U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–685 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–459 

THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT: 25 YEARS OF 

PROTECTING AND SUPPORTING VICTIMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 28, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Californa .................. 2 

Leahy, Hon. Ptrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ...................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

WITNESSES 

Derene, Steve, Executive Director, National Association of Victims of Crime 

Act Assistance Administrators, Madison, Wisconsin ........................................ 11 

Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims of Crime, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 7 

Perkins, R. Keith, Esq., Founding Attorney and Executive Director, The 

Never Again Foundation, Chandler, Arizona .................................................... 9 

Rex, Judith A., Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services, Waterbury, Vermont .................................................................................... 5 

Russell, Susan S., M.A., Warren, Vermont ............................................................ 3 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Steve Derene to questions submitted by Senators Specter and 

Coburn ................................................................................................................... 22 

Responses of Judith A. Rex to questions submitted by Senator Specter ............ 30 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Allie Bones, MSW, Executive 

Director, Phoenix, Arizona, statement ............................................................... 31 

Derene, Steve, Executive Director, National Association of Victims of Crime 

act Assistance Administrators, Madison, Wisconsin, statement and attachment ...................................................................................................................... 37 

Houde, Elizabeth, President & CEO, Arizona Sexual Assault Network, 

Tempe, Arizona, statement ................................................................................. 39 

Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims of Crime, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 43 

Perkins, R. Keith, Esq., Founding Attorney and Executive Director, The 

Never Again Foundation, Chandler, Arizona, statement ................................. 48 

Rex, Judith A., Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services, Waterbury, Vermont, statement ................................................................. 50 

Ruegg, Kevin S., CEO/Executive Director, Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education, Phoenix, Arizona, statement ................................................. 53 

Russell, Susan S., M.A., Warren, Vermont, statement ........................................ 54 

(1) 

THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT: 25 YEARS OF 

PROTECTING AND SUPPORTING VICTIMS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Wyden, and Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everybody. 

This past Sunday marked the start of National Crime Victims’ 

Rights Week. Now, since 1981, here in Washington and in communities across the Nation, people have observed this week with candlelight vigils and public rallies to renew our commitment to crime 

victims and their families. I think it is important that we do this 

to recognize the needs of crime victims and their families. 

I was talking with Susan Russell and Judy Rex from our State 

of Vermont about this, and I am reminded, of course, that this is 

the 25th anniversary, and in some ways, it seems like just yesterday that the Victims of Crime Act was passed. I was one of the 

supporters of that at the time. It has supported essential services 

for crime victims and their families. The people in Vermont have 

heard me tell about how, when I was a prosecutor, there were not 

any of these programs, and we had to make them up as we went 

along. I remember my wife and I personally financing a number of 

the programs and a number of volunteers and others. And now we 

have grants for direct services to victims, State crime victim compensation programs, emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in participating in the criminal justice system—all these, and I should note that these do not cost taxpayers 

any money. They are funded from a reserve fund created from the 

fines and penalties paid by Federal criminal offenders. 

A lot of us have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime 

Victims Fund. They serve nearly 4 million crime victims each year, 

including victims of violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving. This makes it 

possible. I think of the number of times we congratulate ourselves 

that we have prosecuted somebody, and they go off, and we spend 

a fortune to prosecute the person, and at that time there was nothing to do anything for the victims. 

2 

I was worried that the Crime Victims Fund would be there in 

good times and bad. Several years ago, I worked to make sure it 

had a ‘‘rainy day’’ capacity so that we would not have to worry 

about it running out of money and being left stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to be 

spent from the fund in a given year. I remember when the cap was 

established, and former President Bush sought to empty the Crime 

Victims Fund of unexpended funds—funds that we had put in 

there to have for a rainy day. I joined a bipartisan effort with Senator Crapo of Idaho and others from both political parties to make 

sure that the money was preserved. There are enough other places 

we can find money. This was one that was being well used. 

So we are working as hard as ever. We are working with Senators from both sides of the aisle. I hope we can raise the cap this 

coming year to devote more than $700 million to crime victims. 

I want to commend Senator Mikulski, who is the Chairwoman of 

the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, 

and Senator Shelby, the Ranking Member, for working with the 

President to provide $100 million in the economic recovery program 

for crime victims. I look forward to working with Senator Mikulski, 

Senator Crapo, and, of course, Senator Feinstein, who has been a 

tremendous help in all of this, to keep us going. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Two of our witnesses, as I mentioned, come from Vermont. Susan Russell has an 

incredible story. Her courage and strength is an inspiration to us 

all. And I should mention she lives just a few miles from where I 

live in Vermont. 

Judy Rex, I have enjoyed over the years calling Judy to say, 

‘‘Judy, you know that money that was not coming? It is coming.’’ 

And knowing it is going to be done well, and, of course, Mary Lou 

Leary, from the National Center for Victims of Crime, is well 

known to this Committee, as is Steve Derene from the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, and R. Keith Perkins 

from the very well named Never Again Foundation. 

Before we go to the witnesses, Senator Feinstein, did you want 

to say anything? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

very much appreciate the good work you have done, and these witnesses present. 

In 2004, Senator Kyl and I introduced and subsequently passed 

the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and that was essentially giving 

crime victims certain basic rights—the right to be present in the 

court, the right to know when your attacker has been released, the 

right to make a statement. But what we found was that the defendants had essentially all the rights, and a crime victim had virtually no rights. And I would just be curious at a later time if in 

the comments of your witnesses, if they would be willing to comment on how effective they believe this has been, and if they think 

there still is additional action to be taken. 

I was appalled when I learned that a victim, let us say a rape 

victim, had no right to be notified if her attacker is released from 

3 

jail. And theoretically, at least by the law, now this is taken care 

of. 

So my question is: Are these rights, in fact, being carried out? 

And perhaps if you can, you would address that in your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Since 1998, Susan Russell has served as a criminal justice victim 

services consultant with the Office for Victims of Crime. For the 

past 7 years, she has worked for the Central Vermont Council on 

Aging as the Director of Community Service. Central Vermont is 

the area where I am from. She also chaired Vermont’s Sexual Violence Task Force, served as a member of the Vermont Network 

Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. She has received several 

awards for her efforts, including the 2005 National Organization 

for Victim Assistance Edith Surgan Award for outstanding dedication and leadership, and Vermont’s 1995 Outstanding Victim Advocacy and Awareness Award. 

Ms. Russell, please go ahead. Make sure that is on. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN S. RUSSELL, M.A., WARREN, VERMONT 

Ms. RUSSELL. Good day. I would like to thank you, Chairman 

Leahy, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Member Senator Specter, for inviting me here today to testify on behalf of victims. Indeed it is quite an honor and privilege to be here today to provide 

testimony on the Victims of Crime Act. While I have over a decade 

of experience working within victim services, the most significant 

experience I bring before you today is as a survivor of violent 

crime. 

Seventeen years ago, a man who resided in the same small rural 

community as I kidnapped, raped, and nearly killed me. This man 

slashed two of my car tires and then followed me. It is highly likely 

that he had been stalking me for some time as several years after 

my assault, I learned that he had broken into my husband’s truck 

and had stolen identifying information. This man held no regard 

for life as, after begging and pleading for my life, he fractured my 

skull in three places with a tire iron, broke several facial bones, 

and left me to die in a remote wilderness area. I can recall gaining 

consciousness hours later, cold, shivering, naked, and in intense 

pain. I recall touching my head and feeling something very sharp 

and protruding. And as a trained emergency medical technician, I 

knew that I was in serious trouble and needed help. Somehow, I 

managed to stumble through the woods a tenth of a mile where 

there were five teenagers camped. They managed to keep me warm 

and awake, and two of them hiked 3 miles to the nearest phone. 

I was taken to a nearby hospital where they stabilized my injuries and prepared me to be sent to another hospital that specialized 

in traumatic brain injuries. While in the emergency room of the 

first hospital, I was met by a detective who gathered information 

which led to the apprehension of my assailant 4 days later. 

Upon arrival at the emergency room of the second hospital, I had 

a team of nurses and doctors working to prepare me for surgery. 

During this time my husband was brought in, and he immediately 

passed out and was escorted out of the emergency room. However, 

after he recovered, he was met by a rape crisis advocate who proVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:55 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056685 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56685.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

vided him with information and a supportive ear. During my 3- 

week stay in the hospital, the rape crisis advocate came several 

times to talk and/or listen. And after I returned home, I was able 

to call the rape crisis hotline any time day or night. Rape crisis 

centers which provide a host of victim services such as this one are 

funded with VOCA funds. 

At the time of my assault, I worked as a hiking/canoeing guide. 

I subsequently lost my job and had no income. It took me many 

months—really many years—to recuperate physically, and part of 

my recover hinged on physical therapy—something not covered by 

my medical insurance. The medical bills alone even with health insurance reached over $30,000. Another VOCA-funded service which 

I benefited from is the Victims Compensation Program. Vermont’s 

Victim Compensation will allocate $10,000 per victim for things 

such as medical costs, including physical therapy and counseling. 

These are two of the services that I so desperately needed and 

would not have had access to if it were not for VOCA. 

Soon after my assault, I was contacted by the State’s Attorney 

Victim Advocate, and we found ourselves having to go through the 

criminal justice system. Again, due to VOCA funds, we were able 

to have a victim advocate help us navigate the criminal justice system. I am quite certain I would never have survived the criminal 

justice system without the information and support provided by the 

victim advocate. Fortunately for all of us, due to having a way to 

be involved and informed, a plea agreement was met and the offender was convicted and sentenced to 25 to 35 years. 

However, in approximately 5 years, he will be released in 

Vermont having maxed out his sentence for a total time served of 

23 years. He will be released, untreated and unsupervised. His only 

requirement will be to register with the Vermont Sex Offender Registry. 

In closing, I would like to state that had I not received these 

VOCA funding services, I would not be here today. I would also 

like to add that these services helped my husband and I remain together as next month we will celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary. There is no doubt in my mind that without VOCA funding 

services, I would not have been able rebuild my life and recover in 

a manner that moved me from a victim to a survivor. 

Thank you again for inviting me here to share my story. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Russell appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Russell. I knew 

the story, but I thought it was important that others hear it. It is 

a very moving one. I also think it is fortunate we have these programs. Certainly I wish there was no need for them. I wish there 

would never be an experience like you went through. But you know 

and I know that happens, whether in our State or other States. 

And I think back to the days of my own experience in law enforcement when we did not have that and how we had to piece these 

things together and the number of people who must have fallen 

without the help they needed. So thank you for your bravery in repeating it, and congratulations on 26 years. It seems like so long 

ago. In our family we will celebrate our 47th this summer. 

5 

Judy Rex is the Executive Director of the Vermont Center for 

Crime Victim Services that administers the Victim Compensation 

Program, the Victim Assistance Program, and other Federal and 

State grants for community-based programs serving victims of 

crime. Previously, she had been the Executive Director of Vermont 

Protection and Advocacy, the coordinator of the Vermont Victim 

Assistance Program, a State program serving victims of crime 

through the Vermont Department of State’s Attorney. She served 

as the coordinator of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, a statewide association of 17 private, 

nonprofit domestic violence and rape crisis program well known to 

all of us in Vermont. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. REX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

VERMONT CENTER FOR CRIME VICTIM SERVICES, WATERBURY, VERMONT 

Ms. REX. Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Leahy and 

Ranking Member Specter for giving me this opportunity to speak 

before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is an honor for me to appear here today as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Victims of Crime Act. 

I have worked on behalf of crime victims for over 25 years, and 

I remember what it was like before the Victims of Crime Act was 

enacted. In Vermont, there were very few services and supports for 

crime victims. In the early 1980s, Vermont had four domestic violence shelters and two rape crisis programs. The entire State appropriation for these programs was $50,000 a year, and the State 

allocation for the domestic violence shelter where I worked was 

$5,000 per year. 

The passage of the Victims of Crime Act in 1984 has had a tremendous impact on how crime victim services have evolved and expanded in this country—and certainly in Vermont. When the Victims of Crime Act passed, then-Governor Kunin earmarked the 

funding to establish rape crisis programs in every county in 

Vermont. As a result of the VOCA funding, Vermont was able to 

establish ten additional programs, ensuring that every victim of 

sexual assault in Vermont could access a 24-hour hotline and advocacy services. 

In 1986, it was the Victims of Crime Act funding that helped 

Vermont establish its Victim Assistance Program. These prosecutor-based victim advocates ensure that crime victims receive information, notification of court hearings, and a variety of support 

services throughout the criminal justice process. The program has 

played a critical role in ensuring that Vermont’s crime victims receive restitution for their crime-related losses and, even more importantly, in empowering crime victims to address the court at sentencing to share the impact of the crime on their lives. 

In 1990, Vermont finally established its Victims Compensation 

Program, and it was the Federal VOCA match that convinced the 

Vermont Legislature to fund this initiative. In 2000, when there 

was an increase to the VOCA cap, Vermont was able to establish 

a Victim Services Program within the Department of Corrections 

that is now fully funded with State funds. These advocates provide 

6 

an array of services to crime victims to help prepare them for an 

offender’s release from incarceration. Services for underserved populations were also established at this time. One example is our 

Deaf Victim Advocacy program, comprised of three deaf victim advocates who provide education and advocacy services to the deaf 

and hard-of-hearing communities throughout Vermont. The most recent impact of VOCA was the inclusion of $100 million for crime victims in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. In January, I was faced with making cuts of up to 20 percent 

to victim services programs in Vermont due to declining State revenues. The impact of these cuts would have been significant for 

those very small domestic violence programs, child advocacy centers, and supervised visitation programs operating in the most 

rural areas of Vermont. Some of these programs would have closed. 

But as a result of the Recovery Act funding, I was able to levelfund all direct service programs serving crime victims in the 2010 

State budget. This infusion of funding could not have happened at 

a more critical time, since we all know that crime rates often increase during hard economic times. 

Despite all of these accomplishments, there is still much more to 

be done. In 2003, the Center for Crime Victim Services engaged in 

a lengthy strategic planning process. A number of gaps in services 

were identified, including the need for victim advocates in police 

departments, specialized services for people with disabilities who 

have been victimized, and services for the elderly—a growing population that is particularly vulnerable to financial fraud and exploitation. However, because Vermont has not seen any significant increase in our VOCA allocation for the past 8 years, little has been 

accomplished in these areas. In fact, in some years we have seen 

our allocation reduced, even though the number of crime victims 

needing services continues to grow. 

I know that other States are also struggling with this same dilemma. I would urge this Committee to consider raising the VOCA 

cap to $705 million in the 2010 Federal budget so that we can 

begin to address some of these gaps in services. One important lesson we have learned over the last 25 years is that the sooner we 

are able to respond to a crime victim’s trauma, the sooner they are 

able to recover. As a society, we cannot afford to delay services to 

crime victims. The cost is too great. 

In closing, I want to thank the Judiciary Committee, and I want 

to especially thank Chairman Leahy, for all of the support you 

have given us for the last 25 years, and I look forward to another 

25 years of progress. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rex appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I look forward to 25 years of progress, but not 

25 years more here in the Senate. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. But thank you very much. 

Mary Lou Leary is currently the Executive Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. She has served there since 

2004. She previously served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the 

7 

Office of Justice Programs. As the leader of the Office of Justice 

Programs, she oversaw the Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime and the Office of Violence Against Women. She also 

served as Acting Director of Community-Oriented Policing Services 

at the Department. 

As always, Ms. Leary, it is good to see you, and I am delighted 

to hear you are going to be rejoining the Department. Please go 

ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Leahy. Thank 

you to you and Ranking Member Specter for this opportunity. Good 

morning, Senator Feinstein. I want to say thank you for holding 

this hearing during Crime Victims’ Rights Week. I think this is 

just the ideal time for us to be focusing on one of the Nation’s most 

successful programs: the Victims of Crime Act and the Crime Victims Fund that it created. 

I am Mary Lou Leary, and as the Senator said, I am Executive 

Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. At the National Center for almost 25 years now, we have worked to make 

sure that victims have the rights, the resources, and the respect 

that they need to rebuild their lives after a crime. 

Steve Derene’s written testimony explains all about VOCA and 

how the fund works, the difference between compensation and assistance, so I will not go into any of those details. But you, Senator 

Leahy, understand better than just about anybody that VOCA 

funds are essential to our national response to victims. In fact, the 

National Center recently surveyed our membership, and more than 

98 percent of our nonprofit victim service provider members tell us 

that VOCA funds are ‘‘very important,’’ and you heard that in Judy 

Rex’s testimony this morning. More than 90 percent of the systembased providers—people in law enforcement and prosecutors’ offices—say the same thing. 

For the past several years, Congress has imposed a cap on the 

funds disbursed each year, and in recent years, the balance has 

grown to about $1.9 billion. And the cap has been hovering around 

$625 million. Last year the cap dropped down to $590 million. 

I came before this Committee in January and told you that this 

reduction of funding, coupled with the economic climate, was devastating to victim service programs. And, again, you heard that 

from Judy Rex this morning. People were cutting staff hours, laying people off, and programs were reaching fewer victims and, in 

fact, providing even fewer services to the ones that they could 

reach. For example, in many places victims were placed on very 

long waiting lists for services; even child victims of sexual abuse, 

weeks before they could get into counseling. 

When we reported to you in January on this situation, you responded by working to ensure that $100 million for crime victim 

compensation and assistance would be included in the stimulus 

package, and we cannot tell you how grateful we are for that. 

Then, the fiscal year 2009 appropriations package passed in February released $635 million from the VOCA Fund. So this combinaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:55 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056685 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56685.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8 

tion will restore victim funding to the levels it received in 2006, before those reductions. 

So the dollars have not reached the front-line service providers 

yet, but relief is already being felt across the country. So we thank 

you for that. The relief was much needed and well timed, but I am 

here to tell you there is still much more to be done. 

Compensation assistance, for instance, is helpful, but some states 

have told us they expect to disburse all their stimulus compensation money within just a few weeks. The restoration of funding for 

victim services may take more victims off waiting lists for services, 

but there are so many more victims who are not being reached and 

who do not even know that help is available. 

State and local programs tell us they desperately need money for 

awareness and outreach so that victims in their communities will 

know where to turn for help. And then they need money for the 

services to help them when those victims do come forward. 

As you know, the economic crisis is having a terrible impact on 

victims, increasing victimization, increasing the need for services, 

and increasing the range of services that are needed. Our Helpline, 

for instance, is seeing a big spike in calls from victims, and we 

have seen a big spike in calls from fraud victims. Many victims of 

fraud have lost absolutely everything, and they are at the end of 

their rope, no place to turn. 

These victims are in desperate need of financial counseling to 

help them pull together what remaining assets they have, and time 

is very often of the essence. They have nowhere to turn for this. 

They also need mental health counseling to overcome the stress 

and the shame of this kind of victimization, but it is not available. 

States could, under regulations, pay for this kind of counseling, 

but they have been reluctant to expand the pool of eligible victims 

because there just is not enough money to go around. Too many 

victims of crime have no services outside the criminal justice system. Too many victims are going unserved. 

Congress has the ability to provide the funding that is necessary 

to bridge this gap. There is $1.9 billion in the VOCA Fund. Additional fines over $2.7 billion have already been announced against 

corporate defendants, so additional moneys can be released from 

the VOCA Fund without compromising the long-term stability of 

that fund. 

In 1984, Congress created the VOCA Fund, and it fundamentally 

changed the way this Nation responds to victims of crime. This 

funding, as you heard from Susan Russell’s testimony, truly helps 

victims of crime rebuild their lives, and we know that is a slow 

process. 

Congress reaffirmed its commitment to victims earlier this year 

through the stimulus funding and it restored the appropriations 

levels. Now we ask you to take the very next step. We urge you 

to tell victims of crime that you are still committed; you still hear 

their voices; you recognize their needs; and you will extend them 

a helping hand by raising the cap on the VOCA Fund. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

9 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Ms. Leary. And I can assure you 

I hear their voices, and I think of them. I still have nightmares 

about some of the things I saw at 3 o’clock in the morning and 4 

o’clock in the morning when I would be at some of these crime 

scenes with the lights from the police cars, blinking lights reflecting off the walls, and some of the most horrific scenes. I do not forget. 

The next witness is Keith Perkins. He is the Founding Attorney 

and Executive Director of the Never Again Foundation Legal Services, provides free legal representation for crime victims in civil 

lawsuits directly against the criminal perpetrators. He authored 

the highly acclaimed Arizona crime victims rights programs, received several top awards—the 2007 Arizona Attorney General Distinguished Service Award, the 2007 Foundation for Justice Work, 

and the Arizona State Bar’s Foundation for Legal Services, the 

2009 College Honored Alumni Award from Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School, in recognition not only for his 

achievements but dedication to a life of services. That is actually 

a nice thing to hear, an award for a life of services. 

Please go ahead, Mr. Perkins. 

STATEMENT OF R. KEITH PERKINS, ESQ., FOUNDING ATTORNEY AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NEVER AGAIN FOUNDATION, CHANDLER, ARIZONA 

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Specter, Senator 

Feinstein, and members of the Committee, my name is Keith Perkins. I am the Founding Attorney and the Executive Director of the 

Never Again Foundation Legal Services. 

How grateful we are for the tremendous amount of good that the 

Victims of Crime Act has been able to do for so many over the last 

25 years. 

My testimony to you today will comprise primarily of three parts: 

the successes that we have been able to have within the spirit of 

VOCA, challenges that we have had with VOCA, and a suggestion 

that we bring to you today to improve VOCA. 

The purposes of VOCA are vitally important, and they include 

the help to provide that emotional healing as well as that economic 

restabilization that victims of crime need after they have been a 

victim of crime. 

The Department of Justice confirms that the cost of crime is 

staggering. It costs us billions of dollars each year. There are only 

three parties that can bear that cost: the perpetrators of the crime, 

the victims of the crime, or somehow it being absorbed by the rest 

of us in society. The criminal justice system was not designed to 

send that cost back to the criminal perpetrators. It was only the 

civil justice system that was designed to take that burden that is 

being borne by the victims as well as by us in society and shift it 

back to put it back upon those who have caused the harm, back 

upon the criminal perpetrators. 

However, most crime victims have been unable to gain access to 

that civil justice system, primarily because it is not a matter of law 

office economics. For most lawyers, it simply does not make financial sense to just simply represent crime victims in civil actions as 

long as it is just against the criminal perpetrators. 

10 

So, with that in mind and to fill that void, in Arizona for the last 

10 years we have provided free, nonprofit legal representation to 

crime victims in civil lawsuits directly against the criminal perpetrators. The results have been quite dynamic. We have now won 

over $170 million in judgments—directly against criminals. 

Chairman LEAHY. How much? 

Mr. PERKINS. $170 million in judgments directly and only against 

the criminal perpetrators. 

Now, what we have found is that many of the crime victims, as 

well as the public, have been anxious to have the opportunity to 

finally take that full cost of crime and send it back and place it directly and squarely upon the shoulders of those who have caused 

it. 

Now, we know that all of that is not going to be collectable from 

the criminals. However, we are very pleased to report that we have 

actually been able to collect over $2 million of that directly from 

the criminal perpetrators; 100 percent of that has all gone back to 

the victims to help provide that economic restabilization. 

Now, one of the things that might come as a bit of a surprise is 

that money is not the primary motivating factor for why the crime 

victims have requested to have civil remedies. Rather, the No. 1 

reason that they requested the civil remedies is to help provide an 

additional sense of emotional healing that they may not have been 

able to get in their particular circumstance through the criminal 

justice system. Examples of that may include an opportunity to regain power and control and the right to make the decisions in the 

case; an opportunity to fully tell their side of the story; an opportunity to place that economic responsibility for the cost of crime 

personally and directly upon the perpetrator who caused it. 

In other words, the civil justice system can play a very important 

part of fulfilling the very purposes for which the Victims of Crime 

Act was enacted. 

But now for the problem: VOCA does not support civil actions by 

crime victims directly. I think, Mr. Chairman, the reason why that 

was originally put in VOCA was because we wanted to make sure 

that the sacred money of VOCA could not be used for civil actions 

against negligent deep pockets of third parties. 

However, with that broad prohibition, we have unnecessarily restricted victims of crime from being able to put that financial accountability directly upon the very people that all of us think 

should be responsible for it in the first place—that is, upon the 

criminal defendants. And as a result, the victims of crime have 

only been able to look to secondary sources for that economic restabilization. 

So we come today on behalf of a broad base of victim service providers throughout Arizona, and we would like to ask that VOCA— 

and VAWA as well—allow a very narrow exception that it can help 

to provide that emotional healing and economic restabilization for 

crime victims and civil actions directly and only against criminally 

convicted perpetrators. This will help victims nationwide be able to 

gain further access to that justice that they desire with the help 

of nonprofit legal service organizations willing to give it all back to 

the victims to help them rebuild their lives. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

11 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perkins appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Steve Derene is Executive Director of the National Association of 

VOCA Assistance Administrators. Since its creation in 2001, he has 

represented State agencies and administers State VOCA victim assistance grants. He has served as an expert consultant to the U.S. 

Justice Department Office for Victims of Crime, formerly the Director of Research and Information for the Wisconsin Department of 

Justice, worked in the Department’s Office of Crime Victim Services, is the 2005 recipient of the National Crime Victims Services 

Award and the 2006 Congressional Crime Victims Lois Haight 

Award. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE DERENE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATORS, MADISON, WISCONSIN 

Mr. DERENE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the Committee. As has been mentioned, it is appropriate that we 

are discussing this during the 25th anniversary of the enactment 

of VOCA, and while much of the focus has been on the funding aspects of VOCA, I would just like to acknowledge the fact that 

VOCA since its inception has really represented considerably more 

than just the dollars, just another funding stream. It has been very 

significant, and I think you have heard some of the reasons why. 

It really represents a commitment that the Government made to 

treat victims with fairness and dignity and respect about 25 years 

ago. So I think it was a catalyst to making much of the improvements throughout the Nation over the last 25 years. And our challenge now, as has been mentioned, is: Where are we, and where are 

we going to go? 

I will just summarize some of what you have heard already in 

terms of a national perspective. When VOCA was first adopted in 

1984, the first year there was $68 million collected, and in 2007, 

there was over $1 billion. And I think that signifies the resources 

that are available to help victims of crime. 

As has been mentioned, one of the challenges here is how do you 

release that money to the field to do what it is intended to do, and 

I would just note that under the language of the statute itself, had 

there not been a cap, all of that money would already have been 

out providing services to victims. And I think one of the functions 

that has been served by a cap—and I think there have been some 

positive features—and one I think is necessary for people such as 

Judy, who administers this money, is that it is very helpful to have 

some predictability, some sustainability of the money going forward. And we know that money is coming in. 

But just to put it in perspective a little bit, from 2006 to 2008, 

as deposits in the fund increased by 53 percent, grants to State victim assistance programs were actually cut by 22 percent. And 

thanks to your efforts and the efforts of Senators Mikulski and 

Shelby in 2009, we made some very important inroads into restoring that money back to the level it was in 2006. And what we anticipate the funding will be for State assistance programs in 2009 

12 

with the appropriations and the Recovery Act together will get us 

back to where we were in 2006. So we are sort of back to square 

one, and when we hear proposals for additional uses of VOCA, one 

of the basic purposes of VOCA was really to sustain programs, to 

sustain services to victims. And as we know, there is a great deal 

of additional needs. There are new types of services. There are new 

types of victims that we want to respond to: stalking, identity theft, 

dating violence. There is a whole panoply—human trafficking— 

that we did not recognize 25 years ago. And so a State’s ability to 

not only sustain programs but to meet these increasing needs in 

populations really depends on our ability to release the money that 

is there, that is not taxpayer money, as you know, and that was 

dedicated both by statute and in the appropriations solely for the 

use of victims. 

And so I would sincerely endorse the suggestion that, at least for 2010, the level of funding of $705 million will sustain that level 

that we had in 2006, it will get us back to 2006 with inflation, and 

begin to make some inroads, very modest inroads into the ability 

to meet the ongoing needs. And so I thank the Committee for all 

its efforts. 

I would just like to respond briefly to Senator Feinstein’s question about the CVRA, and I think that was a very significant proposal. We understand that the rights there really pertain to victims 

in the Federal system, which we are talking about maybe 1 or 2 

percent. But it also contains some other features. I know it came 

from Senator Leahy’s contribution to that bill in terms of services, 

in terms of funding. I know there are studies underway as far as 

the effectiveness of the rights. But one part of that act which I do 

think pertains to VOCA as well, there was authorization to fund 

victim services in the U.S. Attorney’s Offices, legal clinics, which 

are very important in defining and establishing the case law, other 

compliance programs, notification programs, and there were a variety of services intended to be supported without using VOCA 

funds, to use other funding streams. And I do not believe any of 

that money—I believe Congress just reauthorized those provisions, 

but I do not believe any money has ever been appropriated for 

those services. And I think those services go toward making the 

rights effective both at the Federal level and the State level. And 

I know the appropriations process is apart from that, but to the extent those funding streams are implemented and funded, it will relieve or be in addition to the amounts available for similar types 

of things under VOCA. So I do know as far as the services and 

funding parts of that act go, that has not been implemented at all. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Derene appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Let me start. We have been joined by Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, who is also a former prosecutor. I will start with you, Ms. 

Russell. It cannot be easy telling the story of what you went 

through and having to relive the fact that you nearly died, aside 

from the horrendous attack, the rape, the tire iron to your skull, 

and all the rest. I commend your bravery because we have to be 

reminded periodically that the Victims of Crime Act, these proVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:55 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056685 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56685.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
13 

grams are not just something on paper. There are real people involved. 

You talked about the advice and the help you and your husband 

got. What would you say are the most important parts of help that 

the two of you got during this time? And were there things that 

were not done that should be done? I realize that is kind of openended, but I am just curious. We rarely have somebody with such 

firsthand knowledge as yourself before the Committee. 

Ms. RUSSELL. I would say that my awareness of my husband 

being a secondary victim really raised the question to me later on 

of what kind of services that we could provide family members. We 

were fortunate that that rape crisis advocate recognized that he 

was a secondary victim and he needed to have that information. So 

I look at that. 

I also look at the spectrum of all the help that has been given 

in terms of relieving that stress of some of the financial burden. In 

my particular case, restitution was not ordered, and so there was 

no process coming back from that. 

I think times have really changed—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I see Mr. Perkins shaking his head on that 

one. I thought you might note that. 

Go ahead. 

Ms. RUSSELL. But this was 17 years ago, and we certainly have 

seen a lot of improvement in 17 years. 

Chairman LEAHY. But you said you had about $30,000 in medical 

bills alone. 

Ms. RUSSELL. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. The victim compensation cap in Vermont is $10,000, correct? 

Ms. RUSSELL. Correct. We were really fortunate that I live in a 

very, very supportive community, and they held fundraisers for us. 

I was also able to work with the hospital in reducing some of those 

costs. One of my concerns back then was that I was told that I 

should have a CAT scan done every couple of years, and those 

things are not always covered by medical insurance. So I was worried about that. So, you know, raising the cap per victim might be 

something that should be looked at. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. We will. We will. Did you have expense out of pocket? Well, obviously you did if they had to have a 

fundraiser, they had fundraisers in the community for you. 

Ms. RUSSELL. Yes. I was unable to drive for almost a year, so we 

always had to find a way to get me to appointments and things like 

that. So that was an additional thing. Losing my employment was 

a struggle, but fortunately, we were able to tap into unemployment. 

But that is another avenue that might be considered, too, because 

somebody might not be eligible for unemployment. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me ask Ms. Rex, the State cap is there to 

make sure there is enough money for a victim. If we increase the 

cap on spending, do you think that there is a possibility the State 

cap, the $10,000, might be raised? And should it be? Hit the button. 

Ms. REX. Yes, I would love to see the State cap raised. I think 

what could help convince the Vermont Legislature to do something 

like that would be if the Federal matching dollars were also inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:55 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056685 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56685.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
14 

creased. I think right now the VOCA match is 60 percent. Is that 

right? So if that were to go up to, let us say, 75 percent, then I 

think Vermont could do the same. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, one of the things—and we are going 

to be voting on a bill here in just about an hour on the Senate floor 

on fraud, mortgage fraud, and other things. We looked at elderly 

especially being hit with this, their life savings gone, their money 

they set aside for retirement gone; oftentimes their home, the one 

area where they have built up equity, gone, by unscrupulous people. Our bill will allow us to go after those people and put them 

in jail. But in the Victims of Crime Act, is there an emphasis on 

the elderly? 

Ms. REX. Well, I think one of the challenges for us is getting the 

elderly to report the crime in the first place. Particularly when you 

are talking about fraud, I think when they realize that they have 

been taken advantage of, they are often embarrassed. They do not 

want other people to know about it, and they do not often report 

it. 

But I can tell you, since the center—we now do restitution for 

the State of Vermont, and so we process all those restitution orders, and it was alarming for me to see the number of elderly people who are the victims of fraud in the State. And the sad thing 

is we do put those offenders in jail, but we rarely collect money 

from them. And, fortunately, Vermont does have a restitution fund, 

and so those victims will at least get $10,000 out of the fund. But 

these cases usually involved over $100,000, their life savings, 

which they will never see during their lifetime. 

Chairman LEAHY. Does anybody else want to add to that just on 

the elderly part? Feel free. 

Ms. LEARY. Senator Leahy, I would add that our toll-free crime 

victims helpline receives many, many calls from elderly victims, 

and many of them actually find us in the Yellow Pages, in the 

phone book. But we have seen an increasing number of elderly victims of all kinds of financial scams. Just a couple weeks ago, in 

fact, we had a call from a man who is over 70 who lost everything 

in a Ponzi scheme. It was not Madoff. It was another case. And 

there were 50 victims in that case, and none of those victims had 

expected to get anything back. And so he was dealing with the embarrassment and shame of having, you know, allowed himself to be 

victimized. That is how he saw it. He had no idea how to stabilize 

his financial situation, let alone where to turn to get some help 

with the emotional impact of it. 

It is really devastating. You lose your independence and your 

hope, really, to live out, you know, a good life for the remaining 

years. It is very sad. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I am going to turn to Senator Feinstein. I have to leave just for 

a few minutes. I have got a call from the Leader, apparently, regarding the bill on the floor. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. [Presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you for your leadership. 

I have been looking at the figures, and what I see is quite startling to me. I see California in a lose-lose-lose position in terms of 

15 

money. No State has been cut more than California, from $64 million to $31 million. So California has been cut $30 million over the 

last 5 years. 

My question, Mr. Derene, is: Why? 

Mr. DERENE. If you are referring to the victim assistance grants, 

those are distributed among the States. There is a base amount 

plus population. And so it is proportionate to the size of the—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, nobody has the population that we do. 

We are at 38 million people now, with a high crime rate. 

Mr. DERENE. Correct. And the distribution of the money that is 

available under the victim assistance grants is distributed proportionately by population, so being the largest State, you are going 

to see the largest cut in absolute dollars for your State. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is that the way the formula goes? 

Mr. DERENE. Yes, ma’am. There is a base amount that—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is absolutely unacceptable. 

Mr. DERENE. There is a base amount that goes to every State, 

and then the amount that remains after that is distributed among 

the States based on population. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So if you gain people, as all of the sunshine 

States are doing, you lose money. 

Mr. DERENE. Proportionately. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. There are 13 States that have lost money. 

Mr. DERENE. Proportionately, yes, every State is going to lose 

money when the amount available is cut. And as I said in my testimony, all States experienced across the board a 22-percent cut, but 

a State like California that has a larger population is going to have 

proportionately a larger cut in terms of dollars. That is the statute. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then it seems to me we need to fix the formula so that does not happen. I will do the research and look into 

what California produces for the program and try to make a determination whether we get our fair share. But to cut the money in 

half when no other State takes that kind of hit because the State 

has no way of controlling the people that come to the State, I think, 

I must tell you, is grossly unfair and unacceptable. 

Mr. DERENE. And that is in the statute, so every State is going 

to be cut, and it is going to be approximately within a similar 

range. But a larger State, obviously—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But what you just told me is that you are penalized if you gain population. You do not lose when you lose population. Maybe we should take a look at that. But you lose when you 

gain population. That is reverse of the way most things are figured 

on a fair basis. 

Mr. DERENE. Every State—if the amount available nationally declines, every State is going to lose. Some States will lose proportionately a little bit more than others. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I look at the big States—Texas, New York, 

Florida, and California. None of those other States have lost. Only 

California has lost. And something is not right, and it would be my 

intention to find out what it is. I would like to have you know that. 

Mr. DERENE. Excuse me. Are you referring to the victim assistance chart or the compensation chart? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Compensation. 

16 

Mr. DERENE. Okay. I am sorry. I am referring to the assistance. 

Compensation is a different matter. I apologize, because I was responding to a different program. 

The compensation grants are based solely on how much the State 

uses of its State dollars to pay out compensation benefits, so that 

decline is because the State used fewer State dollars to make compensation benefits, and that is based in the statute. As Judy mentioned, each State gets a percentage. It is 60 percent of what they 

used State dollars for. And, frankly, over time it may vary because, 

as States get larger grants, they are going to use less of State 

money. And if they use less of State money, they will get more in 

Federal money. And so there is sort of a natural fluctuation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Where is the chart that says how much Federal money States get? I am reading your materials. 

Mr. DERENE. There is a chart there for victim compensation that 

will show you how much State money each State received for the 

last several years, and I think you would be accurate in terms of 

compensation that, if California’s VOCA grant went down, it is because the State paid out less. But that year they probably used 

more Federal money for benefits. That is going to vary from State 

to State. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So I really need to figure this because if I follow your chart, in grants we have gone from $44.9 million to $40 

million, $40.8 million, in 5 years. 

Mr. DERENE. If you go back, you will see—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, 4 years. 

Mr. DERENE. If you go back several years, you will see California, 

I think there was a year where it received over $100 million. And 

that all depends on how much the State program pays out using 

State dollars. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So do you add the two together? How do 

you—— 

Mr. DERENE. Every year the VOCA grant to a State is based on 

how much the State paid out the 2 years prior in State money. The 

State certifies an amount to the Federal Government, and that is 

the basis for determining how much their VOCA compensation 

grant will be. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, this bears some additional research. 

Mr. DERENE. It is not easy. I understand. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will ask my staff to do it so that I get a 

clear picture. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Russell, I must say, I am one that believes that we are sorely tested in life, and how we measure up to those tests is really 

the measure of the kind of person we are. And let me just say you 

have certainly measured up to your test. It is incredible, and it is 

wonderful to see you smiling and well and here. And so I just want 

to—I wish this were California wine. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But I just want to raise my glass to you and 

say, you know, much of the best to you. 

Ms. RUSSELL. Thank you so much. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are very welcome. 

Senator, would you like to ask some questions? 

17 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. 

Thank you for your leadership in this area for so many years. And, 

again, I would echo what Senator Feinstein said, Ms. Russell. 

Thank you for having the courage to come forward and talk about 

what happened to you. Many people cannot do that, and that you 

have been able to do this is so helpful to so many other victims. 

You are not just speaking for yourself. You are speaking for them. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about actually what Ms. Leary had 

raised, and these are white-collar crimes, because I see that we are 

seeing an increase in those kinds of crimes, and I have known firsthand the hope that these victims need. And what I always remember when I was county attorney in Hennepin County, Minnesota, 

managing an office of about 400 people, we had an incredibly active 

victim witness program, and it was one of—we think it was one of 

the best in the country, but it was certainly one of the most active. 

I saw the hope that the program gave not only in individual compensation and helping victims, as they should be helped, but it also 

helped us with our prosecutions and mentally, because people felt 

comfortable to come forward. The shame that you alluded to, Ms. 

Leary, where victims do not want to come forward, they are scared, 

to have someone there with them every step of the way makes a 

difference. 

But the white-collar area, what I most remember of this is we 

had—I spoke to one of our victim witness advocates once in a case, 

and I saw there were deputies outside of our courtroom. And I said, 

‘‘Oh, that must be that gang case you are doing, huh?’’ She said, 

‘‘No. It is that white-collar case.’’ I said, ‘‘What?’’ And she said that 

there was—I think she was about 85 years old—a widow who was 

so angry because her husband, he had died, but he had invested 

his money, all their life savings with someone, and that guy then 

happened to go and spend all their money. He pretended he was 

religious, he was using the money to invest in religious things. And 

he ended up going down to Costa Rica for plastic surgery with all 

their money. And there were a number of victims in the case, and 

that 85-year-old woman was so angry and had said some threatening things about the victim, that is why those deputies were outside the door. And I remember that because it just hit to me how 

these white-collar cases for many good reasons—as you said, people’s life savings down the drain—can have the kinds of emotions 

and difficulties for people, and we have to remember that. And as 

we look at these increasing white-collar cases, whether it is the 

Madoff case or any others that are coming through the system, we 

have to remember that. 

I wondered, first of all, Ms. Leary, and then maybe Ms. Rex, you 

both have raised this issue, if you could talk a little bit about the 

kinds of programs you would want to see how we could address 

those kinds of needs of these victims of white-collar crimes. 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you. We are very concerned about this, and, 

you know, currently under the regulations, the Federal regulations, 

the States have the ability to pay for financial counseling and mental health counseling for victims of financial crime through the 

compensation programs. But, you know, as I said in my testimony, 

they are very reluctant to expand that pool of eligible victims. The 

assistance programs could be developed for these victims, but there 

18 

is a tremendous amount of competition for the funds that are available. You can see even some people go ‘‘Oooh’’ when Mr. Perkins 

testified, because people are nervous about being able to preserve 

what we have now. And, in fact, there is a huge need. Victims of 

financial crime need a tremendous amount of guidance. 

It is a complex world out there. The crooks are way ahead of law 

enforcement in terms of their sophistication, and so unraveling the 

damage that is done to your credit history, to your reputation, 

there may be warrants out for your arrest be somebody has misused your information, you know, restoring your fiscal stability is 

only one part of it. 

People need those services. They need the mental health counseling. They need some very practical, hand-holding financial advice. They need connections to pro bono or low-cost consumer attorneys. People forget that it often requires litigation to get your life 

back on track, to ward off those creditors, to restore your financial 

well-being, get your credit history repaired, get those arrest warrants that are based on false information quashed. 

People need legal assistance to do this, and particularly less sophisticated and perhaps older folks are just completely stunned by 

what confronts them. So they need those services, absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Ms. Rex, do you want to add anything? 

Ms. REX. I would just say that I do think, as an administrator 

of a compensation program, you know, that the face of crime 

changes with the decades. And I think we do need to look at as the 

pool of elders grows in Vermont and in this country, to look at 

what is happening to them. And our compensation program does 

provide the financial counseling, and we will do the mental health 

counseling. But I think we need to start looking at helping people 

with their living expenses if they do not have any money to live 

and making sure they get to stay in their home. 

So I think those are some of the challenges we need to look at 

in the years to come. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you for appreciating that because, 

you know, we had one person that could not qualify for student 

loans because her ID was stolen 4 years before. She did not think 

much of it. She just got a new one. And then she had racked up 

14 prostitution convictions, which, of course, was not her, and she 

could not get any student aid and was going to have to drop out 

of college. So there is this whole grouping of services that normal 

county attorneys or State attorneys’ offices are not used to providing. And so we have to find some way to help these victims of 

identity theft and much more complicated crimes than that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. [Presiding.] Thank you. Thank you very much, 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend 

you particularly for standing up for the rights of victims. We have 

had an excellent panel, and I am sorry that I have missed at least 

part of this. This is a hectic morning, even by Senate standards. 

I strongly support the legislation involved here, the Victims of 

Crime Act. It is the bedrock of support for victims’ services across 

19 

the country. And I think a number of you have made some good 

suggestions with respect to updating the law. 

My first question is directed to you, Mr. Derene, because I think 

you have laid out particularly some of the issues with respect to 

the cap on payments from the fund that was established in the legislation. As you noted in your testimony, in 2000 Congress put the 

cap on. It was designed to deal with fluctuations in the deposits 

into the fund. And I think it would be helpful if you could describe 

to the Committee what the negative consequences are because 

there is this cap. 

Mr. DERENE. Thank you. I think the problem with the cap is that 

the formula for distributing the fund according to the statute—and 

we just went through part of the problem—is kind of complicated. 

But the bottom line is that the amount available for State assistance programs, many of the ones that we have been talking about 

here, is sort of at the bottom of the food chain. So unless the cap 

is set at a sufficient level, the amounts that go for other programs 

increase, or if the cap is lowered, the amounts available for States 

decline. And it is a simple matter of the operation of the formula 

in the statute. 

So what we have seen is that while deposits have actually increased, the amount available for State programs has declined. 

And, in fact, you may have gotten letters from constituents why if 

the cap is raised, the programs are still getting cut. And part of 

it is because of that formula. 

As a result of those cuts—as I mentioned, between 2006 and 

2008, there has been a cut of $87 million, or 22 percent—State programs at the State level try to buffer those cuts. But at some point 

in time, we pay the piper. The loss of money is seen, and we have 

just seen that in a recent report by the Office for Victims of Crime 

where in 2008 the number of victims served by this program nationally was actually reduced by over 336,000 victims. 

Senator WYDEN. Why would this be the right time to raise the 

cap? You know, obviously, when you are talking about this, you are 

always in a balancing act. You have got to ensure the stability of 

the fund. All of you are interested in that, and I think at the same 

time, we understand there are a number of critical services for victims that need to be addressed. 

So if someone asked you who was skeptical of this, you know, 

why should we do it right now, what would be your answer? 

Mr. DERENE. Of course, I think it is always the right time to 

raise the gap. And I would simply point out that under the statute, 

if there had not been a cap, all of this money that we are talking 

about, about $2 billion that we are talking about that has been retained in the fund, would already have been out serving victims. 

And as was mentioned before, you cannot delay services to victims. 

If a woman needs shelter, she needs shelter now. She does not 

need it, you know, in 6 months or when the cap is raised. So I always think there is a need 

I did a survey of State administrators and simply said, ‘‘What is 

the gap between the amount of funds that you have been asked to 

award and how much you had available? And nationally that was 

over $100 million. 

20 

Senator WYDEN. How would you prioritize the services that could 

be offered if the cap was raised? 

Mr. DERENE. Well, I think the first—very honestly, I think the 

first need now is to restore what has been cut. We have had programs that have shut their doors, staffs that have been laid off, so 

we are really looking at trying to get back to where we were, and 

I think there is a host of needs there for shelter. The National Network to End Domestic Violence does an annual census, and they 

reported, I believe, on one day some 9,000 requests for services 

have been denied because of lack of funding. 

So there are immediate needs for counseling, for shelter, for 

emergency support that I think would be the first priority among 

States if they were able to get more funds. 

Senator WYDEN. I have not meant to ignore the other four very 

valuable witnesses. Would any of you like to add a comment both 

with respect to the question of raising the cap and the priorities 

for services if the cap was raised? 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you, Senator. I would like to just add that not 

only is there a need for additional VOCA funding to release more 

of those funds, but we need to have steady, predictable increases 

in funding, because, you know, it is kind of like your family budget. 

If you know how much you are going to make that year, then you 

may not like it, but you can decide what to do with it. And it is 

the same thing with victims’ services. You need to have a steady 

increase, a predictable increase, so that you can ensure the continuity of staff, ensure the continuity of services. Victims can rely 

on you. They know 6 months from now you will still be doing whatever the service is that they need. And, in addition, victim service 

providers can focus on their mission, which is serving victims of 

crime, and not be distracted and totally preoccupied all the time 

with raising money and worrying about laying your staff off and so 

on. That predictability is equally important. 

Ms. REX. I would echo what Mary Lou just said, but I would also 

say that one of the things we have been able to do in Vermont is 

to use the VOCA funds to leverage other funding. So when I get 

new VOCA funds, I am able to pilot a new program that is serving, 

you know, some crime victims that are currently not being served. 

And after a couple years, if I can show good results, it is really valuable for me to bring to the State legislature and say, look, you 

need to invest in this program, too. 

So I think that is another reason why we really need to give 

States a steady increase each year so that we can do these kind 

of innovative programs. 

Senator WYDEN. I went to school on a basketball scholarship, and 

they always said you should take one shot to close on. And sometimes it would take me a long, long time to get that shot to wrap 

up. But I think your comment really summed it up and why Chairman Leahy’s hearing is so important. 

If you look back at the history of this legislation, when the Victims of Crime Act was passed, there was not a whole lot at the 

State level. There certainly was not a lot of State initiative in this 

area, programs and funding and the like. And as a result of this 

legislation, just as you have suggested, when there is attention at 

the Federal level, when there is attention on the rights of victims, 

21 

it does spread fairly quickly to the State level, and we see interest 

among nonprofits and service organizations. So there are many reasons why we should bolster this act now as we look back on 25 

years particularly of the work you all and others have done at protecting and supporting victims. 

But one of the most important is when there is Federal leadership. Just as you suggest, it does spread to the State level, to nonprofits, to organizations outside Washington, D.C. So your point is 

one to quit on. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for your leadership on this 

issue, and as I have told you before, it is a pleasure to serve on 

the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, we have got a chance to do things that 

so many of us agree with, and I know this is an area where you 

have been a strong supporter, and I appreciate that. 

With that, we will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

22 


56685.001
23 


56685.002
24 


56685.003
25 


56685.004
26 


56685.005
27 


56685.006
28 


56685.007
29 


56685.008
30 


56685.009
31 


56685.010
32 


56685.011
33 


56685.012
34 


56685.013
35 


56685.014
36 


56685.015
37 


56685.016
38 


56685.017
39 


56685.018
40 


56685.019
41 


56685.020
42 


56685.021
43 


56685.022
44 


56685.023
45 


56685.024
46 


56685.025
47 


56685.026
48 


56685.027
49 


56685.028
50 


56685.029
51 


56685.030
52 


56685.031
53 


56685.032
54 


56685.033
55 

Æ 


56685.034