Introduction

Denver Victim Services 2000

(VS2000), funded by a discretionary grant from the Office for

Victims of Crime (OVC), is a 5-year

demonstration project to create a comprehensive, coordinated, seamless service

delivery system for victims of crime. In

1997, OVC selected Denver, Colorado,

as the urban site for the development and

implementation of the VS2000 model.

Today, representatives from more than

50 Denver-area victim service agencies

and programs are participating in the

Denver VS2000 project. Participants

include community and criminal justicebased victim service programs and allied

professionals. The State of Vermont has

also been selected as a VS2000 site. Each

site is developing a unique victim services model tailored to its community.

This Bulletin, the first in a series,

describes the creation of the Denver

VS2000 model service network. It summarizes the efforts and highlights the

results of the three-pronged victim 

Message From the Director

Although the field has made great strides in

working more collaboratively on behalf of crime

victims,services still are often fragmented. All

too often victims must struggle to discover their

rights,determine the services and resources

available to them,and find out how to access

them. Sometimes even service providers are

not aware of the availability of services and

resources and how to access them.

To support the development of integrated services delivery systems that could serve as models

for other communities,OVC funded Victim Services 2000 (VS 2000) demonstration sites.The

goal of each VS 2000 demonstration site is to

improve the range,quality,and accessibility of

services for all types of crime victims and to provide technical assistance to other communities.In

1997,OVC awarded a VS 2000 grant to Denver,

Colorado;in 1998,OVC grants went to Medina

County,Ohio,and the State of Vermont.Both

urban and rural communities were chosen as sites

to determine what differences,if any,emerged.

Over the course of the 5-year grant,each project

was asked to write a Bulletin about its needs

assessment process and the resulting initiatives.

This documentation may help other communities

increase the range,quality,and accessibility of services to all crime victims.This Bulletin,from the

Denver VS 2000 project,is the first in that series.

These Bulletins will either contain or direct readers to tools to aid implementation,sources for

technical assistance and related resources.

Kathryn M. Turman

Director

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

October 2000

Denver Victim Services 2000

Needs Assessment

by Erin Stark

services needs assessment conducted by

Denver VS2000 in 1997 and 1998. The

Bulletin describes the development of an

assessment strategy and the creation of

measurement tools. Subsequent Bulletins

will address other aspects of the model,

including collaboration and planning,

technology, training and education, and

community advocates. 

Participants in the Denver VS2000 project designed and implemented the

Denver needs assessment. First, it was

clear that an assessment of the current

state of victim services and victims’ needs

in that area was necessary for developing

a seamless model victim services network. Although adept in the field of victim services, the participants had little or

no experience in, or knowledge of, scientific methods of data collection. Since

the grant budget did not provide for consultation with expert researchers, it

became the responsibility of project participants to develop measurement tools

and implement an assessment that could,

as quickly as possible, inform the process

of creating the victim service model.

Thanks to the wealth of expertise, 

experience, and dedication in the Denver
victim services community, the project

participants were able to develop the

needs assessment from their own applied,

practical research without using strictly

scientific social research methods.

Developing the assessment involved 

three tasks: identifying the most relevant

types of services and victim information,

researching available material on related

types of needs assessments, and creating

working committees to design instruments and methods of implementation.

From a dynamic process of brainstorming,

discussion, prioritization, and ongoing

refinement of content and format came

three distinct assessment instruments—

the Agency Inventory of Services (the

Agency Survey), the Client Satisfaction

Survey, and focus groups for underserved

crime victims. In addition, by working

together toward a common goal, the participants achieved other, perhaps equally

important, goals—increased knowledge,

understanding, and trust in one another.

The first major task undertaken by the

Denver VS2000 participants was the

development of the needs assessment.

This provided victim service providers

from a broad range of agencies a wonderful opportunity to share ideas, perceptions, and concerns on topics such as

interagency communication and referrals,

why certain victims do or do not report or

use services, perceived needs and service

gaps, and differing philosophies and

methods of service provision. In fact, the

needs assessment generated information

that contributed to the creation of several

critical components of the model victim

services network, including a shared case

management system, an interagency

cross-training plan, standardized service

evaluation, cultural competency training,

and advocates from the community.

History of Denver

VS2000

I

n 1996, the Denver Victim Assistance

and Law Enforcement (VALE) Board

convened a planning committee of

more than 50 community and criminal

justice-based victim service providers and

allied professionals. The purpose of the

meeting was to plan the components and

structure of a Victim Services 2000 model

for the city of Denver. The creation of a

seamless, integrated victim service delivery system seemed a logical next step for

Denver’s victim service community.

Its past efforts on behalf of crime victims

includes one of the first prosecutionbased victim advocates in the United

States, passage of a Victims’ Rights

Constitutional Amendment and enabling

legislation, numerous interdisciplinary

victim-centered protocols, and the establishment of a centralized victim service

center.

An extensive network of more than 50

nonprofit and government agencies plays

a critical role in the delivery of services to

crime victims in Denver. Representatives

of these agencies were on the planning

committee and the steering committee,

which were formed after Denver was

selected as a VS2000 site. Services are

available for victims of domestic violence,

sexual assault, child abuse, robbery, and

assault, as well as survivors of victims of

violent death. Also available are services

specifically designed for traditionally

underserved victims, including AfricanAmerican, Latino, and Asian victims;

victims of hate crimes; victims with disabilities; and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and

transgendered victims. Many agencies are

involved in public education and awareness and conduct client satisfaction 

surveys, which help them determine 

strategies for refinement and expansion

of services.

The VS2000 Planning Committee documented Denver’s gaps and areas of greatest need in its existing services using data

from a 1990 victim services assessment 

by the Denver Victims Service Center

and a 1992 assessment by the Denver

Children’s Network. These efforts surveyed both service providers and clients,

focusing on identifying underserved client

populations that have experienced obstacles in obtaining victim assistance in

Denver. The areas identified for possible

enhancement were services for child sexual assault victims; long-term services,

including case management; services for

gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered

clients; services for disabled clients; services for ethnic minorities; resources for

victims of unreported crimes; victim sensitivity training for professionals in the

justice, medical, social services, legal, and

religious systems; and public education

about victims of crime. In addition, anecdotal sources within the victim services

community indicated a significant underreporting of sexual assault, domestic violence, and crimes against the elderly,

especially within ethnic and new immigrant communities.

Data from 1990 and 1992 provided the

underpinnings of the 5-year VS2000 project. However, the planning committee

felt that sole reliance on “old” data, anecdotal information, and conventional wisdom would prove insufficient for building

an effective victim service network. The

committee believed that this concerted

effort to enhance coordination, accessibility, and service delivery needed to be

driven by a thorough assessment of current services to reveal weaknesses and

gaps. Thus, the Needs Assessment Team

was formed to accomplish this task.

OVC Bulletin

2
Denver VS2000

Needs Assessment

T

he Needs Assessment Team first met 

in May 1997 and reviewed the available materials on victim services

needs assessments. The team found that

needs assessments and attitudinal surveys

had been undertaken vigorously over the

past 50 years covering topics such as the

state of the nation’s health, the public’s

preferences in consumer products, and

attitudes on political issues. However, the

team found very few studies on the needs,

attitudes, and experiences of crime victims. This may be in part because victim

service agencies have been faced historically with a lack of resources. Needs

assessments and ongoing service evaluation have not been considered a priority 

equal to direct services. 

VS2000 found the 1996 Nebraska Crime

Commission’s statewide needs assessment

a particularly useful guide. The Nebraska

project developed and tested three assessment instruments to evaluate the state 

of services for victims across Nebraska.

VS2000 was fortunate to have access to

the Nebraska tools, survey results, comments, and recommendations on the

assessment process written by professional

researchers. 

After a review of these materials, a threepronged approach to needs assessment

was developed by the Needs Assessment

Team to generate information on current

services: 

■ Client satisfaction with services.

■ Unmet needs and gaps in service 

as perceived by service providers.

■ Unmet needs and gaps in service as

perceived by clients and unserved

and underserved victims of crime. 

The Needs Assessment Team met twice

and organized into three committees: the

Agency Survey Committee, the Client

Satisfaction Survey Committee, and the

Focus Group Committee. These groups

met monthly for 5 months to design the

measurement tools and implementation

methods for each component of the needs

assessment. VS2000 staff attended each

meeting and drafted the tools according

to the recommendations of committee

members, printed and mailed the surveys,

coordinated the focus groups, and analyzed the results of the assessment efforts.

Descriptions of the efforts in each of the

three areas follow.

The Agency Survey

I

n defining the goals and desired outcomes for the Agency Inventory of

Services (Agency Survey), the committee addressed several questions.

Should the survey be a comprehensive

assessment of specific victim service agencies, including what they are providing,

to what degree, and to what type of victim? To determine service trends and

gaps, should the survey provide a general

picture of what is available to victims of

crime in the city of Denver? What is the

sample group? Should all or only a few

representative agencies be studied? If a

few, how will those agencies be selected?

Most important, what accomplishments

were hoped for with these service data?

The Agency Survey Committee took its

direction from the goals and objectives of

the Denver VS2000 project. In this case,

the goal was to establish a seamless, interdisciplinary system of service delivery for

victims of crime, including victims from

previously underserved or unserved populations. The assessment objective for this

goal was to evaluate the current delivery

system for gaps, the quality of service

delivery, linkages between agencies, and

service to underserved groups. Ideally, the

resulting data would inform the development of the essential components of a

victim service model, recommendations

for new program development, and recommendations for realignment of existing

services. As such, the committee determined that the assessment should not be

an evaluation of each distinct victim

service agency. Rather, the assessment

should provide a general picture or snapshot of Denver’s victim services environment, highlighting gaps in services that

could be prioritized and addressed by the

model victim services network. 

The decision to focus on general service

trends rather than individual agency 

performance was important for another

reason. Some victim services providers

receiving the results of this research

would also determine the changes to be

made in the victim service delivery system based on the research they designed

and implemented. Some victim service

providers were also subjects of the survey.

The committee asked service providers to

participate in this project, which would

take substantial time and attention away

from their jobs of providing direct services for an unforeseen length of time.

With limited resources available to them,

victim service providers often work in relative isolation from one another and may

be in a position of competing for funds.

In the light of these factors, the Agency

Survey Committee decided that a survey

that seemed to be scrutinizing the performance of individual agencies would be

counterproductive to an environment of

mutual trust, collaboration, and commitment to the goals of the project.

The committee determined the survey’s

target population to be the agencies and

programs providing victim services in

Denver. To get a clear picture of service

gaps and understand who was using 

services, the committee decided to gather

3

Denver Victim Services 2000 Needs Assessment
information from as many programs as

possible, including criminal justice-based

programs and allied professional agencies

with victim service components, such as

hospitals. 

Another parameter of the Agency Survey

was that it include both objective and

subjective data. Objective data included

such items as services provided, number

of clients served, client demographics,

and number of staff. Alone, these data

do not reveal unmet needs or gaps in

services until compared with a list of predetermined needs. To obtain information

about service gaps, the survey asked service providers where they believed the

gaps to be. The survey asked what services were needed but not provided, not

just for the victims at their agencies, but

for any crime victim in Denver. These

subjective data relied on the perceptions

and beliefs of service providers. Though

the committee knew such information

was potentially biased, it included it in

the survey to harvest the wealth of anecdotal and firsthand information that service providers have about victims and the

services available to them.

When designing the survey, the committee considered factors that would affect 

its return rate. These factors included 

the length and complexity of the survey,

its importance to the respondent, the

respondent’s motivation for completing

and returning it, and the respondent’s

perception of an obligation to complete

and return it. The Denver VS2000

Agency Inventory of Services is a lengthy

10-page document with a fairly complex

format. It includes check boxes, grids,

scales, and space for written comments.

The survey designers tried to balance the

need for comprehensive information with

ease of completion.

Although the survey’s primary objective

was to reveal gaps in service and weaknesses in interagency linkages, it also

included questions on other types of

information such as agency mission, distribution of staff and board, service fees,

hours, funding sources, reporting rates,

and client demographics. The design was

based on an assumption that service

providers are people who often deal with

paperwork and data gathering and would

not be daunted by a complex, lengthy

survey. Further, the motivation to complete the survey was assumed to be high

because it was targeted primarily to participants in the VS2000 project, who had

collectively identified the necessity of a

needs assessment.

Categories of Information in the

Agency Survey

The Agency Survey collected information in four categories: agency information, client information, service

information, and agency linkages.

Agency Information

Agency information collected in 

the survey included date of inception,

mission, involvement in interagency protocols, funding sources, number and ethnic distribution of the staff and board of

directors, service area, accessibility, service fees, and marketing of services. The

survey asked questions that inventoried

the characteristics of the agencies that

were providing victim services in Denver.

These questions were included with the

thought that the information might prove

valuable at some point during this 5-year

project. The committee designed the survey with the assumption that having as

much information as possible about 

existing services would be helpful when

developing a model service network. This

portion of the survey did not address 

service gaps.

Client Information

The survey asked for client information including gender, racial, and ethnic

distribution; age; disability; and income

level. The survey also asked respondents

what percentage of clients reported the

crime to police and what the respondents

thought were the primary reasons for

nonreporting. The survey designers tried

to make the survey easy to complete and

easy to analyze. Wherever possible, the

survey provides a choice of answers with

boxes to check or lists of characteristics

with spaces to fill in numbers or percentages. These documents made the survey

easier to analyze, reduced the amount of

writing required of the respondent, and

increased the likelihood that each question would be answered.

Service Information

The section of the survey on service

information was formatted into a table 

or grid. This design captured relevant

information about each type of service

available to victims of crime, such as how

many victims are using it, who is the target population, and what services are

needed but not provided. The survey

designers developed a comprehensive list

of 55 different services available to crime

victims. The table format allowed the survey to collect a range of information on

each distinct service offered by an agency

or program, while keeping the survey a

reasonable length. 

Agency Linkages

The Agency Linkages Chart is another

important part of the survey. Sometimes

victims “fall through the cracks” of a service network due to weaknesses in communication and collaboration among

victim service agencies. The Agency

Linkage Chart was designed to reveal the

general interagency environment. In the

survey, “linkage” is defined as “a high or

appropriate level of communication,

OVC Bulletin

4
5

resource, and information sharing

between agencies; a clear knowledge of

each other’s services; a referral mechanism; and trust that referred clients will

be treated appropriately and have relatively easy access to quality services.” The

Agency Linkage Chart contains a list of

80 victim service programs and allied

professional and community groups.

Respondents were asked to measure the

level of their agency’s linkage with each

group or agency.

Implementation of the Agency

Survey

The Agency Inventory of Services and

a cover letter explaining the purpose of

the survey were mailed to 99 victim 

service programs and allied professionals.

Respondents were given 1 month to complete the survey and return it to VS2000

staff. VS2000 staff placed reminder calls

to each of the agencies to remind them

of the deadline and ask if they had any

questions about the survey. Of the 99 

programs, approximately 20 told VS2000

that the survey did not apply to them

because they did not provide direct services to victims. Of the remainder, 47 surveys (59 percent) were completed and

returned to VS2000. Data were computed

using EpiInfo statistical software.

Results of the Agency Survey 

Analysis and summary of the data collected by the survey focused on areas considered most relevant to the VS2000

project. These areas were client and staff

demographics, reporting rates for different

types of victims, agency linkages, and

service gaps. For the most part, the survey

results were not surprising and were in

accord with anecdotal information and

findings of previous surveys. However,

some of the survey findings were interesting. Client and staff demographics indicated that overall services reached a 

broad range of victim types. By contrast,

racially and ethnically diverse clients,

staff, and board members fell into the

0–25 percentile range, which is lower

than the percentage in the general population. The survey also revealed that,

compared with other types of crime 

victims, reporting rates were shown to 

be significantly lower (10–26 percent) 

for adult survivors of sexual abuse, women

with disabilities, domestic violence victims, sexual assault victims, non-Englishspeaking victims, and gay, lesbian,

bisexual, and transgendered victims.

Analysis of agency linkages found that

the top 10 agencies and groups requiring

the most linkage were those serving

American Indians, new immigrants, and

non-English-speaking victims, as well as

the Department of Social Services, hospitals, the faith community, and community leaders. Surprisingly, most clients

selected information and referral as a

needed but unavailable service, whereas

most agencies responded that they provided this service. Discussion with service

providers on the VS2000 working teams

revealed that they felt information and

referral were not being done as well as

expected. Specifically, interagency knowledge was lacking and referrals were often

not appropriate. Other service gaps identified by survey included emergency shelter, case management, on-scene crisis

intervention, legal assistance, and 24-

hour hotlines for deaf and non-Englishspeaking victims.

Evaluation: Suggested Changes

to Agency Survey Content 

and Method

After analyzing the survey results and

obtaining feedback about the process

from service providers, VS2000 staff

determined that some changes in survey

content and method could have resulted

in a better return rate with more concise,

meaningful information. 

Several survey respondents felt the survey

was too long, and the tables and charts

were intimidating and hard to understand. Although many respondents did

not share this opinion, the VS2000 staff

felt it was safe to assume that respondents

would more likely complete a shorter 

survey. The survey information on agency

characteristics was not summarized and

has not been used by the VS2000 project

during its 5 years of existence. Considering that the primary goal of the survey

was to measure services and reveal service

gaps, the agency information was extraneous and should have been omitted.

One of the tables, the Service Information Table, measured the services 

provided by a particular agency and the

general gaps in services for all victims 

by all agencies, from the providers’ perspective. Some respondents thought 

they were to indicate only the gaps they

thought existed within their own agency

or only for the types of victims they

served. They were reluctant to list gaps

because they thought it might reflect

poorly on their agency or it might result

in an increased expectation for their

agency—to expand or to change services

in ways that would be unrealistic or

outside the agency’s mission. The staff

realized that including some simple,

open-ended questions would have been a

good idea, even though they would have

complicated the analysis process. Simple

questions such as “How do you think

services for victims of crime could be

improved?” would have generated valuable information and avoided confusion

about how a question should be answered.

Another chart that measured linkages

between victim service programs indicated which programs had excellent or 

sufficient linkage with the network of

Denver Victim Services 2000 Needs Assessment
agencies and which did not. This information was helpful in illustrating which

agencies might need to do more outreach, networking, and cross-training.

Respondents also began requesting 

analyses that would show how each

agency rated itself. Although this would

be valuable information for each agency

to have, providing the information would

violate the confidentiality of the responders. If a statement of consent had been

included in this section of the survey,

sharing this information with the requesting agency could have been allowed.

The Client

Satisfaction Survey

A

s you will recall from the last section, the Agency Survey looked at

Denver’s victim service network

from the service provider’s perspective.

This section discusses the Client

Satisfaction Survey, which looked at

Denver’s victim service network from

the client’s perspective. The Client

Satisfaction Survey regarded crime victims as service consumers and tried to

determine what their needs were and how

well those needs were met.

Prior to VS2000, several client satisfaction survey instruments were already in

use in Denver, including both written 

and telephone interview formats. Surveys

from the Denver Police Department’s

Victim Assistance Unit, the Denver

District Attorney’s Victim Advocacy

Program, the Denver Victims Service

Center, and other community-based 

programs were reviewed by the Client

Satisfaction Survey Committee. The

committee also reviewed client satisfaction surveys from victim service agencies

in other states, including those developed

for the Nebraska Crime Commission’s

statewide needs assessment.

The committee resolved that the client

survey should capture both quantitative

and qualitative information on services,

the accessibility of those services, the

response of the criminal justice system, 

if applicable, and interagency responses.

Service information would include what

services were received, satisfaction with

those services, and services that were

needed but not received. Accessibility 

of the services would be determined by

questions about affordability, language

appropriateness, and ease of use. The

criminal justice response would be measured by questions about reporting, prosecution, and the victims’ satisfaction level

with their interactions with the police

and district attorney. Finally, survey questions about referrals that had been given

and used would shed light on the appropriateness of interagency response.

Before the survey could be designed, the

committee had to resolve several key

questions. Should the survey measure the

victims’ satisfaction with all the services

they had received as a result of their victimization? Or, should the survey measure

the victims’ satisfaction only with services

obtained from the agency that provided

the survey to the victim? Should the survey form capture information about the

services provided to victims within a

given timeframe? How could the survey

be disseminated to ensure maximum

response? How should the survey address

the wide variation in victim service programs in terms of types of victims served,

types of services provided, amount of

client activity, and the ways services are

delivered? In other words, should a survey

be tailored specifically to each separate

agency? Or, could a common survey be

adequate? Finally, how could the survey

format and method of implementation

make victims comfortable and motivated

to complete the survey?

One goal of the survey was to collect

information that would be used to inform

the creation of a seamless network of

services for all victims of crime. Having

decided that the purpose of the client survey was not to evaluate satisfaction with

a specific agency, but with distinct types

of services within a network of services,

the committee decided that the survey

should elicit satisfaction levels of all

Denver-area services that the victim

received within a 12-month period.

The population sample for the distribution of the Client Satisfaction Survey was

composed of victims who were currently

receiving services at Denver victim service agencies. The committee chose this

option instead of a random population

survey for several reasons. Although any

population will include victims of crime,

a random sample of a population would

also include many nonvictims, who were

not being targeted by this survey. In addition, surveys mailed to random population groups are known to have a low

return rate. To obtain enough returns, the

survey would have to be mailed to a very

large number of people, and this would be

too costly. So, the decision was made to

direct the surveys to victims currently

receiving services at Denver victim

service agencies.

Agencies were given several options for

survey dissemination. The surveys could

be given to victims by service providers 

as part of the exit evaluation process, or

as a mid-service evaluation, or at any

time a provider felt it was appropriate.

The committee assumed that because

almost all the Denver-area service programs were involved in the VS2000 project, they would be invested in the success

of the survey assessment, ensuring that

completed surveys were returned. This

method allowed the clients to complete 

OVC Bulletin

6
7

the surveys inhouse. Committee members

reported that surveys taken home by clients

for completion usually were not returned.

Although clients were not required to complete the surveys, it seemed more likely

that this method would result in more

returns and would be less intrusive.

The survey designers tried to make the

survey user friendly by keeping it short (a

little over three pages) and the language

plain and simple, avoiding the kind of

terminology and jargon service providers

understand, but victims often do not.

The survey was organized into four sections. The first section asked questions

about the crime (or crimes) the respondent was a victim of, including type of

crime, year of the crime, city in which

the crime occurred, the first agency or

group contacted for help, and whether

the crime was reported and prosecuted.

The second section addressed overall 

victim satisfaction with criminal justice

and victim service agencies and service

referrals. The third section contained a

Service Information Table, much like the

one in the Agency Survey, which measures satisfaction level, service gaps, and

accessibility. The fourth section requested

demographic information.

The survey measured a victim’s satisfaction with the justice system and service

agencies by asking the question, “Do you

feel you were treated with dignity and

respect by the police? By the district

attorney’s office? By the agencies that

provided services for you?” This question

was phrased specifically to determine the

victims’ feelings about how they were

treated, avoiding undue negative (or positive) answers based on case outcome.

The Service Information Table listed 

47 services. For each service victims

received, they were asked their satisfaction

level: Were services provided in their language? Were services affordable? Were services easy to get to or use? Similar to the

Agency Survey, this table allowed the survey to ask several questions about each type

of service in a relatively concise format.

Implementation of the Client

Satisfaction Survey 

The Client Satisfaction Survey was

sent to 70 Denver victim service agencies. Depending on their size, most agencies were asked to return between 5 and

15 surveys within a 2-month period. This

deadline was extended for several months

because of the low return rate.

The survey included a cover letter stating

the survey was confidential and did not

contain the victim’s name. It also

explained the purpose of the assessment,

who was conducting it, who would see

the results, and how they would be used.

To ensure confidentiality for the victim,

envelopes addressed to VS2000 were provided with the surveys. After completing

the survey, the respondent could seal the

survey in the envelope and the service

agency would mail it. For victims who

could not read, the agency could offer to

read it to them, conducting the survey as

an oral interview provided the victim did

not object to the lack of anonymity.

Surveys were also available in Spanish

and in Vietnamese, which is the largest

Asian population in Denver. Eleven

agencies returned 80 completed surveys.

VS2000 staff disseminated additional 

surveys to community groups. In total,

127 surveys from 11 victim service 

agencies and 11 community groups 

were returned to VS2000 for analysis.

Because of the slow return rate, survey

results were computed by hand.

Results of the Client

Satisfaction Survey

Survey analysis revealed that client 

satisfaction with services was high.

Overwhelmingly, the survey responses

revealed that services were language

appropriate, affordable, and easily accessible. The primary unmet service needs

were crisis intervention at the crime

scene; victim assistance at the crime

scene; emergency financial assistance,

victims’ rights information, and protection and safety services; and updates on

the status of one’s case. Among other

things, the survey revealed that 46 percent of respondents felt they were treated

with dignity and respect by the police, 

33 percent by the prosecutor (51 percent

were “not applicable”), and 61 percent 

by service agencies (21 percent were 

“not applicable”).

The results of the survey are colored

somewhat by the low return rate and the

fact that only 11 agencies were represented. Also, some agencies were overrepresented, even when taking into account

size considerations. For instance, 1 agency

returned 20 surveys, which was appropriate for the number of clients it served.

Yet, other programs with an equally 

large client base returned only one or

two surveys.

During and after the implementation of

the Client Satisfaction Survey, it became

clear that the low return rate was due not

to victims’ reluctance, but to resistance

by service providers. The survey was an

inconvenience to service providers,

requiring more paperwork, more coordination effort, and more time. In agencies

and programs that did not already conduct periodic evaluations or assessments

as part of their routine procedures, it was

difficult for the service providers to conduct the survey. Another and perhaps 

primary cause of the service providers’

resistance to the survey was that the

providers felt the survey represented

another layer of intrusion and stress for

their clients. However, it is interesting to

note that in later focus groups conducted

Denver Victim Services 2000 Needs Assessment
with victims, victims stated unequivocally

that they wanted to be asked about

their opinions, experiences, needs, and

suggestions. 

In the final analysis, the results from the

Client Satisfaction Survey were not as

valuable as those from the Agency Survey

and the Victim Focus Groups because of

the low return rate and the fact that the

responses were not really representative 

of the crime victims receiving services

in Denver. As a result, the results of 

the Client Satisfaction Survey had less

impact than the Agency Survey or the

Victim Focus Groups on the development

of the model.

Evaluation: Suggested Changes

to the Content and Method of

the Client Satisfaction Survey

In retrospect, the committee decided

that changing the implementation of the

Client Satisfaction Survey might result 

in a higher return rate and more meaningful data. Steps were taken to “mentor”

service providers throughout the survey

process. Committee members were

assigned agencies to call periodically to

ask how the implementation was proceeding, answer questions, and suggest

possible methods for conducting the survey. These mentors were usually told that

everything was fine and proceeding on

course, yet completed surveys were not

forthcoming. It became clear that communication by telephone was too

removed and impersonal. The survey

effort may have been more effective if

VS2000 staff and committee members

met with agency staff personally to

explain the survey and help with the

implementation process.

During the process of totaling and analyzing the client surveys, problems with survey format were discovered. The most

obvious problem was with the service

table. It was too complicated for many

respondents to understand. This resulted

in respondents providing contradictory

information. Many surveys had to be 

discarded because the contradictory

responses made it impossible to determine

what the respondents meant. Perhaps asking the question, “How could services be

made better?” and providing a blank

space for the respondent’s answer would

have generated more valuable information. However, returned surveys revealed

that respondents, for the most part, failed

to complete other spaces provided for

comment on the survey.

Although the results of the Client

Satisfaction Survey were disappointing,

the assessment process did highlight the

need for a systematic means to obtain

ongoing client feedback.

Victim Focus Groups

F

ocus groups were the final component of the VS2000 Victim Services

Needs Assessment. These groups

were formed to obtain information from

Denver’s unserved and underserved victims of crime. Focus groups were used

because they are able to elicit more 

precise and indepth information about

the experiences and opinions of hardto-reach populations than surveys.

Underserved populations in Denver

include American Indians, AfricanAmericans, Asians, Latinos, new immigrants, non-English-speaking individuals,

the disabled, the elderly, and gay, lesbian,

bisexual, and transgendered victims.

The focus groups tried to elicit information about the types of crime that most

affect underserved populations and how

comfortable and knowledgeable they were

about available services and the criminal

justice system. Furthermore, the focus

groups tried to find out what the underserved populations thought would make

positive changes occur. Focus group questions were formulated to specifically find

out certain information, including the

reasons why these groups do not access

services, what would need to change for

them to access services, and what were

the gaps in services and possible avenues

of outreach to these communities. 

For a focus group model, VS2000 relied

on Richard A. Krueger’s excellent book

Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for

Applied Research. This book provided

valuable advice on effective group facilitation, development of questions, group

makeup and dynamics, and data analysis.

Recruitment of Focus Group

Participants

The Focus Group Committee and

VS2000 staff assumed that lack of trust,

prior negative experience, and language

and cultural barriers contributed to the

underuse of services. It was also assumed

that these factors would make the identification of potential focus group participants difficult. To transcend these

barriers, focus group participants were

recruited via community “gatekeepers.” 

Gatekeepers are individuals who are part

of or have access to a particular group,

but who are also involved in the broader

community beyond that group. They are

trusted, respected, and are often sought

out by community members needing aid

and advice. Gatekeepers can include

community leaders, members of faith

communities, business owners, community police officers, and service providers.

The Focus Group Committee identified

and contacted these gatekeepers and

asked them to recruit focus group 

participants. 

VS2000 staff drafted a letter explaining

Denver VS2000, the purpose of the 

focus groups, and what participants 

could expect when attending a session.

OVC Bulletin

8
9

Gatekeepers were given this letter to 

help them recruit, since many of them

were not familiar with the project. When

gatekeepers found a potential participant,

they explained the purpose and procedure

of the focus groups and obtained the

recruit’s permission to be contacted by

VS2000 staff. If still interested after an

introductory telephone call, the recruits

were sent a letter listing available dates

and locations of groups to choose from.

Additional recruitment efforts consisted

of placing ads in neighborhood newspapers, newsletters, and bulletins.

Incentives to encourage participation

included the provision of childcare, 

transportation, refreshments, and a

$20 stipend for each group member.

Each recruit received two letters—one

for selecting which session they would

attend and one to confirm their choice.

In addition, each received at least two

phone calls—one was an introduction

and a screening interview and one reconfirmed their attendance the day before

the session. Of the approximately 50 individuals initially contacted, 35 agreed to

participate, while only 24 actually attended the focus group sessions. The attendees

came from the following diverse populations: African American, American

Indian, Asian American, the elderly,

Latino, monolingual Spanish-speaking,

the disabled, African immigrant, gay, 

lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and the

indigent.

Implementation of Focus Groups 

Four focus groups, each with four to 

eight participants, were conducted.

Spanish-speaking victims were in a separate group, as they required Spanishspeaking facilitators. The other groups

were racially and culturally mixed. Their

bond was that they were all victims of

crime. 

Focus groups were held at neutral and

easily accessed locations, such as libraries,

museums, and community centers. Efforts

were made to make the meeting space as

appealing and comfortable as possible.

Participants were seated around a

tablecloth-covered table. The table provided a place to lean and a means of

cover so the participants would not feel

physically exposed as they might if only

seated in chairs. Name tents were placed

in front of each participant, and food and

drink were provided. 

A moderator and assistant moderator

facilitated each group and a scribe took

notes. The moderator had experience

facilitating discussion groups and knew

how to establish conversational ground

rules, use conversational probes, handle

overbearing participants, encourage information from shier participants, and keep

the group on track by focusing the discussion. The moderator had to maintain an

atmosphere of open, casual interchange.

The assistant moderator helped facilitate

the group and took notes on responses,

attitudes, and trends. The scribe recorded

the verbatim responses to the questions.

In VS2000’s groups, the scribe wrote the

responses on large pieces of paper taped

to the walls so participants could view

them and ask for corrections if what they

meant was something different from what

was written. Each 2-hour session was

tape recorded with the permission of

participants.

The same individuals who facilitated 

the focus groups also analyzed the data

for each group to ensure consistency in

analysis. The assistant moderator’s notes,

the information recorded by the scribe,

and the audiotape were studied and 

summarized. 

Results of Focus Groups

The information from the focus groups

proved to be some of the most interesting, enlightening, and helpful of any that

was generated by the VS2000 Needs

Assessment. The main themes arising

from the focus groups were that victims

did not trust that services would meet

their needs even when the services had

been designed for their demographics;

that victims would not usually access

services outside their community even

when they had knowledge of those 

services; and that victims wanted service

providers to bring services to them and

ask them what they needed rather than

just tell them what is available.

Focus group participants wanted victim

services to be

■ Holistic and humanistic, recognizing

and addressing the multiple layers 

of obstacles to getting needs met 

and offering counseling for victims

beyond what victim compensation

or Medicaid provide.

■ Community-based, located in their

neighborhood and provided by individuals who are members of their

community or neighborhood.

■ Respectful, valuing the diversity 

of victims, offering services in the

victim’s language and in a culturally

competent manner, and acknowledging the unique barriers to accessing services experienced by many

ethnic and culturally diverse

communities.

■ Accessible, applying flexible criteria

for access to services, serving people

where they are, offering an array 

of services and allowing victims to

choose what they need, and not

requiring that forms be filled out

each time services are accessed.

■ Restorative in nature, holding

offenders accountable to victims, 

Denver Victim Services 2000 Needs Assessment
seeking restitution that benefits the

victim, and involving the community and its members.

Outcomes

T

he information captured by the

Victim Services 2000 Needs

Assessment was essential to the

development of the components of the

Denver VS2000 model. However, the

needs assessment was not alone in this

work. While the Needs Assessment Team

was developing instruments and surveying

agencies and victims, the Model Network

Development, Training, and Education

and Technology Teams and subcommittees were meeting each month to discuss

and brainstorm a common vision and

structure for an integrated, model service

network. Though the needs assessment

informed the development of the model,

the collaborative efforts of the teams were

very important in identifying its critical

components.

The collective work of the teams and the

information from the focus groups provided the foundation for Denver VS2000’s

guiding philosophy that there should be

“no wrong door” through which victims

can access services. The focus groups also

highlighted the need for advocates who

are part of the community they serve and

the need for cultural competency training

for service providers. Of the gaps identified by the Agency Survey, a shared case

management system was prioritized by the

teams as the best way to address myriad

needs, including more effective information and referral, better communication

between providers, and better service provision in general. Development of an

online Resource Directory and an interagency Cross-Training Plan would address

the need for appropriate referrals by providing easy access to information about

resources and a vehicle for increasing

knowledge and trust among agencies. 

The following are elements of the Denver

VS2000 model victim service network

that were developed as a result of the data

gathered during the needs assessment:

Community Advocates

Three underserved communities were

selected as sites for VS2000 Community

Advocates (CAs). CAs are members or

residents of the community or neighborhood they serve and are known, respected, and involved in their communities.

CAs are able to inform the VS2000

Steering Committee and teams about the

needs and barriers to service experienced

by the victims in their communities and

are responsible for linking victims with

available services.

Case Management

Denver VS2000 is developing a Case

Management System that will be shared

over a secure, private network. This system will enable service providers to assist

victims in navigating multiple agencies

and to provide followup and support. It

will allow service providers to track

clients through the network of services to

ensure they are getting the help they

need and to communicate with colleagues

about shared clients. As a result, victims

will not have to retell their story and fill

out forms each time they access services

at a new agency. 

Online Resource Directory

Denver VS2000 has developed an

Internet-based Resource Directory that 

is shared among agencies and continually

updated. The online Resource Directory

solves several problems that have long

been a source of frustration for victim

service providers: incorrect or out-of-date

information due to lack of staff to keep

resources current; directories that are

large, cumbersome, and too expensive to

print more than once or twice a year; and

directories that are difficult to use because

criteria cannot be easily cross-referenced.

Service providers and the public can

access the Denver VS2000 Resource

Directory through the VS2000 Web site.

Users can search for resources using any

combination of categories such as services

provided, agency name, type of victims

served, languages spoken, geographic

area, and ethnicity served. Once a search

is completed, a report of the search results

can be created. An information specialist

manages and updates the records and

administers the resource directory. 

Systematized Evaluation

The Client Satisfaction Survey is

being redesigned into an online service

evaluation instrument that will be routinely used by each victim service agency

to ensure ongoing and consistent client

feedback about Denver’s victim service

network.

Cultural Competency

Denver VS2000 hosted the National

Multicultural Institute’s pilot training for

trainers on their Cultural Considerations

in Assisting Crime Victims curriculum.

The participants from this training

formed MOSAIC—a group of victim

service and criminal justice professionals

that has worked together to develop a

plan for addressing the need for cultural

competency in services to victims of

crime. This plan includes providing 

training to agencies and victim service

providers on cultural competency, creating access to resources and networking for

traditionally underserved communities,

and creating a culture that values and

promotes the diversity of victim service

professionals through development of 

culturally competent recruitment, hiring,

and retention strategies. 

OVC Bulletin

10
11

Cross-Training

Denver VS2000 has created a citywide

cross-training plan to improve resource

referrals, interagency information, knowledge, and trust. The plan calls for each

victim service program to host regular

trainings onsite at its agency. These

trainings are posted and registered with

the Online Training Center, a feature of

Denver VS2000’s Web site.

For Further

Information

F

or more information about the

Denver Victim Services 2000 project and related products, contact

Denver VS2000 or OVC.

Denver VS2000

303 West Colfax, #1300

Denver, CO 80204

720–913–9256

Fax: 720–913–9090

Web Wide Web: www.vs2000.org

Office for Victims of Crime

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW., 

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

202–616–3575

Fax: 202–514–6383

World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/ovc/

Office for Victims of Crime

Resource Center (OVCRC)

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–627–6872 or 301–519–5500

E-mail for print publication orders: 

puborder@ncjrs.org

E-mail for questions: askovc@ncjrs.org

World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org

Denver Victim Services 2000 Needs Assessment

OVC gratefully acknowledges the project’s principal managers, Steve Siegel and

Marti Kovener, for their successful facilitation of this project. In addition, OVC

gratefully acknowledges all the members of the Denver Victim Services 2000

Steering Committee for their efforts in developing this project.

Denver Victim Services 2000 Steering Committee

Acknowledgments

AMEND

Asian Pacific Development Center

AT&T Wireless Services

City Attorney’s Office, Domestic

Violence Unit

Colorado Association of Black Nurses

Colorado Attorney General’s Office

Colorado Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence

Colorado Coalition Against 

Sexual Assault

Colorado Council of Churches

Colorado District Attorney’s Council

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

Colorado Oklahoma Resource Council

Colorado Organization for 

Victim Assistance

Colorado Outward Bound School

Colorado State Judicial Probation 

Services

Community-at-Large

Denver Child Advocacy Center

Denver Community Corrections

Denver County Court Probation

Denver Crime Victim

Compensation Program

Denver Department of Human

Services

Denver District Attorney’s Office

Denver Health Medical Center

Denver Indian Health and Family

Services

Denver Police Department

Denver Sheriff’s Department

Denver VALE Board

Denver Victims Service Center

Domestic Violence Initiative for

Women with Disabilities

Equality Colorado

Federal Bureau of Investigation

HECHO

Justice Information Center

Kempe Child Protection Team

KWGN–TV Denver

Muslim Women’s Society

Project Safeguard

Promoting Alternative to Violence

through Education

Rape Assistance and Awareness

Program

SafeHouse Denver

Servicios de la Raza

Sexual Assault Interagency Council

The Spiritual Dimension in 

Victim Services

Urban Peak

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Victim Offender Reconciliation

Program

WINGS Foundation
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OVC

PERMIT NO. G–91

Additional Resources

Needs Assessment Instruments

Find the following VS2000 needs

assessment materials on the VS2000

World Wide Web. (www.vs2000.org).

Agency Inventory of Services—

Assessment Instrument

Agency Inventory of Services—

Summary of Results

Victim Focus Groups—Format 

of Groups

Victim Focus Groups—Summary 

of Results

Crime Victim (Client Satisfaction)

Survey—Assessment Instrument

Nebraska Crime Commission

Statewide Crime Victim 

Needs Assessment

Nebraska Crime Commission

P.O. Box 94946

Lincoln, NE 68509–4946

Phone: 402–471–2194

World Wide Web: www.nol.org/

home/crimecom/

Book

Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for

Applied Research, by Richard A.

Krueger.

Published by Sage Publications, 

Inc. (1994).

E-mail orders: order@sagepub.com

NCJ 183397

OVC Bulletin

This document was prepared by Erin 

Stark, project staff member of Denver

Victim Services 2000, under grant number

1997–VF–GX–K001, awarded by the

Office for Victims of Crime, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice.The opinions, findings, conclusions,

and recommendations expressed in this

document are those of the author and do

not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department 

of Justice.

The Office for Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

the National Institute of Justice, and the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.