but
wait until the scene is secure before entering the
scene and providing assistance.

Maintaining Contact

Having made initial contact with victims and
witnesses, program staff need to maintain
communication. This not only helps clients recover
from the experience of being victimized but may
also elicit information of value to police
investigators and prosecutors. Follow-up contacts
also help program staff determine whether clients
actively pursued referrals and how helpful other
agencies were. Finally, maintaining client contact
is important for ensuring that witnesses testify.

Some victim service providers find that certain
victims require long-term assistance--for example,
if counseling extends over a long period of time or
the victim becomes involved in postsentencing
activities, such as attending a parole hearing.
Victim services providers who work directly in or
with departments of corrections or probation and
parole may be in contact with victims or their
families for many years. If program staff do not
feel that they have the resources to provide
long-term assistance to victims, they need to
explain this limitation to clients and be prepared
to offer referrals for further assistance.

Although some victims and witnesses maintain
contact on their own, many are reluctant to seek
additional help, feeling they would be a burden on
program staff. As a result, most program staff make
follow-up appointments by telephone with clients on
an individual basis after the initial contact.
Letters are also a useful way to maintain contact
with clients and keep them up-to-date-on case
status. Personal contact, through home visits or
office appointments, is normally reserved for
incidents that have had a severe impact on the
victim.

Terminating Contact

The decision to terminate contact is not always
clear-cut. Program staff need to be careful not to
close cases prematurely: the victim or witness may
appear untroubled, but the full impact of a crime
or court appearance may not be experienced for
hours, days, or even weeks after the incident.
Inexperienced staff may close cases too soon out of
personal frustration--a tendency that may be
especially likely among new volunteers, who may be
overwhelmed by the victim's emotional trauma and
feel unable to help.

At the same time, unless an explicit decision is
made to end services, staff may find themselves
swamped with an ever-increasing number of open
cases. In some instances, victims become overly
dependent on staff, seeking help with ongoing
emotional or social support problems that are
unrelated to their victimization.

To close cases in a timely fashion, while still
ensuring that victims have received appropriate
attention, victim services providers can take the
following steps:

o Form informal "service contracts" with victims at
the outset to clarify expectations and outline
clearly what program staff will (and will not) do.

o Train staff to recognize when services are no
longer needed--for example, when the victim or
witness does not follow up on a referral or no
longer wishes to initiate further contact.

o Require new staff to discuss with supervisors
their reasons for terminating cases before doing
so.

o Require staff to indicate the reason for closing
a case on the case record.

No programs adhere to rigid termination dates for
closing cases; rather, they adjust the date to meet
victims' and witnesses' individual needs. Most
advocates recommend that before closing a case,
staff should put the client in touch with other
support systems through referrals and should check
on whether a personal network of family and friends
is available to help. Although each case varies,
closing generally takes place when the client has
resolved the major emotional and financial problems
caused by the crime.

Pitfalls in Case Processing

Victim assistance programs commonly face a number
of problems in case processing which may be grouped
under logistics, the nature of victim service, and
personal staff difficulties. The most serious
logistical case processing problem is when cases
slip through the cracks. With limited staff and a
high volume of cases, outreach and follow-up are
not always conducted diligently. Program staff may
wish to make regularly scheduled contacts with all
open cases or with all open cases defined as high
priority (e.g., sexual assault, attempted murder);
staff then call these victims or witnesses weekly,
biweekly, or monthly, rather than relying on
clients themselves to contact the program. To
ensure that all appropriate cases come to the
program's attention in the first place, staff can
also increase their outreach efforts.

A second logistical problem is that victims or
witnesses may be difficult to reach. Victims may
move in with family or friends, or change or
disconnect their phones; in these instances, the
only solution is to persevere. Staff can check with
utility companies to try to locate victims. Police
investigators assigned to cases can often be
helpful in locating transient victims and
witnesses. Staff can also be careful to obtain
information on family and friends during initial
intake.

Finally, staff may be faced with scheduling
conflicts, as when several simultaneous court
appearances require witness escort services. If
this occurs frequently, program administrators can
consider implementing or expanding their volunteer
component.

Other problems are attributable to the nature of
serving victims and witnesses. Victims are
sometimes unable or unwilling to articulate their
needs. This situation requires patience on the part
of staff to help these clients identify feelings
they have difficulty expressing. Terminating a case
at an inappropriate time is another case processing
problem that can be addressed by monitoring service
delivery and developing explicit guidelines for
closing cases. Some clients, such as "agency
addicts," can be exasperating to work with. They
may have to be confronted with their
self-destructive behavior or dependency needs, and
possibly denied further assistance, at least from
program staff.[2] Finally, staff may be reluctant
to assist victims who are themselves involved in
criminal activity (such as drug dealers). The
section on target populations in chapter 2
addresses this problem in more detail.

The last set of case processing problems stems from
personal difficulties staff face as providers of
victim services. On the one hand, staff may become
so possessive that, if clients require assistance
when the staff member is unavailable, no one else
has the information to help them. It may help to
make clear to staff that, while they may be
assigned primary responsibility for a particular
case, to some extent cases are transferable. On the
other hand, staff may experience a sense of
inadequacy at being able to offer only limited--or
possibly no--assistance to victims and witnesses
and, as a result, exert themselves too strenuously
in trying to "save" troubled victims.

Conducting Outreach to Special Populations

According to a recent study, one of the most
pressing needs expressed by program staff was for
outreach to special populations. Staff expressed
frustration with language barriers and with many
victims' reluctance to cooperate with the criminal
justice system.[3] As mentioned above, some
programs make special efforts to reach victims who
may face particular barriers to working with the
criminal justice system. This section briefly
examines three types of specially targeted victim
populations: the elderly, members of minority
ethnic groups, and gays and lesbians. 

Elderly Crime Victims

Individuals aged 65 and older constitute one of the
fastest growing populations in the United States.
It is estimated that this group will make up 13
percent of the country's population by the year
2000. As a result, elder abuse and violent crime
against the elderly have received increasing
attention in recent years. The same physical and
mental limitations that may make these individuals
more vulnerable to crime, however, may also make
them less willing or able to participate in the
criminal justice system, seek compensation, and
obtain the other assistance they may need if
victimized. Some elderly people may also be
reluctant to report crimes because they are easily
intimidated, fear reprisal from the offender, or
fear the criminal justice process itself. Elderly
individuals who are abused by family members may be
ashamed to report the abuse or may not consider it
a crime.[4]

Making presentations at churches, senior citizen
centers, and other places where elderly individuals
meet or live is one useful way to inform them of
crime victim rights and program services. Northwest
Victims Services staff in Philadelphia
(Pennsylvania) make frequent presentations at
senior citizen centers to inform elderly
individuals about how to prevent themselves from
becoming victims of fraud. The program also
operates a "Bank Session Project" in which staff,
volunteers, and police visit a local bank at the
beginning of each month, usually a busy banking
day, to provide information about safe banking
habits and general safety issues. In the typical
year, staff make contact with about 2,000 senior
citizens at 10 banks.

Elderly volunteers from local churches, businesses,
or community groups may be effective in spreading
the word about program services and making victims
feel more comfortable about receiving services.[5]
Program staff may consider designating a staff
person or volunteer to work specifically with
elderly crime victims. The Victim/Witness
Assistance Program in Santa Ana, California, has a
"senior victim of crime specialist" who is
responsible for providing outreach to elderly
individuals. This person works with other community
groups that serve the elderly to provide a range of
services to elderly crime victims.[6] 

When informed by police or other sources of a crime
against an elderly person, staff may need to go to
the individual's home rather than expect the victim
to come to the program office for services.
Northwest Victim Services frequently receives
referrals from Philadelphia police officers
regarding elderly victims of crime and abuse, and
staff respond by going to the victim's home to
provide basic assistance and determine the victim's
needs. Another helpful way to reach older
individuals is to print brochures and other program
literature in large, bold print.[7] Finally,
working closely with other community organizations
and social service agencies can put the program in
a better position to learn about and help intervene
in elder abuse cases.

Ethnic and Minority Crime Victims

Many members of ethnic minority groups feel
intimidated by a system they believe sometimes
works against them. Crime victims who do not speak
English may find it particularly difficult to
navigate the court system. In addition, some
cultural characteristics of certain minorities may
necessitate special outreach efforts. Some women
from certain cultures, for example, may be
reluctant to seek outside assistance in cases of
sexual harassment and violence.[8]

Several programs have conducted special public
education campaigns in poor and minority
neighborhoods in an effort to assist crime victims
and encourage them to report crimes and cooperate
with the criminal justice system. For example, Pima
County (Arizona) program staff conduct outreach to
the many Spanish-speaking residents of the area in
Arizona that they serve. The program has developed
numerous pamphlets in Spanish explaining the
program's services. Because domestic violence is a
common problem among the county's residents, a
separate brochure addressing this problem was
developed in Spanish. Several paid and volunteer
staff act as Spanish-speaking trial advocates who
interpret for non-English-speaking crime victims.

Native Americans sometimes require special outreach
efforts because they may distrust the criminal
justice system, treat even violent behavior as a
private matter, or lack transportation. Native
American victims of domestic violence, for example,
may be more likely than some other groups to treat
abuse as a family matter. The director of Tender
Hearts, Inc., a victim assistance program and
shelter for battered women on the Standing Rock
Indian Reservation in North Dakota, has found these
problems a significant barrier, which she tries to
overcome by recruiting volunteers from the
reservation to contact victims of crime and by
meeting with victims in her car when victims are
unable come to her office. 

Los Angeles County Victim Assistance Program staff
work with local community policing officers to
provide intervention and counseling services to
African-American and Hispanic youth who not only
have been victims of or witnesses to violent crime
but who are also at high risk for committing crimes
themselves. The police officers and victim
advocates frequently stop by neighborhoods where
the targeted youth live. By building trust between
the youth and law enforcement, it is hoped that the
youth will be less likely to break the law and more
likely to cooperate with the criminal justice
system as victims and witnesses. Given that his
program serves such an ethnically mixed area, the
program director has also hired a culturally
diverse staff and, when possible, assigns victim
advocates to serve community areas based on
language ability. When he hired a Russian-speaking
advocate, the number of crime victims from the
area's Armenian population requesting assistance
soared.

Minority residents of inner-city public housing may
be particularly reluctant to report crimes,
cooperate with the criminal justice system, or seek
help after they have been victimized. This may be
due to fear of reprisal from the offender or his or
her friends or to the widespread feeling that the
system does not work on their behalf. These
factors, coupled with financial hardship and the
constant violence and fear with which some public
housing residents live on a daily basis, make this
victim population a particularly important target
for outreach.

The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) (Illinois)
Department of Prevention Programs established its
Victim Assistance Program in 1991 as one aspect of
the authority's efforts to address drugs and
drug-related crime. To reach victims, staff work
out of two public housing developments. The program
relies to a large extent on clients to spread word
about program services to other residents; staff do
not market or advertise the program. Even though
staff originally intended to serve residents of the
two developments, because of the pervasive need for
their services, they now serve residents of the
authority citywide. Services include emergency
relocation for crime victims and witnesses who are
threatened or intimidated; short-term food
assistance, transportation, and clothing; crisis
response; and assistance in completing compensation
forms. However, because the program is currently
limited to relocating intimidated victims and
witnesses only to other locations within the
authority, many residents who are victims of
violent crime reportedly remain fearful of
reporting crime and testifying. 

Gays and Lesbians

Many gay men and lesbians are said to be reluctant
to cooperate with a criminal justice system that
they feel has not supported and at times has been
hostile toward them. Gays and lesbians may also be
unwilling to report crimes or testify if they do
not want to reveal their homosexual orientation. As
crimes against gays and lesbians have increased in
recent years (sometimes directed specifically
against individuals thought to have AIDS[9]), the
provision of assistance to these victims has taken
on renewed urgency among some victim assistance
programs.

To reach out to gay and lesbian crime victims,
victim assistance program administrators can
designate a staff member to act as a liaison with
the gay and lesbian community, inform them of the
program's services, and let this population know
that program staff are committed to serving them.
Some administrators have found it helpful to invite
a leader in the gay and lesbian community to train
program staff on gay and lesbian issues.
Advertisements in newspapers targeted to the gay
community can be useful. Working closely with the
hate crimes unit in the police or prosecutor's
office can help facilitate referrals. Finally, it
is important that victim assistance programs
establish and enforce a program policy prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.[10] 

Community United Against Violence (CUAV), a
community-based group in San Francisco (California)
State, was established 16 years ago to combat
violence against gays and lesbians. The
organization receives part of its funding through a
contract with the San Francisco District Attorney's
Office to provide court-related services to the gay
and lesbian population. Staff conduct crime
prevention activities and refer victims to
community resources, assist them with victim
compensation forms, inform them of court processes,
accompany them to court, and perform many other
services. They also sometimes act as liaisons
between gay and lesbian crime victims and criminal
justice agencies. Many victims feel more
comfortable providing information to program staff
and then having them relay the information to
police and prosecutors.

Although the program has operated in San Francisco
for several years, staff still spend a significant
amount of time informing the community of the
program's services. The program has secured the pro
bono assistance of a local advertising company to
develop posters for locations such as bus shelters;
staff also describe the program at gay and lesbian
events and at schools and other locations in the
community. Although CUAV targets one specific
victim population, many of its activities could be
replicated by staff of more general programs.

Once program staff have identified and made contact
with victims, they can begin providing a variety of
services. The following chapter briefly describes
common services that victim assistance programs
offer and some of the obstacles that staff
encounter in providing these services.

Endnotes

1. Marjorie Susman and Carol Vittert, "Building a
Solution: A Practical Guide for Establishing Crime
Victim Service Agencies" (St. Louis: National
Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section, 1980),
17.

2. Susman and Vittert, "Building a Solution,"
outlines different types of problem clients and how
to cope with them.

3. Tom McEwen, "Understanding the Needs of Victim
Assistance Programs," Draft Report to the National
Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice
(Alexandria, Virginia: Institute for Law and
Justice, 1994), 8.

4. Albert R. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims:
Research, Policy, and Practice (Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, 1990), 78.

5. Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to
Prosecution and Victim Assistance: (A Training and
Resource Manual), Virginia: National Victim Center,
1994).

6. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims, 82.

7. Focus on the Future.

8. For a detailed review of culturally sensitive
treatment of minority crime victims, see Brian
Ogawa, The Color of Justice: Culturally Sensitive
Treatment of Minority Crime Victims (Sacramento,
California: Office of Criminal Justice Planning,
1990).

9. Focus on the Future; "NOVA Makes Recommendations
for Gay and Lesbian Crime Victims," Crime Victims
Digest (August 1987), 5.

10. "NOVA Makes Recommendations for Gay and Lesbian
Crime Victims," 6.

11. As discussed in Focus on the Future, the Los
Angeles County Human Relations Commission reported
a 22 percent increase in hate crimes from 1990 to
1991. Most victims of hate crime were gay men,
African-Americans, and Jews.

12. Marlene Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and
Fundamentals (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, 1993), 127.

______________________________________________

Issues of Confidentiality in Identifying Clients

Issues of confidentiality may arise in obtaining
information about victims from law enforcement
agencies and prosecutors offices. Many States have
laws prohibiting police and prosecutors from
releasing information about victims to agencies
outside the criminal justice system.

o In its early years, the Victim Service Council in
St. Louis County (Missouri) contacted the
superintendent of police to request access to
police reports. Upon checking with the county
counselor, the superintendent found that under the
Sunshine Law there were no restrictions on the
release of information during the first thirty days
after arrest.

o Initially, staff of Citizens Council Victim
Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul (Minnesota)
identified over half of their clients by examining
police incident reports. However, when the police
made it a policy not to disclose information about
victims to the press, they had to deny access to
incident reports to program staff as well. Staff
arranged instead to review police complaint cards,
which did not pose the same confidentiality
problems because they contain information not
necessarily about victims but about the person who
placed the initial call to the police.

--------------------

Three Recent Sources of Guidance on Outreach 
to Special Populations

Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to
Prosecution and Victim Assistance (Arlington,
Virginia: National Victim Center, 1994), is a
manual produced in 1994 by the National Victim
Center, American Prosecutors Research Institute,
and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Although the
manual is targeted to prosecutor-based victim
assistance, many of the suggestions are applicable
to all kinds of victim assistance programs. In
separate sections, the manual addresses the
following victim populations: child victims, family
violence victims, sexual assault victims, friends
and family of homicide victims, hate or
bias-motivated crime victims, cross-cultural
victims, elderly victims, disabled victims, and
victims of juvenile offenders. Each of these
sections includes a list of suggested readings and
resource contacts. (The National Victim Center can
be contacted at (703) 276-2880.)

Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals,
(Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
1993), by Marlene Young, executive director of the
National Organization for Victim Assistance,
addresses outreach and services to child victims,
victims of family violence, victims of sexual
assault, friends and family of homicide victims,
victims who are members of ethnic minority groups,
and victims of bias crimes. (The Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company can be contacted at (800) 228-
0810.)

The Color of Justice: Culturally Sensitive
Treatment of Minority Crime Victims (Sacramento,
California: Office of Criminal Justice Planning,
1990), written by the coordinator of the
Victim/Witness Assistance Program in Maui, Hawaii,
as part of the Minority Victims Project conducted
by California's Office of Criminal Justice
Planning, includes personal accounts of crime
victims and program descriptions. The book
discusses the impact of violent crime on minorities
and their recovery from the traumatic effects of
victimization. (The California Office of Criminal
Justice Planning can be contacted at 1130 K Street,
Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814.)

_____________________________________________

Reaching Out to Southeast Asian Crime Victims 
in Philadelphia

In an effort to reach out to crime victims in
Philadelphia's Vietnamese communities, the Victim
Services Unit of the District Attorney's Office has
both Vietnamese and Cambodian victim/witness
coordinators who guide members of the Southeast
Asian community through the criminal justice
system. These advocates accompany victims to court
and follow cases through from beginning to end.

In addition, these staff persons conduct outreach
to Vietnamese and Cambodian students in the local
schools, explaining how to use emergency services
(such as the emergency 911 service line that will
link them with a Vietnamese or Cambodian speaker)
and how to prevent crime. Often the victim
advocates make presentations at schools or to
parents. The victim advocates also distribute a
victim services brochure that has been translated
into both Vietnamese and Cambodian.

According to the program director, more Vietnamese
people have been reporting crime since the program
began the outreach effort. (See appendix A for
contact information for this program.)

______________________________________________

Outreach to Victims of Hate Crime

The prevalence and violent nature of hate crime
have gained increasing attention in recent years,
prompting some victim assistance programs to take
new measures to prevent such crime and help its
victims. Many of the groups that require
intensified outreach efforts are also more
vulnerable to hate crime. According to the Federal
Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, hate crime
occurs when a person is targeted for victimization
based on his or her race, religion, sexual
orientation, or ethnicity. It appears from some
reports that the incidence--not just the awareness-
-of hate crimes has increased.[11] Many police
departments and prosecutors' offices now have hate
crime units.

Victims of hate crime may be particularly reluctant
to become involved in the criminal justice system
because of fear of the criminal justice system, of
retaliation, and of unwanted publicity (for
example, closeted gay men and lesbians may not want
to be put in the position of revealing their sexual
orientation). These victims may feel especially
vulnerable or violated because they were assaulted
as a result of a particular characteristic and
therefore may be in more need of counseling and
other services than some other victims. It is
important that victim advocates become aware of
Federal, State, and local hate crime legislation
and of victims' rights as spelled out in the
legislation. Advocates will then be in a position
to educate individuals who are typically targeted
for hate crimes about their rights and remedies
should they become victims of a hate crime. Other
helpful steps are placing advertisements in
newspapers directed at vulnerable populations and
notifying their social or political leaders about
the program's services.[12] Finally, if a police or
prosecutor hate crimes unit operates in their
jurisdiction, victim assistance staff can work
closely with the unit. The Office for Victims of
Crime, U.S. Department of Justice, funded the
development of a curriculum, "National Bias Crimes
Training for Law Enforcement and Victim Assistance
Professionals," which has been presented at several
State and national conferences and training
seminars. Information for the National Victims
Resource Center can be found in appendix B.
__________________________________________________

Chapter 6
Providing Victim Services

--------------------

Key Points

o Victim assistance programs can provide a very
broad range of services. In light of typical
resource limitations, however, program staff can
avoid overextending themselves by focusing on those
services that are most needed and those that staff
are best equipped to provide.

o The range of victim services generally
incorporates emergency services, counseling,
personal advocacy and support services, claims
assistance, court-related services, postsentencing
services, and education, training, and advocacy
within the criminal justice system.

o Some programs in recent years have begun
providing services targeted to large groups of
individuals traumatized by crime or other
catastrophic events, such as earthquakes, floods,
and tornadoes. These services primarily involve
crisis intervention and critical incident stress
debriefing.

o An increasing number of victim assistance
programs are providing or assisting with
postsentencing services. These services include
orientation to the penal system, notification of
the offender's status within the system, collection
and payment of restitution, coordination of victim
impact panels, and victim-offender reconciliation.

o As victim assistance programs have become
increasingly integrated into the criminal justice
system, advocates have become more active through
legal and policy reforms in changing the system to
be more responsive to victims' needs.

--------------------

Victim services are needed at many stages in the
victim's experience, from on-the-scene counseling
to notification of the offender's release on
parole. One victim assistance program typically
cannot--and should not try to--provide all needed
services. Rather, programs can play to their
natural strengths. A program based in a police
department is often better positioned to provide
immediate crisis assistance than other programs; a
prosecutor's program may be better equipped to
provide witness notification; a program operated by
a department of corrections is in the best position
to provide notification of the offender's status
following conviction. If more than one victim
assistance program exists in a jurisdiction,
program staff can coordinate services to avoid
duplication. If, however, only one program serves
an entire locale, staff must carefully consider
victims' needs, staff resources, and program goals
in deciding what services to provide (see chapter
2).

While most programs struggle to provide the most
basic services, some have begun to offer such
services as critical incident stress debriefing and
other assistance to noncrime victims. As discussed
in chapter 2, however, even programs that have the
resources to offer more than basic services stress
that the basics are their first priority.

The Role of the Criminal Justice System

Many of the services described in this chapter
require the undivided attention of victim
assistance program staff. For example, many
counseling services are beyond the resources and
expertise of criminal justice agencies. Indeed, in
jurisdictions where a victim assistance program
operates, police, prosecutors, and corrections
officials often come to rely on program staff to
meet both the immediate and long-term counseling
needs of victims.

There are other services, however, which police,
prosecutors, and judges can provide without
assistance as a routine part of their jobs, rather
than delegating them to a separate program. For
example, police, often the first to arrive at the
scene of a crime, must usually provide on-the-spot
crisis intervention and mediation. In many
jurisdictions, police already receive training in
crisis counseling and family dispute resolution.
Victim assistance program staff, however, can
motivate officers to apply what they learn by
pointing out how crisis intervention can enable
victims and witnesses to provide better evidence.
The emergence of community policing--with its focus
on problem-solving and community collaboration--
appears to be leading to increased police
cooperation with, and attention to, victim
services. 

Prosecutors and other court personnel can also
provide some personal advocacy and support
services. Prosecutors or corrections officials are
in the best position to obtain victim impact
statements and present them to judges as part of
sentencing recommendations. Similarly, police are
best equipped to provide physical protection to
threatened victims and witnesses. Courts can often
help reduce intimidation by providing separate
waiting areas for witnesses. Although victim
assistance programs can seek to expedite property
return, police property clerks can adopt a policy
of photographing evidence instead of retaining it,
or can initiate other methods of returning property
quickly to victims.

Providing community-wide referrals is a task which
police, prosecutors, court personnel, and
corrections officials alike can perform in the
course of their daily contacts with victims and
witnesses. To facilitate such referrals, program
staff can provide officials with up-to-date
information on community resources.

Of the many services victim assistance programs
provide, those related to negotiating the
intricacies of the criminal justice system are
perhaps the most appropriate for prosecutors and
courts to assume. Realistically, without victim
assistance programs the system would not usually be
able to escort witnesses to and from the courtroom,
provide transportation and child care, or
personalize services. However, prosecutors, who are
clearly among the most knowledgeable about the
workings of the criminal justice system, can--and
often do--provide court orientation. The program
can prepare a list of questions victims and
witnesses most frequently ask and encourage the
chief prosecutor to distribute the list, with
recommended answers, to all deputy prosecutors.
Program staff can explain to prosecutors how
presenting the information typically takes only a
few minutes and often improves the cooperation they
receive from witnesses.

Prosecutors can also be encouraged to incorporate
witness notification and alert functions into their
daily routines, either by establishing a
notification unit within their offices or, caseload
permitting, by performing these services on an
individual basis. Judges, too, can provide
information to victims and witnesses on the courts
and can take a leadership role in ensuring that
victims and witnesses are treated properly. For
example, they can urge court administrators to
establish separate waiting areas for defense and
prosecution witnesses, order restitution as a
matter of practice, permit a victim advocate to
remain in the courtroom, encourage and consider
victim impact statements before sentencing, and
expedite trials of cases involving sensitive
victims.

The Range of Victim Services

This section presents a brief outline of the
practical implementation considerations and
problems that victim assistance program staff have
identified in direct service delivery. The specific
services described have been grouped under seven
headings: emergency services, counseling, personal
advocacy and support services, assistance in filing
for victim compensation and restitution,
court-related services, postsentencing services,
and systemwide services. 

Emergency Services 

Emergency services address the most immediate needs
of a victim or witness following the crime.

Medical care, shelter, food. Most victim assistance
programs provide these services by means of
referral. (See below for how programs make such
referrals.) In a few instances, program staff or
volunteers make their homes available as temporary
shelters for victims or witnesses; increasingly,
victim services providers are helping intimidated
witnesses to relocate. Program staff may also wish
to recruit volunteers from local churches to assist
with the provision of emergency food and shelter.
Religious leaders are becoming increasingly aware
of victims' needs and may be enthusiastic about
encouraging parishioners to help victims in their
community.[1]

Security repair. After being burglarized, victims
often feel (and in fact may be) unsafe in their own
homes. As mentioned in previous chapters, studies
have revealed that security repair is among
victims' most frequently unmet needs. Victim
services providers can restore a sense of safety by
providing security surveys and lock repairs. Some
programs limit security service to certain groups,
such as the elderly. Usually, these programs also
provide on-the-scene crisis intervention and
perform security surveys and repairs at the same
time.

Emergency financial assistance. Immediately
following a crime--particularly in cases involving
purse-snatchings and muggings--victims often need
money for transportation, phone calls, food, or
shelter. Many programs have set aside money to
distribute to victims in such instances; typically,
the money is stored in a petty-cash box, and staff
must obtain authorization from the program director
or a supervisor before disbursing it. Many
programs, however, do not have the resources to
provide this service. According to a recent survey
of nearly 200 victim assistance programs, only 25
percent were able to provide emergency financial
assistance, and then only based on strict criteria.
For example, while the Chesapeake (Virginia)
Sheriff's Victim Assistance Program provides up to
$200 to elderly victims and to victims whose income
is at or below the poverty level, the crime must be
reported to the police within 72 hours, the victim
must cooperate in the prosecution, the victim must
sustain a personal loss that is not insured, and
the loss must be documented. The emergency money is
raised at an annual fund-raising barbecue.[2]

Transportation. Many victims need emergency
transportation immediately after a crime. In
particular, domestic abuse victims may need
transportation to battered women's shelters. The
director of the Parke County Victims Advocate
Foundation in rural Indiana frequently picks up
domestic violence victims and takes them to a
shelter in a nearby county. This service, however,
can be costly and time-consuming. For many years,
transportation to battered women's shelters was the
most time-consuming service provided by Citizens
Council Victim Services in Minneapolis-St. Paul
(Minnesota). The program repeatedly applied for
funding from battered women's resources
specifically for this service but was unsuccessful.
As a result, the service for battered women was
discontinued, and shelters must now make their own
arrangements for transporting victims. 

On-the-scene comfort. Some victim services
providers provide reassurance and support to
victims at the scene of the crime or shortly
thereafter by means of home visits. The discussion
below reviews the practical considerations involved
in providing on-the-scene comfort.

Counseling

Three types of counseling may be distinguished:
crisis intervention, follow-up counseling, and
mediation.

Crisis Intervention.[3] Several models for crisis
response have been developed. Each approach
generally includes the following steps:

o making contact with the client, and, if
necessary, defusing any volatile situations;

o providing information to the client regarding
what will happen next and why;

o interviewing the victim and identifying his or
her most pressing needs; and

o developing a plan of action to meet those needs.

The crisis intervention response implies that
contact with victims is established as soon as
possible after the crisis occurs, which usually
means immediately after the crime has taken place.
To make immediate contact, program staff must work
closely with those who first respond to the scene--
law enforcement officers and emergency medical
staff. Furthermore, to address all the needs of
victims, program staff must have quick access to a
network of other human service providers. (For a
detailed discussion of strategies for establishing
cooperation with law enforcement and social service
agencies, see chapter 4).

Another practical consideration is whether to
provide crisis intervention around the clock.
Arguing in favor of 24-hour availability is the
fact that a little help, purposefully given at a
strategic time, is usually more effective and
economical than extensive help offered after the
client has developed more severe disorders.
Responding on a 24 hour basis can also enhance a
program's credibility, particularly with law
enforcement. 

However, not all programs have the capacity to
respond on a 24-hour basis, since the service is
costly and requires a relatively large number of
staff or volunteers. Furthermore, staff on
overnight call may be more susceptible to burnout.
As a result, the majority of programs contacted for
this publication furnish crisis intervention
services only during business hours, although some
extend the service until 11 p.m. or midnight. 

Program administrators must also consider whether
to provide on-the-scene crisis intervention, a
costly service in terms of staffing needs. Programs
that provide on-the-scene crisis intervention
usually send a two-person team, for reasons of
safety and efficiency. A two-person team allows one
member to focus on the victim's emotional needs
while the other attends to such matters as
conducting a security survey and contacting
shelters. Program administrators who provide this
service must ensure that other staff members are
available to handle nonemergency victim needs and
that some means (such as, beepers) is available for
contacting crisis-intervention staff in the event
that another victim requires immediate attention.
Finally, programs that provide on-the-scene crisis
intervention need to furnish transportation for
staff or provide mileage reimbursement if staff use
their own vehicles. The director of the Pima County
program was able to obtain unmarked cars from the
police and sheriff's departments as well as donated
cars from local used car dealers.

The National Organization for Victim Assistance
provides training for victim assistance program
personnel on crisis intervention for individuals
and communities. In particular, NOVA helps
communities develop a team response in the event of
community tragedies such as an earthquake or mass
killing.

Follow-up counseling. Along with crisis
intervention and personal advocacy, follow-up
counseling is usually one of the most
time-consuming services victims may need.
Counseling crime victims consists of providing
emotional support, probing to clarify victims'
feelings and needs, assisting victims in
understanding and assessing their options, and
facilitating clients' ability to cope with the
experience of victimization. Counseling is
typically provided throughout a program's contact
with the victim, primarily by phone but also,
depending on the case, in person at program offices
or in home visits. Counseling provided by victim
assistance program staff aims to solve only the
problems stemming from the experience of
victimization, not any underlying problems that
preceded the crime.

Staff members cited three primary problems in
counseling victims:

1. Clients sometimes slip through the cracks, a
case processing problem that can be resolved by
close monitoring and supervision (see the section,
Maintaining Contact, in chapter 5). 

2. Victims may become overdependent on staff and
turn to them for long-term therapeutic needs or to
solve their everyday problems. This situation is
sometimes fostered by new staff or volunteers, who
may rely too strongly on the considerable personal
gratification they derive from meeting in terms of
victims' needs. Training staff to set limits in
terms of meeting victim needs is essential--for
example, by drawing up an informal plan of action
that outlines what both staff and victims will be
responsible--and not responsible--for doing.

3. Program staff and their case notes may be
subpoenaed. One program director keeps a separate
notebook in which he records details of interviews
and conversations with victims and witnesses; he
then transcribes a summary for the case files.
According to a guidebook on crime victim services
developed by the National Council of Jewish Women,
"In most states, there is no statutory privilege
which would protect communications between a lay
caseworker and victim. However, some programs which
are part of the prosecutor's office have been
successful in extending the lawyer client
relationship to include their caseworkers."[5] If
staff members are summoned to testify or if case
notes are subpoenaed, legal advice should be
obtained.

Mediation. Disputes within families or between
neighbors can sometimes be resolved through
mediation with limited law enforcement or court
intervention. In some jurisdictions, courts have
established mediation centers to which victim
assistance program personnel may refer clients. In
other communities, the victim assistance program
itself provides mediation. Briefly, mediation
involves:

o calling the disputants together for a hearing;

o setting ground rules (such as no physical
violence and no shouting); 

o hearing both sides and avoiding determining guilt
or innocence; 

o identifying what each party wants and is willing
to give in order to end the conflict; and

o formulating specific terms that can lead to a
long-term solution.

Victim assistance programs may use different
criteria to identify cases that are appropriate for
mediation.[6] Programs may choose to mediate only
felonies when a prior relationship exists between
the disputants and no serious injuries have
occurred; only misdemeanor cases in which a justice
of the peace has determined that the complainant is
in danger of being threatened or struck or having
property damaged, and has ordered the defendant to
deposit a bond; or only disputes in which it
appears that both parties are committed to reaching
a solution. In order to provide mediation, victim
assistance programs must have, at a minimum, an
adequate number of staff who are trained in the
techniques of mediation and conflict resolution, a
separate room available for hearings, and a means
of monitoring settlements.

Personal Advocacy and Support Services 

Victim assistance programs provide a variety of
additional services that go beyond the immediate
needs of their clients.

Employer/landlord intervention. Victim assistance
program staff often negotiate with employers to
ensure that victims do not lose pay for the time
they spend in court. This is particularly important
in jurisdictions where courts do not pay witness
fees. Program staff may experience difficulty
securing cooperation from major industries with a
unionized work force and from small retail
businesses which cannot afford to pay. The latter,
however, are often willing to rearrange working
hours to accommodate employees' court schedules.

In some cases, the experience of being victimized
leaves a person physically, emotionally, or
financially unable to work. Victim services
providers can help explain these problems to
employers and perhaps obtain a leave of absence for
the employee (see appendix J for a relevant sample
letter). Sometimes employer intervention extends
beyond the immediate needs of the victim, as in the
case of a program that persuaded a company to
install lights in its parking lot where several
employees had been accosted after dark. Victim
assistance program staff can also negotiate with
landlords and other creditors to allow victims to
defer payments.

Property return. Burglary victims--both private
citizens and merchants--suffer inconvenience and
even lost income when stolen goods are retained as
evidence. At the same time, police property rooms
are often filled to overflowing. Hence, by
expediting property return, a program serves both
victims of crime and the criminal justice system.
Once in place, a property return system requires
little staff attention. The National Organization
for Victim Assistance suggests the following model,
based on a system developed by the Alameda County
District Attorney's Victim/Witness Assistance
Division:[7]

o Police property clerks prepare an evidence
identification card, with the date and time of the
offense, a short description of the property, its
estimated value, and the suspect's name.

o The clerks then take a color photograph of the
card, the stolen property, and the suspect.

o They enter on an evidence log the frame number of
the film roll on which the suspect and evidence
have been recorded.

o When the case goes to court, the prosecutor need
only present the photographs as evidence.

According to the Alameda County program director,
once the benefits of an expedited property return
system were demonstrated to evidence clerks and to
police officials and line officers, everyone
cooperated in making the change. Some trial
attorneys objected, however, because they felt that
the actual stolen property, rather than
photographs, makes a more dramatic impact in court,
especially in cases involving unique items. By
working with local prosecutors and law enforcement,
program staff can determine what is permissible on
a case-by-case basis.

Intimidation protection. Victims and witnesses may
fear reprisal from the alleged offender whether or
not there is any real danger. In recent years,
however, more victims are receiving threats from
offenders or offenders' acquaintances, particularly
in cases involving drugs, gangs, or domestic
violence.[8] While most program staff cannot
provide actual physical protection themselves, the
basic services provided by a victim assistance
program--such as counseling, court orientation, and
court escort--can often reduce feelings of
intimidation. The American Bar Association held
public hearings on intimidation and concluded that
"the mere presence of a third person who knows the
criminal justice system can be dramatically
reassuring to the crime victim or key witness."[9] 

Establishing separate waiting areas in courts for
witnesses and informing victims and witnesses
whether a suspect is under arrest or in custody can
also reduce fear of intimidation. If necessary,
program personnel can encourage police
investigators and prosecutors to provide
intimidation protection. Some program staff are
becoming more involved in helping to protect
victims and witnesses, sometimes arranging for them
to be temporarily relocated. (See the box in
chapter 4 describing the Clark County (Nevada)
Victim/Witness Assistance Center.) 

"Simply having someone to talk to during the trial
or to walk to the drinking fountain or the restroom
with (vitally important if the defendant is on bail
or his family is in or near the court) is very
important to the victim or witness in reducing
perceived intimidation in almost every case and to
the reduction of real threats in a considerable
number." 

--American Bar Association, Reducing Victim/Witness
Intimidation: A Package and "How To Do It"
Suggestions for Implementing the ABA Victim/Witness
Recommendations

Victim impact statements. To give victims a voice
in sentencing, program advocates may record
victims' statements on the physical, psychological,
and financial effects of the crime to submit to
judges and prosecutors. In some jurisdictions, this
is done informally. In Alameda County (California),
staff of the Victim/Witness Assistance Division
convey the victim's wishes orally to the prosecutor
prior to plea bargaining or put the victim directly
in touch with the prosecutor. In other
jurisdictions, program staff help the victim submit
a written statement to the prosecutor which is
forwarded to the judge along with the presentence
investigation report. Some victim assistance
experts point out that it is important to encourage
victims to describe the impact of the crime in
their own words, rather than writing a formulaic
statement for them. 

No State explicitly denies the court the right to
allow the victim's feelings and opinions to be
heard during a presentence investigation or to be
mentioned in a presentence report. On the contrary,
most States have statutes that make a victim impact
statement a mandatory part of the presentence
investigation. Victim impact statements are also
increasingly being presented to parole boards. 

It is important that program staff explain both to
victims and to the court that the impact statement
is not intended to try to bind the judge in any way
but is submitted for the court to consider in
determining a sentence. This explanation may help
prevent victims from developing unrealistic
expectations about case disposition--and the court
from misperceiving the impact statement as an
attempt to infringe on its discretionary powers.

Legal/paralegal counsel. Most programs refer
victims and witnesses to another agency, such as a
Legal Aid Office, for legal counsel, but some
provide paralegal counseling in-house. In fact,
program staff must be particularly careful not to
offer a victim specific legal advice or refer a
victim to a specific attorney. Program directors
must understand their limits in this area of
service delivery and communicate them clearly to
staff. 

Despite these caveats, providing information
regarding legal options is becoming a particularly
important service as more and more victims pursue
civil litigation as a means of recovering lost
wages, hospital costs, property damage, and other
expenses resulting from their victimization.[10] If
a victim wants to pursue civil action, an advocate
can discuss with the victim factors to consider
when selecting an attorney, as well as the
availability of bar association referral
networks.[11] (See the box, "Helping Victims Pursue
Civil Litigation," in chapter 4.) The National
Victim Center, near Washington, D.C. , recently
established the Carrington Victims' Litigation
Project (CVLP), which includes a network of
attorneys nationwide who have handled cases for
crime victims. Victim services providers can refer
victims who want to pursue civil litigation to the
National Victim Center.[12] 

Referrals. No one program can provide all of the
services victims and witnesses need. Referral to
other human services agencies and support groups in
the community is therefore essential, especially
since victims themselves are often unaware of
resources in the community that can provide
assistance.[13] (See chapter 4 for a detailed
discussion of how to work with agencies and
organizations to make mutual referrals.)

The program may make a referral simply by giving
the victim the name, address, and phone number of
the appropriate agency along with the name of a
contact person. Some program staff call the contact
person themselves. Others make an appointment on
behalf of the victim, and a few actually accompany
or transport the victim to the agency. Regardless
of the approach, outside resources are most
receptive to assisting victims when the referrals
meet the eligibility criteria of the outside agency
and when accurate assessment information is
provided about the referred victim or witness.

Follow-up is important to determine whether
clients' needs are met, to determine which agencies
do a good job, and to strengthen ties with these
organizations. In practice, however, most program
staff find that they have time to conduct follow-up
only in special cases, as when a particularly needy
victim has been referred or an outside resource is
being used for the first time. Programs may be able
to use volunteers to follow up on referrals, either
by telephoning the victim to find out what happened
or by sending a letter asking the victim to call
the program to report on the experience.

In order to provide comprehensive services to
clients, program administrators must be aware of
new agencies being established and others closing
their doors. Creating and updating resource files
is a task that volunteers can perform easily with
little supervision.

Sending victims and witnesses to other
organizations for help requires that the program be
receptive to accepting clients from these agencies
in return (see chapter 4 on establishing linkages
with social service agencies). Occasionally,
offering reciprocity can result in inappropriate or
excessive numbers of referrals, in which case the
victim assistance staff must decide whether the
extra effort is repaid by increased cooperation
from these organizations. 

Assistance in Filing for Victim Compensation and
Restitution 

Helping crime victims with filing for compensation
has become an important service provided by many
victim assistance programs.[14] Each state has
enacted legislation to compensate victims who
suffer economic hardship as a result of their
victimization, and some jurisdictions also impose a
restitution requirement on offenders whenever
appropriate and feasible. States receive a
considerable amount of funds for crime victim
compensation from the Federal Crime Victims Fund,
financed by Federal criminal fines and fees. (See
chapter 9, "Funding Victim Assistance Programs.")
To determine the amount of restitution that should
be ordered, or the amount of compensation for which
victims may qualify, victims must document losses
and expenses, including any reimbursements from
insurance or other sources. Helping victims to
document their losses and expenses is a relatively
straightforward but tedious task.[15] Some
programs, such as the Alameda County (California)
Victim/Witness Assistance Division, have claims
specialists dedicated solely to helping victims
obtain compensation. Staff in some programs send
for the required documentation and assist the
victim in filing the papers. Other staff advise the
victim to secure and submit the necessary
documentation but often find that, despite repeated
requests, victims fail to secure them before the
filing date has passed or the sentencing hearing
has occurred. Some clients do not understand the
eligibility criteria and assume that, because they
have been victimized, they automatically qualify
for compensation or restitution. Furthermore,
victims who do qualify want--and often need--
immediate reimbursement. Program staff need to warn
victims about waiting periods so that they do not
develop unrealistic expectations.

Documenting victims' losses and expenses provides
prosecutors and judges with helpful information on
the amount of restitution to order. Staff from a
number of programs also help victims to complete
insurance claims forms for securing medical
benefits and reimbursement for lost or stolen
property.

Court-Related Services 

Familiarizing victims and witnesses with the
criminal justice system and providing witness
management services are critical, especially for
clients who must make court appearances.

Court orientation. A brief explanation of the
adjudication process, sometimes supplemented by
brochures, is usually provided to clients as soon
as possible. Not surprisingly, the further a case
proceeds in the courts, the more in-depth the
explanation becomes, with the most orientation
required for cases that actually go to trial. In
such cases, a witness who will testify is sometimes
given a tour of the courtroom. In addition, many
victim services providers single out victims of
child abuse, rape victims, and the elderly for
special assistance in preparing them to testify.

In order to provide detailed information on the
criminal justice system, and especially the trial
process, staff themselves must be knowledgeable
about criminal justice case processing. Staff
surveyed for this report consistently cited this
area as one in which they would have liked more
training. At the same time, however, they suggested
that formal training is not really feasible; the
best way to learn about the criminal justice system
is to work in it. For these reasons, experienced
staff, or those who come to the program with a
criminal justice background, may be best suited for
providing court orientation.

"I found it enormously comforting and helpful to
work with a victim/witness advocate who could focus
on assisting the victim with his/her emotional and
physical reactions to victimization and provide the
necessary support to enable them to participate in
the prosecution of their case."

-- Ralph C. Martin II, District Attorney of Suffolk
County, Massachusetts

Witness notification. Notifying witnesses of
upcoming court appearances, informing them of
postponements, and letting them know the final
disposition of their case not only helps prevent
unnecessary trips by witnesses but also relieves
prosecutors of the burden of tracking down
witnesses and keeping them up-to-date regarding
case status. Most important, witness notification
improves appearance rates. Based on the needs
assessment, program goals, and sponsor priorities,
administrators will have to establish the scope of
the program's witness notification services. Most
of the programs contacted for this study provide
witness notification only for victims they have
assisted; some extend this service to police
witnesses; and a few others include all witnesses,
whether or not they are victims. (Many programs
also notify victims about the status of the police
investigation, before the case even reaches court.)

On a practical level, witness notification involves
a great deal of paperwork. Staff must review court
dockets and check prosecutor records, and then
convey the information to the witness by phone or
by mail. Many programs have developed form letters
which staff send to witnesses along with a brochure
on trial procedures and the role of the witness in
the courtroom. Some programs also use form letters
to provide information on a case disposition to
witnesses who were not present when their cases
were heard. Program staff may send case disposition
letters to police witnesses as well, because
otherwise the officers, who may never hear from
other sources what happened to suspects they
arrested and interrogated, may feel that their
efforts were wasted.

Informing victims and witnesses of case disposition
can be difficult when defendants are found not
guilty or when the sentence appears lenient.
Victims also tend to view plea bargaining (which
occurs in the vast majority of criminal cases) as
"letting the offender off easy." Staff may
therefore have to absorb victims' anger at the
perceived inequities and red tape in the criminal
justice system. To prepare victims for possible
unsatisfactory outcomes, it may be helpful to
inform them at the outset of the realities of plea
bargaining and judicial sentencing.

Witness alert. Closely related to witness
notification is witness alert, or on-call services.
Normally, witnesses are told to arrive at 8:30 a.m.
and to be available all day to testify. With a
witness alert service, however, witnesses may
remain at home or at work until shortly before the
time they testify (if they are called to the stand
at all). This reduces the amount of time witnesses
spend at the courthouse--and their frustration
level. Some prosecutor's offices already provide
witness alert services, in which case there is no
need for the victim assistance program to take on
this task. 

If the program will be providing this service,
program administrators must decide in advance with
the district attorney on the eligibility criteria
for witnesses to be placed on alert status--for
example, how close to the courthouse they must live
or work, or what indicators of reliability, if any,
they must demonstrate. When program staff take the
initiative to place witnesses on stand-by notice,
they must make sure that the witnesses do not
damage the program's credibility with prosecutors
by not appearing. As with witness notification,
witness alert is usually limited to victims the
program has assisted.

Witness reception and escort. Providing an area
where clients may wait apart from defendants, as
recommended by the President's Task Force on
Victims of Crime, can give considerable relief to
victims and witnesses.[16] Some programs, already
located in a courthouse, make part of their own
office space available to witnesses who are waiting
to testify. The Clark County (Nevada) program has
an office on the fifth floor of the courthouse
where witnesses can wait. (Staff, however, will not
escort witnesses who have been threatened; instead
they rely on the prosecutor's office to arrange for
escort.) Other programs that have offices outside
the courts have set up a witness reception booth in
the courthouse. This increases the burden on staff
resources, however, since someone must be available
to answer witnesses' questions and direct them to
appropriate courtrooms.

Witness escort is usually reserved for victims who
have been severely affected by their victimization,
typically victims of violent crime, the elderly,
and children who have been sexually abused. These
victims find it especially reassuring to have a
familiar face in the courtroom when they testify
and are cross-examined.

Transportation and child care. Victims with limited
financial resources are often faced with problems
in getting to and from court and in caring for
their children. Victim assistance staff sometimes
drive clients to court and, if necessary, provide
child care themselves in program offices. Cutbacks
in funding, however, have forced many victim
assistance programs to limit or even eliminate
transportation and child care services. 

Postsentencing Services 

Postsentencing services represent one of the more
significant areas of expansion among victim
assistance programs. An increasing number of
departments of corrections, probation, and parole
are recognizing--sometimes under mandate of law--
that victims are as significant a part of their
clientele as offenders. Many victims want services
regardless of whether the offender was imprisoned,
is on probation or parole, or is in some form of
community-based corrections (e.g., day reporting).
In addition to the services discussed below, victim
services that can be offered after sentencing
include assistance with victim impact statements
and with preparing to speak before the parole
board, coordination of victim impact classes at
which offenders hear victims speak about the
effects of crime on their lives, and general
ombudsman services for victims with complaints
about the penal system.

Orientation. The corrections system can be
difficult to understand and often arouses deep
resentment on the part of victims who may not
understand, for example, why an offender was
sentenced to community-based corrections or why
prison overcrowding precipitated early release.
Victim services providers can verbally provide
victims with information about the corrections
system, the roles of various officials within the
system (e.g., probation officers), and victims'
rights within the system. Brochures are another,
but less effective, way to provide this information
to victims.

Notification. As of 1995, 31 States had enacted
statutes giving victims the right to notification
of parole hearings and of early release of the
offender.[17] This includes identifying which
prison the offender is in or where the offender is
living if on probation, and notification of any
escape, furlough, parole hearing, early community
placement, and release hearing (see appendix K).
Usually victims are notified by mail. It is
important that victim assistance staff learn
whether offenders can find out if a victim has
requested notification of the offender's status
within the penal system or if program staff can
keep notification requests confidential.

Restitution. Victim services programs that work out
of the correctional system are in a good position
to help victims obtain restitution. (See the
discussion above, "Assistance in Filing for Victim
Compensation and Restitution.") The California
Youth Authority Office of Prevention and Victim
Services serves as a liaison between victims and
the Youth Authority regarding restitution. The
authority sets up a payment schedule and withholds
money from the offender for deposit into a
restitution account. Then a check is sent to Victim
Services, the only depository of victims' addresses
maintaining a single depository protects the
confidentiality of victims. Similarly, when an
offender is on parole, the parole officer obtains
the restitution payments and turns them over to
Victim Services, which sends them to the victim.

Victim-offender reconciliation programs (VORP).
Also often called victim-offender mediation, VORP
gives victims the opportunity to talk with their
assailants and explain how the crime has affected
them. However, whereas traditional mediation
affords the chance to work out a resolution that is
agreeable to both victim and offender,
victim-offender reconciliation usually occurs after
sentencing. In recent years VORP's have gained in
popularity, but victim advocates caution that this
service should be provided only on a voluntary
basis and with careful explanation to both parties
of what it entails. Victim assistance programs that
cannot operate a VORP themselves can refer victims
to local reconciliation programs. (See the box in
this chapter, "Crime Victims and the Restorative
Model of Justice?") 

Systemwide Services 

Victim assistance programs provide services that
can improve the overall response of the community
and the criminal justice system to victims and
witnesses, including conducting public education
sessions, supporting legislation that addresses
victim and witness concerns, and providing training
for police, prosecutors, and other human services
providers.

Public education sessions serve as a forum for
victim assistance program personnel to provide
information on topics ranging from crime prevention
to the needs of specific categories of victims,
such as domestic violence, rape, and robbery
victims. More victim services providers are
becoming involved--usually in conjunction with
schools and other community groups--in violence
reduction activities, particularly among youth. The
director of the Essex County (Massachusetts)
Victim/Witness Assistance Program supplements the
district attorney's efforts to prevent violence by
coordinating and giving presentations at local
conferences and workshops on such topics as teen
dating violence and sexual harassment. In addition,
program staff use public education sessions to make
the community aware of the program's services,
generate referrals, and provide information about
victims' rights and other community services.
(Chapter 5 provides a more detailed discussion of
public education sessions.)

Many program staff have been involved in advocating
legislative changes that address the needs of
victims and witnesses.[22] Legislative support
activities can take the form of drafting bills,
arranging for victims and witnesses to testify
before task force hearings, or participating in
lobbying efforts. When appropriate, program
administrators can ask staff of other human
services providers in the community to help draft
legislation or lobby for its passage. 

Before engaging in lobbying, the program must have
a clear written agreement with funding sources that
lobbying is acceptable. Program staff have
supported legislation that provides:

o victim compensation, witness compensation, and
restitution;

o notification programs, intimidation protection,
expedited property return, and victim impact
statements;

o protective orders for victims of domestic
violence;

o medical examination and treatment of victims of
sexual assault; and

o institutionalized funding of victim/witness
services.

Victim services providers can also work for
systemic changes within police departments and
prosecutors' offices to benefit victims and
witnesses. For example, staff can seek to make it
standard policy in the district attorney's office
to request restitution in all possible cases and
ask that it be collected before court costs and
fines.

Finally program staff can conduct training for
police,  prosecutors, and human services providers
in handling victims and witnesses. Training may
improve program credibility and interagency
cooperation, and the quality of services provided
to victims and witnesses. Training police and
prosecutors, of course, requires the approval of
the chief of police and the chief prosecutor. To
avoid the problem of overtime pay, many program
staff request permission to address officers during
regular departmental training sessions or at roll
calls. Chapter 4 provides a more detailed
discussion of these training programs.

Endnotes

1. See David and Anne Delaplane, Victims: A Manual
for Clergy and Congregations (Sacramento,
California: The Spiritual Dimension in Victim
Services, n.d.).

2. Albert R. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims:
Research, Policy, and Practice (Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, 1990), 55-56.

3. For detailed information on crisis management,
refer to Marlene Young, The Victim Service System:
A Guide to Action (Washington, D.C. , 1983); Lee Ann
Hoff, People in Crisis: Understanding and Helping
(California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
1978); David A. Lowenberg and Paul Forgach,
Counseling Crime Victims in Crisis (Washington, D.C. :
Aurora Associate, Inc., 1982); Marjorie Sussman and
Carol Vittert, "Building a Solution: A Practical
Guide for Establishing Crime Victim Service
Agencies" (St. Louis: National Council of Jewish
Women, St. Louis Section, 1980).

4. J. R. Freedy, H. S. Resnick, D. G. Kilpatrick,
B. S. Dansky, and R. P. Tidwell, "The Psychological
Adjustment of Recent Crime Victims in the Criminal
Justice System," Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
9 (1994): 450-468.

5. Sussman and Vittert, "Building a Solution," 67.

6. For discussions of what types of cases are
appropriate for mediation, see chapters 8 and 9 in
Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson, eds., Perspectives on
Crime Victims (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1981), and
Daniel McGillis and Joan Mullen, Neighborhood
Justice Centers: An Analysis of Potential Models
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1977).

7. National Organization for Victim Assistance,
"Responding to Crime Victims is Good Business: A
Report to the American Business Community"
(Washington, D.C. : National Organization for Victim
Assistance, 1980).

8. See Kerry Healey, Victim and Witness
Intimidation: New Developments and Emerging
Responses, Research in Action (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, October 1995); Peter Finn and Kerry
Healey, Preventing Witness Intimidation: A
Practical Guide, Issues and Practices (Washington,
D : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, forthcoming); and Claire Johnson,
Barbara Webster, and Edward Connors, Prosecuting
Gangs: A National Assessment, Research in Brief
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 1995).

9. American Bar Association, Reducing
Victim/Witness Intimidation: A Package and "How To
Do It" Suggestions for Implementing the ABA
Victim/Witness Intimidation Recommendations. Copies
of the publication can be obtained from The
American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section,
1800 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.

10. Victoria O. Brien, Civil Legal Remedies for
Crime Victims, Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, Office
for Victims of Crime, December 1992).

11. For a detailed discussion of civil litigation
on behalf of crime victims, see Victoria O. Brien,
Civil Legal Remedies for Crime Victims, Office for
Victims of Crime Bulletin (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime,
December 1992), 1. Also, the National Victim Center
developed for the Office for Victims of Crime a
conference training manual and curriculum, Legal
Remedies for Crime Victims Against Perpetrators:
Basic Principles, published in 1992. To obtain the
manual and curriculum, contact the National Victim
Center at (703) 684-5300.

12. Contact the National Victim Center at (703)
684-5300.

13. Cannavale and Falcon, Improving Witness
Cooperation, 30.

14. See Dale G. Parent, Barbara Auerbach, and
Kenneth E. Carlson, Compensating Crime Victims: A
Summary of Policies and Practices (Washington, D.C. :
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1992).

15. For a comprehensive review of approaches to
helping crime victims obtain restitution, see
Daniel McGillis, Crime Victim Restitution: An
Analysis of Approaches, Issues and Practices
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, December 1986).

16. President's Task Force on Victims of Crime:
Final Report (Washington, D.C. : Executive Office of
the President, December 1982), 72. The National
District Attorneys Association Commission on Victim
Witness Assistance of Washington, D.C. , issued a
pamphlet, A Primer for Model Victim Witness
Assistance Centers, on the creation of comfortable
and secure victim and witness reception centers.

17. Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to
Prosecution and Victim Assistance: A Training and
Resource Manual (Alexandria, Virginia: National
Victim Center, 1994).

18. Law Enforcement News, 21, no. 22 (April 1995),
5.

19. John J. DiIulio, Jr., Rethinking the Criminal
Justice System: Toward a New Paradigm, A Discussion
Paper from the BJS-Princeton Project (Washington, D.C.
: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1992).

20. Myron Steele and Thomas J. Quinn, "Including
Victims in the Criminal Justice Equation: Community
Justice in the Next Century," Perspectives, Special
Issue,18, no. 3 (American Probation and Parole
Association, 1994), 31.

21. DeIulio, "Rethinking the Criminal Justice
System," 11.

22. American Bar Association, Reducing
Victim/Witness Legislation. Also, for a detailed
discussion of the stepsinvolved in conducting
legislative advocacy, see Legislative Advocacy and
Policy Development (Alexandria, Virginia: National
Victim Center, 1990). 

________________________________________________

Counseling Victims of Trauma: Critical Incident
Debriefing

Several programs have begun providing critical
incident debriefing services for individuals
traumatized not only by violent crimes but also by
environmental catastrophes, accidents, and violence
in a workplace (for example, in the case of a bank
robbery). Staff help victims, witnesses, survivors,
family and friends, and others who may have been
traumatized by the incident to verbalize their
emotions, understand that their reactions are
normal, and cope with their reactions to the
event.[4] 

The Pima County (Arizona) Victim/Witness Program
has long been involved in crisis intervention. In
1990, a high school principal asked staff to
counsel students who were being released from a
class held hostage by another student. Later the
principal asked staff to address larger groups of
students who were traumatized or troubled by the
event. Recognizing that they could serve other
individuals involved in similar disasters, program
staff received training from the National
Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) on how to
respond to communities in crisis. Initially,
program staff thought they would reserve this
service for catastrophic events; eventually, they
realized that groups affected by crimes and other
traumatic incidents could benefit from the service.
Critical incident stress debriefing teams have
provided assistance to employees after bank
robberies, to students and faculty after a local
university professor was killed, to employees of a
restaurant after the manager was killed in a drunk
driving accident, and to residents of an apartment
complex where a serial rapist had attacked several
women (see appendix I for the program's critical
incident stress debriefing brochure and training
curriculum). Staff have worked with groups ranging
from five to several hundred. Each team is
comprised primarily of about 5 regular staff and 10
volunteers trained by the program director and
other staff. As with other program activities,
prior to conducting a debriefing, staff are careful
to talk with police investigators since the
debriefings may involve witnesses talking about a
crime. 

The Pima County program director has recently begun
training 12- to 17-year-olds in providing critical
incident stress debriefing to young people who have
been traumatized by crimes or other serious events
(e.g., young residents of an apartment complex
where a child was killed). She initially recruited
children of program volunteers, as well as her own
two daughters. (See appendix A for contact
information on the Pima County program.)

--------------------

Victim Notification in the Information Age

The Victim Information and Notification Everyday
(VINE) system is an automated telephone system
developed by a local company to give victims in
Jefferson County, Kentucky, the opportunity to
obtain information about the status of inmates.[18]
Modeled after the system used by banks to provide
account information, VINE uses a computer that
relies on voice recognition. The system gives
callers information about times and locations of
court dates and the status of inmates incarcerated
in the county correctional system. Victims can also
register by phone to be automatically notified when
an inmate is to be released; the system calls
registered victims repeatedly until contact is
made. Victims can also obtain information on other
county victim services and the phone numbers of
court and corrections officials. According to
county officials, domestic violence victims are the
most frequent users of the system. At least 50
other jurisdictions across the country are planning
to set up VINE systems. The VINE system can be
tested by calling (502) 574-8463 and using the
inmate number "111111." For more information on the
VINE system, contact Mike Davis, vice president of
marketing development for Interactive Systems, in
Louisville, Kentucky, at (502) 561-8463.

--------------------

Crime Victims and the Restorative Model 
of Justice?

As the criminal justice system becomes increasingly
burdened with record numbers of offenders,
including more juvenile and violent offenders,
officials are struggling to devise ways to cope.
There appears to be a growing consensus that what
is needed is a restructuring of the entire system,
or at least a dramatic change in approach.[19] Some
observers maintain that the needs of victims should
be at the forefront of a new model, popularly
called restorative justice. The restorative justice
model focuses on resolving problems created by
crime--such as injuries and difficulties suffered
by victims--in contrast to the retributive model,
which focuses primarily on establishing guilt and
punishing offenders. 

As an emerging philosophy in the criminal justice
system, restorative justice has been implemented
mainly in the corrections system. Victim-offender
mediation and reconciliation, the payment of
restitution (both monetary and through community
service), victim impact panels, and victim impact
statements are all important aspects of restorative
justice.[20] Some criminal justice officials hope
that the development and use of more of these
approaches will ease the burden on the court and
corrections systems and help to "restore" crime
victims to "wholeness" again.[21]

____________________________________________

Chapter 7
Training and Supervising Staff

--------------------

Key Points

o Up-to-date, comprehensive training--both
preservice and in-service--is critical to the
effectiveness of a victim assistance program.
Training helps ensure that staff have the expertise
and skills to provide quality services and helps
keep staff motivated about their work.

o Training does not have to be expensive and
time-consuming.

o With increasing collaboration among victim
assistance programs, criminal justice agencies, and
community agencies and organizations, there are
more opportunities to conduct interagency and
multidisciplinary training. This type of training
not only helps to enhance participants' knowledge
and skills but also contributes to better
relationships among agencies.

o A wealth of State and nationally based training
opportunities focused specifically on victim
services are now available through victim services
agencies and networks. 

o Training is receiving increased emphasis among
victim services experts as they attempt to raise
the position of victim advocate to professional
status. Some States have adopted training standards
and curriculum for State-funded programs.

o Staff supervision is particularly important in
the areas of case assignment, maintaining volunteer
commitment, and preventing burnout. Increasingly,
supervisors also need to ensure that staff follow
proper policies and procedures to protect
themselves and the program from legal liability.

Training and supervision of both paid staff and
volunteers are critical tasks for victim assistance
programs. Training helps ensure that staff have the
expertise and skills to provide high-quality
services, while supervision helps to improve the
competence and confidence of advocates, ensure that
victims are being reached and are receiving
effective services, and foster staff morale,
commitment, and professionalism. This chapter
examines ways of conducting preservice and
in-service training of both volunteers and paid
staff, as well as strategies for supervising both. 

Conducting Staff Training[1]

Training is often ignored or downplayed, usually
because of indifference, lack--or unawareness--of
training opportunities, or limited funds, staff, or
time. In a recent survey of over 300 programs,
nearly half provided neither preservice nor
in-service training for either paid staff or
volunteers.[2] Yet, the director of the Victims
Advocate Foundation, located in rural Indiana,
notes that the most important advice he can offer
to other programs' staff is to attend all the
conferences and training sessions they can. Ralph
Martin II, district attorney of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts, which has a long-running victim
assistance program, maintains that comprehensive
introductory and in-service training for advocates
is one of the essential components of an effective
program.[3]

Training does not have to be expensive or
time-consuming. It is important, however, that
program administrators maximize the investment they
do put into training. Spending two hours observing
an experienced advocate on the job, for instance,
could be more valuable than six hours of lectures.
And given the increased quantity and quality of
working relationships with other groups that victim
assistance programs are developing, inexpensive
interagency training can often be arranged. Program
directors must be careful to obtain up-to-date,
comprehensive training materials; to use training
techniques that convey considerable information in
a short amount of time; and to keep informed about
training opportunities in their community and State
and on the national level.

In the survey of 300 victim assistance programs
mentioned above, of the programs that offered
preservice training, paid staff generally received
40 hours and volunteers received 20 hours of
training; of the programs that offered in-service
training, paid staff generally received 24 hours
and volunteers received 15 hours. Figure 7-1 shows
the topics addressed during training by a majority
of survey respondents who provide training. Over
three-fourths of the respondents said that their
primary training objective was to improve the
efficiency of their program. A majority of staff
also cited the goals of developing skills to work
within criminal justice agencies, defining the role
and function of the program, and developing
counseling and other skills among program staff and
volunteers. Two-thirds or more of all survey
respondents said that they need additional training
in working with special victim populations
(particularly elderly, juvenile, and mentally ill
victims and victims of domestic violence), knowing
the legal rights of victims, developing community
resources, counseling and interviewing techniques,
obtaining restitution for victims, and working with
law enforcement officials.

Preservice Training 

Figure 7-2 summarizes the training that five
programs conduct for both paid staff and
volunteers. Preservice training that these and
other programs provide typically seeks to impart
the following skills and information:

o the program's goals, organization, services, and
policies and procedures;

o operating procedures of the criminal justice
system;

o the availability of other service providers in
the community, and the services they provide;

o counseling and interviewing techniques, including
listening skills, observing, questioning, and
paraphrasing; 

o crisis intervention techniques, such as
establishing contact, taking safety precautions,
assessing the problem, defusing anger, providing
reassurance, planning therapeutic interventions,
and making referrals.

Programs may address additional topics depending on
the specific responsibilities assigned to
volunteers in a given program; appendix L presents
a sample training agenda for volunteers. Programs
may train staff and volunteers using lectures,
films and reading materials, role playing,
observing staff during working hours ("shadowing"),
assigning the newcomer to an experienced staff
member as a buddy, sensitivity training, and
videotaping. Most programs use a combination of
approaches, presenting crisis theory and
information on the criminal justice system through
lectures, written materials, and client contact and
developing counseling skills through role playing
and observation.

There is a wealth of written material on
victimology and victim services that both
experienced and new victim services providers can
read. (See appendix B and the endnotes of each
chapter for a list of useful publications.)
However, learning improves when trainees actively
participate in the sessions.[4] Preservice training
can be particularly effective when it includes
exercises which simulate actual cases. Furthermore,
it is usually best if training is conducted by
individuals with first-hand experience in service
delivery, as well as by program directors and staff
who are familiar with the program's day-to-day
operations.

When deciding on the content and format of
preservice training, it is useful to consider the
program's objectives and how much training staff
have already had. Programs that offer 24-hour
on-the-scene services need to emphasize crisis
intervention skills more heavily than programs that
focus on victim advocacy and operate primarily
during normal business hours. Staff need to be
trained on how to work with victims of crimes that
require the most attention or special expertise,
such as rape and other sexual assault, domestic
violence, and child abuse.

As more victim experts recognize the need to
provide outreach to victim populations that face
particularly difficult obstacles to cooperating
with the criminal justice system (including ethnic
groups, gays and lesbians, and the elderly) more
staff are being trained to meet these groups'
special needs. Nineteen of the 25 programs
originally surveyed for this study reported that
they had provided staff orientation on language
barriers or on cultural factors affecting minority
victims. This kind of training is usually most
effective when conducted by a member of--or someone
who works frequently with--the particular group
involved.

Preservice training also generally includes
discussions of obstacles to cooperation with other
agencies in the program's referral network and how
to overcome them. In many programs, trainees
participate in police ride-alongs and observe
trials in court. Program administrators also
frequently distribute resource directories to
staff.

As figure 7-2 shows, training for volunteers
sometimes differs from training for paid staff.
Generally, preservice training for volunteers is
more extensive, covering basic counseling
techniques, while preservice training for staff
(who usually already have counseling experience) is
less structured and concentrates on how the
criminal justice system operates and the
particulars of the program's operations, such as
recordkeeping. 

Some program administrators use preservice training
as a screening device for volunteers, allowing
anyone who is interested to attend but recruiting
only participants who complete the training
successfully. Preservice training conducted by the
Pima County (Arizona) Victim/Witness Program, for
example, is open to anyone who wants to learn
crisis intervention concepts, skills, and
techniques. In order to become a volunteer in the
program, however, trainees must attend 11 of 12
three-hour sessions conducted by program staff and,
after being interviewed and selected, participate
in an additional 15 hours of training. Trainees
must then observe and work with experienced staff
during a six-month probationary period before
graduating to full volunteer status and being
allowed to work alone. 

Most program administrators find that a minimum of
40 hours of training is desirable for both paid
staff and volunteers. However, training is often
briefer because program staff who conduct the
training can typically spare only a limited amount
of time from their other responsibilities. In the
long run, however, program directors report that
allowing trainers adequate time to orient new staff
usually pays off by reducing the number of blunders
new staff invariably make.

Program administrators have found an evaluation
component useful in obtaining information from
trainees on the content and presentation of the
training. Staff trainers of Pima County (Arizona)'s
Victim/Witness Program solicit oral assessments
from participants after each exercise in addition
to distributing evaluation forms at the end of the
training. Daily comments from trainees facilitate
mid-course corrections in the training program as
well as modifications of future training sessions.

In-Service Training 

In-service training, usually less elaborate and
less formal than preservice training, typically
takes one of the following forms:

o round-table discussions of cases that were
particularly difficult or rewarding to handle;

o guest speakers from other agencies, who bring
program staff up-to-date on changes in eligibility
criteria, services offered, or case processing; or
who address victim assistance topics such as
domestic violence, child abuse, or rape; and

o attendance at seminars, conferences, or workshops
given by regional, State, and national victim
assistance agencies and networks, universities, or
other organizations.

In compliance with requirements of the California
Penal Code for State-funded victim assistance
programs, new staff with the Alameda County
Victim/Witness Assistance Division must complete 40
hours of training before they complete their first
year on the job. All other staff must receive at
least 24 hours of training each year through
workshops, conferences, and seminars.

Most programs use on-the-job training both for paid
staff and volunteers. This approach requires fewer
resources than formally structured training
programs and permits faster start-up. In addition,
assisting victims and witnesses cannot be taught in
the abstract but must be learned by actually
providing services. While on-the-job training is
not recommended as the primary method of qualifying
new staff who have had little or no experience in
human services delivery, providing new staff with
first-hand experience in dealing with victims and
witnesses is an essential supplement to formally
structured training. Close supervision is necessary
to minimize harmful interactions between new staff
and clients and to identify areas in which new
staff need improvement. 

Many national, State, and local networks of victim
services providers offer training courses and
technical assistance. The director of the Victims
Advocate Foundation in Indiana had been working in
the area of victim assistance for about four years
when he attended a week-long training session on
crisis response at the National Organization for
Victim Assistance (NOVA) in Washington, D.C..C. The
seminar, he said, "made all the difference in the
world" in his ability to assist victims. The
director of the Colorado State Patrol Victim
Assistance Program considers the bimonthly training
seminars and annual retreats offered by the
Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance to be
invaluable. The National Victim Center (NVC) and
the Department of Justice Office for Victims of
Crime (OVC) also sponsor conferences and training
courses and provide on-site technical assistance to
programs (see appendix B). For example, with OVC
funding, NVC provides training and technical
assistance to victim advocates regarding serving
crime victims who have or fear they have contracted
the HIV virus. The organization recently developed
a comprehensive training manual on this topic.[5]

Inviting staff from other programs or agencies to
provide training to victim assistance program
staff--or attending training sessions that these
other groups offer--will not only improve the
expertise of victim advocates but also contribute
to the development of working relationships with
the other agencies. According to the director of
the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Victim/Witness
Assistance Program, "Part of developing better
interagency cooperation is our need to educate each
other." She frequently coordinates training
meetings between her staff and law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, and community service
providers. 

Conducting Staff Supervision

Supervising staff involves close attention to case
assignment, volunteer commitment, and preventing
burnout.[9] Although all program directors and
supervisors may find the following strategies
useful, each supervisor has a unique style for
monitoring staff and communicating evaluation
results with them.

Assigning Cases 

Some program administrators assign cases to staff
according to the area of the city in which the
client resides. Thus, for several years, two staff
members of Scottsdale (Arizona)'s Police Crisis
Intervention Unit handled the northern half of the
city, and two handled the southern half. Other
program administrators assign cases according to
the type of problem involved. As a rule,
supervisors using this system assign less complex
matters (such as burglary or purse snatching) to
less experienced staff and to volunteers, while
more experienced staff are assigned more complex
cases. In Portland (Oregon)'s Victims Assistance
Program, one advocate deals with gang/hate crimes,
another works exclusively with victims of juvenile
offenders, and a third coordinates the county
multidisciplinary child abuse team. Staff
preferences guide some case assignments in many
programs. Finally, some program administrators make
case assignments on the basis of the type of
service required or staff availability. A
supervisor for the Alameda County (California)
program reviews all prosecutor charging sheets and
police reports and assigns cases to staff on a
"next-up" system unless caseload or other case
assignment considerations warrant a different
assignment.

Apart from assigning less complicated cases to
newer staff or volunteers, specializing in
particular types of cases is the exception in the
programs that were visited for on-site study. In
most of these six programs, staff are "generalists"
who can be assigned different types of cases. Since
most programs cannot afford to hire enough staff to
allow them to specialize, the generalist approach
is, in part, a matter of practical economics. It is
also a way of minimizing staff burnout. A number of
staff reported that concentrating on similar cases
over time impaired their ability to empathize with
clients. Furthermore, repeatedly handling upsetting
crimes like homicide, domestic violence, or rape
can lead to fatigue and depression. With
specialization, staff may also become possessive
about "their" cases, feeling that no one else can
handle them as well.

However, specialization allows staff to build
expertise in a particular area and, by designating
a single person as the contact for certain types of
cases, can strengthen the program's linkages with
other agencies. Staff in the Alameda County
(California) program, where specialization used to
be the rule, found that concentrating on one or two
types of cases allowed them to keep abreast of
legal changes in their areas of expertise and to
modify service delivery accordingly. Similarly,
staff who specialize can keep close track of
community resources related to their particular
area of responsibility--unlike generalists, who
must strive to be aware of changing resources in a
variety of fields. And Alameda County staff report
that they began to develop a sixth sense about
their cases, which enabled them to make better
judgments about their clients' candidness and
emotional state than generalists, who usually see
only a limited number of each type of victim or
witness, could have made. Recently, however,
because of increased caseloads and a desire to
assign cases more equitably, Alameda County staff
have begun to handle all types of cases. But staff
specialization with respect to certain kinds of
community resources (such as police or
community-based organizations) has been maintained.

Maintaining Volunteer Commitment 

One of the most difficult tasks victim services
providers face is keeping volunteers for a
significant period of time. Because many programs
depend heavily on volunteers, this is also one of
the most critical tasks for programs. A number of
measures can be taken to reduce volunteer turnover,
beginning with a contractual agreement.
Establishing a contract formalizes the two-way
commitment of the agency to the volunteer and the
volunteer to the agency by articulating both the
program's expectations of the volunteer, both in
terms of the amount of time required and the type
of work involved, and what the volunteer can expect
from the program (e.g., training). Furthermore, a
written contract fosters a more professional image
for the volunteer and the program within the
community. The director of the Suffolk County
(Massachusetts) Victim/Witness Assistance Program
asks each intern and volunteer to sign a contract
(see appendix N) stating the length of time during
which they will work for the program, the number of
hours they will work each week, and the specific
responsibilities they will assume. Academic
advisors of student interns must also sign the
contract.

Involving volunteers in direct service delivery
will help to give them a stake in the program.
Unsure of the ability and reliability of
volunteers, many program directors are reluctant to
use them in this capacity; nonetheless, experience
has demonstrated that properly trained and
supervised volunteers can not only provide direct
services competently, but can be critical to
program survival. Many victim assistance program
administrators, such as the director of the Suffolk
County (Massachusetts) program, have made
arrangements with local universities for volunteers
who complete program training and devote a certain
amount of time to the program to earn course
credits. Close supervision and continual assessment
of volunteers' achievements and deficiencies are
also useful for maintaining volunteer interest.
Finally, program directors can invite volunteers to
help review program policies and procedures,
evaluate program services, conduct needs
assessments, and assist with other managerial
activities.[14]

As with paid staff, program directors should set
high standards for volunteers and hold them
accountable for their work. Volunteers should be
treated as professionals even though they are not
being paid. As Marlene Young, executive director of
NOVA, has noted, monitoring volunteer work and
insisting on adequate performance "helps to
increase the morale of the worker bees and to get
rid of the sloths."[15] Publicly recognizing the
importance of the work that volunteers do is also
extremely important. The Pima County program has an
annual volunteer banquet at which awards are given
to volunteers.

While it is valuable to establish a set schedule
and a minimum time commitment for volunteers, it is
equally important to allow some flexibility in
scheduling. Programs with large volunteer
components report that they devote a great deal of
time to scheduling and take care to accommodate
volunteers' requests for scheduling changes in
light of the fact that their services are free and
they have other important commitments.

Contending with Staff Burnout 

Without exception, program directors have had to
contend with staff stress or burnout. Working with
victims and witnesses can easily lead to
exhaustion, and staff can also become overinvolved
with victims who have consuming emotional needs.
Some advocates may try to be all things to all
people.[16] Staff new to the profession may grow
fearful of becoming victims themselves and end up
taking unnecessary safety precautions. Like victims
and witnesses, staff can become frustrated by
injustices in the criminal justice system--
concluding, for example, that it is pointless to
work hard on behalf of victims when the offender
ends up with a light sentence or a not guilty
verdict. As one staff member put it, "You begin to
feel, `Why bother? No one else in the system seems
to care.'" In addition, staff may have to contend
with limited resources, condescending attitudes
from others in the criminal justice system who view
advocates as "do-gooders" and not professionals,
and a lack of guidelines and training to aid their
decisionmaking.[17]

Having extra staff or volunteers on hand to assume
some of the burden of overnight and weekend duty is
one of the easiest ways to prevent staff burnout.
Several program directors reported a reduction in
staff burnout once enough people came on board to
allow for rotation in weekend and night duties.
Building close working relationships with
representatives of criminal justice agencies,
social service agencies, and other community groups
can also relieve staff burnout.

Additionally, assigning different types of cases to
staff may be useful in preventing burnout. This may
be especially true with respect to cases involving
battered women, which advocates can find
particularly frustrating, because women in the
early stages of abuse may not yet be ready to take
legal action against their partners and often go
through a pattern of repeatedly returning to their
abusers. Making staff generalists also gives them
the opportunity to be challenged and stimulated by
new types of cases--such as victims who have been
held hostage. In a similar vein, allowing staff to
transfer cases, rather than requiring that the
staff member who initially opened a case be the
only contact with the victim or witness, can help
to alleviate pressure.

Staff training can also reduce staff burnout
through a discussion of common sources of stress
and ways in which staff can prevent and relieve it.
Staff support groups, which often develop
spontaneously in programs with few staff members,
provide an outlet for staff to vent anger and fear.
In the Alameda County (California) Victim/Witness
Assistance Division, the entire Oakland-based
office used to work together in one large room, and
staff members reported that access to a sympathetic
ear "saved our sanity many times." 

Lastly, program directors can encourage staff to
take vacations and daily breaks. Many directors
said that they had to enforce time off, because
staff became so dedicated that they would not take
vacation on their own. Signs of appreciation can
also go a long way to rejuvenating staff under
stress.

A final word on staff burnout: it cannot always be
prevented or cured. Burnout can sometimes serve as
an indicator that it is time for a staff member to
move on.

Endnotes

1. A training curriculum that can be used for both
program staff and volunteers, as well as for
representatives of other community agencies and
organizations, can be found in the National Victim
Center's 1994 training and resource manual, Focus
on the Future: A Systems Approach to Prosecution
and Victim Assistance. Contact the National Victim
Center at (703) 276-2880.

2. Tom McEwen, "Understanding the Needs of Victim
Assistance Programs," Draft Report, U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice
(Alexandria, Virginia: Institute for Law and
Justice, 1994).

3. Ralph C. Martin II, letter to the authors, June
26, 1995.

4. David A. Lowenberg and Paul Forgach, Counseling
Crime Victims in Crisis (Washington, D.C. : Aurora
Associates, Inc., 1982), 16.

5. Networks, National Victim Center, 9, no. 3
(November 1994), 6.

6. Robert C. Davis and Madeline Henley, "Victim
Service Programs," in Victims of Crime: Problems,
Policies, and Programs, eds. Arthur J. Lurigio,
Wesley G. Skogan, and Robert C. Davis (Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990), 163.

7. For a detailed discussion of the
professionalization of the position of victim
advocate, see chapter 23, "Victim Services as a
Profession," in Marlene Young, Victim Assistance:
Frontiers and Fundamentals (Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993).

8. Young, Victim Assistance: Frontiers and
Fundamentals, 405.

9. For a detailed discussion of program management,
see chapter 14, "People Management in a Victim
Assistance Program," in Marlene Young, Victim
Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals, 221-246.

10. Victoria O. Brien, Civil Legal Remedies for
Crime Victims, Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, 1992),
1-2.

11. Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to
Prosecution and Victim Assistance. A Training and
Resource Manual. (Arlington, Virginia: National
Victim Center, 1994).

12. Focus on the Future.

13. Young, Victim Assistance, 215.

14. Ibid., 203

15. Ibid., 216.

16. Coping With Stress and Preventing Burnout,
Victims' Rights: Opportunities for Action Series
(Alexandria, Virginia: National Victim Center,
1990), 6.

17. Coping With Stress and Preventing Burnout, 1.

____________________

Victim Advocate: An Emerging Profession?

As the number of victim advocates nationwide
continues to increase, and as advocates' expertise
becomes more sophisticated, there is a growing
movement to professionalize the position.[6] The
movement in part reflects increased pressure from
Federal and State funding sources for uniform
standards among victim assistance programs. In
addition, many victim advocates believe that, in
order to accomplish program activities more
effectively, they need to be perceived as
professionals--not just do-gooders--by lawyers,
judges, and other professionals with whom they
work.[7]

To facilitate the professionalization of the
position of victim advocate, many victim assistance
networks and program administrators are placing
increased emphasis on staff qualifications and
training, program standards, and public recognition
of program accomplishments. Also supporting the
professionalization of victim services is the
growing body of research regarding victimology and
victim services. The National Organization of
Victim Assistance (NOVA) has proposed a code of
ethics to guide victim assistance providers in
professional conduct with crime victims,
colleagues, other professionals, and the public.
The organization is also strongly encouraging
colleges and universities to offer courses and
specialized degrees in victim assistance.[8]

Accreditation is another increasingly prevalent
method of standardizing and professionalizing
victim services. The California Victim and Witness
Coordinating Council established a system of victim
advocate certification in 1993 to recognize the
professional standing of victim advocates in the
State. Victim assistance program employees apply
for certification by completing a form that lists
their educational background, the number of months
or years employed by a comprehensive victim
services agency (as defined by the California Penal
Code), and any specialized training sessions or
courses the employee has taken. The director of the
program for which the employee works must recommend
employees for certification by signing their
application. 

"Certificates of professional standing" are
presented in the following categories, with
requirements as noted:

Victim Advocate: To qualify, employees hired before
July 1, 1993, must have completed one full year of
work in a comprehensive victim services agency and
must have demonstrated through education,
experience, and specialized training the ability to
assist victims and witnesses. Employees hired on or
after July 1, 1993, must fulfill these requirements
as well as a State-approved 40-hour training
curriculum during their first year of employment
with the victim services agency. (Training
requirements include 16 hours regarding the
criminal justice system; 6 hours regarding
victimization; 2 hours regarding cultural, ethnic,
and special needs assessment; 4 hours each
regarding victim/witness services and crisis
intervention techniques; 2 hours regarding victim
compensation; and 6 hours regarding basic needs
assessment and case management.)

Senior Victim Advocate: To qualify, employees must
have five years of experience as a victim advocate
in California and must have demonstrated through
continued education and specialized training the
ability to assist victims and witnesses. 

Appendix M shows a sample application for
certification and a sample certificate.

________________________________________________

Civil Litigation: Training Staff To Help Clients--
and Protect Themselves

It is becoming increasingly important that victim
assistance program staff, in addition to having
general knowledge about criminal proceedings, be
informed about victims' options for bringing civil
litigation--both against offenders and against the
victim assistance program or advocates themselves. 

As mentioned in other chapters (see the box on
"Helping Victims Pursue Civil Litigation" in
chapter 4, in particular), an increasing number of
victims are seeking to recover damages from
offenders for such expenses as damaged property,
lost wages, and hospital costs. Although victim
advocates should not attempt to offer legal advice
to clients, they can inform victims of their legal
options and of the availability of bar association
legal networks, and can provide support during
consultation with a civil attorney.[10]

Staff can obtain training on the fundamentals of
civil law and crime victims' civil options from
local civil attorneys and from the increasing
amount of written material on the subject,
including the following:

o Legal Remedies for Crime Victims Against
Perpetrators: Basic Principles, (Arlington,
Virginia: National Victim Center, 1992), includes
both a training curriculum and a manual for use at
regional conferences (see appendix B for contact
information on the National Victim Center).

o The Carrington Victims' Litigation Project
(CVLP), also developed by NVC, published resources
for victims, victim advocates, attorneys, and
others interested in pursuing civil litigation
against offenders. As part of the project, NVC
refers victims to members of its Coalition of
Victim Attorneys and Consultants (COVAC), who have
access to a civil justice database, a quarterly
newsletter that addresses civil remedies for crime
victims, and NVC's library.

o The Attorney's Victim Assistance Manual: A Guide
to the Legal Issues Confronting Victim of Crime and
Victim Service Providers, was prepared for NVC in
1987 by the American Bar Association Criminal
Justice Section.

In addition, it is important that victim assistance
programs have policies and procedures in place to
protect the program and staff from liability and
that all staff are trained to follow them.[11] For
example, victims may be able to file third-party
civil actions if an advocate is negligent in
performing his or her duties (for example, if the
advocate did not provide a service mandated by a
statute or constitutional amendment and this
failure caused injury to the victim). If State law
protects the confidentiality of a victim's name and
address, program staff have to adhere to this
requirement.[12] Staff need to be trained regarding
the kinds of information that they may obtain from
victims that must be turned over to the prosecutor
(e.g., information that may exonerate the
defendant). As mentioned above, program directors
and staff may wish to consult with local attorneys
to carefully examine these and other legal matters.

__________________________________________

Thirty Simple Ways To Keep Volunteers and Staff
Motivated

The National Organization for Victim Assistance
suggests the following 30 ways to keep volunteers
motivated.[13] Many of these strategies could be
equally useful for motivating paid staff.

1. special awards

2. gifts and mementos

3. notes of appreciation

4. annual volunteer recognition event

5. acknowledgment lists

6. invitations to personal dinners, lunches, or
other social activities with the volunteer
coordinator or the program director

7. training

8. participation in conferences

9. responsibility and authority to accomplish
assignments

10. opportunity to participate in agency planning
decisions

11. interest of volunteer coordinator or program
director in volunteer's family

12. opportunity for volunteer to bring children to
work

13. acknowledgment by program staff on birthdays
and holidays

14. T-shirts, buttons, etc., that allow volunteers
to identify with the program in public

15. opportunity to learn new things

16. coffee, tea, and other refreshments

17. evidence that the program is important or
making a difference in the world

18. respect from paid staff for volunteer work

19. telephone reminders of program events

20. involvement with other volunteers

21. opportunities to meet celebrities or public 
officials

22. opportunities to serve in leadership positions

23. photographs of volunteer participation in
program activities

24. mention of volunteer activities in newspapers
or other publications

25. opportunities to work with victims

26. feedback on performance

27. regular volunteer meetings

28. opportunities to work with interesting staff
and activists

29. field trips with volunteers and staff

30. thank you's--big and small

____________________________________________

There are over 100 victim-offender mediation
programs in the United States, and studies show
that many of them appear to result in high levels
of victim and offender satisfaction and increased
rates of offender payment of restitution.
____________________

Chapter 8

Maintaining Program Support and Assessing the
Victim Assistance Program
____________________

Key Points

o To improve operations, it is important that
victim assistance program staff carefully monitor
their delivery of services in order to obtain
feedback. Careful recordkeeping is essential to
ensure adequate monitoring.

o Monitoring can provide a number of benefits,
including allowing program planners to assess goal
achievement, improve staff transitions, and
generate useful information for other agencies.

o Impact evaluations are also important for
determining the effects the program has had on
victims, and for providing guidance in program
improvement.

o Changes in program funding--either increases or
decreases--require program administrators to make
careful decisions regarding the mix of victim
services that can be provided with available funds.

o Cost effectiveness and cost benefit analyses are
useful tools in making decisions about program
operations. 

--------------------

There are several keys to program survival,
including 1) monitoring and evaluation, and 2)
analyzing program costs and alternative responses
to changing fiscal environments. Successful
programs use the information generated by these
activities not only for planning purposes but also
to encourage the criminal justice system to provide
program funding. The value of performing these
activities is suggested by the longevity of the
programs that have devoted time to them.

Monitoring and Evaluating Victim Assistance
Services

Making a convincing argument for continuing or
expanding program funding requires that a program
demonstrate what the funding agency is getting for
its money and why its investment is worthwhile. Two
useful approaches to documenting a program's value
are monitoring and impact evaluation. These
techniques are also useful in assessing goal
achievement and in modifying and improving program
operations.

Record Keeping and Program Documentation

Program records and documents (such as procedural
manuals that provide descriptive accounts of
program activities) often contain much of the
information needed for monitoring and evaluation
purposes. For example, clients may offer comments,
questions, and suggestions on service provision in
their conversations with program staff; this
information can be recorded in case narratives.

Information that can be used for monitoring and
evaluation includes: client demographics (name,
age, sex, place of residence); type of problem or
incident (e.g., assault, domestic dispute,
robbery); case status (police incident report
filed, arrest made, case filed for prosecution,
court disposition rendered); and services provided
(including whether any referrals were made and, if
so, to which agencies and organizations).

Programs use a variety of record-keeping forms in
addition to intake forms or client profiles that
provide demographic information. For example, the
Alameda County (California) Victim/Witness
Assistance Division uses separate forms for cases
requiring property return and restitution. Program
recordkeeping systems can be manual, computerized,
or both, and the information can be recorded on
anything from index cards to computer-coded sheets.
The method is not important; what is essential is
that the information necessary for monitoring and
evaluation be recorded accurately and be readily
accessible.[1]

For example, Scottsdale (Arizona) Police Crisis
Intervention Unit specialists each maintain an
index card file on their cases. Every month, they
scan the cards to put together a monthly tally of
the number of clients served, the types of problems
addressed, the number of referrals made, and the
number of meetings attended (see appendix O for the
monthly tally form used by the Scottsdale program).
For administrative purposes, each staff member's
monthly reports also contain an account of his or
her time, broken down into days worked, vacation
time or sick leave taken, and "comp time" earned.
At the end of the year, numbers from the monthly
reports are simply added together for an annual
report. This is an example of a manual system that
is easy to maintain yet can generate accurate,
useful, and accessible information both for
monitoring purposes and for fund raising
presentations.

The Scottsdale program is a small one. For a larger
program with frequent follow-up contacts and very
large caseloads, compiling similar information by
hand would be unwieldy. Staff at the large
Minneapolis-St. Paul (Minnesota) Citizens Council
Victim Services and at St. Louis County
(Missouri)'s Victim Service Council record case
information directly onto precoded record-keeping
forms for easy computerization. With assistance
provided by the county's data processing
department, the St. Louis County program now has
computerized tracking of case information.

Program Monitoring 

Program monitoring provides basic information on
how a program operates. Such information is
collected by the program's leadership on an ongoing
basis and can lead to occasional minor adjustments
to fine-tune program services and procedures. In
contrast, process evaluations (discussed below) are
more intensive studies of program operations that
may be conducted periodically, often by outside
evaluators in order to assess the overall program
strategy as well as aspects of daily operations.

At a minimum, monitoring takes the form of regular
staff meetings at which staff have the opportunity
to air complaints, report developments in agencies
that collaborate with the program, discuss
legislation related to victim/witness rights, share
cases, offer suggestions for increasing program
efficiency, and simply socialize.

A more formal monitoring process is helpful to
ensure that program operations are thoroughly and
systematically examined on a regular basis. This
approach can include examining program records;
surveying victims and witnesses, criminal justice
system personnel, and social service agency
officials; and observing changes in the local
environment (for example, by examining local crime
statistics). These inquiries are directed toward
answering two general questions: 

1. Is the program reaching the appropriate target
population? 

2. Is the program providing the resources and
benefits targeted in its service design?

Monitoring provides information on the specific
activities in which the program engages and
quantifies those activities: the number and types
of clients it is reaching, the number and types of
services it is providing, the number of staff hours
it devotes to each activity, and the costs it
incurs for each service. 

Monitoring to assess goal achievement. Perhaps the
most compelling reason for monitoring program
operations is to improve the program's operational
efficiency, which in turn can lead to greater
effectiveness in providing services to program
clients. In addition, information collected in the
course of monitoring can provide documentation of
the program's success in achieving its goals. This
information can be presented to the public, to the
criminal justice system, and to other pertinent
agencies, organizations, and public officials. For
example, the program may decide to investigate
whether it is serving target populations
established during program planning. In reviewing
its client composition, the St. Louis County
(Missouri) Victim Service Council discovered that
it was serving a disproportionately large number of
battered women. Realizing that this was due in
large measure to the passage of state legislation
that allowed battered women to defend themselves
without legal counsel, the program decided to keep
an eye on client composition to ensure that other
victims and witnesses were not neglected.

As discussed earlier in this report, it is
important that program planners set realistic goals
and express these goals in measurable terms.
Objectives that are overly ambitious and vague will
prove impossible to monitor and evaluate. This in
turn could jeopardize funding support. Figure 8-1
displays sample objectives from the programs
visited and illustrates how these objectives might
be monitored.

Monitoring to ease staff transitions. In addition
to assessing goal achievement, program monitoring
can help smooth transitions for new directors and
staff. Program documentation--progress reports,
operational manuals, training materials--create a
permanent written record of program activities,
which provides new staff with explicit written
guidelines to program operations.

Monitoring to help other agencies. Finally,
monitoring can generate information that is useful
to other agencies. However, since monitoring
focuses on the internal operations of a program and
not on its external effects or outcomes, caution
should be exercised in interpreting the information
obtained from this effort. For example, measuring
the number of clients served and the services
provided may indicate that the program was
successful in meeting the goal of providing
comprehensive assistance to the maximum number of
victims and witnesses, but, this information does
not indicate that a program successfully reduced
the emotional and financial problems experienced by
its clients. To obtain information on program
outcomes, an impact evaluation is needed.

Process Evaluation

A recent report prepared for the National
Institutes of Health noted that "a process
evaluation seeks to answer questions about program
effort (resources), operations, and types and
amounts of services provided."[2] These are the
same questions addressed during program monitoring.
A process evaluation typically differs from program
monitoring in the depth and comprehensiveness of
the information collected regarding program
resources, operations, and services. In addition,
process evaluations are typically conducted by
independent evaluators outside of the program
rather than by program managers, so as to provide
an objective assessment of program achievements.

The aim of periodic process evaluation studies is
to examine program processes very closely to
determine whether the program is reaching expected
levels of achievement. The information can help to
determine whether significant changes are needed in
program strategies or operations in order to
achieve the program's goals. Evaluators seek to
frame evaluation questions carefully, in
collaboration with program personnel, to assess
accomplishments precisely against clear expected
benchmarks for achievement (for example, measures
might include numbers of clients served or amount
of time required to deliver specific services). 

Programs that plan to conduct impact evaluations
(discussed below) need to conduct thorough process
evaluations in conjunction with the impact
evaluation. The process evaluation provides
detailed information on the program's level of
service delivery. Without this information, it is
difficult to interpret impact evaluation findings.
For example, if the impact evaluation indicates
that the program is not reducing clients' emotional
distress, it is essential to know whether this is
because of deficiencies in the counseling that the
program offers or because of a failure to deliver
counseling in the first place.

Impact Evaluation

Unlike process evaluations, which track program
activities and operations and assess service
efficiency, impact evaluation seeks to determine
the effects the program has had on victims and
witnesses, the criminal justice system, and other
human services providers in the community. For
example, did victims and witnesses assisted by the
program experience reduce anxiety in testifying in
court compared with how they felt before they
received program services? Was stolen property
returned promptly to 95 percent of burglary and
robbery victims? Impact evaluations may reveal
unintended and perhaps undesirable consequences of
program activities. For example, crime prevention
presentations, although designed to reduce fear of
victimization, may increase fear of crime. The most
rigorous impact evaluation serves to document not
only the intended and unintended changes observable
since program inception but also whether these
changes can be attributed solely to the program.
Increases in reporting of certain crimes, for
example, may reflect legislative changes in
addition to the influence of program intervention;
reduced financial burdens on clients may result
from a new victim compensation, law as well as from
program efforts.

On the one hand, the complexities of design, data
collection, and interpretation involved in an
impact evaluation can be formidable. In fact, one
expert notes that most victim assistance programs
do not have the resources for a rigorous impact
evaluation and will therefore require outside
assistance, not only in performing the evaluation
but also in funding it. Without sufficient
resources or skills, the results of an impact
evaluation may not merit the investment of staff
time required--which is still considerable--and
will probably not be considered sound research.

On the other hand, informal, small-scale impact
evaluations can still be politically valuable for
securing funding and support and can be useful for
internal program monitoring. Local universities can
often provide assistance in conducting an impact
evaluation at very little or no cost. Graduate
students in criminal justice, sociology, and
research methodology are good candidates for
helping programs with impact evaluations. The
Scottsdale (Arizona) Police Crisis Intervention
Unit, the Pima County (Arizona) Victim Witness
Program, and the Danville (Illinois) Victim/Witness
Advocate Program all had evaluations performed by
graduate students at local universities. Another
useful resource is the Program Assessment System
developed by the National Organization for Victim
Assistance (NOVA), designed both for
self-administration by program staff and for
implementation by outside evaluators.

If program directors want to engage independent
researchers to perform an impact evaluation, they
might want to provide prospective evaluators with
(1) a statement of why the evaluation is being
conducted and the evaluation's audiences (which
might include project personnel, funding agencies,
or planning agencies that set standards and
establish program guidelines) and (2) information
on the organization and activities of the project,
including its short- and long-term goals. Key
elements of a proposed evaluation design include a
list of the questions that will be answered and the
types of information that will be provided; the
methods by which information will be obtained; an
indication that the researcher knows how to conduct
a technically sound evaluation; and staffing and
cost plans that are within program budget for
evaluation efforts.

The first step for a program interested in
conducting an impact evaluation is to specify the
outcomes that the program is supposed to achieve.
Many victim assistance program administrators
identify outcomes or impacts when they formulate
and redefine objectives (see chapter 2). Again, it
is important that programs specify realistic and
measurable outcomes. Figure 8-2 shows examples of
impact goals that a victim assistance program might
establish, the information needed to assess their
achievement, and the sources of that information.

Generally, two methods of conducting impact
evaluations can be used. First, evaluators can
compare measures such as the emotional and
financial problems of victims and witnesses before
and after the program's implementation. Differences
can then be examined to determine whether any
changes have occurred that might reasonably be
attributed to the program. This approach requires
that data collection commence with program
initiation, since information about preprogram
conditions is likely to be increasingly difficult
to retrieve with the passage of time. An
alternative approach, to help ensure that the
program--and not some other event or agency--is the
cause of any reduction in victim and witness
problems, involves comparisons of the experiences
of assisted victims and witnesses with the
experiences of individuals in the same or similar
jurisdictions who have not received assistance. One
technique involves assigning individuals on a
random basis either to a group that will receive
assistance or to a group that will not. Another
involves matching program clients with people
similar in all respects except for program
assistance and comparing outcome measures for both
groups. Both methods require trade-offs in terms of
the scientific rigor of the results, ethical
considerations of denying assistance to those who
may need it, and the feasibility of performing an
impact evaluation.[3]

The information sources for impact evaluations
include those used for conducting needs assessments
and monitoring. However, data must be collected
from other groups (such as victims and witnesses in
jurisdictions where no assistance program exists),
or the information must be expanded to span a
longer period of time and include the period before
and after program implementation.

The most common means of assessing impact on
clients is to conduct a client satisfaction or
opinion survey. The evaluation of Minneapolis-St.
Paul (Minnesota) Citizens Council Victim Services
(formally called the Crime Victims Center) included
a survey of clients assisted during a three-year
period. A one-page multiple-choice service
evaluation form was mailed to each client receiving
substantial services (in other words, beyond just
information over the phone). The majority of
clients were satisfied with the assistance they
received--particularly with crisis intervention,
counseling, and court assistance--and the level of
client satisfaction increased over time as the
program developed experience in responding to
clients' problems.

Surveys of former clients can pose problems,
however. A research analyst for the Pima County
(Arizona) Victim/Witness Program noted that many
clients contacted for follow-up surveys could not
even remember the program two to three months
later. Some victims do not realize they are being
assisted by a separate program, mistaking staff for
police or prosecutor assistants. Or they may
actually erase all memory of the program in an
effort to forget the pain of having been
victimized. For other victims, the survey may bring
back memories of overpowering pain. Furthermore, it
is sometimes difficult to locate victims and
witnesses for evaluation purposes.[4] Finally, a
program that plans to actively solicit opinions
from victims and witnesses should make sure
respondents feel comfortable about sharing their
reactions and take precautions not to jeopardize
confidentiality. Some victims may not want their
families or partners to know that they were
victimized or that they sought assistance in coping
with the experience.

Evaluation of program impact on police,
prosecutors, and human services providers might
require examining agency records and interviewing
agency staff. For example, researchers from the
Minnesota Department of Corrections conducted a
survey of police officers to determine how
frequently they referred crime victims to the
Minneapolis-St. Paul program, what impact the
program had on police officers' work, and their
impressions of the general quality of the program's
services. Survey forms were distributed to officers
at the end of the program's first year of operation
and again after the program had been in operation
for three years. In both surveys, most officers
reported making referrals on a monthly basis and
noted that, when they did work in cooperation with
the program staff, their efficiency increased.
Their overall evaluation of the quality of the
program's services was positive.

Formal surveys of clients and other users is
labor-intensive. Review of aggregate data can be
less expensive and less obtrusive. For example,
police incident reports or court records can be
reviewed to examine changes in crime reporting or
in the rate of filing charges, or to observe how
many new social service agencies have started up or
whether consortiums of human services providers
have formed.

Many important questions about the benefits of
victim assistance programs remain unanswered. For
example, it has not been conclusively demonstrated
that crisis intervention has a positive impact on
victims of crime.[5] Nor is it known whether, in
the long run, individuals who have received
assistance are healthier or suffer significantly
less financial loss as a result of program efforts.
Attempts to measure whether program efforts have
led to increases in successful prosecutions, or
made victims and witnesses more willing to
cooperate with police and prosecutors and to report
crimes, have also been inconclusive.

Nevertheless, the widespread impulse to provide a
humane and supportive response to the needs of
innocent victims of crime may be a stronger
justification for program efforts than any
numerical findings. In addition, researchers have
documented some ways in which victim assistance
programs have benefitted the criminal justice
process: evaluations have shown that witness
notification reduces the time civilians and police
officers spend waiting to testify and the time
prosecutors must devote to locating witnesses.[6]

Above all, program success depends on
responsiveness to changing environments. In every
aspect of development and operations, the program
must remain flexible, making adjustments as
necessary and constantly rearranging priorities.
The most obvious example is altered funding levels.
Cutbacks challenge the program to find alternative
sources of support or to reduce services or staff
without compromising the quality of services;
funding increases call for the program to plan
carefully to ensure that the additional money is
put to best use. These issues are examined in the
following section.

Alternative Responses to Funding Changes

Providing accurate cost information, including a
bottom-line figure and a breakdown by budget
category, is essential in maintaining and
institutionalizing program funding, in
appropriately managing the program, and in knowing
how to accommodate any increases or decreases in
funding or service requirements. Typically,
existing programs obtain a clear picture of the
actual costs of operation when they develop annual
budgets for their funding agencies. (A discussion
of how new programs can estimate costs may be found
in chapter 3). However, calculating program costs,
like program planning, is best viewed as an ongoing
endeavor. Services and staffing can change at any
time, and operating costs are likely to increase
continually, because of salary increases and
inflation.

Strategies for Coping With Changing Fiscal
Environments

Over time, it is virtually inevitable that a
program will be faced with budget reductions or
increases. During the late 1970's and early 1980's,
the most common budgetary change was a decline in
funding. However, with the passage of the Federal
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA, discussed in
chapter 9), hundreds of programs received
supplemental grants. Since its inception, more than
$557 million in VOCA funds have been awarded to
States to support local victim assistance programs.
Even when fiscal retrenchment was the general rule,
some programs managed to secure additional funds.

Of course, coping with budget reductions is the
more difficult circumstance to deal with. In
response to cutbacks, programs can attempt to (a)
secure funds from other sources, (b) secure
services or equipment at no cost, (c) reduce their
services or paid staff, or (d) encourage police,
prosecutors, and judges to take over some program
services.

Chapter 9 describes the basic steps involved in
identifying and approaching alternative funding
sources. Several strategies for coping with funding
reductions and increased expenses are pertinent
here, however. First, program directors often find
that their efforts to secure funding conflict with
their duty to provide victim services. "Too many
programs are consumed by fund-raising," the
founders of St. Louis County (Missouri)'s Victim
Service Council noted in the early 1980's, "leaving
no one to see that services are provided."[7] The
St. Louis County program resolved this conflict by
designating an administrative chairwoman from its
original supervising agency, the National Council
of Jewish Women, to handle all funding
responsibilities, leaving the director free to
devote all her time to providing services and
supervising staff. 

Second, when Federal or local funding is cut for
all social services, the program is likely to meet
with stiff competition from other human services
providers for the funding available from
alternative sources. Diplomacy is required, since
these same agencies may later be joint providers of
services to the clients of the victim assistance
program. Finally, after an agency or organization
has provided funds, the founders of the St. Louis
County Victim Service Council recommend attending
all its public meetings in order to establish
rapport and to keep abreast of any changes in
funding requirements or availability. "At one
meeting of our funding source," they reported,
"board members discovered some unspent money which
had to be allocated that same day. Because we were
there, we made the only pitch for the funds and got
them."[8] As an alternative or supplement to
soliciting funds from public and private sector
groups, programs may wish to consider holding their
own fund-raising benefits.[9]

To reduce the costs of services and equipment, or
to obtain their use gratis, programs must rely on
resourcefulness and creativity. By assisting
prosecutors with their paperwork in the complaint
room and at arraignment, New York City's Victim
Service Agency obtained access to a telephone,
duplicating equipment, and work space at no
cost.[10] Using volunteers can result in
substantial savings (see chapter 3). The Greenville
program uses the services of a retired carpenter
(himself the victim of a break-in) to repair locks,
damaged doors, and windows for destitute victims of
break-ins. The savings from such imaginative
arrangements not only help offset rising costs or
reductions in funding, but they also strengthen
efforts to secure continued funding by
demonstrating the program's cost-effectiveness. St.
Louis County's Victim Service Council documented
considerable savings by using volunteers to provide
direct victim services, administrative support, and
legal and psychological consulting; as a partial
consequence, the county government assumed the
entire funding burden for the program. In effect,
the program gives the county a "matching grant"--
volunteers for paid staff.

Though funds from alternative sources and free or
in-kind services and equipment may allow staff to
maintain operations at the same level, the program
may still be forced to compensate for inflation and
reductions in funding by reducing services or paid
staff. The Minneapolis-St. Paul (Minnesota) program
obtained funding from an increasing number of
private foundations each year, but the new money
did not fully replace the loss in State funds. As a
result, the program was forced to reduce its paid
staff, including laying off one of its two
directors. In addition, the program closed one of
its five satellite offices and reduced the number
of hours in three of its remaining offices. Not
surprisingly, the program reduced some of its
services as well, limiting security repair and
transportation to elderly and handicapped victims.

Finally, when funding cuts force programs to limit
services, in some cases they can encourage criminal
justice agencies to provide them instead. Chapter 4
discusses victim/witness services that police,
prosecutors, and judges can appropriately provide
themselves. By transferring some of these services
to the criminal justice system, the program can
devote its remaining resources to those activities
that only it can effectively provide.

In order to make appropriate decisions about staff
or service reductions, program administrators must
have a clear idea of their goals and priorities,
and of the costs of different services and types of
cases. For example, by generating cost information
by service category or by individual case, programs
can identify the types of services and cases that
consume most of their resources. Expensive
activities include 24-hour availability, on-scene
crisis intervention, intensive counseling, and
court orientation (as compared with one-time
intervention), direct service (as compared with
referral), and "nonclient" services like public
relations and lobbying for statutory changes.
Reducing or eliminating costly activities will, of
course, result in the greatest economies. However,
the most expensive services or cases are not
necessarily the ones that should be eliminated if
they are crucial to the program's goals and
priorities and can be shown to be effective.

In the case of budget increases, gaps in program
coverage are often so blatant that it is obvious
where the additional money should be spent.
However, in many instances there are several
pressing needs, only some of which can be financed
with the additional money. Furthermore, there may
be target groups or services that merit priority
but whose significance is not immediately visible.
As a result, an expanding program needs not only to
estimate the costs of adding target populations or
expanding services but also to systematically
reexamine the unmet needs both of existing clients
and of victims or witnesses not currently being
served.

Whether planning to contract or expand, a program
must first balance objectives, needs, and costs and
then determine which components to reduce or
eliminate, on the one hand, or expand or initiate,
on the other. Chapters 2 and 3 provide guidelines
for making these decisions, and chapter 9 describes
the planning process some States require of local
programs in order to demonstrate eligibility and
priority for receiving Federal Victims of Crime Act
funds.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analyses[11]

Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses can
help the program director and staff make decisions
about modifying program operations, as well as
support requests for funding from other sources.
Program staff may require expert assistance in
performing these analyses.

Cost effectiveness is a measure of the
effectiveness of a program in attaining actual
outcomes in relation to the monetary value of the
resources devoted to the effort. Information on
cost effectiveness allows directors to compare 1)
the costs of alternative delivery methods for
conducting the same service (e.g., telephone vs.
face-to-face contact for counseling victims) or 2)
the costs several similar programs incur using
identical methods for providing the same services.
Both comparisons make it possible to identify which
procedures are most effective in achieving the same
results.

The first step is to obtain accurate estimates of
program costs, as discussed above. The simplest
cost-effectiveness analysis is to compare the total
budgets of two victim assistance programs that are
similar in structure (both located in prosecutors'
offices, for example), approach (both operate, say,
only during normal business hours), size (both have
roughly the same number of staff and volunteers),
and objectives. Figure 3-3, "Staff Size in Relation
to Selected Program Characteristics: A Look at Five
Programs" represents a preliminary effort in this
direction. To analyze the cost effectiveness of
specific services, directors will have to express
costs in different ways than they do for budgeting
purposes. Instead of listing the total costs for
each line item (staff salaries, telephone, travel
expenses, etc.), administrators need to calculate
the costs associated with a particular service
separately by line item. Clearly, deriving costs by
type of service is not an easy task, and the
calculations will most likely be estimates.
Nonetheless, even approximate cost figures can be
helpful for determining whether there are less
expensive ways to achieve the same goals.

Cost-effectiveness analyses are also useful in
considering program organization options. As with
service and staffing choices, however, it is
usually best if this decision takes program
priorities and dollar amounts into account.
Selection can then be an informed choice--with both
the rationale and the ramifications for funding
understood by program sponsors and staff. When, for
example, the Minneapolis (Minnesota) Department of
Corrections evaluated the Minneapolis-St. Paul
program, evaluators gave the decentralized
storefront model high marks for service delivery
but argued that incorporating victim services into
another existing agency or consolidating them
statewide would be more cost-effective because of
potential savings in salary, rent, and overhead
expenses. However, because satellite offices were
deliberately located in neighborhoods where the
need for victim services was greatest--thus
directly supporting a basic program priority of
making services readily accessible to a broad
spectrum of clients--the sponsoring agency, the
Department of Corrections, and the legislature both
agreed to maintain the program's storefront
structure.

Cost-benefit analysis compares the economic costs
of the program or service with the dollar value of
the benefits it provides. Whereas
cost-effectiveness indicates whether there are less
expensive ways of achieving certain results,
cost-benefit analysis quantifies the returns that
society and funding agencies are getting from their
investment in the program. For example, the
overtime hours a program saves police through a
witness notification component can be converted
into dollars saved, and this figure can then be
compared with the cost of providing the
service.[12]

As a rule, cost-benefit analysis is exceptionally
difficult to conduct for social service projects
because of the problem of measuring the value of
benefits and the difficulty of estimating all of
the costs of the project.[13] Victim assistance
programs can, however, calculate the dollar value
of quantifiable benefits such as witness time saved
or the costs of purchasing services such as
counseling, transportation, and baby-sitting in the
private sector. For example, an evaluation of eight
victim assistance programs funded by the National
District Attorneys Association computed savings in
witness time by multiplying the number of
appearances avoided by two hours per appearance,
and then by $2.50 per hour (the minimum wage at the
time of the evaluation). Comparing these savings
with what it costs to provide witness notification
yields potentially valuable cost-benefit
information. Similarly, Portland (Oregon)'s Victims
Assistance Program administrators calculated that
in 1985 the program helped victims secure
$1,831,000 in restitution ordered by the courts and
$872,000 in social services. With a total budget of
$346,000 for the year, the program provided
assistance to victims worth $7.82 for every dollar
spent on the program. Even looking at the figure
conservatively--that is, social services obtained
plus paid (not just court-ordered) restitution--
shows that for every dollar used to fund the
program, $3.61 was obtained on behalf of victims.

The National Organization for Victim Assistance
(NOVA) has prepared a useful Cost-Benefit Analysis
System for specific application to victim
assistance programs (see appendix B).

Factors Involved in Program Success

Given the variety of practices in victim assistance
programs and the differing needs of jurisdictions,
no one program can be considered the perfect model.
Nonetheless, successful programs do have certain
elements in common. Successful program directors
and staff are dynamic and dedicated individuals,
interested in and capable of helping other people.
They have a firm understanding of program costs and
have conducted at least basic monitoring efforts to
generate data useful for gaining support. Victim
assistance programs that have survived economic
hardships have done so because they managed to
continue to provide quality services and because
they have established and maintained strong working
relationships with the criminal justice system and
with human service agencies. The successful victim
assistance program is not merely responsive to
change but initiates new approaches--searching for,
recognizing, and capitalizing on any opportunity
for improvement.

Within their networks with other agencies,
successful victim assistance programs have found
strong advocates who are important to their
program's survival. The Portland (Oregon) Victims
Assistance Program is supported by the prosecutor's
office because the district attorney believes that
the program gives victims and witnesses their only
positive experience within the criminal justice
system. During the early stages of the St. Louis
County (Missouri) program, the county's
superintendent of police, a member of the program's
advisory board, encouraged line officers to work
with the program because of his belief that program
services benefited both victims and police. In
addition, during program planning, it was the
superintendent who suggested developing long-term
funding mechanisms--an element that proved crucial
to the program's longevity.

Endnotes

1. In addition to the forms on which programs
record detailed information on clients, most
programs maintain a second set of files for cross
referencing.

2. National Institutes of Health, How Good Is Your
Drug Treatment Program? A Guide to Evaluation
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 1993).

3. Under the most rigorous impact evaluations, the
target population is randomly assigned to one of
two groups: a "treatment" group (e.g., victims and
witnesses who are assisted by the program) and a
"control" or comparison group (who receive no
help). Random assignment ensures that any
differences detected between the two groups can be
attributed to program services rather than to
preexisting differences between the groups or to
events in the external environment that could
account for client improvement. Theoretically,
under random assignment the control group would
include victims and witnesses who were eligible for
services but would not receive assistance; rather,
they would rely on informal networks and, if
charges were filed, would be processed through the
criminal justice system in a traditional fashion.
This type of impact evaluation design yields
results in which programs can place the highest
level of confidence. Comparing the experience of
victims and witnesses who have been assisted by
programs with the experiences of those who have not
received any formal services allows programs to
determine with some certainty whether their
services are, in fact, having an impact on clients.
However, this design also raises practical and
ethical difficulties--because it is costly to
conduct and difficult to implement in real life,
and because in some cases it requires that services
be denied victims and witnesses who need assistance
and would otherwise be eligible for them. A common
alternative to random assignment impact evaluation
is to match the program clients with
demographically similar groups in jurisdictions
where no formal victim/witness services program
operate. This alternative does not pose the same
ethical problem of denying services to victims and
witnesses who need assistance and would otherwise
be eligible for them. However, it does detract from
the level of confidence programs can place in the
evaluation findings, since factors other than
program assistance, unanticipated and hence
unaccounted for in the matching process, may
contribute to differences between the two groups.
Several books provide detailed guidelines for the
nonresearcher conducting an impact evaluation,
including David C. Hoaglin et al., Data for
Decisions (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Abt Books,
1982); Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley,
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for
Research (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966); Thomas D.
Cook and Donald T. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation:
Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings
(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979); and Richard A. Berk
and Peter H. Rossi, Thinking About Program
Evaluation (Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, 1990).

4. D. C. Bolin, "The Pima County Victim/Witness
Program Analyzing Its Success," Evaluation and
Change (1980): 120-26.

5. Robert C. Davis and Madeline Henley, "Victim
Service Programs," Victims of Crime: Problems,
Policies, and Programs, eds. Arthur J. Lurigio,
Wesley G. Skogan, and Robert C. Davis (Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990), 169.

6. Roberta C. Cronin and Blair B. Bourque,
"National Evaluation Program Phase I Assessment.
Victim/Witness Assistance Projects. Draft Final
Report" (Washington, D.C. : American Institutes for
Research, 1979).

7. Marjorie Susman and Carol Vittert, "Building a
Solution: A Practical Guide for Establishing Crime
Victim Service Agencies" (St. Louis: National
Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section, 1980),
1.

8. Ibid, 1.

9. National Organization for Victim Assistance,
Fundraising and Victim Services (Washington, D.C. :
National Organization for Victim Assistance 1982).

10. Donna W. Zalichin and Mark Feinstein, "Becoming
Part of the System: Institutionalizing a
Victim/Witness Program," Victim Witness Programs:
Human Services of the 80s, ed. Emilio C. Viano
(Washington, D.C. : Visage Press, 1980), 82.

11. Readers may wish to consult Peter H. Rossi and
Howard E. Freeman, Evaluation: A Systematic
Approach (Beverly Hills, California: Sage
Publications, 1982) and D. W. Pearce, Cost Benefit
Analysis (New York: Macmillan, 1971).

12. Zalichin and Feinstein, "Institutionalizing a
Victim/Witness Program," 83; Evaluation Policy
Research Associates, "Final Evaluation Report,
Second Year Grant, Milwaukee County Project
Turnaround" (Milwaukee: Price Waterhouse and
Company, 1978), 61-83, 108-10.

13. Anne L. Schneider and Peter R. Schneider, "An
Introductory Guide to Evaluation of Victim
Assistance Programs for Project Directors," in
Justice and Older Americans, ed. Marlene Young
(Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1977),
151; "Evaluation Policy Research Associates," Final
Evaluation Report, Second Year Grant, Milwaukee
County Project Turnaround," 108; Robert H.
Rosenblum and Carol Holliday Blew, Victim/Witness
Assistance (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of
Justice), 63-68; Battelle Law and Justice Study
Center, "Program Review of National District
Attorneys Associations Commission on Victim/Witness
Assistance" (Seattle, Washington: September 1978),
79.

____________________

Case Monitoring in the Computer Age: 
One Program's Efforts

The proliferation of personal computers in the
workplace has significantly helped many victim
assistance programs in a variety of ways. The
Alameda County (California) District Attorney's
Victim/Witness Assistance Division has implemented
a computer network that has helped staff monitor
cases and client contacts, quickly produce letters
to clients, and develop intake and other program
forms (see appendix A for contact information for
the victim/witness services division). 

The program's director and five advocates each have
their own personal computer and share a printer.
When the program receives a referral from the
police, the district attorney's office, or some
other source, the victim's name, the crime, and a
victim identification number are logged into the
computer system. Using one of several standard
disposition letters on file in the system, an
advocate can quickly insert the victim's name,
personalize the letter, and then print and mail it.
If the victim becomes a client, an advocate can
pull up the victim's file and update it as needed
with new information about case status and services
provided. The California Office of Criminal Justice
Planning (OCJP), one of the program's major funding
sources, requires the program to record service and
client data, including gender and ethnic
background.

The computers are connected through a local area
network, which enables each staff member to call up
a file that was entered by another staff member. In
this way, staff can readily share information, and
the director can easily track cases, monitor staff
activities, and compile statistics and other
information for program reports. When a client
calls on the phone, staff can retrieve the client's
file almost immediately on their computer and
provide quick, personalized service.

In addition, through modem-equipped computers,
program staff have access to case records stored on
the county court's and prosecutor's computer
system. (Only victim assistance staff have access
to victim information stored on the network.) An
advocate can quickly learn the status of a case
without leaving the office.

The program director and staff received computer
training at no cost from the prosecutor's Office
Automation Unit. Staff from this unit are also
available to answer questions and make repairs.
According to the program director, the
implementation of the computer network has saved
his staff a considerable amount of time. Because of
their success with the computer tracking system,
program staff developed a "how-to" manual to
instruct other victim assistance programs on how to
use such a system if they set one up themselves.

--------------------

Chapter 9
Funding Victim Assistance Programs
____________________

Key Points

o Obtaining funding from a number of public and
private sources can help to maximize a victim
assistance program's funding stability and capacity
to deliver services.

o Program administrators seeking Federal Victims of
Crime Act funding should give careful consideration
to the priority categories of victims targeted by
the Act. Administrators should explore other
Federal funding sources, such as the Federal
Violence Against Women Act Grant Program.

o State and local governments are the primary
funders of victim assistance programs. Program
planners can generate funding support from these
sources by working closely with local policymakers.

o Private funding sources are diverse and include
foundations, local businesses, labor unions, local
charitable groups such as the United Way, and
independent fund-raising events. Creativity and
persistence will enhance program administrators'
efforts to obtain private funding.

The two main sources of financial support for
victim assistance programs are public funds
(including support from Federal, State, and local
governments) and private funds (including support
from business and labor organizations, foundations
and community trusts, and voluntary organizations).
Many victim assistance programs that emerged when
the field was still in its infancy secured all or
most of their initial funding from the Federal
government. Funding by State and local governments
now predominates, although Federal support
continues to be significant. This chapter reviews
major funding sources for victim assistance
programs. The task of maintaining adequate program
funding is one of the central challenges
confronting program administrators. Many programs
obtain funding from a variety of separate sources.

Federal Funding

The Federal government has played an important role
in the victim assistance field. 

The Pioneering Role of the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration

The Federal Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (LEAA) of the U.S. Department of
Justice funded justice system innovations
throughout the 1970's. Victim assistance programs
received substantial support from LEAA during this
period; indeed, a majority of victim assistance
programs launched between 1974 and 1979 received
their funding from LEAA.[1] 

Some of the programs that were developed with LEAA
support had a particularly important influence on
the field. For example, in 1975, LEAA funded the
National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) to
develop eight victim assistance programs. The
accomplishments of these and other programs led the
NDAA to recommend subsequently "that every
prosecutor focus such attention on the needs of
victims and witnesses in their respective
jurisdictions."[2]

When the LEAA was terminated in the early 1980's,
many victim assistance programs were forced to cut
back on services while seeking other sources of
funding support.

The Victims of Crime Act of 1984

The Federal government reasserted a leadership role
in support of victim assistance in the mid-1980's.
As noted in chapter 1, the President's Task Force
on Victims made far-reaching recommendations in
1982 for improving services to victims. One of the
consequences of the Task Force's work was the
enactment of the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) of
1984, which founded the Office for Victims of Crime
within the U.S. Department of Justice and
established a Crime Victims Fund within the U.S.
Department of the Treasury. 

The fund accumulates revenues from surcharges on
fines levied on individuals convicted of Federal
offenses as well as revenues from forfeited bail
bonds and other special assessments. These sources
have generated a substantial sum of money for
assistance to victims of crime: by 1992, over $220
million dollars had accumulated in the fund. At
that time only $150 million dollars of this total
could be distributed by the Office for Victims of
Crime because Congress mandated a ceiling of that
amount for this use. Congress subsequently
eliminated this ceiling in 1992, providing the
Office for Victims of Crime with the potential to
provide even higher levels of support for victims. 

The Office for Victims of Crime is authorized to
provide funding support for State crime victim
compensation programs, victim assistance programs,
training and technical assistance, child abuse
prevention and treatment grants, and additional
purposes. Funding is provided to State governments
which develop statewide funding plans. VOCA funds
are allocated to specific programmatic areas
through the use of formulas specified in the crime
victims legislation. For example, after allocating
a certain amount of funds to the Federal judicial
branch, to the Department of Health and Human
Resources for grants regarding child abuse, and to
the Office for Victims of Crime for grants to
assist Native American Indian tribes to improve the
investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases,
48.5 percent of the remaining amount is available
for victim compensation grants, another 48.5
percent for victim assistance grants, and 3 percent
for demonstration projects and for training and
technical assistance services to eligible crime
victim assistance programs, as well as for programs
that serve victims of Federal crime. A variety of
types of victim assistance programs are funded by
the Victims of Crime Act: some focus on a single
class of victims (such as, victims of domestic
violence), while others provide services to a broad
array of victims. The Office for Victims of Crime
1994 Annual Report notes that organizations that
are funded include "rape crisis centers, shelters
for battered women, treatment centers for child
sexual abuse victims, prosecutors offices, law
enforcement offices, mental health centers,
universities, and hospitals."[3] 

The types of services provided to victims by
VOCA-funded programs include, in descending order
of frequency, information referral, criminal
justice support, crisis hotline services,
counseling, follow-up contacts, personal advocacy,
group treatment, shelter/safe house services,
assistance with compensation claims, therapy,
emergency legal advocacy, and emergency financial
help.[4]

The Victims of Crime Act Grant Program Guidelines
specify the major types of services that can be
supported with the Federal funds.[5] These include

o services that immediately respond to the
emotional and physical needs (excluding medical
care) of crime victims, such as crisis intervention
and accompaniment to hospitals for medical
examinations; hotline counseling; emergency food,
clothing, transportation, and shelter; emergency
legal assistance, such as filing restraining
orders; and other emergency services that are
intended to restore victims' sense of dignity,
self-esteem, and coping ability;

o services that assist the primary and secondary
victims of crime in understanding the dynamics of
victimization and in stabilizing their lives after
a victimization, such as counseling, group
treatment, and therapy;

o services directed to the needs of the victim
within the criminal justice system, including
criminal justice advocacy, accompaniment to law
enforcement offices, transportation to court, child
care while in court, trial notification and case
disposition information, restitution advocacy,
assistance with victim impact statements, and
parole notification;

o services that offer an immediate measure of
safety to crime victims, such as preventing
reburglarization by boarding up windows or
replacing or repairing locks;

o forensic examinations for sexual assault victims;

o advocacy on behalf of victims with creditors,
employers, service providers, and others; and

o meetings and panels at which crime victims are
able to confront perpetrators, if they are
requested by the victim and if they offer
therapeutic value to crime victims.[6]

VOCA requires that the States "give priority to
eligible victim assistance programs that provide
services to victims of sexual assault, domestic
violence, and child abuse" and "make funds
available for grant programs which serve previously
underserved victims of violent crime."[7] Some of
the types of victims that States have defined as
"previously underserved" have included victims of
elder abuse, victims of assault, and victims of
vehicular accidents caused by drivers who were
under the influence of alcohol.

The 1994 Annual Report of the Office for Victims of
Crime provides a summary of the types of victims
targeted by VOCA victim assistance program funds in
1991.[8] Thirty-five percent of these funds were
targeted to domestic violence victims, 21 percent
to sexual assault victims; 21 percent to child
abuse victims; 14 percent to undesignated
categories of victims, and the remainder to a
number of other categories, particularly
underserved groups of victims. This distribution
reflects the legislatively established priorities
for the distribution of VOCA funds. 

Since a substantial portion of the VOCA funds, as
well as funds from other sources, are earmarked for
specific victim populations, victim assistance
programs may need to design or adapt their
operations with this consideration in mind. In
addition to the specific priority victim
populations noted above, over 52 programs have been
established on Native American reservations with
funding from the Assistance for Victims of Federal
Crime in Indian Country grant program, begun by the
Federal Government in 1988. 

VOCA grantees must meet a number of eligibility
criteria, including (1) being either a public or a
private nonprofit agency, (2) having a record of
delivering effective services to crime victims, (3)
using volunteers to provide services to crime
victims, and (4) promoting, within the community
served, coordinated public and private efforts to
serve crime victims.[9]

Brenda Meister, former Acting Director of the
Office for Victims of Crime, recently noted that
"VOCA conferred institutional legitimacy on the
crime victims' movement by establishing an
overarching, legal framework from which to
articulate--and, more importantly, to enforce--
crime victims' rights. Over the past 10 years, VOCA
has not only served as a reference point and a
source of guidance, but the Act has also
strengthened our resolve as a victims' movement by
reminding us of what we can collectively
accomplish."[10]

The Violence Against Women Act Grant Program

Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) in 1994 to combat the high level of violence
against women in the United States. The Act
authorizes the Department of Justice to fund a wide
variety of efforts to improve the response of law
enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and others to
violence against women, such as "developing,
expanding, or improving victim service programs,
including improved delivery of such services for
racial, cultural, and ethnic minorities, and
providing specialized domestic violence court
advocates."[11]

The Department of Justice has developed a Violence
Against Women Program Office within the Office of
Justice Programs to administer the provisions of
the Act, with the Department of Health and Human
Services also administering portions of the
legislation.[12] The total amount authorized for
all Violence Against Women Act grant programs for
Fiscal Years 1996 through 2000 is $974 million.[13]

State and Local Funding Sources

State and local governments are the primary funders
of victim assistance programs. A survey of victim
assistance programs across the Nation found that 28
percent of program budgets came from county
revenues, another 28 percent from State revenues,
and 9 percent from city budgets, for a total of
approximately two-thirds of overall budgets.
Federal funding, foundation support, donations,
fund-raising events, and other sources contributed
the remaining one-third of program support.[14]

A survey conducted in 1986 for the first edition of
this report found that 36 percent of the 25
programs contacted reported receiving a majority of
their funding from State government, while
municipal funds were the primary source of support
for 32 percent and county funds for another 20
percent. By 1986, 88 percent of the programs were
receiving more than half their funds from State and
local government. Although 20 percent of the
programs received complete funding from one local
governmental source, more than half combined
funding from two or more governmental sources.

Between 1986 and 1994, some modest changes occurred
in the funding sources of the surveyed programs. In
1994, more programs were receiving at least some
Federal and municipal funding, while fewer were
receiving any county or foundation funding. The
increase in the percentage of programs receiving
part of their funds from the Federal Government was
due, in part, to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.
By late 1986, over 500 programs had already
received VOCA funds, and, by 1994, as noted above,
over 2,400 were receiving funds.[15] In 1990 and
1991 over three million individuals received
assistance through projects funded by the Office
for Victims of Crime.[16]

State funding for victim assistance programs has
grown over the years since the termination of LEAA
in the early 1980's. Between 1981 and 1985, 28
States passed legislation providing funding for
victim assistance programs. These efforts have
typically been funded through surcharges on fines
and penalty assessments levied on offenders
convicted of State crimes. A minority of states
fund victim assistance programs with general
revenues instead of through such surcharges.[17]
The 1994 Annual Report of the Office for Victims of
Crime reports that State funding for victim
assistance programs during Fiscal Years 1990 and
1991 totaled over $700 million, based on
information from State VOCA administrators. (In
comparison, VOCA funds for victim assistance
programs during the same period totaled $130
million.)[18]

In addition to revenues from surcharges on fines
and from the States' general tax revenues, some
States have developed innovative mechanisms for
raising funds for victim assistance. Inmates in the
California Department of Corrections have held a
variety of fund-raising events to generate money
for victim assistance, including crafts fairs,
walk-a-thons, a benefit concert, and raffles.
During the 1992-93 fiscal year, the Department of
Corrections raised over $180,000 that was then
donated to victim assistance organizations.[19]

Some States are exploring obtaining additional
funds for victim assistance through increased taxes
on such items as weapons, alcohol, and cigarettes.
These efforts are risky, however, since they often
stimulate organized resistance on the part of the
industries and consumers affected. Consideration in
some States has been given to allocating a portion
of lottery revenues for victim assistance. Lottery
revenues are often earmarked for education,
however, and educational institutions
understandably resist any allocation of lottery
revenues to victim assistance that would result in
a diminution of education's total revenues.

Victim assistance programs that are sponsored by
local law enforcement agencies, county district
attorneys' offices, and related municipal and
county agencies typically receive much or all of
their funding from their local governments.
Institutionalization of programs in such agencies
can provide a relatively reliable ongoing source of
funds. Programs funded in this matter often seek
some Federal or private funding to supplement their
budgets and expand their services.

Private Funding Sources

Many programs supplement their governmental funding
with revenues raised from private sources. Private
funding sources include foundations, local
businesses, labor unions, local charitable groups
such as the United Way, and independent
fund-raising events. 

The most complete resource for foundation funding
is the Foundation Directory, available in any major
library. Some jurisdictions may also have local
clearinghouses or State directories of funding
sources.

Some cities have organizations, usually subsidized
by businesses, that examine public service
endeavors in the jurisdiction and report to
corporations on program activities as a way to
generate interest in corporate funding. Planners
and staff can identify this type of organization in
their community to learn what conditions they must
meet in order for the organization to recommend the
program to its member businesses. Several useful
documents provide information on approaching
funding sources and on proposal writing
techniques.[20]

Many victim/witness programs have adopted
innovative approaches to securing private funds.

o The Greenville (South Carolina) Victim/Witness
Assistance Program sent letters to local businesses
and to foundations and volunteer organizations
requesting small contributions. The former program
director sent personal letters to key individuals
whom she had previously met, requesting $300-$1,000
for a specific and popular program activity. Grants
were secured from J. P. Stevens, General Electric,
the Women's Legal Auxiliary, a construction
company, and two banks. 

o The planner for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
(Minnesota) Citizens Council Victim Services
capitalized on his own previous record of fourteen
years of program planning and initiation to
persuade a major foundation to provide planning
funds for what was still an incomplete idea for
providing victim/witness services. 

o Some programs have also used innovative
approaches for obtaining funding from the courts.
The Victim/Witness Liaison Office in Broward
County, Florida, secured $15,000 from fines imposed
on a drug dealer. The Clark County (Las Vegas)
Victim Witness Assistance Center was awarded
$25,000 from fines assessed on a popular singer for
violating customs regulations.

Victim assistance programs also may want to
consider offering businesses services--such as
training seminars on crime prevention, on how to
recognize signs of spousal abuse in victims, and on
ways to help employees who have been victims of
crime--in exchange for financial support.

Although victim assistance has continued to gain
support nationwide, obtaining funding for these
programs still requires constant vigilance, good
record-keeping and program assessment, and periodic
knocking on doors to solicit additional money.

Endnotes

1. Roberta C. Cronin and Blair B. Bourque, National
Evaluation Program Phase I Report: Assessment of
Victim/Witness Assistance Projects (Washington, D.C. :
U.S. Department of Justice, 1981).

2. See Albert R. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims:
Research, Policy, and Practice (Newbury Park: Sage
Publications, 1990), 45; and National District
Attorneys Association, Victim Witness Coordination
Program, The Directory of Prosecutor-Based Victims
Assistance Programs, 2nd ed. (Alexandria, Virginia:
NDAA, 1987).

3. See Office for Victims of Crime: Report to
Congress, June 1994. (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, 1994) 30.

4. Office for Victims of Crime: Report to Congress,
June 1994, 31.

5. "Victims of Crime Act Victim Assistance Grant
Program Final Program Guidelines," In Federal
Register (March 10, 1994).

6. Office for Victims of Crime: Report to Congress,
June 1994, 13-14.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Brenda G. Meister, "The Future of Victim
Assistance in the Federal Government," Marlene
Young and John H. Stein, eds. 2001: The Next
Generation in Victim Assistance (Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1994).

11. See "Grants To Combat Violent Crime Against
Women: Proposed Regulations," Federal Register
(December 28, 1994).

12. See Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 Briefing Book prepareed by the U.S.
Department of Justice.

13. Office for Victims of Crime: Report to
Congress, June 1994.

14. See Roberts, Helping Crime Victims, 87.

15. Office for Victims of Crime: Report to
Congress, June 1994, 29.

16. Ibid., 36.

17. See Roberts, Helping Crime Victims, 46.

18. Office For Victims of Crime: Report to
Congress, June 1994, 36.

19. See National Victim Center, Technical
Assistance Bulletin, vol. 2, (March 1994), 1.

20. See, for example, Marlene Young, Victim
Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals (Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1993); To Light
One Candle: A Manual for Organizing, Funding and
Maintaining Public Service Projects (Chicago:
American Bar Association); Grants: How To Find Out
About Them and What To Do Next (New York: Plenum
Press); Foundation Directory (New York: Columbia
University Press); Developing Skills in Proposal
Writing (Portland Oregon: Continuing Education
Publications); and Cracking the Corporation
(Washington, D.C. :Center for Women Policy Studies). 

____________________

Fund-raising: Every Little Bit Helps

As any experienced program staff member can attest,
fund-raising requires diligence and aggressiveness.
And every little bit helps. Several years after one
mother's four sons were murdered in 1977 in rural
Indiana, she established the Victims Advocate
Foundation to provide assistance to other crime
victims and their families. To raise money for
program expenses, she and a friend (now the program
director) went door-to-door asking businesses and
individuals for financial assistance. "We just
drove up and down the road and got $5 here and
there," the program director said. Not until the
program obtained a VOCA grant in 1986 was money for
salaries available.
____________________

Appendix A

Victim Assistance Programs Contacted by Telephone
for This Publication 
(in 1986, 1994, and 1995)
_____________________________________________

Arizona

Pima County Attorney's Office Victim Witness
Program
Viki Sharp, Director
32 N. Stone, #800
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 740-5525

Police Crisis Intervention Unit
Philip Riccio, Supervisor
9065 E. Via Linda
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
(602) 391-5055

Victim Assistance Program,
Glendale Police Department
Teary Neary, Lead Caseworker
6835 North 57th Drive
Glendale, AZ 85301
(602) 930-2435

Victim Witness Assistance Program, Arizona
Attorney General's Office
Teena Olszewki, Director
Gail Palmatier, Deputy Director
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 542-3881

California

Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Victim/Witness Assistance Division
Harold 0. Boscovich, Director
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 802
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 272-6180

Community United Against Violence (CUAV)
Terry Person, Program Director
973 Market Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 777-5500

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Victim Assistance Program
Herman Milholland, Director
210 W. Temple St.
Room 12-514
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-7499

The Counseling Team
Nancy Bohl, Director
1881 Business Center Drive, Suite 11
San Bernadino, CA 92408
(909) 884-0133

California Youth Authority
Office of Prevention and Victim Services
Don Saylor, Assistant Director
4241 Williamsbourgh Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95823
(916) 262-1480

Victim Witness Service Center 
Carolyn Golden, Director 
Fresno County Courthouse 
P.O. Box 453 
1110 Van Ness, 8th Floor 
Fresno, CA 93709 
(209) 488-3425

Victim Witness Unit, Ventura County District
 Attorney's Office
Deanna May, Interim Director
Hall of Justice, Room 311
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
(805) 654-3622

Colorado

Colorado Springs Police Department
Victim/Witness Office
Pat Wyka, Coordinator
Ruth Myers, Coordinator of Volunteers for
Senior Victim Assistance Team
705 South Nevada Ave.
P.O. Box 2169, Mail Code 1565
Colorado Springs, CO 80901-2169
(719) 444-7538/7441

Colorado State Patrol Victim Assistance Program
Dolores Mitchell, Coordinator
15055 South Golden Rd.
Golden, CO 80401-3971
(303) 272-1618

Victim Assistance Program 
Denver District Attorney's Office
Steve Siegel, Director of Program Development
303 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 1300
Denver, CO 80204
(303) 640-5176

Florida

Broward County Victim/Witness Liaison
Joel Shulman, Director
Broward County Courthouse
201 S.E. 6th Street, Room 470
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(305) 831-6200

Dade County Advocates for Victims
Robert Schroeder, Director
7831 N.E. Miami Court
Miami, FL 33138
(305) 758-2546

Georgia

Victim Witness Assistance Program
Aurelia Sands-Belle, Program Director
170 Garnet St.
Atlanta, GA 30335
(404) 865-8127

Illinois

Chicago Housing Authority
Department of Prevention Programs
Bernie Lucas, Acting Director, Preventive Programs
35 S. Paulina
Chicago, IL 60612
(312) 432-1060

Indiana

Victims Advocate Foundation
Kenneth Coleman, Director
Rural Route One, Box 232
Waveland, IN 47989
(317) 569-2332

Kansas

Kickapoo Victims of Crime Assistance Program
Nora Parker, Director
Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas
P.O. Box 271
Horton, KS 66439
(913) 486-3591

Kentucky

Office of Victim Advocacy 
Office of Commonwealth Attorney
JoAnn Phillips, Director
514 West Liberty
Louisville, KY 40202
(502) 595-2340

Massachusetts

Suffolk County District Attorney's Office
Victim Witness Assistance Program
Janet E. Fine, Chief
New Courthouse, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 725-8653

Essex County District Attorney's Office
Victim/Witness Assistance Program
Michaelene O'Neill McCann, Executive Director
Museum Place
One E. India Square
Salem, MA 01970
(508) 745-6610

Victim Witness Service Bureau, 
Middlesex County District Attorney's Office
Jeff Ryan, Director
40 Thorndike Street
Cambridge, MA 02141
(617) 494-4604

Victim Witness Assistance Program, 
District Attorney's Office
Anthony J. Pellegrini, Director
2 Main Street, Room 220
Worcester, MA 01608
(508) 792-0214

Minnesota

Citizens Council Victim Services
Jill Reizika, Director
822 South Third Street, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 348-7874

Missouri

St. Louis County Victim Service Council
Kathleen Tofall, Executive Director 
7900 Carondelet Ave.
Clayton, MO 63105
(314) 889-3075

Montana

Native Indian Crisis Association
Blackfeet Tribe Domestic Abuse Shelter
Irene Last Star, Program Director
P.O. Box 1946
Browning, MT 59417
(406) 338-7921

Nevada

Clark County District Attorney's Office
Victim Witness Assistance Center
Barbara Schell, Director
P.O. Box 552220
Las Vegas, NV 89155-2220
(702) 455-4204

New York

Victim Assistance Services
Marianne Walsh, Coordinator of Homicide Crisis
Outreach Program
2269 Four Mill River Rd., Bldg. #3
Elmsford, NY 10523
(914) 345-3113

Victim Services Agency
Lucy Freedman, Director of Planning and
Development
2 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 577-7709

Victim Assistance Unit, Rochester Police Department
Patricia Huntington-Sigel, Coordinator
150 South Plymouth Avenue
Civic Center Plaza
Rochester, NY 14614
(716) 428-6630

North Dakota

Tender Hearts, Inc.
Eldora Poitra, Program Director
Standing Rock Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 478
Fort Yates, ND 58538
(701) 854-3402

Oregon

Multnomah County Victims Assistance Program
Helen T. Smith, Chief Deputy, Family Justice
Multnomah County Courthouse
1021 SW 4th, Room 804
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 248-3222

Pennsylvania

Northwest Victim Services
Janet Lemoine, Director
6008 Wayne Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19144
(215) 438-4410

Office of Victim Services, 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
Department of Corrections
Mary Achilles, Director
P.O. Box 598
Camp Hill, PA 17011-0598
(717) 730-2722

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office Victim
Services Unit
Marcia Thomas-Bayne, Director
1421 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 686-8026

Crime Victims' Center of Chester County, Inc.
Peggy Gusz, Executive Director
236 West Market Street, Suite 2
West Chester, PA 19382
(610) 692-7273

South Carolina

Greenville Victim/Witness Assistance Program
Marcia Barker, Director
Greenville County Courthouse Annex
Room 113
Greenville, SC 29601
(803) 467-8612

Post Trauma Resources
Laurence Bergmann
1804 Hampton St.
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 765-0700

Washington

Lummi Indian Business Council,
"Lummi" Victims of Crime
Dan Kamkoff, Program Director
2616 Kwina Road
Bellingham, WA 98226-9298
(360) 384-2285

Victim Assistance Unit, King County Prosecutor's   
 Office
Ralyn Baird, Director
516 3rd Avenue, Room E-564
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 296-9552

Wisconsin

U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District
Francia A. Wendelborn, Victim/Witness Coordinator
517 East Wisconsin Ave., Room 530
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 297-1700

Victim Witness Services
Jo Kolanda, Director
821 West State Street
412 Safety Building
Milwaukee, WI 53233
(414) 278-4659

_________________________________________

Appendix B

Selected Resources
_________________________________________

Office for Victims of Crime
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.C 20004
(202) 307 -0774

Created in 1984 by the Victims of Crime Act, the
Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) administers the
Federal Crime Victims Fund deposits and provides
grants to States for victim assistance and victim
compensation. OVC also provides training and
technical assistance to victim services providers
and criminal justice officials and sponsors
numerous projects related to victim issues. The
National Victims Resource Center, funded by OVC,
provides referral services and information on
victim issues and other criminal justice topics.
Documents are selected from the National Institute
of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS), of which the National Victims
Resource Center is a component.

The National Victims Resource Center can be
contacted at (800) 627-6872 and, through NCJRS, in
the following other ways:

o fax: (301) 251-5212

o mail: NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000

o e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com

National Organization for Victim Assistance
1757 Park Road, NW
Washington, D.C.C 20004
(202) 232-6682

The National Organization for Victim Assistance
(NOVA), founded in 1975, is a major leader of the
victims movement and provides a wealth of resources
on victim assistance program operations and
services. Besides written materials, library and
legislative databases, and training and technical
assistance programs, NOVA sponsors numerous
national and regional conferences every year.
Members also receive a useful newsletter and have
access to NOVA's extensive directory of victim
assistance programs.

Publications written by NOVA staff include the
following:

Victim Assistance: Frontiers and Fundamentals. This
is a 1993 compilation of individual manuals that
the organization developed for regional training
conferences. The book outlines major considerations
for a wide range of victim assistance program
activities and issues, including services to
special populations, program standards, public
speaking, fund-raising, media relations, and
criminal justice alliances.

The Victim Service System: A Guide to Action.
Written by Marlene Young, executive director of
NOVA, this book includes detailed descriptions of
how to provide services and understand victims'
emotional responses to crime, as well as sample
forms, letters, fliers, and other materials.

Self-Assessment Kit. Revised in 1987, this kit
contains three tools: (1) A Management Information
System (MIS) for victim services programs manual
system that lends itself to computerization; (2) A
Cost-Benefit Analysis System that uses the
information compiled by the MIS; and (3) A Program
Assessment System that helps programs examine all
of their management and service functions. The
Program Assessment System is designed for
self-administration by a program and for
application by outside evaluators.

2001: The Next Generation in Victim Assistance,
edited by Marlene Young and John Stein, the
directors of NOVA, is a compilation of
presentations by victim services and criminal
justice experts at a 1992 NOVA-sponsored conference
to consider the future of the victim assistance
field.

National Victim Center
2111 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 300
Arlington, Virginia 22201
(703) 276-2880

The National Victim Center (NVC), founded in 1985
to promote the rights and needs of violent crime
victims, offers training and technical assistance
for victim services providers and criminal justice
officials; has a library of over 10,000 documents
concerning violent crime and victimology, as well
as a legislative database; and sponsors the Crime
Victims' Litigation Project, consisting of a
newsletter, a legislative database, and a network
of civil attorneys who work with crime victims.
Members receive a quarterly newsletter on victim
issues, another quarterly newsletter that covers a
single timely topic, a biannual bulletin that
spotlights exemplary programs, and access to
databases and library materials. A National Crime
Victims' Rights Week Strategies for Action Kit
(which includes sample press releases and other
materials) and other materials can be ordered at
discounted prices. Members also can request
informational bulletins and resource packages on 65
victim-related topics.

The National Victim Center has produced a number of
publications, including the following:

Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to
Prosecution and Victim Assistance. This 500+ page
training and resource manual, published in 1994, is
targeted to individuals involved in
prosecutor-based victim assistance programs, but
the material is useful for any victim services
provider. The manual has nine sections covering
program planning and development, protocol for
service delivery (including how to address the
needs of special victim populations), working with
criminal justice agencies, victim impact
statements, enhanced program services (including
postconviction hearings, compensation, restitution,
and civil  remedies), trends in service delivery
(e.g., victim/offender mediation), volunteer
management, effective stress and conflict
management, and resource development. Numerous
sample forms are included in the manual and on an
accompanying computer disk.

Legal Remedies for Crime Victims Against
Perpetrators: Basic Principles. This conference
training manual and curriculum presents an overview
of civil litigation on behalf of crime victims,
discusses sources of collection, and reviews common
and special cases in which crime victims can
recover compensation for the losses they incurred.

Many criminal justice associations also have begun
addressing issues relating to victims and can be
contacted for information about their activities.
These associations include:

o American Correctional Association
(301) 918-1800
Victims Committee Chair: Fred Finkbeiner 
(804) 560-5312

The 25,000-member ACA is composed of professionals,
individuals, agencies, and organizations involved
in every aspect of the corrections field. In
existence for more than 200 years, the ACA has been
the driving force in establishing national
correctional policies and advocating safe, humane,
and effective operations. It offers several
publications, training workshops, and forums, as
well as technical assistance, national standards
for the field, and other information and
assistance. The ACA Victims Committee is charged
with developing the ACA's policies on victims of
juvenile crime; recommending national research,
training, and technical assistance projects for the
ACA to pursue in regard to victims; educating ACA
members on the elements of restorative justice
principles, programs, and practices; reviewing
restorative justice principles; proposing
strategies to forge greater coalitions with related
organizations dedicated to improving the status of
crime victims; and developing methodologies to
evaluate the effectiveness of victim services
programs in corrections.

o American Bar Association
(202) 662-1000
Victims Committee, Criminal Justice Section
Contact: Susan Hillenbrand

For almost 30 years, the 340,000-member ABA has
been actively supporting legislation in support of
crime victims. In 1976 the Victims Committee was
established to review victim and witness issues.
The committee has spearheaded revisions to the ABA
Criminal Justice Standards--for example, calling on
prosecutors to make every effort to remain advised
of the victim's attitudes before reaching a plea
agreement. It has also developed a package of
recommendations for reducing victim/witness
intimidation and sponsored a major effort to
involve State and local bar associations in
victim/witness issues. The committee has published
a number of ABA-approved materials on victim
issues, including an assessment of State victims'
rights statutes and a manual for attorneys.

o International Association of Chiefs of Police
(703) 836-6767
Victim Services Committee Contact: Carolyn Cockroft

The IACP is a nonprofit organization of
approximately 14,000 members from the world's law
enforcement community. IACP supports law
enforcement professionals with a wide variety of
services, including conducting technical assistance
programs; presenting state- of-the-art training
programs and materials; publishing professional
magazines and reports; and conducting extensive law
enforcement research.

The IACP's Victim Services Committee is charged
with developing training curricula for law
enforcement agencies in the overall provision of
victim services and the implementation of
police-based victim services units; developing
training strategies for officers to raise their
awareness of victim issues; and developing programs
and policies to respond to the needs of officers
exposed to violent incidents.

Other Recent Publications

Blair B. Bourque and Roberta C. Cronin, Helping
Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice
System: A Program Handbook (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, 1991). This handbook is
directed at juvenile justice policyrnakers,
providers of juvenile justice services, and victim
assistance providers. It identifies programs that
have model approaches to providing services for
victims of and witnesses to juvenile crime;
describes important program components; provides
practical guidelines on structuring and
implementing a program; describes common obstacles
and strategies for overcoming them; and provides a
list of additional resources. 

Albert R. Roberts, Helping Crime Victims: Research,
Policy, and Practice (Newbury Park, California:
Sage Publications, 1990). This book presents the
results of a 1985 survey of nearly 200 victim
assistance programs. Examples of many programs are
included throughout the text. The book also
contains an overview of victimology and victim
services along with articles by other authors on
responding to missing and murdered children,
providing crisis intervention to battered women and
their children, crisis and recovery services for
family violence survivors, and restitution.

Wesley G. Skogan, Robert C. Davis, and Arthur J.
Lurigio, Victims' Needs and Victim Services: Final
Report to the National Institute of Justice
(Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, 1990).
Based on a survey of nearly 500 crime victims in
four locations, this report describes victims'
reported needs, where victims seek help, the kinds
of services offered by victim assistance programs
in their community, and which additional problems
of victims need to be addressed by the programs.

Arthur J. Lurigio, Wesley G. Skogan, and Robert C.
Davis, eds., Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies,
and Programs, (Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, 1990). This compilation of articles
by victim experts covers trends in victimization,
the emotional impact of crime, the needs and
problems of special victim populations, the
evolution of victim programs and services, and
other topics.

--------------------

Appendix D

Colorado Springs Police Department

Volunteer Job Description

Position: Victim Contact Assistant

Background Information: Crisis intervention to
victim of crimes against persons (sexual assault,
aggravated assault and robbery, homicide
survivors), follow-up services and assistance
throughout criminal justice process.

Responsible To: Patricia Wyka, Victim/Witness
Coordinator

Responsibilities:
1. Advise victims of target crimes regarding
departmental and community assistance available to
them and of their legal rights.

2. Liaison with victim service agencies and
coordinate resources for utilization of victims.

3. Direct needs assistance to victims (e. g.,
victim compensation applications, transportation,
etc.).

4. Coordinate activities and information with other
department personnel (e.g., submission of reports,
schedules, etc. to supervisor).

Time Required: Minimum six months commitment to
program; four hours weekly to program.

Training: Will be provided by Victim/Witness
Coordinator

Qualifications: Sensitivity to persons in physical
and emotional trauma, good communications skills,
public speaking or public relations experience is
desirable.

Benefits: Personal satisfaction.

____________________