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

73–846 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–356 

FULFILLING OUR COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT 

VICTIMS OF CRIME 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 13, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–17 

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 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, prepared statement . 63 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

WITNESSES 

Burbank, Kent, Director, Victim Services Division, Pima County, Attorney’s 

Office, Tucson, Arizona ........................................................................................ 7 

Garvin, Margaret, Executive Director, National Crime Victim Law Institute, 

and Clinical Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland, Oregon ....................................................................................................................... 10 

Leary, Mary Lou, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ...................... 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Kent Burbank to questions submitted by Senator Kyl .................. 27 

Responses of Margaret Garvin to questions submitted by Senator Kyl ............. 31 

Responses of Mary Lou Leary to questions submitted by Senators Grassley 

and Kyl .................................................................................................................. 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Burbank, Kent, Director, Victim Services Division, Pima County, Attorney’s 

Office, Tucson, Arizona, statement ..................................................................... 40 

Farr, Amy, Victim Advocate, Vermont Attorney General’s Office, Montpelier, 

Vermont, statement ............................................................................................. 49 

Garvin, Margaret, Executive Director, National Crime Victim Law Institute, 

and Clinical Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland, Oregon, statement .................................................................................................... 54 

Leary, Mary Lou, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement ... 67 

(1) 

FULFILLING OUR COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT 

VICTIMS OF CRIME 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, 

Blumenthal, and Grassley. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. I apologize. Things with the 

budget and all have been a little bit mixed up on schedules, and 

Senator Grassley and I have been going in three different directions trying to get things scheduled all at once. But I appreciate 

the people who are here. 

We had one other witness from Vermont, but she has a family 

emergency, and she will not be here. 

But this week is the 30th annual National Crime Victims’ Rights 

Week. I was here in the Senate for the first one, and I thought how 

overdue it was 30 years ago to begin, and fortunately we have kept 

it going. We recognize the losses suffered by crime victims and 

their families, and we acknowledge the hard work being done to 

help people rebuild their lives after tragedy hits. It would be a 

cruel irony if this were the week the Crime Victims Fund was gutted, as was suggested in some news accounts yesterday. No one 

should be contemplating raiding this vital resource for crime victims for some shortsighted, short-term advantage. 

I know the needs. I have seen the needs. I saw it as a prosecutor, 

and I have seen it as a Senator. 

For nearly three decades, the Crime Victims Fund has played a 

central role in providing help to crime victims. We created the fund 

in the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. It has been the primary way 

that the Federal Government supports crime victims and their families. It funds State victim assistance and compensation programs 

that serve nearly 4 million crime victims each year. These services 

are priceless to the people they support, but they cost taxpayers 

nothing. It is supported by fines and penalties paid by Federal 

criminal offenders, not by taxpayer dollars. 

I have always thought the irony is if we have a victim of a serious crime and we catch the person, we can spend hundreds of thou-
2 

sands of dollars—sometimes it is very necessary—to prosecute the 

person who did it, to lock them up, to keep them there. And the 

victim is told, ‘‘You are on your own.’’ Something is upside down 

in a case like that. It is almost like they are victimized twice. 

After the tragedy, if you will recall, in Oklahoma City, I worked 

with this Committee and the Appropriations Committee to ensure 

that there would be funds available to help victims of mass violence and also to provide a ‘‘rainy day’’ reserve. We did this because 

nobody can predict with certainty in advance. We certainly could 

not predict something like Oklahoma City. So instead of distributing all of the funds collected the previous year, we have a trust 

fund with deposits retained so that in leaner years crime victims 

and their advocates are not left stranded without resources. 

More recently, when some, including former President Bush, 

sought to go into that trust fund and take the reserves, I worked 

hard and I got Senators from both parties to work with me to protect the fund and ensure that the reserves were preserved for their 

intended purpose, and only one: helping crime victims. I remain 

committed to maintaining that reserve. I also want to make sure 

increased funds are there. No less than Social Security and other 

trusts that the American people have established, the Crime Victims Fund represents our commitment to crime victims. It should 

be respected and honored. It cannot be used just as some kind of 

a convenient piggybank. 

So it is fitting that this Committee today considers what the Federal Government has been doing to support those whose lives have 

been affected by crime and what more we can do to renew this vital 

commitment. These efforts have never been more important than 

they are today. Difficult economic times have stretched our State 

and local services, including victim services, to the breaking point. 

That is in virtually every State in this country. Families, made 

more vulnerable by financial stress, struggle more than ever to 

overcome the emotional, financial, and physical damage caused by 

crime, and they need help. 

The theme of this year’s Crime Victims’ Rights Week, ‘‘Reshaping 

the Future, Honoring the Past,’’ is appropriate. Let us take stock 

of what we have accomplished in these past three decades and determine what is needed ahead. As a country, we have made great 

strides in three decades in addressing the needs of crime victims, 

but we also know we can do more. 

Crime changes. Our responses have to adapt in turn. You have 

complicated financial offenses on the rise in the form of identity 

theft and mortgage fraud. Nobody really thought 30 years of the 

problems of identity theft. We did not have the Internet, we did not 

have all these other things. Victims of these crimes have unique 

needs. The elderly, who make up an increasing population in many 

of our communities, are being targeted with greater frequency. 

They often require specialized services to recover from abuse and 

exploitation. There is a greater need for legal services to help crime 

victims with housing and medical needs, immigration, and the financial consequences of crime. Transitional housing services are 

more essential than ever for crime victims in difficult times. 

Also, as the criminal justice community becomes increasingly and 

appropriately focused on evidence-based practices grounded in sci-
3 

entific research, it is becoming ever clearer how much more data 

we need about crime victims—who they are, how they are victimized, what needs they have, and what services help. I think it is 

this kind of comprehensive research that is going to make it a lot 

easier with what resources they do have for States to tailor their 

needs. 

I know our witnesses have been thinking about these issues, and 

I look forward to learning from their experience. I am sorry, as I 

said, that Amy Farr, who serves as Victim Advocate in Vermont’s 

Attorney General’s Office, has a family emergency and could not be 

here, so she will submit her written testimony. 

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

the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I also want to thank Robert Paolini. He is 

Chairman of the Board of the Vermont Center for Crime Victims 

Services, for attending this hearing. 

Just on a personal note, Bob, you help us in Vermont all the 

time, and you make me extraordinarily proud of what you do. You 

have always been there. 

So, with that, Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think you and I agree on this subject, so I 

do not know whether I need to speak or not. But I have not said 

it, and every Senator wants to say it himself, right? I also want to 

notify you that I have got the 10:30 time reserved on the floor of 

the Senate, so I will be absent a little while. 

Thank you for this hearing. Thank you to the witnesses as well. 

Crime victims deserve better than they have been getting. Crime 

victims receive compensation and assistance, as we know, from this 

Crime Victims Fund. It is not dependent on tax revenue. It is funded for the purpose of helping crime victims, and it comes from fines 

and penalties paid by those convicted. 

For more than a decade now, there has been a cap on the 

amount of funds that each year can be distributed to victims. The 

Chairman and I recently wrote a letter to the Budget Committee 

in which we asked that the cap of the next fiscal year be raised 

more than 30 percent from current levels. That is a much larger 

increase than is proposed by the administration. The cap illustrates 

the problems with so many Federal grant programs. Programs get 

created. Sometimes they duplicate existing programs. They do not 

get fully funded. So the effectiveness of the program is often not 

as strong as it could be. 

We should be cautious about creating new programs, Mr. Chairman, for victims until we raise the VOCA cap to funding existing 

programs the way they ought to be funded. The failure to adequately raise the cap means that the number of victims who receive assistance under the existing program has fallen in recent 

years. It is not right. Nor is it right to talk about new programs 

until existing ones and the victims who benefit from them receive 

the adequate support, especially support that does not derive from 

taxpayer dollars. 
4 

The administration is following a different path, however. They 

have not proposed raising the cap by nearly enough. It is this sort 

of gamesmanship with the VOCA funds that has let crime victims 

down. Capping the fund has limited the resources that are provided to victim services and the organizations thereof throughout 

the country. Instead, the fund has built up an unobligated balance 

of over $6 billion. The limited disbursement has led to the creation 

of additional grant programs to provide service to victims. These 

grants break the formula of the VOCA fund by using taxpayer dollars to fund victim programs instead of the fines placed in the 

VOCA fund from convicted criminals. 

Another consequence of this cap is highlighted in the forthcoming 

continuing resolution that was recently negotiated by the President 

and the Congress. Unfortunately, the proposal includes a number 

of budget gimmicks that are more sleight of hand than funding 

cuts. One of those gimmicks impacts the VOCA fund. In the legislation, nearly $5 billion in unobligated balances held in this fund is 

rescinded to the general treasury, so all the money that we have 

been supposedly holding onto for victims has now gone to pay for 

spending in other programs that have not been cut. This is the 

wrong policy. If we are serious about cuts, we should cut spending, 

not simply writing that spending off with non-taxpayer dollars 

from this fund. 

I have concerns with the President’s budget for fiscal year 2012 

and the way it deals with crime victims. The President has proposed zeroing out an important existing program, the Federal Victim Notification Program. This program notifies victims when the 

perpetrator who offended against them will be released from incarceration. Congress passed a list of victims’ rights, which includes 

the right to be notified of the release of criminal offenders who 

harm them. Apparently, the fiscal year 2012 budget does not recognize this basic victim right. 

Until just last week, the administration was willing to spend 

hundreds of millions of dollars to try terrorists in downtown Manhattan, but opposed spending $7 million to notify crime victims 

that the person who harmed them would be released. 

It is against this backdrop of tough budget decisions that we 

must address the issue of the VOCA cap along with duplication, 

overlap, and fraud in grant programs. While I strongly support 

pushing more VOCA money out to the victims and victim support 

groups, which is the money from the people convicted of a crime, 

I believe we need to take a hard look at other grant programs. I 

think we need a comprehensive review of grant programs to review 

where savings can be achieved. 

I would note the testimony of Mary Lou Leary from the Department of Justice supports my calls for a review. She states in her 

written testimony, ‘‘We need rigorous evaluations of victim service 

programs to learn what works and what does not work.’’ 

So I agree, especially in light of the fact that in the last 10 years 

the Inspector General has found serious problems with many of the 

individual grantees funded by the Department of Justice. In fact, 

in the last 10 years, the Inspector General has reviewed 19 grants 

involving funding for victim programs. Of those 19, the Inspector 
5 

General found 15 that contained unallowable costs, unsupported 

documentation, and other problems. 

One stunning example: This report examined the Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program administered by the Community 

Legal Aid Society in Delaware. The Inspector General found that 

the grantee was in material noncompliance with grant requirements. Further, because of the deficiencies, the Inspector General 

questioned over $829,000, which accounted for 93 percent of the 

grant. 

So here we are. Given the dire fiscal situation the Federal Government faces, it is more important than ever to ensure that Federal dollars are spent in an efficient way. As we study how to provide victims of crime receive the help they deserve, we need to examine both the source of funding as well as how the grantee utilized those funds. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. 

We will begin with Mary Lou Leary, who is no stranger to this 

Committee. She is the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. She has held that position since September 2009. Prior to rejoining the Department in May of 2009, she served as executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, and we talked 

to her in that time, too, and she has also previously held a number 

of positions within the Department of Justice, serving as United 

States Attorney for the District of Columbia. We have one other 

former United States Attorney on this Committee with Senator 

Whitehouse. She was Acting Director of the Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services, Deputy Associate Attorney General. She 

earned her bachelor’s at Syracuse University, a master’s at Ohio 

State, and her law degree at Northeastern University School of 

Law. 

Ms. Leary, always good to have you here. Go ahead, please. 

STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. LEARY. It is a pleasure, Senator Leahy. 

Chairman Leahy and distinguished members of this Committee, 

thank you so much for inviting me here today, and I am pleased 

to talk about what we do in order to fulfill our obligations to victims of crime. 

The Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs has a 

broad mission, but it includes providing resources and leadership 

to support key services for crime victims. 

My own personal commitment goes well beyond the Office of Justice Programs. As the Senator just said, I am a former United 

States Attorney in the District of Columbia and a local prosecutor 

in Massachusetts. So I have been working with victims pretty 

much my entire career, and I am very proud to have served as the 

director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, a national 

nonprofit here in Washington. 

As you know, this is National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, and 

just last week the Attorney General at a special ceremony honored 
6 

men and women from across this country who have devoted their 

lives to serving victims of crime. Several of the people who were 

honored actually were victims themselves and had used that experience to help others. The stories that they told remind us that 

crime victims must never be forgotten. Justice for victims is justice 

for all. 

I do not think there is any better example of that kind of commitment than what we have seen in Arizona, in the wake of the 

shootings there. I am proud to be on the same panel with Kent 

Burbank, who has done so much to help Pima County, and the 

State of Arizona, recover. 

This is the 30th anniversary of the first National Crime Victims’ 

Rights Week, as the Senator said. During this Reagan Centennial 

year, we should really honor that part of his legacy, which is lesser 

known than other aspects of his administration. Thirty years ago 

victims were almost entirely. They had no rights; they had very little support. 

So in 1982, President Reagan commissioned the Task Force on 

Victims of Crime. They held hearings across this Nation, and actually several of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. 

staffed that commission. Their findings led to the establishment of 

the Office for Victims of Crime in 1983. And then in 1984, the 

VOCA statute was passed into law. That created the Crime Victims 

Fund, which Senator Leahy has described for us. And since then, 

more than $8 billion from the Crime Victims Fund has been distributed to States and to communities. 

So what does that mean? In human terms, it means 2 million 

victims have received compensation, and more than 67 million victims have received counseling, courtroom advocacy, temporary 

housing, and other services. Funds also have been used to aid other 

victims of terrorism and to train thousands of victim service providers. 

Every year 87 percent of the Crime Victims Fund allocations go 

directly to the States, and, believe me, those funds are sorely needed in these budget times. 

Last night, thinking about the hearing, I was re-reading the 1982 

task force report. Ironically, it cited that very same fact 30 years 

ago. They said, ‘‘These are tough budget times. States are having 

to cut back, and victim service providers are suffering.’’ So here we 

are. Deja-vu all over again. 

We would like to assume, of course, that all victims will be taken 

care of, but that is simply not the case, especially for elderly victims, victims of financial fraud, human trafficking, crimes against 

gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. And, in fact, just 

like 30 years ago today, 51 percent of violent crimes still go unreported. It is the exact same statistic. 

Crime victimization itself is also changing with the advent of 

technology. It actually makes the criminals more anonymous, and 

the victims are sometimes harder to identify. Because victimization 

is changing, victim services must also change, and that is the goal 

of Vision 21. It is a marvelous initiative of the Office for Victims 

of Crime at the Department of Justice. They are undertaking a 

comprehensive analysis of crime victim services, who are the vic-
7 

tims, what do they need, how can we serve them better, how can 

we serve them smarter. 

Several themes have emerged from that. One of the most powerful is the need for wrap-around services for victims of crime. Victims need legal services; they need civil legal assistance. They need 

legal assistance in the criminal justice system and all kinds of support mechanisms. 

Another major theme of Vision 21 is technology. How can we use 

technology to better serve victims? And how can we better understand the technology that is used in victimization? 

The Vision 21 recommendations will be fleshed out in a full report, and I cannot wait to share that report with this Committee. 

Please be assured that the Department of Justice will not waver 

in its dedication to serving victims of crime, and we welcome any 

suggestions from you all about how our efforts can be improved. 

Thank you so much. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. And it is interesting. I remember 

my conversations with President Reagan during this time of his interest in this area, and that was extremely helpful to get the bipartisan support we needed for the legislation. 

Kent Burbank is the director of the Victim Services Division of 

the Pima County Attorney’s Office in Tucson. He has held that position since 2007. 

I was surprised by this number. You and your staff serve nearly 

8,000 crime victims a year. Of course, the one that everybody in 

America saw was at the January 8 shooting of Congresswoman 

Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others. 

Mr. Burbank and his office coordinated dozens of staff and volunteer victim advocates who supported the victims and their families 

at the crime scene. In recognition of his work in response to that 

horrible tragedy and other good work, he received the 2011 Arizona 

Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award. He has worked 

for more than two decades in local social and human services. He 

has a master’s degree in social service administration from the 

University of Chicago. 

We hope you can continue to help crime victims out there, Mr. 

Burbank. Everybody here, and I am sure you especially, hopes you 

will never have another situation like the one you had in January. 

Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF KENT BURBANK, DIRECTOR, VICTIM SERVICES DIVISION, PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, TUCSON, ARIZONA 

Mr. BURBANK. Thank you. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman 

and honorable Senators. My name is Kent Burbank, and I am the 

director of the Victim Services Division of the Pima County Attorney’s Office in Tucson, Arizona. 

On January 8, 2011, indeed our close-knit community was shaken by the tragic and senseless shooting that took place at Representative Giffords’ ‘‘Congress on the Corner’’ event. The havoc 

created by one man’s horrific act left 6 people dead, 13 injured, 

over 100 witnesses in shock and panic, and a community stunned. 
8 

Victim advocates from our office were among the first responders. Within minutes, we had several advocates on-scene, and within 

an hour, we had 35 advocates deployed across Tucson, including at 

the four hospitals that were receiving the wounded. 

I was at the crime scene along with Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall for most of the day coordinating communication and 

overseeing our advocacy efforts. Throughout the day and night, our 

victim advocates worked with literally hundreds of victims, witnesses, and their family members, providing them with crisis intervention services and emotional support. On more than one occasion 

our advocates had to deliver the difficult news to family members 

that their loved one had been killed. 

Angela Robinson is the daughter of two of the January 8th shooting victims. Angela’s mother was gravely wounded in the shooting, 

and her father was killed. Angela described how incredibly difficult 

the day was for her and her family. She told how her sister and 

brother-in-law ‘‘raced to the Safeway, ran through the carnage, 

frantically looking for Mom and Dad, while Mom kept talking to 

my sister on her cell phone and Dad lay dying on her lap.’’ 

Angela recounted how her son met them minutes later at the 

hospital to ‘‘find his grandmother covered in blood, five gunshot 

holes in her legs.’’ Angela said to me, ‘‘Victim Services was beside 

them. Victim Services provided the trauma counselor to guide my 

precious loved ones not only through grief and loss but extreme violent trauma.’’ 

This is a testament to the critical importance of having highly 

trained, experienced, and professional victim advocates in our communities. With over 35 years of experience, ours was one of the 

first programs of its kind in the Nation. Over the years our advocates have been called out to work with victims of natural disasters 

and terrorism, including the Oklahoma City bombings and 9/11. 

Currently under the leadership of Pima County Attorney Barbara 

LaWall, our Victim Service Division has a staff of 28 employees 

and more than 120 volunteers that allow us to do this work. 

The Pima County Attorney’s Office has been very fortunate to 

have just received an Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance 

grant through the Victim of Crimes Act, otherwise known as 

VOCA, to help us meet the ongoing needs of the January 8th tragedy victims over the next several years as the cases move through 

the courts. Without these VOCA funds, our resources would have 

been strained to meet the needs. 

But the downturn in the economy has put a tremendous strain 

on our partner service organizations in the community. Nationally, 

most of the newly founded legal clinics for victims are in crisis. 

Since 2004, when Congress passed the Justice for All Act, which 

enumerated the rights for Federal crime victims and included funding for the enforcement of these rights, 11 clinics have opened 

across the country. But despite their successes, virtually all these 

clinics will be closed by the end of the year without further action 

by Congress to support their work. 

In Arizona, the recession has meant a significant decrease in 

State and local funding for victim services and for victims. There 

has been a 42-percent reduction in State funds for domestic violence services and shelter since 2008. Tucson’s primary domestic vi-
9 

olence service agency, Emerge! Center Against Domestic Abuse, 

lost 24 percent of its State funding for shelter services over the 

past couple years. Sarah Jones, the executive director of Emerge! 

said to me, ‘‘Our shelter beds are full, our phone lines are ringing 

day and night, and we are turning away on average 10 to 12 

women a week.’’ 

Cuts in private and public health care coverage have made it difficult for victims to get medications they need for conditions like 

depression and anxiety that are a direct result of their victimization. Foreclosures and cuts in housing assistance have forced domestic violence victims to return to their abusers or sleep in their 

cars. 

During these troubling economic times, communities depend on 

victim compensation and victim assistance funds provided by 

VOCA and also by the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. This 

is precisely the time when the Federal Government should be increasing funding to victims and victim service organizations by 

raising the VOCA cap. VOCA funds come entirely from fines and 

fees and other assessments on criminals, not tax dollars. So increasing this fund cap would immediately result in more funds 

flowing to the victims who most need them. 

It is not only the compassionate and right thing to do, but it also 

makes financial sense. If these funds do not come from criminal activity, they will most likely come from local communities and State 

governments, who will pay them in the form of higher unemployment claims, Medicare and Medicaid costs, and community mental 

health services. 

In Arizona, we are fortunate to benefit from some of the most robust victims’ rights statutes in the Nation. These rights make a 

real difference in the lives of victims, affording them a measure of 

fairness, dignity, and respect in a system that is often confusing 

and overwhelming. And these rights co-exist harmoniously with the 

rights of the accused within the criminal justice system. 

Victims’ rights statutes are an advance over the days in which 

victims were left uninformed about proceedings, excluded from 

hearings and courtrooms, and denied the ability to confer with 

prosecutors. But more work needs to be done because we know that 

these rights and protections are incomplete and inconsistent across 

the Nation. 

So it is crucial that we finish the work begun by President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime. We should carry out its recommendation for a Federal constitutional amendment recognizing 

victims’ rights and providing uniform protection for all Americans. 

I want to end with the words of Susie Hileman, one of the victims of the January 8th shooting, who said, ‘‘I could not have managed to sit in the arraignment without Victim Services. You anticipated my fears and my tears, and you had people surrounding me. 

You answered my questions and told me the truth. You are my 

touchstone in an otherwise unwieldy and overwhelming process. I 

could not have done it without you.’’ 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burbank appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Burbank. 
10 

Meg Garvin is currently the executive director of the National 

Crime Victim Law Institute and clinical professor of law at the 

Lewis & Clark Law School. She also co-chairs the Oregon Attorney 

General’s Crime Victims’ Rights Task Force, serves on the Legislative and Public Policy Committee of the Oregon Attorney General’s 

Sexual Assault Task Force, served as co-chair of the American Bar 

Association’s Criminal Justice Section Victims Committee, was a 

board member of the National Organization of Victim Assistance, 

undergraduate at University of Puget Sound, master’s in communications studies from the University of Iowa—I will have to remind Senator Grassley—and her law degree from the University of 

Minnesota Law School. And I do not have to remind Senator Klobuchar or Senator Franken. We are surrounded by people from 

Minnesota here today. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Go ahead, Ms. Garvin. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET GARVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM LAW INSTITUTE, AND CLINICAL 

PROFESSOR OF LAW, LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Ms. GARVIN. Thank you. It is a good way to be surrounded. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, thank you so much 

for having me here today. It is quite an honor to be here during 

the 30th National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. 

I want to spend some time talking about the theme of this year’s 

Crime Victims’ Rights Week, which is, ‘‘Reshaping the Future, 

Honoring the Past.’’ And the reason I want to spend some time on 

that theme is because we have made commitments to victims in 

this country, and our history shows what those are, and our history 

also shows us how we can fulfill those commitments to crime victims. 

The history of victims in this country going back more than 30 

years, if we go back to the founding, shows that victims were an 

integral part of our criminal justice system from the start. And yet 

sometime over the years at some point they became mere witnesses 

to cases and pieces of evidence in those cases, and that was shown 

quite dramatically in the 1970s and early 1980s when literally victims were asked to sit outside courtroom doors, peek through 

cracks in the door to try and see what was happening. We know 

that Vince and Roberta Roper, whose daughter was kidnapped, 

raped, and murdered, were literally told to sit outside during the 

trial of the offender in that case. And that was happening in nearly 

every case. It was happening in homicide cases, sexual assault 

cases, domestic violence cases. It was happening throughout the 

1970s and 1980s; victims were mere pieces of evidence in a case. 

They were not treated with humanity and dignity. 

To remedy that imbalance, fortunately, a lot of laws have been 

passed. They have been passed in every State. More than 30 

States-–33 actually have passed State constitutional amendments. 

Every State has passed a statutory scheme or system to afford victims rights. But what is interesting is when you look nationally, 

the rights vary greatly. So quite literally, we have what I call, 

when I do my more informal trainings, the ‘‘Judge Judy/Judge Joe 
11 

effect.’’ Depending on which judge you are in front of, you get different rights if you are a crime victim in this country. And it can 

happen within a State, it can happen across State borders, and it 

certainly happens if you are in a State system versus the Federal 

system. You are treated differently. 

Fortunately, efforts at the Federal level have passed statutes 

that have allowed for some similarity of treatment, some fairness 

to happen for crime victims regardless of what system they are in. 

The key piece of that legislation was the Federal Crime Victims’ 

Rights Act of 2004. That Act provides eight specific rights to crime 

victims to allow them participatory status in the system, and most 

importantly, it allows them independent standing, which means 

that the rights are actually owned by the victim. They get to assert 

them when they want. They get to say what they want when they 

need to say it. 

The very first Federal circuit court that analyzed the Federal 

Crime Victims’ Rights Act was Kenna v. District Court, and that 

happened in the Ninth Circuit. That court said of the CVRA that 

the CVRA was changing the modern criminal justice system’s assumption—the assumption that crime victims should behave like 

good Victorian children: seen but not heard. So what we have is a 

Federal law that is allowing us to have victims not only seen but 

heard in the system. 

Notably, the CVRA contains not just rights but also authorizes 

funding for appropriations for legal services to make sure those 

rights have meaning. Having legal services to protect rights is critical. As the U.S. Supreme Court has even said, ‘‘The right to be 

heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and 

educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science 

of law.’’ Having a lawyer sitting next to you makes a difference in 

court proceedings. 

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court was saying that in 1932 about defendants’ rights, but it has no less meaning or weight when you 

think about victims’ rights. In the case I referenced just a minute 

ago in my testimony, Kenna v. District Court, Mr. Kenna was trying to exercise his right to be heard. The only way his right to be 

heard was allowed in that case was because he had pro bono counsel sitting next to him and he took an appeal to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. 

Where did that pro bono counsel come from? It came from a national network of victims’ attorneys that NCVLI launched in 2004. 

What started as five clinics in 2004 is now 11 clinics operating 

across the country. Since its launch that network has represented 

more than 4,000 victims, filed 2,300 pleadings, and supplied more 

than 100,000 hours of attorney times to victims in this country. 

Sadly, as Mr. Burbank has already said, this network is in jeopardy. All 11 clinics will shut this year. There will be no legal services for enforcement of victims’ rights at the end of the year if funding continues as it is. The impact of these closures is going to be 

significant. 

As of March 31st, NCVLI’s clinical network had 235 open criminal cases in this country. The impact of those numbers is a little 

more meaningful if you actually look at the people who are being 
12 

served. One of the victims being served is in the Tucson shooting 

case. Our Arizona clinic is representing one of the victims in that 

case, seeking justice and making sure that that victim can exercise 

his rights when he needs to and in the manner in which he wants 

to. 

Another clinic is representing a victim in the case of United 

States v. Keifer. In that case, it is a complex fraud case, and the 

victim was not even notified of proceedings because those proceedings had been under seal. So the victim did not know if they 

were a victim, were not a victim, whether restitution was going to 

be ordered or not until a pro bono attorney stood next to them and 

fought for the right for restitution and to be heard at sentencing. 

Fortunately, they succeeded, but now the defendant has filed a habeas action and is challenging restitution again. 

In 1984, with the passage of VOCA, Congress made a promise to 

victims, a promise that funds would be available and services 

would be available. In 2004, Congress made another promise to victims, that they would have rights in the criminal justice system 

and would not be mere interlopers on the system anymore. Vision 

21 is a wonderful project that the Office for Victims of Crime is 

using to envision the future of victims’ services, and NCVLI is fully 

committed to that effort, as we too are committed to envisioning a 

better future. But notably, as has already been said, one of the key 

findings coming out of Vision 21 is that victims must have access 

to competent and independent lawyers to protect their rights. Thus, 

even when looking anew or afresh at victim services, the answer 

coming back is the very one that Congress articulated in 2004: 

fund legal services for victims of crime. 

This promise can be kept. It can be kept because while there is 

a cap set on VOCA, that cap can be raised. It seems indisputable 

that there are sufficient funds in VOCA to fund legal services for 

victims and to have services that are necessary across the country. 

I urge Congress to look critically at the promises that have already 

been made to victims in this country and to re-commit to upholding 

those promises, including legal services for victims. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and I thank all the panel. I 

read your statements earlier, and those whole statements are in 

the record. But I hope people are listening, and I am glad that 

many are, because as Senator Grassley pointed out it is something 

he and I both agree on, this is not a partisan issue. You do not ask 

whether a crime victim is a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. They are a victim. 

Again, we have several former prosecutors on this panel, Senator 

Klobuchar and I and, of course, Senator Whitehouse who was here 

earlier. And we all know how we can bring down all kinds of efforts, and should, to go after the perpetrator of the crime. But too 

often it is too easy to forget the victim. 

Now, Mr. Burbank, as you know, the whole country’s heart goes 

out to your community and the people whose lives were changed 

forever. Those who survived, their lives have changed forever from 

January 8th. And something like that is overwhelming, and it can 
13 

quickly deplete victim services funds to help the communities be 

able to provide ongoing services when you have something extraordinary like this happen. I worked after the Oklahoma City bombing 

to create the Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance Program. I 

worked with Senators on both sides of the aisle, and we got it done. 

It sets aside funds from the Crime Victims Fund to be used in an 

emergency situation, like the tragedy in Tucson. Now, I understand Pima County recently received $1.7 million 

for that emergency fund. Is that right? 

Mr. BURBANK. That is correct. 

Chairman LEAHY. What is that going to do? 

Mr. BURBANK. Well, it is going to help us enormously. As you 

were mentioning, these types of situations can very quickly overwhelm the services that are available because already we are operating on a very stretched budget, and so to have suddenly this 

magnitude of victims in our community that are needing additional 

services means that we need to be able to ramp up, and ramp up 

very quickly. And so having this grant that we have just received 

from the Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance funds that were 

set aside in VOCA has been and will be incredibly beneficial over 

the upcoming years, and that is the benefit of this. These will provide funds over the next 3 to 4 years as these cases move through 

the court system. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, it was interesting. When I put that 

money in, fought to put that money in, I prayed that it would never 

be necessary to use it. We all did. We never could have anticipated 

something that happened there, but we have also had other horrific 

situations in other parts of the country. 

I do not want to put words in your mouth, and just because I 

helped create the fund, but would you suggest we keep that fund? 

Mr. BURBANK. Absolutely. Of course. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BURBANK. And you do not need to put words in my mouth. 

Chairman LEAHY. It would have been a heck of a hearing if you 

had said—— 

Mr. BURBANK. If I had said no, that would be terrible, wouldn’t 

it? I mean, obviously, it is an incredibly important piece. Being able 

to access funds very quickly in an emergency situation makes all 

the world of a difference. And we are most grateful for your wisdom 

and foresight in being able to create this fund to begin with, and 

then the work with the Office of Justice Programs and OVC, to be 

able to access those funds very quickly through a special process, 

so thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Leary, you talked about seeing changes in crime victimization and there are perhaps some gaps in crime victim services. 

What are some of these changes? And what are the kind of gaps 

that it might create? 

Ms. LEARY. Well, I am sure you remember from your days as a 

prosecutor, as I do, that I almost felt like the criminals were way 

ahead of law enforcement all the time on technology and everything else, and that is continuing. We are seeing criminals becoming increasingly anonymous, victims harder to identify because of 

things like financial fraud, all the myriad of schemes that you read 
14 

about in the financial news every single day, and sometimes we do 

not even recognize these crimes because people do not understand 

the instruments that are being used. 

There are all kinds of technology being used to stalk individuals, 

and it goes way beyond the Internet, although that certainly has 

proliferated all kinds of cyber crime. Child exploitation on the 

Internet is absolutely appalling, very widespread. 

A friend of mine who is the Inspector General for the New York 

City School System told me that he used to really worry about 

teachers having access to kids, teachers who should not have been 

in the classroom in the first place. And now, he said, it is almost 

impossible to deal with that because these folks are having contact 

with the kids online, and you cannot really monitor that. 

So there are all kinds of technological challenges that we are just 

beginning to recognize. And, of course, the flip side of that is how 

can we use technology to our own advantage as law enforcement 

and particularly as victim service providers. You want to talk to a 

15-year-old victim. They are unlikely to chat with you on the 

phone. You have got to be able to do the texting and the tweeting 

and all kinds of chatting with kids online. We need to be able to 

use smart phones and cell phones and webinars and, you know, 

just all kinds of things that, frankly, I cannot even imagine sitting 

here right now, but I am sure that within the next 5 years there 

will be—— 

Chairman LEAHY. It will be changed that much more. I mean, 

Skype, the fact that you can sit there—— 

Ms. LEARY. Absolutely. Look at telemedicine. Same thing. 

Chairman LEAHY. Grandparents love it. Everybody else does. 

You know, Professor Garvin talked about the Crime Victims’ Rights 

Act, how that helped legitimize crime victims’ rights since it was 

passed in 2004, one of the reasons we are trying to strengthen the 

Justice for All Reauthorization Act. 

I have to go to a different hearing. I am going to recognize Senator Franken before I do, but Senator Klobuchar who has done this 

quite often, I appreciate her being willing to take the gavel. Thank 

you. Just be sure to give it back. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Leary, I want to start with you today. Thank you. I have 

been hearing such tremendous things about the work that you have 

been doing in your department to help States and local agencies. 

The Minnesota Office of Justice Programs has raved about your office, how great of a partner it has been on victim services. They 

said you have really just gone out of your way to reach out to Minnesota to see how you can help, and you have been incredibly flexible and supportive, so I want to say thank you. 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. Minnesota has long been a leader in innovative domestic violence programs, and the city of St. Paul recently 

came up with a blueprint for domestic violence intervention strategies that really should be a model for how criminal justice agencies 

can work together. 

I was excited to see that you are also making sure that programs 

are relying on evidence-based decisionmaking that guarantees that 
15 

every dollar we spend is being used to fund programs that are 

proven to work. 

Can you tell me more about what the Department is doing to 

promote evidence-based decisionmaking and ensure that other 

States have access to the kind of innovative programs and strategies being designed in places like St. Paul? 

Ms. LEARY. Certainly, and Minnesota does have a long and rich 

history of serving victims of crime. I know that Senator Wellstone 

was significantly involved in that. 

In terms of the evidence-based approach and disseminating that 

kind of information, I am particularly pleased—this is a big priority at the Department of Justice overall and throughout the Office of Justice Programs, but I am particularly pleased to see that 

we are moving in that direction in victim services as well. You 

know, it started out as a movement. It is kind of grass-roots advocates, volunteers, and it is all about passion and compassion for 

victims. And it has evolved, is much more of a professional field. 

We will never lose the passion. We will never lose the compassion. 

But it has been much more professionalized as well. And like the 

rest of the criminal justice system, victim services has got to work 

smarter. We have to base what we do on what we know from research and from statistics. 

So I think the most significant thing that we are doing right now 

is an exercise called Vision 21, which the Office for Victims of 

Crime has convened, and it is a comprehensive effort to look at victim services to see who are the victims, what are we doing to serve 

them, where are the gaps in that service, what are the emerging 

challenges, the new types of victimization, new types of victims and 

so on, and how can we build the capacity of victim service providers 

across the country to serve these victims. 

Obviously, if this is going to be evidence based, the key is we 

have got to do more research. We have to collect better data. 

We have the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is a 

wonderful tool, but it is not adequate for the task. There are certain types of crime where that kind of survey does not really get 

at the nuances. And there are all kinds of other statistics that need 

to be gathered. 

For instance, we need to be doing a lot more research and data 

collection in Indian country. You certainly know from your experience in your State that the violent crime and the domestic violence 

and sexual assault crime rates in Indian country are absolutely unacceptable. We would never put up with that in any other community in this country. And we do not even really know the half of 

it because it is unreported, because we have not done enough. That 

is the kind of thing that we need to do, so that when you plot the 

strategy for victim services going forward, you have a solid base of 

knowledge. You have your data. You have your research on what 

works with victims. You have your research on the characteristics 

of victims, the needs both now and in the future. And then you can 

tailor your programs, and you can apply your dollars wisely. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you. I just have a few seconds 

left, but I agree with you on Indian country, and in the Indian Affairs Committee I have tried to address that and increase data collection on crime in Indian country. 
16 

Madam Chair, can I ask one more? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [presiding]. Oh, please do. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Burbank, I, like most Americans was horrified by what happened in Tucson, but I have to say the services you and your team 

of staff and volunteers were able to provide to the families and 

friends and witnesses of this horrible tragedy was just amazing. 

You mentioned in your testimony that crime victim compensation 

funds are frequently a last resort for States, and when the States 

run out of Federal dollars, victims often pay the price. 

Last Congress, I introduced legislation to ensure that survivors 

of sexual assault are never charged for the cost of their rape kit 

exam. I find it appalling that States sometimes bill victims or force 

them to apply for insurance coverage before seeking reimbursement. 

As someone who works on the ground with victims of sexual assault, do you think the practice of billing sexual assault victims for 

their medical exams makes victims more reluctant to report their 

crimes? 

Mr. BURBANK. Well, I certainly agree with you that charging victims for things like medical forensic exams is simply unconscionable. We should not be shifting those burdens onto victims. I am 

not sure whether or not that would be a deterrent to a victim coming forward, but I do know that it certainly can be a hardship for 

victims, but also there is an emotional burden that comes with 

that. Having to pay for a medical forensic exam after you have 

been raped or sexually assaulted is very, very difficult for victims 

and feels like an additional victimization oftentimes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse, are you ready? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank 

the panel very much for being here, for their testimony, and for 

their service, particularly those who have been prosecutors, U.S. 

Attorneys and so forth. Thank you, Ms. Leary. 

I just wanted to get your reactions to the news that has come out 

about the extent to which the cuts that have recently been agreed 

to have focused on victims of crime in the Department of Justice 

budget and what your advice is to all of us to try to prevent that 

damage from having too much impact on the victims that, frankly, 

are prototypical innocent victims of this, and there is no reason 

that they should be bearing the cost here. But it looks like they 

will be. 

So have you had the chance yet to analyze how deep those cuts 

will go and to what extent they may affect programs and grants 

that support what you are doing right now? 

Ms. LEARY. You are looking at me, Senator Whitehouse, so I—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I will go right down the line, but I will 

start with you. 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you. We have not had a chance to do a full 

analysis. I, too, read the article in the Washington Post saying that 

almost $5 billion has been cut from the fund. But, in fact, we later 

learned to our relief that that is actually not the case, that, rather, 
17 

it is an accounting issue. So we were very relieved to hear and 

that, in fact, the amount of funding in the Crime Victims Fund will 

remain the same for this coming year, so that the Office for Victims 

of Crime will have that same amount of money to work their programs. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As was expected. 

Ms. LEARY. But there are other cuts, you know, in other parts 

of the Department of Justice that may have an impact. We have 

not had a chance to analyze yet. You know, there is a percentage 

cut across the board. So it really depends on how that plays out. 

For instance, there are programs in the Bureau of Justice Assistance that augment the work of the Office of Victims of Crime in 

things like training law enforcement, and we all know that a victim’s first encounter with law enforcement—that is often the first 

person that a victim might encounter, and research really shows 

that that can have a significant impact on how that victim moves 

forward, whether that victim is able to move forward toward recovery. 

So we have not had a chance to analyze all that yet, but there 

may be some impact. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Just so you know, I have heard the same thing that you have, that the reduction from $6 billion to $1 billion 

is an accounting adjustment and would not have immediate effects 

in the actual expenditures that are available to the victims of crime 

group in the Department of Justice. And I hope that is true, but 

when you see big money moving around like that, it is hard to 

imagine that it could actually have as little effect. You would think 

that would have disappeared already somehow if it was purely an 

accounting trick. So I am watching carefully to see that. 

Mr. Burbank. 

Mr. BURBANK. Well, I am glad that it is being watched very carefully. As I was mentioning in my testimony, the downturn in the 

economy, the economic recession, has had tremendous impacts on 

the local and State levels. In Arizona, at least two organizations 

that served victims have closed their doors, including a family advocacy center serving a rural area in our State. Other agencies 

across the board pretty much have had to cut services to victims 

because of decreases in State and local income coming in for victims of services. 

So the concern here is that these agencies depend on Federal 

monies at this moment to keep their doors open. VOCA funding 

and VAWA funding is incredibly important for these victim services 

organizations. And if that money should go away or be reduced in 

any way, we would see further cuts in already damaged victim 

services. The safety net is beginning to crumble at the local level 

in many cases. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Garvin. 

Ms. GARVIN. Just quickly, my understanding is that it is an offset also, but even if it is an offset and it is an accounting thing, 

I would appreciate it if a close eye was kept on it, because even 

as an offset and an accounting maneuver, then rhetorically we 

have less money in the fund, which means people are not going to 

be as comfortable raising the cap and giving money to victim services. 
18 

So even if the exact amount is going to come back out to the field 

as came out in prior years, that is not enough for the field, and we 

are seeing the ramifications of that right now. So we have to keep 

a close eye on it. But also the Victims Fund is victims’ money, and 

that is where it should be going. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you all very much for what you do 

and for your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley, you are up. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I explained to the Chairman that I was on 

the Senate floor. I am sorry I did not hear the testimony. I have 

read it. 

Ms. Garvin, can you tell me about the effect that the cap on the 

Crime Victims Fund has had on the victims to whom you provide 

services? 

Ms. GARVIN. The services that NCVLI provides are funded 

through two streams. The Federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act has 

an authorization for appropriations in it, and some money has 

come directly through appropriations to fund some of our work, although that has not happened since 2008. Then other funds have 

come through grant programs, including VOCA, through the Office 

for Victims of Crime. And the cap, I would say what is happening 

to our services and services nationally is that there is not enough 

money making its way out to the field. 

We know that victims have more needs than are being funded. 

We know that the legal clinics that we oversee are going to shut 

down this year and that victims, including victims in the Tucson 

shooting, will not have an attorney with them. As of July of this 

year, actually, that clinic will not have funding to continue and to 

provide representation. So the cap is putting restrictions on the 

services that are available. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I want your judgment of whether or not you 

think it makes sense for us to create new crime victim programs 

before the existing programs that are now being shortchanged are 

fully funded. 

Ms. GARVIN. Well, as has been spoken about this morning already, those programs that are providing good services and have 

been tested and are evidence based, they should continue being 

funded. Our program has been tested. We have been evaluated. 

Other programs around the country have been also. Those should 

be funded first because that is a promise we already made to victims. Looking forward and creating new programs is a visionary 

thing to do, but not at the sacrifice of the promises we have already 

made to crime victims. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Ms. Leary, the administration proposes only 

a small increase in the cap from the Crime Victims Fund, and it 

would zero out the Federal Victim Notification System, which I 

said in my statement notifies crime victims when an individual 

who committed that crime is released. Further, it would reduce by 

one-third the budget for the National Crime Victimization Survey. 

Do you support these cuts that the administration has proposed 

to Victim Notification and to the National Crime Victimization Survey? 
19 

Ms. LEARY. Well, Senator Grassley, one of the things that the 

Department is thinking about is the impact of the Vision 21 initiative, which is ongoing now, which is taking a comprehensive look 

at what we need to better serve victims going forward from here. 

And in the past, there have been piecemeal looks, and you look at 

one piece of the system, and you try to improve things there. Then 

you look at another piece, and you try to improve things there. But 

it does not work unless you look at the whole and you look at all 

of the kinds of programs that are needed and make decisions based 

on that. And that is exactly what we are doing. And I think out 

of that process will come a different way of looking at victim services, proposals to fund all of those things that work, that fit into 

that comprehensive view, and to use the funds in the ways that are 

most appropriate for what we know victims need. 

I totally agree we need to avoid duplication of services. I think 

we need to help victim service providers learn more about how to 

base what they do on evidence. We need to help them learn how 

to increase their own capacity to serve victims in a smarter, more 

efficient way. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I cannot find fault with your survey and 

studying things and being evidence based and all that, but it seems 

to me that by doing to these two programs what they are doing, 

they have already made a declaration that those programs are not 

serving. So you would think that they would wait until—you and 

they would wait until the study is over before you reached a conclusion that to me puts low priority on supporting crime victims as 

evidenced by these proposed cuts. 

I will go on to ask you this question, and it will be my last one. 

Despite the cuts that I mentioned, the administration proposes 

$135 million more be spent on victims of violence against women. 

You have also called for continuation of a new hate crime victim 

discretionary grant program that the Justice Department created 

with stimulus funding. 

Given the shortfalls in funding for crime victims that has been 

made clear today, do you believe that certain types of victims 

should take priority over others? And that is what I sense from the 

priority given to these programs. And I do not see anything wrong 

with those programs, but it just seemed to me that you have a 

greater priority. 

Ms. LEARY. What we know, Senator Grassley, is that, in fact, 

right now, a good percentage of the VOCA funds go to victims of 

violence against women because, unfortunately, that is one of the 

enduring challenges of the victim services field. There are so many 

overwhelming unmet needs. You heard Mr. Burbank talk about the 

shelter in Tucson having to turn away 12 women a week. The beds 

are full. The phones are ringing off the hook. 

We know the National Network to End Domestic Violence does 

a snapshot every year, and they survey all of the shelters and the 

crisis service providers. And the last snapshot they took, in that 1 

day these organizations had served 70,000 victims, women and 

children for the most part. But they had to turn almost 10,000 

away on a single day. 

So it is just that we already know that that is such a pervasive 

form of victimization with needs, unmet needs that are almost— 
20 

they are difficult to comprehend, really, because it is just so significant. We still need to do a lot more in that arena, and it crosses 

all age lines, race lines, socioeconomic lines. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have a question regarding longer-term services. Many of the 

victim advocates or victim services focus on short-term needs, as 

you know, and very rightly and deservedly so. My office has been 

working with a group called Voices of September 11th, which does 

work on mental health screening and counseling and other kinds 

of casework, and that group provides services in those areas, and 

I wonder if you could talk about the strategy of your respective efforts in terms of dealing with the longer-range services that can be 

provided to crime victims. 

Mr. BURBANK. Well, you know, speaking for the Pima County Attorney’s Office, you are absolutely right. We recognize not only the 

short term but the long term. The short term is met through our 

on-scene crisis intervention work, so when we actually go out at the 

request of law enforcement to work with those victims, as we did 

on the January 8th shootings at the Safeway where this occurred 

and in the hospitals. But then we follow those victims, providing 

them with supports throughout the entire criminal justice system. 

And a big piece of what we are doing is not only the criminal justice system advocacy, but as you mentioned, they have lots of other 

needs. And making time to make sure that those advocates are 

well versed in what community resources are available, getting 

them connected with victim compensation funds that can help fund 

some of those, mental health as well as other health needs for 

these victims, is crucial. 

In this case, because of the nature that it is both a Federal case 

as well as a State case, these victims most likely will be in the 

criminal justice system for at least 5 years, and potentially much 

longer than that, as we know, for example, with the Oklahoma City 

bombings. And we also know that after cases conclude, many of 

those wounds still are there for these victims, and they have needs 

that go on for years and years and years. And so it is a very important part, and I am glad that you are focusing time and energy to 

look at the ongoing and long-term needs of victims, so thank you 

for that. 

Ms. GARVIN. I would like to echo that, that I appreciate the focus 

on it. I know in our work so far in Vision 21, one of the things that 

we have noted that is coming from the field is that long-term care 

for victims is critical. And some of the cases that our lawyers are 

working on demonstrate this. There is an Oregon case, a habeas 

case going on right now where a women was stabbed 18 years ago, 

and the habeas proceeding was just filed, and she was ordered to 

go to deposition 18 years after her stabbing. And so we needed to 

have a lawyer there for her in that moment, not just in the original 

prosecution. 

So the ongoing care is critical as well as continuity of care. Making sure the same programs that she or he as a victim have devel-
21 

oped a relationship with are there when they need services 5, 10, 

15, even 20 years later is critical. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Leary. 

Ms. LEARY. Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. I am familiar with the September 11th organizations through my work at 

the National Center for Victims of Crime, and I know that Joye 

Frost, who is the Acting Director of the Office for Victims of Crime, 

is very familiar with that organization. They represent the significance of those kinds of needs, those long-term needs. And as Meg 

said, there is a lot of focus on that through the Vision 21 initiative. 

I would like to add that we need more research into this arena 

as well so that we have a much better understanding of the impact 

of crime over the long term. What are the mental health issues 

that can arise? What are the emotional kinds of issues? What kind 

of an impact does your victimization, you as an individual, what 

kind of an impact does that have on your family, on your loved 

ones, over the long term? It is hugely significant. And many victims, including the September 11th victims, have spoken to us 

about the pain of people treating them as if they should just have 

gotten over it by now. That is just not the case. And, unfortunately, 

our society still is rather insensitive about that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. My time has expired, but I just want to 

commend you and thank you for the great work that you are doing, 

and particularly as we celebrate this month, thank you very much 

for all you are doing. 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you. 

Mr. BURBANK. Thank you. 

Ms. GARVIN. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, and I want to thank 

all of you for being here on this important day. It is the 30th anniversary of the first National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. We have 

come a long way despite the challenges that we are facing now. I 

know in my own office that I used to head up, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, and I met my counterpart in the county attorney’s office there. We certainly were a leader in these areas, including our Domestic Rights Center where we really had a one-stop 

shop, and still do, under County Attorney Mike Freeman for victims of domestic assault where not only are there prosecutors and 

police but also the shelters and others are there to help them with 

their needs. And I have been a big believer in this. We did surveys 

in our office and found that while obviously the results were important, cases and convictions were important, just as important, and 

sometimes more important, to the victims was how they were treated in the system. And so many times it was victim advocates that 

were their interface because the prosecutors would be off doing 

cases. 

So beyond the things that I think people think about in terms 

of help and counseling and services, just having people there with 

them through the process so that they felt it was fair, even if a 

case had to be dismissed because there was not enough evidence, 

or even if a plea had to be taken that was not exactly what they 

wanted in the first place, having a victim rights advocate there 

gave them faith in the system and made for such better cases so 

that victims and witnesses felt comfortable about going forward 
22 

and did not back out at the last minute from testifying, because 

they had someone there for them. So I just want to thank all of 

you for all the good work that you are doing. 

I have questions, first of all, Ms. Leary, about the Vision 21 process, and I was thinking, as we talked about the funding and some 

of the cuts, that we are concerned about and will continue to advocate for the funding, that it be there. 

You mentioned in your testimony that one area that Vision 21 

is likely to tackle is improving data collection and research on victimization issues, and I think data can help not only with finding 

the most effective programs so we are making sure that the money 

is going where it should, but also to support the work that is being 

done. 

Could you talk about that data collection aspect of Vision 21? 

Ms. LEARY. Yes. The Vision 21 groups have, I think, really focused in on the need for research and data collection because there 

is an awful lot about victimization, and particularly among underserved victim populations, that we do not know. You know, underreporting of crime is a huge problem, so we have to figure out how 

do you get at that. 

And, you know, it is really interesting. Thirty years ago, the 

underreporting was exactly the same statistic as today. I found 

that quite astounding. 

So we know that it is unlikely to change dramatically going forward, so we have got to find ways to collect our data without relying strictly on reported crime or convictions and so on. And that 

is one of the things that the National Crime Victimization Survey 

attempts to do. But, you know, the survey has been in existence 

for quite some time. I know that Jim Lynch, who heads up the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is actually looking at a redesign of the 

survey and has been working on that, because we have to kind of 

come into the 21st century and figure out better ways of getting 

folks to respond to the questions about victimization. And we need 

to find ways to collect data from populations that have traditionally 

just been either left out or have withdrawn. The Native American 

population is a good example. Young African-American males. We 

know very little about that type of victimization other than what 

you read, you know, in the Metro section of the Washington Post, 

the sort of sensational crimes that get covered. But we do not know 

that much about the process of victimization and the needs of those 

victims and so on. That is another group. 

We know almost nothing about victims who are in institutional 

settings, and that is where you are going to find your victims of 

elder abuse of all kinds. You are going to find your victims who 

have mental health issues or developmental challenges. We do not 

really know anything about that group. And particularly when you 

think about the elderly, those 85 and above are the fastest growing 

segment of this population. We cannot afford not to know about 

that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. I also took note when you talked about 

the technology and the changing nature of crime. I actually have 

a bill with Kay Bailey Hutchison about updating our stalkers legislation and the cyber legislation that is on the books that is very 

outdated to reflect cases like we had in the last year with the 
23 

newswoman who was undressing and someone filmed her and then 

put it out on the Internet. It was actually hard for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to put a case together in that case. And they did, but 

it could be made a lot easier if we updated our laws in election surveillance. 

Along those lines, you said that Vision 21 would address how the 

latest technology could be leveraged to transform how we reach and 

serve victims. 

Ms. LEARY. That is right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could you talk about that? 

Ms. LEARY. One of the huge gaps that has been identified by Vision 21 is in the capacity of victim service providers. Their technology is so unsophisticated because they barely have money to pay 

their staff to keep them around to help the victims. They do not 

have the funding for their general operations or to improve technology, to figure out how can we reach out to victims, for instance, 

in a rural area, which I am sure there are plenty of those in Minnesota. How do we connect to those victims who are far away? How 

do we connect to those victims with our language barriers and cultural barriers that technology could actually facilitate bridging 

those gaps? Translation services and things of that nature. 

How can we use technology to meet victims where they are at, 

not just geographically but culturally, and in terms of the technology that those victims use. If you read those Pew studies, you 

will find that certain segments of the population are much more 

likely to use a particular type of technology than others. 

For instance, in Chicago, the Hispanic community there is much 

more likely to be using the cell phone than a computer, which I 

learned from Pew when I was working on a project with the Chicago Police Department out there and trying to figure out how you 

could engage the community. You cannot just rely on those, you 

know, beat meetings every 2 weeks. How are you going to reach 

out? Well, you need to find the kind of technology that they relate 

to that they actually use. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Mr. Burbank, you described the crime scene on January 8th and 

that horrible day when so many people were senselessly gunned 

down. I think people sometimes think this is just like magic, the 

victims people there. Could you tell us about the kind of training 

that goes into building a victims advocacy division? 

Mr. BURBANK. Absolutely. You are right, it just does not magically appear. It takes a lot of work to put this together. We are fortunate, as I mentioned, to have 35 years of experience doing this. 

And what it looks like is we actually send our volunteers through 

almost the identical training that we use for our staff paid positions because we rely on those volunteers to do the exact same 

work as a staff person. They have to be ready out in the field to 

respond to any type of crime at any time, day or night. 

So we send them through 36 hours of basic crisis intervention 

training, that is actually available to anyone in the metro area of 

Tucson to partake in if they want. And then on top of that, they 

go through an advanced course that is about 30 hours of advance 

training. And then they do essentially on-the-job training. 
24 

So it is a very long process. We ask for at least a year commitment from folks, and we ask for 20 hours a week from—excuse me, 

20 hours a month from our volunteers. Twenty hours a week would 

be a lot, wouldn’t it? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. So I think one of the things people 

think, well, you know, obviously with budget crunches we can use 

more volunteers and we should use more volunteers. I think it is 

a good idea we have interns in our office. When I was the only Senator for 8 months, we had to use a lot of interns because we could 

not add any staff to the budget. But I think what people do not understand, you still need training and you still need people to oversee the volunteers. 

Mr. BURBANK. Absolutely. It cannot all be done with volunteers. 

We make an amazing use of volunteers in our program, and we are 

very proud of that. But the reality is we have to have staff overseeing those volunteers, training those volunteers. It is an enormous commitment of time and energy in order to maintain this volunteer pool to be able to provide these services. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. Garvin, do you want to answer that question as well about 

how volunteers are critical to the National Crime Victim Law Institute’s work and how we could utilize volunteers and how they still 

have to be supervised and trained? 

Ms. GARVIN. Absolutely. As I mentioned in my testimony, NCVLI 

has 11 clinics operating around the country, but we have been trying to complement that by growing a national pro bono pool of attorneys and advocates, and we put them through training. The 

name of that is the National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys, 

and we have almost 1,000 members right now. 

But what is critical is we can have an attorney anywhere in the 

country, but often they have not had the training on what victims’ 

rights are. Any of the lawyers in the room know, and as I know 

you know from law school, the words ‘‘victim’’ and ‘‘victims’ right’’ 

does not yet show up in the law school curriculum, even today. And 

so training lawyers how to represent victims is a pretty intensive 

process. 

So we are working on it. We are working nationally to try to 

have lawyers around the country know how to do it, know how to 

do it without re-victimizing victims. But it takes intensive work, 

and we need to keep at it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And is the model that we had in our office 

in Hennepin County the norm? And we had—I do not know if it 

was 20 people or 30 who were non-lawyers for the most part—a few 

were lawyers—who were basically the victims’ contacts. And it did 

not mean the prosecutors were not working with the victims. They 

were. But it actually saved a lot of their time so they could actually 

do the cases. 

Now, these were all felony-level cases, so we were able to do it 

that way. And to me it saved money in the long term because the 

prosecutors could focus on the cases and keeping up with their 

casework, and the victims’ rights advocates handled a number of 

victims for teams of attorneys. 
25 

Ms. GARVIN. So that model within a prosecutor’s office is a great 

model. It allows the prosecutor to do the prosecution. It allows the 

victim advocate within a system to help navigate for the victims. 

But the complementary model is to also have community-based 

legal advocacy and advocates out there that can liaison with the 

prosecutor’s office and independently protect victims’ rights. And it 

saves money all around to have all of those because of the longterm care aspects that have been talked about. If we give victims 

wrap-around services in the criminal justice system, good prosecution, good prosecution-based victim advocates, and communitybased legal services and advocacy, we help reduce the trauma that 

they experience going through the system. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We did kind of a common—I mean, the domestic victims had their own people with the Domestic Service 

Center, and then we had the property team which actually was 

community based. They handled things by area, and so they had 

people that dealt with it that way. Then the rest were in specialty 

areas of types of crime. But I just found it to be incredibly helpful. 

It was more than just holding hands. I mean, it was actually helping to get the cases running and make sure the victims were there 

on time. 

I still remember talking to one of our victim advocates, and she 

had a white-collar case, and it was a case where—it was a widow, 

and her husband had been ripped off by some guy that went and 

took all their money and went to Costa Rica and got a facelift. And 

I remember saying to her, ‘‘Well, at least you are not dealing with 

the murder case they got down the hall.’’ And she goes, ‘‘Are you 

kidding? ’’ This woman had basically threatened to kill the perpetrator in the facelift case. And it reminded me that for victims of 

crime every case is important and that people need someone by 

their side to calm them down and also to make sure the criminal 

justice system is fair. 

Anyway, I want to thank you. What law firm did you work with 

in Minnesota? 

Ms. GARVIN. Maslon Edelman. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. See, you cannot lie because you are on the 

record. 

Ms. GARVIN. I know. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GARVIN. A great law firm. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. This is how I get my little curious things 

I have. I just ask them on the record so that it will be there forever. But I have a lot of friends there. 

Anyway, I want to thank all of you. As you can see, we have a 

lot of work to do. I think you see a Committee that is devoted to 

victims’ rights here. Certainly Chairman Leahy is, and a lot of 

former prosecutors on our Committee that understand how this 

works and how important it is, and we will continue to advocate 

for you as we deal not only with the budget but with the VAWA 

reauthorization and other bills that we have going forward. 

So thank you so much. So much of the work you do is in the 

trenches. People never know the hard decisions that victims’ rights 

advocates have to make and the wrenching stories that they have 

to hear, and then they have got to go home and, you know, be with 
26 

their families and smile and pretend everything was OK during the 

day when it really was not. So I just want to thank you for the 

work that you are doing in the justice system and the help that you 

give people. 

So, with that, we are going to keep the record open—oh, I lost 

Chairman Leahy’s gavel. Hold on. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. We will keep the record open for 

further testimony or anything people want to put on the record 

from the Committee, and thank you. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Æ