Message from

The Director

The Office for Victims of Crime has been very pleased to provide funding for Victims' Rights

Compliance Efforts: Experiences in Three States. The National Criminal Justice Association

has done an excellent job describing innovative programs in three states to improve the

enforcement of victims' rights.

During the past decade, states have made extraordinary progress in establishing fundamental

rights for crime victims. Every state has passed victims' rights statutes, and 29 states have

incorporated victims' rights into their state constitutions. Many victims and their advocates

believe that one of the greatest challenges of the criminal justice system is ensuring compliance

with these victims' rights laws. A recent study funded by the National Institute of Justice and

conducted by the National Victim Center found that in practice many victims are denied their rights.

Recognizing that compliance with victims' rights should be a top priority, a number of states

have established innovative agencies to assist victims in securing their rights. Victims' Rights

Compliance Efforts reviews these programs in Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and

describes the diverse ways that these states are striving to provide remedies to crime victims

whose rights have been disregarded by the system. Their examples provide insights into the

benefits of compliance programs as well as some of the challenges in their implementation.

We hope that this study will provide states with important information about these programs and

that other states will adopt similar programs to help ensure that the rights of all crime victims are

enforced.

Reginald L. Robinson

Acting Director
Acknowledgments 

The report, Victims' Rights Compliance Efforts: Experiences in Three States, reflects the skill

and diligent research of the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) staff, as well as the

generosity of the numerous state and federal officials who shared both their time and insights to

make this report possible.

The project staff is grateful to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime

(OVC) Director Aileen Adams for her review of the report. Special Assistant to the Director

and Project Monitor Katia Garrett was especially helpful in providing valuable advice and

insight in her review of the project during various stages of its development. 

The project staff is indebted to the time given generously by state officials in Colorado,

Minnesota, and Wisconsin for the case study interviews. Without the comments and insights of

these officials, the report would be void of information critical to understanding the victims'

rights compliance efforts in the three states. The following individuals were instrumental in the

information they provided.

From Colorado: Bonnie Benedetti, Denver District Attorney's Office; 

Libby Bortz, Social Worker, Bob Bush, Victim Compensation Coordinator, Colorado

Department of Public Safety; Paula Bragg, Director of Victim Services, Fort Morgan District

Attorney's Office; Dana Easter, Deputy District Attorney, 1st Judicial District; Nancy Feldman,

Planning and Grants Specialist, Colorado Department of Public Safety; Nancy Lewis, Executive

Director, Colorado Organization of Victim Assistance; Mary McGhee, Manager of Special 

Projects, Colorado Department of Public Safety; Carol Poole, Program Administrator, Colorado

Department of Public Safety; Bob Preston, Chairperson, National 

Victim Constitutional Amendment Network; the Honorable Gus Sandstrom, District Attorney,

10th Judicial District; Steve Siegel, Director of Program Development, Denver District

Attorney's Office; and William R. Woodward, Director of Criminal Justice Planning, Colorado

Department of Public Safety.

From Minnesota: Marie Bibus, Director, Crime Victim Reparations 

Program; Bruce Duncan, Ombudsman Investigator, Office of the Crime 

Victim Ombudsman; Laura Goodman_Brown, Ombudsman, Office of the 

Crime Victim Ombudsman; Ann Jaede, Director of Juvenile Strategic Planning, Minnesota

Department of Corrections; the Honorable Randy Kelly, State Senator of Minnesota; Kay

Prannis, Restorative Justice Planner, Minnesota Department 

of Corrections; Kim Ross, Investigator, Office of the Crime Victim Ombudsman; Denise Rowe,

Victim Services Unit Director, Minnesota Department of Corrections; and Sara Schlauderaff,

Crime Victim and Witness Advisory 

Council staff member, Minnesota Department of Public Safety. 

From Wisconsin: Suzanne Beaudoin, Victim/Witness Unit Director, Dane 

County District Attorney's Office; Steve Derene, Victim and Witness Assistance Administrator,

Wisconsin Office of Crime Victims' Services; Steve Ebert, Consumer Protection and Citizen

Advocacy Office Director, Wisconsin Department of Justice; Susan Goodwin, Executive

Director, Wisconsin Office 

of Crime Victims' Services; Jo Kolanda, Consultant; Mary Lauby, Executive Director,

Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Chris Nolan, Victim and Witness Assistance

Administrator, Wisconsin Office of Crime Victims' Services; the Honorable Ralph Uttke,

District Attorney, Langlade County; 

and Kathy Zupan, Executive Director, Wisconsin Victim Resource Center.
Special thanks to Liz Wohlken of the National Victim Center and Donna Lyons from the

National Conference of State Legislatures, whose readiness to share information concerning the

status of victims' rights laws was invaluable and 

very much appreciated.

Finally, the NCJA would like to acknowledge the work of the following staff members and

interns: Paul E. Lawrence, Director of Administration and Information Systems; Lisa Doyle

Moran, Associate Director for Legal Affairs; Liz Pearson, Staff Associate and primary project

researcher; D. Brenner Brown, Writer/Editor; Paula Bresnan_Gibson, Legal Researcher, and

Carolyn Reid, Administrative Assistant.

 Cabell C. Cropper

Executive Vice President
Executive Summary

All states have passed laws guaranteeing the rights of crime victims to participate in the 

criminal justice process, while 29 states have amended their state constitutions to include

protections for victims of crime. Examples of these rights include making statements at

sentencing and parole hearings; receiving notification of court proceedings and actions

concerning case disposition; and applying for financial assistance or compensation from the

state. 

Although these statutes and amendments mandate the provision of rights and services, they do

not mandate procedures by which to implement them. Several states in recent years have

developed programs that provide recourse to crime victims who feel that their rights have been

violated. In this analysis, the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) analyzed the

elements of the victims' rights compliance enforcement programs in Colorado, Minnesota, and

Wisconsin. 

These programs differ from state to state in their structure and scope of activity. Victims of

crime in Colorado, for example, are able to file complaints with the state's Victims'

Compensation and Assistance Coordinating Committee (coordinating committee) when they

feel that their rights have been denied. Wisconsin's Department of Justice, Office of Crime

Victims' Services provides a similar function through the Victim Resource Center, which may

mediate complaints brought by victims, or act as a liaison between victims and state and local 

criminal justice agencies. The state of Minnesota has appointed a crime victims' ombudsman to 

advocate for fairness and impartiality for victims seeking services from the state. The

ombudsman's office retains the power to investigate victims' claims of unlawful or

inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' services providers.

Colorado 

In Colorado, the coordinating committee, and its Victims' Rights Act (VRA) subcommittee have

been charged with the enforcement of victims' rights since 1993. The committee structure helps 

afford victims their rights by overseeing the actions of local government agencies, while at the

same time keeping with the state's tradition of deferring to decentralized policymaking and local

autonomy in the provision of services. 

Complaints brought before the VRA subcommittee and the full committee must be violations of

a victim's rights under the state constitutional amendment. The enabling legislation that

accompanied the amendment in 1992 - the VRA - defines specific crimes for which victims are

afforded constitutional rights, the stages of the criminal justice process about which they will be

informed and may be present, and the responsibilities of criminal justice practitioners in

providing victims' protections under Colorado law.

The committee structure relies significantly on staff support provided by the Colorado

Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ). Staff members field inquiries

from victims concerning the VRA, compile information from both victims and parties alleged to 

have violated a victim's rights, and review formal complaints for noncompliance before they are

presented to the subcommittee. In addition, an important role of DCJ staff in the process is to

set the appropriate expectation for what victims can and cannot receive through the VRA and

compliance enforcement process.

The subcommittee and the full coordinating committee have the power to investigate VRA

violations and are able to recommend action with which the agency must comply to rectify

victims' complaints. The subcommittee and full coordinating committee also may monitor the

implementation of those suggestions. When identified agencies do not comply with the 

coordinating committee's directives, the matter may be referred to the governor and/or the
attorney general for review. 

A summary of the process is as follows: victims of certain serious crimes must file a formal

complaint with the DCJ staff, which reviews the complaints to determine if the allegation falls

under the purview of the VRA. If the DCJ staff determines that the VRA subcommittee has

jurisdiction, they will contact the agencies whose actions are in question and forward applicable

complaints to the subcommittee for review. The subcommittee, which meets monthly, retains

the following responsibilities concerning victims' rights compliance:

* reviewing reports of noncompliance to determine if there is a basis in fact;

* conducting hearings when appropriate to determine if there is a basis in fact to the complaint;

* establishing findings and conditions to resolve the complaint if the identified agency is not in

compliance with the VRA; and

* referring any appeals of the subcommittee's decisions to the coordinating committee

In cases in which the subcommittee finds that the victims' allegations have a basis in fact, it may

prescribe directives with which the agency must comply. The subcommittee may require that

the agency outline the steps that will be undertaken to rectify the violation, and may approve the

proposed plan or ask for a revised version when appropriate. 

Both victims and agencies may request to appeal a subcommittee finding to the full

coordinating committee. Agencies that do not comply with the coordinating committee's

directives will be referred to the governor's office, which may require the attorney general to

file suit against the agency.

Although the compliance enforcement program in Colorado has been in effect only since 1993,

more victims have become aware that they have an avenue by which to assure agency

compliance with the VRA. As a result, the number of inquiries received by the DCJ is growing

steadily. The DCJ has kept statistics on VRA complaints and inquiries filed with the office

since its enabling legislation became effective:

* In 1993, there was one VRA complaint filed; 

* In 1994, there were 10 inquiries to the DCJ for alleged VRA noncompliance, with two

substantiated claims resulting; 

* In 1995, there were 17 inquiries, with seven formal complaints filed, four of which were not

considered to fall within the purview of the VRA; and 

* In 1996, there were 40 inquiries, nine of which resulted in a formal complaint being filed.

When considering a victim's allegations, DCJ staff, subcommittee, and full coordinating

committee members must discern closely a victim's action and the criminal justice system's

response to ensure an appropriate determination of a victim's charge. For example,

subcommittee members received similar complaints from victims of domestic violence in two

separate and unrelated cases. Both victims attested that the prosecutors trying the cases against

their abusers did not inform them of various hearings or notify them of the progression of the

case. 

In the first instance, the subcommittee found - after reviewing documentation provided by the

district attorney's office, law enforcement agency, and victim - that the prosecutor in question

had not upheld a victim's right to be present and heard at the critical stages of the proceedings. 

The subcommittee rectified the situation by requiring the county district attorney to submit
copies of several office policies that help prosecutors ensure a victim's right is met and describe

the specific steps to enforce the VRA protections to the individual victim. The subcommittee,

upon its review of the submitted information, further required the creation of policies within the

office to ensure that victims are consulted when there are changes to the charges originally

filed.

In the second case, the victim was upset about an offer to settle the charges against her assailant

and frustrated by delays in the proceedings against him. After review of lengthy documentation

submitted by the victim and the county district attorney, the subcommittee held that the delays

were not the fault of the prosecutor, and that the decision to settle the case was handled

appropriately by the county. Although not finding assault, the subcommittee in this latter

instance reiterated in its findings that criminal justice practitioners should engage in explicit and

overt communications with victims to help them better understand the criminal justice process.

Many factors have contributed to the success of the compliance enforcement mechanism in

Colorado. Participants refer to many intra-committee factors that have contributed to this

positive beginning - collaborative working relationships among diverse members, an honest

discourse on the issues, and a shared approach and dedication to improving the criminal justice

system. Another important strength is the role that the DCJ staff plays in the process. The staff

collects and disseminates complaint information in a manner that is mindful of both the victim's

perspective and the challenges faced by the criminal justice system in providing victims' rights. 

Finally, participants believe the compliance enforcement process works well within the

decentralized political climate of the state.

Although there exists significant support for the current structure of compliance enforcement,

participants identify components of the process that could be improved upon. These

improvements, however, would most often require resources that are currently unavailable. As

a result, participants are struggling to develop effective yet viable alternatives to improve on

perceived weaknesses - like outreach to more rural areas and shortening the time required to

resolve victim complaints. 

In an effort to prepare for the future, the DCJ staff is planning on conducting a satisfaction

survey of both victims and agencies charged with providing victims' rights later this year. The

survey will be sent to those involved with a VRA compliance case to gauge the opinions of

individuals and agencies about the compliance enforcement process. The DCJ hopes to elicit

information about both the strengths and the weaknesses of the current program, as well as any 

suggestions for improving the process for the future.

Minnesota 

Since 1986, Minnesota has had in place an oversight function - the Office of the Crime Victims

Ombudsman (OCVO) - to help ensure that victims are guaranteed their rights and treated fairly 

and appropriately by criminal justice practitioners. OCVO officials may investigate both

statutory violations of victims' rights laws and alleged mistreatment by criminal justice

practitioners. In conducting their work, OCVO officials indicate that they approach the

enforcement of victims' rights in a neutral and objective manner. They act not as victims'

advocates but as advocates of fair government.

The statute creating the OCVO defined the primary features that make the ombudsman unique

as an oversight body:

 Nonpartisanship.

The ombudsman, although created by the legislature and appointed by the governor, acts

relatively autonomously. Although appointed by an elected official, the only legislatively 

mandated reporting requirement of the OCVO is a biennial report to the legislature and

governor concerning its activities during the preceding biennium. 
 Investigative Discretion. 

The ombudsman's power comes from the discretion with which an investigation is pursued. 

The statute clarifies that the ombudsman may investigate any action of the criminal justice

system or a victim assistance program. In addition to responding to requests for

investigations by citizens, the ombudsman has the discretion to inspect the actions of

administrative agencies on her own initiative and may pursue cases based on reports in the 

press. The ombudsman may request and examine information from agencies - including

records and documents of all agencies of the criminal justice system and victim assistance

programs - to fulfill her responsibilities. 

 Power of Publicity.

Unlike the courts, the ombudsman has no right to reverse a decision and has no direct control

over judicial or executive branch decisionmaking. The ombudsman's reach is limited to

investigating alleged abuses and proposing remedies when appropriate. According to

Minnesota statute, the ombudsman may make public - to both the press and the legislature -

her findings after an investigation.

The OCVO enabling legislation defines appropriate methods of conducting investigations,

including acting as a liaison between victim and agency, promoting activities that strengthen

criminal justice systems, preventing violations of a victim's right, and establishing procedures

for referral to appropriate victims' services agencies.

In response to citizens' complaints, OCVO officials may make recommendations to the agency

to rectify the situation. These recommendations range from contacting the agency on behalf of

the victim and expressing concern about the issue at hand to voicing concern about the

investigation of a case by law enforcement officials or suggesting model policies that the

agency can employ to assure victims' rights are honored. If authorities do not accept the

recommendations of the ombudsman, however, the OCVO has no enforcement or disciplinary

powers. The ombudsman's principal means to secure remedial action is through making public,

to both the legislature and the press, the action or inaction of an agency. 

Typically, once a complaint is reported, the OCVO staff assesses the needs of the victim,

determines whether referrals should be made to other agencies, and informs the complainant of

the most appropriate manner for resolving the grievance. The OCVO next gathers information

from the agency against which the victim alleges wrongdoing. Based on the information gleaned

in the investigation, the investigator must determine whether any statute, policy, or practice was

violated, or if mistreatment occurred. The investigator must determine the most appropriate

resolution to the problem, plan for any subsequent follow-up with either the agency or the 

victim, and present the findings to the ombudsman for her review and approval.

With several years of fielding calls from victims and investigating alleged cases of mistreatment

and unlawful behavior, OCVO officials have developed a variety of methods in responding to

victims' concerns. OCVO officials like to respond to victims' concerns with "assists," or contact

with the criminal justice official whose action is in question. Often this contact makes the

criminal justice official aware that his action was not well received by the victim. Upon making

this realization, most practitioners attempt to rectify their behavior immediately. 

Another common method that the OCVO employs to assist victims of crime is to aid in
clarifying for victims why the criminal justice system operates the way it does and why criminal

justice practitioners make the decisions they do. For example, in a case where a victim's

mother learned the prosecutor was not planning to bring charges against her daughter's assailant,

the OCVO staff reviewed the case and the prosecutor's reasoning for declining prosecution. As

a result of the OCVO investigation, the prosecutor sent a letter to the victim and explained in

detail his reasoning for not bringing charges. While still disappointed in the charging decision,

the mother better understood the prosecutor's reasoning in not trying the case.

Finally, the office, through its ability to make recommendations on policies and procedures that

dictate the actions of criminal justice agencies, can affect systemic change as well. Once, when

receiving three separate complaints involving one county's prosecutor and victim/witness

program, OCVO investigators conducted a systemic investigation of the county's program. They

recommended a needs assessment to determine if the county should restructure its current

services, or if it needed more funding and increased staff. The recommendation was forwarded

to the DOC, which conducted the assessment. The DOC has completed its analysis and

currently is working with the county to help it meet its goals of improved services to crime

victims.

Although the OCVO has been in place since 1986, extensive statistics on the office's caseload

have only been available since 1992. Over the past four years, the OCVO has kept data on its

activity as well as the types of victims who seek its services. Specifically, the OCVO tracks the

number of inquiries made to the office, the end result of its cases, and the number of complaints

filed by crime type.

OCVO observers and participants note both strengths and weaknesses of the OCVO structure as

it exists currently. The broad investigative powers of the OCVO, for example, are one of its

greatest strengths, in addition to its simple, expedient manner of handling complaints. The

OCVO staff, however, has expressed concern about the office's ability to provide equal services

to citizens in all parts of the state. Officials cite outreach to the citizens, victims of crime, and

criminal justice practitioners in more rural areas of Minnesota as a primary concern.

The OCVO staff has developed three primary goals for the next biennium, in addition to

continuing the services provided currently by the office and expanding current evaluation

efforts. These objectives are to enhance services and outreach to victims, augment relations

with other agencies within the criminal justice system and victims' services realms, and become

more efficient in day-to-day case management and office operations.

Wisconsin 

Policymakers in Wisconsin have created a system of victims' rights and services delivery that

defers to county discretion for implementation. Since 1979, with the passage of the state's Bill

of Rights for Crime Victims, counties that choose to participate may be reimbursed up to 90

percent for the costs associated with providing these programs. 

In an effort to complement county victim and witness services, state policymakers in the early

1990's created a state-level victims' services office - the Wisconsin Victim Resource Center

(Victim Resource Center) - to provide victims and witnesses information about and referral to

victims' services, crisis counseling, and assistance in securing resources and protection. A

second charge of the Victim Resource Center is to act as a liaison between the agency and the

victim in resolving complaints concerning unlawful or inappropriate agency action.

Because of its broad statutory authority, the Victim Resource Center provides a myriad of

services to crime victims in Wisconsin, including direct services to victims in individual cases in
which the state's Department of Justice (DOJ) has employed a special prosecutor to handle the

proceedings for the government; assistance and support to victims of various sex crimes in cases

in which the state is considering civilly committing their assailants; and the development of a 

statewide immediate response service for victims directly following the crime.

In their efforts to help victims of crime exercise their rights, the Victim Resource Center

employs 

two primary programs: the Victim Assistance Notification Service (VANS) to notify victims of

proceedings when an offender appeals his case; and liaison services in which Victim Resource

Center officials act as a contact between victim and agency when the victim perceives his rights

are not being protected. 

Complaints brought to the attention of Victim Resource Center officials may concern poor

treatment or unlawful action by criminal justice practitioners and county victim and witness

assistance providers. Victim Resource Center officials may not, however, prescribe remedies 

for violations of a victims' constitutional protections. The scope of their ability to act, under

current law, allows them only to investigate these complaints and present the victims' concerns

to the official whose actions are in question.

There are several instances where Victim Resource Center officials may intervene on behalf of

a victim. For example, Victim Resource Center officials often provide information about the

criminal justice system to citizens who do not understand why a case is not being charged or a

plea agreement has been entered. 

For example, one young woman contacted the Victim Resource Center because she did not

understand why the county prosecutor was not filing criminal charges against her estranged

partner, who sexually assaulted her and violated a restraining order she placed against him. She

also was concerned about the prosecutor's perception of her credibility as a witness due to

criminal charges she was facing.

Victim Resource Center officials explained to the complainant about prosecutorial discretion

and why the district attorney did not have to file criminal charges against her assailant, and

suggested that she contact the victim and witness assistance program in that county to explore

how she may work collaboratively with the district attorney to express her concerns about the offender.

In another case, the father of a homicide victim perceived that he was being treated poorly by

criminal justice practitioners and was upset that the trial against the alleged assailant had not

begun. Further, he was angry that he had minimal contact from the victim and witness

assistance coordinator in the county. The Victim Resource Center contacted the county victim

and witness coordinator and expressed the victims' concerns. Together, they communicated to

the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney the concerns of the victim, and were able to move

up the trial date.

Finally, although Victim Resource Center officials are not able to prescribe recommendations

for systemic or procedural change, there are instances when their efforts result in a better

articulation of policy or procedure, which benefits victims in the future. For example, when a

victim contacted the Victim Resource Center because she was not notified of the offender's date

of release from state custody, Victim Resource Center officials contacted the county victim and

witness coordinator, who recognized the mis-communication as a recurring one. As a result, the

victim and witness assistance coordinator changed the form letter sent to victims to clarify that

victims must request notification of release from the corrections officials themselves.

Currently, Victim Resource Center officials approach the day-to-day case management of

complaints on an informal, case-by-case basis, which allows the executive director to be
responsive to the individual needs of the victim. Because the Victim Resource Center also

provides direct service in the form of crisis counseling and emotional support, officials indicate

that it may be difficult to mandate certain procedures by which all cases must be handled. 

Rather, there are themes that dictate the Victim Resource Center's approach to facilitating the

provision of victims' rights:

Acting as an Advocate for Victims.

Although Wisconsin statute currently describes the Victim Resource Center as a source for

mediation between victim and agency, officials perceive their role as providing an advocacy and

intervention service for all crime victims in the state. Victim Resource Center officials note

that a primary reason for the development of the office was to provide direct services at the

state level, and the opportunity to hear directly from victims affords them a more complete

understanding of the victim's perspective when a question arises about an agency's compliance

with victims' rights laws.

Defer to the Local Level First. 

According to the Victim Resource Center's annual program report, it has been the practice of the

office to rely heavily on local programs in addressing the concerns of victims and encourage

victims to defer to local officials for ongoing information and support as a means to remedy a

problem. In providing direct victim services, a common practice is to assess the victim's needs

before making a referral to assure that the suggested contact agency is the most appropriate.

Collaborative Approach 

to Enforcement. 

Victim Resource Center officials have adopted a collaborative tone in handling their relations

with county criminal justice providers. Officials indicate that they prefer to work subtly with

county officials and have developed an understanding of the proficiency and dedication of the

individuals charged with providing victims' services in many Wisconsin counties. This approach

has been effective, observers note, by allowing the Victim Resource Center to affect change in

a professional manner that facilitates collaboration and cooperation among criminal justice

providers.

Currently, the Victim Resource Center tracks statistical information by crime type and category

of service provided. Officials indicate that they document all new contacts coming into the

office. The number and nature of the calls received by the Victim Resource Center reflect the

broad scope of its responsibilities to provide services, including crisis counseling and victims' 

rights oversight services, to the citizens of Wisconsin - from July 1995 to June 1996, over 1,000

calls statewide were fielded by the Victim Resource Center staff. Because the Victim Resource

Center shares a toll free number with the crime victim compensation program, many of the

calls received are related to compensation questions.

Individuals involved in the criminal justice and victims' services profession in Wisconsin are

largely supportive of the existence of the oversight function of the Victim Resource Center and

of the nonbureaucratic and informal method with which officials are able to aid victims while

working collaboratively with criminal justice practitioners. Another benefit of the Victim

Resource Center cited by participants and observers is its affiliation with the DOJ and the

leadership that the attorney general and OCVS officials bring to the issue of victims' rights. 

Officials cite room for improving the process, however. Although a primary charge of the

Victim Resource Center is to provide information about crime victims' rights and services, there

is concern that victims in some areas of the state are not receiving information about the rights
and services to which they are entitled under Wisconsin law and the availability of the Victim

Resource Center to help them exercise those rights.

At the time of this writing, the Wisconsin legislature is debating an initiative that would create a

body to prescribe remedies for violating victims' rights laws. The measure - enabling legislation

for Wisconsin's 1993 victims' rights constitutional amendment - would create a crime victims'

rights board to review complaints made to the Victim Resource Center after its officials have

completed their investigation. In the version of the bill being discussed currently, remedies this

board could invoke include: issuing private or public reprimand of public officials or agencies;

referring violations by judges to the judicial oversight commission; seeking appropriate

equitable relief on behalf of the victim; or bringing civil suit to assess a forfeiture of no more

than $1,000 if an agency is found to have intentionally violated a victim's rights.

Most criminal justice practitioners, victims' advocates, and DOJ officials emphasize that the

pending enabling legislation will clarify and further define victims' rights and services, allowing

them to achieve a higher, more sophisticated level. Although the executive director of the 

Victim Resource Center is hopeful she can maintain her role as troubleshooter, affecting change

in a quiet and nonbureaucratic way, she and other OCVS officials welcome the enabling

legislation as a means to formalize the provision of victims' rights and services in the state.

Suggestions for Replication 

The creation of a victims' rights compliance enforcement function affords state policymakers

and administrators an opportunity to review and reassess the status of victims' rights

implementation, as well as the current delivery of victims' services in the state. 

An analysis of this sort may allow officials to assess how a compliance enforcement mechanism

will interrelate with current service delivery systems.

When state officials begin planning victims' rights compliance enforcement mechanisms, they 

may want to consider the following:

* which agency, individual, or body will accept accountability for the compliance effort;

* what type of system - a strong state presence or a decentralized board or committee-driven

structure - will work most effectively within the current political context of the state;

* what will be the role and support of other groups active on victims' issues, including various

state and local victims' advocacy groups and victims' service providers, 

as well as criminal justice practitioners who have been active in incorporating the concerns of

victims in their daily practice;

* whether it is appropriate or viable to create remedies for agency violation of victims' rights 

laws, to identify the scope and circumstances that would trigger remedies, whom and/or what

may prescribe them, and if changes to current constitutional and/or statutory language are

necessary to reflect these remedies;

* whether the creation of a victims' rights compliance system is viable under current budget

constraints;

* what, if any, alternative functions and responsibilities a victims' rights compliance program 

should undertake, such as providing direct counseling to victims or training and technical

assistance to promote victims' rights outreach and education; and

* how evaluation tools and techniques can be built into the liaison program successfully.
INTRODUCTION

Although victims’ rights traditionally have not

been a component of criminal justice systems —

where the proceedings pit the defendant against

the state — the creation of state constitutional

amendments and the enactment of state and federal

legislation in recent years have afforded crime victims

certain protections under criminal law. The new

legal status of victims in the criminal justice process

mandates that the day-to-day practice of criminal

justice officials be modified to include a place in

the system for crime victims.

In the early 1980’s, individuals dedicated to creating

a place in the criminal justice process for crime

victims called on states and their systems of justice —

along with other agencies and institutions — to take

responsibility for addressing systematically the needs

and concerns of crime victims. In 1980, for example,

the American Bar Association (ABA), in a criminal

justice improvement manual for state and local bar

associations, recognized the roles of the legal

profession and the state in modifying criminal justice

systems to include concerns and issues faced by

victims. In the ABA report, titled Bar Leadership

on Victim Witness Assistance, the authors recognized

that:

By tolerating shabby and indifferent treatment

for crime victims and witnesses, the legal

profession has contributed to the problem.

It is time for the profession to contribute to

a solution. Indeed, real and long-lasting

reform in the legal system’s overall approach

to victims and witnesses can be effected if and

only if the nation’s lawyers — through the

organized bar — become involved.1

Further, the report recognized the role of the

state in restructuring criminal justice systems to

accommodate the needs of crime victims. The authors

recommended that lawyers, through their state bar

associations, “encourage major state criminal justice

institutions and other governmental agencies to

participate in a planned and coordinated attack upon a

host of practices which have historically complicated

the passage of crime victims and witnesses through

the criminal justice system.”2

This perspective was reiterated by the findings of

former President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims

of Crime, which were published in 1982. The task

force, composed of various state and local criminal

justice officials, members of the legal profession,

and victims’ advocates, recommended that state

policymakers amend existing statutes to include

provisions to: protect private information about

victims of crime; notify victims of criminal

proceedings and parole hearings and open to victims

these proceedings; and expand services available to

citizens after their victimization.3

 Further, the task

force findings recognized the need for systemic

change in the administration of justice on both

the state and local levels. It made extensive

recommendations for law enforcement, prosecutors,

the judiciary, and parole officers to broaden their

scope of responsibility to include the concerns and

needs of victims in their day-to-day work.4

STATUS OF

CURRENT STATE LAW

Currently, defining who is

responsible for providing protections

to victims is left up to each state.

All states have created provisions

that extend to victims of crime the

right to be notified of or participate

in criminal proceedings, or to make

a statement at sentencing concerning

the impact of the crime on their lives.

Further, the citizens of 29 states

have voted to amend their state

constitutions to provide for victims’

rights. In 1996 alone eight states —

Connecticut, Indiana, Nevada,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,

South Carolina, and Virginia —

passed constitutional amendments

guaranteeing victims’ rights. The

average margin of passage was

80 percent in favor of the proposals.5

It appears evident that the trend to

expand the statutory rights of victims

on the state level is continuing as

well. According to an analysis of

VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 1

1AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, BAR

LEADERSHIP ON VICTIM WITNESS ASSISTANCE:

A CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT MANUAL

FOR STATE AND LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS, 3

(1980).

2 Id. at p. 7.

3PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON VICTIMS OF

CRIME: FINAL REPORT, pps. 17–18 (Dec.

1982), [hereinafter PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE].

4 Id.

5MEMORANDUM FROM JIM TURPIN,

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, TO

ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Nov. 11, 1996 (on file with author).
2 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

criminal justice-related legislation

enacted by state legislatures during

the 1996 legislative sessions across

the country, the National Conference

of State Legislatures (NCSL) has

documented at least 15 states that

have expanded statutorily the

protections afforded to victims of

crime.6

 For example, the state of

Vermont has enacted legislation to

provide for victims’ assistance and

to allow victims to be notified of and

participate in criminal proceedings

against both adult and juvenile

offenders. Six other states in 1996 —

Iowa, Kansas, Maine, South Dakota,

Tennessee, and Washington —

enacted laws to allow judges to order

restitution to victims as a part of an

offender’s sentence. Other initiatives,

for example, a new law in Florida,

require agency officials to develop

guidelines for victim notification of

the release from custody of certain

juvenile offenders from secure

facilities. A similar measure enacted

in Kentucky requires the Department

of Corrections to manage a system to

notify victims of an offender’s release

from secure adult facilities.

Ongoing research is comparing

systematically state laws that extend

rights to crime victims. The National

Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research

and evaluation arm of the U. S.

Department of Justice, is working

with the National Victim Center

(NVC) to analyze the implementation

of statutory and constitutional rights

for victims of crime. According to

information provided by the NVC, a

significant component of the project

is to undertake a comprehensive

statutory analysis of victims’ rights

in four areas: the right to be notified,

present, and heard at criminal

proceedings, and to receive restitution

from the offender.7

At the time of this writing, members

of the Congress are debating the

creation of a federal victims’ rights

constitutional amendment to provide

a minimum standard for victims’

rights with which federal, state, and

local criminal justice officials would

have to comply. Included in the

current proposal are provisions

that would require that victims be

extended the following protections:

• participation in public

proceedings, including the right to

be heard and submit a written

statement;

• notification of an offender’s

release or escape from custody;

• relief from unreasonable delay in

court proceedings;

• receipt of restitution from the

offender;

• consideration of their safety when

determining an offender’s release

from custody; and

• notification of their rights under

the amendment.8

VICTIM SATISFACTION

Assuring that victims are provided

their constitutionally and statutorily

guaranteed rights has become a

growing concern for all those

involved in the administration

of justice. A component of the

NIJ/NVC research is to survey

crime victims about their satisfaction

with the provision of victims’

services in the state in which they

were victimized. Researchers also

plan to interview local criminal

justice and victim service professionals,

and state policymakers in four

representative states to gain a more

thorough perspective of their

challenges and successes in

providing rights to victims.9

Preliminary findings of the research

focus on crime victims’ responses

concerning their experiences with

the criminal justice system. The

NVC staff surveyed more than

1,300 crime victims in four states

to participate, and achieved an

83-percent response rate. The

project staff chose the states by

first ranking all 50 states based on

the statutory and constitutional

protections for crime victims’ they

had created. They then selected two

of the states that scored in the top

25 percent of all states for the

provision of victims’ rights, which

were considered “strong” states, and

two states from the bottom 25 percent

of the survey.10

Generally speaking, the results of

the survey demonstrate a consistent

correlation between strong victims’

rights laws and victims’ satisfaction

and perception of the provision of

victims’ rights. In other words,

victims in states with extensive

statutory protections for victims

rights, and/or a state constitutional

amendment guaranteeing victims’

rights, are much more likely to report

that they had been afforded their

rights in most of the four issue areas

the report addressed. The results

also indicate, however, that victims

in all states are still often denied their

6 DONNA LYONS, ET AL., STATE ANTI-CRIME

LEGISLATION IN 1996, STATE LEGISLATIVE

REPORT, 14 (Dec. 1996).

7 NATIONAL VICTIM CENTER, STATUTORY AND

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF VICTIMS’

RIGHTS: IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT ON

CRIME VICTIMS: SUB-REPORT ON CRIME VICTIM

RESPONSES REGARDING VICTIMS’ RIGHTS,

April 15, 1997, p.1 [hereinafter NATIONAL

VICTIM CENTER].

8 S.J.R. 6, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997).

 9NATIONAL VICTIM CENTER, supra note 7.

10NATIONAL VICTIM CENTER, supra note 7.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 3

rights.11 According to the project

staff, preliminary results of the

interviews with criminal justice

officials and victims’ service

providers corroborate the results

of the victims’ interviews — large

numbers of victims, despite the

significance of their states’ laws,

are not always provided their

legal rights.12

RECOURSE FOR

VICTIMS

As more states create statutory

provisions for victims of crime, and

victims become aware that they are

entitled to certain rights under state

law, many are taking proactive

steps to seek redress when they

perceive that these protections have

been denied. The body of case law

from state and federal courts relating

to victims’ rights violations is

growing, although the decisions are

reflective of the differences in state

law. Because of these differences,

it is difficult to estimate the success

or failure of victims’ rights laws and

constitutional amendments in the

courts. Generally speaking, however,

courts have held that victims do

not have standing to challenge the

sentences of the offenders, and victims

have been largely unsuccessful

in suing the state for redress.13 This

may change if a federal constitutional

amendment or legislation guaranteeing

victims’ rights is passed.

In light of the difficulty and expense

of obtaining recourse through civil

litigation, some states have developed

mechanisms by which victims may

seek recourse from the state when

they perceive that they have been

denied their rights. For example,

victims of crime in Colorado are

able to file complaints with the

state’s Victims’ Compensation and

Assistance Coordinating Committee

when they feel that they have been

denied an opportunity to exercise

their rights. Wisconsin’s Department

of Justice, Office of Crime Victims’

Services provides a similar function

through the Victim Resource Center,

which may mediate complaints

brought by victims, or act as a liaison

between victims and state and local

criminal justice agencies. The state

of Minnesota has appointed a crime

victims’ ombudsman to advocate for

fairness and impartiality for victims

seeking services from the state.

The ombudsman’s office retains

the power to investigate victims’

claims of unlawful or inappropriate

action on the part of criminal justice

and victims’ services providers.

It is the purpose of this report,

Victims’ Rights Compliance Efforts:

Experiences in Three States,

to analyze the victims’ rights

compliance enforcement mechanisms

in Colorado, Minnesota, and

Wisconsin. An Executive Summary

provides a brief introduction to

each state’s program, and contrasts

programmatic features as well as

challenges faced by officials in

attempting to enforce victims’ rights.

Three chapters highlighting the

programs in each state follow. Each

chapter is an in-depth case study that

discusses a state’s victims’ rights

compliance enforcement initiatives.

The report addresses all aspects of

the three states’ victims’ rights

compliance enforcement functions

— from initiation and program

development to evaluation and

impact analysis, when one had been

completed. Further, the project staff

tried to elicit, wherever possible,

broader perspectives on the political,

fiscal, and social context in which the

programs were being implemented.

The final chapter, titled

“Observations and Themes,”

examines common themes

experienced by state officials in

enforcing victims’ rights, and offers

recommendations for program

duplication for officials in other

states who plan to establish victims’

rights compliance programs.

METHODOLOGY, USES,

AND LIMITATIONS

The National Criminal Justice

Association (NCJA) staff used a

variety of data collection techniques

to gather information about state

programs. The project staff

conducted an in-depth analysis of

each of the three states’ victims’

rights laws and constitutions to gain

a comprehensive understanding of

the scope of the protections afforded

to victims. The staff also reviewed

existing program documentation

disseminated by officials in each state

to better understand the programs’

goals, objectives, policies, and

procedures.

The project staff conducted in-depth

interviews with officials charged

with implementing the compliance

enforcement function, as well as

victims’ advocates and state and local

criminal justice practitioners, when

possible. Interviews with these

individuals sought information on

the development and expansion of

the compliance enforcement process

since its inception; factors that

impede or facilitate both the

provision and enforcement of

victims’ rights; any evaluation efforts

— whether systematic or ad hoc —

to determine if and how crime

victims and the criminal justice

system are responding to the

compliance enforcement function;

and how the provision and

11NATIONAL VICTIM CENTER, supra note 7.

12NATIONAL VICTIM CENTER, supra note 7, p. 7.

13Alex Daniels, Realigning Victims’ Rights,

GOVERNING, p. 44 (Dec. 1995).
4 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

enforcement of victims’ rights

could be improved in the future.

This report is designed for

state-level decisionmakers concerned

with the provision and enforcement

of victims’ rights, and should be

viewed as a tool for lawmakers and

policymakers who are searching for

ways to help improve the provision

of victims’ rights in their states.

This report is not a scientific

evaluation of the victims’ rights

compliance enforcement programs in

the three states, and does not seek to

rank or make comparative judgments

about their efficacy. The social and

political contexts of the three states

chosen for analysis are unique and

would preclude a comparison or

rating of this sort among programs.

Rather, the report seeks to document

the experiences and challenges faced

by state criminal justice systems in

providing and enforcing victims’

rights; identify common themes that

enhance and impede the compliance

enforcement process; and suggest

general models and cautions for

program replication.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 5

responsibilities of criminal justice practitioners in

providing victims’ protections under Colorado law.

The committee structure relies significantly upon

staff support from the Colorado Department of Public

Safety, Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ). Staff

members field inquiries from victims concerning the

VRA, compile information from both victims and

parties alleged to have violated a victim’s rights, and

review formal complaints for noncompliance before

they are presented to the subcommittee. In addition,

one of the most important roles of DCJ staff in the

process is to set the appropriate expectation for what

victims can and cannot receive through the VRA and

the compliance enforcement process.

The subcommittee and the full coordinating committee

have the power to investigate VRA violations, and

are able to recommend action with which the agency

must comply to rectify victims’ complaints. The

subcommittee and full coordinating committee also

may monitor the implementation of those suggestions.

When identified agencies do not comply with the

coordinating committee’s directives, the matter may

be referred to the governor and/or the attorney general

for review.

In approaching the future, those involved with

victims’ rights compliance in Colorado indicate that

they view the process as evolutionary, and will

continue to modify existing procedures when the

current structure does not adequately meet the needs

of victims.

COLORADO

Today most state-level programs and policies in

Colorado are designed to give great deference to

local level decisionmakers, resulting from a history of

shaky relations between state and local governments

dating back to the early years of the state’s history.

The General Assembly had this deference in mind

when it gave the Colorado Victims Compensation and

Assistance Coordinating Committee (coordinating

committee), oversight responsibilities in reviewing

complaints from crime victims who allege that their

statutory and constitutional rights under state law have

not been met. The committee structure ensures that

crime victims in the state are afforded their rights by

deferring to local government agencies to enforce

compliance with the state’s Victims’ Rights Act

(VRA), the enabling legislation for the constitutional

amendment.14 The coordinating committee, and its

Victims’ Rights Act Subcommittee (subcommittee)

are composed of volunteer professionals from the

law enforcement, legal, social service, and

victims’ communities.

Complaints brought before the VRA subcommittee

and the full committee must be violations of a victim’s

rights under the state constitutional amendment. The

enabling legislation that accompanied the amendment

in 1992 — the VRA — defines specific crimes for

which victims are afforded constitutional rights, the

stages of the criminal justice process about which they

will be informed and may be present, and the

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

AND PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT

Colorado law pertaining to victims’

rights reflects the decentralized

nature of service delivery in the

state. A complex committee and

subcommittee structure, along

with several local boards, oversee

compliance with state victims’

compensation laws, funding for

victims’ assistance programs, and

victims’ rights compliance without an

obtrusive, or “big brotherish”

presence, according to state

officials.15

A series of legislative initiatives were

enacted throughout the 1980’s that

acknowledged the needs of crime

victims, although it was not until

after the passage of the state

constitutional amendment and the

VRA that victims of crime in

Colorado were afforded enforceable

rights under state law.

14VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE

COORDINATING COMMITTEE, INTERIM

EMERGENCY PROCEDURES III, Dec. 3, 1996

[hereinafter PROCEDURES].

15Interview with Nancy Feldman, Planning

and Grants Specialist, Office for Victims’

Programs, Colorado Department of Public

Safety, Feb. 18, 1997 [hereinafter Feldman

Interview].
In 1981, the state created a crime

victims’ compensation system, one of

only two decentralized state programs

in the United States. The program

allows victims to be compensated

for personal and economic losses

up to $10,000, unless the board

unanimously agrees that the victim’s

circumstances are catastrophic. In

those situations, it may pay damages

to the victim or dependents of up

to $15,000.16 The compensation

program is administered by the

district attorney’s office in each of

the state’s 22 judicial districts, with

claim review and decisionmaking

facilitated by a board of volunteers.

A three-member citizen board,

appointed by the district attorney

and mandated by state statute, is

authorized to determine claim

eligibility and approve program

payments.17

Victims are eligible for compensation

if they can demonstrate that their

claim is reliable and they have

“cooperated fully with law

enforcement officials in the

apprehension and prosecution of the

assailant, or the board has found good

reason exists for the failure to

cooperate.”18 Victims whose requests

are fully or partially denied may

request the board reconsider their

claim, and have the right to present

new information. If the board

maintains its original decision, the

victim has the statutory right to

appeal the board’s decision in district

court.19

The compensation program is funded

primarily through state criminal

assessments collected within the

judicial district, and in part from

federal moneys to help compensate

victims of crime. In deference to the

tradition of local jurisdiction,

assessments collected within a district

remain within that district to assist

local crime victims.20

In 1984, the U.S. Congress passed

the federal Victims of Crime Act

(VOCA),21 which established baseline

funding mechanisms for victim

assistance programs. In that same

year, the Colorado legislature

augmented the new VOCA assistance

by creating the Victim Assistance and

Law Enforcement (VALE) Program,

a funding mechanism that uses nongeneral fund moneys to support

victims’ services programs.

The VALE program authorizes

the collection of fees collected in

each judicial district for certain

criminal dispositions to support

implementation and coordination

of victims’ assistance services at the

state and local levels.22 At the local

level, the VALE enabling legislation,

the Assistance to Victims of and

Witnesses to Crimes and Aid to

Law Enforcement Act,23 created a

five-person victims’ and witnesses’

assistance and law enforcement

board in each of the state’s 22 judicial

districts, appointed by the chief judge

of the district. The function of these

local boards is to administer the

victims’ and witnesses’ assistance

and law enforcement fund, which

1981 1984 1990 1992

Creation of Creation VOCA Oversight Passage of the Victims’

Victims’ Compensation of the Victims’ Bill Committee becomes the Rights Constitutional

Program of Rights; the Victims’ Compensation Amendment and its

Victim Assistance and and Assistance Coordinating enabling legislation,

Law Enforcement Act Committee — to oversee the Victims’ Rights Act

(VALE) to provide VALE and Victims’

funding for victim Compensation programs in

assistance programs; addition to overseeing the

and the creation of the allocation of VOCA money

Victims of Crime Act

(VOCA) Oversight

Committee

16OFFICE FOR VICTIMS PROGRAMS, 1994–1995

ANNUAL REPORT, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

MARCH 1, 1996 [hereinafter ANNUAL REPORT].

17Interview with Bob Bush, Victim

Compensation Coordinator, Colorado

Department of Public Safety, Feb. 18, 1997

[hereinafter Bush Interview].

18COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 244.1–109 (West

Supp. 1996).

19Bush Interview, supra note 17.

20Bush Interview, supra note 17.

2142 U.S.C. § § 10601–10604.

22ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 16.

23COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.2–101

(West Supp. 1996).

▲

▲

6 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES
consists of moneys paid as a

surcharge levied on all criminal and

traffic fines.24 The state VALE

program — funded by 11.7 percent

of the criminal assessments collected

in each judicial district — helps

support victims’ programs within the

DCJ and grants to statewide victims’

services organizations.25

Colorado law requires that most of

the fund’s allocation — not less than

85 percent — be used to support

victims’ and witnesses’ services

programs, including those that

provide services for early crisis

intervention; educate victims and

witnesses of crime about the

operation of the criminal justice

system; intercede with the employers

or creditors of victims or witnesses;

provide counseling or assistance

during court appearances; protect

victims from threats of harm; and

develop and manage special advocate

services. The remaining funds may

be allocated to police departments,

sheriffs’ departments, and district

attorneys for specific programs that

serve victims, such as victim

assistance training, or additional

personnel to assist victims in crisis.

This remaining allocation may not be

used, however, for routine operating

expenses.26

Also in 1984, the Colorado General

Assembly passed the Victims’ Bill

of Rights, acknowledging that the

criminal justice system had a

responsibility to extend to victims

and their families various protections

and services. Although the language

of the law encouraged criminal

justice agencies and officials to

address the concerns of victims in

their day-to-day practice, it did not

define clearly which agency or

officials were responsible for

providing specific rights. Further,

the legislative declaration emphasized

the importance of the victims’ role

in preserving the integrity of the

criminal justice system rather than

on the inherent notion that innocent

victims deserve to be treated with

respect.

The general assembly hereby

finds and declares that the full

and voluntary cooperation of

victims of and witnesses to

crimes with state and local

law enforcement agencies as

to such crimes is imperative

for the general effectiveness

and well-being of the criminal

justice system of this state.

It is the intent of part 3,

therefore, to assure that all

victims of and witnesses to

crimes are honored and

protected by law enforcement

agencies, prosecutors, and

judges in a manner no less

vigorous than the protections

afforded criminal defendants.27

Finally, in 1990, the Colorado

legislature created the coordinating

committee to approve standards

for the administration of the Crime

Victim Compensation Fund and

the Victim and Witness Assistance

and Law Enforcement Fund. The

coordinating committee, whose

membership is appointed by the

governor, both establishes standards

for the distribution of victims’

compensation and VALE funds,

and may impose sanctions for the

violation of those standards.28

A statutorily-created standards

subcommittee acts in an advisory

capacity to the coordinating

committee. The standards

subcommittee recommends to the

full coordinating committee standards

by which the boards should operate.

The standards subcommittee must be

composed of the following members:

a member of a crime victims’

compensation board; a member

of a local victims’ and witnesses’

assistance and law enforcement

board; a representative of a local

judicial district; an administrator of

crime victim compensation in a

district attorney’s office; a judge;

an elected district attorney; and a

representative of a statewide victims’

organization.29

The Victims Rights Act and

Constitutional Amendment

With the infrastructure of the

victims’ compensation program, the

state and local VALE programs, and

the coordinating committee and

standards subcommittee in place,

victims’ rights advocates in the late

1980’s campaigned to pass a state

constitutional amendment to provide

victims enforceable rights. It was

felt by many victims’ advocates

and public officials that the “rights”

established with the Victims’ Bill

of Rights in 1984 were merely

suggestions of ways that the

criminal justice system could be

24COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 24–4.2–103, 104

(West Supp. 1996).

25ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 16.

26COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.2–105 (West

Supp. 1996). The 85 percent required to be

spent on victims and witnesses services

represents 85 percent of the net aggregate

fund remaining after administrative costs

(13 percent of the funds can be spent by

district attorneys’ administrative costs).

27COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.1–303

(West 1989).

28COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.1–117.5

(West Supp. 1996).

29COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.1–117.5

(West Supp. 1996).

VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 7
8 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

more responsive to crime victims,

and could be superseded by the

constitutional rights of a defendant.30

One crucial factor that led to the

passage of the victims’ rights

constitutional amendment in

Colorado were the findings of

President Reagan’s Task Force on

Victims of Crime. Charged with

developing recommendations to make

the voices of victims heard in the

criminal justice process, the task

force represented the first time that

a president addressed formally the

notion of victims’ rights, and the

challenge inherent in “stopping

the mistreatment and neglect of the

innocent by those who take liberty

for license and by the system of

justice itself.”31

The task force proposed numerous

changes to the state and federal

systems of criminal justice, and

outlined roles that other agencies —

hospitals, the legal bar, and schools

— could undertake to enhance the

awareness of victimization.

Moreover, the task force findings

proposed an amendment to the U.S.

Constitution to allow victims to

be present and heard at all critical

stages of judicial proceedings.32

Those advocating for victims’

rights at the time realized that in

order for an amendment to the U.S.

Constitution to be credible, they

would have to get states to change

their laws to provide victims more

equal legal standing. Much of the

effort at this time was targeted at the

victims’ movement in Florida, the

first state to amend its constitution to

include a victims’ rights provisions.

Victims’ advocates in Colorado

watched closely the events

transpiring in Florida. Home

of strong victims’ assistance

organizations like the Colorado

Organization for Victim Assistance

(COVA) and the National Victims’

Constitutional Amendment Network

(NVCAN), a movement toward

amending the Colorado constitution

to provide for victims’ rights ensued.

Individuals active in the effort in

Colorado felt strongly that the

united public front, similar to the

one presented in Florida, would be

necessary for a successful effort.

As a result, the COVA, NVCAN,

and other groups and policymakers

concerned with victims’ rights

convened a resource group of

50 individuals statewide who

represented criminal justice

practitioners throughout Colorado,

including trial lawyers, public

defenders, and representatives from

the American Civil Liberties Union.

The interests of prosecutors were

represented as well; a district

attorney and a crime victim served

as co-chairs of the resource group.33

Resource group members spent a

significant amount of time debating

the language of the amendment,

but agreed that it was critical to have

all parties at the table during the

discussion to encourage support for

the measure from those who initially

may have been opposed to the

amendment. According to the

chairperson from NVCAN, by

inviting individuals to the table that

represented interests that ordinarily

may have opposed a victims’ rights

constitutional amendment, the

resource group did a tremendous

job of collaborating on language

and assessing the impact of the

amendment on the criminal justice

process as a whole.34

The resource group also acted on

an aggressive and public time line.

The group presented publicly a

victims’ rights resolution on the

commencement of Victims’ Rights

Week in April 1992, having solicited

the states’ district attorneys’

endorsement the week before.

To become law, the effort needed

either a two-thirds vote to pass in

both chambers of the General

Assembly, or to be placed on the

ballot to be voted on by the electorate

in November of that year.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY RIGHTS

OF CRIME VICTIMS

IN COLORADO

During the November 1992 elections,

81 percent of Colorado voters

supported the victims’ rights

amendment. The Colorado state

constitution now provides that:

Any person who is a victim of

a criminal act or such person’s

designee, legal guardian, or

surviving immediate family

members if such person is

deceased, shall have the right

to be heard when relevant,

informed and present at all

critical stages of the criminal

30Interview with Bob Preston, Chairperson,

Victims’ Constitutional Amendment

Network, Feb. 18, 1997 [hereinafter Preston

Interview].

31PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE, supra note 3.

32PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE, supra note 3.

33Interview with Mary McGhee, manager of

special projects, Colorado Department of

Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice,

Feb. 18, 1997 [hereinafter McGhee

Interview]. 34Preston Interview, supra note 30.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 9

justice process. All

terminology, including the

term “critical stages,” shall

be defined by the General

Assembly.35

Policymakers and those advocating

for the passage of the victims’ rights

amendment in Colorado generally

thought that the amendment itself

should be succinct, with the detail

of what rights were to be afforded

victims best defined by statute and

enacted by the General Assembly.

Thus, the enabling legislation that

accompanied the amendment in 1992

— the VRA — describes in detail the

rights of victims in the state. The

series of bills was introduced and

moved through the legislature with

ease, likely due to the effective

coalition-building and strong

public support for the victims’

rights effort.36

The VRA defines specific crimes

for which victims are afforded

constitutional rights, the “critical

stages” of the criminal justice

process, and the duties and

responsibilities of those involved in

the administration of justice. Crimes

included under the purview of the

VRA include the following offenses:

murder; manslaughter; homicide;

assault and sexual assault; menacing;

kidnaping; robbery; incest; child

abuse; sexual exploitation of

children; crimes against at-risk

adults or juveniles; and crimes for

which the underlying factor is

domestic violence.37 If a victim

is deceased or incapacitated, these

rights may be exercised by the

victim’s immediate family, significant

other, or other lawful representative.38

The “critical stages” of the

criminal justice process set forth in

the constitutional amendment are

defined explicitly in the VRA and

subsequent amendments to include:

any of the trial proceedings, from the

filing of charges to any appellate

review; a hearing regarding

subsequent modification of a

sentence; parole application hearings;

hearings regarding discharge or

release from secure confinement;

parole revocation hearings; the

transfer to or placement of a person

convicted of a crime in a non-secured

facility; and the transfer, release, or

escape of a person charged with or

convicted of a crime from any state

hospital.39

The VRA and subsequent

amendments define precisely the

rights of crime victims in the state.

They include the right to:

• be treated with fairness, respect,

and dignity;

• information about what steps can

be taken by a victim if he is

subjected to intimidation or

harassment;

• information regarding the filing

of charges;

• notification of any change in the

status of the accused;

• make a victim impact statement;

• input into decisions regarding

plea bargains, sentencing, parole

hearings, restitution, or civil

remedies;

• release of property after a case

is settled and the property is no

longer needed as evidence;

• employer intercession;

• notification of all case

dispositions;

• timely notification of all court

dates; and

• instruction on community

resources and other information

that will assist recovery.40

Colorado law spells out the

responsibilities of agencies charged

with providing victims their rights

under the VRA. Law enforcement

agencies and district attorneys’

offices are responsible for providing

most victims’ rights, while other

information is available upon request

from state and local corrections

officials, state hospitals, and mental

health facilities. In the following

chart, responsibilities that are shared

by prosecutors and law enforcement

officials are indicated in italics.

35COLO. CONST. Art. II, § 16A (1992).

36McGhee Interview, supra note 33.

37COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.1–302

(West Supp. 1996).

38GOVERNOR’S VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION

AND ASSISTANCE COORDINATING COMMITTEE,

THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS IN COLORADO,

(1996) [hereinafter RIGHTS SUMMARY].

39Id. 40Id.
10 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

VRA Rights, By Agency41

Notification of Rights, Participation in the

Available Services Criminal Justice Process Other

Law Enforcement Give the following to the victim

in writing: statement of victims’

rights and information

concerning victims’

compensation, access to the

offender’s records, and the

availability of protective

services

Forward to the victim or his

family the business address of

the district attorney, the officer

investigating the case and the

case number.

Discuss with the victim the

availability of follow-up

support and victim assistance,

including information about

crisis intervention, legal

resources, mental health and

medical services, and services

for victims with special needs

Provide information

concerning: transportation

and household assistance

available to victims to

facilitate their participation

in the criminal proceeding;

translation services in

languages other than

English; child care services

for victims or victims’

families when they are

cooperating with the

prosecution of the defendant

Provide reasonable effort to

minimize contact between

the victim and the victim’s

family and the defendant

and the defendant’s family

Return property no longer

needed as evidence within

five days

Provide assistance dealing

with credit agencies if

financial setbacks have

occurred as a result of the

crime

District Attorneys’

Offices

Inform the victim of the filing of

charges and the time and

place of all “critical stages” of

the trial

If practicable, inform the victim

of any motion that would delay

substantially the prosecution,

and consult with the victim

concerning plea agreements,

diversion, and case dismissal

Inform the victim of the

defendant’s right to view a

victim impact statement and

presentence report

Notify the victim of the status

of the case if a defendant

seeks appellate review

Discuss with the victim the

availability of follow-up

support and victim assistance,

including information about

crisis intervention, legal

resources, mental health and

medical services, and services

for victims with special needs

The victim may be present

at all “critical stages” of the

trial, and may attend and

express an opinion at a

sentencing hearing

The victim may request to

submit, either orally or in

writing, a victim impact

statement during the

criminal proceedings

Provide information

concerning: transportation

and household assistance

available to victims to

facilitate their participation in

the criminal proceeding;

translation services in

languages other than

English; child care services

for victims or victims’

families when they are

cooperating with the

prosecution of the defendant

Provide reasonable effort to

minimize contact between

the victim and the victim’s

family and the defendant

and the defendant’s family

Return property no longer

needed as evidence within

five days

Provide assistance dealing

with credit agencies if

financial setbacks have

occurred as a result of the

crime

41COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.1–303 (West Supp. 1996).
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 11

Corrections

Officials,

Department of

Human Services,

State Hospital

Officials

The final provision of the VRA

mandates that the coordinating

committee shall review any report of

noncompliance, and may refer

legitimate noncompliance claims to

the governor if the complaint cannot

be resolved, who may request that the

attorney general file suit to enforce

compliance.42

COMPLIANCE

ENFORCEMENT —

PROGRAM AND PROCESS

Building on the existing coordinating

committee oversight structure, the

state established a compliance

enforcement process to enable

victims who believe that their VRA

rights have been denied to seek

recourse from the agencies they

believe to be in violation. As

indicated above, the coordinating

needs of crime victims in the state

while deferring to local control.

A theme that emerges in the approach

to victims’ rights compliance in

Colorado is that it is evolutionary —

those individuals involved in the

process are continually looking for

new ways to be more responsive to

the needs of crime victims.

Program Process

The DCJ staff acts as the first point

of contact for victims when they

have questions concerning their

rights under the VRA. The DCJ

staff initiates communication with

the agencies identified by victims

to either resolve the alleged

noncompliance with the VRA, or

access the necessary documentation

from all parties to file a formal

complaint.44

The role of the DCJ staff in the

compliance review process cannot be

understated. According to statistics

Notify victim at which

institution the offender is being

held; his projected date of

release; if and when he

participates in a work release/

furlough program; of parole

hearings and subsequent

confinement decisions;

transfer to a nonsecured

facility; and of his escape or

death

The victim may address

the parole board at parole

hearings

Victims must request in

writing to be provided the

participatory opportunities

and notification services

in this section (postconviction).

Keep confidential personal

information (name, address,

phone number) of the victim

VRA Rights, By Agency41

Notification of Rights, Participation in the

Available Services Criminal Justice Process Other

committee, established to oversee the

VALE and victims’ compensation

programs, also retains the authority to

impose requirements on various state

and local agencies for any proven

violations of a victims’ rights.

The goal of the coordinating

committee with respect to victims’

rights compliance is to provide an

unbiased assessment of whether a

victim has been afforded his rights

under state law. It is the role of the

coordinating committee, according to

its procedures, “to act as an impartial

fact finding and disseminating entity.

The coordinating committee is

committed to follow[ing] all

complaints to resolution and to

engage in a process that is accurate,

thorough, and responsive to crime

victims and to the citizens of

Colorado.”43

Although the VRA and constitutional

amendment have been effective only

since January of 1993, there have

been several modifications to the

complaint review procedure in an

effort to meet most effectively the 41COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.1–303

(West Supp. 1996).

42COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24–4.1–303

(West Supp. 1996). 43PROCEDURES, supra note 14.

44COLORADO VICTIM COMPENSATION AND

ASSISTANCE COORDINATING COMMITTEE,

VICTIMS RIGHTS AMENDMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

BY-LAWS, n.d. [hereinafter BY-LAWS].
12 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

compiled by the DCJ, 31 of 40

inquiries to the agency in 1996 were

resolved by DCJ staff intervention,

precluding the filing of a formal

report. In the four years that the DCJ

has been reviewing complaints, the

staff has been able to resolve many of

them before they enter the committee

and subcommittee review process.

According to an article in

Connections, the tri-yearly

publication of the DCJ Office for

Victims Programs:

As the subcommittee and DCJ

staff handle more of these cases,

they have gained a better

understanding and have been

able to simplify the process.

Through evolution, we have

found that a majority of

inquiries can be resolved at the

staff level. Part of the response

to any inquiry is to give the

complainant the option to

work with a DCJ staff person

to attempt to resolve the

issue to the satisfaction of all

the parties. Most of the time,

this option is utilized. The

agency that has been identified

by the victim as not providing a

certain right(s) is contacted to

try to work out a satisfactory

resolution. However, the

victim always has the right

to file a formal Request for

Compliance.45

Another primary responsibility of

the DCJ staff is to set the appropriate

expectations for what victims may

get back from the process. Too often,

according to DCJ officials, victims

have concerns that fall outside of

what rights or benefits the VRA

extends to the citizens of Colorado,

and therefore what types of

participatory and notification rights

the committee structure can enforce.46

To activate the compliance

enforcement process, a victim must

provide information on the nature

of the crime committed against him,

as well as a brief summary of the

constitutional right the victim

believes he has been denied.47

The information — provided on

a standard form — is reviewed by

the DCJ staff to determine if the

complaint falls within the purview

of the VRA. If so, the subcommittee

will send to the agencies identified

by the victim the appropriate

information concerning the

complaint. If DCJ staff is uncertain

whether the complaint falls within the

purview of the act, the information

provided by the victim will be

reviewed by subcommittee.48

Victims may bring a complaint before

the subcommittee and coordinating

committee only after the matter has

been pursued at the local level and

remains unresolved. However, some

victims are apprehensive about

reporting VRA violations by law

enforcement officials and prosecutors

due to fears of intimidation or their

need to rely on those agencies for

information concerning their case.

As a result, the DCJ staff maintains

some flexibility when assessing a

victim’s effort to resolve their

complaints at the local level.49

The subcommittee serves in

an advisory capacity to the

coordinating committee in

evaluating complaints brought by

victims. The subcommittee meets

monthly, and is responsible for:

• reviewing reports of

noncompliance to determine if

there is a basis in fact;

• conducting hearings when

appropriate to determine if there

is a basis in fact to the complaint;

• establishing findings and

conditions to resolve the

complaint if the identified agency

is not in compliance with the

Victims Rights Act; and

• referring any appeals of the

subcommittee’s decisions to the

coordinating committee.50

If the subcommittee finds that a

complaint falls within the purview

of the VRA, it notifies the identified

parties, forwards to them the

documents relevant to the complaint,

and asks for a written response to

the alleged violations. According

to the procedures governing the

subcommittee, a response is required

from agencies identified by the victim

within 45 calendar days after the DCJ

has mailed the initial notification.51

The complainant then has an

opportunity to comment on the

response of the agency before it is

reviewed by the subcommittee.

The DCJ staff sends a copy of the

complainant’s comments to the

agency, but it does not have another

opportunity to respond to those

comments before the complaint is

reviewed by the subcommittee.52

Once the agency response is received

and reviewed, it is forwarded to the

subcommittee within 45 calendar

days. The DCJ staff sends to the

complainant and the identified

agencies information concerning the

date, time, place, and format of the

45Colorado Division of Criminal Justice,

Victim Rights: Does It Make a Difference?,

CONNECTIONS, Feb. 1997, 9 [hereinafter

CONNECTIONS].

46Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

47RIGHTS SUMMARY, supra note 38.

48BY-LAWS, supra note 44.

49Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

50BY-LAWS, supra note 44.

51PROCEDURES, supra note 14.

52Feldman Interview, supra note 15.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 13

review. If no response is received by

the subcommittee from the agency,

the complaint review process still

goes forward.53

The subcommittee findings are

mailed within 45 days to the

complainant and all identified

agencies, along with a notice of the

right to request an appeal when the

complaint falls within the purview of

the VRA. The subsequent steps taken

are based upon the subcommittee

findings:

✦ Subcommittee finds that

the complaint does not

have a basis in fact.

If the subcommittee finds that the

complaint does not have a basis

in fact, and the complainant does

not appeal, the case is closed. If

the victim maintains that his rights

were indeed violated, he may

appeal to the full coordinating

committee to review the

complaint.54

If the coordinating committee

decides to hear an appeal, it

will review the complaint and

provide written findings to the

complainant, identified agencies,

and subcommittee chairperson

within 45 days of the filing of

the appeal. If a complainant is

successful on appeal, in whole

or in part, the agency found to

have violated the victims’ rights

must comply with the conditions

set forth by the coordinating

committee, including notifying

the subcommittee of how

it plans to rectify the violation.

The notification must be approved

by the coordinating committee.55

✦ Subcommittee finds that

the complaint does have

a basis in fact.

If the subcommittee finds that the

victim’s complaint is based in fact,

it will set forth directives with

which the agencies identified to

have violated the victims’ rights

must comply. The subcommittee

then asks the identified agencies

to outline the steps that will be

undertaken to rectify the violation.

The subcommittee may accept the

proposed plan or ask for revisions.

Once the subcommittee has

accepted a plan, the case is closed.

If, however, a plan is not agreed

upon, the case may be referred to

the full coordinating committee

for review.56

An agency may also request an

appeal to the full coordinating

committee within 21 days of the

subcommittee decision. As

indicated above, when the

coordinating committee decides to

hear an appeal, all parties must

receive notification of the review.

If the coordinating committee

upholds the subcommittee’s

decision, the complaint is returned

to the subcommittee to monitor

compliance. The case is closed

when written notification of

compliance is submitted to the

subcommittee.57

All coordinating committee and

subcommittee meetings are bound by

the Colorado Open Meeting Law.

If the identified agencies do not

comply with the coordinating

committee’s directives and all other

attempts at resolution have failed, the

case is referred to the governor’s

office. A formal written request is

submitted to the governor’s office,

along with all written materials

collected over the course of the

committee process. The Colorado

attorney general, the identified

agencies, as well the complainant

will be advised of this referral.

Process Evolution

For the most part, cases are

resolved before they reach the full

coordinating committee, and at the

time of this writing, no case has been

referred to the governor or attorney

general to file suit to enforce

compliance with victims’ rights

laws. One example of a typical

case brought to the attention of

the subcommittee occurred when

a woman alleged her estranged

husband had assaulted her and had

broken into her home. Although she

had reported his behavior once to the

police the year before, the charges

were dropped. Despite her efforts

to contact county officials about the

status of the charges and the case

against her estranged husband,

the victim reported that she did

not receive relevant and timely

information from county officials.

After a second assault that she

initially did not report to the police

out of fear of retribution and a

violation of the restraining order

she placed against him, the victim

became concerned for the safety

and privacy of her and her young

daughter. As a result, she eventually

reported the second assault and

restraining order violation to law

enforcement officials and charges

against the husband were filed.

The victim also filed a complaint

with the subcommittee because she

felt her VRA rights had been violated

on many fronts in the first case, and

wanted to prevent the violation

from occurring a second time.

She reported that she had not been

53PROCEDURES, supra note 14.

54BY-LAWS, supra note 44.

55BY-LAWS, supra note 44.

56BY-LAWS, supra note 44.

57BY-LAWS, supra note 44.
14 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

consulted during the decision to

dismiss the initial charges against

her estranged husband. Further, she

alleged that she was not provided

information about services that are

available to victims or witnesses in

cases where they are being harassed,

or information about restitution and

employer intercession.

DCJ officials shared with the district

attorney in the county the victim’s

concerns and elicited his response

before the information was presented

to the subcommittee for review.

The district attorney indicated that

the decision to dismiss the first case

against the husband was appropriate

and consistent with prosecutorial

discretion and explained that the

prosecutor did contact the victim

after the decision to dismiss was

made. Further, the district attorney

indicated that the prosecutor on

the pending case had several

conversations with the victim about

the case’s progression, although the

prosecutor had not kept track of these

conversations on a phone log.

The subcommittee reviewed both the

victim’s statement and the district

attorney’s response and decided in

favor of the victim. Specifically, the

subcommittee found that the decision

to dismiss the charges in the first case

appeared to have been made without

consulting the victim, as required by

Colorado law. They also determined

that the victim did not receive timely

responses to her telephone calls from

the prosecutor handling her case,

and acknowledged that this lack of

responsiveness “contributes to a

lack of respect afforded the victim.”

The subcommittee did find, however,

that the victim did receive timely

information about the services

available to crime victims, including

information about restitution and

employer intercession.

The subcommittee decision

established four requirements with

which the district attorney’s office

was required to comply before the

matter would be considered resolved.

Specifically, the subcommittee

required that the district attorney

submit: the office’s policies and

procedures for ensuring that victims’

rights are provided; a description of

the procedures by which employees

ensure that reasonable efforts are

made to return victims’ phone calls;

a description of the policies in place

to insure consultation with victims on

charges; and the measures undertaken

to assure that the victim’s rights were

being adhered to in the pending case.

The district attorney replied with a

large package of information that

described specifically his office’s

procedures for notifying victims of

the critical stages of the trial and

tracking communications with

victims. The district attorney

assigned another prosecutor to

the victim’s pending case and

reprimanded the prosecutor

involved in the complaint. The

district attorney indicated that the

prosecutor’s immediate supervisor

had been asked to track his

performance to ensure that victim

complaints of this sort did not occur

in the future.

Upon its review of this information,

the subcommittee agreed that the

efforts of the district attorney were

appropriate, but were concerned that

the office did not have in place

written procedures concerning the

right of victims to be consulted when

there are changes to the charges

originally filed. The subcommittee

indicated to the district attorney that

its investigation into the matter would

be considered dropped when written

guidelines or procedures to ensure

this consultation were established.

One month later, the district attorney

submitted these procedures, and the

subcommittee closed the case, citing

that the requirements they set forth

had been met sufficiently.58

In a second case with seemingly

similar characteristics, however, the

subcommittee found that agency

action was not a violation of the

VRA. The similarity of the

circumstances in these two cases

reflects the importance of a close

read of the details and attention to

the subtle intricacies of each victim’s

action and the criminal justice

system’s response to assure an

appropriate ruling on the part of

the subcommittee.

In this instance, a victim of

domestic assault had contacted

the subcommittee alleging VRA

violations in the case pending against

her abuser. Her first allegation was

that the district attorney’s office had

violated her right to be informed

and present for critical stages of the

criminal justice process. She noted

that on three separate occasions —

the preliminary hearing, the

arraignment, and a motions hearing

— she was notified of the

proceedings, but consideration of

the case against her abuser were

canceled. She indicated that she was

not notified of these cancellations.

She also believed her right to be

treated with dignity and fairness had

been violated. For example, when

discussing a plea bargain with the

prosecutor, the victim thought she

would have some time to consider the

offer that was being made. The next

day, the victim called the prosecutor

to indicate that she wanted the case to

go to trial. The prosecutor, however,

58Colorado Victims’ Compensation and

Assistance Coordinating Committee,

Request #95–CA–1008. It is important to

note that identifying information about the

victim — name, address, telephone number,

etc. — was blacked out before review of

case records by the National Criminal

Justice Association in order to preserve

the privacy of the victim.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 15

had already made the offer to the

defendant. Further, the victim

complained that she was treated

poorly by the prosecutor and that he

was not respectful of her concerns

about the progression of the case.

DCJ staff submitted the victim’s

complaint to the prosecutor, and

requested his response before the

case was presented to the

subcommittee for review. The

prosecutor submitted a lengthy

rebuttal to her allegations and

included appropriate documentation

to support it. Essentially, the delays

in the proceedings against the

defendant stemmed from the fact that

the defense attorney had to travel

approximately one hour to get from

her office to the county court room in

which this case was being heard —

a matter not under the control of the

prosecuting attorney. He included a

document that indicated he expressed

concern with the continued delays in

the victim’s case.

Further, he explained that he

discussed with the victim on two

occasions the plea agreement that

he offered to the defendant and his

attorney. He indicated, upon the

second meeting, that if the agreement

was still appropriate, he would be

sending it to the defendant’s attorney.

The victim at that meeting, according

to the prosecutor, indicated that the

settlement was agreeable.

Finally, the prosecutor described in

detail the nature of the contacts

between his office and the victim. He

noted that on only two occasions had

there been any sort of confrontation

between him and the victim. In the

first instance, the victim was upset

that the prosecutor was filing a

misdemeanor charge against the

defendant instead of a felony. In

response, she was able to obtain new

information about the nature of her

injuries and shared it with the

prosecutor, which supported a felony

charge. The prosecutor used this new

information and changed the filing

from a misdemeanor to a felony. The

prosecutor believed the victim to be

satisfied with his response to this new

information.

In the second instance, on one of the

dates proceedings were delayed, the

prosecutor reported that the victim

verbally attacked the defendant, who

contacted the police department and

filed a complaint. The prosecutor’s

office asked the victim not to display

behavior of this sort, as it could be

used in the defense attorney’s cross

examination at the trial.

Upon review of the circumstances

of this case, the subcommittee found

that the district attorney’s office

was not in violation of the VRA on

either of the victim’s allegations.

Specifically, it found that the court

delays appeared to have been granted

by the judge just prior to the

scheduled time of the hearings, and

that the district attorney’s office was

unable to notify the victim in a timely

manner as a result. The subcommittee

did note, for the record, that it

understood the frustration felt by the

victim and indicated that the district

attorney could have prevented this

frustration by notifying the victim

that the hearings would most likely

not occur, leaving her the choice

about whether or not she wanted to

come to court.

Further, the subcommittee indicated

that it did not believe the victim

was treated inappropriately by the

district attorney’s office. On this

matter, however, the subcommittee

members did note that improved

communications with victims

of crime could elicit a better

understanding of the criminal justice

system. They noted that this effort

would likely result in a reduced level

of frustration for future victims when

continuances are filed or hearings are

canceled.59

The compliance enforcement function

of the VRA, which has been in place

since 1993, is viewed as evolutionary

by the DCJ staff, subcommittee, and

coordinating committee members.

Participants have attempted to

improve it as much as resources

allow, to most effectively serve

the needs of victims in the state.

According to the chairman of the

coordinating committee, the process

is successful because those involved

truly listen to victims and make a

concerted effort to incorporate their

ideas and needs into the process.

Further, the chairman notes, the

respectful relationships that have

evolved among coordinating

committee and subcommittee

volunteers allow for this evolutionary

approach by facilitating efforts

to pioneer different ideas to

accommodate crime victims.60

Two significant changes in VRA

enforcement have been undertaken

since 1992. The first was the

creation of the subcommittee in 1995.

Until that point, all compliance

complaints were heard before the

full coordinating committee.

Although there were only three

formal complaints filed in the first

two years of the VRA, those involved

in the process realized that to utilize

59Colorado Victims’ Compensation and

Assistance Coordinating Committee,

Request #96–CA–1006. It is important to

note that identifying information about the

victim — name, address, telephone number,

etc. — was blacked out before review of

case records by the National Criminal

Justice Association in order to preserve

the privacy of the victim.

60Interview with Steve Siegel, Denver

District Attorney’s Office and Coordinating

Committee Chairman, Feb. 18, 1997

[hereinafter Siegel Interview].
16 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

most effectively the resources of the

volunteer coordinating committee —

also charged with the oversight of

the VALE and victim compensation

programs’ standards, as well as

VOCA advisory responsibilities —

they would have to add another

level of case review to the process.

The creation of the subcommittee,

whose membership is composed

of participants of the coordinating

committee, allows an additional

review by the members of the body

charged by statute with that oversight

responsibility. This review by the

subcommittee also establishes a

“checks and balances” of the DCJ

staff’s interpretation and perception

of the issue, so that control over the

compliance enforcement process is

not concentrated in one person or

agency, but within the subcommittee

and committee structure as defined

by Colorado law.61

The other modification occurred in

December 1996, when the appeal

process was changed. Prior to that

date, an appeal to the coordinating

committee was automatic. Victims

must now, however, request an

appeal from the coordinating

committee. Individuals involved

with the compliance enforcement

process cite time constraints on

the availability of the volunteer

committee members and the need to

set appropriate expectations about the

process as the two primary reasons

why the appeal process was changed.

By making the appeal process

available upon request, a fair

compliance effort remains intact

while at the same time the time and

efforts of the coordinating committee

are used more efficiently.62

Further, many involved with

the process felt the right to a

mandatory appeal may have created

an inappropriate expectation on the

part of the victim. The change was a

wise one, according the coordinating

committee chair, as it is important to

create a distinction between cases that

merit appeal and those in which the

individuals involved were simply

dissatisfied that the subcommittee

did not decide in their favor.63

STATISTICS AND

RESOURCES

When the VRA was enacted in 1992,

the agencies that work routinely with

victims had to undergo considerable

changes — allocating more time,

effort, and resources — to comply

with the new law guaranteeing all

eligible victims certain rights.

Since the coordinating committee

and subcommittee members are

volunteers from the law enforcement,

legal, social services, victims’

assistance professions, and the

community, the process is heavily

reliant upon the DCJ staff to

field calls from victims, review

information, and act as an mediator

in resolving the complaint with the

identified agencies. Again, the

objective of the DCJ staff is to

achieve resolution up front whenever

possible and when it is beneficial to

the victim, and avoid triggering the

formal procedure, which tends to be

more time-intensive than an informal

review.64

And as more victims have become

aware that they have an avenue by

which to assure state and local

agencies compliance with the VRA,

the number of inquiries received by

the DCJ has increased.65 The DCJ

has kept statistics on VRA complaints

and inquiries filed with the office

since the law went into effect in

January of 1993:

• In 1993, there was one VRA

complaint filed;

• In 1994, there were 10 inquiries

to the DCJ for alleged VRA

noncompliance, with two

substantiated claims resulting;

• In 1995, there were 17 inquiries,

with seven formal complaints

filed, four of which were not

considered to fall within the

purview of the VRA; and

• In 1996, there were 40 inquiries,

nine of which resulted in a formal

complaint being filed.66

The DCJ is considering expanding

its current statistics collection

procedures to track VRA inquiries

and complaints by crime type

and geographic area. As the

subcommittee’s caseload continues

to grow, identifying trends in the

nature of the calls received from

victims would allow DCJ officials

and subcommittee members to better

provide assistance to individual

victims. Further, collecting

information about where calls

originate may allow an opportunity

to identify systemic problems that

impede the provision of victims’

rights in certain areas.67

Currently, DCJ officials rely on a

small personnel budget to support

the compliance review structure.

The DCJ staff predicted that the

65 Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

66 CONNECTIONS, supra note 45.

67 Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

61Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

62Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

63Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

64Siegel Interview, supra note 60.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 17

committee structure would be

staff-intensive, and in its 1993

biennial budget request, the agency

requested the authority to hire one

full-time staff assistant as well as

operating expenses, both of which

would be used entirely to provide

staff support for the compliance

process. As a result of that budget

request, the DCJ received funding

for one additional employee but

found that its allocation did not cover

expenses and operational costs. In

1995, the DCJ requested additional

funding to cover costs for printing

brochures in both Spanish and

English, telephone and facsimile

charges, and additional moneys for

meeting rooms to hold subcommittee

and coordinating committee

meetings.68

Further, the DCJ staff requested

additional allocations for staff and

board travel expenses. Currently

the committee and subcommittee

structure is operating under

temporary rules and procedures.

Pursuant to the state’s Administrative

Procedures Act (APA), the DCJ staff

will have to hold public hearings

statewide later in 1997 to ensure

compliance with the APA’s notice and

comment provisions for final rules.

As the compliance enforcement

process evolves, so does the

understanding of the resources

necessary to administer successfully

the program. For example, DCJ

officials have found that a higher

level of decisionmaking authority

and understanding of the criminal

justice system is necessary on the

staff level. As a result, DCJ officials

have determined that they may better

serve victims by creating a staff

structure that includes a staff

assistant, clerical person, and a higher

level administrator to work part-time

to oversee the whole program.69

Another staffing concern stems

from the agency’s transition from

a program agency to one that acts

as a direct provider of services. As

information becomes more readily

available concerning the rights of

crime victims in Colorado, the DCJ

staff are finding themselves taking

calls from individuals who contact

the office in need of support

immediately following victimization

or have concerns that fall outside

the purview of the VRA. DCJ

officials continually try to assess the

resources and instruction necessary

to train employees in responding

appropriately to victims in crisis.70

The decentralized nature of politics

and policy in the state has allowed

nonprofit organizations to play an

active role in the training, education,

and outreach efforts involved with

VRA compliance.71 The DCJ

considers victims’ advocates and

assistance providers to be the

“front line” in assessing if a victim’s

rights have been violated, and key

to informing victims of the VRA

and the DCJ role in compliance

enforcement. According to the

DCJ staff, the role of the victims’

assistance community is instrumental

to the complaint resolution process.72

The COVA, through grants from

state VALE moneys, provide

statewide training in the VRA and

the compliance process to local

victims’ assistance providers.

State officials would make other

changes to be more responsive to

all Coloradans if resources were no

object. DCJ officials would like to

play a greater role in the statewide

COVA training programs, and also

would like to establish a statewide

toll-free number for victims making

inquiries to the DCJ about VRA

compliance.73

The DCJ would also like to be able

to provide technical assistance to

agencies in need of systemic change.

Although, the DCJ staff does not

track complaints based on the types

of crimes perpetrated, they note that

the compilation of this information

may prove to uncover certain trends

or deficiencies in agency compliance

efforts. For example, the DCJ staff

have noted that the complaint most

often reported by domestic violence

victims is that the prosecutor fails

to consult with the victim before

negotiating a plea agreement. With

more resources, the DCJ would be

able to provide technical assistance in

areas where multiple complaints have

been filed, for example, to work on

administrative or procedural change

in hopes of rectifying continual

violations.74

IMPLEMENTATION

PERSPECTIVES,

EFFECTIVENESS OF

THE PROCESS

Many factors have contributed to

the successful beginnings of VRA

compliance in Colorado. Participants

refer to many intra-committee factors

— positive working relationships

among diverse members, an honest

discourse on the issues, and a shared

approach and dedication to improving

the criminal justice system — which

help foster collaboration and make 68 Interview with Carol Poole, Program

Administrator, Office of Victims Programs,

Colorado Department of Public Safety,

Feb. 18, 1997 [hereinafter Poole Interview].

69 Id.

70 Id.

71 Id.

72 Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

73 Poole Interview, supra note 68.

74 Feldman Interview, supra note 15.
18 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

relevant their role in compliance

enforcement.75

The chairperson of the coordinating

committee sees the greatest strength

of the process as the collaborative

relationship that has evolved among

members of the coordinating

committee. The diversity of the

membership makes the breadth of

knowledge and perspective of the

individuals involved — and therefore

the information shared among all

members — a necessary element of

a collaborative working relationship

of this sort.76

Participation in the compliance

enforcement process also affords

members an opportunity to present

their opinion on victims’ rights

implementation based on their

professional perspective, while at

the same time allowing exposure to

new information that affords them

an opportunity to reassess their

individual role in providing services

to victims. According to a

representative of the victims’

assistance community, the process

works because it brings to the table

all those who work daily in the

criminal justice field to discuss

issues surrounding victims’ rights.

The exposure to new ideas and

information helps continually

redefine what her responsibility is,

as a representative of the victims’

community, in improving the

administration of justice.77

Strengths and Weaknesses

Despite diversity in perspective,

those involved with victims’ rights

compliance in Colorado have fairly

consistent ideas about the strengths

and weaknesses of the compliance

enforcement process. One of the

most important strengths, according

to subcommittee members and the

coordinating committee chair, is the

critical role that the DCJ staff plays

in the process. The DCJ staff are

instrumental in collecting and

disseminating information in a

manner that is mindful of both

the victims’ perspective and the

challenges faced by the criminal

justice system in providing victims’

rights. According to the coordinating

committee chair, the knowledge and

understanding of these issues helps

bring a balanced perspective to each

case as it is received by the

subcommittee.78

Another strength is that those

involved with VRA compliance

approach the process as evolutionary.

Because the notion of extending

victims formal rights is relatively

new within the criminal justice

system, the creation of a process that

is open to improvements is essential,

according to participants. This

continual awareness of new and

different ways of improving the

process undoubtedly will become

more essential as more victims

become aware of their rights, and

seek the services of the coordinating

committee.79

Finally, participants believe the

compliance enforcement process

works well within the decentralized

political climate of the state.

The coordinating committee has

approached the development of

the VRA compliance enforcement

process thoughtfully, focusing on

problem resolution at the local level.

When the message is that victims’

rights compliance is under local

jurisdiction, and the state is not going

to intervene unnecessarily, according

to the coordinating committee chair,

the idea of victims’ rights compliance

is most well received and most

effectively implemented.80

Although there exists significant

support for the existing structure of

compliance enforcement, participants

identify components of the process

that could be improved upon. These

improvements, however, would most

often require resources — both

money and participant time — that

are currently unavailable. As a result,

it is a challenge to develop effective,

viable alternatives to improve on

perceived weaknesses, while

maintaining a workable process.81

One perceived weakness in the

process cited by almost all of the

committee members is the fact that

it is time intensive. Although a

majority of the inquiries fielded by

the DCJ staff are resolved in an

informal and expedient manner, the

formal complaint process is more

time-consuming than participants

would like. However, to retain

legitimacy, the process must allow

victims and interested parties time to

respond to allegations, and to appeal

a subcommittee decision when

necessary.82

Members speculate that conducting

site visits would be a way to shorten

significantly the time involved

in complaint resolution. Many

participants stated that they would

like to be able to meet with the

individuals who are parties to the

complaint, and take a more “hands 75 Siegel Interview, supra note 50.

76 Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

77 Comments of Carol Lewis, COVA

Executive Director, Victims’ Rights Act

Subcommittee Meeting, Feb. 18, 1997

[hereinafter Lewis Interview].

78 Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

79 Siegel Interview, supra note 60. Comments

of Libby Bortz, Social Worker, Victims’

Rights Act Subcommittee Meeting,

Feb. 18, 1997.

80 Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

81 Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

82 Siegel Interview, supra note 60. Feldman

Interview, supra note 15.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 19

on” approach by conducting site

visits to provide a more personal

way of finding resolution to VRA

compliance questions.

Still other subcommittee members

believe that site visits would lend

credibility to the compliance review

process by encouraging statewide

involvement and participation.

As many members of the committee

and subcommittee are based in the

Denver metropolitan area, some

are concerned that victims in the

mountain regions or on the eastern

plains may feel that they do not have

adequate access to or input in the

process.83 Further, DCJ staff note

that an outreach effort to the public

— in terms of general education

about the VRA and the compliance

enforcement function — would be

helpful in exposing all citizens to the

process. However, neither site visits

nor general education outreach are

viable under present resource

constraints.84

In addition, because resources

for victims are greater in the

Denver-metro area than in many

other sections of the state, committee

volunteers must be aware that

victims’ rights compliance may look

different or may be more difficult to

achieve in some parts of the state than

others.85 According to information

provided by the COVA, in 1996,

there were over 175 victim services

agencies that had not received the

COVA’s VRA training, and 118

police departments and 23 sheriff’s

departments statewide that did not

have crime victim advocates.86

Thus, another obstacle in the

subcommittee’s work is overcoming

resistance from agencies that either

do not understand or do not feel

they have the resources to comply

with the VRA, and who are

mistrustful of a Denver-based

committee dictating local policy.

PROCESS EVALUATION

With the notion of victims’ rights

compliance still in its infancy in

Colorado, attempts by committee

members and the DCJ staff to

evaluate the process from the

perspectives of the victims’

community and the agencies charged

with providing rights under the

VRA have been informal thus far.

Committee members and the DCJ

staff try to elicit feedback from

victims and agencies as the

compliance enforcement process

progresses, and incorporate the

comments of these parties as

improvements in the committee

infrastructure. However, those

involved realize that the small

number of cases that have gone

through the committee review; the

recent addition of the subcommittee

as a first layer of review; and the

difficulty in creating variables that

are quantifiable will likely preclude

any effort at empirical evaluation of

their compliance procedures.87

DCJ staff reports that most of the

agencies involved with compliance

enforcement are satisfied with the

current process, especially the

informal manner with which the DCJ

staff and the subcommittee approach

inquiries and informal complaints.

The staff reports that a majority of the

law enforcement and prosecutors’

offices — agencies who retain most

of the responsibility to provide

information about the VRA —

readily accept responsibility when it

is determined that they have failed to

provide victims’ rights, while making

every effort to reconcile the error.

This cooperative response stems in

part from the collaborative manner in

which the DCJ staff and committee

members approach these agencies,

communicating to them that the

objectives of compliance enforcement

are to work together to resolve the

problem at hand.88

There remains resistance to victims’

rights compliance on some fronts,

however. Although most law

enforcement agencies and district

attorneys indicate that victims’ rights

are a positive addition to the criminal

justice system, there are a number of

areas in which their responsibilities

are not entirely clear.89 For example,

there are questions involved as to

whether rights should be extended

to a victim who is a defendant in

another case, or when the victim and

the offender are otherwise related.

Further, prosecutors note that the

addition of victims to criminal

proceedings creates a more

“client-like” relationship between

the victim and the prosecutor. It is

difficult at times to avoid fostering a

personal relationship with the victim

and having his circumstances weigh

too heavily in how the case is tried.

In other words, the relationship

between trying the case in the manner

which is most appropriate for the

state and trying to provide justice for

victims is not always clear, or easily

achievable. 83 90 Comments of Dana Easter, Subcommittee

Chair and Deputy District Attorney for the

First Judicial District, Victims’ Rights Act

Subcommittee Meeting, Feb. 18, 1997.

84 Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

85 Comments of Bonnie Benedetti, Former

Subcommittee Chair, Denver District

Attorney’s Office, Victims’ Rights Act

Subcommittee Meeting, Feb. 18, 1997.

86 PROJECT NARRATIVE, COVA TRAINING

PROGRAM, 1996 (on file with author).

87 Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

88Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

89Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

90Comments of Gus Sandstrom, Coordinating

Committee Member and Pueblo District

Attorney, Standards Subcommittee Meeting,

Feb. 20, 1997.
These effects may be compounded

in more rural areas where there are

fewer resources to allocate toward

victims’ rights programs, and as a

result, VRA compliance may not be

a priority among agencies charged

with providing victims’ rights.91

Members of the victims’ community

strongly support the compliance

enforcement process, but believe

that there remain some institutional

barriers that prevent some victims

from accessing fully their rights.

For example, a victim who does not

present himself or communicate well

may find it more difficult to relay

why he feels that his rights have

been violated.92

Others are concerned about victims’

perceptions of what they are going to

achieve from the process. Victims

who understand their rights under the

VRA are typically very satisfied with

compliance enforcement. However,

those victims who have unrealistic

expectations of the process —

expecting that a defendant will serve

life in prison instead of the ten-year

prescribed term associated with

the crime — will always be

disappointed.93 The DCJ staff cites

as its primary responsibility from

the very beginning the need to set

the appropriate expectation up-front,

and to be very clear about what

results can be achieved through the

compliance enforcement process.94

A telling example of victim

satisfaction with the compliance

enforcement process comes from a

woman whose family was victimized

by the same offender, for the same

crime, in Colorado and a neighboring

state. The latter state does not have

an enforceable victims’ rights act.

With the VRA and compliance

enforcement process in place, the

victim felt as if she were being

treated fairly when dealing with

officials in Colorado, and felt

supported when communicating with

both the DCJ staff and the relevant

local law enforcement agency.

When trying to elicit information

from officials in the neighboring

state, however, the victim reports

that her telephone calls were ignored,

and information about the case was

difficult to obtain.95 The victim’s

unique situation, and the “vast

difference in treatment between the

two states,” is one example of how

those involved with compliance

enforcement in Colorado understand

that their effort is making a

difference.

In an effort to prepare for the

future, the DCJ staff are planning

on conducting a satisfaction survey

of both victims and agencies charged

with providing victims’ rights later

this year. The survey will be sent

to those involved with a VRA

compliance case to gauge the

opinions of individuals and agencies

about the compliance enforcement

process. The DCJ hopes to elicit

information about both the strengths

and the weaknesses of the current

program, as well as any suggestions

for improving the process for the

future.96

PROGNOSIS FOR

THE FUTURE

Participants in the VRA compliance

enforcement process are confident

that their current structure and

evolutionary approach to enforcing

victims’ rights will help lead them

into the future. As a result of

inquiries made by victims whose

complaints did not fall under the

purview of the VRA, a bill was

passed in the 1997 legislative session

that will expand the types of crimes

for which victims may exercise

victims’ rights, expand notification

requirements to probation officials,

and require that victims be informed

of the process for enforcing

compliance with the VRA. The

initiative, Senate Bill 84, sponsored

by Sen. Sally Hopper (R-Boulder)

will:

• add to the list of crimes to which

victim rights apply. New crimes

covered under the victims’ rights

constitutional amendment would

include careless driving resulting

in death, hit and run when the

accident results in death, stalking,

ethnic intimidation, and being

an accessory to any of these or

previously designated crimes;

• expand the definition of critical

stages of the criminal justice

process to which victims are

entitled to notice to include

certain probation hearings and

proceedings regarding changes

in probationary status;

• clarify that a victim must be

informed of the process for

enforcing compliance with the

victim rights requirements;

• give victims the right to be

notified by the probation

department of certain information

concerning persons charged or

convicted of crimes against the

victim; and

• permit probation departments to

apply to the victims and witnesses

assistance and law enforcement

board for grants to implement

victims’ rights.97

91McGhee interview, supra note 33.

92Lewis Interview, supra note 77.

93Siegel Interview, supra note 60.

94Feldman Interview, supra note 15.

95Senate Bill 97-084, 61st General Assembly,

State of Colorado.

96Feldman Interview, supra note 15. 97CONNECTIONS, supra note 45.

20 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES
In the short term, those involved with

compliance enforcement are focusing

their efforts on educating citizens,

victims, and criminal justice

practitioners about victims’ rights.

Training initiatives, similar to what

the COVA conducts currently, will

undoubtedly be instrumental in

raising awareness about the victims

issue, and encouraging criminal

justice practitioners to incorporate the

proper notification and participation

requirements into their daily practice.

The education and outreach effort

will also have the important effect of

informing individuals in the victims’

community of what the compliance

enforcement process will afford them.

Again, setting the appropriate

expectation about what victims’

rights really means will help those

afflicted by crime understand that the

purview of the VRA is limited.

As more and more citizens learn that

there is a mechanism by which their

rights as victims may be enforced,

those involved with complaint

enforcement will continue to try to

improve the process while balancing

the time and resources available

from committee members with the

need to maintain a credible process.

In order to be effective, the

improvements they undertake will

be framed in terms of loose state

involvement, remaining conscious

of the nature of local control in

the state.

VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 21
22 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 23

MINNESOTA

While Minnesota has a long history of

guaranteeing victims both rights and services,

state-level policymakers, agency officials, victims’

service providers, and criminal justice practitioners are

now struggling to balance their commitment to providing

extensive and sophisticated services to victims with the

additional administrative burdens and costs that such

a commitment requires.98 Since 1986, Minnesota has

had in place an oversight function — the Office of the

Crime Victims Ombudsman99 (OCVO) — to help

strike that balance by ensuring that victims are

guaranteed their rights, and are treated fairly and

appropriately by criminal justice practitioners.

Ombudsmen, in a general sense, are individuals

acknowledged officially by the government to whom

citizens may report mistreatment or grievances

resulting from government action or inaction. These

officials have the power to investigate the allegations

of wrong-doing and suggest systemic change to

improve the implementation of government programs

and delivery of services to citizens.

The role of the ombudsman for crime victims has

been a constant fixture in the evolution of the victims’

rights movement in Minnesota, although the

leadership of the office since the early 1990s has

shifted its focus to one of a neutral oversight body,

neither a victims’ advocate nor a criminal justice

practitioner. Today, OCVO officials indicate that

their top priority is to approach enforcing the rights

and fair treatment of victims in a neutral, objective,

and autonomous way, reflecting the philosophy and

function of a traditional ombudsman.100

The OCVO has worked, and continues to work,

proactively to ensure victims’ rights and strengthen

the criminal justice system’s response to the needs

of crime victims. However, an effort by state

policymakers to consolidate victims’ programs and

services into one agency promises imminent change

for all agencies involved in the provision of victims’

rights and services in the state. Even within this

climate of change, OCVO officials look to the

future with the primary goals of improving and

expanding their service to the citizens

of Minnesota.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

AND PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT

Minnesota has a long history of

providing victims’ services and

protecting victims’ rights. In 1974,

the state’s Department of Corrections

(DOC) established a program for

sexual assault victims with grant

funding from the U. S. Department

of Justice, Law Enforcement

Administration Agency (LEAA).

In the same year, the Department

of Public Safety (DPS) established a

crime victims’ reparation program.101

Since then, expanding the provision

of legal rights and services to

victims has remained a priority

for policymakers statewide.

In Minnesota, the late 1970s and

early 1980s were marked by a

growing recognition of the role of the

victim in the criminal justice process.

According to a state senator who has

been a prominent supporter and

author of victims’ rights legislation

over the years, a significant impetus

behind the victims’ rights movement

in Minnesota was the effort to

eradicate violence against women,

domestic violence, and child abuse.102

Since that time, coalitions of

individuals and nonprofit agencies

concerned with the needs of battered

women and victims of sexual assault

have been active in advancing the

cause of victims’ rights before statelevel decisonmakers.103

The provision of more general

services to crime victims began in

Minnesota in the early 1980s.

 98 Interview with Denise Rowe, Victim

Services Coordinator, Minnesota

Department of Corrections, April 1, 1997

[hereinafter Rowe Interview].

 99 The term “ombudsman” is used throughout

the text as a gender neutral term.

100 STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY, THE OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIM’S

OMBUDSMAN, 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT,

p. 20 [hereinafter 1995–1996 BIENNIAL

REPORT].

101 Interview with Ann Jaede, Director of

Juvenile Strategic Planning, Minnesota

Department of Corrections, March 31,

1997 [hereinafter Jaede Interview].

102 Interview with Senator Randy Kelly,

(R-67th District), [hereinafter Kelly

Interview].

103 Rowe Interview, supra note 98.

Governor Rudy Purpich, supported

by various nonprofit groups

concerned with the status of victims

rights in the state, convened a task
24 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

force to examine the needs of crime

victims in Minnesota.104 In 1984, the

nine-member task force held hearings

in seven Minnesota counties to hear

concerns and determine the needs of

crime victims. The governor sought

diverse representation in his selection

of state and local criminal justice

practitioners, as well as victims’

advocates and service providers, for

participation on the task force.105 In

the hearings, held throughout 1984,

participant testimony indicated that

victims wanted and needed a more

active voice in the criminal justice

system.106

As a result of the task force

meetings and a heightened awareness

of the challenges faced by victims of

crime, three trends in the way crime

victims are treated in Minnesota have

emerged over the years: a consistent

expansion of victims’ rights as

defined by the state’s Bill of Rights;

the creation and augmentation of

services to crime victims in the state’s

DOC and DPS; and the creation

of a victims’ rights compliance

enforcement mechanism — the

OCVO — to assure that victims are

being treated appropriately and fairly

by those agencies charged with the

administration of justice.

Victims’ Rights in Minnesota

Although Minnesota Crime Victims’

Bill of Rights was enacted in 1983,

citizens’ rights under the measure

were greatly expanded as a result of

the statewide attention policymakers

and victims’ assistance providers

brought to the victims’ rights issue

during the 1984 task force meetings.

Today, these issues continue to be

a priority for state policymakers.

Crime victims in Minnesota have

a wide-range of rights available to

them, which are applicable in both

adult criminal cases and juvenile

delinquency proceedings. The four

basic categories of rights afforded

to victims of crime in Minnesota are:

1) the victim’s right to be notified

of his rights and the various stages

of the criminal proceeding; 2) the

right to participate in the criminal

justice process; 3) the right to receive

restitution and compensation;

and 4) the right to receive

compensation and administrative

relief through the Crime Victims’

Reparations program and the crime

victim ombudsman.107

The following chart depicts the

rights afforded to victims of crime

in Minnesota. The information is

current through the 1996 legislative

session.

Victims of domestic violence and

sexual assault are provided additional

rights in Minnesota. For example,

prosecutors in domestic violence

cases are required to keep a record of

why a case was dismissed. Further,

state law requires prosecutors to

counsel victims on the benefits and

disadvantages of obtaining a

protective order against the

offender.108

A victim of any criminal sexual

assault may request that a prosecutor

make a confidential motion to the

sentencing court requesting that an

individual convicted of a sex offense

or any other violent crime to submit

to HIV testing. No reference to the

test, or the motion requesting the test,

may appear in a criminal record or be

maintained in any record of the court.

The results are available only to the

victim, or, if the victim is a minor,

to his parents. Positive test results

are reported to the commissioner

of health.109 Once the victim is

informed of the test results, they

must be removed from any medical

data or health records.

Expansion of Minnesota’s

Victims’ Services

Since the late 1970s, the DOC has

taken an active role in the provision

of victims’ services in the state —

both through training and grants

management, and the dispersement

of state and federal funds for crime

victims’ services. According to DOC

officials, the agency is committed

to listening to the voices of the

grassroots victims’ movement when

making decisions about allocating

resources and services for victims

of crime.110

The first DOC victims’ program —

the LEAA initiative to combat

sexual assault — established a

statewide referral system for victims,

provided training, and assisted in the

development of community-based

services to victims of sex crimes.

This program was expanded

throughout the late 1970s to help

coordinate service delivery among

four nonurban areas in the state and

expand the availability of its services

to battered women.111

During the 1980s the DOC’s role

in the provision of victims’ services

104 One of a Kind, NATIONAL VICTIM CENTER

NEWSLETTER, n.d. (on file with author),

[hereinafter One of a Kind].

105 Jaede Interview, supra note 101.

106 STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY, THE OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIM’S

OMBUDSMAN, 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT,

p. 9 [hereinafter 1993–1994 BIENNIAL

REPORT].

107 MINN. STAT.ANN. § 611A (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).

108 MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 611A.0311 and

611A.0315 (West 1987 & Supp. 1996).

109 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.19 (West 1987

& Supp. 1996).

110 Rowe Interview, supra note 98.

111 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ VICTIM

SERVICES UNIT: HISTORY AND CURRENT

STAFFING OF THE VICTIM SERVICES UNIT AND

THE ADVISORY COUNCILS. (on file with

author) [hereinafter DOC VICTIM SERVICES

UNIT].
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 25

grew dramatically. With the passage

of the federal VOCA in 1984,120

new moneys became available to

support victims’ assistance programs.

Further, state policymakers broadened

the purview of the DOC’s

responsibilities to provide services

to victims of crime by creating and

funding services for abused children

and general crime victims. This

enhanced state and federal funding

made available more money for

advocacy services statewide while

grant funds were designated for

programs addressing special

populations of victims — people

of color, people with disabilities, and

the gay and lesbian population.121

A restructuring process in 1991

modified the DOC’s victims’ service

delivery approach. The mission of the

DOC’s Crime Victims Unit (CVU)

was revised to focus attention on the

agency’s role as a grant administrator

and provider of technical assistance

to community victims’ assistance

programs, replacing the prior

Compensation and

Notification Rights Participation Rights Administrative Relief

Pretrial Notification112

Prior to trial, a victim must be notified

of the following: information about

victim assistance; programs for

victims of sexual assault, incest

abuse, and elder abuse; victim/

witness protection services; victim

assistance hotlines; and domestic

violence shelters and programs.

The Crime Victim and Witness

Advisory Council must notify

victims of their right to apply for

compensation to offset financial

losses as a result of a violent crime.

Prosecutors’ offices must distribute a

supplemental notice to crime victims

of their rights. They must make a

reasonable effort to notify victims of

the contents of any plea agreement,

or when a case is dismissed.

Post-Trial Notification113

Investigating law enforcement officials

must notify victims of: the charge to

which the defendant was convicted;

the availability of restitution; the time

and place of sentencing, and the right

to be present and heard at sentencing.

Corrections officials must attempt to

notify the victim when an offender is

to be released or has escaped from a

secure facility, upon written request of

the victim.

Pretrial Participation114

Prosecutors must make reasonable

efforts to notify and seek input from a

victim when referring an offender to a

pretrial diversion program rather than

prosecuting him.

Victims have the right to request that

the prosecutor make a demand that

the trial begin within 60 days.

During the Trial 115

Court officials must provide separate

waiting facilities for the victim and the

victims’ family and the defendant and

the defendant’s family.

Post-Trial Participation116

Victims have the right to make a

victim impact statement, to be

presented orally or in writing, at the

time of sentencing.

At the time of sentencing, the court

must inform the victim about the

notification services available from

corrections officials upon written

request.

Financial Assistance117

Crime victims have the right to

receive restitution as part of the

disposition of a criminal charge or

proceeding if the offender is convicted

or adjudicated delinquent. The victim

may request a probation review

hearing if an offender fails to pay the

restitution as required by the court.

Victims have the right to receive

financial assistance from the state

Crime Victims Reparation Board

which oversees the dispersement

of the states reparations funds.

Administrative Relief 118

The OCVO is appointed by the

commissioner of public safety to

investigate the handling of criminal

cases by criminal justice practitioners,

and promote the highest standards

for crime victims.

State Victims’ Services119

The Crime Victim Crisis Center

operates under the direction of the

commissioner of corrections in two

Minnesota counties and provides

direct crisis intervention and victim

assistance services; and conducts

education and outreach about the

criminal justice process, victimization,

and crime prevention.

112 MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 611A.02–611A.03

(West 1987 & Supp. 1996).

113 MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 611A.039, 611A.06

(West 1987 & Supp. 1996).

114 MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 611A.031, 611A.033

(West 1987 & Supp. 1996).

115 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.034 (West 1987

& Supp. 1996).

116 MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 611A.037, 611A.038,

611A.0385 (West 1987 & Supp. 1996).

117 MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 611A.045, 611A.046,

611A.53 (West 1987 & Supp. 1996).

118 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.43, (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).

119 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.74, (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).

120 42 U.S.C. §§ 10601–10604.

121DOC VICTIM SERVICES UNIT, supra note 111.
26 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

objective of promoting a violencefree society. Further, the legislature

mandated that advisory councils

provide the commissioner of

corrections with information and

recommendations concerning grant

awards and state policies impacting

battered women, victims of general

crime, and victims of sexual

assault.122

In fiscal year 1997, the CVU

provided approximately $12 million

in state and federal funding to over

130 programs statewide, including

grants to private nonprofit agencies,

Native American reservations, and

local units of government. Standards

have been established to ensure that

funded programs adhere to sound

administrative practices in providing

a range of specialized services to

crime victims.123

The DPS also has a long history of

providing services to victims of

crime. Since 1974, The Minnesota

Crime Reparations Program has had

as its goal the restoration of a portion,

if not all, of a victim’s financial

losses resulting from crime.124

The reparations program covers

basic expenses for the primary

victim of a crime, including:

• medical or dental care;

• ambulance service;

• prescriptions;

• medical mileage;

• rehabilitative equipment;

• mental health care;

• funeral expenses;

• lost wages;

• replacement child care and

household services; and

• loss of support for dependents of

homicide victims.125

The reparations program since

1991 has also allowed for limited

assistance to family members of

victims, also known as “secondary

victims.” In homicide cases, for

example, the spouse or young

children of the deceased are entitled

to full benefits, while siblings or adult

children of a victim may apply to the

reparations program to cover the

costs of counseling sessions.126 The

reparations program in Minnesota is

funded by allocations from the state’s

general fund, wages withheld from

inmate labor, civil awards, and

federal VOCA funding.127

In 1985, the Minnesota legislature

created within the DPS the Crime

Victim and Witness Advisory Council

(CVWAC), whose primary purpose,

according to its director, is to conduct

training for state and local agencies

on victims’ rights and services;

facilitate programmatic development

of victims’ services through technical

assistance; and advocate for changes

in state laws or policies that would

impact positively victims of crime.128

The council is composed of

16 individuals representing law

enforcement, the judiciary, prosecution

and defense attorneys, the medical

profession, crime victim services

providers, and the general public.

THE OFFICE OF THE

CRIME VICTIM

OMBUDSMAN

What is an Ombudsman?

As the complexity of society and

the reach of government grows, the

concerns of the individual citizen

may become lost among the myriad

of laws, administrative procedures,

and regulations that govern our

society. To help preserve individual

protections, many public entities have

created ombudsman offices to help

citizens become more connected with

the processes of government. First

stemming from the Swedish word

umbud, or proxy, the ombudsman

position allows a neutral party to

look critically into unreasonable,

unfair, oppressive, or unnecessarily

discriminatory acts by government

officials.129

The ombudsman tradition in

Minnesota began in 1974, when

the position of ombudsman for

corrections was created to examine

and resolve inmate grievances in an

era when the corrections system was

undergoing significant reform.130

Since then, nine other ombudsman

positions have been established in

Minnesota. The Ombudsman

Roundtable, a voluntarily-created

coalition of the 10 ombudsmen in 122 DOC VICTIM SERVICES UNIT, supra note

111.

123 DOC VICTIM SERVICES UNIT, supra note

111.

124 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BIENNIAL

REPORT 1996: SERVING CRIME VICTIMS

SINCE 1974: CRIME VICTIM AND WITNESS

ADVISORY COUNCIL, CRIME VICTIMS

REPARATIONS BOARD, at p. 13.

125 Id.

126 Id.

127 Id., at p. 17.

128 Interview with Sara Schlauderaff, Staff

Member, Minnesota Crime Victim and

Witness Advisory Council, April 2, 1997

[hereinafter Schlauderaff Interview].

129 OMBUDSMAN ROUNDTABLE, MAKING

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVE TO CITIZENS:

A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW WITH

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFICIENT

OMBUDSMAN SERVICES, Dec. 1995, at 7

[hereinafter OMBUDSMAN REPORT].

130 OMBUDSMAN REPORT, supra note 129, at A-6.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 27

the state to proactively facilitate

cooperation and collaboration among

the ombudsmen’s offices, define an

ombudsman’s responsibilities as “an

official intermediary between citizen

and government to counteract the

delay, injustice, and impersonality

of bureaucracy. [The] powers of an

ombudsman include the power to

receive and investigate complaints,

the power to make findings and

recommendations, the power to

publish reports on those findings

and recommendations.”131

The ombudsman positions in

Minnesota are unique, and differ

from ombudsmen in other states.

Unlike general jurisdiction

ombudsmen who have broad

investigative authority over various

government actions, Minnesota’s

“specialty” ombudsmen target

underserved populations and oversee

the specific government agencies

serving that group of individuals.132

Although the ombudsman position

is created by the legislature,

ombudsmen are appointed by the

governor or another executive branch

authority. Currently, eight of the

10 ombudsman offices are housed

within an existing state agency, while

the remaining two — the ombudsman

for corrections and the ombudsman

for mental health and mental

retardation — are separate state

agencies.133 The ombudsmen

positions in Minnesota are a full-time

commitment, and no person may

serve as an ombudsman while

holding any other public office.134

The Office of the

Crime Victims Ombudsman

The Crime Victims’ Ombudsman

views her office as a problem-solving

entity. She perceives her role as one

of advocating broadly for fairness —

not necessarily as an advocate either

for the victim or for the criminal

justice system.135 Rather, it is the

mission of the OCVO to promote the

highest attainable standards of

competence, efficiency, and justice

for crime victims and witnesses in the

criminal justice system. The office

exists to discourage mistreatment of

crime victims and ensure compliance

with statutory protection for crime

victims and witnesses.136 According

to Minnesota statute, the duties of the

crime victim ombudsman are to

investigate complaints concerning

possible violations of the rights of

crime victims or witnesses, including

the delivery of services by various

victims’ assistance and reparations

programs, and complaints of

mistreatment by state and local

criminal justice agencies.137

The purview of the OCVO goes

beyond that of enforcing the

statutory rights of crime victims.

The ombudsman has the discretion

to investigate any action or inaction

on the part of an agency and seeks

to address actions that are contrary

to rule or law and behavior that is

alleged to have been unreasonable,

unfair, oppressive, unclear or

inadequately explained, or

inefficiently performed.138

The law further defines appropriate

methods of conducting these

investigations, including acting as a

liaison between victim and agency,

promoting activities that strengthen

criminal justice systems, preventing

violations of a victim’s right, and

establishing procedures for referral

to appropriate victims’ services

agencies. The law also requires the

OCVO to establish a toll-free number

to allow crime victims outside of the

Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan

area access to the services provided

by the office.139

The statute creating the OCVO

defined the primary features that

make the ombudsman unique as an

oversight body:

✦ Nonpartisanship.

The ombudsman, although created

by the legislature and appointed

by the DPS Commissioner, acts

relatively autonomously. The only

legislatively-mandated reporting

requirement of the OCVO is a

biennial report to the legislature

and governor concerning its

activities during the preceding

biennium. Further, the

ombudsman’s office may provide

testimony necessary to enforce

the responsibilities of the office,

however at no time may OCVO

officials be compelled to

testify before any judicial or

administrative body for any

other purposes.140

✦ Investigative Discretion.

The base of the ombudsman’s

power comes from the discretion

with which an investigation is

pursued. The statute clarifies that

the ombudsman may investigate

any action of the criminal justice

131 OMBUDSMAN SERVICES IN MINNESOTA,

OMBUDSMAN ROUNDTABLE ORGANIZATION,

n.d. (on file with author)

132 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 9.

133 OMBUDSMAN REPORT, supra note 129, at

9–10.

134 MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 611A.74 (West 1987

& Supp. 1996).

135 Telephone Interview, Laura Goodman–

Brown, Crime Victim Ombudsman,

Office of the Crime Victim Ombudsman,

Mar. 27, 1997.

136 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106, at p. 1.

137 MINN. STAT, ANN. 611A.74 (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).

138 THE OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIM’S OMBUDSMAN,

INVESTIGATIVE GUIDELINES, Oct. 5, 1995, 2

[hereinafter INVESTIGATIVE GUIDELINES].

139 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.74 (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).

140 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.74 (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).
28 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

system or a victim assistance

program. In addition to

responding to requests for

investigations by citizens, the

ombudsman has the discretion

to inspect the actions of

administrative agencies on her

own initiative, and may pursue

cases based on reports in the press.

The ombudsman may request

and examine information from

agencies — including all records

and documents of all agencies of

the criminal justice system and

victim assistance programs —

to fulfill her responsibilities.141

✦ Power of Publicity.

Unlike the courts, the ombudsman

has no right to reverse a decision,

and has no direct control over

judicial or executive branch

decisionmaking. The

ombudsman’s reach is limited

to investigating alleged abuses

and proposing remedies when

appropriate. According to

Minnesota statute, the ombudsman

may make public — both to the

press and the legislature — her

findings after an investigation.

This statement must include a

statement from the administrative

agency with an explanation in

defense of its action or inaction, or

its rejection of the ombudsman’s

proposals.142

After a complaint is reported, the

OCVO staff assess the needs of the

victim, determine whether referrals

should be made to other agencies, and

inform the complainant of the most

appropriate manner for resolving the

grievance.143 In circumstances in

which the OCVO is better equipped

than another agency to address the

complainant’s concern, however, a

case is opened on the victims’ behalf.

After eliciting general information

about the nature of the crime and the

complaint, the OCVO sends to the

complainant a packet of materials that

explains the role of the office and the

investigative process, and includes

a form on which the complainant

must provide written consent for the

OCVO to begin an investigation.144

The OCVO next gathers information

from the named agency relevant

to the victim’s allegations. The

investigator may send out letters

to the agency identified by the

complainant, requesting information

concerning its contact with the

victim. Interviews with agency

representatives are scheduled when

necessary. Upon completion of the

interviewing process, more

supporting documentation is ordered

from the agency when appropriate.145

Based on the information gleaned

in the investigation, the investigator

must determine whether any statute,

policy, or practice was violated,

or if mistreatment occurred. The

investigator must determine the most

appropriate resolution to the problem,

plan for any subsequent follow-up

with either the agency or the victim,

and present the findings to the

ombudsman.146

OCVO officials may make

recommendations to the agency in

efforts to rectify citizens’ complaints.

If authorities do not accept the

recommendations of the ombudsman,

however, the OCVO has no

enforcement or disciplinary powers.

The ombudsman’s principal means

to secure remedial action is through

making public, both to the legislature

and the press, the action or inaction

of an agency.

For example, if the ombudsman finds

that the agency has acted in either an

inappropriate or unlawful manner, its

officials must be notified and given

30 days to respond to the OCVO’s

findings and recommendations before

they are made public.147

Resolutions to victims’ complaints

have varied over the years and

have depended on the individual

circumstances of each case.

Examples of the range of remedies

prescribed by the OCVO over the

last 10 years are:

• referring complainants to other

agencies or organizations;

• explaining to citizens the laws,

rules, and policies of government

so that they better understand how

a government agency operates;

• acting as a liaison between

citizens and agencies to facilitate

communication and understanding

between victims and criminal

justice practitioners;

• requesting that an agency issue

an apology;

• reviewing agency or department

documentation concerning a

specific case to determine whether

the agency has treated the citizen

appropriately;

• developing model policies and

procedures to help agencies to

correct systemic procedures that

negatively impact victims; and

141 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.74 (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).

142 MINN. STAT, ANN. § 611A.74 (West 1987 &

Supp. 1996).

143 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 10.

144 OFFICE OF THE CRIME VICTIMS’ OMBUDSMAN,

BASIC CASE FLOW, on file with author

Feb. 5, 1997, pps. B-4-B-5 [hereinafter

CASE FLOW].

145 INVESTIGATIVE GUIDELINES, supra note 138

at p. 2, CASE FLOW, supra note at B-5.

146 INVESTIGATIVE GUIDELINES, supra note 138

at p. 6.

147 INVESTIGATIVE GUIDELINES, supra note 138

at p. 6.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 29

• recommending legislative changes

to laws affecting victims of

crime.148

The types of cases in which the

ombudsman and her staff may

intervene and investigate reflect

the broad statutory authority of the

OCVO. Since 1992, the OCVO

has documented and intervened on

several cases ranging from perceived

mistreatment of victims by criminal

justice officials, to those where

OCVO officials worked with law

enforcement investigators and a

victim’s wife after the exhumation

of the victim’s body to determine

definitively the cause of the his death.

The Minnesota statute allows OCVO

staff to intervene on a victim’s behalf

when he feels that he is not being

treated appropriately by the criminal

justice system. Many complaints are

resolved by “assists,” when a victim’s

concerns may be addressed quickly

by an OCVO investigator contacting

the criminal justice official whose

action is in question. One example

of this type of victim complaint came

from a homicide victim’s mother who

felt that she was not receiving timely

information regarding the status of

the investigation into her daughter’s

death. The mother did not contact

the OCVO with a specific victims’

rights violation, but perceived that

she was being mistreated by the law

enforcement agency because she was

unable to obtain information on the

status of the case.

OCVO officials resolved the

complaint quickly by contacting

the lieutenant in charge of the

investigation to relay the mother’s

concerns. The lieutenant was

receptive and agreed to contact the

victim’s family. According to OCVO

records, the very next day, the

victim’s mother advised OCVO

officials that a representative of the

law enforcement agency contacted

her, apologized for any mistreatment,

and promised to notify her in a timely

fashion of the progression of the case.

According to the OCVO account, she

was satisfied with the action and

requested that the OCVO terminate

its action on the complaint.149

OCVO officials note that resolving

complaints with assists, as with this

example, is fairly common, and that

concerns about poor treatment — not

only victims’ rights violations — are

repeatedly brought to the attention of

OCVO officials by crime victims in

Minnesota.150

Another common method that the

OCVO employs to assist victims

of crime is to aid in clarifying for

victims why the criminal justice

system operates the way it does and

why criminal justice practitioners

make the decisions they do. One

example of this sort came from a

sexual assault victim’s mother who

contacted the OCVO when she

learned that the prosecutor assigned

to her daughter’s case did not intend

to bring charges against the assailant.

The OCVO reviewed the case and the

prosecutor’s reasoning for declining

prosecution. As a result of the

OCVO investigation, the prosecutor

sent a letter to the victim and

explained in detail his reasoning for

not bringing charges. While still

disappointed in the charging decision,

the mother better understood the

prosecutor’s reasoning in not trying

the case.151

Other complaints received by the

OCVO relate to direct violations of

Minnesota’s Victims’ Bill of Rights.

In Minnesota, crime victims have

the right to request notification from

corrections officials when offenders

are released from custody. In one

situation, an assault victim contacted

the OCVO seeking assistance when

he could not get a consistent response

from officials concerning the release

date of his assailant.

When OCVO officials inquired, they

found that the offender’s history and

circumstances were complex: during

the period of time the assailant was

on probation for assault against the

complainant, he was charged with

attempted murder in another county.

To resolve the assault victim’s

complaint, OCVO officials worked

with the offender’s case worker to

compile a lengthy case history of the

offender, summarize his charges,

sentences, and release dates, and

forward that information to the

complainant.152

A more unusual example of the

OCVO’s powers to intervene

emerged in a case where the cause

of death of a victim was concluded

incorrectly by law enforcement

officials. In 1991, police officials

found the body of a deceased man

in his automobile, which had veered

off the highway. Law enforcement

officials and the medical examiner

determined his cause of death was

accidental.153 However, after the man

was buried, workers at a wreckage

yard found in his car a cap pierced

by a bullet hole, indicating that the

man’s death may not have been

accidental, but may have been caused

by a gunshot wound.154 His body

148 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 5.

149 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106, at p. 12.

150 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106, at p. 12.

151 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100, at p. 28.

152 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100, at p. 26.

153 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106, at p. 11–12.

154 Maureen M. Smith, Ombudsman Helps

Crime Victims Find Peace, Minneapolis Star

Tribune, Jan. 3, 1994 [hereinafter Peace].
30 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

was exhumed and a second autopsy

revealed that he in fact had been shot.155

The OCVO intervened using a variety

of techniques. The OCVO negotiated

with the law enforcement agency on

behalf of the victim’s wife to resolve

the concerns that arose from the case

investigation, and provided training

on victims’ rights and the effects of

victimization to employees of the law

enforcement agency in question.

Perhaps most importantly, the

OCVO met with the victim’s wife

and representatives of the law

enforcement agency, who afforded

her the opportunity to express her

dissatisfaction with them and receive

their apology. This acknowledgment

of error was significant for the

victim’s wife. “It doesn’t matter

if a case lands on its feet,” the

ombudsman was quoted as saying

after this case was resolved.

 “The victim suffered a lot during

that whole process. She was angry

and upset.”156 Meeting with

representatives of the law

enforcement agency the gave her

the satisfaction of knowing that this

tragedy would not happen to another

family, that officers were trained,

and that policies were developed to

ensure more accurate investigations,

according to the OCVO.157

Finally, the office, through its

ability to make recommendations

on policies and procedures that

dictate the actions of criminal justice

agencies can affect systemic change

as well. One example of this type

of intervention occurred when the

OCVO received three separate

complaints involving one county’s

prosecutor and victim/witness

program. All three victims reported

poor service from these criminal

justice agencies, and had specific

complaints that ranged from

excessive trial delays to little or

no communication with victims.

Because the complaints were so

similar in nature, OCVO investigators

conducted a systemic investigation

of the county’s program. They

recommended a needs assessment

to determine if the county should

restructure its current services, or if

it needed more funding and increased

staff. The recommendation was

forwarded to the DOC, which

conducted the assessment. The

DOC has completed its analysis, and

currently is working with the county

to help it meet its goals of improved

services to crime victims.158

The OCVO, in its Biennial Reports,

has documented “words of praise”

from crime victims whom the office

has assisted. A sampling of these

comments which follow is reflective

of the goals of the office to ensure

fair and responsive government

service to crime victims in a

professional manner:159

• “The investigator showed

compassion to my needs and

handled my complaint with

professionalism. She is an asset

to your office.”

• “You provide a much needed

service.”

• “Just having someone skilled to

look at our case was comforting.”

• “The complaint was investigated

quickly and efficiently.”

It also publicly commends

criminal justice agencies that

provide exceptional service to

victims or who have undergone

tremendous improvement in their

delivery of services to victims.

Criteria for selection for a public

commendation are: flexibility,

creativity, timeliness of response,

cooperation, and commitment to

share information with victims.160

THE EVOLUTION OF

THE OCVO

The OCVO office has evolved

significantly since its inception,

both with respect to leadership and

mission. According to its 1995–1996

Biennial Report to Minnesota

Policymakers, the office has made

several significant strides in the

past decade. The scope of the

ombudsman’s oversight and

investigative discretion, for example,

grew after the legislature amended

the state’s Crime Victims’ Bill of

Rights to provide victims the right

to give an impact statement and

expanded a victims’ right to

notification and participation in

the criminal justice process.161

As important, however, was the

change that took place in 1992,

with the appointment of the current

ombudsman. Prior to 1992, the

OCVO acted similarly to a victims’

advocate, even though it was part of

the criminal justice system. “Unlike a

private [victims’] advocacy agency,

this office is part of the [state’s]

system,” according to the prior

ombudsman.162 The OCVO mission

and function has evolved since

then to focus on neutrality and

impartiality, which more clearly

155 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106, at p. 11–12.

156 Peace, supra note 154.

157 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106, at p. 11–12.

158 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100, at p. 27.

159 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100, at p. 33.

160 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100, at p. 34. .

161 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100, at p. 19.

162 One of a Kind, supra note 104.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 31

imparts the philosophy and function

of a traditional ombudsman.163

The most important function of the

ombudsman is to maintain neutral

relationships with the other criminal

justice and victims’ services

agencies.164 According to OCVO

officials, this autonomy is critical

because the OCVO depends on other

criminal justice and victims’ services

agencies for information on a given

case. “If it appears we are taking

sides,” commented one official, “then

we are not going to get cooperation

from these agencies, nor will our

investigations retain merit among

other criminal justice practitioners.”165

This shift toward neutrality and

objectivity in the OCVO’s function

has resulted in the creation of a

systematic case management

system as well as the recording and

collection of statistics. The creation

of objective management procedures

enhances the ability of staff members

to approach each case objectively.

Further, these tools help assure that

each investigation is conducted

in a manner in which all parties

understand clearly the issues the

complainant is raising, the problems

the parties are expected to address,

and the OCVO’s expectations

regarding resolution of the problem.166

DATA COLLECTION &

STAFFING RESOURCES

Over the past four years, the OCVO

has kept extensive statistics that

reflect its activity as well as types

of victims who seek its services.

Specifically, the OCVO tracks the

number of inquiries made to the

office, the end result of its cases,

and the number of complaints filed

by crime type.

Inquiries and Caseload

Inquiries to the OCVO increased

substantially from 1992 to 1993,

peaked in 1994, decreased slightly

in 1995, and increased again in 1996.

Officials cite several reasons for the

increased demand for services

provided by the office. One factor

likely is due to the outreach efforts

that the office has made statewide.

According to the OCVO’s 1995–1996

biennial report, the increase in

caseload “is largely due to providing

training and information to the public

about our services and abilities to

affect positive responses from

criminal justice organizations.”167

Another reason for the increased

number of calls may stem from

heightened media attention to the

office from both the local and

national press. An extensive article

about the OCVO was published

in The Minneapolis Star Tribune

in January 1994. The article

subsequently was picked up by the

Associated Press and published in

other dailies nationwide, providing

the OCVO with more exposure

than any other single public relations

piece to date.168

The following chart depicts the

inquiries filed with OCVO since 1993.

163 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 20.

164 Interview with Kim Ross, ombudsman

investigator, Office of the Crime Victim

Ombudsman, April 1, 1997 [hereinafter

Ross Interview].

165 Id.

166 Id.

167 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 41.

168 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106 at p. 19.

Inquiries to the Crime Victim Ombudsman 1993–1996

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1 0

1234567890

1 0

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1 0

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1 0

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1234567890

1 0

1234567890

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123456789

123

123

123

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Inquiries

1993 1994 1995 1996
32 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

It also is important to note that data

for the years of 1995 and 1996 do

not reflect the numerous telephone

calls to the office in which citizens

were given immediate responses

or referred to other agencies. The

OCVO has limited its reporting for

the Biennial Report to include only

the cases in which a significant level

of investigation, consultation, or

research is undertaken. While the

hundreds of unrecorded requests

handled by the office each year,

according to state officials, represent

an important element of the office’s

services, the OCVO has decided in

recent years not to maintain records

of such requests because of the

minimal expenditure of resource

required to respond.169

Case Disposition

The OCVO also collects statistics

that illustrate the end result of the

cases brought before the ombudsman.

In 1993 and 1994, the OCVO staff

broke down investigations by result

into the following categories:

• Assist/Referral: The OCVO

determined that the complainant

could be better served by another

agency or service, or when the

extent of the investigation was

limited and the problem was

resolved quickly (usually within

48 hours of complaint filing);170

• Substantiated–Compliance:

The OCVO determined that the

complaint was substantiated, but

the agency was found to be in

compliance with victims’ rights

laws;

• Substantiated-Noncompliance:

The complaint is found to be

substantiated and it was

determined that the agency

violated victims’ rights laws;

• Unsubstantiated: The OCVO

could not determine conclusively

that the complaint had merit; and

• Unfounded: The OCVO

determined that the complaint had

no merit, and that the agencies had

acted appropriately and legally.

The statistics for those years are as

follows (in percent):171

169 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note at

100 at p. 41.

170 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

1993 1994

Assist/Referral 16 40

SubstantiatedCompliance 30 12

SubstantiatedNoncompliance 10 4

Unsubstantiated 18 34

Unfounded 6 10

problem is resolved within a short

time span;172

• Exonerated: Cases in which the

OCVO finds that the reported act

did not occur, the subject of the

complaint was not involved, or the

acts occurred but were justified,

lawful, and proper;

• Partly justified: Those that

indicate that some of the

allegations were true;

• Justified: Cases in which it was

determined that reported acts

occurred; and

• Discontinuance: Those in

which the OCVO stops short

of a full investigation due to a

lack of cooperation from the

complainant.173

The statistics for those years

break down as follows

(in percent):

1995 1996

Assist 60 82

Exonerated 2 10

Partly Justified 2 1

Justified 0 2

Discontinued 3 1

171 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106 at pps. 26–27.

The general trend toward aiding

crime victims with “assists” has

continued in the most recent

biennium. In 1995 and 1996, the

OCVO collected information about

the end result of investigations by

using the following categories:

• Assists: When resolution to a

complaint follows quickly after

the complaint is filed, and the

172 The OCVO stopped reporting statistics

about referrals in the last biennium,

because of these contacts’ brevity, and the

minor expenditure of the resources

required of the office.

173 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at 41.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 33

This trend toward aiding victims

through assists is preferable in cases

where it is possible to find resolution

in a short time frame, and precludes

the more bureaucratic procedures

associated with an extended

investigation. According to OCVO

officials, the OCVO is most useful

to the citizen when it can direct them

to the appropriate resource, law, rule,

or policy, or when it can resolve a

complaint immediately. They note,

however, that some complaints do

warrant a more comprehensive

investigation. In those instances

the results tend to affect a systemic

change, rather than immediate relief

for the victim.174

Type of Crime Committed

Finally, the OCVO’s statistics track

the types of crimes perpetrated

against victims who seek the services

of the ombudsman’s office. For the

years 1993 through 1996, between

81 and 86 percent of the cases

filed were brought by individuals

victimized by crimes against their

person, while the remaining

14–19 percent were victims of

property crime.175

The following chart provides a

comparison of the complaints by

crime type for crimes against persons

for the years 1993–1996.

174 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

175 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106 at p. 31. 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT,

supra note 100 at p. 51.

Complaints by Crime Type: Crimes Against Persons

12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

1 4

12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678

12345678

12345678

12345678

1234567890

1234567890

12345678901234 12345678901234

123456789012345 123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

1234 1234

1234 1234

1234

1234

1234 1234

1234

1234

12345 12345

12345

12345

123

123

123

12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678

12345678

12345678

12345678901

12345678901

12345678901

12345678901

12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

1234567890123456 1234567890123456

1234567890123456

1234567890123456

1234567890123456

12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678

12345678

12345678

12345678

12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

1234567890123456 1234567890123456

1234567890123456

1234567890123456

1234567890123456

1234567890123456

1234567890123456

12345678901

12345678901

12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678

12345678

12345678

12345678

1234567890

1234567890

12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

123456789012345 123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

100

80

60

40

20

0

1993 1994 1995 1996

Other

Criminal Vehicular Operation/Hit & Run

Homicide

Child Abuse

Domestic Abuse

Harrassment/Stalking/Terroristic Threats

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Assault
34 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

The following chart provides a

comparison of the complaints by

crime type for crimes against

property for the years 1993–1996.

176 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at pps. 16–17.

177 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 18.

Complaints by Crime Type: Property Crimes

Staffing Resources

As the caseload of the OCVO office

has expanded, so too has the need for

resources. Currently, the office is

staffed by the ombudsman, a deputy

ombudsman, whose responsibility

is to conduct investigations and

training, three ombudsman

investigators, and one volunteer

coordinator/administrative

assistant.176 The OCVO also relies

on volunteers and student interns,

whose primary responsibilities

include acting as intake officers.

In the 1995–1996 biennium, six

volunteers/interns served at the

OCVO office, logging over 700

hours. 177

The OCVO’s budget has remained

constant since the 1995 fiscal year.

The office currently is funded out of

revenues from the state’s general

fund, and a from the DOC budget,

however, effective with fiscal year

1998 appropriations, all OCVO

funding will come from the state’s

general fund. OCVO officials report

that scarce resources continually pose

a challenge and that the reach of the

office and the ombudsman function

would be greater if funding were

available for more professional

staff.178 Resource constraints require

cases to be managed according to

urgency, rather than on a first-comefirst-served basis, according to

officials. Further, the small number

of OCVO personnel impedes the

staff’s participation on various boards

and committees concerned with

criminal justice and victims issues.179

STRENGTHS AND

WEAKNESS OF THE

OCVO

Despite extensive victims’ rights and

a sophisticated system of victims’

services, there remains concern in

Minnesota about whether protections

for victims are being adequately

provided. The ever growing number

of calls fielded by the OCVO would

suggest that there remains situations

in which victims are not provided

their rights, or in which they are

not being treated appropriately by

criminal justice practitioners or

victims’ services agencies.

There are many features of the

OCVO infrastructure that allow it to

both effectively respond to victim

complaints concerning the criminal

justice system, and contribute to

systemic change to improve the

system of justice for the future.

The broad investigative powers of

178 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

179 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 14.

12

1212

12

121212

123456789012345 123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

1 5

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

12

1212

123 123

123 12345678901234 12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678901234

12345678901234

12

1212

1212

12

12345 12345

12345

12345

12345

123456789012345 12345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

12

1212

1212

123

123

123456789012345 123456789012345

1 5

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

123456789012345

12345 12345

12345

12345

1212 1234

12345 12345

12345

12345

12345 123

123

123 12345 12345

12345

12345

12345

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1993 1994 1995 1996

Arson

Forgery/Fraud

Property Damage

Other

Burglary

Motor Vehicle Accident

Theft
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 35

the OCVO, for example, are one of

its greatest strengths in overseeing

the criminal justice system in its

provision of victims’ rights. The

ability to examine allegations of

mistreatment or statutory violation

on the part of an agency, according

to OCVO officials, allows it to not

only investigate, but to enforce good

government service.180

OCVO officials also cite the

office’s ability to access confidential

information as a critical feature for

facilitating some investigations.

Because the information collected

by the OCVO is classified as

confidential, citizens and government

agencies can feel comfortable that

their communications with the office

will not be disclosed.181

Another benefit of the OCVO’s

oversight is its simple, expedient

manner of handling complaints.

The direct and informal manner

with which complaints are handled

departs from the more time-intensive

process of civil litigation in holding

accountable state agencies.

According to OCVO officials, a

primary goal in the creation of the

ombudsman position is to allow for

the speedy and inexpensive resolution

to conflicts between victims and

criminal justice providers, and to

provide recourse to victims beyond

filing civil complaints against the

agencies charged with the

administration of justice.182

Finally, and perhaps most

importantly, the oversight function

of the OCVO is beneficial because

it affords victims an opportunity to

raise questions about the actions of an

agency. OCVO officials often find

that, in cases in which a victim feels

revictimized by participation in

the criminal justice process, he

merely wants an affirmation and an

acknowledgment that he was treated

badly, and an apology from the

agency if it is found that it did not

handle the victims’ rights or needs

appropriately.183 According to DOC

victims’ service providers, referring

victims to the ombudsman creates

another opportunity for them to

access services, get an answer to a

question, and become whole after

their victimization.184

Both OCVO staff and its observers,

however, note room for improvement.

A primary concern for OCVO

officials involves their ability to

strike a balance in their investigative

processes between the subjectivity

of individual case assessments and

developing a body of consistent

rulings and precedent. The staff have

observed that it is sometimes difficult

to rule in a manner that is fair in

light of the specific factors of each

case, yet consistent with prior

interpretations of what the OCVO

considers appropriate and legal

treatment of victims. Because the

OCVO acts as the final arbiter in the

enforcement of victims’ rights laws,

it does not benefit from case law or

other factors to help guide its

interpretation of the facts and

allegations of the case. Although

the OCVO office has not received

complaints about inconsistency

from agency professionals, some

practitioners are concerned about the

subjectivity of the ruling process in

general. In order to mitigate this

concern, the OCVO is developing

a computer system that will allow

investigators more access to previous

cases and the ability to review the

criteria used in previous OCVO

rulings.185

Another weakness perceived by staff

relates to resources. Officials cite

outreach to the more rural areas of

the state — to citizens, victims of

crime, and criminal justice

practitioners — as a primary concern

for the office. Members of the

OCVO staff respond to requests

for training, and try to do as much

outreach as the small staff and

growing caseload can accommodate.

Over the past several years, the

OCVO has trained both police recruit

classes and veteran officers; victim

advocacy groups; sexual assault

counselors; collegiate-level criminal

justice classes and other professional

and community groups that request

training.186

Further, the OCVO trains other

professionals about its function at

the CVWAC coordinated training

conferences.187 These conferences

include two levels of training —

introductory and advanced — on

victims’ rights for criminal justice

practitioners three times per year.

In these six sessions, information

about the role of the crime victims’

ombudsman is presented. However,

CVWAC officials stress that

information about the ombudsman

function is only a small part of their

broad, comprehensive training on

victims’ rights and service delivery.188

The OCVO staff in recent years

also has made efforts to educate the

general public about its services.

In its 1993–1994 Biennial Report,

the OCVO identified as a priority for

improvement the office’s outreach

and education efforts in areas of the

state identified as underserved.189

Since that time, the OCVO has made

efforts to enhance its public profile,

180 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

181 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at pps. 10–11.

182 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

183 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

184 Rowe Interview, supra note 98.

185 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

186 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

187 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

188 Schlauderaff Interview, supra note 128.

189 1993–1994 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

106 at p 3.
36 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

by attending resource and community

fairs, setting up information booths

at various shopping malls, and

participating in health fairs on

college campuses.190

Some observers question whether the

OCVO adequately exposes agencies

that systematically violate victims’

rights. A state senator heavily

involved in authoring the state’s

criminal justice and victims’ rights

laws has said that he wishes the

OCVO would be more “high-profile”

and proactive in its approach to

enforcing victims’ rights. According

to the legislator, the OCVO should

more actively use the tools that it has

at its disposal — namely publicity —

to expose instances in which victims

have been denied their rights.191

OCVO officials, however, are

hesitant to use these public,

confrontational measures on a

daily basis. In order to maintain

positive working relationships with

criminal justice agencies statewide

and retain its reputation as a neutral,

fact-finding agency, the OCVO tends

to use more collaborative approaches

in its daily interactions with criminal

justice agencies around the state.

However, officials report that some

instances warrant a more critical,

public investigation. As the OCVO

is the only agency in the state that has

jurisdiction to critique the actions of

other criminal justice agencies, it is

sometimes necessary to take more

public, proactive measures to assure

the systemic provision of victims

rights. Staff reiterated, however, that

they prefer to use publicity as a last

resort in finding resolution to a

victim’s complaint.192

Finally, OCVO officials cite as a

concern their statutory accountability

requirements to the DPS. Under

current law, the ombudsman is

appointed and can be removed by the

commissioner of the DPS. This could

create an awkward situation and

compromise the OCVO’s autonomy

if a situation were to arise requiring

the ombudsman to investigate an

agency within DPS.

Currently, the OCVO is supporting

legislation that would make more

uniform the functions of all of the

state’s ombudsman offices. In a

report issued by the Ombudsman

Roundtable in December of 1995, the

state’s ombudsmen recommended

enacting legislation that would clarify

and make uniform the definitions,

powers, and duties of the ombudsman

function statewide. The ombudsmen

suggested designating a separate

chapter in the Minnesota code for

defining the powers and duties of

an ombudsman and identifying the

services available to citizens.193

Specifically, the proposed legislation

would make the OCVO independent

of the DPS, and provide that the

appointment and removal of the

crime victims’ ombudsman would

be the responsibility of the governor,

rather than the commissioner of

the DPS.194

These proposed legislative changes

to the OCVO infrastructure exist

in a larger framework of change to

the provision of victims’ services

in the state. Currently, the agencies

involved in providing services to

victims are debating if and how their

services could be best delivered

by a single agency. In 1995, the

Minnesota legislature directed that

the availability of future funding

for all victims’ programming was

contingent upon the DOC, DPS, and

the state Supreme Court developing

a plan for the consolidation of all

existing victims’ programs.195

In a report presented to the

legislature’s crime committees titled,

Consolidation of Victim Services:

Report to the House Judiciary

Committee and the Senate Crime

Prevention Committee, a 25-member

task force recommended that

responsibility for all victims’ services

be placed in the DOC. Under the

consolidation plan, most professional

staff positions would be maintained,

with the exception of one general

crime program director position.196

Although the function and services

provided by the OCVO are not

directly impacted by the task force

consolidation recommendations, the

debate about the future of victims’

services in the state has left many

involved with victims’ issues

concerned that the common goal

of providing services to victims

has been impeded. Currently, the

Minnesota House of Representatives

has advised both the DOC and DPS

commissioners to design a plan for

service consolidation, seeking input

from the OCVO. However, no

legislation exists to enforce this

effort at this time.

EVALUATION OF THE

ENFORCEMENT EFFORT

In addition to identifying ways in

which the current OCVO structure

could be improved, the office also

190 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

191 Kelly Interview, supra note 102.

192 Interview with Bruce Duncan, ombudsman

investigator, April 1, 1997 [hereinafter

Duncan Interview].

193 OMBUDSMAN REPORT, supra note 129 at p. 3.

194 Duncan Interview, supra note 192. Ross

Interview, supra note 150.

195 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY, AND MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT,

CONSOLIDATION OF VICTIM SERVICES:

REPORT TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

AND THE SENATE CRIME PREVENTION

COMMITTEE, 1 (Feb. 1996).

196 Id. at pps. 7–8.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 37

has taken steps to evaluate how its

services affect victims. Since 1993,

the OCVO staff has sent a survey

to all victims who have filed

complaints which result in full-scale

investigations and determinations.

The evaluation asks respondents

to rate on a scale from one to five

the services of and investigative

technique employed by the OCVO,

with a “one” denoting low

satisfaction and a “five” denoting

high satisfaction. The survey asks

respondents to rate the efficiency

and effectiveness of the OCVO

services; whether the staff adequately

explained the impartiality of the

office as well as victims’ rights; their

overall satisfaction with the service;

and if they would make a referral

to the OCVO. Finally, the survey

leaves space for respondents to

make comments or suggestions to

the office.197 The OCVO sends the

survey to victims in a self-addressed

and stamped envelope.

The statistics compiled by the OCVO

since 1993 on victim satisfaction with

the office are as follows:198

1993 1994 1995 1996

Number of Surveys Sent 21 81 79 45

Number of Surveys Returned 18 34 22 16

Percent Satisfied with the

OCVO Services 72% 81.5% 73% 79%

197 OFFICE OF THE CRIME VICTIMS’ OMBUDSMAN,

CASE COMPLETION SURVEY, Feb. 1, 1996

(on file with author).

198 Memorandum from Beth Yurchisin to

Kim Ross, concerning Satisfaction

Percentages from the Case Completion

Surveys, April 1, 1997 (on file with

author).

It should be noted that the number of

surveys sent in 1993 is significantly

smaller than in subsequent years

because the OCVO did not start

sending the evaluations to victims

until October of that year.199 A victim

is considered “satisfied” if his scores

on the evaluation are three or above.

The OCVO staff currently is working

on improving the mechanisms by

which it evaluates its services. With

hopes of improving the response rate,

the staff is considering changing the

survey questions to those that allow

a yes or no response.200

OCVO officials also are developing

ways to track the satisfaction of

victims whose complaints are

resolved before a formal investigation

is necessary. The staff notes the

focus of a full OCVO investigation

is often to address systemic change

within an agency, and likely does not

bring a victim immediate resolution

of his problem. However, victims

whose complaints are resolved by

“assists” may report more satisfaction

with the process because of the

expedient manner in which their

complaints are resolved. To assess

199 Id.

200 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

the satisfaction of this group of

citizens served by the OCVO,

officials are considering conducting a

telephone survey of such individuals.201

Further, they intend to develop

another survey to solicit information

from the criminal justice agencies

that are the subjects of citizen

complaints. Officials plan to compile

these survey results yearly and to

try to incorporate comments and

concerns of the criminal justice

system where it is feasible and

appropriate.202

PROGNOSIS FOR THE

FUTURE

Senate Bill 1880, the legislature’s

Omnibus Crime Bill for the 1997

legislative session, adopted

provisions that will aid the OCVO

in achieving its objective as a neutral,

fact-finding body charged with

overseeing the fair and lawful

treatment of victims. For example,

the proposal aimed at making the

OCVO more autonomous from the

DPS was passed by the legislature

during the 1997 session. Effective

August 1, 1997, the crime victim

ombudsman is required only to

report to the legislature its activities,

eliminating reporting accountability

to the DPS commissioner. Further,

S.B. 1880 clarifies that the crime

victim ombudsman is selected by and

serves at the pleasure of the governor,

and enjoys an indefinite appointment

unless replaced by the governor.203

Also debated during the 1997

legislative session was a proposal that

201 Ross Interview, supra note 164.

202 THE OFFICE OF THE CRIME VICTIMS

OMBUDSMAN, STRATEGIC PLAN-FIRST DRAFT:

FY 1998–1999 (on file with author)

[hereinafter STRATEGIC PLAN].

203 Duncan Interview, supra note 192.
38 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

would add funding for an additional

full-time investigator for the office.204

The OCVO staff has developed three

primary goals for the next biennium,

in addition to continuing the services

provided currently by the office.

These goals are to enhance services

and outreach to victims, augment

relations with other agencies within

the criminal justice system and

victims’ services realms, and become

more efficient in day-to-day case

management:205

✦ Enhancing Services

and Outreach.

The OCVO hopes to improve

the outreach efforts of the office

to both the public and criminal

justice agencies. In doing so,

it plans to submit one article

each year to the state’s law

enforcement, county attorney,

victims’, and corrections

publications. Further, it aims to

participate in 12 professional or

community resource fairs; travel

twice a year to rural communities

to disseminate information and

receive complaints from victims

“on the road;” and to conduct

training regarding crime victims’

rights and the OCVO in Minnesota

six times yearly. These efforts

will be enhanced if the pending

legislation creating and funding

two additional OCVO positions

is passed.

✦ Augmenting Relations

With Other Agencies.

With a goal of improving

communication between the

OCVO and kindred agencies, the

OCVO has targeted eight other

state agencies and associations

with whom it plans to exchange

information and provide yearly

in-service training. The staff

hopes that seeking the input of

criminal justice practitioners and

victims’ services agencies through

enhanced OCVO evaluation

techniques also will improve the

relationship that the office has

with other agencies.

✦ Case Management

Improvements.

There are three sub-objectives

within this goal. The first, to

improve existing computer

software programs, could allow

the office to more effectively

deliver services by improving

staff access to case activity;

eliminating duplication of tasks;

improving the organization and

documentation of case files;

and enhancing the ability of the

ombudsman to manage the office.

Secondly, the OCVO intends to

create an information retention

and retrieval system to collect

and index analyses of Minnesota

statutes, recommended model

policies, and investigator

memoranda. Finally, officials

intend to improve and expand

the use of the volunteer/intern

program by actively recruiting

volunteers from local colleges and

universities, and creating research

projects based on the offices

information and resource needs.

Even with the changes to victims’

services in Minnesota approaching,

and the continual struggle to allocate

existing resources effectively, the

OCVO staff greet the future with

enthusiasm. According to the

1995–1996 Biennial Report, “staff

from the OCVO represent [that]

dedication year after year. They are

more committed and have bigger

visions than ever. As we look to the

next biennium, each has assumed

responsibility for ensuring the

office’s goals are met.”206

204 Duncan Interview, supra note 192.

205 STRATEGIC PLAN, supra note 202.

206 1995–1996 BIENNIAL REPORT, supra note

100 at p. 6.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 39

WISCONSIN

Policymakers in Wisconsin have created a

long-standing system of victims’ rights and

services delivery that defers to county discretion for

implementation. Since 1979, with the passage of the

state’s Bill of Rights for Crime Victims, counties have

been eligible for reimbursement of up to 90 percent

of the costs associated with providing these services.

The reimbursement program — the victim and witness

assistance program — is administered through the

state’s Department of Justice (DOJ).207

In an effort to complement county victim and witness

services, state policymakers in the early 1990s created

a state-level victims’ services office — the Wisconsin

Victim Resource Center (Victim Resource Center)

— to provide crime victims and witnesses with

information concerning available victims’ services,

crisis counseling, and assistance in securing resources

and protection. A second charge of the Victim

Resource Center is to act as a liaison between criminal

Although services and programs

designed to assist victims of child

and domestic abuse have been in

place for many years within the

state’s social service agencies, the

DOJ’s involvement in the realm of

victims’ services began with its

management of the crime victim

compensation program in 1979.

Before that year, the program was

administered through the state’s

Department of Industry, Labor, and

Human Relations (DILHR), the

agency responsible for processing

and awarding workers’ compensation

claims. In 1979, the state legislature

transferred responsibilities for the

crime victims’ compensation program

to the DOJ, believing that an agency

concerned with the criminal justice

system and cognizant of victims’

issues could more effectively and

sensitively implement the initiative.210

At the same time, there was an effort

underway to create a chapter in

Wisconsin law to define specifically

what rights the state should afford

crime victims. According to DOJ

officials, the development of

Wisconsin’s Bill of Rights for Crime

Victims stemmed from efforts to

sustain a demonstration project

funded by the LEAA to support

victims’ services. The grant provided

funding for demonstration programs

justice agencies and victims in resolving complaints

concerning unlawful or inappropriate agency action.208

Victim Resource Center officials may not, however,

prescribe remedies for violations of a victims’

constitutional protections. The scope of their ability to

act, under current law, allows them only to investigate

these complaints and present the victims’ concerns to

the official whose actions are in question.

Currently, the procedures that guide the Victim

Resource Center’s role in protecting victims’ rights

are informal and handled on a case-by-case basis,

often in tandem with the provision of direct services.

However, policymakers in Wisconsin are taking steps

to formalize the state’s role with respect to victims’

rights compliance enforcement, and augment the

current liaison efforts within the Victim Resource

Center. Currently, the Wisconsin legislature is

considering a measure that would create a board

structure charged with taking a “second look” at

certain complaints concerning victims’ rights

violations, and prescribing remedies against

unlawful agency action when appropriate.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

OF VICTIMS’ RIGHTS

& SERVICES

Many factors have contributed to the

development of victims’ rights and

services in Wisconsin over the years.

Leadership on the part of county

officials and state legislators in the

mid and late-1970s, contributed

significantly to the development of

victims’ rights laws, according to

officials with the DOJ’s Office of

Crime Victim Services (OCVS).

Their efforts have been augmented

in recent years by the leadership

undertaken by Attorney General

James Doyle, who advocates publicly

for victims’ rights on both the state

and national levels.209

207 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 950.05 (West 1996).

208 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 950.08 (West 1996).

209 Telephone Interview, Susan Goodwin,

Executive Director, Office of Crime

Victims Services, May 12, 1997

[hereinafter Goodwin Interview].

210 Interview with Steve Derene, Victim and

Witness Assistance Administrator, Office

of Crime Victims Services, April 4, 1997

[hereinafter Derene Interview].
40 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

in two counties — Kings County

(Brooklyn), N.Y., and Milwaukee

County, Wis. — to create programs

to provide services to victims and

encourage their involvement in the

criminal justice process.211

According to the administrator of

the pilot program in Milwaukee, the

demonstration project — Project

Turnaround — was a separate

agency within Milwaukee county

government and utilized a four-pronged

approach in providing services to

victims: enhancing computer

systems and capabilities to share

information with victims about case

proceedings; employing a unit to

receive complaints from victims

concerning their experiences with the

criminal justice system; creating a

victims’ advocate within the district

attorney’s office; and establishing

victim and witness protection

services in the sheriff’s office.212

The LEAA funded the pilot program

almost entirely in its first year, and

required the county to contribute a

small match. In the subsequent two

years of the demonstration program,

however, the federal allocation was

reduced, with the expectation that the

county would provide increased

support to show its dedication to the

initiative. Unfortunately, after the

three-year term had expired, officials

in Milwaukee decided that the county

was not in a position to absorb the

additional costs necessary to keep

Project Turnaround intact.213

Program administrators realized

that the only way to retain the

victims’ services provided by the

demonstration program would be to

require, by law, that such services

be provided. Milwaukee County

officials quickly approached key

legislators to discuss the idea of

crafting the necessary legislation to

sustain Project Turnaround. This

effort prompted state policymakers

to discuss the notion of providing all

citizens of the state with certain

protections if they fell prey to a

crime.214

Working closely with a freshman

legislator — Rep. Barbara Ulichny —

who was sympathetic to the issues

and concerns faced by victims of

crime, Project Turnaround staff and

DOJ officials developed the nation’s

first Victims’ Bill of Rights, which

passed the legislature during the

1979 legislative session.215 It was

considered a remarkable and

somewhat revolutionary endeavor

that a freshman legislator could

sponsor successfully a law on

victims’ rights — a policy concern

still in its infancy at that time.

Further, the effort was significant

in that it included a spending

component, allowing state funds to

be used to reimburse the counties up

to 90 percent of the funds needed to

provide certain victims’ services.216

In the almost 20 years since the

victims’ rights issue was brought to

the attention of state policymakers,

the protections and services the state

provides for victims have grown

considerably. One important

component of this expansion of

victims’ services was the creation

of a state-level victims’ advocacy

office, the Victim Resource Center,

in 1991.217

Expansion of Victims’ Rights

In their creation of the Victims’

Bill of Rights in 1979, policymakers

recognized a moral responsibility on

the part of the state to aid innocent

victims of violent crime to maintain

and strengthen the democratic system

of law and encourage greater public

cooperation in the apprehension and

prosecution of criminal offenders.

The legislative intent of the act was to

ensure that all victims and witnesses

of crime are treated with dignity,

respect, courtesy, and sensitivity; and

that victims and witnesses of crime

are provided protections by law

enforcement agencies, prosecutors,

and judges in a manner no less

vigorous than the protections

afforded criminal defendants.218

Since 1979, the legislature has

expanded the rights of victims and

witnesses of crimes, which may be

categorized in the following manner:

the right to participate in criminal

proceedings; the right to be notified

of certain proceedings and victims’

services; and the right to access state

and county-supported victims’

services programs. Through the 1996

legislative session, these protections,

defined by Wisconsin law, include:

211 Id.

212 Telephone Interview with Jo Kolanda,

Consultant, May 6, 1997 [hereinafter

Kolanda Interview].

213 Id.

214 Id.

215 Id.; Derene Interview, supra note 210.

216 Kolanda Interview, supra note 212.

217 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.08 (West 1996).

218 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.01 (West 1996).
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 41

Notification Participation State and County Services

• advice to the district attorney

concerning the ability of the child

witness to cooperate with the

prosecution, and the potential

effects of the proceedings on the

child; and

• information and referrals to

appropriate social service

programs to assist the child and

the child’s family in coping with

the emotional impact of the crime

and the proceedings in which the

child is participating.226

Further, Wisconsin counties are

encouraged to provide the following

services to child victims and

witnesses:

• explanations of the legal

proceedings in which the child

will be involved;

• advice to the judge as a friend of

the court regarding the child’s

ability to understand the

proceedings and the provision of

alternative services, for example,

the use of videotaped depositions,

to expedite proceedings;

Law enforcement officials and

district attorneys must inform the

victim of the final disposition of the

case, when a pardon application is

made, and when an offender is

released from custody in felony

cases; victims must be informed

when a court proceeding to which

they have been subpoenaed will not

proceed as scheduled, and of

financial assistance, social services,

and crisis intervention programs

available; and victims must be

provided assistance in applying for

and receiving witness fees.219

District attorneys’ offices must

notify victims when an offender is

released conditionally. Corrections

officials must inform victims when

an offender is placed in a nonsecure,

community corrections facility;

participating in an intensive

sanctions programs; and released

on parole.220

Victims of felonies may provide the

court with a statement pertaining

to the economic, physical and

psychological effect of the crime;

must be provided, whenever possible,

a secure waiting area during court

proceedings; and are entitled to a

speedy disposition of the case in

which they are involved as a victim

or witness.221

Victims may provide written

statements concerning parole

applications; have direct input in the

parole decision making process; and

provide written statements concerning

pardon applications.222

Victims and families of homicide

victims are entitled to receive

protection from harm arising out

of their cooperation with law

enforcement and prosecution efforts;

the expedient return of any stolen or

other personal property from law

enforcement agencies; and employer

intercession services. 223

Counties are encouraged to provide

to victims and witnesses who request

it notification of court appearances

and case progression and information

on victim compensation and other

available crisis intervention services.

Counties may be reimbursed by the

DOJ for up to 90 percent of these

costs.224

Victim Resource Center must

maintain a toll free number; provide

information and referral to victims’

services, crisis counseling,

assistance in securing resources,

and information to the general public

on victims’ rights and services; and

receive complaints from victims’

concerning the performance of

criminal justice agencies.225

219 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.04 (West 1996).

220 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.045 (West 1996).

221 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.04 (West 1996).

222 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.045 (West 1996).

223 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.04 (West 1996).

224 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.05 (West 1996).

225 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.05 (West 1996).

226 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.055 (West 1996).

Under the statute, county boards are

responsible for the enforcement of

rights and the provision of services.

For the most part, however, the
42 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

Victims’ Bill of Rights does not

define precisely which county

officials are responsible for providing

these protections, nor does it indicate

the extent to which services are based

upon a victim’s request. Voters in

Wisconsin augmented these statutory

protections in 1993 by passing a

victims’ rights amendment to the

state’s constitution. The amendment

states:

The state shall treat crime

victims with fairness, dignity

and respect for their privacy.

The state shall ensure that crime

victims have all of the following

privileges and protections

provided by law: 1) timely

disposition of case; 2) the

opportunity to attend court

proceedings unless the trial

court finds sequestration is

necessary to a fair trial for

the defendant; 3) reasonable

protection from the accused

throughout the criminal justice

process; 4) notification of court

proceedings; 5) the opportunity

to confer with the prosecution;

6) the opportunity to make

a statement to the court at

disposition; 7) the right to

restitution; 8) the right to

compensation; and 9) information

about the outcome of the case

and the release of the accused.

The legislature shall provide

remedies for the violation of

this section. Nothing in this

section, or in any statute enacted

pursuant to this section, shall

limit any right of the accused

which may be provided by

law.227

Currently, the Wisconsin legislature

is crafting enabling legislation

to support the constitutional

amendment. The legislation

will be pivotal, according to

OCVS officials, in further defining

and holding accountable the criminal

justice agencies responsible for

the provision of certain rights.228

Further, the proposal will augment

current county efforts to enforce

victims’ rights by prescribing

definitive remedies when an agency

violates these protections.

Victims’ Services

Today, the OCVS is charged

with implementing the state’s two

principal programs for victims —

the crime victim compensation

and victim and witness assistance

programs — and supports the Crime

Victims Council, which acts as an

advisor to the attorney general on

victims’ issues. The OCVS also

houses the Victim Resource Center,

which may act as a liaison between

victims and criminal justice agencies

and victim service providers when

victims perceive their actions to be

unlawful or inappropriate.

The crime victim compensation

program provides financial assistance

to victims of violent acts and certain

serious property crimes. Program

coverage extends to citizens acting

as good samaritans — those who

attempt to prevent a crime, apprehend

a criminal, or aid a crime victim or

law enforcement official — as well

as on-duty police officers and firefighters in certain circumstances.229

The victim compensation program

provides reimbursement for the

following costs: medical treatment;

lost wages; funeral and burial

expenses; loss of support to

dependents of a deceased victim;

replacement costs for belongings held

by law enforcement for evidentiary

purposes; and reasonable and

necessary costs associated with

securing and cleaning up a crime

scene. The OCVS may not make an

award of more than $40,000 for any

one injury or death.230

The compensation program is funded

from state general purpose revenues,

a crime victim and witness assistance

surcharge levied on all offenders

convicted of both misdemeanor and

felony crimes, and federal VOCA

funding. According to a recent

analysis conducted by the state’s

Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB), the

OCVS had $2.134 million available

in its fiscal year 1995 budget to make

compensatory awards to victims of

crime.231

The victim and witness assistance

program was created to provide

services to citizens who become

involved in the criminal justice

system, and to help ensure that

victims and witnesses are treated

with respect, dignity, and sensitivity

by all parties involved in the criminal

justice process.232 Created as part

of the Victims’ Bill of Rights in

1979, the program encourages

Wisconsin counties to provide

victims’ services by allowing them

to reclaim up to 90 percent of the

costs incurred in providing such

services. Counties qualify for

reimbursement by submitting a

program plan to the OCVS for

approval.233

Currently, 64 of 72 Wisconsin

counties participate in the victim and

witness assistance program, with 61

of those programs housed in county

district attorney’s offices. During the

developmental stages of the program,

227 WISC. CONST. Art. 1, § 9m.

228 Derene Interview, supra note 210.

229 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 949.05 (West 1996).

230 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 949.06 (West 1996).

231 STATE OF WISCONSIN, LEGISLATIVE FISCAL

BUREAU, CRIME VICTIM AND WITNESS

SERVICES, INFORMATIONAL PAPER #73, p. 3

(Jan. 1995) [hereinafter LFB REPORT].

232 Id.

233 WISC. STAT. ANN. § 950.06 (West 1996).
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 43

policymakers and OCVS officials

concentrated their efforts on

soliciting prosecutors to provide

victims’ services because they

perceived that the district attorney’s

office is the agency that works most

closely with victims throughout the

criminal proceedings.234

Administrative procedures define

specifically the types of activities

that a county must provide to qualify

for reimbursement, as well as

supplemental services that are

allowable uses of funds. The

following chart lists the services

that counties must provide to be

reimbursed by the state, as well as

programs and services for which they

may be reimbursed:235

Services That Counties Must Services That Counties May Fund

Types of Services Provide for Reimbursement With Reimbursement Allocation

Notification Notification to all victims and The creation of an alert system

witnesses who desire them, including through which witnesses are

information concerning case status, permitted to remain at work, home,

subpoena cancellation, any known or another designated place until

developments of the case, and their appearance is required

final disposition

Victim Compensation Referral Notification to eligible victims of Assistance in the completion

violent crime of the crime victim and submission of a victim’s

compensation program, and compensation application form;

explanation of the available benefits advice to victims on the merits of

and applications procedures their applications; and assistance in

gathering relevant information to

perfect their claim

Social Service Referrals Information about and appropriate Tracking victim referrals to service

referrals of victims to agencies that agencies in order to assure that the

provide support and other services; needs of victims, witnesses, and

and referrals of witnesses of homicide the families of homicide victims

and family members of victims of are met

homicide to appropriate community

service agencies

Witness Fee Assistance Notification of the availability of Assistance to witnesses in applying

witness fees and procedures to apply for payment of witness fees

for and receive fees

Public Information Information to the public and agencies Brochures describing the rights and

that have contact with victims and services available to victims and

witnesses about victim and witness witnesses, and how to avail those

assistance services and how to avail rights and services, and/or training

those services sessions for criminal justice

practitioners to enhance

understanding of the provision

of victims’ rights and services

234 Derene Interview, supra note 210.

235 WIS. ADMIN. CODE § JUS 12.
44 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

Services That Counties Must Services That Counties May Fund

Types of Services Provide for Reimbursement With Reimbursement Allocation

Escort Information about personal support Accompaniment for witnesses

services available during court throughout their court appearances

proceedings

Transportation Upon request, information concerning Providing transportation to victims

transportation services available and witnesses, if program staff

to allow victims’ participation in indicate that the victim needs

the investigation and prosecution, transportation in order to participate

including information regarding in criminal proceedings

the courthouse location and the

availability of parking facilities

Victim Impact Statements Information about the right of victims Assistance to victims of felonies in

and Restitution of felonies to provide the court the development of victim impact

information about the economic, statements and gathering information

physical, and psychological effects pertaining to the economic effect of

of their victimization the crime on the victim for purposes

of restitution

Employer Intercession Employer notification of a victim’s or Intercession with a victim’s or

witness’s involvement in a case upon witness’s employer at the employee’s

request of the victim or witness request when the court proceedings

may cause the employee to lose time

from work or otherwise jeopardize

his wages or employment

Property Return Information about a victim’s right Contact with criminal justice

to have personal property held as authorities responsible for the

evidence returned within a reasonable return of a victim’s property held as

amount of time; referrals to criminal evidence and the creation of systems

justice authorities responsible for the that facilitate the early release of the

return of property held as evidence; victims property

and assistance in securing the

release of the property

Protection Services Information about protective services Arrangements with law enforcement

available, and whom to contact if a agencies to investigate allegations

victim or witness is threatened or of intimidation or threats against

harassed; if a victim or witness is and witnesses

harassed, the program must alert

the appropriate law enforcement

agencies and prosecutor
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 45

Services That Counties Must Services That Counties May Fund

Types of Services Provide for Reimbursement With Reimbursement Allocation

Waiting Facilities and Reception Safe and convenient waiting facilities Provision of a separate waiting room

for victims and witnesses who for victims and witnesses awaiting

participate in criminal proceedings court appearances

and witness reception services

Child Victims and Witnesses Referrals specially suited to children’s Explanations in language understood

needs, taking into consideration each by the child of all legal proceedings

child’s level of development and in which he is involved, and advice

ability to understand to the court on the child’s ability to

understand the legal proceedings

Notification of Application Assistance to victims in assuring that N/A

for Pardon or Parole written victim statements concerning

pardon and parole applications are

considered by appropriate officials

The victim and witness assistance

program is supported primarily by

general purpose revenues, program

revenues provided by the state’s

crime victim and witness assistance

surcharge, and federal anti-drug

abuse funding. The actual percentage

of reimbursement varies each year

depending upon available funds, the

costs of the counties’ programs, and

the number of counties operating

approved programs, according to the

LFB analysis.236 The following table

depicts the total state reimbursements

and the actual percentage of

reimbursements to counties for costs

of victim and witness assistance

programs for fiscal years 1984

through 1994.237

Percentage Reimbursement to Counties

# of Counties

Total Amount of Percentage of Receiving

Fiscal Year Reimbursement Cost Reimbursed Reimbursement

1984 $763,500 83% 18

1985 $960,700 82% 25

1986 $1,228,000 90% 29

1987 $1,475,400 90% 33

1988 $1,559,100 80% 33

1989 $1,572,900 74% 37

1990 $2,097,100 85% 43

1991 $2,370,600 84% 43

1992 $3,129,400 90% 49

1993 $3,132,000 78% 55

1994 $3,665,000 78% 58 236 LFB REPORT, supra note 231 at pps. 8–9.

237 LFB REPORT, supra note 231 at pps. 8–9.
46 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

OCVS officials are hopeful that

the eight counties that are not

participating in the victim and

witness assistance program will

take part soon, and indicate that

individuals in those jurisdictions

are trying to build support from

their county boards to provide

victims’ services, or are currently

planning service delivery systems

eligible for reimbursement. However,

participation in some areas may

be thwarted by county officials

concerned with the programmatic

requirements attached to the

reimbursement of victim and witness

services, or that the funding source

will diminish in future years. Still

others are developing a sensitivity

to issues faced by victims of crime,

and an understanding of the counties’

role in providing services and

protections to these individuals.238

Crime Victims Council

The Wisconsin legislature also has

created a Crime Victims Council,

which is composed of criminal justice

practitioners, members of the

judiciary, victims, and concerned

citizens. The 16-member council

serves in an advisory capacity to

the attorney general. Currently,

the council, through its committee

structure, reviews and makes

recommendations on legislation

affecting the needs of crime victims

in Wisconsin; studies access to crime

victim services in terms of cultural

diversity; provides training to or

monitors training provided to the

judiciary, law enforcement officers,

mental health providers and

professionals, and the general public

concerning the needs and rights of

crime victims; uses the media to raise

public awareness of victims’ issues;

and advises the OCVS on funding

policies, guidelines, and individual

VOCA grant awards.239 The council

has played an instrumental role

since 1993 in developing the

enabling legislation to support

the constitutional amendment.240

The role of the council in affecting

state victims’ policy has varied

over the years, depending on its

composition and its relationship with

the attorney general.241 For example,

when Rep. Ulichny was in office,

she was named the first chair to

the council. Because she was a

strong advocate for victims’ rights,

the council worked somewhat

independently of the attorney general

at the time, who focused less on

crime victims’ issues, according to

OCVS officials. However, today,

the council works closely with

Attorney General Doyle, and that this

collaborative relationship has lent

legitimacy to the council’s input on

the pending legislative initiatives.242

WISCONSIN VICTIM

RESOURCE CENTER

Wisconsin law includes provisions

for a victims’ rights liaison program,

as well as direct services and crisis

intervention at the state level. The

Victim Resource Center was created

by the Wisconsin legislature in 1991

and is required by statute to provide:

information about and referral to

available local victims and witness

programs, assistance in securing

resources and protection, and

information to crime victims, the

general public, criminal justice

officials, and related professionals

about crime victims’ rights and

services and their availability

statewide. The Victim Resource

Center also may receive complaints

from crime victims concerning

inappropriate treatment and unlawful

action on the part of a criminal justice

agency or victim service provider,

and may mediate on behalf of the

victim before these officials.243

The creation of the resource center

evolved from several influences.

Among them was an interest

among state policymakers to give

the OCVS the legal authority to

provide services to victims. OCVS

officials, however, are careful to note

that the development of state-level

victims initiatives are intended

to complement the provision and

enforcement of victims’ rights and

services at the county level, not act

to replace it. Further, DOJ officials

had learned about the OVCO

program in the neighboring state

of Minnesota, and realized that

elements of that effort could be

effective in Wisconsin. They felt

that providing a contact point

between victims and the criminal

justice system was an important

component of a comprehensive

approach for the provision of

victims’ services.244

Direct Services

Victim Resource Center officials

provide a myriad of services to

crime victims in Wisconsin,

including direct services to victims

in individual cases in which the DOJ

has employed a special prosecutor

to handle the proceedings for the

government; assistance and support

to victims of various sex crimes in

cases in which the state is considering

civilly committing their assailants.

238 Interview with Chris Nolan, Victim

and Witness Assistance Administrator,

April 4, 1997 [hereinafter Nolan Interview].

239 LFB REPORT, supra note 231.

240 Goodwin Interview, supra note 209.

241 Goodwin Interview, supra note 195.

242 Goodwin Interview, supra note 209.

243 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 950.08 (West 1996).

244 Derene Interview, supra note 210.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 47

Further, a significant project recently

undertaken by Victim Resource

Center staff has as its objective to

foster the development of statewide

immediate response services to

victims. Since the passage of

VOCA,245 which provides funding

to states and localities for victims’

services, OCVS officials have taken

steps to encourage early intervention

and assistance services when

a violent crime has occurred.

These services — crisis response

programming — have become a

primary responsibility of the Victim

Resource Center, which also is

supported in part by the state’s

VOCA allocation.

A primary objective of crisis

response programming is to provide

a continuum of victims’ services

from the incidence of the crime

through its investigation and

prosecution. In 1991, the OCVS

contacted with the Dane County

(Madison) district attorney’s office

to support a demonstration crisis

response program. According to the

director of the Victim/Witness Unit,

the crisis response effort in Madison

takes a two-pronged approach. The

first — immediate contact with the

victim of the crime — is considered

essential. The goal is to provide

“hands-on” trauma services,

identifying the victims’ needs,

providing support, and facilitating

access to other relevant county and

state programs. This contact is

followed up with a second prong

consisting of more traditional

victims’ services.246

Now that crisis response efforts

in Dane and a limited number of

other Wisconsin counties are

operational, the OCVS has

rechannelled its support for crisis

response demonstration projects to

the expansion of these initiatives to

other counties based on each of their

individual needs. Current expansion

efforts include identifying local

resources, working in conjunction

with local victims’ service providers

to develop infrastructure to support

crisis response services in the

community, and conducting training

for individuals interested in becoming

crisis response service providers.247

Victims’ Rights Compliance

In its efforts to help victims of crime

exercise their rights, the Victim

Resource Center operates two

primary programs: The Victim

Assistance Notification Service

(VANS), which notifies victims of

proceedings scheduled when an

offender appeals his case, and liaison

services in which Victim Resource

Center officials act as a contact

between victim and agency when the

victim perceives his rights are not

being protected.

Victims’ Appellate

Notification Services

Under the VANS program, victims

may register with their county victim

and witness assistance program or

the Victim Resource Center to

receive information about the appeals

process in the state court system,

to be notified when a defendant

appeals his conviction, and to

continue receiving victims’ services

and outcome information during the

appeal process.248 Upon the DOJ’s

receipt of a defendant’s brief, the

district attorney’s office or victim

and witness coordinator must

instruct victims on how to register

for appellate notification, by

requiring him to complete and

submit a victim notification card.249

Registered victims will be

informed whether an oral argument

is scheduled, and of the final decision

of the Court of Appeals and its

effect on the circuit court’s decision.

Upon request, a victim will continue

to receive services, including the

option of being accompanied to an

oral argument by a victims’ services

professional, throughout the appeal.250

The VANS program, which was first

implemented in 1994, was evaluated

in 1996. At that time, the DOJ

had approximately 375 appellate

cases in which victims and families

had requested VANS. A random

sampling of that population

participated in the survey. Victims

were asked to respond to four

“yes or no” questions about VANS

services: whether the victim

received information materials from

the Victim Resource Center on the

VANS program; if the materials were

presented clearly; if the notification

services were timely; and if the

victim understood the information

he received about the appellate

decision and its effect on his case.

The evaluation asked that the victims

indicate which agency — either the

local victim and witness coordinator

or the Victim Resource Center

staff — provided them with the

information about the Court of

Appeals’ decision.251

The Victim Resource Center received

14 responses from victims from the

245 42 U.S.C. §§ 10601–10604.

246 Interview with Suzanne Beaudoin,

Director, Victim and Witness Unit, Dane

County District Attorney’s Office (April 3,

1997) [hereinafter Beaudoin Interview].

247 Interview with Kathy Zupan, Executive

Director, Wisconsin Victim Resource

Center, April 4, 1997 [hereinafter Zupan

Interview].

248 OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIM SERVICES, VICTIMS’

RIGHTS AND CRIMINAL APPEALS, n.d. (on file

with author).

249 Id.

250 Id.

251 OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIMS’ SERVICES,

VICTIM APPELLATE NOTIFICATION SERVICES

QUESTIONNAIRE, (Aug. 20, 1996), (on file

with author).
48 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

25 surveys they mailed. All

14 victims responded positively to

the survey, indicating that they had

received information from a victim

and witness coordinator or the

Victim Resource Center on the

VANS program; that the pamphlets

were clear and easy to understand;

and that they understood the

information received regarding the

Court of Appeals decision and how

the decision impacted their case.

Only one victim of the 14 indicated

that he was not notified of the Court

of Appeals decision in a timely

manner, while the other 13 indicated

that the response time was

satisfactory.252

Victim Resource Center officials

indicate that there is room to improve

the VANS program. As of this

time, no specific efforts have been

undertaken to ensure that counties

that have not submitted VANS

cards receive additional training or

information on the availability of the

program and its function. Thus, the

Victim Resource Center cannot be

sure if officials in these counties are

aware of the program, or if they

merely choose not to notify victims

of its availability. Further, Victim

Resource Center officials plan to

further investigate and identify

counties where appeals have

originated but where no VANS

cards have been received.253

Liaison Services

The Victim Resource Center may

also receive complaints brought by

victims concerning the provision of

rights and services by county-level

criminal justice practitioners and

victim and witness assistance

providers. Because current law

dictates that county officials are

responsible for the provision of

victims’ rights, if they choose to seek

reimbursement from the state for the

provision of such services, Victim

Resource Center officials often work

closely with local victim and witness

assistance providers to ensure that

victims’ rights are protected.

The approach to victims’ rights

compliance in Wisconsin is

inextricably entwined with the

provision of services to victims.

According to the executive director

of the Victim Resource Center,

The backbone of the Victim

Resource Center is to help

victims exercise their rights by

helping them participate in the

criminal justice process and

intervening on their behalf to

facilitate thisinvolvement where

it is appropriate. I also provide

direct services to victims, and

approach myresponsibilities to

the office by adopting a role as a

victims’ advocate. I try to hear

what citizens’ concerns are and

share information with victims

about how and why the system

works the way it does. 254

Complaints brought to the attention

of Victim Resource Center officials

may concern poor treatment or

unlawful action by criminal justice

practitioners and county victim and

witness assistance providers. Victim

Resource Center officials may not,

however, prescribe remedies for

violations of a victims’ constitutional

protections. The scope of their ability

to act, under current law, allows them

only to investigate these complaints

and present the victims’ concerns to

the official whose actions are in

question.

Currently, Victim Resource Center

officials approach the day-to-day case

management of complaints on an

informal, case-by-case basis, which

allows the executive director to be

responsive to the individual needs

of victims. Because the Victim

Resource Center also provides

direct service in the form of crisis

counseling and emotional support,

it would be difficult to mandate

certain procedures by which all cases

must be handled.255 Rather, there

are themes that dictate the Victim

Resource Center’s approach to

overseeing the provision of

victims’ rights:

✦ Acting as an Advocate

for Victims.

Although Wisconsin statute

currently describes the Victim

Resource Center as a source for

mediation between victim and

agency, officials perceive their

role as providing an advocacy

and intervention service for all

crime victims in the state. Victim

Resource Center officials note

that a primary reason for the

development of the office was

to provide direct services at the

state level. They note that the

opportunity to hear directly from

victims allows them to better

understand a victim’s perspective

when a question arises about an

agency’s compliance with victims’

rights laws.256

✦ Defer to the Local Level First.

According to the Victim Resource

Center’s annual program report, its

practice has been to rely heavily

on local programs in addressing

the concerns of victims, and

encourage victims to rely on the

local program for ongoing

information and support as a 252 Id.

253 WISCONSIN VICTIM RESOURCE CENTER,

VOCA PROJECT PERFORMANCE/EVALUATION

REPORT, Aug. 28, 1996 (on file with author)

[hereinafter VOCA REPORT]. 254 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

255 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

256 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 49

means to remedy a problem.257

In providing direct victim services,

a common practice is to assess

a victim’s needs before making

a referral, to assure that the

suggested contact agency is the

most appropriate.258

✦ Collaborative Approach

to Enforcement.

Victim Resource Center officials

have adopted a collaborative tone

in handling their relations with

county criminal justice providers.

Officials indicate that they have

developed an understanding of

the proficiency and dedication

of the individuals charged with

providing victims’ services in

many Wisconsin counties. This

knowledge helps dictate the most

appropriate approach to handling

victim complaints.259 Other

OCVS officials indicate that this

approach has been effective and

has allowed the Victim Resource

Center to affect change in a

manner that facilitates

collaboration and cooperation

among criminal justice

providers.260

If situations arise in which the

Victim Resource Center needs to

be more confrontational in its

interventions with county

agencies, officials emphasize that

the office is a part of the DOJ.

Most county officials take note

that the DOJ is involved, which

stems, in part, from the fact that

the attorney general in the state is

an active supporter of victims’

rights.261 Currently, Victim

Resource Center officials cannot

recommend systemic change for

local agencies under current law.

Thus, the purview of their powers

at present are somewhat limited to

encouraging agency action that

would facilitate better or more

lawful treatment of victims.

These three priorities are implicit

in the Victim Resource Center’s

responses to complaints concerning

the criminal justice system. One

method that Victim Resource Center

officials use to mediate on behalf

of crime victims is to provide

information about the criminal

justice system to citizens who do not

understand why a case is not being

charged or a plea agreement has

been entered. For example, one

young woman contacted the Victim

Resource Center because she did

not understand why the county

prosecutor was not filing criminal

charges against her estranged partner,

who sexually assaulted her and

violated a restraining order she placed

against him. She also was concerned

about the prosecutor’s perception of

her credibility as a witness due to

criminal charges she was facing.

Victim Resource Center officials

explained to the complainant about

prosecutorial discretion and why the

district attorney did not have to file

criminal charges against her assailant.

Officials also suggested that she

contact the victim and witness

assistance program in that county

to explore how she may work

collaboratively with the district

attorney to express her concerns

about the offender.262

Other intervention approaches used

by the Victim Resource Center

emerge when victims do not feel that

they are being treated appropriately

by criminal justice agencies and

officials. An example of this sort

came to the attention of Victim

Resource Center officials when the

father of a young murder victim

contacted them and expressed

concern about the progression of

the investigation into his daughter’s

death.263 The circumstances of

the young woman’s death were

suspicious, according to the victim’s

family, who were told that she

drowned in a canoeing accident. The

young man accompanying the victim

said that she fell out of the canoe and

struck her head. Her body was found

face up under a log in the river.264

The father of the victim perceived

that he was being treated poorly by

criminal justice practitioners and

was upset that the trial against the

individual with whom his daughter

was canoeing was set to begin over

a year after her death occurred.

Further, he was angry that he had

minimal contact from the victim and

witness assistance coordinator in

the county.265

The Victim Resource Center

contacted the county victim and

witness coordinator and expressed

the victims’ concerns. Together,

they communicated to the judge,

prosecutor, and defense attorney why

an earlier trial date should be set.

Upon receiving the letter, the trial

judge immediately set a pretrial

conference and put the proceedings

on the calendar to begin six months

earlier than originally scheduled.266

257 VOCA REPORT, supra note 253.

258 VOCA REPORT, supra note 253.

259 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

260 Goodwin Interview, supra note 209.

261 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

262 Wisconsin Victim Resource Center, Client

Case Record No. 00589. It is important to

note that identifying information about the

victim — name, address, telephone

number, etc. — was blacked out before

review of case records by the National

Criminal Justice Association in order to

preserve the privacy of the victim.

263 VOCA REPORT, supra note 253.

264 Wisconsin State Journal, Family’s

Question: Accident or Murder, Associated

Press, Dec. 30, 1996 [hereinafter Family’s

Question].

265 VOCA REPORT, supra note 253.

266 VOCA REPORT, supra note 253.
50 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

Press accounts since that time,

however, indicate that charges against

the young man have been dropped

after expert testimony provided to the

prosecutor indicated that the victim

drowned and there was no evidence

to indicate that foul play was

involved. Although the family of the

victim has continued to work with

Victim Resource Center officials and

has appealed to the governor and the

attorney general, it recognizes that

these elected officials cannot force

the prosecutor to try a case.267

Victim Resource Center officials

also step in on behalf of victims

when they are not being afforded

their rights under the constitutional

amendment. One example of this sort

occurred when the wife of a man who

had been killed in a criminal traffic

matter heard on the radio that the

perpetrator had been arrested and that

a preliminary hearing had been set.

This news came as a shock to the

victim’s wife, who had not been

notified of the proceedings and had

been trying for over a month to get

information from the prosecutor and

the victim and witness assistance

coordinator on the status of the case.

Members of the victim’s family, who

had contacted the Victim Resource

Center prior to the arrest to ask for

assistance in securing access to

information about the case, were

terribly upset about not being

notified in advance of the trial’s

commencement. In response to their

frustration, Victim Resource Center

officials contacted the victim and

witness coordinator and expressed

concern with his service to the

victim’s family. She reminded him

that the victim’s family must be

notified of criminal proceedings in

an expedient manner, especially in

cases where the loss of a loved one

is involved. Prompt and accurate

notification to proceedings is not only

critical in these circumstances, she

explained, it is the law.268

Although Victim Resource Center

officials are not able to prescribe

recommendations for systemic or

procedural change, there are

instances when their efforts result in

a better articulation of policy or

procedure, which benefits victims in

the future. For example, one victim

contacted the Victim Resource Center

when the individual who targeted her

house for a shooting was released

from jail. The victim indicated that

she had requested notification of the

offender’s release date, but was

not notified when the offender had

posted bail only two weeks after the

incident. The victim wanted to know

whose responsibility it was — either

corrections officials or the district

attorney’s office — to notify victims

of release dates, and why it had not

been done in her case.269

Victim Resource Center officials

communicated the victim’s concerns

to the county victim and witness

coordinator, who recognized this

miscommunication as a recurring

one. As a result, the victim and

witness assistance coordinator

changed the form letter they send to

victims to clarify that victims must

request notification of release from

the corrections officials themselves.

Further, she stated that she would

continue to work with the jail to

prevent these problems from

reoccurring. Victim Resource

Center officials notified the victim

of how the miscommunication

occurred, reiterated that current law

was not definitive regarding this

responsibility, and indicated that

officials in the county were working

together to preclude problems like

this from happening again.270

RESOURCES AND

STATISTICS

The Victim Resource Center is

funded primarily by a portion of

the state’s VOCA allocation, with

a match provided by the state.271

Currently, the Victim Resource

Center is staffed by an executive

director, a program or administrative

assistant, and two limited term

employees who work on developing

the crisis response effort. Officials

indicate that the current staffing

structure is able to accommodate

well the calls from dissatisfied

victims. They note, however, that

the expansion of the crisis response

effort may require additional

personnel focused solely on that

effort to better provide strategic

planning in the expansion of direct

intervention services on a consistent

level statewide.272

The mediation services provided

by the Victim Resource Center may

soon be augmented with the passage

of the enabling legislation for the

constitutional amendment. The bill

includes provisions for the creation of

a board to review victim complaints

filed with the Victim Resource Center

after officials have tried to resolve the

267 Family’s Question, supra note 264.

268 Wisconsin Victim Resource Center, Client

Case Record No. 00483. It is important

to note that identifying information about

the victim — name, address, telephone

number, etc. — was blacked out before

review of case records by the National

Criminal Justice Association in order to

preserve the privacy of the victim.

269 Wisconsin Victim Resource Center, Client

Case Record No. 00568. It is important

to note that identifying information about

the victim — name, address, telephone

number, etc. — was blacked out before

review of case records by the National

Criminal Justice Association in order to

preserve the privacy of the victim.

270 Id.

271 LFB Report, supra note 231 at p. 11.

272 Zupan Interview, supra note 233.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 51

issue, or have determined there exist

systemic obstacles that impede the

consistent delivery of victims’ rights

and services in certain areas. The

board, as envisioned by the drafters

of the legislation, would be able to

prescribe various remedies to resolve

victims’ complaints, or encourage

systemic change in the day-to-day

practices of the agency.273

Statistics

Currently, the Victim Resource

Center tracks statistical information

by the crime type and category of

service provided. Officials indicate

that they document new contacts

made to the office.274 What follows

are these statistics — by crime type

and service category — from July

Type of Crime Unduplicated Number of Victims Served

Child Physical Abuse 41

Child Sexual Abuse 94

DUI/DWI Crashes 37

Adult Sexual Assault 50

Elder Abuse 0

Adults Molested as Children 8

Survivors of Homicide Victims 172

Robbery 105

Assault 228

Other Violent Personal Injury 89

Property Crimes 66

Others (includes Harassment) 157

Total 1,114

Service Category Number

Crisis Counseling 198

Follow-up 209

Therapy 0

Group Treatment/Support 0

Crisis hotline Counseling 13

Shelter/SafeHouse 0

Information/Referral 208

Criminal Justice Support/Advocacy 359

Emergency Financial Assistance 0

Emergency Legal Advocacy 0

Crime Victim Compensation Assistance 562

Personal Advocacy 46

Other (Oral Arguments, Debriefing, Sexual Predator) 11

Total 1,606

273 1997 SB 195, 1997–1998 Wisconsin

Legislature.

274 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

275 VOCA REPORT, supra note 253.

1995 to June 1996.275 It should be

noted that the difference in sum totals

reflects that some victims are the

recipients of more than one service

from the Victim Resource Center.
52 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

The number and nature of the

calls the Victim Resource Center

receives reflect the broad scope of

its responsibilities to provide service,

crisis counseling, and victims’ rights

oversight services to the citizens

of Wisconsin. Further, because the

Victim Resource Center shares a

toll-free number with the crime

victim compensation program, many

of the calls its staff fields are related

to compensation questions.276

STRENGTHS AND

WEAKNESSES

Individuals involved in the

criminal justice and victims’ services

profession in Wisconsin are largely

supportive of the liaison effort

provided by the Victim Resource

Center and of the nonbureaucratic

and informal method with which

officials are able to aid victims while

working collaboratively with criminal

justice practitioners. The OCVS

executive director, noted that the

informal structure facilitates

collaboration and cooperation among

criminal justice providers because it

is nonconfrontational, and typically

is well received by practitioners.

The result is a persistent and positive

effect on the day-to-day response

of the criminal justice system to the

issues and concerns crime victims

pose.277

Other benefits of the Victim

Resource Center are its affiliation

with the DOJ and the leadership

that the attorney general and OCVS

officials bring to the issue of victims’

rights. This leadership attracts the

attention of local criminal justice

officials when the action or inaction

of their agencies is the reason for a

phone call from the Victim Resource

Center. One observer notes that,

because of Wisconsin’s tradition of

deference to counties, the role of the

Victim Resource Center in overseeing

victims’ rights would be missed if it

were gone. She further noted that

having the DOJ’s and Doyle’s focus

on victims’ rights carries weight with

local criminal justice officials and

encourages the consistent provision

of victims’ rights and services.278

The DOJ affiliation also offers an

“outsider’s” perspective that may

help resolve differences in

perspective between county victims’

service providers and district

attorneys. A victim and witness

assistance provider indicates that

there are often incongruities in being

both a victims’ advocate and working

for a district attorney. However,

insight and support provided by the

Victim Resource Center allows an

objective perspective and leverage

with prosecutors to resolve some of

the sticking points that develop when

trying to address both a victim’s and

a prosecutor’s interests.279

Criminal justice practitioners

appreciate this DOJ alliance in cases

when victims are mistrustful or do

not understand the criminal justice

process and the difficulty involved in

bringing a case to prosecution. Many

are grateful that there is an individual

within the DOJ — but outside of an

individual county attorney’s office —

who can explain the criminal justice

system and why a case is being

handled the way it is in a more

objective, detached way without

compromising the integrity of the

district attorney or the criminal

justice system.280

Finally, observers note that the

compliance enforcement mechanism

offers an opportunity for relief for

victims when they feel revictimized

by their involvement in criminal

justice process. “It is enormous relief

for victims,” says the executive

director of the Wisconsin Coalition

Against Domestic Violence, “when a

family calls into the Victim Resource

Center and [the executive director]

can offer them an avenue for recourse

and an opportunity to intervene in the

situation on their behalf.”281

There also are weaknesses in the

current structure of the liaison effort

that impede better compliance with

victims’ rights laws on the part of

criminal justice providers. One

obstacle is the lack of resources to

conduct training on victims’ rights

and compliance. The Victim

Resource Center, in allocating its

limited personnel and resources, has

prioritized its current effort to expand

the crisis response initiative, while

outreach campaigns to promote its

services to victims and criminal

justice practitioners have been

secondary. Victim Resource Center

officials indicate, however, that once

crisis response efforts are established

more consistently statewide they

may explore the role of the office in

providing training and outreach on

victims’ rights issues. Currently, most

of the training on victims’ rights is

conducted by the victim and witness

assistance program director, who

conducts technical assistance and

program development for local

practitioners three times per year

in four locations statewide.282

Although additional training

would be a significant undertaking,

practitioners perceive that it

necessary to keep them current on

the rights and services they must

276 VOCA REPORT, supra note 253.

277 Goodwin Interview, supra note 209.

278 Interview with Mary Lauby, Executive

Director, Wisconsin Coalition on Domestic

Violence, April 4, 1997 [hereinafter Lauby

Interview].

279 Beaudoin Interview, supra note 246.

280 Telephone Interview with Ralph Uttke,

Langlade County District Attorney,

May 6, 1997 [hereinafter Uttke Interview].

281 Lauby Interview, supra note 278.

282 Nolan Interview, supra note 238.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 53

afford victims, and assist them in

changing their systems and practice

to reflect these protections.283 Others

note that it would be useful for the

DOJ to develop a public awareness

campaign to better inform citizens

about the compliance enforcement

process, and the availability of

recourse for victims of crime.284

Most criminal justice practitioners,

victims’ advocates, and DOJ officials

emphasize that the pending enabling

legislation will clarify and further

define victims’ rights and services,

allowing them to achieve a higher,

more sophisticated level. Although

the executive director of the Victim

Resource Center is hopeful she can

maintain her role as troubleshooter

and affect change in a quiet and

nonbureaucratic way, she and other

OCVS officials welcome the enabling

legislation and the board proposal as

a formal avenue to enforce victims’

rights and the provision of victims’

services in the state, and allow them

to further grow and improve.285

A related benefit that will result from

the passage of enabling legislation

is the creation of remedies for

noncompliance with victims’ rights.

OCVS officials note that the limited

authority and power of the Victim

Resource Center limits its ability to

force an agency or official to act, and

that when officials are stonewalled

by a criminal justice professional,

they have little recourse. The

proposed crime victims’ rights board

would mitigate this lack of recourse

by reviewing grievances filed with

the Victim Resource Center and

prescribing certain remedies the

agency must follow when it has

violated a victims’ rights.286

EVALUATION

Efforts to analyze the efficacy of both

the enforcement of victims’ rights on

the county level, and the state’s role

in encouraging the provision of these

rights have been undertaken in recent

years. OCVS officials are hopeful

that these efforts will yield policies

by which a balance may be struck

between deference to county

discretion and autonomy on victims’

issues and the delivery of consistent

services statewide.287

Currently, the DOJ has hired a

consultant — the director of the

original Milwaukee county victims’

assistance program — to evaluate the

implementation of current county

victim and witness assistance

programs. The purpose of the

evaluation is to develop a mission

statement and standards to guarantee

that all victims in Wisconsin may

expect a baseline of services from

their county officials and criminal

justice practitioners.288

Although the DOJ is still formulating

specifics of the standards and mission

statement, it hopes that the study

of current programs will identify

preferred practices. Ideally, OCVS

would change both the rules that

govern eligibility for reimbursement

under the victim and witness

assistance program, and the Victims’

Bill of Rights, to reflect preferred

practice.289 In the course of

conducting her review of current

practices in Wisconsin counties,

and based on her extensive

involvement in the evolution of

victims’ services in Wisconsin, the

DOJ consultant deduced that:

In some ways, the victim and

witness assistance program has

“come of age” in Wisconsin.

Acceptance of the need for

victim and witness programs is

widespread. Programs in many

jurisdictions have become

institutionalized. The time has

come to step back and examine

the basic principles that underlie

the existence of victim and

witness services. The time

has come to adopt a mission

statement that can be used as a

standard by which programs can

be evaluated.

In crafting the proposed mission

statement, the consultant reviewed

state plans and conducted site visits

to 15 diverse Wisconsin counties

to take an in-depth look at current

practice among victim and witness

assistance providers. From her

analysis, she observed factors that

may impede the provision of rights

and services from victim and witness

assistance providers. A primary

concern was the classification or

identification of the victim and

witness assistance provider as part of

the clerical support staff of a district

attorney’s office. She identified the

problem existing in four forms:

• victim and witness positions that

are classified as clerical;

• positions that are required to

divide their time between clerical

responsibilities and victim and

witness services;

• positions that are full time that

have purely clerical tasks assigned

to them; and

283 Uttke Interview, supra note 280.

284 Beaudoin Interview, supra note 246.

285 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

286 Goodwin Interview, supra note 209.

287 Kolanda Interview, supra note 212.

288 Kolanda Interview, supra note 212.

289 MEMORANDUM FROM JO KOLANDA TO VICTIM

AND WITNESS SERVICES COORDINATORS AND

SPECIALISTS AND OTHER INTERESTED

PERSONS, (March 1, 1997), (on file with

author). Nolan Interview, supra note 238.
54 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

• victim and witness staff who view

themselves as clerical and prefer

form letters over personal and

telephone contact with victims

and witnesses.290

Further concerns that emerged from

the analysis relate to the type and

frequency of contact made by some

victim and witness assistance

providers. Preferred practice would

dictate that victims be contacted and

provided with information, services,

and referral as soon as possible after

a crime; that telephone or personal

contact is critical to providing good

service to victims; and where

possible, one victim and witness

assistance provider should follow

a case from beginning to end.291

Although the guidelines are

still under development, the DOJ

consultant is working closely

with victim and witness assistance

providers to further develop

appropriate guidelines for day-to-day

practice in the provision and

enforcement of victims’ rights.

Officials hope this effort will result

in the availability of more sound

and consistent services to victims

statewide.292

In a separate evaluation analysis,

Victim Resource Center officials

developed a survey in 1996 to

study the efficacy of the office in

responding to victims’ request for

information and investigating

complaints concerning the criminal

justice process. The seven-question,

yes/no survey asked if the victim

used the toll-free number in

contacting the Victim Resource

Center and if the caller had difficulty

getting through on that line; if the

support staff was courteous and

helpful; if the information or referral

received was useful and timely; if

the Victim Resource Center staff

contacted other agencies on behalf

of the victim; and if that contact was

helpful.293

Victim Resource Center officials

received 11 of the 25 surveys sent to

crime victims who had contact with

the Victim Resource Center. For the

most part, the results reflected

positively on the work of Victim

Resource Center officials. Seven

of the 11 surveys indicated that the

referral information received was

useful, while eight responded that

they received information in a

reasonable amount of time. Nine

respondents indicated that the Victim

Resource Center support staff was

courteous and helpful.294

The results of the survey also

indicated that respondents had

positive experiences when a Victim

Resource Center official acted as a

liaison in contacting criminal justice

or victim assistance providers on

their behalf. Of the eleven

respondents, only five involved

cases in which Victim Resource

Center officials contacted other

agencies at the request of the

complainant. However, four of

five of the contacts were deemed

beneficial by these victims.295

The Victim Resource Center survey

also included a section for victims

to comment on their experiences

generally. Officials indicate that

many comments reflected victims’

dissatisfaction with the criminal

justice system‘s response to their

victimization, but not necessarily the

mediation process.296 Other criminal

justice service providers concur with

this interpretation. A district attorney

in a northern Wisconsin county has

observed that the crime victims with

whom he has contact appear much

more satisfied than those in the past,

now that his office has in place a

system for providing victims’

services. A significant impediment to

victims’ satisfaction is that they often

do not understand the limitations of

the criminal justice system and its

resources. He notes that individuals

who do not work in the criminal

justice field may not understand why

some charges are dropped, or why

offenders may only serve a portion

of the time to which they have been

sentenced.297

In addition to surveying victims

on the performance of the Victim

Resource Center, officials recognize

the importance of asking criminal

justice practitioners to give their

opinions on the efficacy of the Victim

Resource Center. Future evaluative

efforts will solicit such input,

according to officials.298

PROGNOSIS FOR

THE FUTURE

The enabling legislation for the

constitutional amendment was

introduced in early May 1997.

Senate Bill 195 and its companion

in the General Assembly, Assembly

Bill 392, would institutionalize

and clarify many changes for the

agencies and officials that provide

and enforce victims’ services and

rights. Specifically, the bill defines

precisely who is responsible for the

provision of victims’ rights and

290 Id.

291 Id.

292 Nolan Interview, supra note 238.

293 OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIMS’ SERVICES,

VICTIM RESOURCE CENTER QUESTIONNAIRE,

(Aug. 20, 1996), (on file with author).

294 Id.

295 Id.

296 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

297 Uttke Interview, supra note 280.

298 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 55

creates a crime victims’ rights board

to review complaints made to the

Victim Resource Center and offer

remedies to resolve the complaints.

✦ Responsibilities for

Providing Victims’ Rights.

The bill, as introduced, provides

that county boards will no longer

retain primary responsibility for

enforcing victims rights. Rather,

the legislation specifies that both

law enforcement agencies and

prosecutors (or in juvenile

delinquency cases, court intake

workers) will be responsible for

notifying victims of their rights

and providing information to

victims on how to exercise those

rights.

At the request of the victim,

prosecutors in adult criminal

cases would be required to: notify

the victim of the date, time, and

place of the scheduled court

proceedings; inform the victim if

a case is being closed without an

individual being charged, or if the

case is dismissed; and confer with

a crime victim concerning the

case, certain actions taken in the

case, and possible outcomes of the

prosecution. Court intake workers

in juvenile delinquency cases also

would be required to inform the

victim if a case is closed without

charge or dismissed, and confer

with victims about proposed

consent decrees and the possible

outcomes of the delinquency

proceeding.299

✦ Creation of a Crime

Victims’ Rights Board.

The crime victims’ rights

board, as proposed, could (when

necessary) review complaints

made to the Victim Resource

Center regarding a violation of

the rights of a crime victim after

Victim Resource Center officials

have completed their review and

action on the complaint. At the

request of either the victim or the

agency involved, the board could

review the complaint and do any

of the following: issue a private

or public reprimand of public

officials or agencies that violate

the rights of crime victims; refer

violations by judges to the judicial

commission, which is a body that

oversees the performance of the

judicial branch; seek appropriate

equitable relief on behalf of the

victim if such relief is necessary to

protect their rights; or bring civil

suit to assess a forfeiture of not

more than $1,000 when an agency

intentionally fails to provide a

victim’s rights. The board, under

the proposed legislation, would

also be able to issue reports and

recommendations concerning

systemic change that would help

secure and provide crime victims’

rights and services.

The proposal indicates that the

board would consist of a district

attorney, a representative of local

law enforcement agencies, a

person employed or contracted

by a county to provide services

to victims and witnesses, and two

public members. All of these

individuals would be appointees

of the attorney general, with the

exception of one public member

position, which would be

appointed by the council.300

Victim Resource Center officials

welcome the clarification that the

enabling legislation will provide, and

believe it will help the OCVS achieve

a more sophisticated level of service

to victims. The Victim Resource

Center executive director is hopeful

that the board structure, if passed

by the legislature, will be an

action-oriented, educational, and

public acting body. She welcomes

an opportunity to work in tandem

with a structure that goes beyond

trying to convince criminal justice

officials to provide better practice

to requiring them to do so.301

Another legislative proposal

would expand the funding source

that supports victim and witness

assistance programs statewide. The

governor’s biennial budget proposal,

Senate Bill 77, and its companion in

the Assembly, Assembly Bill 100,

would expand the crime victim and

witness surcharge to juvenile

offenders.302

OCVS officials also believe that

the future will bring an opportunity

to expand the involvement of law

enforcement officials in the provision

of victims’ services. Because the

victim and witness assistance

program has a traditional association

with prosecutorial agencies, OCVS

officials are cognizant of the need to

forge a formal relationship with law

enforcement agencies on victims’

issues. The OCVS has issued

requests for proposals from local

law enforcement agencies to conduct

demonstration programs to fill the

gaps in victims’ services between

the time of the crime and the

involvement of the prosecutor’s

office and victim and witness

assistance staff. Funded from

a portion of the state’s VOCA

allocation, the objective of the

demonstration project is to document

these “early response” programs as

models or benchmarks by which

other agencies may follow.303

299 1997 SB 195, 1997–1998 Wisconsin

Legislature.

300 1997 SB 195, 1997–1998 Wisconsin

Legislature.

301 Zupan Interview, supra note 247.

302 1997 SB 77, 1997–1998 Wisconsin

Legislature.

303 Goodwin Interview, supra note 209.
56 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 57

OBSERVATIONS

AND THEMES

The creation of victims’ rights compliance

enforcement programs represents a unique

dedication among policymakers to ensure that the

protections provided victims by law are implemented

in practice. In conducting the interviews with state

officials, criminal justice practitioners, and victims’

The investigative powers of

compliance enforcement agents and

officials vary greatly among

programs. Minnesota and Wisconsin

officials have broad investigative

discretion, with the ability to

investigate not only unlawful but

inappropriate action on the part of

an agency toward a victim of crime.

The action in question does not need

to be a direct violation of a victims’

statutory rights. In Colorado,

however, DCJ staff retain much

less discretion in their investigative

powers, and may only investigate

and present to the subcommittee

questionable agency action involving

victims of specific crimes defined

under the VRA.

The remedies each compliance

enforcement program may invoke

vary significantly as well. The VRA

subcommittee in Colorado may

require systemic change on the part

of the agency in cases where a

violation of a victim’s rights has been

found. If the agency chooses not to

comply, the case may be referred to

the governor and the attorney general,

who may file suit against the agency.

These formalized procedures are a

significant contrast to the powers of

the OCVO in Minnesota. Although

the OCVO’s investigative discretion

is broad, it only may suggest a

remedy to the agency. If the

agency chooses not to respond to

the OCVO’s recommendations,

however, the only remedial action

the OCVO retains is public exposure

of the agency to the press and to the

legislature.

In Wisconsin, under the current law,

it is beyond the responsibility of

Victim Resource Center officials to

suggest remedies — they may only

investigate the situation and present

to the victim’s concerns to the

agency. However, if the current

version of the enabling legislation

is passed by the legislature, the state

board will be able to suggest systemic

change, and also will be able to fine

agencies and report publicly an

agency’s noncompliance with

victims’ rights laws.

Another significant difference

among the three programs is the role

adopted by the enforcement body

with respect to the victim. In

Wisconsin, a primary role of Victim

Resource Center officials is to act

as an advocate for victims’ rights.

For example, officials will provide

direct victims’ services to victims

in Wisconsin counties that do not

participate in the victim and witness

assistance program, and in cases

in which the DOJ has employed a

services representatives in Colorado, Minnesota, and

Wisconsin, it became clear that there are distinct

characteristics within each of the programs that make

them unique and appropriate to the social and political

climate of their state. There also emerged consistent

themes and challenges faced by all programs in one

way or another. The purpose of this section is to

discuss these differences and similarities in the

administration of each victims’ rights compliance

enforcement program, with the hopes of identifying

the factors that facilitate and impede a state’s efforts

to ensure the protection of victims’ rights.

DIFFERENCES AMONG

VICTIMS’ RIGHTS

COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS

Each victims’ rights compliance

enforcement program has evolved in

a unique manner reflective of the

political traditions of each state, the

factors that have shaped the state’s

victims’ rights movement, and the

length of time victims’ rights and

services have been institutionalized

within the state’s laws, policies, and

procedures. These are among the

factors that criminal justice officials

creating or replicating a compliance

enforcement mechanism must

consider when deciding what type

of program will be most effective

in an individual state.

Although broadly categorized, the

primary differences in the programs

studied relate to the investigative and

sanctioning powers of the program

officials; the role of the program or

office as either an impartial liaison or

an advocate for victims; the range of

services provided; and the role of the

compliance enforcement program in

the provision of training and outreach

to the public and the criminal justice

community.
58 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

special prosecutor to handle the

proceedings for the government.

In Minnesota, however, the situation

is different. OCVO officials stress

the importance of neutrality and

objectivity in their investigations of

allegedly unlawful or inappropriate

treatment of crime victims, and prefer

to emphasize their role as a body that

oversees the government’s provision

of service to victims. Colorado

officials also adopt a more

neutral position. The DCJ staff’s

responsibility under the current

structure is to support and facilitate

victims’ access to the subcommittee.

This difference in role is reflected

in Victim Resource Center officials’

decision to prioritize further

development of the direct services

provided by the office, such as the

crisis response program. Conversely,

the scope of services offered in

Minnesota and Colorado are limited

to overseeing the treatment of victims

in the criminal justice system. As

a result, officials in Colorado and

Minnesota concentrate their efforts

on expanding current training and

outreach efforts to both the criminal

justice communities and the general

public on crime victims’ rights and

services and the availability of

redress through the compliance

enforcement process.

SIMILARITIES

AMONG PROGRAMS

Despite the different approaches to

victims’ rights compliance, officials

in each of the three states cite several

similar themes that guide them in

their investigation of victims’ rights

violations, and help them foster

positive changes for victims within

the criminal justice system. They

also note similar challenges in their

roles as enforcers of victims’ rights.

Officials in all three states note

that criminal justice practitioners

are more receptive to their efforts to

improve the criminal justice system’s

response to victims when they use

a collaborative, nonconfrontational

approach when investigating the

action or inaction of an agency,

or when addressing the actions of

criminal justice practitioners or

victims’ service providers. By

handling these situations in a

nonconfrontational way, officials

maximize the likelihood that

the practitioner or provider will

take responsibility in the case.

Furthermore, compliance

enforcement officials who act in

a nonconfrontational manner are

less likely to be perceived negatively

by criminal justice practitioners in

cases in which a victim’s allegations

are unfounded or the agency has

acted lawfully.

Another common theme officials

in the three states describe is their

deference to local authorities and

resources to address victims’

allegations concerning unlawful

and inappropriate agency action.

Victims’ services offices in all

three states have created resource

directories that list local public

and private victims’ services

providers. State officials consult

these directories and make referrals

from them on a consistent basis.

For the most part, these officials

perceive their services as a last resort

for victims when complaints cannot

be solved by working collaboratively

with local criminal justice

practitioners and service providers.

The exception to this is in the eight

Wisconsin counties that do not

participate in the victim and witness

assistance program. In these

counties, resource center officials act

as the primary contact for victims’

services as well as victims’ rights

compliance enforcement.

Another common theme officials

note was the role of the state agency

in clarifying for victims their

misperceptions about the workings

of the criminal justice system.

Officials in all three states indicated

that one of the agency’s primary

responsibilities is to explain to the

victim why the criminal justice

system works the way it does,

illustrate the difficulty and significant

amount of work involved in bringing

a case to trial, and explain why an

offender may only serve a portion

of his sentence. This effort serves

to appropriately establish what

he will get back from both the

criminal justice proceedings and

the compliance enforcement process.

Observers of the compliance

enforcement process in all three

states agreed that individuals charged

with victims’ rights compliance

oversight must believe in and

understand the criminal justice

system to be effective in their role

of explaining to the victim his role

and rights. They also noted that

compliance enforcement officials —

whether they adopt an impartial or

advocacy role toward victims —

must also be willing to think

critically about how the system

may be expanded or modified to

incorporate the rights and needs

of victims.

Officials express some consistent

frustrations with overseeing their

systems’ provision of victims’ rights.

They note that in some situations,

enforcing victims’ rights was out of

the purview of their ability to act.

For example, none of the programs

studied or officials interviewed are

able to interfere with a prosecutor’s

decision to try a case, although they

all may present an opinion on the

issue on behalf of the victim.

Nor may compliance enforcement

officials oversee the actions of judges

in the provision and enforcement

of victims’ rights.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES 59

Officials also expressed concern

about situations in which the

compliance enforcement process does

not produce an immediate benefit for

the victim. Resolution to a victim’s

complaint may not be identified in

time for a victim to benefit from any

changes in agency behavior. In those

cases, a victim’s complaint results in

the agency undergoing some sort of

systemic change in the way it handles

specific victims’ issues in the future.

Although this type of comprehensive

change is considered positive by all

compliance enforcement officials,

they expressed frustration with the

fact that the victim who brought the

issue to the attention of officials does

not benefit from his effort.

Finally, state officials involved

with victims’ rights oversight efforts

indicate that more resources — in

the form of funding or personnel —

dedicated to the compliance

enforcement function would be

helpful. Officials in Colorado

emphasize the importance of

additional resources for training

and outreach in rural areas of the

state about victims’ rights and the

subcommittee process. OCVO

officials in Minnesota reiterated this

same concern, and indicated that

their case volume would benefit from

additional staff people to investigate

complaints brought by victims, while

Victim Resource Center officials in

Wisconsin indicated that additional

funding would help them expand the

crisis response effort, and aid them

in exploring their future role in

training and outreach activities.

SUGGESTIONS FOR

REPLICATION

The creation of a victims’ rights

compliance enforcement function

affords state policymakers and

administrators an opportunity to

review and assess the status of

victims’ rights implementation,

as well as the current delivery

of victims’ services in the state.

Analysis of this sort may allow

officials to assess how a compliance

enforcement mechanism will

interrelate with current service

delivery systems.

When state officials consider

creating compliance programs, they

may want to consider what type of

system will work most effectively

within the current political context

of their state. They also may wish

to consider defining explicitly which

agency, individual, or body will

accept accountability for compliance

enforcement. For example, officials

may want to analyze the most

appropriate role of the state agency

and assess whether a strong state

presence in victims’ rights

compliance oversight would be

well received by criminal justice

practitioners. Another option would

be to create a more decentralized

board or committee-driven structure

that draws participation from a

variety of participants from within

the criminal justice system, and

different regions of the state.

Another issue that state policymakers

may wish to explore during the

program planning process is the role

and support of other groups active in

victims’ issues. These groups may

include various state and local

victims’ advocacy groups and

victims’ service providers, as well

as criminal justice practitioners who

have been active in incorporating

the concerns of victims in their daily

practice. Consultation with these

groups may add to the program

planning process in significant ways.

First, eliciting a broader perspective

when developing viable victims’

rights compliance enforcement

mechanisms may help identify

what type of oversight is necessary

and will mesh well with current

criminal justice practices and

traditions in the state. Further,

collaboration of this sort may also

facilitate acceptance of victims’

rights compliance issues, as well

as identify viable roles and

responsibilities for the criminal

justice and victims’ services and

advocacy systems within these

systems.

Other factors that decisionmakers

may want to consider is the creation

of remedies for agency violation

of victims’ rights laws. The scope

and circumstances which trigger

remedies, as well as whom or what

may prescribe them are important

considerations in the creation of

compliance enforcement

mechanisms. Once remedies are

decided upon, it may be appropriate

to encourage legislators to amend

current constitutional and/or statutory

language to reflect these remedies,

as well as the existence of the

compliance enforcement process

and a victim’s right to its access.

Budget concerns and funding

for victims’ rights compliance

enforcement programs are other

issues that policymakers may wish

to address. An assessment of how

victims’ services and victims’ rights

provision are funded under the

current system — as well as

estimating the level of state support,

if any, a compliance enforcement

program may receive — may be

relevant in program planning.

Decisionmakers also may wish to

explore the viability of creating or

increasing current crime or court

surcharges to support victims’

services. Finally, it may be

appropriate to consider reallocating

portions of current federal funding

for victims’ services to support a

compliance enforcement function
60 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: EXPERIENCES IN THREE STATES

when consistent with grant funding

eligibility and other current victims’

service initiatives.

Other considerations that state

policymakers may wish to address

when planning for program

replication include assessing the

alternative functions and

responsibilities of a compliance

enforcement program. Officials may

wish to conduct a needs assessment

to determine if the compliance

enforcement body or agency should

provide other services, including

direct counseling to victims, or

training and technical assistance to

promote victims’ rights outreach and

education. Again, officials may

want to review the current status

of victims’ programs and services,

as well as assess any gaps in the

continuum of victims’ service

delivery when developing any

additional responsibilities for

compliance enforcement programs.

Finally, policymakers should

consider what types of evaluation

tools or techniques may be built into

a compliance enforcement system.

The ability of a program to evaluate

its service to victims and the criminal

justice community and respond to

deficiencies and developing needs

may promote collaboration between

victims and the criminal justice

system, and encourage effective

programming for future victims’

services and programming.