New Directions from the Field: VictimsÕ Rights and Services for the 21st Century CONTENTS Foreword ii Executive Summary vii Section I: New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights 1 Chapter 1: VictimsÕ Rights 3 Section II: New Directions for Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Agencies 45 Chapter 2: Law Enforcement 47 Chapter 3: Prosecution 73 Chapter 4: Judiciary 97 Chapter 5: Corrections 119 Section III: New Directions for Victim Asssistance and Allied Professions 147 Chapter 6: New Directions for the Victim Assistance Community 149 Chapter 7: The Health Care Community 199 Chapter 8: The Mental Health Community 219 Chapter 9: The Legal Community 249 Chapter 10: The Educational Community 263 Chapter 11: The Faith Community 283 Chapter 12: The Business Community 295 Chapter 13: The News Media Community 313 Section IV: New Directions in Financial Recovery 323 Chapter 14: Crime Victim Compensation 325 Chapter 15: Restitution 355 Chapter 16: Civil Remedies 373 Section V: New Directions for Child Victims 381 Chapter 17: Child Victims 383 Section VI: New Directions in International Victim Assistance 413 Chapter 18: International Perspectives in Victim Services 415 Conclusion 429 Appendix A: Contributors to New Directions A-1 Appendix B: Staff of New Directions B-1 Foreword Fifteen years have passed since the chair of the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime called the neglect of crime victims in the United States a national disgrace. Today, we can be proud that our nation listened and responded to victims and their advocates. VictimsÕ rights laws have been enacted in every state, more than 10,000 victim assistance programs have been developed around the country, and every state has established a crime victim compensation program. The creation of a federal Crime Victims Fund, which was first proposed by the task force, has provided more than $2.3 billion from fines paid by federal criminal offenders to support many of these lifeline services for victims. But even today, too many victims and their families are not active participants in the criminal or juvenile justice process. In the words of President Clinton, they are still Òon the outside looking in.Ó They are denied meaningful participation in the justice system and services to meet their most basic needs. VictimsÕ rights laws vary significantly from state to state and often remain unenforced. For millions of victimized Americans, the system still hurts more than it helps. This documentÑNew Directions from the Field: VictimsÕ Rights and Services for the 21st CenturyÑis a comprehensive report and set of recommendations on victimsÕ rights and services from and concerning virtually every community involved with crime victims across the nation. The report is the result of more than three yearsÕ work by more than 1,000 individuals in different professions. It examines how victimsÕ rights and services have been realized since the 1982 Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force and recommends what we as a society should strive to achieve for victims as we enter the 21st century. While the recommendations may not reflect all of the individual contributorsÕ views, the contributors agree that all of the recommendations are worthy of discussion and consideration. The work of these individuals and the publication and dissemination of this material has been supported by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) of the United States Department of Justice. The report and recommendations represent views from the field, however, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. We are grateful to the Department of Justice for providing resources so this important document could be developed and made widely available. The Authors and Process New Directions incorporates views from the fieldÑincluding crime victims, representatives from national victim advocacy and service organizations, criminal justice practitioners, allied professionals, and many othersÑwho provided the background materials and recommendations contained in this action plan. That group includes 32 nationally recognized experts who developed background papers on the areas addressed in this report. The ideas and proposals in the background papers were enhanced by the comments of nearly 100 expert reviewers. Many individuals from the criminal justice and victim service fields provided substantive input into this document through expert summits; public hearings; focus groups of representatives from the judiciary, law enforcement, prosecution, and corrections, the faith community, and the crime victim compensation field; and symposia on hate and bias crimes, workplace violence, and the news media. Additional input was obtained in 1997 from state administrators of Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) assistance programs from all 50 states. Further program information on Òpromising practicesÓ was derived from OVC grant projects in the areas of law enforcement, prosecution, corrections, probation and parole, victims of juvenile offenders, death notification, rural victims, technology, and victim involvement with community service. In late 1997, meetings of leaders in the crime victims field were held to review and finalize the recommendations. All who participated in those meetings were impressed by the scope and innovation of the collective work of the field that is presented in New Directions. On behalf of all those committed to improvement of services to crime victims, we express our deep appreciation to the Department of Justice for its financial support of this effort. We are especially grateful to Aileen Adams, who served as Director of OVC during the core 3 years of this projectÕs development. Her extraordinary leadership ensured that this report truly reflects the diverse views from the field. Moreover, her commitment to justice and healing served as a guiding force to listen to the voices of crime victims across America as Ònew directionsÓ were identified. We also want to acknowledge current Acting Director Reginald Robinson for his support in bringing New Directions to publication and in ensuring that this report is widely disseminated throughout the nation. A project of this magnitude requires the hard work of many individ-uals. Ashley Oliver Barrett, Special Assistant to the Director, deserves special distinction for her tireless efforts in every aspect of this remarkable endeavor, not the least of which was guiding this document through final publication. We are also grateful for the outstanding work of former OVC staff members Katia Garrett, who provided keen legal analysis and insight into the many complicated issues addressed in this report, as well as Sharon English and Melanie Smith, for their efforts in laying the foundation of New Directions. Many other OVC staff deserve special thanks for the guidance and insight they provided along the way. Christine Edmunds, who joins us in signing this foreword, also should be recognized for her exceptional work over the past 3 years in developing this report. As a consultant to OVC for New Directions, Ms. Edmunds conducted extensive research to amplify sections of the document, identified additional promising practices, shaped and refined ideas and recommendations, and wove together the information obtained from the field to present in this report. Finally, the essential contributions of crime victims themselves must be acknowledged. Victims presented their views and priorities during hearings and forums, as members of advisory boards on grants, in focus groups, and as writers and researchers on this project. The concerns and recommendations of hundreds of victims of all agesÑchildren, adults, and the elderlyÑhave been invaluable in developing and shaping this report. The Challenge Ahead New Directions is intended to foster a dialogue in which various participants listen to differing views, refine the reportÕs recommendations, and develop a strategy for providing justice and comprehensive services for all crime victims in the 21st century. We urge every American who interacts with victims, from police officers to prosecutors, from judges to corrections officials, from members of the clergy to business leaders, to join in this dialogue and implement the programs and reforms that make sense for their own communities. During all the years that we have worked with and on behalf of crime victims, we have seen the doors of justice gradually open for some. It is our great hope that this report and the dialogue it fosters will move our nation closer to the day when the doors of justice open for all victims of crime. With this wish, we sign this foreword on behalf of all those who contributed to New Directions. David Beatty Director of Public Policy National Victim Center Arlington, Virginia Christine Edmunds Criminal Justice and Victim Services Consultant Washington, D.C . Lucy Friedman Executive Director Victim Services New York, New York Susan Herman Executive Director National Victim Center Arlington, Virginia Ralph Hubbard Outreach Coordinator Parents of Murdered Children of New York State New York, New York Janice Harris Lord Consultant for Crime Victims Issues Mothers Against Drunk Driving Irving, Texas Aurelia Sands Belle Consultant for Crime Victim Issues Fayetteville, North Carolina Brian Ogawa Director Crime VictimsÕ Institute Office of the Attorney General Austin, Texas Anne Seymour Public Safety Consultant Washington, D.C. John Stein Deputy Director National Organization for Victim Assistance Washington, D.C. Marlene Young Executive Director National Organization for Victim Assistance Washington, D.C. Executive Summary New Directions from the Field: VictimsÕ Rights and Services for the 21st Century challenges the nation to renew and refocus its efforts to improve the treatment of victims of crime. It is the first comprehensive plan regarding how the nation should respond to crime victims since the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime identified the American justice system as Òappallingly out of balance,Ó and made 68 recommendations for how rights and services for crime victims in this nation could be substantially improved. New Directions highlights the progress and the momentous changes that have taken place across our nationÕs justice systems and in the private sector since the release of the 1982 report. It identifies hundreds of innovative public policy initiatives and community partnerships that are revolutionizing the treatment of crime victims in America today, and it recommends improvements that still need to be implemented on behalf of crime victims. Today only a fraction of the nationÕs estimated 38 million crime victims receive much-needed services such as emergency financial assistance, crisis and mental health counseling, shelter, and information and advocacy within the criminal and juvenile justice systems. This report presents more than 250 recommendations targeted to nearly every profession that comes in contact with crime victimsÑfrom justice practitioners, to victim service, health care, mental health, legal, educational, faith, news media, and business communitiesÑand encourages them to redouble their efforts to enhance victimsÕ rights and services. New Directions reflects views from a broad cross-section of the criminal and juvenile justice, allied professional, and victim service fields. Contributors to this report include crime victims themselves and representatives of the agencies and organizations that serve them. Hundreds of individuals across the country proposed recommendations for this report by participating in public hearings; submitting background papers on diverse victimsÕ issues; serving on working groups with representatives from law enforcement, prosecution, and corrections agencies as well as the judiciary; and participating in focus groups with allied professionals. All who contributed to this report hope that it will serve as a catalyst to a dynamic and far-reaching discussion about how our nation can improve its response to victims of crime, and that it will precipitate practical steps toward making the ideas presented in this report a reality. New Directions was developed by the field, and its recommendations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Justice Department or the Office for Victims of Crime. In addition, all of the recommendations may not represent the views of every contributor, as over 1,000 individuals provided input into this document. Organization of New Directions As an update to the 1982 Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, New Directions follows the format established in the original report in setting forth its recommendations. It begins with a discussion of important public policy issues affecting crime victims, and each section that follows discusses how individual justice agencies and allied professionals can implement these, as well as other, important initiatives. Additional topics and issues have been added as a result of the tremendous growth in the field and in response to new problems that have emerged during the past 15 years. As in the original report, each section of New Directions contains individual chapters designed to serve as stand-alone documents that present recommendations for specific issue areas or professions. Section I New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights For many years, victims of crime were virtually invisible in the laws and policies that govern our justice systems. To the extent victims of crime had a role in the justice system, it was narrow; to the extent victims had rights, they were few. Section I, New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights, reviews the nationÕs progress over the past two decades toward establishing state and federal rights for victims of crime, including a proposed federal constitutional amendment to guarantee those rights. It also presents recommendations from the field for ensuring that victimsÕ rights, including fundamental rights for victims of juvenile offenders, are expanded and enforced within the American justice system. Tremendous strides have been made to enact victimsÕ rights laws and deliver services to victims in the United States. Few movements in the history of this nation have achieved such success in igniting the kind of legislative response that victim rights activists have fostered over the past two decades. In the early 1980s, state laws addressing victims rights, services, and financial reparations numbered in the hundreds. Today, there are more than 27,000 crime victim-related state statutes, 29 state victimsÕ rights constitutional amendments, and basic rights and services for victims of federal crimes. Nevertheless, serious deficiencies remain in the nationÕs victimsÕ rights laws as well as their implementation. The rights of crime victims vary significantly among states and at the federal level. Frequently, victimsÕ rights are ignored. Even in states that have enacted constitutional rights for victims, implementation is often arbitrary and based on the individual practices and preferences of criminal justice officials. Moreover, many states do not provide comprehensive rights for victims of juvenile offenders. In tribal, military, and administrative proceedings, the rights extended to victims differ dramatically or do not exist at all. Many victims, including victims from diverse cultures and those with disabilities, are not informed of their rights nor given the opportunity to participate in criminal and juvenile justice proceedings. In New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights, the field strongly recommends that the enactment and vigorous enforcement of consistent, fundamental victimsÕ rights should be a priority for the 21st century. The first recommendation from the field is for the passage of a Federal VictimsÕ Rights Constitutional Amendment to establish a basic level of rights for crime victims in every state. These include the following fundamental rights: ¥ To notice of public court proceedings and to attend them. ¥ To make a statement to the court about bail, sentencing, and accepting a plea. ¥ To notice of parole hearings and to attend them and speak. ¥ To notice of a defendant or convictÕs escape or release. ¥ To an order of restitution from the convicted offender. ¥ To a final disposition of the proceedings relating to the crime free from unreasonable delay. ¥ To consideration for the safety of the victim in determining a defendantÕs release from custody. ¥ To notice of these rights. ¥ To standing to enforce these rights. The report strongly recommends that these fundamental rights should be established and enforced not only in the criminal justice system, but also for victims in all juvenile justice, military, tribal, and administrative proceedings. As a first step toward this goal, New Directions recommends that the federal government, states and tribes review their victimsÕ rights laws to determine if these fundamental rights are extended to all crime victims. This report also reflects the view of the field that states and the federal government should address the lack of implementation of many victimsÕ rights laws by establishing effective enforcement mechanisms for victims, including victimsÕ rights compliance programs. It recommends that audits of local, state and federal compliance with victimsÕ rights laws be conducted frequently by justice agencies and independent auditors to determine the reasons for noncompliance and how enforcement of victimsÕ rights can be improved. Finally, a system of comprehensive services requires dedicated resources. A major step toward that goal was the enactment of the 1984 Victims of Crime Act, which established a creative federal funding mechanism that relies on the collection of fines and penalties from convicted federal offenders rather than federal tax-based appropriations. That amount varies, however, and may not be enough to ensure consistent and comprehensive implementation of victimsÕ rights laws and needed services. Many criminal justice officials and victim advocates continue to assert that there is a lack of comprehensive services in every community for victims of crime resulting in part from inadequate funding. New and creative sources of funding must be identified to ensure the implementation of rights and quality services for all crime victims. Section II New Directions for Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Agencies When a person is harmed by a criminal act, the agencies that make up our criminal and juvenile justice systems have a moral and legal obligation to respond. It is their responsibility not only to seek swift justice for victims, but to ease their suffering in a time of great need. Section II, New Directions for Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Agencies, discusses the critical role that each agency within the justice systemÑlaw enforcement, prosecution, judiciary, and correctionsÑmust play in implementing and enforcing victimsÕ rights and in improving the overall treatment of crime victims within our nationÕs justice systems. Chapter Two, New Directions for Law Enforcement, addresses law enforcementÕs role as the frontline of victim assistance. As the first responders to reported crimes, law enforcement agencies must ensure that victims are treated with sensitivity and provided with essential information and emergency assistance. This chapter addresses innovations including law enforcement-based victim assistance units; on-scene crisis units where specially trained counselors and law enforcement officers respond together to victims; and multidisciplinary programs that have been launched in hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the nation to respond to the needs of child, elderly, domestic violence and sexual assault victims. A number of recommendations for the law enforcement community are advanced by the field. For example, law enforcement agencies should adopt community policing philosophies that are both victim and crime prevention oriented. The field also recommends that law enforcement agencies establish policies and procedures for the provision of legally mandated victimsÕ rights and services such as notifying victims of the status of an investigation, arrests, and pretrial release of suspects in their custody. In addition, compliance with victimsÕ rights policies and procedures should be included as a standard in officersÕ performance appraisals. Chapter Three, New Directions for Prosecution, addresses our nationÕs prosecutors. Today, prosecutors are recognizing that to most effectively prosecute a case, the victim must be part of the process. The chapter highlights programs such as special prosecution units for child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence; victim/witness assistance programs that provide comprehensive information, notification, advocacy, and support to crime victims; and community prosecution initiatives. This chapter also contains several recommendations that specifically address the prosecutorÕs role in informing, consulting with, and notifying crime victims. For example, because the overwhelming majority of felony cases are resolved through plea agreements, the field recommends that prosecutors consult with victims on the terms of any negotiated plea. The field also recommends that prosecutors confer with victims of violent crimes before declining to file charges. Other recommendations for prosecutors include the need to notify victims in a timely manner of public court proceedings and to advocate for their rights to be heard regarding bail decisions, continuances, sentencing, and restitution. The field also recommends that prosecutors and leaders of victimsÕ organizations develop protocols for ensuring appropriate notification and consultation in cases involving large numbers of crime victims. Chapter Four, New Directions for the Judiciary, addresses the pivotal role that judges play in the justice process. The judiciary has initiated many victim-sensitive problem-solving efforts such as specialized drug courts; domestic violence courts; community courts that handle Òquality of lifeÓ misdemeanor crimes; unified family courts that handle all problems relating to the family including criminal, civil, and juvenile matters; and courts designed specifically for child victims. The report recommends that as leaders within the justice system, judges should ensure that victimsÕ rights laws are fully implemented. New Directions recommends that judges should advise victims of their rights as routinely as they advise defendants of their rights and should facilitate the input of crime victims regarding proposed plea agreements. In addition, judges should permit the victim to present a victim impact statement before imposing a sentence, and courts should utilize communications technology (audio/video) to facilitate victim communication. The field also recommends that judges manage their cases and calendars to make victim involvement as feasible as possible, and that they order full restitution from offenders to help compensate victims for the harm they have suffered. The last chapter in this section, New Directions for Corrections, encompasses the adult and juvenile justice agencies responsible for the incarceration, detention, supervision, and surveillance of those accused or convicted of committing crimes. Over the past decade, the basic philosophy of correctional agencies has undergone radical change. Traditionally, correctional agencies viewed their role as limited to punishing and rehabilitating offenders. Today, serving crime victims is also widely accepted as an important part of the mission of many correctional agencies. This new role is reflected in their governing laws and internal policies and procedures, as well as in the attitudes of correctional personnel. More work is needed in this area, however. The field recommends that adult and juvenile correctional agencies open channels of communication with the community and with crime victims; that correctional agencies designate staff to provide information, assistance, and referrals to victims of crime; that they place a high priority on ensuring the protection of victims from inmate intimidation, threats, physical or other harm from offenders under their supervision; and that they inform victims of any change in the status of offenders that would give them access to victims or the community. To increase offender awareness of the consequences of their actions, correctional agencies for both adult and juvenile offenders should use victim impact panels and conduct courses on the effects of crime on victims. New Directions for Criminal Justice System Agencies emphasizes the need for all criminal and juvenile justice personnel to ensure that the voices of victims are heard throughout the criminal justice process so that justice agencies are able to develop effective, victim-sensitive policies and programs. Education for these professionals should include presentations by victims about their justice system experiences. Crime victims are the ÒcustomersÓ of that system, and the agencies that interact with victims have an obligation to ask them to evaluate whether their needs are being met. Section III New Directions for Victim Assistance and Allied Professionals Members of many different professions work directly with crime victims or come into contact with them on a daily basis. In addition to victim service providers, primary among these are professionals in the health care, mental health, legal, education, faith, business, and the news media communities. New Directions for Victim Assistance and Allied Professionals describes the important roles that these professions can play in assisting victims. It identifies areas where services for victims of crime can be enhanced and highlights the innovative promising practices that each profession has developed to improve victim services. Chapter Six, New Directions for the Victim Assistance Community, addresses the very broad and diverse victim assistance field, including local, state and national programs. The chapter traces the roots of the victim assistance movement from the first state victim compensation program in the United States established in 1965 and the early victim assistance programs of the 1970s, to the full-fledged advocacy and service field that today is dedicated to meeting the physical, financial, and psychological needs of victims and their families. More than 10,000 victim assistance programs exist across the country, including over 2,000 that assist battered women, over 2,000 rape crisis centers, as well as countless other community-based and justice system-based programs that serve child victims, survivors of homicide victims, drunk driving crash victims, and others. These are extraordinary accomplishments for a movement that started less than three decades ago. Yet for many victims in America, adequate services are still not available. Crime victims with disabilities, who are victimized at an unusually high rate, have great difficulty accessing services to meet their needs. Many victim assistance programs lack the ability to communicate effectively with deaf or blind victims, and most service providers are not trained to communicate with victims with cognitive or developmental disabilities. Criminal justice and other victim service providers are often not equipped to meet the needs of victims from diverse cultures or victims who speak languages other than English. As a result, these victims are not informed adequately of the services available to them or of their rights in the criminal justice system. In this chapter, the victimsÕ movement seeks to define a comprehensive system of victim services for all crime victims that includes immediate trauma and emergency response, short- and long-term psychological counseling, shelter, and advocacy throughout the criminal, tribal, military, and juvenile justice systems. It addresses the issues facing specific types of victimsÑincluding victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, gang violence, white collar crime, bank robbery, hate and bias crimes, survivors of homicide victims, elderly victims, and drunk driving crash victimsÑand makes recommendations for meeting their needs. Other recommendations in this section include conducting needs assessments; developing standards for victim assistance; providing basic training and continuing education for all victim assistance providers; and developing a national commission to establish certification and accreditation standards for victim advocacy and assistance. The next chapter in this section, Chapter Seven, focuses on New Directions for the Health Care Community. In 1985, the Surgeon General declared violence in America to be a public health emergency. Today, this emergency has reached epidemic proportions. U.S. hospital emergency rooms treated an estimated 1.4 million individuals injured by interpersonal violence in 1994. Each year, gunshot violence costs $4.5 billion in medical expenses alone. This chapter discusses creative initiatives that have been taken by the health community to reduce violence and to provide assistance to crime victims. Hospitals are reaching out to rural victims through telemedicine, to victims of gang violence through violence prevention programs, and to victims of sexual assault through sexual assault nurse examiners programs. However, many challenges still remain. Recommendations in this chapter include encouraging all medical professionals to adopt protocols for responding to domestic violence, child, elderly, and sexual assault victims developed by their professional associations and to provide professional education programs on crime victims issues. Intense feelings of anger, fear, isolation, low self-esteem, helplessness, and depression are common reactions to victimization. Chapter Eight, New Directions for the Mental Health Community, addresses the many short- and long-term mental health problems that can result from experiencing trauma including acute and post-traumatic stress disorder. Major advances have been made in furthering our understanding of crime-related psychological trauma and the best ways to provide treatment to crime victims. This chapter outlines a number of multidisciplinary programs which have been developed to address the mental health needs of crime victims. Recommendations encourage the mental health community to develop linkages with crime victim compensation, victim assistance programs, and criminal and juvenile justice agencies to ensure that victims have access to adequate crisis and mental health treatment at each stage of the justice process. They also address the continuing need for research on the mental health consequences of victimization and treatment of crime-related psychological disorders, as well as the importance of education and training for mental health professionals in providing appropriate mental health treatment to crime victims and their families. Chapter Nine, New Directions for the Legal Community, addresses the role of lawyers serving in positions outside the justice system in private law firms, corporations, law schools, and government, who frequently come in contact with crime victims through their work. Attorneys and the organized bar associations to which they belong have worked to improve access to the justice system for crime victims by providing pro bono legal assistance to crime victims through community outreach and legal advocacy programs. The field encourages state and local bar associations to follow the lead of the American Bar Association, and many state and local bar associations, in establishing victim committees and to strongly support continuing legal education on crime victimsÕ issues. Chapter Ten, New Directions for the Educational Community, examines the pervasive problem of crime on school and college campuses, as well as how the educational community can assist crime victims. Our nationÕs schools provide the richest opportunity to teach children about victimsÕ rights and services and crime prevention strategies. Education on these issues should begin in grade school and continue through college and graduate school. On many college campuses, where sexual assault and other crimes affect large numbers of students, information about these crimes and prevention strategies is rarely incorporated into classes or student activities beyond student orientation. Many victims turn first to their friends for assistance, and it is critical to educate those most likely to be called upon for advice. Since the release of the 1982 report, attention to school violence has greatly increased, and scores of programs have been developed to protect the safety of students, teachers, and administrators. The recommendations in this chapter focus on the continuing need for schools and universities to establish comprehensive programs to assist students, faculty, and staff who are victimized by crime or who witness violence. In addition, the report calls upon all school districts, colleges, and universities to design and implement a standardized system for documenting, analyzing, and reporting crimes to law enforcement. Equally important, New Directions encourages colleges and universities to establish undergraduate and graduate programs with a concentration in victimsÕ rights and services, as well as to develop specialized education and training programs for faculty, administrators, and staff on crime victim issues. In times of crisis, many individuals turn to clergy and leaders in the faith community for spiritual guidance, support, and information. Chapter Eleven, New Directions for the Faith Community, encourages faith community leaders to recognize that the victim, no less than the victimizer, is in need of aid, comfort, and spiritual ministry. It reviews the range of faith-based victim assistance programs that have been developed over the past decade, including providing shelter for battered women and camps for abused children. Training on victimsÕ issues for those in the faith community is recommended as a priority so that they are better able to recognize signs of violence, understand critical issues of confidentiality, and make appropriate referrals for services. Chapter Twelve, New Directions for the Business Community, addresses the importance of this communityÕs response to crime victims. Employers have begun to recognize that it is good business to offer employees a full spectrum of assistance programs to help them deal with problems, including criminal victimization, that affect job performance and the safety of the workplace. Employee assistance programs are now routinely offered in many workplaces. Many employers and unions are implementing policies to prevent violence in the workplace and to assist employees who become victims. This chapter highlights innovative private sector approaches to improve the response to victims of workplace violence, including monetary and in-kind donations to individual victims and community victim services, and memorable programs that the television industry has produced to increase public awareness about crime victimsÕ issues, particularly in the area of child abuse, sexual assault, gun violence, stalking, and domestic violence. The field recommends that all workplaces educate their employees about victimization and its impact. The final chapter in this section, New Directions for the News Media Community, addresses the longstanding tension between the publicÕs right to know versus the victimÕs right to privacy. The mediaÕs coverage of many high-profile cases and emerging crimes has contributed to positive changes in public policy, such as recognition of the need for community notification of sex offenders and anti-stalking statutes. News coverage has also helped to change public attitudes about the seriousness of violent crimes such as drunk driving and rape. But the media can have a negative impact on individual lives when victims are thrust, often unwillingly, into the media limelight in the aftermath of crime. This chapter encourages the media to adopt guidelines for sensitively covering victimsÕ issues, such as protecting the privacy of sexual assault and child victims. Section IV New Directions in Financial Recovery The costs to crime victims for medical expenses, mental health counseling, and lost wages alone are estimated at $105 billion annually. The fourth section of this report, New Directions in Financial Recovery, addresses the three major avenues that victims can pursue to recover their financial losses due to crime: compensation, restitution, and civil remedies. The first chapter of this section, Chapter Fourteen, New Directions for Crime Victim Compensation, addresses the great progress that has been made to establish victim compensation programs in every state and to expand program benefits. Crime victim compensation programs pay for expenses such as medical care, mental health counseling, lost wages, funeral expenses, and crime scene cleanup. In 1996, state compensation programs paid approximately $240 million to more than 110,000 crime victims nationwide. The recommendations from the field in this chapter suggest that the circle of victims who qualify for compensation should be widened, and barriers that may prevent victims from applying for compensation, such as mandated time limits for reporting to law enforcement or submitting a claim, should be removed. Additional recommendations for compensation programs address issues such as improving claims management, expanding benefits for crime victims, and utilizing technology to facilitate program initiatives. Chapter Fifteen, New Directions for Restitution, addresses restitution, which can be ordered in juvenile and criminal courts to hold offenders financially accountable for their crimes against victims. This chapter calls for mandatory, full, and consistent restitution orders nationwide. In addition, the field suggests all justice systems should establish more effective restitution programs that require coordinated efforts among officials across the entire justice system to increase restitution collections. The final chapter of this section, New Directions for Civil Remedies, addresses the potential financial remedies that crime victims can seek through the civil justice system. Recommendations focus on informing victims and victim service providers of the legal rights of crime victims to pursue reparations through the civil justice system. Victims should be provided with information regarding their options within the civil justice system as another means of holding offenders accountable. Each chapter in this section also addresses the importance of education and training for all who serve victims, as well as victims themselves, about these potential avenues of financial recovery. In addition, the section explores the use of technology, which offers exciting possibilities for improving claims processing and restitution collections so that crime victims no longer will be forced to wait several months or even years to receive critical financial support. Section V New Directions for Child Victims Each year in America, millions of children directly experience or witness violence in their homes, neighborhoods, and schools. The impact of such crime and violence on our nationÕs youth is undeniably profound. Section V, New Directions for Child Victims, addresses the unique needs of young victims and outlines the legal rights and protections that have emerged at the federal and state levels for child victims of physical and sexual abuse, exploitation, abduction, and other types of crimes. It reviews the long-term impact of crime on child victims and presents examples of programs and services that have been developed across the nation to address their health and mental health needs, and to help them through the criminal justice process in sensitive and comprehensive ways. Much needed services include childrenÕs advocacy centers, court-appointed special advocates, and other multidisciplinary approaches. This section also contains a number of recommendations to improve services for child victims, to develop training programs for all professionals who come into contact with child victims, and to enhance data collection and research initiatives in the area of child victimization. Section VI New Directions in International Victim Assistance Individuals throughout the worldÑin large urban cities and in small villagesÑface problems with crime and violence, and much can be gained from examining the unique approaches to addressing the rights and needs of crime victims that have been undertaken by diverse communities and nations. Increasing numbers of people travel and live abroad, and are victimized in countries where they may be unfamiliar with the language as well as the legal and social service systems. Crimes such as international terrorism and commercial sexual exploitation of children are well documented, highlighting the need for countries to look beyond their national boundaries to share information and assist victims. The final chapter of this report, Chapter Eighteen, discusses global issues facing the field of victim services today and briefly highlights approaches that have been taken in other countries to address crime victimsÕ needs. In addition to serving their own victims domestically, many countries are participating in international collaborative efforts to improve the rights and treatment of crime victims worldwide. Recommendations in this section include improving services to American citizens who are victimized abroad and foreign citizens who are victimized in the United States, as well as continued collaboration and reciprocity in the provision of victim services worldwide. Conclusion The victimsÕ movement owes its beginning and many of its accomplishments to the activism of crime victims and their families and supporters. Many crime victims have struggled not only to survive and heal after their own victimization, but also to bring much-needed legal reforms, financial relief, and services to other victims. In charting New Directions, the field emphasizes the importance of recognizing the needs, desires, and potential contributions of crime victims themselves. VictimsÕ voices must remain a powerful guiding force in developing new directions. Since 1982, a substantial number of the 68 recommendations in the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report have been enacted and implemented due in a large part to the efforts of crime victims. These accomplishments include the Victims of Crime Act in 1984, the landmark Crime Act of 1994, the countless state statutes that strengthen victimsÕ rights and hold offenders accountable to their victims, and the 29 state victimsÕ rights constitutional amendments. Throughout this report, the field urges representatives of justice agencies, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, and corrections administrators, to recognize the important role that crime victims play in helping to guide public policy. Justice and allied professionals must also realize that crime victims are an essential resource in developing and participating in victim assistance, training, and crime prevention programs. Community activism and service are often part of the healing process for many crime victims. Their contributions to groups that provide support for other crime victims and to programs that provide education about the impact of crime and how to prevent victimization in the future have been invaluable. The many contributors to this report hope that communities around the country will benefit from the many Òpromising practicesÓ and recommendations highlighted throughout New Directions, and that the dialogue on improving the response to victims continues in a spirited and visionary fashion. The Office for Victims of Crime is committed to facilitating this dialogue and to assisting communities everywhere with implementing innovative, comprehensive programs that provide victims with even greater opportunities for justice and healing. Five Global Challenges from the Field Summary of Recommendations In the course of compiling the hundreds of recommendations from the field and in listening to the voices of victims, their advocates, and allied professionals who work with crime victims throughout the nation, certain key recommendations emerged. The following five global challenges for responding to victims of crime in the 21st century form the core of the hundreds of ideas and recommendations presented in this report. ¥ To enact and enforce consistent, fundamental rights for crime victims in federal, state, juvenile, military, and tribal justice systems, and administrative proceedings. ¥ To provide crime victims with access to comprehensive, quality services regardless of the nature of their victimization, age, race, religion, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, capability, or geographic location. ¥ To integrate crime victimsÕ issues into all levels of the nationÕs educational system to ensure that justice and allied professionals and other service providers receive comprehensive training on victimsÕ issues as part of their academic education and continuing training in the field. ¥ To support, improve, and replicate promising practices in victimsÕ rights and services built upon sound research, advanced technology, and multidisciplinary partnerships. ¥ To ensure that the voices of crime victims play a central role in the nationÕs response to violence and those victimized by crime. New Directions provides recommendations that point specifically to the implementation of these five global challenges. Each section and chapter is based upon papers submitted by leading experts in the field as well as the input of victim advocates, justice system and allied professionals, crime victims, and others who participated in public hearings, working group meetings, and those who provided individual comments and review as the document progressed towards completion. Sampling of Promising Practices That Are Transforming Victim Services In the last two decades, many promising practices in victim services have been developed across the nation. These innovative programs use a multidisciplinary or team approach to respond to the needs of diverse crime victims, maximize technology to deliver high-quality services to victims more quickly and effectively, and utilize community police, prosecutor, court, and corrections programs. An important objective for the victimsÕ movement in the 21st century should be to support and replicate these innovative ideas, with the goal of improving the quality of programs nationwide. In the new millennium, it is hoped that every community can adopt these promising practices in victims services to ensure that victims are provided services in specialized settings by agencies that work together and utilize technology to bring services to victims with greater efficiency. Over 100 promising practices are highlighted throughout New Directions. These are just a few examples of the range of excellent services and multidisciplinary partnerships that have been established to assist crime victims. ChildrenÕs Advocacy Centers The first childrenÕs advocacy center was initiated in Huntsville, Alabama in 1984 by a dynamic district attorney who wanted to change the traditional system in which sexually abused children were revictimized by having to retell their stories to numerous agency officials in frightening settings. ChildrenÕs advocacy centers are designed especially for kids, allowing law enforcement officers, social workers, medical and mental health personnel, and prosecutors to work together to reduce the number of interviews and coordinate cases. Today, there are more than 350 childrenÕs advocacy centers in 48 states. Community Criminal Justice Partnerships In 1989, the sheriff of St. Martin Parish, Louisiana began a program to help his department respond to the needs of elderly crime victims. Called Triad, this collaborative program between law enforcement and senior citizens has been duplicated in communities across the country. Today, there are more than 500 programs in 46 states, Canada, and England. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, for example, the chief of police provides a bus and officers to help seniors living in a high-crime area go to the market and conduct their banking safely. Services offered by Triad programs include transportation to medical services and criminal justice proceedings, courtroom escorts, and repairs to damaged residences. The program is cosponsored by the American Association of Retired Persons, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs Association. Crisis Response Teams The nationÕs first crisis response teams for victims were organized by the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) following the 1986 Edmond, Oklahoma post office shooting in which more than a dozen employees were killed. Since that galvanizing event, with NOVAÕs leadership and training and a growing interest among some states, response teams comprising professionals from a variety of disciplines, including psychologists, law enforcement officers, doctors, social workers, victim advocates, and religious leaders, have been assembled around the country. These teams provide assistance to communities in the aftermath of major crimes and acts of terrorism such as mass murders and bombings. In the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, NOVA organized three crisis response teams to debrief and train more than 1,000 emergency responders, teachers, and school children. Technologies to Benefit Crime Victims Emerging technologies hold great promise for improving services to crime victims. In Kentucky, following the murder of a woman who was notified of the release of her accused assailant, the state developed a computerized system to inform victims when their accused or convicted offenders are released. Similar systems are being adopted around the country. Technology can be used to help victims participate in proceedings, to view trials moved to other communities using closed-circuit television, or to participate by satellite hookups during parole proceedings. In addition, telemedicine can be used to provide assistance from physicians in other locations to nurse examiners in rural areas during sexual assault or child abuse forensic examinations. Technology can also provide increased protection for victims of crimes such as domestic violence and stalking by utilizing cellular phones, house perimeter alarms, and electronic bracelets. Community Police, Prosecutors, and Court Programs Community policing, prosecution, and court programs are excellent vehicles for ensuring victim assistance. Law enforcement officers based in neighborhoods are uniquely situated to identify underserved crime victims and help them obtain needed assistance. In San Diego, California for example, community police officers are informed through a computerized database 24 hours a day of shelters that have available space and other information that helps them respond more effectively to victims of crime. Community prosecution programs such as the community drug impact program in the Eastern District of Wisconsin permit prosecutors to advise citizens of drug arrests in their neighborhood and request their participation in submitting community impact statements. A community court, like the Midtown Community Court in Manhattan, can address misdemeanor, quality-of-life crimes such as graffiti, prostitution, minor drug offenses, and shoplifting, and become an important victim service institution by enforcing immediate and meaningful restitution to victims and the community. Initiatives of Allied Professionals The efforts of allied professionals have greatly improved services to crime victims in many areas. Working with law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system, hospitals in some communities have created programs that provide a safe and secure atmosphere in which to conduct sexual assault examinations. Schools are presenting special violence awareness courses on topics ranging from child abuse and dating violence to gang awareness and prevention. Bar associations are establishing special trainings for attorneys who want to donate their services to crime victims and to represent them in civil litigation. The religious and spiritual community has established camps for abused children and broad-based educational programs and has provided locations for many victim assistance programs. The business community has not only provided millions of dollars to support victim assistance programs, but also over the past decade has increased public awareness of victimization among employees through new training programs and advertising campaigns about victimsÕ issues. The mental health community is playing a pivotal role by establishing multidisciplinary teams to respond to victims of crime in a more coordinated way. In addition, many allied professionals contribute their services to crisis response team efforts around the country. Comprehensive Victim Service Centers This concept originated in Jacksonville, Florida where a comprehensive victim center, provides a wide range of services in one location for all crime victims. Center staff operate an emergency fund for victims, and counselors provide immediate crisis counseling and accompany law enforcement to all homicides. A staff member representing the state compensation program processes compensation claims onsite, and chapters of self-help groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Parents of Murdered Children operate in the center to provide emotional support to victims and survivors of victims of violent crime. Specialized Programs for Diverse Crime Victims Many of the innovative programs described in New Directions provide comprehensive services to underserved crime victims and encourage victims to participate in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The Seattle Abused Deaf WomenÕs Advocacy Services, established by a deaf victim for whom there were no services when she was sexually assaulted as a child, provides comprehensive assistance to deaf and deaf-blind victims who began reporting crimes in record numbers after this organization was founded. Victims of gang violence in Orange County, California, receive extensive services from the Gang Victim Services Program, in which multicultural, bilingual staff provide assistance with crime scene cleanup, funeral arrangements, victim-witness protection issues, interaction with the media, referrals to counseling, court advocacy, and victim compensation applications. SECTION I New Directions in Victims Rights The backbone of our justice system is the laws that give it shape and coherence. For many years, victims of crime were unrecognized in criminal and juvenile justice laws. To the extent victims of crime had a role in the justice system, it was narrow; to the extent victims had rights, they were few. This section examines the nations progress in enacting laws to establish and enforce rights for crime victims. It is based upon papers submitted by leading experts in the field as well as the input of countless victim advocates, justice system professionals, crime victims, and others at public hearings and in working groups. This section reviews the nations progress in the past two decades toward establishing state and federal rights for victims of crime, including a fed-eral constitutional amendment to guarantee those rights. It also presents recommendations from the field for ensuring that victims rights, including fundamental rights for victims of juvenile offenders, are expanded and enforced within the American justice system. CHAPTER 1 Victims Rights Victims Rights: Two Decades of Dramatic Change The enactment of the nations first state bill of rights for crime victims in 1980 in Wisconsin ushered in an era of dramatic progress for victims rights.1 In 1982, the passage of the federal Victim and Witness Protection Act2 and the release of the Final Report of the Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime brought national prominence to crime victims concerns. The Final Report established a broad agenda for implementing victims rights and services, and most of its 68 recommendations are highlighted throughout this report. This section reviews many of the state and federal initiatives to expand the rights of crime victims since these seminal events. State Initiatives State progress in legislating rights for crime victims within the criminal and juvenile justice systems since the 1982 Final Report has been remarkable. When the Task Force began its work, only four states had enacted a set of basic rights for crime victims in the criminal justice system, commonly referred to as victims bills of rights.3 Today, every state has laws protecting victims rights. Moreover, victims rights have been strengthened in 29 states by constitutional mandate.4 The scope of rights extended to crime victims also has expanded significantly.5 Although states have not established one standard set of rights for victims, most bills of rights contain basic provisions for victims to be treated with dignity and compassion, to be informed of the status of their case, to be notified of hearings and trial dates, to be heard at sentencing and parole through victim impact statements, and to receive restitution from convicted offenders. Most states afford victims the right to notice of events and proceedings at various stages of the judicial process. Moreover, 35 states give victims the right to attend most criminal justice proceedings and 24 constitutionally protect that right.6 Every state now allows courts to consider victim impact information at sentencing, and at least 41 states allow victims to make oral statements during sentencing hearings.7 Virtually every state requires victim impact information as part of the presentence report, and at least half of the states expressly require the court to consider that information in sentencing decisions.8 Each year, hundreds of new victims rights laws and innovative practices are enacted and implemented across the country. Since 1990, after cases of stalking received national attention from the media and victim advocacy groups, all 50 states and the District of Columbia modified their laws to criminalize stalking.9 Some state legislatures also reacted swiftly to the escalation of juvenile crime to record levels in the early 1990s by extending at least some rights to victims of juvenile offenders. In 1992, for example, only five states provided victims the right to be notified of a disposition hearing involving a juvenile. By 1995, 25 states provided this right.10 Despite this record of success, however, victims are still being denied their right to participate in the justice system. Many victims rights laws are not being implemented, and most states still have not enacted fundamental reforms such as consultation by prosecutors with victims prior to plea agreements, victim input into important pretrial release decisions such as the granting of bail, protection of victims from intimidation and harm, and comprehensive rights for victims of juvenile offenders.11 Federal Initiatives The 1982 passage of the federal Victim and Witness Protection Act and the release of the Final Report of the Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime were the catalysts for a decade of advances in victims rights.12 The Act became a national model for state victims rights laws, while the Final Reports 68 recommendations spurred legislative reforms and initiatives to improve criminal justice and allied professionals response to crime victims. Congress strong advocacy for crime victims was reflected in the Victim and Witness Protection Acts statement of purpose: to enhance and protect the necessary role of crime victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process; to ensure that the federal government does all that is possible to assist victims and witnesses of crime, within the limits of available resources, without infringing on the constitutional rights of the defendant; and to provide model legislation for state and local governments.13 Congress instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement guidelines for the Victim and Witness Protection Act within 270 days of its enactment. In response, the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (AG Guidelines) were issued in 1983, establishing standard policies and procedures and a code of conduct for federal criminal justice officials who interact with crime victims.14 The AG Guidelines have been updated periodically to incorporate new rights for victims, such as those set forth below. In 1990, the Crime Control Act established a new framework for victims rights by creating the first federal bill of rights for victims of crime.15 This legislation, referred to as the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, or the Victims Rights Act, requires federal law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and corrections officials to use their best efforts to ensure that victims receive basic rights and services.16 These include the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victims dignity and privacy, to be reasonably protected from the accused, to be notified of court proceedings, to be present at all public court proceedings unless the court determines otherwise, to confer with the prosecutor, to restitution, and to information about the offenders conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release. The best efforts standard, however, made the federal law weaker than many state victims rights laws, which make the provision of victims rights and services mandatory. In 1994, passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act created new rights for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, child abuse, and telemarketing fraud. The legislation also included significant funding for combating domestic violence and sexual assault, placing 100,000 community police officers on the street, and launching a variety of other crime prevention initiatives.17 In 1996, the Megans Law amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexual Violent Offender Act was enacted to help ensure that communities are notified of the release and location of convicted sex offenders.18 President Clinton also signed the Antiterrorism Act that year to strengthen efforts against terrorists and to make restitution mandatory in violent crime cases. In 1997, Congress passed the Victims Rights Clarification Act, asserting that victims should have the right to both attend proceedings and deliver or submit a victim impact statement. This clarification was issued in response to a judicial ruling prior to the first trial regarding the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that precluded victims who chose to attend the trial from providing a victim impact statement at sentencing. Also in 1997, Congress adopted the Federal Antistalking Law, which made it a federal offense to cross a state line to stalk another. The act also made stalking within federal jurisdictions a federal offense.19 The Proposal for a Federal Victims Rights Constitutional Amendment The 1982 Presidential Task Force urged the passage of federal constitutional protection for victims rights, advocating that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be amended to create specific rights for crime victims.20 Subsequently, at a meeting sponsored by the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), victim activists and national victims organizations created the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network (NVCAN) to provide leadership and coordination of efforts to amend the federal constitution.21 A decision was made by NVCAN to seek amendments to state constitutions before addressing a federal amendment. This strategy was adopted to enhance knowledge about the impact of state constitutional reforms for victims rights and to establish a strong base of support prior to seeking a federal amendment. NVCAN spent the next decade assisting states in their efforts to pass amendments. One of the NVCAN members, the National Victim Center (NVC), played an important role during this period by serving as the central repository for information regarding constitutional amendment efforts around the country. Efforts to pass state constitutional amendments produced impressive results. In each of the 29 states where victims rights amendments were put to a vote of the electorate, they won by an overwhelming majority, receiving 80 to 90 percent of the vote in most states.22 In 1996, federal lawmakers focused on the significance of federal constitutional rights for crime victims when resolutions to add crime victims rights to the Constitution were introduced in the Senate by Senators Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein and in the House by Representative Henry Hyde. Constitutional protection of victims rights has proven to be a nonpartisan issue. The proposed federal constitutional amendment received bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress and was supported in both political party platforms and by both Presidential candidates in 1996. In a Rose Garden ceremony on June 25, 1996, President Clinton endorsed a federal victims rights constitutional amendment, stating: Participation in all forms of government is the essence of democracy. Victims should be guaranteed the right to participate in proceedings related to crimes committed against them. People accused of crimes have explicit constitutional rights. Ordinary citizens have a constitutional right to participate in criminal trials by serving on a jury. The press has a constitutional right to attend trials. All of this is as it should be. It is only the victims of crime who have no constitutional right to participate, and that is not the way it should be. Rights for Victims of Juvenile Offenders The Presidents Task Force recognized that many reforms in the juvenile justice system focused solely on the benefits to be extended to offenders while ignoring the needs of a society burdened by their offenses.23 The Final Report challenged the federal government to evaluate the juvenile justice system from the perspective of the victim who, the report argued, is no less traumatized because the offender was under age.24 For most of this century, the emphasis on rehabilitating youthful offenders and protecting their confidentiality in the juvenile justice system has overshadowed the needs of their victims. The 1980s brought a decade of reforms to Americas juvenile justice system, but few addressed the needs of crime victims. For example, when rights for victims of crime were enacted in state bills of rights in the 1980s, few states extended rights to the juvenile justice system. Of the 45 states that had enacted some form of victims rights legislation by 1988, only 13 specifically defined their population to include victims of juveniles.25 However, the dramatic increase in juvenile crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the increase in the violent nature of such crimes, prompted demand for greater accountability from the juvenile justice system.26 To ensure that victims of juvenile crimes are protected, states are enacting or amending victims bills of rights to extend basic rights to victims of offenders in the juvenile justice system. While 46 states now allow courts to order restitution from juvenile offenders as part of the disposition of a delinquency proceeding or as part of an informal disposition, only half of the states have legislated comprehensive notification and participatory rights for victims of serious juvenile offenses.27 With respect to victim notification, at least 25 states provide the right for victims to be notified of the disposition hearing, 23 states provide the right for victims to be notified of the adjudication hearing, and at least 25 states provide the right for victims to be notified of final adjudication.28 With respect to victim participation, at least 28 states allow victims of juvenile offenders to submit a victim impact statement at disposition hearings, and 25 states allow victims to attend the disposition hearing.29 Some of these states, however, only recognize these rights in cases involving offenses that would be considered felonies if committed by adults.30 In the important area of plea consultation, by 1995, only 16 states had extended the right to victims of juvenile offenders to receive an explanation of or consultation about plea agreements.31 While protection from intimidation and harm remains important, laws in only 15 states establish the right of victims to be notified of juvenile offenders bail and predisposition release.32 Texas has addressed this problem by passing a statute that gives victims the right to have the court consider their safety when determining if a juvenile should be detained prior to adjudication.33 By 1997, eight states had raised victims rights in the juvenile system to constitutional status. Alaska, Idaho, Missouri, Oregon, and South Carolina have included victims of juvenile offenders in their victims rights constitutional amendments, and Arizona, Oklahoma, and Utah have authorized legislative extension of victims constitutional rights to juvenile proceedings.34 At the national level, juvenile crime and victimization received considerable attention in the 1990s. In 1991, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the U.S. Department of Justice released a nationwide evaluation of juvenile justice-based victim service programs, Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System, which served as an important early roadmap for federal action.35 OJJDP also sponsored, in cooperation with the American Probation and Parole Association, the development of juvenile restitution programs, policies, and procedures. In 1994, the Victims Committee of the American Correctional Association issued a report on victims of juvenile offenders, which found that the majority of victims rights statutes enacted up to that time did not include protections for victims of juvenile offenders and that most state juvenile codes were silent about victims.36 In 1996, crime victims rights and services within juvenile justice systems were elevated to national importance with the release of the National Juvenile Action Plan, a comprehensive strategy to address juvenile violence, victims of juvenile offenders, and the juvenile justice system.37 The document, developed by the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, chaired by Attorney General Janet Reno, with extensive input from the Office for Victims of Crime, called for the expansion of victims rights and services within juvenile justice systems. While much has been accomplished for victims of juvenile offenders through state and federal action to reform the juvenile justice system, much remains to be done. Not only are rights for victims within the juvenile justice system inconsistent nationwide, many are not enforced. According to the National Victim Center, which conducted an in-depth review of victims rights within the juvenile justice system, most of the rights for victims of juvenile offenders should more accurately be called suggestions, or recommendations, as they are only advisory in nature.38 As additional laws are enacted across the nation, enforcement of victims rights in the juvenile justice system must be made as great a priority as it is in the adult criminal justice system. Recommendations From the Field for Victims Rights A global challenge issued by the field that serves as the foundation for every recommendation in this section is that consistent, fundamental rights for crime victims should be implemented in federal, state, juvenile, and tribal justice systems, as well as in administrative disciplinary proceedings, including military hearings. The rights described in this section are among the most significant recommendations in New Directions. While victims rights have been enacted in states and at the federal level, they are by no means consistent nationwide. All too often they are not enforced because they have not been incorporated into the daily functioning of all justice systems and are not practiced by all justice professionals. Moreover, most systems lack enforcement mechanisms, leaving crime victims without adequate legal remedies to enforce their rights when they are violated. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #1 The U.S. Constitution should be amended to guarantee fundamental rights for victims of crime. Constitutionally protected rights should include the right to notice of public court proceedings and to attend them; to make a statement to the court about bail, sentencing, and accepting a plea; to be told about, to attend, and to speak at parole hearings; to notice when the defendant or convict escapes, is released, or dies; to an order of restitution from the convicted offender; to a disposition free from unreasonable delay; to consideration for the safety of the victim in determining any release from custody; to notice of these rights; and to standing to enforce them.a A federal constitutional amendment for victims rights is needed for many different reasons, including: (1) to establish a consistent floor of rights for crime victims in every state and at the federal level; (2) to ensure that courts engage in a careful and conscientious balancing of the rights of victims and defendants; (3) to guarantee crime victims the opportunity to participate in proceedings related to crimes against them; and (4) to enhance the participation of victims in the criminal justice process. A victims rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the state and federal levels. Such an amendment would ensure that rights for victims are on the same level as the fundamental rights of accused and convicted offenders. Most supporters believe that it is the only legal measure strong enough to ensure that the rights of victims are fully enforced across the country. They also believe, however, that the efforts to secure passage of a federal constitutional amendment for crime victims rights should not supplant legislative initiatives at the state and federal level. a On June 25, 1996, President Clinton announced his support for a victims rights amendment to the Constitution. The President did not endorse any particular language, but made clear that any amendment should establish several rights, including the right: (1) to be notified about public court proceedings and not to be excluded from them; (2) to be heard, if present, regarding bail, sentencing and the acceptance of a plea; (3) to be told about parole hearings and to attend and speak at such hearings if present; (4) to notice of a defendants release or escape; (5) to appropriate restitution; (6) to input concerning conditions of confinement and release to protect the victim from the defendant; and (7) to notice of their rights. At a June 1997 hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Janet Reno testified to the Administrations belief that the victims rights amendment must not erode defendants fundamental protections. The Attorney General further testified that this goal can be achieved most effectively by including express language to that effect in the amendment. Granting victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government deprives one of life, liberty, or property. While the Justice Department has not endorsed specific language for a victims rights constitutional amendment, the importance of extending constitutional rights to crime victims has been strongly supported by Attorney General Janet Reno. In August 1996, she stated: [It] is clear to me that the best way to secure consistent and comprehensive rights for victims is by including those fundamental rights within the U.S. Constitution. . . . What victims want is a voice, not a veto, in our criminal justice system. Today, victims rights vary significantly from state to state. The federal government, adult and juvenile justice systems, and the military all provide different rights for victims. Victims rights should not depend upon the state in which they live, whether the crime is federal or state, or whether it occurs on a military base or in Indian country. Fundamental rights for victims should apply in every forum.39 The Attorney General reiterated her support for a victims rights constitutional amendment in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 16, 1997, and before the House Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1997. While the vast majority of national victims organizations and a number of other groups including the National Governors Association, the American Correctional Association, and the Victims Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police favor a victims rights constitutional amendment, some victims organizations and civil rights and civil liberties groups do not support such an amendment.40 Many of these organizations believe that such an amendment would undermine the rights of the accused, particularly the right to due process, and that reforms should be achieved through statute rather than constitutional amendment. Organizations that advocate for battered women have expressed concern that victims of domestic violence who are tried as offenders may be disadvantaged by a victims rights constitutional amendment. In addition, judges have raised concerns over the potential increase in federal court supervision of state court activities, and prosecutors and other justice officials have expressed concerns, including that they do not have the resources to implement victims rights laws in cases involving large numbers of victims. Advocates for a victims rights constitutional amendment respond to these concerns by indicating that they are not proposing that victims rights be given more weight than the rights of the accused. Rather, they want victims rights to be given equal weight which would require courts to engage in a careful and conscientious balancing of the rights of both. They note that many judges across the country routinely bar victims of violent crime from attending the trials of the individuals accused of committing those crimes and do not consider whether prohibiting attendance actually would violate the defendants right to due process. In addition, a victims rights constitutional amendment is needed to ensure that courts do not determine that victims statutory rights are automatically trumped by defendants federal constitutional rights. Proponents of a federal amendment also note that while states victims rights statutes and constitutional amendments have led to positive reforms, states have failed to implement state statutory and constitutional rights for victims in significant numbers of cases. In the mid-1990s, the National Victim Center, under a grant from the National Institute of Justice, studied implementation of victim rights laws in four states.41 Two states were selected because they had strong state statutory and constitutional protection of victims rights, and two were selected because they had weaker protection. The study surveyed more than 1,300 crime victims and was the largest of its kind ever conducted. It found that many victims were still being denied their rights, even in states with strong legal protection.42 It concluded that state protections alone are insufficient to guarantee the provision of victims rights.43 Key findings of the study included: ¥ Nearly half of the victims, even in the two states with strong protection, did not receive notice of the sentencing hearingnotice that is essential for victims to exercise their right to make a statement at sentencing. ¥ While both of the states with strong statutes had laws requiring that victims be notified of plea negotiations, and neither of the weak protections states had such statutes, victims in both groups of states were equally unlikely to be informed of such negotiations. Laws requiring notification of plea negotiations were not enforced in nearly half of the violent crime cases included in the study. ¥ Substantial numbers of victims in states with both strong and weak protection were not notified of other important rights and services, including the right to be heard at bond hearings, the right to be informed about protection against harassment and intimidation, and the right to discuss the case with the prosecutor.44 National victims organizations have reported several cases that illustrate how easily victims statutory rights can be violated in the judicial process. In one case, a woman and her family were injured by a drunk driver. The defendant was charged with a felony. The woman told the prosecutor she wanted to provide a victim impact statement in open court, a right secured by the states victims bill of rights. The judge denied her request, citing his busy docket. Many victim advocacy groups believe that a federal constitutional amendment is needed to increase the involvement of victims in judicial proceedings. Today, many victims do not report crime or participate in the criminal justice system for a variety of reasons, including fear of revictimization by the system and retaliation by the offender. Victims will gain confidence in the system if their rights are recognized and enforced, their concerns for safety are given serious consideration, and they are treated with dignity and respect. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #2 Crime victims should have the right to notice of public court proceedings, including pretrial release hearings, plea agreements, sentencing, appeals, and appropriate postconviction release proceedings such as probation and parole hearings. Victims should also have the right to notice of any significant change in the status of defendants and to receive timely notice, upon request, of inmates temporary or permanent release, or inmates escape or death. The right for crime victims to be notified about public court proceedings in a timely fashion is fundamental to their exercise of other rights such as the right to be present and heard. Without timely notification of proceedings, victims cannot exercise other participatory rights. The 1982 Task Force on Victims of Crime recommended legislation and policies to ensure that victims are furnished case status information, prompt notice of scheduling changes for court proceedings, and prompt notice of defendants arrest and bond status. Fifteen years later, many states, but not all, have adopted laws requiring such notice. While the majority of states mandate advance notice to crime victims of criminal proceedings and pretrial release, many have not implemented mechanisms to make such notice a reality. Procedures for notification, if defined at all, vary widely. Some states require immediate notice of a defendants pretrial release. Others only provide victims with a telephone number to call to find out whether the arrested defendant has been released. Many states do not require notification to victims of the filing of an appeal, the date of an appellate proceeding, or the results of the appeal. Also, most do not require notification of release from a mental facility or of temporary or conditional releases such as furloughs or work programs. Some state laws require that notice be made promptly or within a specified period of time. Both prosecutors and victims often complain that in many instances the time between the scheduling of a hearing and the date of that hearing is too short to give victims adequate notice. Victims also complain that prosecutors do not inform them of plea agreements, the method used for disposition in the overwhelming majority of cases in the United States criminal justice system. Many state victims rights laws do not require this type of notice. Many states require victims to request notice, and most require victims to maintain a current address and telephone number on file with the notifying agency. In such cases, efforts should be made to establish a system whereby a single request will entitle victims to notice throughout the criminal justice process. Similarly, victims should be required to keep their addresses current with one agency that would serve as a central source of information for other officials within the criminal justice system. The most effective means of implementing this recommendation is to establish a centralized case tracking system that allows all relevant agencies to both access and update victim notification files, which would then be incorporated on secure, confidential screens. Victims could request notice and maintain contact information with all agencies by notifying only one agency. Notification of victims when defendants or offenders are released can be a matter of life and death. Around the country, there are a large number of documented cases of women and children being killed by defendants and convicted offenders recently released from jail or prison. In many of these cases, the victims were unable to take precautions to save their lives because they had not been notified of the release. Notice of release is an essential part of a victims right to reasonable protection, a fundamental right described more fully in Recommendation 6. Today, some communities use automated voice response technology to notify victims of release information, including systems that phone victims repeatedly until they are reached. Other jurisdictions are implementing victim notification systems that combine several technological solutions. Georgias law requires officials to notify a stalking victim by telephone before an offender is released, or, if such notice cannot be made, to call the victim at least twice in no less than 15 minute intervals within 1 hour of the offenders release.45 The court is also responsible for notifying victims of bail hearings by telephone. The nations largest offender release notification system was recently implemented in New York City, where 133,000 inmates are released annually from city jails. Any victim with access to a telephone can register for notification simply by calling a number and providing an inmates name, date of birth, and date of arrest, or the inmates state identification number. When the inmate is released or transferred from custody for any reason, the victim receives periodic telephone calls for 4 days or until the victim confirms receipt of the notification by entering a personal code. The police, local prosecutors, victim assistance providers, and local hotline staff have all been trained to explain the system and to encourage victims and intimidated witnesses to use it. Other systems in operation around the country allow victims and members of the public to determine the status of any incarcerated offender by calling an automated telephone information system. Technology offers increasingly powerful tools for providing immediate notification to large numbers of crime victims through the Internet, televised press conferences, and community meetings when victim contact information is limited or when usual procedures are impractical. The Illinois Department of Corrections website allows victims to track the status and location of all inmates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Similar approaches are being developed in Ohio and Missouri. During the cases concerning the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, prosecutors and victim-witness coordinators held several highly publicized meetings in the community for victims who wanted updated information and an opportunity to interact with prosecutors and other staff members. Representatives of prosecutors and victims organizations should meet to discuss protocols for ensuring appropriate notification in cases involving hundreds of victims, not only in cases of massive criminal violence, but also in white collar crime cases such as telemarketing fraud. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #3 Federal and state laws should be strengthened to ensure that victims have the right to be present throughout all public court proceedings. The right of crime victims to attend proceedings is fundamental and essential to the meaningful exercise of the other participatory rights described in this report. Notice of proceedings means little if the victim must remain outside the court or hearing room while the proceedings take place. The most common justification for denying a victims right of attendance in court is the need to keep them sequestered as potential witnesses. There can be no meaningful attendance rights for victims unless they are generally exempt from this rule. Just as defendants have a right to be present throughout the court proceedings whether or not they testify, so too should victims of crime. Moreover, the presence of victims in the courtroom can be a positive force in furthering the truth-finding process by alerting prosecutors to misrepresentations in the testimony of other witnesses. The legitimacy of victim attendance has been recognized in a number of states that provide that victims should not be subjected to court exclusion if they are potential witnesses, or in states where laws have been enacted that generally recognize an essentially unqualified right for victims to be present at these proceedings.46 A number of states provide that crime victims should have the right to attend every proceeding that the defendant has the right to attend47, or that victims be sequestered only on the same basis by which defendants are sequestered.48 Louisiana deals with the sequestration issue by providing that victims must testify first and thereafter may attend the proceedings. Alabama allows victims to sit at the prosecutors table during trial.49 Statutes to give victims the right to attend proceedings should be adopted in more states, extended to the juvenile justice system, and strengthened and clarified in states that already purport to provide that right. In many states, the right to attend and be heard often attaches to all crucial proceedings, with no clear definition of which proceedings are covered by the statute. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #4 Prosecutors should provide victims an opportunity for meaningful consultation prior to major case decisions such as dismissal, reduction of charges, or acceptance of plea agreements. Judges should not accept plea agreements without first asking prosecutors on the record if they have consulted the victim, and judges should take the views of the victim into account before making a final sentencing decision. Special procedures should be developed for cases involving multiple crime victims, such as acts of mass violence, massive antitrust or telemarketing cases, where consultation may be difficult. Many states give victims a right to consult with prosecutors. The most common of these laws require prosecutors to consult with victims prior to accepting plea agreements.50 Others require prosecutors to consult with victims prior to dismissing charges,51 declining prosecution,52 or making other disposition decisions.53 State laws also compel consultation with victims prior to trial.54 Some states extend the right to consultation to victims in juvenile cases.55 In addition, legislators have attempted to address victims lack of knowledge about the justice system by requiring prosecutors to provide explanations of procedures and dispositional decisions in nontechnical language.56 Typical are the Nebraska statutes requiring consultation regarding the content of and reasons for the plea agreement.57 Louisiana goes further by giving victims the right to retain private counsel to confer with the prosecution regarding disposition.58 Enforcing victims right to consultation, however, is another matter. Some states specifically require prosecutors to consider the recommendations of victims when making diversion decisions. Other states require prosecutors to confirm their consultation with the victim before a plea agreement may be accepted. In these states, prosecutors must state on the record that the victim was notified and the plea discussed, or explain why consultation was not possible.59 Lack of communication about a proposed plea agreement continues to be one of the highest sources of victim dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system.60 Victims should have the opportunity for meaningful consultation with the prosecutor at the plea agreement stage or prior to the dismissal of charges. While victims should not have the ability to veto prosecution decisions in a case, they should have a voice. Victims rights laws should recognize that cases involving large numbers of victims may call for exceptions to the requirement for victim consultation. This recognition should not, however, excuse prosecutors from their obligation to use any appropriate and reasonable means of consulting with victims. In the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing case, which involved hundreds of crime victims, prosecutors held widely publicized community meetings to give victims numerous opportunities for consultation. Representatives of prosecutors and victims organizations should meet to develop a protocol for ensuring appropriate consultation in cases involving numerous victims. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #5 Crime victims should have the right to be heard in major court proceedings including pretrial release hearings, bail hearings, at sentencing, and before the disposition of plea agreements, probation, parole, and commutation. Input should be permitted through both allocution and submission of written, videotaped, or audiotaped statements. In recognition of the special safety risks victims face when offenders are released, some states have also passed laws granting victims the right to attend and participate in pretrial release hearings. Many legislatures have adopted laws allowing judges to consider the risks offenders pose to the community in general and to individual victims when ruling on their release.61 Maryland has taken the concept one step further by passing a law that establishes a rebuttable presumption that those accused of violent crime constitute an inherent danger to other persons or to the community at large.62 Allowing the victim to be heard on the issue of pretrial release helps to inform the court about the degree of danger posed by a defendant. Because most criminal cases are resolved through negotiated pleas, the right of victims to be heard by judges before a plea is accepted is essential to meaningful participation in the justice process. In sentencing proceedings, convicted offenders traditionally have been given the right of allocution, while their victims have not. While all jurisdictions have adopted rights for victim input, not all states permit allocution, an oral statement provided in court by the victim or his or her representative. In addition, the right of victims to provide impact statements has not been extended to all victims, including those in the juvenile justice system. These shortfalls in existing laws must be corrected. States should consider adopting the use of vertical impact statements and include them in criminal and juvenile case files at the outset. When necessary, victims should be allowed to update these statements to record the impact of victimization as time passes. While the right to be heard at sentencing is well-established, statutes allowing victim input at other stages of the justice process are just now gaining prominence. A few states provide that victims may make a written statement at the outset of the case; the statement then remains in the file for the court's consideration throughout the criminal justice proceedings. Victims should also have the right to submit audio- or videotaped statements, or statements via teleconferencing, particularly in parole and other postsentencing hearings, when appearing in criminal or juvenile justice proceedings would create a physical, emotional, or financial hardship for victims or put their safety at risk. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #6 Victims and witnesses of crime should have the right to reasonable protection, including protection from intimidation. The safety of victims and witnesses should be considered in determining whether offenders should be released from custody prior to completing their full sentence. The right to protection from intimidation, harassment, and retaliation by offenders and the accused is becoming a major focus of public and law enforcement attention. Justice officials report an increase in the harassment and intimidation of witnesses, making it increasingly difficult to obtain convictions because crime victims and witnesses are afraid to testify.63 Legislatures have attempted to address this problem by mandating no contact orders as a condition of pretrial or posttrial release. In addition, victims bills of rights generally require victims to be notified at the outset of the judicial process about legal action they can take to protect themselves from harassment and intimidation. Harassment or intimidation of a victim or witness by a defendant or convicted offender should result in automatic revocation of pretrial or supervised posttrial release, and should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. Such violations should be charged and prosecuted under relevant antiharassment, intimidation, and stalking laws. Any punishment imposed for the separate crime of intimidation should run consecutively after the sanction for the original crime. All protective orders, including those issued as a condition of release, should be maintained in a central, automated database that can be accessed by law enforcement and other justice officials throughout the country. Violations of protective orders should be taken seriously, swiftly sanctioned, and enforced not only within states but across state lines in accordance with current federal law. Courts must have clear authority to detain defendants whose danger to victims or others cannot be controlled adequately by other means. Retaliation against a victim or witness when an offender is sentenced to probation or released on parole should result in revocation of that release. States should also increase security in the courthouse to reduce the likelihood of violence when offenders and victims come into contact before, during, and after justice proceedings. Waiting areas for victims should be separate from those for defendants. Victim awareness education should be required for corrections, parole, and probation officials to increase their understanding of the dangers victims face and to help them communicate with victims about their concerns for safety. These needs have been met in varying degrees by the states. Many states have enacted laws requiring courts to establish separate and secure waiting areas to protect witnesses and victims waiting to testify from contact with a defendant or his family and friends.64 Many states have established specific offenses for the harassment of victims and witnesses65 and made harassment grounds for bail revocation and reincarceration.66 Some state legislatures have provided that victims need not submit to defense counsel requests for interviews or contact prior to trial.67 At least 30 states have taken steps to limit or control face-to-face confrontations at parole hearings by holding separate proceedings for offenders and victims, permitting victims to testify outside the presence of the offender, including outside the prison setting, and teleconferencing offenders into parole hearings at which only parole officials and the victim are present.68 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #7 Orders of full restitution for crime victims should be mandatory. Restitution orders should be automatically entered as civil judgments at the end of the offenders supervisory period if not paid. Alternatively, legislation could be enacted giving judges and paroling authorities jurisdiction for enforcing restitution orders until they are fully paid. Restitution is one of the most significant factors influencing victim satisfaction with the criminal justice process.69 While restitution has always been available via statute or common law, it remains one of the most underutilized means of providing crime victims with a measurable degree of justice. In part, this neglect led the President's 1982 Task Force to call for mandatory restitution in all criminal cases unless the presiding judge can offer compelling reasons why restitution should not be ordered.70 More than half of the states (29) passed laws in response to this recommendation by the end of 1995.71 The exceptions permitted in state restitution laws vary considerably from state to state. South Carolina's statute requires that compelling and substantial reason be given for not ordering restitution, while courts in West Virginia need only show that restitution would be impracticable.72 In 1996, Congress made restitution mandatory in federal criminal cases involving violent crimes with the enactment of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, Title II of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.73 Historically, only persons who have suffered physical injury or financial loss as a direct result of crime have been eligible to receive restitution for out-of-pocket expenses. But as restitution statutes have evolved, definitions of who qualifies and the losses covered have broadened. Today, in some states, family members, victims estates, and victim service agencies and private organizations that provide assistance to victims are eligible for restitution.74 Definitions for compensable losses under state restitution laws have broadened as well. They now include the costs of psychological treatment, sexual assault exams, HIV testing, and occupational or rehabilitative therapy, as well as lost profits, moving and meal expenses, case-related travel expenses, and burial expenses. Judges should be encouraged to order full restitution, which can be more effectively enforced through recent legislative innovations. Offenders who willfully fail to pay risk being held in contempt, imprisoned, or having their parole or probation extended or revoked. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize financial assets and property to satisfy restitution orders. Other states allow restitution orders to be enforced as civil judgments at the time of the order or at the end of the offender's supervisory period. During incarceration, prison wages, inheritances, federal and state income tax refunds, and lottery winnings should be automatically attachable. Moreover, probation and parole officials must be provided the motivation and means to administer restitution collection, and both must play an active role in enforcing orders when offenders refuse to pay. (For more information on restitution, see Chapter 15.) Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #8 Victims should have the right to disposition of proceedings free from unreasonable delay. One of the greatest hardships victims endure in the criminal justice process is the delay of scheduled proceedings. Just as defendants have the right to a speedy trial, so too should crime victims. Repeated continuances cause serious hardships and trauma for victims as they review and relive their victimization in preparation for trial, only to find the case has been postponed. Delays are sometimes used as a defense tactic. As a case drags on, witnesses move away, die, give up in frustration, or lose clear recollections of the facts. The impact of continuances is particularly difficult for victims whose memories may fade over time or whose health may deteriorate. The schedule and concerns of victims should be taken into consideration by judges before they grant continuances. A disposition free from unreasonable delay helps to ensure that victims as well as defendants receive speedy trials and that the impact of delay on victims is considered by judges in response to requests for continuances. Several states have already adopted such standards as law. As of 1996, 12 states gave crime victims a constitutional right to a speedy trial or prompt disposition of proceedings. At least 13 others have enacted statutes to give victims such a right or to ensure that their interests are considered in rulings on continuances.75 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #9 All crime victims should have the right to a full range of services and support to help them recover physically, psychologically, and in practical ways from the effects of crime, whether or not they report the crime or become involved in related criminal prosecutions or juvenile adjudications. In the aftermath of victimization, victims may have many different needs. Victims who report crime need information, assistance and protection when they choose to participate in the criminal and juvenile justice process. Not only should victims have the right to be heard or consulted in decisions that affect them, but they should receive protection if they are witnesses and transportation to and from legal proceedings. Victims respond differently to their experiences. Some victims may be reluctant or unwilling to report the crimes committed against them and may fear involvement in the justice system. For example, some battered women may be too frightened to report violent incidents to the police. Sexual assault victims fear the loss of privacy in coming forward to report the crime. Other victims distrust law enforcement agencies, and immigrants who become victims sometimes fear deportation. Regardless of whether they report the crime, many victims need emergency and ongoing services such as health care, shelter, lock replacement, cash assistance, social and community services and support, mental health counseling, victim compensation, child care services, referrals to support groups, translators, and transportation. Chapters 6 and 14 address these issues in greater detail. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #10 Crime victims should have fundamental rights that are enforced in all juvenile justice proceedings. Traditionally, juvenile justice systems have been cloaked in secrecy. Victims have had limited rights within those systems, which were designed years ago to protect the confidentiality of juvenile offenders. Although some state victims bills of rights and constitutional amendments include rights for victims of juvenile offenders, most states have extended only selected rights to these victims. Moreover, victims rights enacted on the federal level do not apply to victims of juvenile offenders. The participation of victims in juvenile justice proceedings is important because it recognizes the impact of the crime on victims and encourages young offenders to consider the personal impact of their offenses. Putting a human face on the results of their destructive behavior helps offenders take responsibility for their actions and deters future crime. The rights of victims of juvenile offenders should mirror the rights of victims of adult offenders. Victims of juvenile offenders should receive information and notification about the status of the case and the offender from the point of arrest through the juvenile corrections system. Victims of juvenile offenders are frustrated by their chronic inability to access vital information about their case due to confidentiality restrictions. Confidentiality protections for juvenile offenders which preclude victims from receiving vital information must be lifted. Victims of juvenile offenders should have the right to provide input through victim impact statements. While all states now allow victim impact statements at sentencing in the criminal justice system, only 28 states had extended this right to victims of juvenile offenders as of 1995.76 Without victim impact information, the financial, physical, and emotional injuries of crime cannot be considered when determining adequate restitution or appropriate sentencing. Victims of juvenile offenders should have the right to restitution, and states should aggressively pursue collection and disbursement of such awards. Restitution is underutilized for victims of juvenile offenders. Restitution has two important benefits. It compensates the victim for losses suffered as a result of the juveniles behavior, and it holds the juvenile accountable for the damages he or she has caused. Forty-six states have statutory authority to order juvenile offenders to pay restitution.77 Some states make juveniles and their parents jointly responsible for damages in a civil action or restitution. The majority of the statutes place limits on the amount of damages or restitution that can be ordered.78 Nonetheless, this important right is underutilized. A 1991 nationwide study found that only 17 states collect restitution from juvenile offenders, and only 13 state juvenile corrections agencies disperse the restitution to victims.79 Finally, victims of juvenile offenders should have the same right to reasonable protection they would have enjoyed had the offender in their case been older. Half of the states give victims of adult offenders the right to be reasonably protected from the offender during the criminal justice process, while this right in most cases is not extended to victims of juvenile offenders. Given the increase in violent crimes by juveniles,80 the need for protection is plainly present. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #11 All criminal and juvenile justice agencies, including courts, as well as victim assistance programs, should help ensure that victims receive information about their rights in a form they understand. Justice system and allied professionals who come into contact with victims should provide an explanation of their rights and provide written information describing victims rights and the services available to them. Furthermore, rights and services should be explained again at a later time if the victim initially is too traumatized to focus on the details of the information being provided. Explanations of rights and services should be reiterated by all justice personnel and victim service providers who interact with the victim. To provide this critical information, justice and allied professionals need specialized training on the most effective communication techniques to use with victims, including child and elderly victims, victims who do not speak English, victims from diverse cultures, and victims with disabilities, including those who are blind or deaf or who have cognitive or developmental disabilities. Brochures describing victims rights and services should be developed in the languages used by crime victims in each community, and all brochures and critical victim information written in English should include a sentence offering the literature in other languages as needed. Special provisions should be made for communicating with victims who are blind or visually impaired using audiotapes, special computer disks, Braille, or other communication technologies. Service providers should be trained to use sign language interpreters and TDD technology to communicate with victims who are deaf or hard of hearing. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #12 Victims of crime should receive assistance in exercising their participatory rights. Advocates should be available to explain rights to victims, help them to exercise those rights and, when necessary, serve as their representatives in court and other key justice processes when victims are underage or incapacitated or if representation is otherwise appropriate. One of the greatest barriers to victims participating in justice proceedings is their not having the means to do so. Many victims cannot afford to pay for parking, child care, or time off from work. Others do not have the resources to cover transportation costs to courts, especially if the trial or hearing is held outside their community. In these cases, every effort should be made to facilitate victim participation by providing special services such as child care, or paying for transportation and lodging expenses. For example, in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing cases, government and non-profit agencies and the private sector formed a partnership to provide funding for victim travel expenses after the trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, Colorado in 1997. In addition, the court in Denver set up a closed-circuit television communication in Oklahoma City to allow victims there to view the proceedings in Denver. New uses of technology should be considered to provide access to trials and other proceedings for victims who are physically unable to attend them. Furthermore, more consideration must be given to the tremendous diversity among victims in the design and delivery of victim services. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #13 States should review their victims rights statutes and constitutional amendments to determine if fundamental rights are extended to all crime victims. Victims rights in many states apply only to a special class of crime victimsvictims of felonies. Many serious domestic violence and drunk driving cases prosecuted as misdemeanors are thus not covered by victims' rights statutes. States should consider extending victims rights in all cases, regardless of their classification as felony or misdemeanor or violent or nonviolent. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #14 States that have not already done so should adopt truth in sentencing reforms to ensure that victims know how long offenders will actually be incarcerated. Under traditional sentencing practices in most jurisdictions, release dates for offenders were set by parole authorities, and the actual periods of incarceration served by offenders had little relationship to the prison terms specified in criminal sentences. In recent years, many jurisdictions have adopted truth in sentencing reforms to limit or abolish parole and to make the time an offender serves more predictable. In federal cases, for example, parole has been abolished and good time credits are limited to 15 percent of sentences, forcing federal offenders to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence imposed in court.81 In addition to furthering penal objectives, truth in sentencing reforms serve important interests of victims. Victims as well as the public are entitled to know how long an offender will actually be incarcerated. Victims should not be burdened with the anxiety that offenders will be released prematurely, compelling them to appear repeatedly at postconviction hearings. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #15 Federal and state laws should prohibit employers from taking adverse action against victims who must miss work to participate in the criminal or juvenile justice process. In his statement endorsing a Victims Rights Constitutional Amendment on June 25, 1996, President Clinton indicated that [t]here ought to be . . . in every law, federal and state, a protection for victims who participate in the criminal justice process not to be discriminated against on the job because they have to take time off. That protection today is accorded to jury members; it certainly ought to extend to people who are victims who need to be in the criminal justice process. Without this protection, many workers cannot exercise their fundamental right to participate in justice proceedings. All jurisdictions should adopt the reform proposed by the President, and it should be enacted into federal law. While protections for jurors are limited, victims should have, at minimum, the same levels of protections as jury members. To the extent possible, employers should be required to work with employees and their unions to ensure that victims maintain their employment after absences due to attendance at criminal and juvenile justice proceedings. Victims should continue to receive salaries or wages, reduced by any witness fees received, for a designated period of time. Afterwards, they should be able to use vacation and sick leave. In addition, judges should be encouraged to take employment concerns of victims and their employers into consideration when scheduling proceedings. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #16 In cases where there is good cause to believe that bodily fluids were exchanged, victims should have the right to be tested and to have the accused or convicted offender tested at appropriate times for the HIV virus and sexually transmitted diseases. State statutes should require these tests to be conducted by specially trained personnel who can advise victims of the reliability, limitations, and significance of the test, as well as HIV treatment options. In addition, laws should specify the agency that will pay for HIV testing and pre- and posttest counseling, as well as treatment for any victims who test positive. According to the National Victim Center, as of the end of the 1995 legislative session, 44 states had adopted laws providing mandatory testing of sexual offenders in cases involving sexual penetration or other exposure to an offenders bodily fluids. Of those, 16 make testing mandatory before conviction, and 33 require testing after. Six states make testing mandatory both before and after conviction. Twenty-six states have a mandatory testing law that applies to juvenile offenders.82 In 1990, the Federal Government passed legislation making HIV testing of convicted sexual assault offenders mandatory for states to be eligible for certain prison grants.83 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 gives Federal victims of sexual assault the right to obtain an order requiring the defendant to submit to an HIV test, and to obtain the results of that test.84 It also provides for follow-up testing and counseling. Typically, pretrial testing of defendants is left to the discretion of the court, which must find that there has been significant exposure and that the health and safety of the victim may be threatened. The court is required to hold a hearing, during which the victim must show that the defendant has been charged with a sexual offense and that the test would provide information necessary to protect the health of the victim and his/her partner(s). Some statutes permit a series of tests at 6-month intervals for up to 2 years to detect viruses that do not show up on initial tests. When victims have possibly been exposed to HIV, they should be referred to an anonymous testing site that uses the most advanced technologies, guarantees maximum reliability of test results, and provides pre- and posttest counseling regarding transmission of the virus and the testing process. If after receiving pretest counseling the victim wants to determine the offenders HIV status, the offender should be tested as soon as possible, including prior to conviction, with a second test at least 3 months later. Regardless of the decision to test the offender or the test results, victims should be encouraged to be tested to determine their HIV status. Although testing the offender may be important to the victim, it should be emphasized that testing the offender does not replace focusing on the victims medical and emotional needs. Testing the victim in the immediate aftermath of a victimization will only provide information about the victims HIV status prior to the crime. If a victim was exposed to HIV during the crime, testing 1 month and then 3 months after the event (or at other times recommended by health authorities) will provide a clearer indication of whether the virus was transmitted by the crime. While there is a relatively low risk of transmission, victims who test positive should be given access to free FDA approved medical treatments of their choice. Counseling is an essential part of responding to the risk of HIV transmission in a crime. Victims may not understand the latency of the disease, and may not fully appreciate the limited reliability of a negative test result. States frequently require counseling in conjunction with testing, but specifications vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some states, counseling must be provided contemporaneously with the test, as in Maine, where counseling must discuss the nature, reliability, and significance of the test, as well as its confidential nature.85 In contrast, other states such as Michigan simply require that the agency notifying the victim of the results of the test also refer the victim to counseling.86 Oklahoma specifies that the victim receive counseling before and after the test.87 Florida requires the testing agency to afford immediate opportunity for face-to-face counseling when the results are revealed to the victim.88 In some states, the statute fails to provide for counseling. Most laws require confidentiality of test results, but advocates still report problems with insurance companies that, upon learning of the victims HIV test or results, raise health insurance premiums or cancel the victims policy altogether. Minnesota has enacted a law to prohibit such practices.89 Wisconsins law provides that the results of a test ordered by the court will not become part of a persons permanent medical record. States should enact legislation to protect victims from such practices. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #17 State and federal laws should allow, and criminal and juvenile justice agencies should facilitate, community impact statements as a means for members of a neighborhood or community that has been impacted by crime to have input into sentencing. In many cases, neighborhoods and communities as well as individuals are victims of crime. This is especially true in drug, gang, and prostitution cases where criminal activity endangers and degrades entire neighborhoods, affecting property values and quality of life issues. A few prosecutors have pioneered the use of community impact statements, which are, in effect, an expanded version of the victim impact statement. For example, as noted in Chapter 3, the District Attorney for Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin notify members of the community when drug arrests are made and encourage them to become involved in the criminal proceedings by submitting impact statements. These offices inform residents in affected neighborhoods of arrests and trial dates and coordinate outreach efforts in concert with probation agencies to help them prepare their statements. To encourage this important type of participation in criminal justice proceedings, both state and federal laws should recognize communities as victims and permit this form of input. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #18 Victims should have standing to enforce their rights, and sanctions should be applied to criminal and juvenile justice professionals who deny victims their fundamental rights. Although more than 27,000 state and federal laws have been enacted to protect and enforce the interests, rights, and services for crime victims, the consistent implementation and enforcement of these laws is an area of great concern. Victims report that criminal and juvenile justice officials at times disregard their statutory and constitutional rights, and that they have no legal recourse when their rights are violated. States should enact provisions that give victims measures to enforce their rights when they are disregarded. While limited legal remedies such as court-ordered injunctions and writs of mandamus are generally available to force criminal justice personnel to comply with the law, states are beginning to pass laws that provide specific statutory remedies and recourse for crime victims. A Maryland statute enables victims of violent crimes to apply for leave to appeal any final order that denies victims certain basic rights.90 Arizona law grants victims the right to challenge postconviction release decisions resulting from hearings at which they were denied the opportunity to receive notice, attend, or be heard. Arizona law allows victims to sue for money damages any government entity responsible for the intentional, knowing or grossly negligent violation of the victims rights.91 It is critical that effective measures be available to remedy violations of victims rights, including authority for the government to obtain redress through applications for mandamus and appeal. The need for this reform in federal proceedings is illustrated by the first trial in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, in which the trial court ruled that victims would not be allowed to attend the trial if they wished to be heard at the sentencing stage. On review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that victims had no standing to assert their right to be present and that the government could not enforce that right by appeal or by seeking a mandatory order.92 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #19 States and the federal government should create compliance enforcement programs, sometimes referred to as victim ombudsman programs, to help facilitate the implementation of victims rights. State victims rights compliance enforcement programs oversee justice officials and agencies compliance with crime victims statutory and constitutional rights and investigate crime victim complaints relevant to those rights being violated.93 A few states have created such programs within an existing agency or have established a new, state-level oversight authority. In initiating such a program, officials should consider the importance of meaningful remedies and sanctions for noncompliance with victims rights laws; and ensure that victims, victim service providers, advocacy groups, and victim-sensitive justice professionals are involved in the program planning process. In addition, justice agencies should consider increasing crime or court surcharges to support a compliance enforcement functions, and should evaluate overall compliance enforcement system. Innovative approaches to victims rights oversight have been implemented in several states: ¥ The Minnesota Office of the Crime Victims Ombudsman (OCVO) protects the rights of victims by investigating statutory violations of victims rights laws and mistreatment by criminal justice practitioners. OCVO is authorized to initiate its own investigation of alleged violations, recommend corrective action, and make its findings public to both the legislature and the press. ¥ The South Carolina Office of the Crime Victims Ombudsman is empowered to act as a referral entity for victims in need of services, a liaison between victims and the criminal and juvenile justice systems in the course of their interaction, and a resolver of complaints made by victims against elements of those systems and against victim assistance programs. In addressing complaints, the South Carolina Ombudsman program is not limited to inquiries into violations of specific statutory rights, but may review other conduct that is potentially unfair to victims.94 ¥ Colorado has recently enacted a state-level coordinating committee that serves an ombudsman function for victims rights implementation.95 The Colorado Victims Compensation and Assistance Coordinating Committee and its Victims Rights Act (VRA) subcommittee help victims enforce their rights by overseeing the actions of local government agencies. The subcommittee and full coordinating committee have the power to investigate VRA violations and to recommend action with which an agency must comply to rectify victims complaints. The two bodies also monitor the implementation of those suggestions and may refer issues of noncompliance to the governor or attorney general.96 ¥ Wisconsin has a state-level victims services officethe Victim Resource Center (VRC)which provides information and service referrals to victims and acts as a liaison between victims and criminal justice agencies in resolving complaints concerning unlawful or inappropriate agency action. Though it lacks enforcement authority, the VRC protects victims rights by investigating complaints and presenting its recommendations for corrective action to state criminal justice officials. The Wisconsin legislature is currently debating a measure that would prescribe remedies for violations of victims rights laws and provide for the enforcement of Wisconsins victims rights constitutional amendment.97 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #20 Federal crime victims rights should apply in military proceedings. The extensive range of information, notification, and participatory rights that have been enacted on the federal level should be fully implemented for victims rights within military justice proceedings. Some victims rights established at the federal level are not implemented in military courts. Restitution for victims is frequently ordered as part of sentences for federal crimes, but there is no authority to do so under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.98 Moreover, the military justice system has failed to adopt truth in sentencing reforms and continues to parole offenders, a practice that generally has been abolished in federal criminal cases. The Uniform Code of Military Justice should be amended to make restitution mandatory. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #21 Indian tribes should review their legislation, policies, and court systems to enhance the fundamental rights of Native American victims. There are 621 federally recognized tribes in the United States; each of these tribes is a separate sovereign with legislative and adjudicatory authority. There are 242 separate tribal court systems, trial and appellate, as well as numerous traditional dispute resolution forums unique to each tribal culture.99 While many major crimes that occur in Indian country are prosecuted in federal or state courts, tribes retain concurrent criminal jurisdiction over Native American defendants.100 Moreover, tribal courts are often the sole forum for prosecuting crimes and juvenile offenses involving child abuse and domestic violence. Tribes should analyze and amend their laws and policies, as well as observe and change procedures of their courts, law enforcement offices, and human services agencies in order to protect and enhance the fundamental rights of Native American victims. Tribes should establish joint tribal-state and federal forums to ensure that Native American victims are not lost in the jurisdictional complications of Indian country. They should also train their leaders, justice personnel, and community members on prevention measures and effective responses to crime in Indian country. Not withstanding political pressures and lack of economic resources, a number of tribes have successfully implemented crime victims rights ordinances, mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence, safe houses, community education projects, and an array of culturally appropriate systems for protecting Native American crime victims. Some tribes have included the rights of crime victims in their codes. For example, the Uniform Sentencing Policy of the Courts of the Navajo Nation includes the rights for victims to have input into plea agreements, proposed sentences, and restitution decisions. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Council passed a Childrens Bill of Rights, and the Crow Tribal Council developed rights for domestic violence victims that are set forth in its Domestic Abuse Code. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #22 Victims of crime should have rights at administrative proceedings, including the right to have a person of their choice accompany them to the proceedings, the right to input regarding the sanction, and the right to notification of the sanction. Agencies and institutions that seek to hold their employees or students accountable for their alleged criminal or negligent behavior often do so through administrative proceedings, including disciplinary hearings on college campuses in sexual assault cases and other crimes that violate college rules. Governmental and private sector organizations also conduct administrative hearings when an employee is accused of misconduct, which sometimes also constitutes a criminal act. These hearings are held to determine whether an employee or student should be dismissed or sanctioned. Victims often complain about their lack of rights and protections at these hearings. For example, at disciplinary hearings on college campuses and in schools, as well as administrative proceedings when criminal justice personnel are accused of conduct violations, victims are frequently not allowed such fundamental rights as the right to be accompanied by a person of their choice and the right to submit a victim impact statement before the offender is sanctioned. Agencies and institutions should review their disciplinary codes and ensure that fundamental victims rights are incorporated. In addition, all cases involving criminal conduct should be referred to law enforcement for further investigation. State laws should be strengthened to ensure that these victims receive appropriate rights. For example, California recently amended its Education Code to provide victims of sexual assault and harassment in public schools with the rights to: be accompanied by a parent or other support person during testimony in disciplinary hearings; adequate notice prior to being called to testify; testify at a hearing closed to the public; and have evidence of irrelevant sexual history excluded.101 The law also requires school districts to take further steps to provide a nonthreatening environment for child victims by adopting procedures that have become the standard across the country for children who testify as witnesses in other legal proceedings. Support for the law was initiated by the Santa Monica-UCLA Rape Treatment Center after the rape of a 12-year-old middle school student in a Los Angeles school by a fellow student. She had to face the accused attacker, his parents, and his attorney alone during an expulsion hearing.102 The Student Right to Know Campus Security Act of 1990,103 and The Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill of Rights104 passed by Congress should be fully implemented. These laws should be amended to ensure that the same rights to be informed, present, and heard in criminal proceedings apply equally to disciplinary proceedings in school settings. Other victims whose rights are woefully overlooked are victims of mentally ill offenders whose cases are adjudicated through an involuntary mental commitment process. Where applicable, these victims should receive the same rights as other victims, including the right to receive notice of release. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #23 Criminal and juvenile justice agencies should establish a means of monitoring their own compliance with crime victims rights laws and require public documentation showing that victims were provided their rights or indicating an appropriate reason why they were not. In addition, independent audits should be conducted of state and federal agency compliance with victims rights laws. Criminal and juvenile justice agencies and institutions should develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that all crime victims are afforded the opportunity to exercise their rights. Monitoring should be mandatory at all stages of the justice systems. Criminal and juvenile justice agencies should document whether or not crime victims receive notice of and an opportunity to exercise their rights and, if not, why not. Such documentation is a significant step toward holding officials accountable and will enable agencies to monitor their compliance with legal mandates. Further information is needed about the level of state and federal compliance with victims rights laws to determine how to improve implementation of these laws. This information should be obtained through independent audits that can evaluate levels of compliance and propose needed reforms to improve the system. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #24 Introductory and continuing education for all criminal and juvenile justice professionals should address victims rights, needs, and services, and incorporate involvement from crime victims themselves. To increase compliance with victims rights laws, states must make education on the rights of crime victims a priority during orientation and continuing education training programs for criminal and juvenile justice officials. Implementing victims rights remains the responsibility of these officials. They must be educated about the importance of their victim-related responsibilities and sensitized to the critical needs of crime victims. Training programs for law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges, as well as probation, parole, and corrections officials, have been developed and implemented on a broad scale through training and technical assistance grant projects funded by the Office for Victims of Crime. Some institutions responsible for educating and training these professionals are beginning to incorporate victim-related sensitivity training into their permanent curricula. In some states, such training is mandated by statute, but in others, the incorporation of victims issues is voluntary.105 Victim input into such educational programs is critical. Victim impact panels provide a vehicle for victims to tell justice professionals firsthand about the physical, financial, and emotional impact of crime. Developed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving as an educational tool in court-ordered probation programs for DUI offenders, and for youth offenders by the California Youth Authority, they are increasingly being incorporated into numerous types of programs.106 Moreover, victim sensitivity education and state-of-the-art curricula in victim issues must be included in academia in the fields of health care, medicine, psychology, social work, theology, business, law, and education. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #25 New funding mechanisms must be developed to support the expansion and implementation of victims rights and services nationwide. Since its establishment in 1984, the Crime Victims Fund has provided more than $2 billion to states to help implement victims rights and services. Additional financial resources are needed at the federal, state, and local levels, however, to ensure consistent, comprehensive implementation of victim rights laws and the provision of needed services to every crime victim. While a federal constitutional amendment would provide the legal framework for securing victims rights, many justice officials and victim advocates believe that the lack of implementation of rights is due in part to inadequate funding. In many places, a lack of funding has had the practical effect of denying victims their basic rights. One potential new source of revenue on the federal level is funding generated under the False Claims Act, which triples the damages and penalties imposed in civil cases involving fraud against the federal government.107 In past years, several hundred million dollars have been deposited into the Federal Treasury from judgments rendered in these cases. A significant portion of these funds should be used to ensure that state and federal victims rights laws are enforced. In addition, provisions should be made to provide needed counseling to whistle blowers in these cases because they often suffer serious personal and professional consequences for reporting these crimes. Another promising source of funding for crime victims is the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO.108 RICO makes it a federal crime to engage in activities related to a pattern of racketeering activity related to the operation of any enterprise engaged in, or affecting, interstate commerce.109 Penalties for violation of RICO include fines up to $25,000 and prison terms up to 20 years, in addition to allowing the government to bring forfeiture proceedings against the organizations and the individuals involved in the organizations. Since the statute also specifically allows victims to bring civil suits in federal civil court for damages up to three times their actual economic damages and attorneys fees, victims (particularly victims of economic crimes such as fraud) should be made aware of their right to bring RICO actions against such offenders. Congress should also consider earmarking RICO fines and forfeitures to benefit crime victims in the same manner as most other federal criminal fines. States depend on a variety of sources to fund victim assistance programs, and they must communicate more with each other about which strategies have been most successful. Sources of funding include following the VOCA funding formula of criminal fines and penalty assessments; using a portion of license fees such as fees for marriage licenses; incorporating checkoff boxes for donations to victim services on tax forms; inmate fund raisers; dedicating special, one-time legislative appropriations; and incorporating victim services funding into the annual legislative appropriations process. More than half of the states impose some type of additional penalty assessment or cost as a condition of an offenders sentence to be used to provide funding for general victim services and assistance. Some states attach a nominal $5 or $10 court fee in all cases.110 Other states take into consideration the severity of the offense or the offenders age, and establish enhanced assessments in relation to such factors.111 Another group of states bases offender penalties on the other court-imposed fines and penalties, adding on a certain percentage of the fine and/or penalty as a type of surcharge.112 Still other states use a combination of approaches.113 In most states, license fees are used for a specific type of service as opposed to general victim assistance. The most prominent of these are fees attached to marriage licenses which generally are used to fund domestic violence shelters and programs.114 In other instances, the additional fees for marriage licenses or birth certificates are used for funding of child abuse treatment and prevention.115 A number of states include income tax designations as an income source for childrens trust funds which provide services to abused or neglected children.116 Michigan estimates the costs of providing crime victims rights services as well as the estimated revenue available for such services. The legislature is then notified to determine whether an appropriation should be requested.117 In Missouri, a special appropriation in 1996 financed the construction of shelters for battered women across the state. Oregon takes a percentage of punitive damages off the top of civil suits to fund victim compensation and assistance programs. States are also exploring creative funding mechanisms such as tapping into lottery money, taxes on tourism, and fees for hunting, gaming, and liquor licenses. In a survey of state VOCA administrators conducted for this report, a majority responded that establishing a stable, predictable funding base for victims services was one of the greatest challenges to implementing comprehensive victims services. Collections under VOCA have been unusually high in the past two years; however, since collections may fluctuate in future years, states must expand their sources of funding to protect and expand the remarkable advances for crime victims made in the past two decades. On the local level, communities also must begin to fund victim assistance programs. Voters in Washtenaw County, Michigan were the first in the nation to approve a special one-time millage or tax to build and provide funding for a countywide domestic violence shelter. In some communities such as Maricopa County, Arizona, and San Diego, California, private foundations have been established to provide financial compensation to victims as well as to support local victim service programs. In other communities victim services funds are designated as an untouchable portion of the citys budget. In Jacksonville, Florida, city funds are combined with state and federal funds to support a comprehensive victim services center. Local annual funding for the center is currently about $900,000. It includes all of the profits from the county prisons canteen. Center staff screen 2,300 police reports monthly for appropriate outreach and work with 1,400 victims each month, providing a wide range of services. The philosophy of Jacksonvilles approach is to establish crime victim services in such a way that victim assistance becomes an essential part of the infrastructure of the community, not an afterthought funded through sporadic or discretionary funding mechanisms. Endnotes 1 National Organization for Victim Assistance, 1988 NOVA Legislative Directory, Washington, D.C.: National Organization for Victim Assistance, 1988:191. 2 Victim Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, ¤ 4, 96 Stat. 1249 (codified at 18 U.S.C. ¤¤ 1512-1515; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32); Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1982. 3 Office of Justice Programs, Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime: Four Years Later, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1986:4. 4 As of November 1997, victims rights constitutional amendments have been ratified by voters in the following 29 states: AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, ID, IL, IN, KS, MD, MI, MO, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA, and WI. 5 The National Victim Centers Legislative Tracking Database Project has collected, as of May 1996, more than 27,000 federal and state statutes related to the rights and interests of crime victims. The Center utilizes nearly 1,000 victim issue categories and subcategories to catalog the statutes. 6 National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victims Rights Laws, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997:¤ 9 (hereinafter 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook). As of 1995, the following states provide victims a right to attend most criminal justice proceedings: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, MA, MI, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI. In November 1996, North Carolina, Oregon and Nevada passed constitutional amendments that, for the first time, guaranteed such access to victims. N.C. CONST., art. I, ¤ 37(1)(a); OR. CONST., art. 1, ¤ (1); NEV. CONST., art. 1, ¤ 8(b). In addition, at the same time, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and South Carolina elevated to constitutional level rights of access previously provided by statute. CONN. CONST., art. 17(b); OKLA. CONST., art. II, ¤ 34(A); S.C. CONST., art. I, ¤ 24(A). 7 Id. States providing for oral testimony or a statement by the victim at a sentencing hearing are: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NB, NV, NH, NJ, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, WV, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY. 8 Id. at ¤ 9 (Table 9-B). 9 Violence Against Women Grants Office, Domestic Violence and Stalking: The Second Annual Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Violence Against Women Grants Office, July 1997 :15 10 Szymanski, L., Rights of Victims of Juvenile Crimes Statutes Analysis, 1993 Update, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1994:1-9. See also National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 13 (discussions of victims rights at the juvenile level). 11 See generally, Beatty, D., S. Howley, and D. Kilpatrick, Statutory and Constitutional Protection of Victims Rights: Implementation and Impact on Crime Victims, Sub-Report: Crime Victim Responses Regarding Victims Rights, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997. 12 Victim Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, ¤ 4, 96 Stat. 1249 (codified at 18 U.S.C. ¤¤ 1512-1515; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32); Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report. 13 Id. at ¤ 2(b), reprinted at 18 U.S.C. ¤ 1512. 14 U.S. Department of Justice, Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 1983. These Guidelines have been revised several times, and between 1983 and 1995, the title was changed to Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. The Guidelines will be revised and reissued in fiscal year 1998. 15 Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, Title V, ¤¤ 502-503, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified at 42 U.S.C. ¤¤ 10606-10607 (1990)). 16 42 U.S.C. ¤ 10606(a); U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 1995:2,5 (hereinafter 1995 A.G. Guidelines). 17 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, Title IV, ¤¤ 40113, 40221, 40503; Title XXV, ¤ 250002(a)(2);Title XXIII,¤ 230101(b), 108 Stat. 1904-2078 (codified at 42 U.S.C. ¤10607(c)(7), 14011(b); 18 U.S.C. ¤¤2263-2264, 2248, 2259 and at Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 (1994)). 18 Megans Law amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexual Violent Offender Act, 42 U.S.C. ¤14071. 19 18 U.S.C. ¤2261A. 20 Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report,114-115. 21 For further information, see Constitutional Amendments for Crime Victims by J. H. Stein, available from the National Organization for Victim Assistance in Washington, D.C. NVCAN was created following a meeting sponsored by the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1985. Robert Preston, president of the Florida-based Justice for Surviving Victims forcefully advocated that the group support the Task Force recommendation for a victims rights amendment to the federal constitution. The coalition has grown to include many other victims, advocates, elected officials, and others from local, state, and national groups that represent all types of criminal victimization. 22 This information has been compiled by the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network, (NVCAN) and the National Victim Center and appears in NVCANs 1996 Constitutional Amendment Action Kit. 23 Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, 51. 24 Id. 25 Bourque, B., and R. Cronin, Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System: A Program Handbook, American Institutes for Research, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, April 1991. 26 Since the release of the report in 1982, the number of crimes committed by juveniles skyrocketed between 1985 and 1994, and juvenile crime became much more violent. Between those years, murder arrests of juveniles increased 150 percent, robbery arrests of juveniles increased by 57 percent, and aggravated assault arrests of juveniles increased by 97 percent. Snyder, H. ET AL., Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence: Statistics Summary, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, February 1996:12 (report prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges). Crimes committed by juveniles against juveniles is also a growing concern. In 1992, 1.5 million violent crimes were committed against juveniles aged 12 to 17, a 23 percent increase in just 5 years. Moone, J., Juvenile Victimization: 1987-1992, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June 1994:1. However, in 1995, violent juvenile crime arrestscontrary to predictionsdeclined by three percent. In relative terms this decline was small, but the nature of the decline gives hope for the future. The decline in juvenile murders in 1995 was mostly in gun-related murders by African-American males. Whats Behind the Recent Drop in Juvenile Violent Crime? Juvenile Justice, Volume III, Number 2, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September 1997. 27 National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 13 (Table 13-A, Victims Rights at the Juvenile Level). As of 1996, only Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and the District of Columbia do not allow the court to order restitution from juvenile offenders. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id.; TEX. JUV. JUS. CODE ANN. ¤ 57.002 (2) (West). 34 National Victim Center Legislative Tracking Database Project, ¤13. As of 1995, the constitutions of Alaska, Idaho and Missouri provide rights for victims of juvenile offenders; the constitutions of Arizona and Utah permit the legislature to extend the rights to juvenile proceedings. In addition, in November 1996, the constitutions of Oregon and South Carolina were amended to provide rights to victims at the juvenile level. OR. CONST., art. 1, ¤ 1(1); S.C. CONST., art. 1, ¤ 24(A)(1). Moreover, the constitution of Oklahoma was amended to authorize the legislature to extend the rights to juvenile proceedings. OKLA. CONST., art. 2, ¤ 34(C) (amended 1996). 35 Bourque, B. and R. Cronin, Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System: A Program Handbook, Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs 1991. 36 Seymour, A. and S. English, Report and Recommendations on Victims of Juvenile Crime, American Correctional Association Victims Committee, 1994:17-18. 37 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan - Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, March 1996. 38 National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤13. 39 August 1996, Keynote address, annual conference of the National Organization for Victim Assistance. Tulsa, Oklahoma. 40 Among victim groups and criminal justice and other allies endorsing a Victims Rights Constitutional Amendment as of November, 1997, are: Association of Traumatic Stress Specialists, Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS), Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, National Coalition Against Sexual Assault, National Organization for Victim Assistance, National Victim Center, Neighbors Who Care, Parents of Murdered Children, Security on Campus, Victim Assistance Legal Organization, American Correctional Association, the Victims Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Criminal Justice Association, and the National Governors Association. Victim groups and other national organizations that have expressed opposition to a federal crime victims rights amendment include: the American Civil Liberties Union, Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. The Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Conference of Chief Justices have expressed concerns. 41 Beatty, D., S. Howley, and D. Kilpatrick, Statutory and Constitutional Protection of Victims Rights: Implementation and Impact on Crime Victims, Sub-Report: Crime Victim Responses Regarding Victims Rights, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45 GA. CODE ANN. ¤ 16-5-93 (1993). 46 ARK. R. EVID. 616 (right to be present); ALA. R. EVID. 615 (exception to witness exclusion rule for victims); OR. R. EVID. 615 (same). 47 ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 13-4420; MO. CONST., Art. 1, ¤ 32. 48 ALA. CODE ¤ 15-14-54; ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. ¤ 725-120/4(5); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS ¤ 23A-24-7. 49 ALA. CODE ¤¤ 15-14-51 to -57 (victim has right to be present and to sit at prosecutors table). Maryland has also attempted to extend the victims right to attend to include attendance by the homicide victim through an in life photograph at the trial of the defendant. This extension is under consideration in the Maryland courts. See Maryland v. Broberg, No. 95-22, (Ct. App. Md.) 50 As of 1995, 29 states required the prosecutor to consult with the victim or obtain the victims views prior to entering a plea agreement. See National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, 135-37. 51 By 1995, fourteen states required the prosecutor to consult with the victim prior to dismissing charges. See National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, 135-37. 52 Four states required victim consultation by the prosecutor regarding decision not to prosecute the case, as of 1995. See National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, 135-37. 53 Such disposition decisions include pretrial diversion, reduction of charges, and sentence recommendation. See National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, 135-37. 54 As of 1995, ten states specifically required a prosecutor to consult with a victim prior to trial, but other states gave victims a general right to consult the prosecutor. National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, 135-37. 55 See e.g., FLA. STAT. ANN. ¤ 960.001(1)(e)(1) (1996); HAW. REV. STAT. ¤ 801D-4(1) (1996); See also National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 13 (discussing victims rights at the juvenile level). 56 N.D. CENT. CODE ¤ 12.1-34-02 (1996); See also National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤5 (discussing victims right to confer with the prosecutor). 57 NEB. REV. STAT. ¤ 23-1201, ¤ 29-120 (1996). 58 LA. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 46:1844 (1996). 59 See e.g.,ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 13-4423 (1996); DEL.CODE ANN. tit. 11, ¤ 5106 (1996); IND. CODE ANN . ¤ 35-35-3-2 (1996); See also National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 5 (discussing victims right to confer with the prosecutor). 60 See North Carolina Victim Assistance Network, The Status of Victim Services & Rights in North Carolina, North Carolina: North Carolina Victim Assistance Network, 1994:4. 61 See e.g., DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, ¤ 940; ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. ¤ 725-5/110-4; KAN. STAT. ANN. ¤ 22-2802. 62 MD. CODE ANN. art. 27, ¤616 2(a-l) (1993). 63 Duggan, P.,Reward Program Targets Witnesses to D.C. Homicides, Washington Post, March 23, 1994. 64 E.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 13-4331 (West 1991); ARK. CODE ANN. ¤ 16-21-106(a)(5) (1983); N.Y. EXEC. ¤ 642(2) (McKinney 1986); See also National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 4 (discussing victims right to protection from offender harm). 65 E.g., COLO. REV. STAT. ¤ 18-8-704 (1990); ILL. COMP. STAT. Ch. 720, ¤ 5/32-44a (1993); KY. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 524.05 (1986). 66 E.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 18-1-1001 (1991); D.C. CODE ANN. ¤¤ 23-1321, 23-1329 (1981); N.Y. CRIM. PROC. ¤ 530.13 (McKinney 1986). 67 E.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 13-4433 (1991); OR. REV. STAT. ¤ 135.970(2) (1987). Oregons 1996 constitutional amendment for victims rights contains a similar provision. OR. CONST., art. I, ¤ 1(d). It is not yet clear how the statutory and constitutional provisions will interact. 68 E.g., ILL. COMP. STAT. Ch. 730, ¤ 5/3-3-4(7) (1996); S.C. CODE ANN. ¤ 24-21-710 (Law Co-op. 1995). See also National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤4 (discussing victims right to protection from offender harm), ¤9, (as of 1995, a total of 43 states allow victims to be heard at parole hearings). National Victim Center ET AL., National Victim Services Survey of Adult and Juvenile Corrections and Parole Agencies Final Report, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, September 1991:14. 69 See Smith, B., ET AL., Improving Enforcement of Court-Ordered Restitution: Executive Summary, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C.:1989:15. 70 Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report,18, 34, 72 and 78-80. 71 National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 11. 72 S.C. CODE ANN. ¤ 16-3-1530 (1996); W.VA. CODE ANN. ¤ 61-11A-4 (1996). 73 The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, Title II of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132 (1996), 18 U.S.C. ¤ 3663A (1996). 74 National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 11 (discussing victims right to restitution from the offender). 75 National Victim Center, Legislative Database, Arlington, VA: 1997. 76 See National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 13 (Table 13-A). 77 Id. 78 As examples, see CONN. GEN. STAT. ¤52-572 (civil liability, limited to $5,000); NEV. REV. STAT. ¤ 41.470 (civil liability, limited to $10,000); N.M. STAT. ANN. ¤ 32A-4-26 (civil liability; limited to $4,000), TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. ¤54.041 (restitution). 79 Seymour, A., National Victim Services Survey of Adult and Juvenile Corrections and Parole Agencies: Crime Victims and Corrections: Implementing the Agenda for the 1990s, Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime/National Victim Center, 1991. 80 Snyder, H. ET AL., Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence: Statistics Summary,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, February 1996:12 (report prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges). 81 See 18 U.S.C. ¤3624. 82 See National Victim Center, 1996 Victims Rights Sourcebook, ¤ 8:205. 83 42 U.S.C.¤ 3756. 84 Violence Against Women Improvements Act, 42 U.S.C. ¤14011. 85 ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5 ¤¤ 19203 et. seq. 86 MICH. COMP. LAWS ¤333.5129. 87 OKLA. STAT. tit. 63 ¤¤ 1-524.-525. 88 FLA. STAT. ANN. ¤ 960.003 89 MINN. STAT. ¤ 72A-29 90 MD. CODE ANN. Art. 27, ¤ 776 (1993). 91 ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 13-4437 (West 1991). 92 United States v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325 (1997) 93 The concept of a victim ombudsman was first discussed in Dussich, J.,The Victim Ombudsman: A Proposal, in Victimology: A New Focus, Volume II, Societys Reactions to Victimization, Eds. I. Drapkin and E. Viano. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1974. 94 South Carolina Victim Ombudsman Program, S.C. CODE ANN. ¤ 16-3-1610. 95 COLO. REV. STAT. ¤ 24.4.1-117.5(2)(a) (1996) Colorado Coordinating Committee. 96 COLO. REV. STAT. ¤ 24-4.1-303(17) (1992). 97 Wisconsin Victim Resource Center: WISC. STAT. ANN. ¤ 950.08. 98 See 18 U.S.C. ¤¤3663, 366A; 42 U.S.C. ¤10606(b) (6). 99 Notice of Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 61 Fed. Reg. 58211 (1996). As of 1996, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) had officially recognized a total of 621 Indian entities, including tribes and Native Alaskan villages. 100 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978); Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). 101 CAL. EDUC. CODE ¤¤48918, 48918.5, as amended by 1996 Cal. Stat. Ch. 915 ¤4 (A.B. 692). 102 Pyle, A.,New Rights for Campus Victims, Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, October 2, 1996. 103 The Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990, Title II, P.L. 101-542 (1990) and 20 U.S.C. ¤1092(f)(1-6). 104 Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill of Rights, 20 U.S.C. ¤1092(f)(7) (1992). 105 See e.g., FLA. STAT. ANN. ¤ 943.172 (1996) (training for law enforcement, probation, and other corrections officials); N.J. STAT. ANN. ¤ 52:4B-47 (1996) (training for police, assistant prosecutors, county detectives, and investigators). 106 A how-to booklet and video on implementing victim impact panels or manuals for victim impact classes is available from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 107 See False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. ¤¤ 37-31. A draft bill being developed by Senators Leahy and Kennedy in May of 1997 proposes using a portion of the money collected under the False Claims Act to fund victim services. 108 18 U.S.C. ¤1962. 109 Id. 110 For example, see KY. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 346.185. 111 For example, see WIS. STAT. ANN. ¤ 973.045. 112 For example, see UTAH CODE ANN. ¤ 63-63a-1. 113 For example, see COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. ¤ 24-4.2-104. 114 For example, see IDAHO CODE ¤ 39-5213. 115 For example, see MISS. CODE ANN. ¤ 93-21-305. 116 For example, see ALA. CODE ¤¤ 26-16-30 and 31. 117 MICH STAT. ANN. ¤ 28.1287(909). CHAPTER 3 Prosecution During the past two decades, many prosecutors working in the juvenile, criminal, federal, tribal, and military justice systems have changed how they respond to victims of crime in significant ways. They have played an active role in helping to implement victimsÕ rights and services nationwide. Heightened sensitivity to the needs of crime victims by prosecutors has helped to increase victim participation in the criminal justice process. A national survey of prosecutors conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 1990 found that prosecutors are much more responsive to crime victims than they were in 1974, when the National District Attorneys Association conducted a similar survey. The BJS study noted that the resources, policies, and practices of prosecutors . . . bear directly on the nation's response to crime. The results from the first national survey of prosecutors in more than 15 years reveal an institution that has had to change to meet new challenges in criminal justice. One important change is the increased attention and assistance being given by prosecutors to victims of crime.1 How Prosecutors Are Responding to Victims of Crime In 1982, the Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime examined specific areas in which prosecutors could improve their response to crime victims.2 The Task Force urged prosecutors to: ¥ Inform victims of the status of their cases from the time of the initial charging decision to determination of parole. ¥ Bring to the attention of the court the views of victims of violent crime on bail decisions, continuances, plea bargains, dismissals, sentencing, and restitution. ¥ Establish procedures to ensure that such victims are given the opportunity to make their views on these matters known. ¥ Charge and pursue to the fullest extent of the law defendants who harass, threaten, injure, or otherwise attempt to intimidate or retaliate against victims or witnesses. ¥ Strongly discourage case continuances, establish on-call systems for victims and witnesses to help prevent unnecessary inconveniences caused by schedule changes and case continuances, and implement prompt property return procedures. ¥ Give special consideration to both adult and child victims of sexual assault and establish victim-witness assistance programs. In this section, New Directions charts the progress of the nationÕs prosecutors in putting these principles into practice. It then offers recommendations for further action in areas in which implementation of victimsÕ rights and services has been slow or nonexistent. One of the most dramatic developments affecting prosecutorial response to crime victims has been the enactment of laws requiring prosecutors to provide fundamental rights to crime victims. According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1994, 86 percent of prosecutorsÕ offices nationwide were required by law to provide services to victims; 82 percent were required to notify victims of the disposition of felony cases concerning them; 60 percent were required to provide victim restitution assistance; and 58 percent were required to assist with victim compensation procedures.3 However, these legislative mandates have not been implemented by many prosecutors. For example, in a recent study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, nearly half of all violent crime victims were not informed of plea agreement negotiations, even where they had a legal right to be consulted.4 In 1994, there were approximately 2,350 chief prosecutors and 22,000 assistant prosecutors serving the nationÕs 3,109 counties and independent cities, but nearly half of the U.S. population fell under the jurisdiction of just 127 offices.5 These offices are located in large metropolitan areas with populations of 500,000 or more, employ large staffs, and often have a greater ability to develop specialized programs and services. Nationwide, the typical size of a prosecutorÕs office is eight staff members, and nearly one-third of chief prosecutors serve only part-time.6 The ability of prosecutors to provide specialized victimsÕ services sometimes differs among local prosecutorsÕ offices due, in part, to disparities in the size of and resources available to them. Often, prosecutors in the largest jurisdictions have more resources to establish comprehensive victim assistance programs than do prosecutors in smaller jurisdictions. These obstacles, however, should not preclude all offices from implementing victimsÕ rights and services. Meeting victimsÕ basic needs should be a top priority for every prosecutor in the nation. On the state level, there is a growing trend among state attorneys general to establish victim assistance programs or to assign personnel to provide victim support and services. According to the National Association of Attorneys General, this trend is the result of two forces: the enactment of state victimsÕ rights constitutional amendments and the fact that many attorneys general are former district attorneys who have seen the benefits of providing services for victims in their local jurisdictions.7 On the federal level, 93 U.S. Attorneys and more than 4,000 Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecute federal crimes.8 Today, almost every U.S. AttorneyÕs office employs a victim/witness coordinator. Recent federal statutes and the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (AG Guidelines) require that prosecutors make their Òbest effortsÓ to implement federal victimsÕ rights laws.9 Increasing Victim Participation During Prosecution One of the most important and basic rights of victims during prosecution is the right to participate. VictimsÕ satisfaction with prosecutors increases dramatically if they are invited into the decisionmaking process and given the opportunity to present statements at sentencing and other critical stages. According to a national study conducted from 1992 to 1994 by the National Victim Center, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the American Prosecutors Research Institute, with support from the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), 67 percent of victims were satisfied with prosecutors if they were allowed to present an impact statement. When victims were not given an opportunity to do so, only 18 percent were satisfied with prosecutors.10 Victim involvement in key decisions should be a cornerstone of victimsÕ rights in every jurisdiction, but state laws and prosecutorsÕ individual policies vary widely. While victim input into sentencing decisions through the use of victim impact statements or allocution has increased since 1982, victim input at earlier, crucial moments is often ignored. Prosecutors should listen to victims, facilitate their input into prerelease hearings and case continuances, and consult with them prior to entering into plea agreements. Victim input into bail decisions, plea agreements, and case continuances must be increased. Currently, only six states require prosecutors to consult with victims about pretrial release. However, 29 states require prosecutors to Òconsult withÓ or Òobtain the views ofÓ victims at the plea agreement stage.11 Victim input fares much better as the case moves through the criminal justice system. All states now allow some form of victim input into parole decisions, and an increasing number of states allow various forms of input at hearings for work release, furlough, and pardon. At the federal level, the AG Guidelines highlight the significance of attorney consultation with victims regarding pleas. They require prosecutors to make diligent and reasonable efforts to consult with victims and witnesses and to provide them with the earliest possible notice of the terms of any negotiated plea, including the acceptance of a plea of nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after the trial, if the victim has provided a current address or phone number.12 Moreover, victims have a basic right to be informed of the status of their case, but state laws designating prosecutor responsibility for case status notification are inconsistent across the nation. There is a wide range in the means of notification required, and not all laws assign responsibility for notification specifically to prosecutors. Without clearly assigned responsibilities, individual prosecutors are left to their own interpretations of statutes or their own sense of responsibility. Protecting Victims and Witnesses from Intimidation and Harm Responding to threats and acts of intimidation against victims and witnesses is one of prosecutorsÕ greatest challenges. A national survey in 1994 funded by the National Institute of Justice found that intimidation of victims and witnesses was a major problem for 54 percent of prosecutors in jurisdictions with more than 250,000 residents and for 43 percent of prosecutors in jurisdictions with between 50,000 and 250,000 residents.13 Statutes enacted to protect victims and witnesses from harm take various forms. For instance, several states have created criminal offenses for intimidating, harassing, or retaliating against a victim or witness.14 Many states give crime victims a right to protection, either in statute or by constitutional amendment.15 At least 27 states require that victims and witnesses be informed of the measures that are available for their protection.16 Other states have enacted pretrial reforms that require the court to consider the safety of a victim or witness in ruling on a pretrial release.17 More than 30 states have established separate waiting areas for victims and prosecution witnesses that protect them from the defendant and defense witnesses.18 Many states have more than one protective measure available. In addition, several states have amended their pretrial release laws to require or permit the courts to enter Òno contactÓ orders as a condition of release. At least 17 states permit or require the entry of such orders as a condition of release in cases where there is risk of victim or witness intimidation.19 While great legislative strides have been made to enact victim-witness protection laws, the reality is that many victims are still afraid to come forward and report crime to the police because they fear retaliation. This is particularly evident in cases involving victims and witnesses of gang-related crimes and domestic violence. Within the past few years, all 50 states have made stalking a crime by statute, allowing enhanced prosecutorial response to threats of intimidation and harm.20 Other innovative approaches to victim and witness intimidation are being implemented by prosecutors in communities across the nation. ¥ In Clark County, Nevada, the District AttorneyÕs Victim Witness Assistance Center provides a variety of services to protect victims and witnesses from intimidation, including assessing their security needs and making arrangements for temporary housing in motels or longer term relocation in public housing. Advocates are available 24 hours a day and work with the police department to provide emergency response to victims or witnesses in danger, including relocation in the middle of the night.21 ¥ In February 1994, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began a national witness relocation initiative as part of Operation Safe Home, an initiative to reduce drug trafficking and crime in public housing launched by HUD, the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, and the Office of National Drug Control. The relocation program allows residents of public housing to move to other public housing across the country so that they can participate as witnesses in criminal prosecutions. The program was developed because many public housing residents have been unwilling to serve as witnesses due to fear of reprisals.22 Innovations Beyond the PresidentÕs Task Force Report In many areas, it is clear that the system of rights and services available to crime victims throughout prosecution has grown well beyond the recommendations of the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force. Notable is the emergence of specialized and vertical prosecution units, multidisciplinary team approaches, community prosecution, crime prevention initiatives, and other programs and policies that have significantly improved the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system. Special Prosecution Units Many prosecutors have created special units within their offices to serve victim populations with similar needs, such as victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. Prosecutors in these units receive extensive training in their area of specialization. Cases are handled through vertical prosecution, allowing prosecutors to build rapport with victims by remaining with the case from intake to sentencing. These units ensure that victims do not have to tell their story repeatedly to prosecutors at various stages of the case. ¥ In Kenosha, Wisconsin, the district attorney has established special prosecution units for domestic violence and sensitive crimes. The Kenosha Domestic Abuse Intervention Program emphasizes speedy disposition of cases. Charging decisions are made within 24 hours, and cases are usually resolved within several weeks. All batterers are required to participate in a mandatory treatment program as a condition of community supervision. The Sensitive Crimes Unit handles all of the countyÕs adult and child sexual assault cases. Both units provide training on domestic violence, sexual assault, batterersÕ issues, and victim dynamics for all police departments in the jurisdiction. ¥ In Pinellas County, Florida, the stateÕs attorneyÕs office has designated a prosecutor to handle all elder exploitation and neglect cases. The position, which is part of a special prosecution unit, is responsible for police training and community outreach and education in conjunction with traditional prosecutor roles. To better address the special needs of elderly crime victims during the prosecution of a case, the prosecutor visits victims at their residence to conduct and videotape interviews. The prosecutor can then file motions to perpetuate testimony and to secure a speedy trial pursuant to Florida law. Innovative Programs for Victims with Special Needs Many prosecutorsÕ offices have established innovative programs to assist victims with special needs, including non-English speaking victims who need help with translation, elderly victims who need assistance with transportation, and victims with disabilities. ¥ The Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council, founded in 1979 as the first joint government-private sector domestic violence program in California and chaired by a member of the district attorneyÕs office, has initiated five innovative approaches to the problem of domestic violence. The council has raised more than $200,000 to fund a domestic violence hotline in five languages; started a childrenÕs art therapy program in domestic violence shelters; coordinated a program in which visiting nurses provide services at shelters; funded the construction of two childrenÕs playrooms in prosecutorsÕ offices; and developed a computer network to link all domestic violence shelters in Los Angeles County. ¥ The Victim Services Unit in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, District AttorneyÕs Office uses Vietnamese and Cambodian victim-witness coordinators to assist Southeast Asian victims throughout the case process, including translating written and oral information and helping victims access emergency medical and financial assistance. The coordinators conduct crime prevention programs and victim assistance awareness programs for students in local schools. ¥ The Victim-Witness Assistance Program in the Cook County, Illinois, StateÕs AttorneyÕs Office employs a full-time victim-witness coordinator for seniors, who works in conjunction with the programÕs disability specialist and the officeÕs Elderly Abuse Unit. The coordinator performs traditional functions of the victim advocate such as attending court, arranging for transportation to and from the courthouse, and ensuring the availability of wheelchairs and assistance in the courthouse. The program also addresses the needs of other special population groups. Advocates have been assigned to assist gay and lesbian victims and witnesses and to victims and witnesses who are physically disabled. Another important area of progress for prosecutors has been their leadership in establishing or participating in multidisciplinary teams for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse. Multidisciplinary teams bring together professionals from different disciplines in one location to respond to a specific crime. By using this coordinated response, prosecutors reduce the number of times a child victim must be interviewed and significantly diminish the likelihood that a child will be revictimized by an insensitive criminal justice system. ¥ In Huntsville, Alabama, the district attorney established the nationÕs first childrenÕs advocacy center in 1984 to reduce the trauma the system was inflicting on children during the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse cases. Rather than requiring children to retell their story through repeated interviews and examinations by law enforcement, prosecution, medical, mental health, and social services agencies, the district attorney created a multidisciplinary approach in which all of these professionals work together. Today, over 350 advocacy centers have been established in 48 states.23 ¥ In Santa Cruz, California, prosecutors established a central multi-disciplinary interview center at a local child care center to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement agencies in sexual abuse cases. The center contains state-of-the-art technology for videotaping and one-way observation of interviews. All local law enforcement agencies have agreed to use the centerÕs designated interviewer to avoid any legal conflicts over the interview process. The assistant district attorney participates in each interview, and a child protective service worker observes the childÕs responses to determine if he or she should be returned to a home where an alleged molestation has been reported. Community Prosecution Increasing numbers of prosecutorsÕ offices are adopting the philosophy of community prosecution. Traditionally, the prosecutor has served as a public jurist or sanction setter, seeking indictments and convictions after police investigations. The two essential features of community prosecution are working in the community to identify problems that are detrimental to the quality of life in the community and solving those problems through community action and the application of civil and criminal laws. Today, prosecutors are expanding their roles as community leaders through establishing interdisciplinary partnerships with other governmental and private agencies and becoming more visible to the public. Some jurisdictions have even decentralized the prosecutorÕs main office and established satellite offices that are more responsive to the neighborhoods in which they are located. In Santa Monica, California, prosecutors trained in child victimization work onsite at Stuart House, the local childrenÕs advocacy center, coordinating cases with law enforcement offices from several jurisdictions and the team of social workers and advocates assigned to the facility. For community prosecution to work, prosecutors must address the root causes of crime and examine systemwide approaches to assisting crime victims. By taking this broader approach, prosecutors can accomplish a multitude of objectives not possible with the traditional, narrow focus of punishing actions in a single case. ¥ The U.S. AttorneyÕs Office in the District of Columbia has created a community prosecution program in the Fifth Police District to work with residents to respond aggressively to the crime problems that afflict their neighborhood. Nineteen prosecutors have been assigned to the project. Their proactive approach to crime prevention, intervention, and victim assistance emphasizes organizing community activism, identifying the problems in the community that breed crime, bringing together individuals in the community who can solve these problems, attending community meetings, and getting out on the streets and talking to residents and shopkeepers about the program. The prosecutors are solely responsible for handling all criminal cases within the Fifth Police District and do not take other cases that could divert their resources and attention. Two prosecutors in the program work in the district police station to serve as a direct link between the community and the U.S. AttorneyÕs Office. ¥ In Wisconsin, an interesting approach to providing input from a neighborhood in which a crime has been committed was developed by the District Attorney for Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. These prosecutors encourage members of the community to submit community impact statements to the court. Their statements, which are generally used in cases involving drugs, prostitution, gangs and graffiti, provide a vehicle for neighborhoods affected by an offenderÕs criminal acts to inform the court about the crimeÕs impact on them, both individually and collectively. ¥ Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney Michael Shrunk calls his program the ÒNeighborhood District AttorneyÓ to emphasize that prosecution is not the primary activity of the attorneys assigned to the program. As one of his deputies said, ÒWe are attorneys for our districts, seeking to solve problems and using the law only when necessary.Ó The role of the Neighborhood District Attorney is to help develop and implement long-term strategies that address problems in the community in order to enhance its quality of life. The Role of Prosecutors in Crime Prevention Increasingly, prosecutors are becoming involved in crime prevention programs in their communities, and many have initiated such programs in cooperation with schools. Prosecutors have firsthand knowledge that truancy contributes to juvenile crime; that it is often too late to change patterns of truancy once a child reaches junior high or high school; and that if older brothers and sisters are truant, younger siblings will often follow in their footsteps. ¥ In St. Joseph, Missouri, the cityÕs prosecuting attorney started one of the nationÕs first grade school truancy prosecution programs. The program allows the prosecution of parents for their childrenÕs truancy under a state statute addressing educational neglect. Parents are prosecuted only after failing to respond to a written notice from the school and the prosecutorÕs office of school policies and state laws mandating attendance. The jurisdiction of approximately 80,000 residents prosecutes an average of 35 truancy cases a year. According to the city prosecutor, the program has improved school attendance. Finally, the following innovative program illustrates how prosecutors can work more effectively to reduce drunk driving. ¥ The District AttorneyÕs Office in Santa Cruz County, California, is developing a unique program to respond to alcohol-impaired drivers called STAR-DUI. A creative extension of the ÒNeighborhood WatchÓ concept, the program will allow motorists who observe other vehicles weaving or driving erratically to use their cellular telephones to place cost-free calls to police dispatchers by dialing *DUI. Whenever possible, on-duty officers will then stop the reported vehicle and evaluate its driver for symptoms of intoxication. In cases in which the suspect vehicle cannot be located, the registered owner, as indicated by the reported license plate, will be sent a letter from the District AttorneyÕs Office advising him or her of the DUI report and the criminal penalties that are imposed for DUI violations. Repeat mentions of a suspect from callers will trigger the police to start a special investigation and prosecution effort. The program will be publicized through a series of public service announcements in the local media. Recommendations from the Field for Prosecutors The following recommendations cover policy, procedure, and program reforms for prosecutors to implement to enhance victimsÕ rights and services. Because of the varying capabilities of prosecutorsÕ offices around the country, the prosecutorsÕ working group that helped to develop and review these proposals emphasized that some of the recommendations may not be practical for all offices, especially ones with small staffs. The group also expressed concern that consultation with victims might not be practicable in every case, especially in cases involving large numbers of victims or when law enforcement objectives would be undermined, such as in cases involving confidential informants. At a minimum, prosecutors should ensure that crime victims receive notice of their legislatively and constitutionally mandated rights and provide information and referrals about available community-based services. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #1 ProsecutorsÕ offices should notify victims in a timely manner of the date, time, and location of the following: charging of defendant, pretrial hearings, plea negotiations, the trial, all schedule changes, and the sentencing hearing. Timely notification, orally or in writing, of advanced scheduling should be provided in relevant languages. Statutes should require prosecutors to verify notifications with documentation in case files or through another mechanism. Informing crime victims about key events within the justice system so that they will have a chance to exercise their rights of participation is critical. Today, laws requiring victim notification of arrest, pretrial hearings, the trial, schedule changes, sentencing, parole hearing, and release from incarceration have been enacted in most states. However, clear statutory or constitutional language is needed in each state to define the type of case notification that prosecutors should provide. Not only do state statutes vary in the types of notification required, few assign responsibility for implementation to specific criminal justice officials. Without strict definitions of what their responsibility entails, prosecutors are left to their own interpretations. In states where the prosecutorÕs responsibility is specifically designated, such as Missouri, prosecutors have been much more effective in addressing this issue. An OVC-sponsored project entitled Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to Prosecution and Victim Assistance, conducted by the National Victim Center in partnership with the American Prosecutors Research Institute and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, identified over 30 additional types of notifications throughout the criminal justice process, a number well beyond current statewide statutes and practices.24 A model bill of rights with specific prosecutorial notification provisions was developed by a coalition of national victims organizations in the early 1990s.25 To reach all victims in the community, particularly populations underserved due to barriers of language, culture, and disability, notification should be provided in the manner and means most likely to effect actual notice, such as using appropriate languages and media. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #2 Prosecutors should establish victim-witness assistance units to ensure that victims of crime receive at least a basic level of service, including information, notification, consultation, and participation. ProsecutorsÕ offices should develop and incorporate into performance evaluations written definitions of the roles and responsibilities of prosecuting attorneys, victim-witness professionals, and other relevant staff and volunteers. The 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force noted that Òexperience has shown that the only way of ensuring that the needs of victims and witnesses are met is to have a separate unit solely dedicated to their assistance. Prosecutors, police, court personnel, and others in the criminal and juvenile justice systems are already overworked; moreover, these professionals may have to direct their primary efforts in ways not always consistent with response to victim needs.Ó Although today many prosecutorsÕ offices have victim-witness assistance units, national standards have not been adopted to ensure continunity and quality of services. In addition, to emphasize the importance of providing victim-witness services, evaluations for prosecutors and victim-witness coordinators of their performance in this important area should be a critical element of their performance reviews. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #3 Prosecutors should use the full range of measures at their disposal to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected from intimidation and harassment. These measures include ensuring that victims are informed about safety precautions, advising the court of victimsÕ fears and concerns about safety prior to any bail or bond proceedings, automatically requesting no-contact orders and enforcing them if violated, and utilizing witness relocation programs and technology to help protect victims. The PresidentÕs Task Force stated that prosecutors should Òcharge and pursue to the fullest extent of the law defendants who harass, threaten, injure or otherwise attempt to intimidate or retaliate against victims or witnesses.Ó26 Victim and witness intimidation and harm remains one of the greatest threats to the proper functioning of the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Victims and witnesses are often threatened or harassed by defendants and their friends and relatives, and in many cases it is difficult for prosecutors to file charges of intimidation because the perpetrator is not identifiable.27 Prosecutors should always ask victims a simple question: ÒAre you afraid?Ó and then ensure that victims and witnesses are routinely given information on remedies such as restraining orders and protective orders to help reduce the likelihood of intimidation and harassment. To help protect victims of violent crimes, prosecutors should make every effort to collect victim impact evidence prior to pretrial release proceedings so that victimsÕ fears and concerns about safety can be addressed. Victims should be encouraged to make an oral statement at these hearings. In cases in which victims submit sworn statements asserting harassment, threats, physical violence, or intimidation by the defendant (or at the defendant's direction) against the victim or the victim's immediate family, the prosecuting attorney should request that the defendantÕs bail or release on personal recognizance be revoked. When necessary, prosecutors should establish or use existing witness relocation programs, including those offered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in which witnesses who fear reprisal are transferred to safer housing. Technology is expanding the range of protection measures that prosecutors can use to increase victim safety. Among the most effective tools now used to protect victims and witnesses are cellular telephones, alarm systems that notify police directly, and electronic bracelets to track defendantsÕ movements. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #4 Prosecutors should address criminal and juvenile justice problems that afflict their communities by exploring the establishment of community prosecution programs as an adjunct to traditional prosecution. Prosecutors should recognize the important role that they can play in reducing crime and should use the authority of their office to support effective crime prevention strategies tailored to the cultures and language needs of their communities. Like community policing, community prosecution brings an organized justice response to the public safety needs of a neighborhood. This innovative approach to prosecution is currently being implemented and evaluated by some prosecutorÕs offices across the country. Over the next few years, these efforts will show the impact of this new philosophy of prosecution. Prosecutors across the nation are establishing crime prevention programs and participating in community coalitions. They go into schools and talk to youth about their officesÕ vigorous prosecution policies against youth crime. For children who may not yet grasp the consequences of crime, hearing from prosecutors can make a difference. Prosecutors are also participating in public awareness campaigns, and these crime prevention efforts should be expanded. In all of their community prosecution initiatives, as in Portland, Oregon, prosecutors should ensure that staff include victim advocates and reflect the cultures and languages of the community. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #5 Prosecutors should play a central role in establishing multidisciplinary efforts to respond to crime. The concept and practice of prosecutors forming and joining multidisciplinary teams has become widely accepted. The power of employing a multidisciplinary response to crime was first shown in the handling of child sexual abuse cases. As noted earlier in this chapter, more than 350 childrenÕs advocacy centers now exist across the nation. In many of these facilities, prosecutors work alongside other professionals such as police, medical and mental health personnel, victim advocates, and child protection workers. Some prosecutors have adapted this multidisciplinary approach to prosecuting sexual assault and domestic violence cases as well. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #6 Prosecutors should advocate for the rights of victims to have their views heard by judges on bail decisions, continuances, plea bargains, dismissals, sentencing, and restitution. Policies and procedures should be put into place in all prosecutorsÕ offices to ensure that victims are informed in a timely manner of these crucial rights in forms of communication they understand. Victim input into key prosecution decisions is a cornerstone of victimsÕ rights. However, state law and individual prosecutor policy in this area varies widely. Since the PresidentÕs Task Force, victim input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements or allocution has increased dramatically. In other decisions such as plea bargains and release on bail, victims are often not provided rights for consultation under state statute. Nevertheless, prosecutors can advocate for the voices of victims to be heard in their courtrooms. Even in states that have passed victim participation statutes and constitutional amendments, many prosecutorsÕ offices lack policies and procedures to ensure such participation. All states have passed laws that allow some form of submission of victim impact information either at the time of sentencing or in the presentence investigation report, but studies show that most crime victims do not submit victim impact statements. While some victims choose not to submit a victim impact statement, many do not because the prosecuting attorney fails to inform them that they have such a right. More than three-quarters of violent crime victims surveyed in states with weak victimsÕ rights protections reported that they were not given an opportunity to make a victim impact statement. Even in states with strong protections for victimsÕ rights, nearly half of victims surveyed said they were not given an opportunity to make a statement.28 One study has found that when crime victims are encouraged to contribute information about their victimization, over 90 percent do so.29 Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #7 Prosecutors should make every effort, if the victim has provided a current address or telephone number, to consult with the victim on the terms of any negotiated plea, including the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Because such a large percentage of felony cases are disposed of by plea agreements and sentencing is often negotiated as part of the plea agreement, it is essential for prosecutors to seek victim input before finalizing plea or sentencing agreements. While time constraints and overwhelming caseloads make it difficult for prosecutors to delay recommendations for sentences as part of plea agreements, in violent crimes prosecutors should request judges to postpone any recommendation for sentence until the victim is notified, consulted, and provided with an opportunity to submit an impact statement. There are clearly times when the prosecutor cannot ethically abide by the victimÕs preferences, as when it would defeat an obligation to accord similar sanctions for similar crimes, or the evidence cannot sustain a conviction at a higher level. There are also times when the prosecutor can neither accept the victim's wishes nor explain the reason for a contemplated plea agreement, such as when the defendant is cooperating with an ongoing investigation or working undercover. In these cases, prosecutors should not avoid conferring with victims, who will likely learn about the ÒlenientÓ plea and call the victim-witness advocate to demand an explanation. A better technique is for the prosecutor or advocate to confer with victims beforehand and indicate at the end that a plea to a lesser crime may be accepted on Òpublic policyÓ grounds, which can be described in writing in published prosecutorial guidelines. The prosecutor or advocate should then explain that one or more of those legitimate grounds will guide the final decision. Victims may be upset with such a partial explanation, but less so than having their right to consultation ignored. If a victim raises an objection to the plea at the subsequent hearing, it is appropriate for the prosecutor and defense attorney to inform the court privately about the basis of the plea. In addition, in cases involving large numbers of victims and some other special circumstances, representatives of prosecutor and victim organizations should meet to develop protocols for an effective response. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #8 In all cases, particularly those involving sexual assault, the prosecuting attorney should confer with the victim or survivors before deciding not to file charges, or before deciding to seek dismissal of charges already filed. According to state court data, about one in five criminal cases is resolved by a prosecutorial decision not to continue or by a court ruling to drop the charges.30 It is critical that victims have a voice before such a momentous decision is made final. Victims have a vital interest in knowing what is happening with the prosecution of the person charged with the crime against them. It is particularly important for sexual assault victims to have a voice before the important decision of not moving forward with a case is finalized. Speaking with these victims before making a filing decision also benefits the prosecutor by providing another opportunity to evaluate victim credibility. In some cases, prosecutors may change their mind about declining to prosecute because they recognize that the victim will make a good witness. While prosecutors decline to file charges in many cases brought to them by law enforcement and others, it is often a difficult decision. For a victim, not knowing why the crime was not prosecuted makes their experience even more painful. It is good practice in all cases to confer with victims and survivors regarding filing decisions so they have a clear understanding of the status of the case. The prosecutor should explain the decision not to bring charges and advise the victim of other options they may have available to them, including in some cases filing a civil lawsuit. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #9 Prosecutors should establish policies to Òfast trackÓ the prosecution of sexual assault, domestic violence, elderly and child abuse, and other particularly sensitive cases to shorten the length of time from arrest to disposition. Prosecutors should encourage judges to give top priority to these cases on the trial docket and should try to ensure that the case goes to trial when initially scheduled. Victims complain that delays and continuances are one of their primary frustrations with the criminal and juvenile justice systems. States need to examine victim-oriented speedy trial laws and establish realistic time limits for case prosecution. When continuances cannot be avoided, prosecutors should notify victims and witnesses as soon as possible to prevent inconvenience and costs such as child care, transportation, and time lost from work. In addition, procedures should be established to ensure that cases are continued to dates agreeable to victims and witnesses, and those dates should be secured in advance whenever possible. Reasons for continuances should be explained on the record. Arguing that delays and continuances can result in the Òunavailability of some witnesses and the fading memory of others,Ó the PresidentÕs Task Force recommended that prosecutors Òvigorously oppose continuances except when they are necessary for the accomplishment of legitimate investigatory procedures or to accommodate the scheduling needs of victims.Ó31 Case continuances prolong and intensify the victimization experience and related trauma. They are sometimes used as a defense tactic to discourage victims from participating in the system. According to the Task Force, Òwhenever possible it should be determined in advance if a continuance is to be granted and the victim should be informed."32 This recommendation remains valid today. On the federal level, U.S. Attorneys now routinely use the speedy trial provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to expedite cases involving child victims.33 The Federal Rules state that Òin a proceeding in which a child is called to give testimony, on motion by the Attorney for the Government or guardian ad litem, or on its own motion, the court may designate the case as one of special public importance. In cases so designated, the court shall, consistent with these rules, expedite the proceeding and ensure that it takes precedence over any other.Ó34 Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #10 ProsecutorsÕ offices should use technology to enhance the implementation of victimsÕ rights. The PresidentÕs Task Force was farsighted in recommending in 1982 that prosecutorsÕ offices use an on-call system for victims and witnesses to help prevent unnecessary inconveniences caused by schedule changes and case continuances. Today, the on-call method is a basic service provided by prosecutors and the courts. In hearings conducted across the nation, the Task Force heard countless testimony from victims and witnesses who had appeared for a hearing or trial, ready to cooperate, only to be told to leave and return another day. The Task Force believed that such a system would benefit the justice system as well by reducing witness fees and police overtime pay. Prosecutors should play a leadership role in encouraging uses of technology that benefit victims. They can encourage judges to allow distance viewing of proceedings by victims, especially in cases where there have been changes in venue. This was accomplished with great success in the Denver trials of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. In those trials, victims watched the proceedings in Denver, Colorado, from a site in Oklahoma City via a closed-circuit broadcast. In the future, victims should have the ability to watch proceedings or provide a victim impact statement from their home or worksite via an interactive linkup. To assist victims in the federal justice system, President Clinton recently called upon the Attorney General to adopt a nationwide automated victim information and notification system.35 In November 1997, Congress authorized $8 million in funding for such a system which is in the process of being developed by the Department of Justice. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #11 Prosecutors should adopt vertical prosecution for domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse cases. When a typical case comes into a prosecutorÕs office, less experienced prosecutors are often assigned to handle preliminary matters such as pretrial release hearings, arraignments, and preliminary hearings. Cases prosecuted as felonies are often reassigned to more experienced prosecutors to serve as trial attorneys. While this practice is useful to give new attorneys experience and allow seasoned attorneys to prepare for trial or plea negotiations, it can be very upsetting to victims by forcing them to retell their story to another attorney with whom they have not yet developed a trusting relationship. Vertical prosecution prevents this discomfort by retaining the same prosecutor on a case from intake to disposition, just as the defendant generally has one attorney throughout. Moreover, vertical prosecution allows prosecutors to develop expertise on specific types of cases and resources available to assist each type of crime victim. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #12 Prosecutors should work closely with victim service providers as well as victims of domestic violence to establish appropriate prosecution policies and support research to assess the effectiveness of proceeding without victim testimony in domestic violence cases. While some prosecutors have instituted blanket Òno dropÓ policies in domestic violence cases, such a policy removes from victims the power to determine dismissal of charges in domestic violence cases and may, as a result, place victims in danger of further violence. Many prosecutors employ this policy to help eliminate the alarming number of domestic violence cases that simply fall out of the criminal justice system with no adverse consequences to the batterer. ÒNo dropÓ policies should be modified to ensure that case by case determination is made of the safety of proceeding without a victimÕs testimony in each domestic violence case. Input from the victim is critical to the effective and safe resolution of domestic violence cases. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #13 VictimsÕ rights and sensitivity education should be provided to all law students as part of their basic education in law school and to all prosecutors during their initial orientation and throughout their careers. Law school graduates hired as prosecutors are unlikely to have received any training regarding the impact of victimization or the rights of crime victims. While law schools offer courses on criminal law and procedure, the majority still do not provide specialized courses on victimsÕ rights. ProsecutorsÕ offices should provide comprehensive courses on victimsÕ rights and services for new prosecutors as well as continuing education for all staff. Without thorough education on victimsÕ rights, inexperienced lawyers entering the profession will have little if any knowledge on the rights and needs of crime victims. All education should include instruction on victims with disabilities and multicultural issues, and trainers for all subjects should include a diverse array of knowledgeable professionals and volunteers, including victims of crime. Increasingly, states are requiring that attorneys receive continuing legal education on certain victimsÕ issues. Arkansas, California, Illinois, Maryland, and Tennessee, for example, have statutorily mandated that prosecutors handling child abuse cases receive specific continuing legal education in these critical areas. Integrating domestic violence issues, as well as other victimsÕ issues, into legal and prosecutor education programs will improve the ethical standards of the legal profession, as well as produce better representation for victims. Prosecutors Recommendation from the Field #14 ProsecutorsÕ offices should establish procedures to ensure the prompt return of victimsÕ property, absent the need for it as actual evidence in court. The 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force recommended that prosecutors recognize their responsibility Òto release property as expeditiously as possible, to take the initiative in doing so, and to establish the procedures necessary to bring about the expeditious restoration of property to its lawful owner.Ó36 To do this effectively, the Task Force recommended that prosecutors work with law enforcement and the judiciary to develop procedures and protocol for expeditious property return.37 Today, all states have passed expedited property return laws. Most laws conform with the advice of the Task Force. While some items may need to be retained for admission during the trial, items that can be presented to the jury just as effectively by a photograph should be returned to the victim. State law is often unclear on who has the absolute responsibility to establish property return procedures. A patchwork of property return policies exists nationwide. In many jurisdictions victims must pay storage fees for recovered vehicles, or their property is sold at police auctions before they can claim it. In 1989, the Council for Court Excellence developed a guide, Recovering Your Stolen Property: How to Get it Back Once the Police Find It, that was included as a national model for criminal justice protocol in the OVC-funded Focus on the Future: A Systems Approach to Prosecution and Victim Assistance.38 Similar property return guides should be developed and distributed to victims nationwide. Endnotes 1 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prosecutors in State Courts 1990, BJS bulletin, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, March 1992, NCJ 134500. 2 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1982:63-64. 3 De Frances, C. J., S. K. Smith, and L. van der Does, Prosecutors in State Courts 1994, BJS Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1996, NCJ-151656. This data was compiled from a national survey of prosecutors conducted in 1994. 4 Beatty, D., S. Smith Howley, and D. G. Kilpatrick, Statutory and Constitutional Protection of VictimsÕ Rights: Implementation and Impact on Crime Victims, Sub-Report: Crime Victim Responses Regarding VictimsÕ Rights, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997:3. 5 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, 2. 6 Id. 7 This information was reported on April 18, 1997 by Tracy Sanders of the National Association of Attorneys General. 8 U.S. Department of Justice, Legal Activities 1995-1996, Attorney Distribution Chart Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1995:3. 9 U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 1995:5. 10 Alexander, E.K. and J.H. Lord, A VictimÕs Right to Speak, A NationÕs Responsibility to Listen, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and American Prosecutors Research Institute: grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, National Victim Center, 1994:40. 11 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of VictimsÕ Rights Laws, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997:Section 5. 12 Id. at 10; U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. 13 Finn, P., and K. Murphy Healy, Preventing Gang - and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, November 1996:5. 14 See e.g., KAN. STAT. ANN. ¤ 21-3832; ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 17A ¤ 454. 15 ALASKA CONST. Art.1, sec. 24, HAW. REV. STAT. ¤ 801D-4; ILL. CONST. ART. 1, Sec. 8.1. 16 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook, Section 4 at 99. See e.g., DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 ¤ 9406 and 9411; MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 258B- ¤3. 17 See e.g., COLO. REV. STAT. ¤¤ 16-4-101, 16-4-105. 18 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook, Section 4, at 100. See e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ¤ 13-4431, IND. CODE ¤ 35-37-4-11, MICH. COMP. LAWS ¤¤ 28.1287 (757)(787). 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 U.S. Department of Justice, Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, 2nd Edition 66, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, February 1997:66. 22 See Preferences for Admission to Assisted Housing, 24 C.F.R. 880.615 (1996). HUD has made ÒDisplacements to avoid reprisalsÓ a federal preference for involuntary displacement, allowing housing authorities to quickly accept and/or move residents who have provided information on criminal activities to a law enforcement agency, or based on a threat assessment, have been determined by a law enforcement agency to be at risk of violence as a reprisal for providing such information. See Preventing Gangs- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation, National Institute of Justice, November 1996:34-35. 23 As of November 1997, the National Network of ChildrenÕs Advocacy Centers, located in Washington, D.C., reports that over 350 Children Advocacy Centers exist nationwide. 24 National Victim Center, American ProsecutorÕs Research Institute, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Focus on the Future: A SystemÕs Approach to Prosecution and Victim Assistance, National Victim Center, American ProsecutorÕs Research Institute, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, 1994. 25 The two primary victim organizations that developed the model bill were the National Organization for Victim Assistance and the National Victim Center. 26 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, 66. 27 Id. at 67. 28 Beatty, Statutory and Constitutional Protection of VictimsÕ Rights, 4. 29 Id. at 3. 30 Ostrom, B. J., and N. Kauder, Examining the Work of State Courts, 1994, A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project Ñ Annual Report, Conference of State Court Administrators, the State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts, 1996:56. 31 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, 67-68. 32 Id. at 68. 33 Tit. 18 U.S.C.A. ¤ 3509(j) (speedy trial). 34 Id. 35 Renewing Our Commitment to Crime Victims, Presidential Memorandum for the Attorney General (June 27, 1996). 36 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, 69. 37 Id. at 68 (Prosecutor Recommendation), 59-60 (Police Recommendation), and 81 (Judiciary Recommendation). 38 National Victim Center, Focus on the Future. Chapter 4 The Judiciary Many victims and their families feel that they are the stepchildren of the criminal justice system, that their rights and concerns are misunderstood or ignored. In communities across the nation, victims are denied a voice in decisions to release defendants on bail despite having legitimate safety concerns, and they are not notified when defendants are released. Too many victims also are not notified when the court changes its schedule even though they have taken time off from work, arranged for child care, and paid for transportation. While plea agreements offer an efficient means for court systems to manage overwhelming case loads, they are routinely finalized without input from, consultation with, or notification of victims, denying millions of victims their rights to be informed about and have input into the justice process. Many victims are still not informed of sentencing hearings or of their right to submit a statement about the financial, physical, and emotional impact of the crime despite the enactment of victim impact statement laws in every state.2 Moreover, the costs of crime can be devastating, but judges too often overlook victimsÕ financial hardship by failing to order restitution or provide appropriate conditions for its collection. Judges play a crucial role in the day-to-day implementation of victimsÕ rights. Judges, after all, control the courtroom and make rulings that will affect the courtÕs observance of victimsÕ rights to be present, notified, and heard. At the same time, judges have an obligation to ensure that the criminal justice process is impartial and fair, and many judges feel constrained about giving what they consider to be Òspecial treatmentÓ to crime victims. Addressing these concerns requires a fundamental shift in viewpoint to allow judges and other court personnel to see the protection of victimsÕ rights and services under law not as Òspecial,Ó but as appropriate and just. The practices and recommendations discussed in this section attempt to do this while holding true the balance judges must keep among the competing and often contradictory interests of vigorous prosecution and defense. Progress Since the PresidentÕs Task Force The Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims recognized the important role of judges in ensuring the rights of victims as well as defendants. The principal Task Force recommendations for the judiciary included: ¥ Developing and participating in training programs on the needs and interests of crime victims. ¥ Implementing procedures and court processes with sensitivity to the needs of crime victims, including ensuring that separate waiting areas are provided for prosecution and defense witnesses and permitting victims and witnesses to be on call for court proceedings. ¥ Giving the same weight to the interests of victims and witnesses as that given to the interests of defendants when ruling on requests for continuances. ¥ Facilitating the victimÕs efforts to be present and, where relevant, heard during essential phases of the proceedings. ¥ Understanding the impact of crime on victims and ensuring sensitivity to their needs in the handling of cases. Many of these recommendations have been addressed by legislative changes at the state and federal level, as well as by victimsÕ rights constitutional amendments in 29 states. However, it is difficult to measure how well courts are implementing this legislation and recommendations calling for judges to ÒrecognizeÓ and Ògive weight toÓ the needs of victims at appropriate junctures of the justice process. Almost immediately after the Task Force issued its recommendations, the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Conference of Special Court Judges of the American Bar Association, and the National Judicial College cosponsored the 1983 National Conference of the Judiciary on the Rights of Victims of Crime. The participants of the conference represented courts of general and special jurisdiction in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The conference adopted a Statement of Recommended Judicial Practices which further articulated and provided specific direction for implementing the recommendations in the Task ForceÕs Final Report.3 In addition, in 1984, the Attorney GeneralÕs Task Force on Family Violence issued recommendations for the judiciary for dealing specifically with victims of family violence.4 Since these events, some judicial training programs and conferences such as those held by the State Justice Institute, the National Judicial College, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have made a practice of offering participants educational programs on victim issues. Recently, the California Judicial College made training on victimsÕ rights mandatory for new judges. Judicial Concerns About Implementing VictimsÕ Rights Before discussing ways in which judges can help victims have a greater voice in the justice process, it is important to acknowledge the traditional concerns of judges about taking a more active role for victims. In 1997, a focus group of a dozen judges and judicial administrators from diverse regions of the country identified why many in the judiciary have not viewed the enforcement of victimsÕ rights as part of their courtroom duties.5 According to the focus group, many judges find it difficult to view victims as having a legitimate role in the justice process because they are not official parties to the criminal proceedings.6 Judges are also sometimes unaware of the laws setting forth victims' rights and the specific services to which victims are entitled.7 Moreover, judges often worry that paying ÒspecialÓ attention to victims other than as witnesses for the prosecution impinges on the impartiality of the court and creates the appearance of impropriety.8 Judges typically have little or no training on the impact of violent crime on victims and their families, how victims feel or experience the criminal justice system, their grieving or healing processes, and appropriate judicial conduct toward victims. The judgeÕs control of the courtroom and the rules of evidence are designed to avoid surprises, control all participants including witnesses and spectators, and minimize emotional outbursts. VictimsÕ expressions of emotional trauma, fear, anger, confusion, and psychological scarring in the courtroom can be an unsettling prospect and a threat to courtroom control. Moreover, traditional court organization and administration do not encourage problem solving approaches in cases. Limited resources, crowded dockets, and statutory requirements to process cases within certain time limits often cause even well-intentioned judges concern about opening up the process to victim input. Finally, the focus group noted that many judges believe that victims increase media and public attention on the court proceeding, often casting judges in an unfavorable light. Encouraging Judicial Leadership Judges are uniquely situated to bring together institutions in the community, including schools, hospitals, and social service agencies, that can solve the wide range of problems that bring offenders and the people they victimize to the justice system. By forging public-private partnerships, these institutions make maximum use of limited resources. As community leaders, judges can and should be catalysts for coordinating the delivery of services to both victims and offenders. When judges take a problem-solving approach to administering justice, the result is greater outreach to the community and greater community access to the justice system. ¥ The Municipal Court of Tucson, Arizona, was one of several partners including the police, victim advocates, prosecutors, and health care professionals in establishing a Community Domestic Violence Awareness Center. The centerÕs victim advocates provide information on domestic violence and assist victims in obtaining protection orders, either through an interactive video system or by personally taking the victim to the city court. During evening hours, weekends, and holidays, a judge is on duty at the center, where victims can appear and seek assistance. ¥ In Santa Clara County, California, and a growing number of other local jurisdictions, the judiciary has taken the initiative in establishing local family violence councils to provide Òa comprehensive response to domestic violence which addresses prevention, public education, intervention, and corrections including treatment and rehabilitation.Ó9 Mandated by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 as a requirement for communities to qualify for funding, localities across the nation are now organizing such councils.10 The councils have led to the creation of new community partnerships and adjudication alternatives for batterers and enhanced victim assistance and referral networks. ¥ In New York, the state has begun an initiative through its Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children to provide assistance to children in the courts, particularly children under 5. The CommissionÕs efforts have focused on promoting early intervention for at risk children by establishing child care centers in courts across the state that give children whose parents are in court a safe haven. The child care centers allow the courts to conduct business more efficiently, but more important, they provide children sorely needed educational, nutritional, and social services. The New York State Office of Court Administration has been instrumental in raising and sustaining support for maintenance and expansion of the centers. In June 1994, a Court Rule was issued in the state requiring all new construction or renovation in court facilities to set aside space for child care. Judges also have an affirmative obligation to explain to the public what courts do. One example is Navajo Justice Day, in which the Navajo Tribal Court sponsors an open house for the community and the media to learn about all aspects of the judicial system. Another innovative approach is the Wisconsin Supreme CourtÕs court-community collaboration, which emphasizes outreach to citizens to inform them about the work of the courts and public input into how to make the justice system more responsive.11 Restructuring Courts to Solve Problems The courtÕs traditional emphasis on procedural rights has led judges in many instances to neglect other aspects of their mandate to do justice. Many people, including victims, bring problems to the system that need attention. In some jurisdictions, judges are addressing the needs of offenders and victims with a new focus on restorative community justice that involves the community, holds the offender accountable through punishment and supervision, and helps the victim to heal. A good example of judicial leadership to help victims through problem solving is the pioneering use of neighborhood or community impact statements in cases involving drug crimes. Traditionally, drug crimes have been considered ÒvictimlessÓ and courts rarely heard from people affected by those who sell drugs in their neighborhood. In some jurisdictions, judges now receive information about how drug trafficking has affected the communityÕs quality of life. Neighbors are given the opportunity to provide information anonymously, and their statements are incorporated into an overall impact statement for the case. Judges consult these statements when ordering convicted drug dealers to pay restitution to community groups in the neighborhood where the offense was committed. Community members are informed of their right to submit statements through public education and crime prevention programs as well as flyers distributed in neighborhoods following a drug arrest.12 For certain kinds of crimes and victims, problem solving may be most effective in specialized courts. Current examples are drug courts, domestic violence courts, community courts that handle "quality of life" misdemeanor crimes, unified family courts that handle all problems relating to the family including criminal, civil, and juvenile matters, and courts designed specifically for child victims. The value of specialized courts for victims and offenders is that delivery of resources such as counseling, treatment, and job training can be coordinated in one location, allowing the judge to solve multiple problems in what traditionally were considered separate court jurisdictions. ¥ In New York City, the Midtown Community Court focuses on petty offenses such as prostitution, shoplifting, subway fare skipping, graffiti, minor drug possession, and illegal peddling that victimize the community. In sentencing defendants who plead guilty in these cases, the court and community organizations work together to make justice constructive for offenders as well as restorative to the community. Offenders pay restitution to the community through community service, but they also receive help for their problems through substance abuse treatment, health care, education, and other social services. The court is developing a process to help facilitate statements from community members on the impact of these crimes. ¥ In August 1995, following the enactment of state legislation establishing family violence cases as a priority for the criminal justice system, 11 county criminal court judges in Dallas County, Texas, created the first unified family violence court in the state. The court docket is limited to cases involving family violence offenses, and the prosecuting attorneyÕs office expanded its family violence division to prosecute these cases exclusively. Among the many benefits for victims has been a streamlined application process for protective orders. Because the family and criminal courts are now together, victims attend all proceedings at one court. Unifying the courts has also led to more efficient dispositions and an increase in the expertise of judges and court personnel on the complicated issue of family violence.13 ¥ In Los Angeles County, the Edmund D. Edelman ChildrenÕs Court was established in 1992 as the nationÕs first dependency court designed specifically to meet the needs of children going through the court process. The buildingÕs small courtrooms are less intimidating to children than traditional courtrooms. Each courtroomÕs semicircular counsel table is shaped like a smile, and there are specially designated play areas for children to help reduce stress and trauma. The courtÕs public areas have special eating facilities, television sets tuned to the Disney Channel, and separate diaper changing areas, and a shelter area offers a secure space for children in out-of-home placement. Safe, friendly, and private play areas, family visiting rooms, exercise areas, and conference rooms for children to meet with their attorneys, social workers, or other care providers are also available. Special initiatives of the court include counseling services for children and their families, training and internship programs, and a child-parent art program. The court is supported by a public and private sector partnership, the Child Victims in Court Foundation, which has raised over $1 million since the court began operation.14 The rich American Indian traditions of this countryÕs tribal justice systems provide strong models for judicial leadership. In tribal courts, the goal is to solve problems created by wrongful acts, which are seen as harming not only the victim, but the offender, the victim and offenderÕs families, and the entire community as well. In the Navajo Nation, for example, justice is administered through a peacemaking system in addition to a western legal process. In this system, victims, offenders, and their families are brought together to solve all kinds of problems ranging from nonpayment of child support to theft. But such Òjudicially sanctionedÓ problem solving need not be limited to small or culturally homogeneous communities. Peacemaking techniques have been adopted in an Albuquerque family court where participants are often of different cultures and do not necessarily share the same values. A number of Canadian courts use the concept of the Aboriginal sentencing circle in which the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, victim, offender, community members, and service agencies all come together to determine remedies, sanctions, and treatment programs that are appropriate for the victim, offender, and community. Moreover, family group conferencing based on Maori tradition is used throughout the New Zealand juvenile justice system, and community reparation boards are used in Vermont to craft appropriate sentences. All of these restorative justice mechanisms originated in very different cultures but share common goals: solving problems through a collaborative process that emphasizes addressing the harm done to the victim; holding the offender accountable for the harm done; and restoring community relationships by bringing the victim and offender back into community life. Significant strides have been made in laying a legislative framework that provides for greater and more meaningful victim participation in the criminal justice process. At the same time, judges are hampered by a lack of experience with and training in the legal rights and legitimate needs of victims. To overcome the concerns of judges about the full implementation of victimsÕ rights and the victimÕs role in the judicial process, education and training are critical. Those jurisdictions that have begun to reexamine the basic way in which justice is administered by giving greater recognition to the role of the community and the victim in the criminal justice process should serve as models of how the competing concerns of those affected by criminal conduct can be justly met. Recommendations from the Field for the Judiciary These recommendations address the judiciaryÕs role in implementing victimsÕ rights laws, and apply equally to judges in civil and criminal courts. Judges in civil courts, particularly family courts, interact with numerous crime victims and are often the most important arbiters of justice for these victims. Indeed, throughout all judicial systems, judges, court administrators, and court personnel must implement the spirit as well as the letter of laws protecting victimsÕ rights that have been enacted on the state and federal levels. Judges must enforce victimsÕ rights in the day-to-day operations of the court, particularly by ensuring that victims have an opportunity for input prior to plea proceedings, during the trial, and at sentencing. While a lack of adequate funding is sometimes the problem, more often full implementation is prevented by the lack of judicial education in victimsÕ rights and services, a narrow vision in the judiciary of the role of the justice system, and the failure of the system to make victimsÕ rights a priority. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #1 The voices and concerns of crime victims should be recognized and institutionalized within the justice system. Judges should advise victims of their rights as routinely as they advise defendants of their rights. All jurisdictions have statutory provisions spelling out the rights of victims, and 29 states have underscored these rights with the passage of state victimsÕ rights constitutional amendments. The judiciary has a major responsibility for ensuring that victims are acknowledged, informed, heard, and treated fairly and with dignity. The first step is to recognize that the interests and needs of prosecutors and victims are not always identical. It would be educational for all participants in the courtroom to hear judges acknowledge victims and inform them of their rights. Oral advisement and videotaped and written materials can be used to explain the justice system and the proper role of victims in it. Judges must also ensure that victims are aware of rights for which prosecutors and probation officers have implementation responsibility, such as notification of hearing dates, case disposition, victim impact statements, and offender release. Every courtÕs administrative staff should have a victim coordinator, even in jurisdictions in which the prosecutor or probation office operates a victim/witness program. Victims and their advocates, including court-appointed special advocates and guardians ad litem for children, should have a formal voice in the court planning process. Special attention should be given to ensuring that multicultural and multilingual individuals serve in the courts to enhance the courtÕs responsiveness to and understanding of the needs of the various ethnic and language groups in the community. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #2 Judges and all court personnel at all levels of the court system must receive initial and continuing education on the law concerning victimsÕ rights, the impact of crime on victims and their families, and how the judiciary can implement the spirit as well as the letter of these rights. This education must include training on the special needs of some victim populations such as victims with disabilities and non-English speaking individuals. The importance of educating judges and court personnel about the proper role of victims in the justice system cannot be overemphasized. Just as doctors need training in interacting appropriately with patients and their families, judges and court personnel need training in understanding the impact of crime on victims and their families and the role of the justice system in their grieving and healing process. Training can help judges and court personnel appreciate the potential of the justice system to exacerbate victims' emotional injuries by failing to accord them respect, provide them with information, or allow them to participate. Judicial education about victims should articulate why victim participation is a difficult subject for the judiciary. There must be thoughtful dialogue about issues relating to impartiality and opportunities for judges to not only learn the law but also reexamine basic notions about how justice is administered in our society. Education of the judiciary about victim participation must be reinforced with interaction with victims themselves. Judges and court personnel need to hear from victims and their families. They should be encouraged to think about the role of victims in the larger judicial process in addition to their role in each case. Open dialogue among judges about victim participation should be encouraged institutionally, and this discussion must also occur between judges and court personnel, other members of the criminal justice system, the bar, the public at large, and crime victims. Education about these issues should begin as soon as possible in a judgeÕs career, preferably in law school, and continue throughout the judgeÕs service. Education on crime victimsÕ issues must be provided to civil court judges, particularly those in family or dependency courts, as these judges regularly interact with hundreds of crime victims. A model curriculum should be developed for the judiciary that links information about the rights and needs of victims to standard programs about trial management, criminal procedure, juvenile justice, and family law. When judges learn, for example, about their discretion in excluding witnesses from the courtroom they should also learn about the importance to victims and their families of being present for hearings and trials. When judges learn about setting bail and issuing restraining orders, they should also be apprised of research indicating when domestic violence is most lethal. Programs about child victims and victims of family violence, sexual assault, and hate crimes are good vehicles to educate the judiciary about victim issues. Judges should assume responsibility for obtaining current information about victim-related laws and any subsequent amendment of those laws. In addition to general training, judges assigned to criminal courts, and particularly to specialized courts such as domestic violence courts, should receive intensive training in the impact of such crimes on victims, the dynamics between victims and offenders, and issues when judging the credibility of victims such as child victims and victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Interdisciplinary training is essential. To truly act as problem solvers, judges must be aware of medical, psychological, and child development issues. Innovative ways need to be explored to allow judges with expertise in these areas to share that expertise with their colleagues through mentoring, partnering of courts, and use of experts who ride the circuit. All training curriculums must address the needs of multicultural and multiethnic groups, and all training initiativesÑnot just that on multicultural issuesÑshould use the skills of racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse trainers. Court administrators must ensure that judges are provided ongoing, comprehensive training on victims issues, and that the specialized training described above is incorporated into training plans and budgets. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #3 Judges should facilitate the rights of crime victims and their families to be present at court proceedings unless the defendant proves that their presence would interfere with the defendantÕs right to a fair trial. Thirty-four states have given victims the right to attend either the defendantÕs trial specifically or the criminal proceedings generally.16 Furthermore, nearly half of the states guarantee it in their constitutions. In most cases, this right is limited by the requirement that it apply only to proceedings in which the defendant is also present. In addition, the majority of the states that allow for the victimÕs right to attend the trial also give judges wide discretion in excluding a victim from the courtroom in order to preserve the defendantÕs right to a fair trial or based on the victimÕs dual status as a witness. Practical considerations also prevent victims from attending legal proceedings. In high-profile or multiple-party cases, there are often not enough seats in the courtroom reserved for the victims and members of their immediate family. Judges must make a point of setting aside adequate space in their courtrooms for crime victims and make better use of technology to expand victimsÕ access to proceedings. The power of technology to aid victims was shown recently when closed-circuit television allowed hundreds of victims and survivors of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City to observe the trial in Denver, Colorado, from an auditorium in Oklahoma City. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #4 Judges should consider victim and community safety in any prerelease or postrelease decision. As part of any pretrial release order, including bail, bond, or personal recognizance, judges should include a Òno-contactÓ provision stating that the accused or defendant shall not harass, intimidate, threaten, or commit physical violence against the victim or victim's family. Judges should invite victim input, whenever possible, regarding the release of the accused. When bail is allowed, when appropriate it should be conditioned on the defendantÕs restricted access to victims or prosecution witnesses. If judges find probable cause that the defendant has harassed, intimidated, threatened, or committed physical violence against the victim or the victim's immediate family, judges should revoke the defendantÕs bond or personal recognizance and order that he or she be taken into custody. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #5 Before imposing a sentence, judges should permit the victim, the victimÕs representative, or, when appropriate, representatives of the community to present a victim impact statement. Today, all states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have enacted victim impact statement laws to allow judges to weigh the financial, physical, and emotional impact of a crime on its victim in establishing appropriate sentencing for the defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of victim impact statements at sentencing, even in the most difficult decisions, capital offenses. Victim impact statements are an important source of information for judges in ordering restitution to the victim. In addition to statements from individual victims, community impact statements have been used in drug-related crimes to provide the courts with information on the impact of the crime for those living in drug-ridden neighborhoods. Judges should require the inclusion of victim impact statements, including community impact statements where appropriate, in all dispositional hearings, especially plea agreements and sentencing. Judges should allow for the submission of victim impact evidence both orally and in writing. Additionally, judges should allow victims to submit victim impact evidence via audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means, especially when the victim is a child, elderly, or disabled, or where travel to the court would be burdensome. To facilitate input from victims who face communication barriers, judges should make every attempt to locate foreign or sign language interpreters. Finally, judges should require prosecutors to describe on the record their efforts to contact and seek input from victims. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #6 Judges should facilitate the input of crime victims into plea agreements and resulting sentences, and they should request that prosecuting attorneys demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to confer with the victim. Requiring offenders to acknowledge guilt and take responsibility for their actions is important to the victimÕs healing process and the offenderÕs rehabilitation. It is significant for victimsÕ healing that the judge acknowledge at the time of sentencing that victims have been injured, solicit specific information from victims on the crimeÕs impact on their lives, and explain the terms of the offenderÕs sentence. JudgesÕ decisions will be better informed if victims are given an opportunity to provide comments about the plea agreement. In general, judges should require that reasonable efforts be made to confer with the victim, notify the victim of the time and date of the plea hearing, and inform the victim of his or her right to be present and heard. Whenever possible, the court should be informed of the victimÕs opinion concerning plea agreements. With the vast majority of cases disposed of through plea agreements, the debate on victims rights needs to be refocused on this critical juncture of the criminal justice system.17 Exceptions to this practice should only be made under extraordinary circumstances such as in cases involving many victims or confidential informants. Victim input into the plea process is critical because the rapid growth in caseloads over the past two decades has forced courts to use more efficient means of concluding cases. Resolving criminal cases through plea agreements, which are quicker than formal trials, has become standard practice in courts today. In 1994, 64 percent of felony cases in state courts nationwide were disposed of through guilty pleas, while only 7 percent were disposed of by trial. The remaining cases were resolved by a decision by the prosecutor not to continue or by the court to drop all charges.18 With criminal caseloads expected to increase even more in the decade ahead, the pressure on the judiciary, prosecution, and defense to dispose of cases through plea agreements will likely also increase. The great irony for victims is that this is an area of the criminal justice process in which victims are given fewest opportunities for participation. Nationwide, victims are often not notified about plea negotiations nor asked to provide input into the plea agreement. A number of state constitutional amendments and statutes mandate victim input into the plea bargaining process. Arizona law, for example, requires that the court not accept a plea agreement unless: ¥ The prosecuting attorney advises the court that before requesting the negotiated plea reasonable efforts were made to confer with the victim; ¥ Reasonable efforts are made to give the victim notice of the plea proceedings and to inform the victim that the victim has the right to be present and, if present, to be heard; and ¥ The prosecuting attorney advises the court that to the best of the prosecutorÕs knowledge notice requirements were complied with and the court was informed of the victimÕs position, if known, regarding the negotiated plea.19 For the benefit of both offenders and victims, consideration should be given to not accepting no contest pleas. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #7 As leaders within the justice system, judges must ensure that victimsÕ rights legislation is fully implemented. Judges should work closely with the bar to encourage dialogue with lawyers and the community about the problems of victims within the justice system. Judges should foster education and an understanding that solving victimsÕ problems does not mean denying rights to offenders. Being leaders within the community means that judges have a responsibility to hear the publicÕs views about the criminal justice system, understand community needs, and encourage public involvement in the criminal justice system. The philosophy of community involvement underlying community courts should be incorporated into all courts. The chief justice of each state should personally take responsibility for encouraging dialogue on these subjects. The implementation of victimsÕ rights should be placed on the agendas of the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. The Model Code of Judicial Conduct and state codes of judicial conduct should be examined to ensure that judges are encouraged to treat victims fairly. The Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators should hold educational panels on victim issues at their annual meetings. Each chief justice should ensure that the judicial recommendations contained in this report are disseminated to every judicial officer within his or her state and that appropriate and continuing educational programs on victim issues are undertaken. Victim issues are important for federal as well as state court judges. Victims of crime appear in federal courts in cases involving white collar crime, terrorist bombings, civil rights crimes, interstate child support and domestic violence offenses, and crimes committed in Indian Country, on military reservations, and in other federal enclaves. Victims also appear in civil cases involving civil rights, sexual harassment, and employment discrimination. Victim issues should be on the agenda of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. All judicial agencies should develop continuing training programs for judges and all court personnel on victimsÕ rights and services. The presiding judge in each court is particularly important as a leader and inspiration among his or her peers, a spokesperson for the justice system within the community, and a liaison and collaborator with other branches of government. Judges and courts should see themselves and be seen by the community as peacemakers and problem solvers. This message should be taken to law schools, the bar, and to the community at large. Special steps should be taken to ensure that this outreach involves all sectors of the community including culturally or linguistically distinct groups. Victims and victim advocates should be informed of available recourse to judicial oversight groups such as judicial disciplinary committees should they believe a judge has denied a victimÕs rights in court. The California Commission on Judicial Performance has demonstrated the efficacy of this remedy and has twice brought public censure on judges who failed to honor crime victimsÕ statutory rights. Disciplinary committee members should receive ongoing training in victimsÕ issues and in substantive victimsÕ rights. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #8 Judges should play a leadership role in ensuring that police, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, and court administrators receive joint training so that all have a comprehensive picture of what happens to a victim as he or she navigates through the criminal justice system. Judges should give special consideration to how defense attorneys and the bar at large can best be educated about crime victims and how courts can be reoriented to be problem solvers for both offenders and victims. Appropriate postadjudication victim-offender mediation programs should be encouraged, but only with adequate safeguards for the physical and emotional well-being of victims and their families, and only if requested by the victims. The defense bar and public defenders as well as prosecutors should be fully involved in the planning and implementation of specialized courts. Multicultural issues should be incorporated into all trainings. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #9 Judges have a responsibility to manage their cases and calendars to make victim involvement as feasible as possible. Modern technology should be used to give victims greater access to the justice system and should include multilingual services at no cost to victims. Many victim reforms such as reducing delay, allowing input into the process at points other than sentencing, and controlling the examination of witnesses are dependent on active case and courtroom management by the judge. The need for ÒefficiencyÓ should not be used as an excuse not to inform and involve victims. Victim involvement does require time, but a properly managed court and calendar can accommodate reasonable victim participation. Judges set expectations for attorneys and other participants in the justice system. The local legal culture will respect and comply with victim involvement if it is expected and validated by the judiciary. With appropriate safeguards for statutorily required confidentiality, modern technology should be used to bring more information about crime victims and offenders in particular cases to judges. Technology should be used to link all agencies within the criminal justice system to ensure that court orders issued to the same family do not conflict. Teleconferencing and closed-circuit television should be used to minimize inconvenience and trauma to victims. Information kiosks, educational videos, and other educational tools should be used to educate victims about the justice system and the process and procedure they should expect. Judges should coordinate with other criminal justice agencies in the development of a centralized case tracking system that will provide victims with notice at every stage of the criminal justice process. The availability of interpreters and accessibility to the justice system are important issues for the public, and for victims and their families in particular. Judges should never assume that disabled crime victims and their family members would prefer not to or cannot attend court proceedings. Courts should provide victims with interpreters for all proceedings whenever needed and possible, and at least one courtroom in each courthouse should have the capability for real-time transcription for hearing-impaired victims. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #10 Judges should order restitution from offenders to help compensate victims for the harm they have suffered. If extraordinary and compelling reasons make restitution impractical or inappropriate, judges should explain in writing and on the record why they did not order it. Judges should order restitution regardless of whether the defendant was adjudicated through a plea agreement or trial, and regardless of whether the offender is incarcerated or placed on probation. Courts should make every attempt to ensure the enforcement of restitution orders. Judges should also explain to crime victims the purpose of ordering restitution as part of a sentence, how it is collected and disbursed, and the avenues available to hold offenders accountable for payment. Victims should be advised not to have unrealistic expectations about receiving restitution payments from indigent offenders. In addition, judges should ensure that restitution orders become automatic liens against the defendant by ordering restitution as a civil judgment where permitted by law. The judgment can then be enforced by the government or by the victim or the victimÕs beneficiary in the same manner as a civil action. In cases in which more than one defendant is convicted of the criminal offense, the defendants should be held jointly and severally liable for the judgment. There is a growing trend to enforce restitution orders as civil liens. Currently, a majority of states have laws that permit the courts to enforce restitution orders as civil judgments, either at the time of the order or at the end of an offenderÕs probationary period. In some states, the laws also allow the authorities to seize an offenderÕs property and financial assets through the use of garnishment or attachment orders when the offender has failed to satisfy the courtÕs order.20 Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #11 Judges should play a leadership role in ensuring that separate and secure waiting areas are available in all courthouses for prosecution and defense witnesses to minimize the contact of victims with defendants, their relatives, and friends before, during, and immediately after court proceedings. The 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force recommended that judges or their court administrators establish separate waiting rooms for prosecution and defense witnesses to reduce victim intimidation.21 However, the practical reality of too many overcrowded courthouses across the country has prevented the full implementation of this important recommendation. As new courthouses are designed, the safety of victims must be taken into consideration. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #12 Codes of Judicial Conduct should be amended to reflect the fact that crime victims play a pivotal role in the criminal justice system. Judges throughout this country are guided by their respective Codes of Judicial Conduct. These codes are not intended to be exhaustive guides for the conduct of judges. They are intended instead as guidelines to assist judges in establishing and maintaining the highest standards of judicial conduct. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges applies to all federal judges and serves as a model for state Codes of Judicial Conduct. The following specific recommendations, highlighted in bold, are offered as amendments to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:22 Canon 3(A)(3)23 should be amended to provide that: A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, victims of crime, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judgeÕs direction and control. Canon 3(A)(4)24 should be amended to provide that: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, including victims of crime, or that personÕs lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Other jurisdictions should modify their respective codes of conduct accordingly. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #13 Judicial assignments to specialized courts or family law or juvenile courts should be based on experience and interest, not on lack of seniority or punishment. There is a perception among some members of the judiciary that the work of family or juvenile courts is of less distinction or merit than that of other courts. As a result, assignments or appointments to these courts typically do carry the same stature in judicial circles and are less well paid. Judges in other courts may have little understanding of the nature and complexity of the issues involved in juvenile or family court cases, limiting their ability to recognize and address these issues when they arise in their own court. To the extent that there is a goal of exposing all judges to all assignments, adequate education and mentoring should accompany rotational assignments. Rotations should be long enough to allow the new judge to become thoroughly familiar with the assignment and the law. Judicial salaries should be equalized. In particular, lower salaries should not be paid to judges sitting in juvenile or family law courts. Judiciary Recommendation from the Field #14 Judges must take a leadership role in conceptualizing and advocating that the justice system encompass not only traditional adjudication and punishment but also holistic problem solving and treatment for victims as well as offenders. Principles of restorative community justice and therapeutic jurisprudence should be incorporated into court systems with due regard for differing cultures and ethnic groups. Courts must reexamine the ways in which they do business and consider innovative means of achieving justice through the involvement of the community and victims. A reorientation toward problem solving, as opposed to only adjudication, requires a much broader allocation of jurisdiction among judges. In family violence cases, for example, such a reorientation may require a single court to exercise criminal, civil, as well as juvenile jurisdiction to address all of a family's problems. This expanded jurisdiction gives the court the authority to hold the batterer accountable through treatment as well as punishment and protect and treat both adult and child victims of violence. Reorienting courts toward problem solving expands the systemÕs definition of victim in the context of a particular set of issues. Again using family court as a model, victims would now include children who witness violence in their family as well as those who are themselves battered and sexually assaulted. Moreover, judicial problem solving expands our definition of restitution. The new objective is to help the victim achieve healing as well as to hold the offender accountable. In addition to full monetary restitution, courts must make counseling, social services, drug and alcohol treatment, and job training available, when appropriate, to victims and offenders. The Judicial System Today State courts serve as the primary institution for adjudicating criminal and civil disputes in the United States. There are 16,400 state trial courts operating in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.25 Of these courts, 13,874 are limited jurisdiction courts and 2,513 are general jurisdiction courts. In 1994, 27,194 trial judges served in state courts.26 In the federal judicial system, 94 district courts and 12 regional courts of appeals adjudicate approximately 310,000 criminal and civil cases each year.27 Approximately 1,991 judges comprise the federal judiciary28 and there are approximately 325 tribal courts in the nationÕs tribal justice system.29 Pressures on the Court System One of the greatest challenges facing the nationÕs judiciary over the past decade has been the huge growth in the number of serious cases before the courts.30 ¥ In 1995, 86 million new cases were filed in state courts, including approximately 20 million civil and domestic relations cases, 13 million criminal cases, 2 million juvenile cases; and 51 million traffic and ordinance violations. ¥ Between 1984 and 1995, criminal caseloads rose 38 percent, juvenile caseloads rose 55 percent, and domestic relations caseloads rose 70 percent. In contrast, the U.S. population increased roughly 10 percent over the same period. ¥ Felony filings in general jurisdiction courts increased 70 percent between 1984 and 1994. ¥ Total criminal case filings in the United States reached an all-time high in 1995 of more than 13 million casesÑa 38 percent increase since 1984. ¥ The most rapid growth in domestic relations cases occurred in the area of domestic violence, with filings in 1995 increasing over 99 percent since 1989. ¥ On the federal level, U.S. District Courts faced a significant increase of criminal cases filings from 1980 to 1994, rising from 27,968 to 45,774.31 Endnotes 1 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1982:72. 2 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victims Rights Laws, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997: ¤9. 3 National Conference of the Judiciary on the Rights of Victims of Crime, Statement of Recommended Judicial Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1985. 4 Attorney GeneralÕs Task Force on Family Violence, Final Report, Washington, D.C.: September 1984: 33-34. 5 The Judicial Focus Group on VictimsÕ Issues, which met in Washington D.C. on January 27-28, 1997, consisted of prominent members of the judiciary and judicial administrators. They included the Honorable Mary C. Morgan (ret.), the Honorable Richard Andrias, the Honorable A. Franklin Burgess, Jr., John Feinblatt Esq., the Honorable Lois Haight, the Honorable Suzanne W. Knauf, the Honorable Cindy Lederman, the Honorable Rosalyn Richter, Lynn Hecht Schafran Esq., the Honorable Bill Schma, the Honorable Bill Thorne, and the Honorable Irene Toledo. 6 Office for Victims of Crime, Report from the Judicial Focus Group on VictimsÕ Issues, Washington, D.C.: 1997. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 4. Judges report that they often feel caught in the crossfire among prosecutors who resent interference in their cases, victim advocates who perceive judges as having more power and discretion than they do, and defense counsel who often paint victims as persons interested only in revenge. 9 Edwards, Hon. Leonard P., ÒReducing Family Violence: The Role of the Family Violence Council,Ó Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 2,1992:43. 10 Violence Against Women Act, Tit. IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322 (September 13, 1994), codified at 42 U.S.C. 13701. 11 Abrahamson, Hon. Shirley S., A True Partnership for Justice, JUDICATURE, Vol. 80, No.6 (1996). 12 American Prosecutors Research Institute, Community Prosecution: A Guide for Prosecutors, Washington, D.C.:1995: 32 (National District Attorneys Association prepared under agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1995). This unique concept for victim participation was first initiated by the Milwaukee District AttorneyÕs Office, and is now routinely used by the U.S. AttorneyÕs Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 13 Bush, G. W. and K. J. Greene, The GovernorÕs Criminal Justice Plan for Texas: Protecting Our Future, Austin, Texas: Criminal Justice Division, Office of the Governor, fiscal year 1998:58. 14 The Edmund D. Edelman ChildrenÕs Court, The ChildrenÕs Court Design Committee Report, Los Angeles, California: Juvenile Court Administrative Office, 1995. 15 Id. 16 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook, 257. 17 Ostrom, B. J. and N. B. Kauder, Examining the Work of State Courts, 1994: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1996:66. 18 Id. 19 ARIZ. REV. STAT. ¤ 13-4423 (1996). 20 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook, 275-276. 21 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, 72. 22 Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Washington, D.C: Judicial Conference of the United States, 1997: vol ii, ch.1. 23 Id. at 5. 24 Id. at 6. 25 Ostrom, Examining the Work of State Courts, 1994, 17, 14. 26 Id. at 14. 27 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Statistical Report for the Justices and Judges of the United States, Washington, D.C.: April, 1997:1. 28 Id. 29 Telephone interview between Cathy Sanders (OVC) and the National American Indian Court Judges Association (April 24, 1997). 30 Ostrom, Examining the Work of State Courts, 1994, 8-9. 31 Committee on Long Range Planning, Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, Washington, D.C.: Judicial Conference of the United States, November 1994:11. Chapter 5 Corrections The field of corrections addressed in this section includes the adult and juvenile justice agencies responsible for the incarceration, detention, supervision, and surveillance of those accused or convicted of committing crimes. The corrections system encompasses institutional correctionsÑour nationÕs prison systemÑand facilities such as jails that temporarily confine those accused or convicted of crime. Community corrections includes probation, an alternative sentence to jail or prison/detention, as well as paroling authorities which have responsibility for hearings on releasing offenders from incarceration or detention and supervision following release. There is no standard organizational model defining the relationships between correctional agencies on the state or federal level. In some states, the institutional correctional agency not only manages the prisons but has responsibility for parole release decisions and parolee supervision. In other states, the paroling authority is separate from the stateÕs institutional correctional agency. For purposes of this section, institutional corrections refers to prisons and jails, and community corrections refers to probation and parole. In recent years, AmericaÕs correctional population has grown 7 to 8 percent annually and is now triple the 1980 population, with approximately 3.8 million individuals under some form of correctional supervision.1 Of the total correctional population, about 75 percent is under supervision within the community.2 Of those incarcerated, about two-thirds are in federal and state prisons, and one-third are in local jails.3 The Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force did not include recommendations for institutional corrections or probation, and made only four recommendations for parole.4 The Task Force urged parole boards to: ¥ Notify victims of crime and their families in advance of parole hearings, if names and addresses have been previously provided by these individuals. ¥ Allow victims of crime, their families, or their representatives to attend parole hearings and make known the effect of the offenderÕs crime on them. ¥ Take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that parolees charged with a crime while on parole are immediately returned to custody and kept there until the case is adjudicated. ¥ Not apply the exclusionary rule to parole revocation hearings. The narrow scope of the Task Force recommendations was largely a reflection of the times. In the early 1980s, victimsÕ rights and services in corrections were virtually nonexistent. Reforms to increase victim participation largely addressed the front end of the criminal justice system, affecting the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement, prosecution, and the judiciary. With the exception of enacting rights for victims to submit victim impact statements at parole hearings, victimsÕ rights and services within adult and juvenile corrections were largely ignored. The Role of Victims in Institutional and Community Corrections Over the past decade, the basic philosophy of correctional agencies has undergone radical change. Traditionally, correctional agencies viewed their role as limited to punishing and attempting to rehabilitate offenders. Today, serving crime victims is also widely accepted as an important part of the mission of correctional agencies. This new role is reflected in their governing laws and internal policies and procedures, as well as in the attitudes of correctional personnel. Legislative reforms mandating that correctional agencies provide specific services to victims of crime have substantially increased the scope of victimsÕ rights and services in corrections. As a result, many correctional agencies have gained an understanding of crime victimsÕ needs and developed policies and procedures sensitive to those needs. These agencies now interpret their responsibility to Òprotect the publicÓ as including individual crime victims. Prisons The increasing number of offenders in the nationÕs correctional systems since 1982, when the PresidentÕs Task Force Final Report was issued, has had an enormous impact on institutional corrections. In 1982, there were a little more than 400,000 inmates in federal and state prisons in the United States.7 By 1996, this number had quadrupled to 1.6 million.8 Increasingly, correctional institutions are realizing that victims are important clients. Two significant steps toward this goal were the incorporation of service to crime victims in mission statements and the creation of victim advisory boards, both of which help guide the overall operation of correctional agencies. Correctional agencies now provide a variety of services to victims including victim notification of offender status, restitution collection, protection from intimidation and physical harm, and innovative victim impact programs to help educate offenders about the impact of the crimes they have committed.9 These creative programs and services are discussed in detail later in this section. Jails In the United States, jails typically hold men and women who are awaiting trial or serving sentences of one year or less. In 1996, local jail authorities held or supervised an estimated 591,459 men and women, of whom 12 percent (72,977) were supervised through such programs as community service, work release, weekend reporting, electronic monitoring, and other alternatives to incarceration.10 With more jails being used as longer term incarceration facilities for convicted offenders, it is paramount that jails also provide basic services for crime victims such as notification of changes in offender status and collection of court-ordered restitution. Jail personnel also have a responsibility to protect the safety of victims by notifying them of the pending release of an alleged or convicted offender. When victims or witnesses complain to jails about harassment or retaliation by alleged or convicted offenders under their supervision, jail personnel must respond immediately. A 1996 survey of jails in mega, large, and medium jurisdictions nationwide found, however, that implementation of basic victimsÕ services, while improving, is still far from an acceptable level. Of the jails responding to the survey, less than 50 percent have specifically assigned a staff member to handle inquiries from crime victims or witnesses and to provide information to them. In addition, 30 percent of jails do not notify victims and witnesses about the status of offenders or of an offenderÕs scheduled release from incarceration, and 50 percent do not notify victims and witnesses of an offenderÕs early release or escape.11 Community Corrections The underlying philosophy of community corrections is also changing significantly. Providing rights and services for crime victims at this critical juncture of the criminal and juvenile justice processes is taking on increasing importance because probation is now the most widely used correctional tool, and its use is increasing at a faster rate than any other form of corrections.12 In 1994, of the estimated 3.8 million individuals under some form of corrections in the United States, 75 percent were under community corrections. Of those under community corrections, 60 percent were on probation and 15 percent were on parole.13 Moreover, as the rate of incarceration in our nationÕs prisons dramatically increases, community corrections increasingly is used as a spillway for prisons.14 Not only has the use of probation expanded, but the type of offender currently sentenced to probation is starkly different from the probationer of 30 years ago. Today, the supervised population tends to be more violent, substance abusing, and transient. Professionals in the field of community corrections face tremendous challenges in working with these offenders, who can pose an increasing threat to their victims and to the community at large. Victims' rights in the parole process have improved substantially in the past decade. As of 1995, 43 states have enacted laws allowing victims to give input at parole hearings through victim impact statements; 29 states provide, upon request, victim notification of offender release; 28 states allow crime victims to attend and testify at parole hearings; and 10 states have ÒopenedÓ their parole board hearings to the general public.15 Today, 38 percent of paroling authorities have a staff member designated to accompany victims, witnesses, and their families to any hearings related to the offenderÕs release.16 To reduce potential intimidation and confrontation between victims and offenders at parole hearings, 75 percent of paroling authorities have taken some type of action such as separating victims and offenders by one-way glass or offering victims the opportunity to meet with the parole board separately.17 However, less than half of parole agencies provide waiting areas for victims that are separated by sight and sound from the inmate or inmate's family.18 Regarding victim notification of the outcome of parole hearings, there has been significant progress. A recent survey found that 88 percent of paroling authorities now inform victims of hearing outcomes by letter.19 How Correctional Agencies Are Responding to Crime Victims Increasingly, correctional agencies are recognizing that victims are important clients who need vital services. Correctional agencies are now more committed to protecting victims from intimidation and harassment, notifying them of offendersÕ status and scheduled release, providing avenues for victim input into release decisions, and collecting restitution. Correctional agencies are also recognizing the important role that victims can play in helping them develop policies, procedures, and programs that benefit victims as well as correctional staff and offenders. Across the nation, crime victims are being asked to join advisory committees and agency boards, become official members of parole commissions, and serve as teachers in innovative classes that sensitize offenders to the human impact of their offenses. Correctional agencies are also beginning to acknowledge the needs of victims in their mission statements. In 1996, only 40 percent of adult institutional corrections, 51 percent of juvenile institutional corrections, and 66 percent of paroling authorities included service to crime victims as an important part of their mission.20 In Oregon, the stateÕs board of parole has adopted the following mission statement: The BoardÕs mission is to work in partnership with the Department of Corrections and local supervisory authorities to protect the public and reduce the risk of repeat criminal behavior through incarceration and community supervision decisions based on applicable laws, victimsÕ interests, public safety, and recognized principles of offender behavioral change. A mission statement addressing victims has also been adopted by the Maine Department of Corrections: Restorative justice challenges us to design and administer a system that places the needs of the victims and the harm done by the offending behavior at the center of the process by which we sanction and hold the offender accountable; and, prevention is our moral obligation. We will promote, support, and facilitate prevention activities by working with families and communities to address these factors which put children at risk, and to protect children from those risks. Crime victims can help ensure that victim safety and services are priorities for correctional agencies by serving on victim advisory committees or boards. The Virginia Parole Board is one of a number of parole boards across the country that have invited victims to be members. According to the Director of VirginiaÕs Department of Corrections, Òby having victims on the board we have individuals that can talk to other parole board members about what the impact of the crime was on the victim and the consequences on the victim of their decision.Ó21 Victim Notification Victim notification of the release of alleged or convicted offenders is a critical service for victims. Without notification, they are denied the ability to take precautions for their safety. The importance of providing offender release information to crime victims has long been recognized. In 1982, it was one of the primary recommendations of the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime for parole. In the Final Report, the Task Force recommended that parole boards notify victims and their families in advance of parole hearings if victims provide the paroling authority with their name and address. In addition, the Task Force called on parole boards to allow victims of crime, their families, or their representatives to attend parole hearings and to provide information about the impact of the crime. According to the 1996 National Victim Services Survey of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Agencies and Paroling Authorities, a five-year update of the nationÕs first survey of correctional-based victimsÕ rights and services, marked improvements have occurred in this area.22 The survey found that from 1991 to 1996, the percentage of adult correctional agencies notifying victims of changes in offender status increased from 66 to 78 percent; the percentage of juvenile correctional agencies notifying victims of changes in juvenile offenders status increased from 18 to 55 percent; and the percentage of paroling authorities notifying victims of changes in offender status increased from 70 to 80 percent.23 There is, however, no consistent notification on a state-by-state basis or at the federal level. Some correctional agencies notify victims of only certain types of inmate releases. Others notify victims of changes in classification of offenders. Some notify victims of an inmateÕs escape, while others notify victims of an inmateÕs clemency or death. On the federal level, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has created one of the nationÕs first comprehensive victim notification programs, which has served as a model to the states for the past decade. Innovative technologies have emerged in recent years that augment victimsÕ access to both notification and information. At least 10 state correctional agencies utilize automated voice response notification systems that place telephone calls to victims, upon request, and inform them of offendersÕ pending release or release hearings. Victims can also contact a centralized call center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Live operators at the center confirm offender status updates and referrals to community-based victim services. Many state correctional agencies are following the example of the Illinois Department of Corrections, which incorporates current updates on inmatesÕ status, location and relevant upcoming hearings that are available to victims and the general public via the Internet. In most jurisdictions, victims need to be told about their right to certain types of notification because state and federal laws require that crime victims must request that they be notified. Too many victims of crime do not request notification simply because they have not been informed that they have a right to do so. Victim and Witness Protection Every day in the United States, victims and witnesses are harassed, intimidated, and retaliated against by incarcerated offenders. Many correctional agencies have responded creatively to this problem. Today, 37 states revoke an offending inmateÕs privileges, 36 transfer the inmate to a more restrictive level, 28 allow the filing of a new criminal charge, and 21 allow enhancement of the inmateÕs sentence. In addition, 40 state correctional agencies document such harassment and threats in the offenderÕs case file, 35 recommend investigation for additional prosecution, and 31 recommend revocation of parole when a parolee harasses, intimidates, or retaliates against a victim.24 In California, the state is using an innovative method to stop the increasing number of instances in which inmates use telephones or letters to threaten and harass victims. The California Department of Corrections has created a program to block victimsÕ phone numbers from inmate access and check inmatesÕ outgoing mail. In managing offenders who are ordered by the court to community supervision or released early from prison with supervision, probation and parole officers need to ensure the safety of victims and the public. Officers should use surveillance to identify offenders who pose a continued threat and improve monitoring efforts such as checking with contacts at the offender's home, employment, and neighbors to ensure that they are meeting the conditions of their probation or parole. Just as there are special units in law enforcement and prosecutors offices, probation and parole departments have begun to establish special units, such as sex offender and domestic violence units, to provide intensive probation or parole to reduce the safety risks to victims and society as a whole. Agents in these units carry smaller case loads and have received specialized training in intensive supervision of the type of offenders assigned to the unit. Correctional agencies are also using intermediate sanctions to heighten victim safety. Such sanctions include electronic monitoring, house arrest, random alcohol and other drug testing, parole to a location other than the victimÕs community, mandatory restitution, and increased surveillance. Community Notification By mid-1997, most states had passed laws that either provided for notice to communities of released sexual offenders, or authorized the general public or certain individuals or organizations to access the sexual offender registry. Often referred to as ÒMeganÕs lawsÓ in memory of 7-year-old Megan Kanka, who was murdered by a twice-convicted sex offender paroled to her neighborhood, community notification laws recognize that a community has a compelling interest in being informed of offendersÕ whereabouts. At the federal level, in 1996 MeganÕs Law amended the community notification provisions of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act to require states to release relevant registration information when necessary to protect the public.25 To be truly effective, community notification laws require significant coordination among law enforcement officials, courts, correctional agencies, victim service providers, the news media, and other key stakeholders. Correctional agencies play a major role in providing this service by determining when and to where sex offenders will be paroled conducting community outreach and public education projects. A promising practice in planning and implementing community notification programs emerged in 1990 in the state of Washington. This truly collaborative approach takes into consideration the rights and interests of victims, the community, and offenders. The strategy incorporates the following elements: establishing requirements for registration, requiring registration information for offenders, implementing guidelines for failure to register, implementing guidelines for a preliminary offender risk assessment, compiling an Òend of reviewÓ information packet for each offender for distribution to the prosecutor in the county where the offender plans to reside; distributing special bulletins to law enforcement, developing notification policies based upon three levels of offenders (low, moderate, and high risk), creating guidelines for who should have access to sex offender registry information, and conducting community outreach efforts including community meetings and public education resources that involve victims and address their rights and needs. In addition, the automated voice notification technology described earlier in this chapter has been modified by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to provide both automated registration for convicted sex offenders and notification to designated parties. Victim Impact Statements Today, victims provide input about the impact of crime at parole (and sometimes parole violation) hearings in person, via audiotape or videotape, by teleconferencing, or in writing. Their statements give the paroling authority crucial information about crimeÕs financial, physical, and emotional impact. Victim input into the parole process is one of the few areas of victimsÕ rights in which most states have enacted legislation. In the past two decades, the passage of laws requiring victim input at parole has been one of the greatest advances in victimsÕ rights, with 43 states now providing this right.26 To make this right meaningful, however, paroling authorities must notify victims of crime and their families of hearings in advance and schedule time during the hearing to allow them to describe the crimeÕs impact on their lives as required by law in 45 states.27 New state laws requiring victim notification and input into the decisions of parole boards have helped to ensure that victims have a meaningful voice in these decisions. Patricia Pollard was kidnaped, beaten, and raped in 1974. Her attacker, Eric Mageary, was sentenced by the state of Arizona to 25 years to life, but was paroled in 1989 without the required notice to Ms. Pollard. He was later reincarcerated for a parole violation. In 1990, Arizona passed a state constitutional victimsÕ bill of rights, along with implementing legislation, which guaranteed victims the right to notice of and to be heard at hearings, including parole hearings. State law also provided a remedy if a victimÕs rights were ignored. In 1993, again without required notice to Ms. Pollard, Mageary was granted release to home arrest. Her right to notification having been violated, Ms. Pollard exercised the remedies allowed her under state law, and a rehearing was ordered. After Ms. Pollard testified, the board reversed its decision and denied MagearyÕs release.28 In Wisconsin, the chairman of the state parole board personally visits with victims in their homes to obtain victim impact information, bringing a personal touch to what is often an intimidating process. Restitution Restitution is an important part of an offenderÕs sentence. It increases accountability by holding the offender financially responsible for the crime, and it compensates the victim for at least a portion of the costs caused by the offenderÕs actions. Correctional agencies play a pivotal role in ensuring that offenders are held accountable to their victims through the collection of restitution. Today, 43 correctional agencies and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have the authority to collect restitution from offenders sentenced to prison terms.29 The Federal Bureau of Prisons created an effective restitution collection program in the late 1980s, and just over half of state correctional agencies have used this model to develop similar programs. The reluctance of offenders to pay restitution has led states to be creative in monitoring and collecting restitution. Sources of restitution payments now include inmatesÕ work wages, trust accounts, state and federal income tax returns, lottery winnings, and inheritances. In California, the state department of corrections has statutory authority to attach all deposits in inmate trust accounts and take up to 50 percent for direct victim restitution and court-imposed fines. Today, 50 percent of working inmates in the state are paying restitution.30 Furthermore, some states allow bail payments to be automatically applied to fulfill restitution orders. (For a more indepth discussion of restitution, see Chapter 15 of this report.) Violations of Conditions of Supervision In 22 states, victims are allowed to give input prior to or during parole violation hearings.31 However, when a parolee is charged with violating the conditions of supervision, only six states routinely notify victims of the violation and the impending revocation hearing.32 In 14 states, victims of the original offense for which the offender was on parole are notified of subsequent parole violations.33 In 23 states, victims of a new offense resulting in a parole violation are notified of the fact that the offender was a parolee and the crime was a violation of the conditions of parole.34 Any victim who so requests should be notified of violations of conditions of supervision and provided the opportunity to provide input prior to or at any relevant hearings. Classes for Offenders on the Impact of Crime on Victims Over the past decade, the number of educational programs in correctional institutions that involve both offenders and victims has increased greatly. The purpose of such programs is to help offenders understand the devastating impact their crimes have on victims and their families and friends, on their communities, and on themselves and their own families. For victims, participation in programs with offenders is useful because although they cannot undo the harm they have suffered, they may prevent others from being victimized. Studies indicate that participation in impact panels can help victims heal emotional scars.35 ¥ Most notable among victim-offender programs is the Impact of Crime on Victims (IOC) program initiated by the California Youth Authority in 1986, and since replicated in over 20 juvenile and adult correctional agencies and numerous diversion programs. IOC programs include a 40-hour educational curriculum designed to educate offenders about how different crimes affect victims and society as a whole. ¥ The U.S. Department of the Navy, Corrections and Programs Division, took an important step in integrating victims into its corrections process when it issued guidelines in 1996 instructing U.S. naval correctional facilities to implement impact-of-crime classes for prisoners prior to their release from custody. Information from both inmates and correctional staff indicate that offenders have a greater appreciation of the impact of their criminal conduct after completing the classes. ¥ The Federal Bureau of Prisons has piloted victim awareness classes on drug and domestic violence crimes for offenders in halfway houses in Baltimore, Maryland, and Tampa, Florida. Victim-Offender Dialogue During the past two decades, a number of victim-offender dialogue programs have been developed in juvenile and criminal justice agencies, predominantly in juvenile probation agencies. These programs, which primarily work with property crime cases, give victims an opportunity to engage in a structured dialogue with their offenders, who have already admitted their guilt or been convicted/adjudicated. When conducted with sensitivity to the victim and with care to ensure that participation by both victim and offender is fully voluntary, the victim-offender dialogue process has been found to be a very effective tool to help victims overcome their feelings of trauma and loss. The program gives victims greater satisfaction with the justice system, increases their likelihood of being compensated, and reduces fear of future victimization. In recent years, correctional agencies have begun to experiment with the use of victim-offender dialogue in violent crime cases. ¥ In 1995, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice initiated a victim-offender mediation/dialogue program for victims of severe violence and their incarcerated offenders. The program was implemented with careful procedures to ensure that all cases are initiated by the victim and are appropriate for this form of intervention. The program has been so popular that more than 230 cases are currently waiting to enroll. The Victimization of Correctional Staff Correctional agencies have begun to recognize the impact of victimization on their employees. Correctional professionals are exposed to a wide range of victimization including verbal harassment by inmates, sexual harassment by inmates or colleagues, physical or sexual assaults, hostage-taking incidents, and even murder. To respond to the acute and chronic trauma this violence has on employees, 32 adult correctional agencies have developed written policies and procedures to respond to staff victimization and critical incidents.36 When correctional staff are victimized, procedures should be followed that deal with the effects of victimization. Most agencies have focused their attention on preventing, not responding to, these critical incidents. There is still little known about model community supervision protocols that prevent and respond to staff victimization. Many departments that manage prisons, including the California, Texas, and South Carolina Departments of Corrections, have developed solid procedures to assist victimized staff. These programs could be implemented in the field of community supervision. Guidelines for responding to correctional employees victimized in the line of duty have been developed under a national training and technical project funded by the Office for Victims of Crime.37 It provides a comprehensive model for correctional agencies to follow in accordance with victimsÕ rights laws within their state or on the federal level. The Emergence of Restorative Justice The criminal justice system as a whole, and corrections in particular, is undergoing a shift from an exclusive focus on offenders to a broader concern for the interests of victims and the community. When they seek restorative justice, agencies hope to repair some of the harm to the victim and the community through service and support. An important part of restorative justice is actively bringing offenders into the process of addressing the harm they have caused by both holding them directly accountable and helping them become productive, law abiding members of their community. Correctional agencies are uniquely situated to ensure that offenders are held accountable to their victims and to the community. Many correctional agencies are initiating victim-offender programs because of their restorative potential and placing renewed emphasis on traditional practices such as restitution which exemplify the restorative tenet of holding an offender accountable for the financial losses suffered by their victim. Numerous correctional agencies have created restorative justice staff positions, developed victim-offender programs, and refocused agency policies and programs on restorative principles. National correctional associations have initiated restorative justice committees that include victims and advocates as members. Many corrections professionals feel that this new perspective offers unique opportunities for improving the effectiveness of their work and allowing them to positively contribute to the safety and well-being of society. Recommendations from the Field for Corrections Correctional agencies now provide a variety of victim services and creative new programs to make offenders more aware of and responsible for the consequences of their crimes. Many agencies regularly incorporate victim impact information into presentence investigation reports, collect and disburse restitution, and notify victims of and allow their participation in parole hearings. Nonetheless, much work remains to involve victims in correctional decisions as fully as their legislative and constitutional rights allow. The following recommendations offer specific steps to move correctional agencies toward that goal. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #1 Adult and juvenile correctional agencies should open channels of communication with the community and with crime victims. As a first step, every state department of corrections and paroling authority should establish a victim advisory committee that includes victims and service providers to guide and support victim-related policies, programs, and services. One of the most effective ways correctional agencies can become more responsive to crime victimsÕ needs is engaging the community. Increased communication among corrections professionals, victim advocates, and crime victims will foster better understanding of their respective roles in the justice system and help repair longstanding misunderstandings that fuel mutual distrust. This dialogue must involve all cultural and ethnic groups in the community. The hiring of multicultural and multilingual staff for correctional agencies should become a priority to meaningfully achieve this end. Following the lead of a number of state correctional agencies, all state departments of corrections and paroling authorities should create victim advisory committees or boards to guide the development of departmental policies and programs. These committees should review and comment upon a wide range of victim-related issues, including the agencyÕs mission statement, victim notification procedures, parole procedures, policies regarding protection of victims from offender intimidation, victim-offender programming, and informational materials for victims. Crime victims, particularly those whose cases have been through the criminal or juvenile justice system, have a great deal to contribute to making the correctional system more sensitive and accessible to victims. Their expertise should be used as part of victim advisory committees to review all issues that affect victims. Similarly, some correctional officials serve in leadership capacities within state victim coalitions and victim service organizations. These mutual efforts to increase awareness and understanding of the respective needs of victims and corrections are commendable and should be expanded. Correctional agencies should have a working knowledge of the range of victim service providers and resources in their local community, and pursue opportunities for enhancing collaboration with them through interagency agreements and joint projects such as the development of victim service resource directories. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #2 Correctional agencies should designate staff to provide information, assistance, and referrals to victims of crime. The majority of adult corrections and paroling authorities have designated staff to assist victims of crime, while only a handful of juvenile correctional agencies have done so. Correctional agencies should have centralized units that provide a range of services to enforce victimsÕ rights, coordinate and implement internal training for staff, external training for victimsÕ organizations, and cross-training for allied justice professionals. In addition, every work site within correctional agencies should designate a staff member to serve as liaison to victims and service providers in the community. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #3 Mission statements guiding adult and juvenile correctional agencies and paroling authorities should recognize victims as an important constituency and address victimsÕ rights and services. Mission statements articulate an agencyÕs philosophy and guide the implementation of the agencyÕs goals, yet the majority of adult and juvenile correctional agenciesÕ mission statements are silent about their responsibility to crime victims. Including crime victims in mission statements sends a strong message that victim safety and well-being is part of the agencyÕs public safety mission, that victims are important clients of the agency, and that the agency balances its philosophy to be both offender-directed and victim-centered. This philosophy embodies the principles of restorative justice, an approach that incorporates the rights and needs of the community and the victim in offender management. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #4 Correctional agencies should notify victims, upon their request, of any change in the status of offenders, including clemency or pardon, that would allow them to have access to the community or to the victims themselves. To augment victimsÕ safety, corrections and custodial agencies must notify victims well before any planned or scheduled changes in an offenderÕs status to give them sufficient time to take precautions for their safety and prepare to participate in related hearings. Timely notice also gives victims an opportunity to exercise their right to submit a victim impact statement or attend and testify at parole or other postconviction proceedings. Notices should be provided in languages common to the community, and they should be designed to reach victims with limited literacy as well as households that do not have telephones. Upon request, victims should be notified of all significant changes in inmate status. These status changes include early, educational, work, and curfew release, and release for overcrowding, funeral and holiday furlough, discharge, parole, medical emergency, escape and apprehension, clemency, reincarceration due to revocation of parole, less restrictive classification, commutation, pardon, death, and death penalty proceedings. In addition, victims should be notified if an offender on probation or parole does any of the following: fails to comply with a special condition ordered by the court or releasing authority; is rearrested; violates bond or bail conditions; absconds; or is transferred or released from supervision. In states where there are no parole hearings, victims should be notified of the name and telephone number of the parole agent and of all conditions attaching to the supervised release. At a minimum, correction officials should provide victims with the following information and assistance regarding the release of an offender:38 ¥ The date and time of the release at least 60 days prior to release. ¥ Conditions of the release, if any, including no-contact provisions. ¥ Procedures for contacting officials when violations of release conditions occur and for reporting acts of harassment, intimidation, and violence. ¥ Name, address, and phone number of the parole or probation officer assigned to supervise the offender. ¥ Name of the offender if different from the name under which the offender was originally charged, convicted, and incarcerated. ¥ Known address, city, and county where the offender will be released or supervised. ¥ Recent picture and general description of the offender upon release. ¥ Assistance with the development of a victim Òsafety planÓ if the victim or authorities believe that the release of the offender threatens the safety of the victim or their family. ¥ Notification of any violation of the offenderÕs conditions of release, and notification of the victimÕs right to attend and provide information orally and in writing at any parole or probation revocation hearing. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #5 Correctional agencies should place a high priority on ensuring the protection of victims from inmate intimidation, threats, or physical or other harm from offenders under their supervision. Correctional agencies should use the measures available to them to limit contact between inmates and victims and respond quickly to incidents of intimidation or harassment. These measures include blocking telephone access to victimsÕ phone numbers through devices such as Caller ID, screening inmatesÕ outgoing mail, revoking inmate privileges, transferring inmates to more restrictive confinement, and in more serious cases, filing new criminal charges. Where necessary, legislative authority should be sought to facilitate the use of these measures. In addition, all correctional agencies should follow the lead of the 31 states that recommend revocation of parole when a parolee in any way harasses, intimidates, or retaliates against a victim. Special attention should be given to protecting special types of victims from threats of intimidation and harm, including victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, elder neglect and abuse, and stalking. Due to the high risk of further victimization in these cases, protective orders should be a routine condition of release. Offenders who have committed serious violent crimes and have great potential to revictimize, such as sex offenders and batterers, should be placed under intensive supervision. Officers should make frequent contacts with these offenders and their victims to ensure the victimÕs safety. Probation and parole agencies should ensure that they have sufficient multicultural and multilingual staff to communicate effectively with victims and the offenders they supervise. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #6 Correctional agencies should make information about offender status and victimsÕ rights accessible to crime victims through multilingual, toll-free numbers and printed materials. All states should develop a statewide, multilingual, toll-free information line for crime victims to receive timely information about offender status, location, release dates, parole hearing dates, conditions of parole, and other relevant information. The Washington State Department of Corrections, for example, has established a toll-free number for victims, witnesses, and concerned citizens to call for information and assistance. This innovative approach ensures accessibility of information to all victims, regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to make a long-distance telephone call. Correctional agencies should develop and distribute brochures about victimsÕ rights and services to victims of offenders they are incarcerating or supervising. Materials should be multilingual and explain the basic components and processes of the postconviction criminal and juvenile justice systems. As part of the sentencing process, victims should be given specific information about their rights and the services available to them while the offender is under community supervision or surveillance. Providing timely information to crime victims is extremely important. Most crime victims have a much better understanding of the Òfront endÓ of the criminal and juvenile justice system than corrections and parole. Victims and service providers who do not come into regular contact with the correctional system find it confusing. It is important for victims to understand how the process works, particularly how offenders are processed and the different program and surveillance activities correctional agencies provide. Victims especially need to know about their rights. The American Correctional Association strongly recommends that correctional agencies develop and make available to victims and their representatives easy-to-read descriptive materials about victimsÕ rights within the correctional system. The materials should describe the agenciesÕ policies and procedures for victimsÕ rights and services during supervision and surveillance and include the name, telephone number, and address of a supervising officer victims can contact. It is critical that the information be printed in the major languages spoken by the population in that jurisdiction. Where possible, multicultural and multilingual victim liaison officers should be available to ensure that information, assistance, and referrals are provided when needed. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #7 Correctional agencies should collect and distribute restitution payments consistent with the courtÕs order to ensure that victims receive fair compensation from offenders who are incarcerated or released on probation or parole. Wage-earning opportunities for inmates, wards, and parolees owing restitution should be increased. Restitution and other compensatory sanctions must be enforced, including requiring the timely payment of restitution as an automatic, essential condition of probation and parole. Paroling authorities should have the authority to both order restitution and incorporate a judicial restitution order as a condition of parole. Statutes should be amended to provide that any damages awarded to offenders from civil suits brought against correctional institutions be applied first to any outstanding restitution or civil judgments. When required by a court order, the obligation to make financial restitution is part of the sanction of the offender, and its collection should become a high priority in all correctional agencies. The payment of restitution should be the first financial obligation ordered by the court. Legislation should be enacted allowing the extension of probation when restitution has not been paid to permit continued supervision and enforcement of payment. Release from correctional supervision should be contingent upon meeting financial obligations to victims as well as balancing the offenderÕs reasonable opportunity to meet these obligations. The absence of offender resources at the time of sentencing should not excuse the offender from the obligation to repay the victim. Rather, reasonable terms of restitution can be put in place to collect future income. Records indicate that several million dollars are awarded to prisoners every year as a result of civil suits brought against the federal prison system and other correctional authorities. Before these monetary awards are turned over to offenders, they should be used to satisfy any outstanding restitution or civil judgement orders and to pay any outstanding fines or fees. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #8 Victims should have input into all decisions affecting the release of adult and juvenile offenders. Input can be provided through oral statements; written, audio- or videotaped victim impact statements; and video teleconferences of postconviction hearings. Victim impact statements should be included in all presentence reports for adult and juvenile offenders. Probation personnel should gather victim impact information through personal interviews with victims during the presentence investigation process, and they should ensure that presentence investigation reports address the impact of the crime on the victim, including the victimÕs financial, psychological, and physical injuries. Victim impact statement forms should be given to crime victims, and assistance should be provided, when possible, to help victims complete the forms. When completed, the statement should be attached to the presentence investigation report and added permanently to the offenderÕs or inmate's file. If the statement is written by the probation officer, the victim should be given the opportunity to read it and file any disagreements on the record. If community supervision is being considered, specific conditions of supervision should be ordered based on the victim's input. Special conditions to consider include restitution and other financial obligations such as child support, restrictions on offender contact with the victim, victim awareness classes, victim-offender programming, treatment to stop the offender's harmful behavior, treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse, community service with victim service agencies, alcohol and other drug treatment, and letters of apology when requested by the victim. Victim impact statements and other presentence information should be forwarded to probation, corrections, and parole staff to help them make appropriate recommendations to the court or paroling authority regarding classification, programming, and release decisions, including the timely payment of restitution and no-contact orders as conditions of release. Victims should be given the opportunity to update these impact statements as necessary. Effective (and preferably automated) coordination must be established among the prosecutor, court, probation, corrections and parole. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #9 Special consideration should be given to the needs of victims who participate in parole proceedings, especially when these proceedings are conducted within prisons. Correctional facilities should provide victims with an orientation to the proceedings and separate waiting areas away from the offenderÕs family and friends. Victim involvement in parole hearings was one of the first rights extended to crime victims in the area of corrections. Over the past decade, victimsÕ rights to participate in the parole process have increased considerably. In 1996, three-fourths of the states allowed victims to attend and testify at parole hearings.39 However, even though this right has been extended to most victims, parole agencies report that less than half of parole hearing cases filed have victim notification requests, and that victims attend only one-fourth of parole hearings.40 Research is needed to determine why more victims are not exercising their right to participate in the parole process. For those who choose to participate in the parole process, 38 percent of paroling authorities have designated a support person to accompany victims, witnesses, and their families to hearings related to the offenderÕs release, although that person varies by state and could be a victim-witness advocate, a hearing officer, a parole board member, or a parole investigator.41 Moreover, while the majority of paroling authorities provide information on who can attend parole hearings and their date, time, and location, other essential information such as directions to the hearing, guidelines on how to present testimony, and the order of the testimony to be presented is seldom provided. To help protect victims who come forward to attend parole hearings, 75 percent of parole agencies have established procedures to limit or control face-to-face confrontations between the victim and offender.42 However, unwanted confrontations between the victim and the offenderÕs family and friends are still a concern and it is essential that facilities provide waiting areas that separate victims and their offenders by sight and sound. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #10 Information regarding the rights and needs of crime victims should be incorporated into education for correctional staff at all levels, including administrative and line staff. When possible, interdisciplinary training programs should be conducted with other victim service providers. All agency staff and parole board members should be educated on the impact of victimization and victim services as part of their job orientation and in ongoing inservice training. This training should include issues of cultural sensitivity. Without adequately trained staff, the provision of victimsÕ rights and services within corrections will never be fully realized. Across the broad field of corrections, training for new and experienced staff in victim services is needed. Curriculums have been developed by some states, including Washington, Utah, and South Carolina, that outline the dynamics of victimization, applicable victim rights laws and regulations, and how to respond to victimsÕ needs and concerns. In addition, to help protect victims from intimidation, harassment, and revictimization by their offenders, probation and parole training should include supervision and surveillance techniques. Finally, agencies should provide interagency training and support public awareness efforts to educate other service providers about community supervision, and they should seek out opportunities and forums to accomplish this goal. Victim service conferences and seminars provide many opportunities for training throughout the year. Myriad resources, including training curriculums, have been developed through the leadership and support of the Office for Victims of Crime. Among them are Promising Practices and Strategies for Victim Services in Corrections (National Victim Center, 1997); Promising Strategies for Victim Services in Probation and Parole (American Probation and Parole Association, 1997); and Responding to Workplace Violence and Staff Victimization (National Victim Center, 1997). Corrections Recommendation from the Field #11 Each correctional agency should establish written policies and procedures for responding to correctional staff who are victimized on or off the job, as well as for responding to critical incidents within correctional institutions. Correctional agencies should provide training on the impact of crime for staff and supervisory personnel, beginning with basic academy training. Every correctional agency should have policies, procedures, and programs to deal with staff who are victimized on or off the job and to assist their families. Support services must include short- and long-term counseling; peer support groups; group crisis intervention after critical incidents for victims, witnesses, and any agency employee who is traumatized by the incident; referrals to victim services, counseling, and support groups in the community; referrals to criminal and juvenile justice agencies in cases involving prosecution; and assistance with completing victim compensation and workers compensation forms. Programs should also address the special needs of staff who witness executions or who provide death notifications. Special training courses should be provided for supervisors on victimized staff in the workforce. Protocols should be developed to prevent and respond to offender victimization of officers and staff. Work-related violence is treated either as a criminal or an administrative matter depending on the nature of the offense. Regardless of the sanction, victimized staff and their families should be automatically notified of all major decisions regarding their victimization. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #12 To increase offender awareness of the consequences of their actions on victimsÕ lives, correctional agencies for both adult and juvenile offenders should use victim impact panels and conduct courses about the effects of crime on peopleÕs lives. Victim impact awareness efforts should be a basic component of the educational and treatment program of correctional agencies in diversion, probation, prison, detention, and parole settings. Resources should be allocated to maximize the number of participating offenders. Victim impact classes within correctional agencies should be expanded nationwide, using victim and community volunteers to speak to the classes. Victim impact panel volunteers should include individuals from culturally diverse communities and persons with bilingual speaking skills. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #13 Victim-offender dialogue programs that ensure voluntary victim involvement, protect and support victims, and use highly trained facilitators and mediators should be available for victims upon their request. Mediated dialogue between victims and offenders allows victims to ask questions about how and why they committed their crimes. It allows offenders to learn more about the impact of their crimes and to express remorse when possible. Offender accountability is an important goal of this process but the needs of victims should be the central focus. Participation must be voluntary for both parties, and programs must carefully screen and prepare victims and offenders prior to arranging for meetings. Meetings should be conducted by a trained facilitator who is well schooled in the basic tenets of victim issues and sensitive to the multicultural and multilingual needs of the victim. Victims should be offered counseling support before and after meetings and allowed accompaniment to the meetings, if requested. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #14 Crime victims should be notified of any violation of the conditions of an offenderÕs probation or parole and should be allowed to provide input prior to or during the probation or parole violation hearing. The victim of the original crime, as well as the victim of any new crime that is the basis of a revocation hearing, should be notified of the rearrest of the offender and should have an opportunity for input into the revocation hearing. Corrections Recommendation from the Field #15 When a sex offender is released, uniform community notification practices should be developed and implemented to promote public awareness and provide consistent protection for citizens from state to state. As of mid-1997, most states had enacted laws providing for community notification of released sex offenders or authorizing access to sex offender registration by the general public or to certain community organizations and officials.43 Considering that few states had implemented such a law prior to 1994, great legislative progress has been made to improve the safety of victims and our communities. However, while the federal MeganÕs Law amendment that took effect in May 1996 requires states to release relevant information on registered sex offenders as necessary for public protection, each state is allowed to determine how such notification will be accomplished. As a result, while virtually anyone in the nation can find out where registered offenders reside in every county in Kansas, for example, through the website of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation,44 registration information in Connecticut may be released only to governmental agencies conducting background checks or to an individual citizen when it is determined that disclosure is necessary to protect that individualÕs safety.45 In California, citizens can view a listing of registered offenders in the state via CD-Rom at their local law enforcement agency,46 while individuals in North Carolina must provide pertinent information about the person they are checking on in order to obtain a copy of an offenderÕs registration form.47 Massachusetts permits inquiries on whether any sex offenders live or work within a one-mile radius of a specific address or street.48 Such wide disparity in the way community notification laws are implemented defeats the intent of the federal mandate. As Congressman Dick Zimmer, the legislationÕs primary sponsor, testified at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Crime, ÒOur communities have the right to know if there is a potential threat to their childrenÕs safety. But that safety is jeopardized if every state has different notification procedures. We must strengthen the existing law and ensure that a strong, uniform MeganÕs Law is in effect in every state.Ó49 To create a community notification system that is effective across state lines, states must adopt policies and procedures that are consistent with those in other states. Information sharing among the officials responsible for sex offender registration and notification programs in each state is critical to developing the most effective notification strategy possible. In 1996, in response to a Presidential directive, the Attorney General developed a plan for a national database to track convicted sex offenders; shortly thereafter, Congress mandated the establishment of such a database.50 The database has been operational since early 1997, and a growing number of states participate by providing sex offense conviction information. The database can be accessed by law enforcement officers from all jurisdictions, and alerts them to individualsÕ sex offense convictions in states that participate in the database. States should be encouraged to participate in the national database. Furthermore, as community notification strategies are implemented and improved, victims and advocates should be involved in all planning, outreach, and education efforts. Additionally, public education and awareness of the proper use of the information obtained through community notification must be integrated into the notification process, not only to inform members of the public how to access such information but also to warn of the consequences of taking criminal action against an offender. Endnotes 1 Beck, A. J., and D. K. Gillard, Prisoners in 1994: BJS Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 1995; Searching for Answers: Criminal Justice Research, Development and Evaluation, Annual Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1995, NCJ 162042. 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1982:83-85 (discussing the recommendations for parole boards). 5 American Correctional Association, Task Force on Victims of Crime: Final Report, Fort Worth, TX: National Victim Center, June 1988:3-4. In 1989, the Task Force became a standing committee of the American Correctional Association. 6 American Correctional Association Victims Committee, Report and Recommendations on Victims of Juvenile Crime, American Correctional Association Victims Committee, 1995. 7 Id. at 1. 8 ÒNationÕs Jail and Prison Incarceration Rate Almost Doubled During Last Decade,Ó DOJ Press Release, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 1997:1 (press release citing D. K. Gilliard and A. J. Beck); Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1996, Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 162842. 9 Id. 10 Beck and Gillard, Prisoners in 1994, 3. 11 Seymour, A., National Victim Services Survey of American Jails 1996, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, April, 1997. 12 Champion, D. J., Probation and Parole in the United States, Merrill Publishing Company, 1990:27. 13 Camp, G. and C. Camp, The Corrections Yearbook 1994, South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., 1994. 14 Brown, R. H., Statistical Abstract of the United States, Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Commerce, September 1994. 15 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of VictimsÕ Rights Laws, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997:¤9 (discussing the right to input at parole hearings). 16 Seymour, A., National Victim Services Survey of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Agencies and Paroling Authorities 1996, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, April 1997:15. 17 Id. at 15, 16. 18 Id. at 16, 17 (48% of paroling authorities provide separate waiting areas). 19 Id. at 17. 20 Id. at 1. 21 This statement was made in January of 1997, at the American Correctional AssociationÕs winter conference by Ron Angelo, Director of VirginiaÕs Department of Corrections. 22 Seymour, National Victim Services Survey of Adult and Juvenile Correctional and Paroling Authorities 1996. 23 Id. at 25. 24 Seymour, Crime Victims and Corrections, 5. 25 MeganÕs Law, Pub. L. No. 104-145, 110 Stat. 1345, amended subsection (d) of section 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (codified at 42 U.S.C. ¤ 14071), which contains the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. 26 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook.. 27 Id. 28 State ex rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles, 875 P.2d 824 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1, 1993) review den. 1994. 29 Seymour, Crime Victims and Corrections, 5. 30 Seymour, A., California Department of Corrections Evaluation of the Victim Services Program, June 1995. 31 Seymour, Crime Victims and Corrections, 5. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 For example, in a three-year study funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health to measure the effect of victim impact panels on victims who speak at them, data indicated that over 80 percent of the victims were helped by speaking, ten percent were neither helped nor hurt, and eight percent were hurt. Mercer, Dorothy, R. Lord, and J. Lord, Sharing Their Stories: What are the Benefits? Who is Helped?, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Chicago, Illinois, November 8, 1994. The victims who were hurt by speaking apparently were pushed into speaking before they were ready. 36 Seymour, Crime Victims and Corrections. 37 Seymour, A., et al., Promising Practices and Strategies for Victim Services in Corrections: Responding to Workplace Violence and Staff Victimization, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997:53-54. 38 Drawn from: Seymour, Promising Practices and Strategies for Victim Services in Corrections. 39 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook.. 40 Seymour, National Victim Services Survey of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Agencies and Paroling Authorities 1996, 14. 41 Id. at 14-15. 42 Id. at 15. 43 States which prohibit access to sex offender registration information except to criminal justice officials are Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, and New Mexico. 44 KAN. STAT. ANN. ¤ 22-4909. Registered offenders can be checked at www.ink.org/public/kbi. 45 CONN. GEN. STAT. ¤ 54-102r. 46 CAL. PENAL CODE ¤ 290.4. 47 N.C. GEN. STAT. ¤ 14-208.9. 48 MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 6¤¤ 178c et seq. 49 Hearing on MeganÕs Law Before the Subcomm. On Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., Testimony of Rep. Zimmer (Mar. 7, 1996). 50 Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093. SECTION III New Directions for Victim Assistance and Allied Professions Members of many different professions work directly with crime victims or come into contact with them on a daily basis. In addi-tion to the field of victim assistance, primary among these are the fields of health care, mental health, law, education, faith, business, and the news media. This section describes the important roles that these pro-fessional communities can play in assisting victims and chronicles the major accomplishments that each has made over the past few decades to meet victimsÕ needs. This section also identifies areas within each pro-fession where services for victims of crime can be enhanced and highlights the innovative promising practices that have been developed to improve vic-tim services. Each chapter contains recommendations developed by experts in that profession and others in the victimsÕ field. The recommendations do not necessarily reflect the views of any one individual or group, but reflect a wealth of diverse voices from the field. Many of the recommendations focus on developing educational programs on victimsÕ issues, policies and protocols for working with victims, technological applications, programs that involve victims themselves in providing services, multidisciplinary initiatives, and sensitive responses to staff victimization. A com-mon theme running through all of the recommendations is an urgent concern to meet the needs of underserved victims, such as victims with disabilities, hate and bias crime victims, and gang violence victims, and to improve outreach to victims when language or cultural barriers prevent access to services. Chapter 6 New Directions for the Victim Assistance Community In the early 1960s, incidents of serious crime began to steadily rise in the United States, and their devastating effect on American life was evident by the early 1970s. In 1981, the year before the convening of the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, the number of people victimized nationwide reached an historic high point. The victimsÕ movement began in earnest during this period.1 Early major strides were made in local communities by volunteers, many of whom were victims or survivors of crime motivated by the inadequate response of the criminal justice system in the aftermath of their victimization. The first three victim assistance programs in the United States were established in 1972. Two were rape crisis programs: Bay Area Women Against Rape in Alameda County, California, and Rape Crisis Services in Washington, D.C. The third program, Aid to Victims of Crime, in St. Louis, Missouri, concentrated on crisis intervention for all crime victims. In 1974, the first battered women's shelter was established in Denver, Colorado. The first criminal justice-based victim assistance programs were also established in the 1970s. In 1974, the first eight prosecutor-based victim-witness assistance pilot programs were created with support from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ funds also supported the development at that time of the first law enforcement-based victim-witness programs in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana. Elements of these early victim assistance programs remained guideposts as the victim assistance field grew and formed the foundation of basic victim services today: crisis intervention, support during the criminal justice process, assistance in applying for compensation and in receiving restitution, and aid during the presentence process in preparing victim impact statements (first introduced in the Fresno County, California Probation Office in 1974). In 1975, the first national organization to assist and advocate on behalf of crime victims, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, was formed, and it held its first national conference a year later.2 In 1978, the National Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence were organized by rape crisis and domestic violence programs, and the first national organization to assist homicide survivors, Parents of Murdered Children, was created. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was formed 2 years later in 1980. In addition, the Vera Institute of Justice began a demonstration project in the 1970s that assisted victims and witnesses in criminal courts in Brooklyn, New York. Today, this comprehensive nonprofit program known as Victim Services, Inc., employs a staff of 650 and operates with an annual budget of $30 million. By the late 1970s, the victim assistance field had developed to the point of needing federal support. The U.S. Department of Justice, through a grant to the Urban Institute, responded by publishing a guide to the elements of a model victim assistance program and by beginning a project to identify exemplary projects around the country that other jurisdictions could replicate. In 1979, the Department funded the creation of six state networks of victim assistance programs. In the 1980s, numerous other national victim advocacy and assistance organizations were established, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, formed in 1984 to implement the newly passed National Missing and Exploited Children Act, and the National Victim Center, established in 1985 to advocate for the creation and expansion of victimsÕ rights within the criminal and civil justice systems. Other national organizations started in the 1980s include Security on Campus, founded by surviving parents after their daughter was murdered on a college campus; Concerns of Police Survivors, formed by the families of slain police officers disillusioned with the general lack of support and rights they received in the aftermath of their loss; and the Victim Assistance Legal Organization, founded by Frank Carrington, a member of the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force. The Impact of the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force The 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime provided leadership at a critical time for the victim assistance field. It highlighted the lack of services to victims and underscored the need for all participants in the justice system to respond sensitively to victims. The Task Force did not directly address the services provided by victim assistance programs based outside of the justice system. It did, however, append a set of model program elements for justice system-based victim-witness programs and provided references to programs that were implementing them. These elements included: ¥ Crisis counseling at crime scenes. ¥ Hotline services for victims and witnesses 24 hours a day. ¥ Emergency monetary aid for needy victims with problems caused by crime. ¥ Information on and referrals to victim assistance and compensation programs. ¥ Assistance with victim compensation. ¥ Public education. ¥ Intercession on behalf of victims and witnesses with employers and creditors. ¥ Transportation services. ¥ Translator services. ¥ Supportive counseling or companionship during court appearances. Today, many community-based victim assistance programs provide these services or work in collaboration with other agencies to do so. Additional services that many programs provide include information about victimsÕ rights, child care, support groups, security information, case monitoring, prevention activities, and assisting victims who want to become involved in activism. Many programs also provide education and training for victims about the justice process and community resources. Additional Forces That Shaped the Field of Victim Assistance Since the publication of the Final Report, three other significant developments have had a major impact on the field of victim assistance. First, the creation of state and federal funding programs for victim assistance such as the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA), which created the federal Crime Victims Fund, provided a more stable source of funding for local victim assistance programs. Since the passage of VOCA, more than $2.5 billion has been distributed to local victim assistance programs and state compensation programs from fines and penalties assessed against federal offenders. More recently, the passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 made available $1.6 billion to support domestic violence and sexual assault programs and research. In addition, all states now provide funding for victim assistance programs, although the levels of funding and types of programs funded vary greatly by state. Second, the establishment of the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) provided financial and technical support for the development and dissemination of model protocols for victim assistance programs, diverse training curricula, and promising practices, as well as the training of thousands of victim service providers nationwide. Third, the enactment of state crime victims bills of rights in the 1980s and the passage of state constitutional amendments in the 1990s have established a legal foundation for criminal and juvenile justice agencies to provide supportive services to crime victims, such as information and referrals, assistance with victim impact statements, help in collecting restitution, and a wide range of victim notification services. Victim Assistance Services Today This nationÕs capacity to respond to victims has changed significantly in the 15 years since the release of the Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force. The victim assistance movement has grown rapidly into a full-fledged advocacy and service field dedicated to meeting the physical, financial, and psychological needs of victims and their families. More than 10,000 programs now provide support and assistance to victims in the aftermath of crime. Victim assistance programs have become part of the nationÕs criminal and juvenile justice infrastructure and now exist in law enforcement agencies, prosecutorsÕ offices, and correctional agencies. Over 2,000 community-based programs assist battered women, and over half provide shelter.3 Nationwide there are 2,000 rape crisis centers, more than 200 chapters of the advocacy and support group Parents of Murdered Children, and over 500 chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Multidisciplinary childrenÕs advocacy centers, many of which are community or hospital-based, help abused children in more than 350 jurisdictions, and Triad programs assist elderly crime victims in more than 525 communities. Numerous national organizations assist and advocate on behalf of crime victims, providing essential support for the expanding network of Victim Assistance programs across the country. These are extraordinary accomplishments for a movement that started modestly only three decades ago. Public Awareness Today, many victim assistance programs at the local, state, and national levels are involved in raising public awareness about crime victims issues and available services. Many programs provide education about victim needs and appropriate and sensitive treatment to police, prosecutors, judges and corrections officials on an ongoing basis. Advocates for victim services also educate students in schools and at other community locations, make television appearances, post advertisements, and distribute program literature. At the national level, Congress designates one week each year, usually in late April, as National Crime Victims Rights Week. During that week, national awards are presented to outstanding victim service providers from across the country. The week also provides an opportunity for thousands of local communities to pay tribute to the millions of Americans who have been victimized by crime. Each year the Office for Victims of Crime sponsors the development of a public awareness Resource Guide for victim assistance programs to use in planning National Crime VictimsÕ Rights Week activities. Over the years, hundreds of ideas to increase public awareness of victimÕs issues have been presented in the guide. They include sponsoring candlelight vigils, runs, rallies, memorial walls, and tree plantings; conducting forums; publishing editorials and broadcasting public service announcements; creating posters, buttons and brochures; and displaying public awareness information in courthouses, school libraries, hospitals, local retail establishments, and other civic locations. For example, in California, the Youth Authority and Department of Corrections each year print copies of the Resource Guide materials and distribute them to their many facilities throughout the state to increase offender awareness of the impact of victimization. Inmates also print public awareness materials for victim assistance programs to distribute throughout the week. Since 1995, the VictimsÕ Assistance Legal Organization has produced OVCÕs Resource Guide and each year distributes it to approximately 6,000 programs nationwide. Expanding Victim Assistance Services As the victim assistance field has grown, so has its awareness of the complex needs of crime victims and the demand for coordinated, multidisciplinary responses. There is increasing understanding that services are needed for communities as a whole when they are affected by certain crimes, such as acts of mass violence and hate and bias motivated violence. At the same time, victim assistance providers are recognizing that services must be tailored to meet the needs of traditionally underserved crime victims including diverse cultural populations, crime victims with disabilities, elderly crime victims, victims of gang violence, and victims of white collar crime/fraud. Expanded knowledge about trauma, grief intervention, and the genesis of criminal activity is leading victim assistance providers to develop programs that address these issues. In short, the field of victim assistance is dynamic and evolving. A few of the issues currently facing the field are discussed below. Community Response to Crime Victims Communities around the country are working toward the goal of integrated victim service delivery systems where quality services to crime victims are available and readily accessible to all victims. In some communities this approach takes the form of making services available to victims in one location. ¥ In Jacksonville, Florida, a unique comprehensive victim service center has been created that provides a range of services in one location for all crime victims. Center staff operate an emergency fund for victims and can pay for expenses such as emergency medical items and new locks for burglarized homes. Counselors at the center provide therapy onsite and respond with law enforcement to major catastrophes and homicides as part of a crisis response team. A representative of the state victim compensation program and self-help groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Parents of Murdered Children are also located at the facility. Bringing these critical services to one location greatly facilitates the systemÕs response to victims: victims have immediate access to a range of needed services. The program has its own cable television show and school crime prevention program and offers many other services for victims. In other communities, this integrated approach takes the form of strong partnerships among victim service providers, criminal justice and emergency response personnel, allied professionals, and community leaders. ¥ In Denver, Colorado, and Travis County, Texas, the Office for Victims of Crime has provided funding for two demonstration sites called Victim Services 2000 to develop and implement seamless, comprehensive, coordinated, interdisciplinary systems of services for victims of crime. It is hoped that the projects will result in model environments for crime victims in which culturally and linguistically appropriate services are available to every victim. Both projects will conduct thorough needs assessments, develop innovative intervention strategies and services, institutionalize cross-training on victims issues throughout the criminal justice, community nonprofit, and allied professional communities, and utilize technology to integrate services and communication among providers. Victim Services 2000 projects will serve as models for other communities to follow in the 21st century. Community Crisis Response Communities are also developing community crisis response capabilities to improve services to victims of violent crime following multiple victimizations. Individual or teams of trained responders assist victims through debriefings and training in the aftermath of criminal incidents that cause significant trauma to a community. ¥ The National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) has provided training and technical assistance to support the establishment of crisis response teams in more than 15 states. Since 1986, NOVA has sent crisis response teams to 125 communities and has provided technical assistance to more than 300 others in the aftermath of communitywide disasters and acts of violence. ¥ Building on the work of NOVA and others, the Office for Victims of Crime has established a Community Crisis Response program to help communities following multiple serious victimizations. The program has been used to send a crisis response team to the Chicago Housing Authority following a weekend in which 13 people were murdered; to assist the Ramah branch of the Navajo Nation after an eight-fatality drunk driving crash; to bring a noted psychologist to work with survivors and community members following a quadruple homicide on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming; to provide help to the community of Dryden, New York, after the brutal murder of two local high school girls; and to fund crisis response teams that provided training and debriefings for thousands of school children, teachers and medical personnel after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Prior to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia, OVC funded NOVA to provide community crisis response training to approximately 70 victim advocates and volunteers across the State of Georgia on national and international crisis response. Through this initiative, the Atlanta Victim-Witness Assistance Program developed a comprehensive crisis response plan for victim advocates in conjunction with the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games. OVC also funded the development of a videotape for law enforcement and a brochure for victims. After the bombing during the Olympics in AtlantaÕs Centennial Park, the trained advocates and volunteers were instrumental in ensuring that victims received needed services. Respecting Cultural Diversity in Providing Victims Services The racial and ethnic diversity of the United States has changed considerably in the past few decades. With this transition, victim assistance professionals face new challenges. Providing effective and sensitive services to victims now requires recognizing and respecting individualsÕ cultural differences and ensuring that services and information are available in languages other than English. Unfortunately, the practice of delivering victim services does not yet fully reflect the extraordinary diversity of our nationÕs population. Some programs have made important strides by working to remove language barriers for victims in need of services. An organization called AYUDA in Washington, D.C., for example, offers bicultural and bilingual services to abused Latina women. In Orange County, California, the Gang Victim Services project of the countyÕs Community Services Program provides multicultural, multilingual support to survivors and victims of gang violence. Many other programs across the country reach out to non-English speaking victims through translated materials. The most effective of these materials provide practical information, explaining the nationÕs justice system and victim services in an appropriate, culturally relevant manner. More difficult than removing language barriers, however, is providing services that accommodate and are responsive to different cultures. Differing concepts of suffering and healing influence how victims experience the effects of victimization and the process of recovery. The majority of crisis intervention methods and counseling modalities are based upon specific philosophies of suffering and healing derived from conventional Western theories. Methods for reaching culturally diverse victims must include resources that are specific to their needs. For example, the historical role of African American churches, the reliance upon Mexican curanderas and Native American shamans, and the social constructs of Asian life must be understood and utilized. Establishing a presence in ethnic neighborhoods, whether through storefront offices, mobile crisis units, outreach to homes, or coordination with community-based organizations, is essential. Those responding to crime victims must make a concerted effort to incorporate the perceptions, beliefs, values, and experience of diverse cultures. The importance of cultural awareness was illustrated in the aftermath of Patrick PurdyÕs deadly assault weapon attack in 1989 on the school children of Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California. In the aftermath of the attack there was an outpouring of concern and support from across the nation. Five children had been killed and 29 children and one teacher wounded. Two of the central events in the healing process for Cambodian and Vietnamese surviving family members were a Buddhist funeral service and a ceremonial purification of the school grounds to release the children's spirits. These rituals were strange to the local district attorneyÕs victim assistance staff, but their willingness to educate themselves about these important mourning customs and facilitate them for victims was critical to providing a sensitive, meaningful response. All of those who interact with crime victims must be educated about cultural differences to understand the responses and needs of victims. There is a compelling need for more victim service providers who share and/or can understand the ethnic histories, people, culture, and language of the victims they serve. In addition, there are many other avenues that can be pursued to meet the needs of diverse victims. They include intensive outreach programs to seek minority volunteers, referrals to social/legal service organizations that serve diverse populations, instituting culturally sensitive protocols, and providing clients with on-call translators. In summary, developing a diverse cultural response to victimsÕ needs involves a multifaceted effort. First, services and information must be provided in appropriate languages. Second, there must be an acknowledgment of the different and valid cultural definitions of personal well-being and recovery from traumatic events. Third, there must be support of the sophisticated and varied cultural pathways to mental health and incorporation of these practices into appropriate victim services and referrals. Fourth, extensive cultural awareness training must be undertaken to enable victim assistance staff to understand persons whose thinking, behavior, and expressive modes are culturally different. Meeting the Needs of Victims with Disabilities There are approximately 43 million individuals with disabilities in the United States, many of whom are at high risk of becoming victims of crime because of difficulties in communicating or their limited mobility.4 This is especially true for those suffering from developmental or severe disabilities, who are often victimized by their own caretakers, making them extremely fearful of retaliation if they report the crime. With several notable exceptions, few victim assistance programs are designed to meet the needs of the disabled. ¥ In 1986, Marilyn Smith founded Abused Deaf WomenÕs Advocacy Services (ADWAS) in Seattle, Washington. The program offers a 24-hour crisis hotline, counseling, and legal advocacy for deaf and deaf-blind victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse. Many staff members and volunteers are deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals who offer a special sensitivity to the needs of deaf victims. The program has developed training for both deaf and hearing crime victim advocates and has published educational materials specifically for deaf adult and youth victims. Ms. Smith, who is deaf, started ADWAS in response to her own experiences after having been raped. At the time, no services existed for deaf crime victims, making her journey through existing services difficult, and her recovery needlessly long and lonely. ADWAS recently received funding from the Office for Victims of Crime to help replicate this program in 5 cities across the country. ¥ Several years ago, staff at the ChildrenÕs Hospital and Health Center in San Diego, California were concerned that the hospital received few referrals concerning sexually abused youth with disabilities. Their inquiry into this issue culminated in the creation of the HospitalÕs Center for Child Protection, which offers specialized forensic assessment and treatment of developmentally disabled victims of sexual assault. The center offers counseling and treatment to approximately 1,200 children a year, with routine referrals of victims with disabilities. In addition, the center offers a 4-week course, developed with the state office of Criminal Justice Planning and the Family Protection Unit of the District AttorneyÕs Office, to children who are scheduled to testify in court. The center produced training materials to help other medical providers assist victims with disabilities, and all center staff are trained to work with developmentally disabled victims. ¥ The Midwest Leadership Through Education and Advocacy for the Deaf (LEAD) in Missouri provides people who are deaf and hard of hearing with comprehensive support and leadership through education and research. With support from VOCA, the Midwest LEAD Institute (MLI) provides culturally and linguistically appropriate services to deaf victims of domestic violence. The goals of the project are to reduce the severity of psychological and emotional trauma that result from abuse, provide support for deaf victims in coping with the impact of abuse, provide crisis intervention for deaf victims of domestic violence, develop a pool of volunteer sign language interpreters for shelters and agencies, and establish a 24-hour crisis hotline for deaf victims of violent crime. In collaboration with the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence, MLI provides training and materials to shelters and agencies throughout the state. Services for victims with disabilities were largely overlooked on the national level until the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,5 which required states and organizations receiving public funding to make their services accessible to all. Several efforts have since been undertaken to provide information to state and local criminal justice agencies and victim assistance programs on achieving compliance with the ADAÕs requirements. There is a paucity of research on the rate of victimization of people with disabilities, however. In addition, more information is needed regarding model intervention services and appropriate criminal justice responses to victims with disabilities such as improving reporting rates, making interview techniques more sensitive, and exploring alternative avenues for victim participation. Such efforts should be expanded, and all victim assistance programs should examine how they can make their services accessible and responsive to the needs of the disabled. The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) has undertaken a number of projects in recent years to begin to address this issue. For example, though a grant to NOVA, OVC sponsored a transfer of knowledge symposium in 1998 on the topic of assisting crime victims with physical and developmental disabilities. The 35 experts from the fields of disability rights, victim assistance, and criminal justice who attended the symposium developed recommendations and an action plan to improve the capacity and preparedness of victim service providers and allied professionals to respond effectively to the unique needs of crime victims with disabilities. Curriculum development and other national training efforts have also been initiated by OVC. Responding to Specific Victim Populations At the same time the victim assistance field is confronting global issues such as securing a community wide continuum of services and ensuring the accessibility and responsiveness of all services to diverse cultures and the disabled, it also faces the challenge of meeting very particularized needs of discrete victim populations. Cited throughout New Directions are many reports that have been written regarding the special needs of certain victim populations. While OVC has supported many of these products, other Justice Department divisions have supported research and promising practices as well. For example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) recently published: A Policymakers Guide to Hate Crime; The Criminal Justice Response to Rape; The Project to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for the States: A Final Summary Report; and the Regional Seminar Series on Developing Antistalking Codes. These monographs provide indepth information about how to establish policies and laws that address hate crimes, sexual assault, and stalking. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has published many reports about Òpromising practicesÓ in responding to domestic violence. One recent report entitled Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking Legislation discusses important interventions for domestic violence and stalking, including community policing, arrest and protection orders, collaborative court approaches, and other multidisciplinary techniques, as well as threat assessment procedures. The sections that follow do not attempt to address all of the issues and concerns related to diverse victim populations, but rather briefly highlight background information and a few major topics. These crime victim population groups include victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, survivors of homicide, elderly victims of crime, victims of drunk driving crashes, stalking, and gang violence, hate and bias crimes, and victims of white collar crime/fraud and bank robbery. It is important to note that every section of this report provides information and recommendations regarding these and other victim populations. Victims of Domestic Violence Domestic violence has been called a Òhidden crimeÓ because until the recent past it was often not reported by the victim or treated as criminal behavior by the justice system. The 1982 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime recognized the lack of serious attention given to victims of domestic violence, stating in its report that Òthe cries of family violence victims can no longer go unheeded.Ó6 Since that time, significant changes have occurred in the nationÕs response to domestic violence. The Model Domestic Violence Code was drafted through the National Council of Juvenile and Family and Court Judges and introduced to the National Conference of State Legislatures in 1994.7 It has been enacted in whole, or in part, in some jurisdictions. Its key provisions seek to upgrade interventions and limit discretion of individuals within the criminal justice system to make the system more responsive to the safety needs of victims. The code requires mandatory arrest, mandatory no-contact orders, restrictions on home detention and deferred prosecutions for batterers, restrictions on plea bargaining domestic violence cases, and standards for certification of domestic violence treatment programs. Passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 secured additional federal funding for domestic violence programs and a new base of funding for criminal justice interventions and important research to address violence against women. Programs under VAWA are managed by the Violence Against Women Grants Office of the U.S. Department of Justice.8 The Act also established federal criminal and civil remedies for battered women and created protections for immigrant women who are battered. Additionally, VAWA supported the creation of the National Domestic Violence Hotline in 1996 to provide crisis intervention information and assistance to victims of domestic violence. In its first year of operation, the hotline responded to more than 73,000 calls for assistance from around the country. Model domestic violence programs for all sectors of the justice system and for allied professionals are described throughout this report. A network of more than 2,000 programs has been established to support domestic violence victims. In addition, many domestic violence programs have recently expanded their services to meet the special needs of elderly battered victims, and children who witness violence in their homes. ¥ The Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women uses coalition building as an effective tool for dealing with older battered women. Since older women seldom use shelters, many service providers in Minnesota began providing hotel rooms and private Òsafe homesÓ for older battered women. As a result of making these alternatives available, service providers are now seeing larger numbers of these victims coming forward to seek assistance and support. The Coalition reports that as the number of older women on staff increased, the number of older battered women clients also increased. ¥ Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) is an innovative program that offers advocacy and support to abused mothers at the same time that the hospital provides services for their children. Begun with a VOCA grant at ChildrenÕs Hospital, Boston, in 1986, AWAKE was the first program in the nation in a pediatric setting providing dual advocacy for both battered women and their abused children. AWAKE believes that by providing help to battered women in conjunction with clinical services to children, both populations are more effectively served. Victims of Sexual Assault The true magnitude of sexual violence in the United States is difficult to ascertain. Official law enforcement statistics in the annual Uniform Crime Report are based on forcible rapes reported to the police.9 In 1992, the National Crime Victimization SurveyÑdesigned to elicit crime information not reported to law enforcementÑwas redesigned to include more specific questions concerning sexual assault. According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, over 300,000 rapes and sexual assaults were reported in 1996.10 Moreover, another 100,000 attempted rapes were reported during the same period.11 When compared, the two national sources of statistical data show a difference between reported and unreported sexual crimes. Victimization research underscores the fact that a large majority of rape victims do not come forward and report to law enforcement.12 The reasons are many: the stigma surrounding sexual crimes, victim fear of those that they are close to finding out and blaming them, and victim intimidation and a distrust of the criminal justice system.13 Initiatives to assist victims of sexual assault are described throughout this report. Over 2,000 rape crisis centers have been established nationwide. These local programs and the state coalitions and national organizations that they are affiliated with have worked to coordinate the responses of medical providers and criminal justice agencies and to protect sexual assault victimsÕ privacy through statute and policies adopted by criminal justice agencies, as well as some media organizations. Much of the change in the criminal justice systemÕs response to sexual assault victims has been prompted by the passage of laws. Rape shield laws now prevent the sexual history of the victim from being put on trial, and legislation has changed the very definition of sexual assault, making the crime gender neutral, acknowledging that it can occur within marriages, and expanding the definition to include all forms of sexual violence.17 Specialized sex crime units now operate in many large law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. The Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force recommended training for criminal justice officials on sexual assault and such training has been conducted widely.18 Protocols for coordination between medical providers and criminal justice agencies in sexual assault cases have been developed and implemented in many communities. The development of a standardized rape examination kit to improve medical practices in identifying and gathering evidence was one of the Final ReportÕs key recommendations for sexual assault victims. The Office for Victims of Crime sponsored the development of such a kit in the 1980s, but not all states have adopted the national model. And while medical protocols may exist, they are not always followed. In a study of rape victims who sought medical treatment, a significant percentage of victims did not receive pregnancy testing or information on HIV or STD exposure.19 However, a major step forward was made in 1995, when the American Medical Association published comprehensive guidelines for physicians to communicate with and treat sexual assault victims.20 A new approach to medical intervention for sexual assault victims utilizes sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE) as the primary medical examiner.21 Operating under the direct supervision of a physician, a specially trained nurse takes the victimÕs medical history, conducts the examination, and implements comprehensive aftercare plans including referrals for counseling and financial assistance. Privacy remains a critical concern of victims of sexual assault, and a primary factor in non-reporting. Several states have enacted privacy protection laws to prevent the name, address, or other identifying information about rape victims to be made public. In addition, many law enforcement agencies have adopted policies to exclude such information before the release of police reports to the media.22 Regardless, several high-profile rape cases in the 1990s proved that ultimately protection of victim privacy rests with internal policies of the media. Because the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by intimates and against youth, programs are increasingly targeting funding and efforts to assist younger victims of sexual assault. In New York City, the Youth Empowerment Association trains teenagers recovering from sexual assault to work as peer counselors with youth who are at earlier stages of recovery. Victims have also played a large role in establishing and staffing rape crisis centers.23 Survivors of Homicide The senseless loss of life through murderÑthe ultimate violationÑtouched the family, friends, schoolmates, and coworkers of nearly 20,000 victims in 1996.24 Murder may occur as a final, violent act after many years of escalating spousal, elder, or child abuse. It may be used as a solution to gang-related hostilities, or to silence a robbery or sexual assault victim. Homicide can kill dozens of victims through one terrorist act or a series of victims by one serial killer. As a direct consequence of drinking and driving, an additional nearly 18,000 lives are lost each year. This is addressed later in this section. Early victimsÕ rights laws did not recognize surviving family members of homicide victims, extending rights to the ÒprimaryÓ or ÒdirectÓ victim and not to co-victims or survivors of homicide. Throughout the 1980s, victimsÕ rights laws were enacted and amended to recognize survivors as true victims who should be extended all victimsÕ rights. Betty Jane Spencer testified in front of the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force. In 1978 her four sons were shot and killed in an execution-style massacre in their rural Indiana home. Betty Jane was wounded but survived. Looking back on that tragedy she said, ÒI was killed too. I just didnÕt die.Ó Many outstanding programs have been developed to provide support and advocacy for survivors of homicide, including support groups created by survivors. ¥ The Stephanie Roper Committee was created by Roberta and Vince Roper in 1982 following the brutal murder of their daughter Stephanie. The Ropers were astounded at the way they were treated by the criminal justice system. They not only were not allowed to attend the trial but discovered that the two convicted killers would be eligible for parole in 12 years. The Ropers turned their frustration and outrage into activism and created one of the most successful victim activism programs nationwide. With the help of many volunteers, the organization has lobbied for legislative reforms to protect victimsÕ rights and increase services in Maryland. In addition, they operate a Court-watch program that places volunteers, many of whom are victims, in courtrooms to monitor whether victimsÕ rights are respected. ¥ Save Our Sons and Daughters (SOSAD) is a nonprofit grassroots organization founded in 1987 by Clementine Barfield, who lost two sons to violence in her community. She joined other parents of slain children to create positive alternatives to violence throughout the community. SOSAD provides counseling and training in violence prevention, crisis intervention, multicultural conflict resolution, gang redirection, and peer and bereavement support. ¥ Other support groups such as Loved Ones of Homicide Victims in Los Angeles and the Tender Loving Care organization in Dallas work to decrease crime victimsÕ sense of isolation, offer support and understanding, and provide practical information and advice. Victim Services in New York City has formed a choir of children who have had a family member killed. ¥ The Anti-Violence Partnership of Philadelphia has developed, with OVC funding, a multidisciplinary training curriculum to foster more consistency in services for survivors of homicide victims. The curriculum, called ÒTraumatic Grief: The Synergism of Trauma and Grief,Ó addresses the unique psychological and emotional impact of homicide on survivors and presents a new approach to assisting them. Elderly Victims of Crime While the elderly are less likely to become victims of crime than any other age group, their fear of crime is the highest among all populations and they are more likely to suffer serious consequences when they are victimized. Elderly victims of fraud and other financial schemes often lose financial independence. The impact of physical violence is greater because serious injuries can become life altering disabilities. Older Americans experience a wide range of crimes perpetrated by strangers, family members, paid and unpaid caregivers, and acquaintances. Crimes against the elderly occur not only in public places and their homes, but in nursing homes and residential care facilities as well. One of the most grievous forms of elderly victimization is by someone the elderly victim knows or depends on for care. Between 1986 and 1994, reports of domestic elder abuse nationwide more than doubled, from 117,000 to 241,000 per year.25 While the elderly are the most likely age group to report crimes, they are less likely to report crime committed by family members and spouses. Many experts believe that only 1 in 14 incidents of domestic elder abuse comes to the attention of the authorities.26 According to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Aging, when these hidden crimes are considered, the actual abuse rates of the elderly rises to 1 to 2 million incidents each year.27 Adult children are the most frequent abusers of the elderly in domestic settings. For example, adult children were the abusers in 35 percent of substantiated cases of elder abuse in 1994.28 Other relatives were the second most frequent abusers of the elderly with 13.5 percent of cases, and spouse abuse contributed 13.4 percent.29 Each year in the United States, more than 700,000 women over the age of 50 are hit by their husbands.30 The Administration on Aging in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is funding several model projects to help domestic violence shelters develop services for women 50 years and older. Elders are especially at risk of becoming victims of economic scams and fraud. Con artists target the elderly with get-rich schemes, home improvement scams, and investment fraud. The House Select Committee on Aging found that the victim in 99 percent of home improvement scams was elderly.31 Telemarketing fraud has also become a growing threat against the elderly. Of the $40 billion lost each year from telemarketing crimes, 37 percent is swindled from the elderly.32 Significant responses to elder abuse and victimization have occurred over the past two decades. Over 42 states have elder abuse reporting laws which, at minimum, require health care professionals to report suspected elderly abuse to a designated state agency, usually Adult Protective Services.33 However, the effectiveness of these laws are being reassessed. Research is showing that in the absence of essential community services, mandatory reporting can create trauma for the abused elder without resolving the underlying abuse problem. Moreover, a common outcome of intervention is to institutionalize elders against their will.34 The extent of abuse against the elderly occurring within institutional settings such as medical, long-term care, and board-and-care facilities is difficult to determine. In one study, more than 36 percent of care providers in institutional facilities had witnessed at least one incident of physical abuse by other staff and four in five (81%) had witnessed an incident of psychological abuse.35 Communities have taken a variety of approaches in responding to elderly victimization. Triad, the unique partnership between the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Sheriffs Association, and the American Association of Retired Persons, assists elder victims of crime and fosters a variety of crime prevention activities. The Triad program is discussed in greater detail in Section II, Chapter 2, Law Enforcement. In addition: ¥ Isolated elders are being identified by a remarkable program called TIES (Teamwork Insuring Elder Support) that is active in more than 200 communities nationwide.36 TIES trains individuals who come into contact with the elderly, such as bank tellers, postal carriers, and sanitation workers, to call an emergency hotline when they suspect something is wrong. TIES workers have assisted elders who have fallen unconscious, intervened in elder abuse cases, and linked elders in need of medical, emotional, or financial assistance with free services.37 ¥ Gatekeeper programs train employees who interact with the elderly in their homes to identify elder abuse and refer elderly victims to agencies that can intervene. The employees include utility service and repair employees and mail carriers. In Billings, Montana, a senior outreach program entitled GEARS: Gatekeepers Elder Assistance Referral System trains public and private employees to make referrals to adult protective services. After GEARS was started, elder abuse referrals in Billings increased by 16 percent.38 Victims of Drunk Driving Crashes There are more arrests every day for drunk driving than for any other crime. Although drunk driving fatalities have decreased 40 percent in the past two decades, from 28,000 in 1980 to 17,126 in 1996, this crime is still a leading criminal cause of death and is responsible for approximately 3.5 million injuries each year, which cost an estimated $45 billion a year to treat.39 The cost of loss in quality of life is estimated to be an additional $67 billion.40 Although the deaths and injuries resulting from drunk driving are well documented, drunk driving is still not considered a violent crime. Victims of drunk driving crashes were until relatively recently not even considered to be victims of crimes, and their needs and rights to participate in the criminal justice process were often ignored. Changes in public understanding of and response to the crime of drunk driving can largely be credited to the extraordinary work of grassroots groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID), and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD). Their efforts helped create momentum for the passage of more than 1,700 pieces of driving under the influence (DUI) legislation between 1982 and 1993,41 as well as the establishment of programs that respond to the needs of this underserved victim population. Survivors of drunk driving have, through MADD, also developed death notification trainings and protocols for those who must carry the wrenching news of the death of a loved one to family members or friends. MADD has developed a series of 4 death notification training manuals targeting the professions of law enforcement, mental health counselors and victim advocates, medical personnel, and clergy and funeral directors. Each manual outlines procedures to follow when notifying someone of the death of a loved one, and includes information on debriefing those who must perform this task, as well as sample resource materials to use. Advocates against drunk driving, many of whom are victims or survivors of drunk driving crashes, continue to focus their energies on prevention efforts and legislative reforms, and have made tremendous impact in this area.42 Legislative changes, including establishing the 21-year minimum drinking age, have been singularly effective in reducing the incidence or severity of drunk driving. Victims of Stalking Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that, taken individually, might constitute legal behavior. For example, actions such as writing a letter, placing a telephone call, or waiting for someone outside their place of work are not criminal actions. When these actions are intended to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal.43 Although every stalking case is unique, over time a stalkerÕs behavior becomes more threatening, serious, and violent. Stalking activity often escalates from what was initially bothersome to a level that is obsessive, dangerous, violent, and potentially fatal. Stalking is a complex social problem that has only recently been addressed in our nationÕs criminal codes. Until 1990, no states had laws making stalking illegal. That year, California enacted the first anti-stalking law, leading to the passage, in just over 4 years, of laws in the 49 other states and the District of Columbia.44 Prior to the passage of these laws, police and prosecutors felt limited in their efforts to assist victims threatened by a stalker because there were no applicable laws to protect a person until the perpetrator actually committed an act of harm. Today, law enforcement officials can use anti-stalking statutes to help determine whether an arrest should be made and to assess the level of threats involved in such cases. In 1993, Congress directed the U.S. Department of JusticeÕs National Institute of Justice to develop a model anti-stalking code to provide a constitutional and enforceable legal framework for states to use in formulating their anti-stalking laws.45 NIJ asked a group of nationally recognized criminal justice and victimsÕ rights experts to develop a model anti-stalking code. The code, as reported in the final report of the Project To Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States, encourages legislators to make stalking a felony offense, to establish penalties for stalking that reflect and are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, and to provide criminal justice officials with the authority and legal tools to arrest, prosecute, and sentence stalkers.46 In the 3 years since the codeÕs release, 17 states have amended their stalking laws. Making stalking illegal is only the first step in addressing this crime. The objective in any response to a report of stalking is to intervene before the victim is injured or killed. For communities to respond effectively, a coordinated, multi-agency strategy is essential. Any multiagency response to stalking must include law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, community and institutional corrections, victim assistance, and social service agencies. Victims of Gang Violence Over the past decade the proliferation of gang violence in the United States has received considerable attention from criminal justice professionals concerned about the rising tide of gang violence. Gang violence affects medical professionals who respond to the flood of critical injuries associated with gang-related violence and entire communities whose residents are deeply concerned. While much discussion and effort have focused on the prevention, intervention, and suppression of gang violence, too little attention has been paid to those who are most affected by its tragic impactÑthe victims of gang violence. Often lost within the system and sometimes blamed for gang-related crimes for which they hold no responsibility, victims of gang violence frequently receive limited support and experience significant barriers to justice and healing. Their social, cultural, and systemic alienation produces fear, anger, frustration, and confusion when they are brutally injured by, caught in the crossfire of, or lose a loved one to gang violence. Working on the frontlines of victim and witness assistance in areas confronting gang-related violence, the following programs provide compelling examples of programs that appear to be working and could be replicated in other communities: ¥ The California-based Teens on Target (TNT) trains at-risk youth and young victims to be anti-violence advocates. Using their firsthand experiences, these advocates talk to their peers about the causes of violence and suggest alternatives for resolving conflict. In a new TNT project, Caught in the Crossfire, advocates visit young gunshot victims who are still hospitalized to dissuade them from seeking revenge. ¥ The Tariq Khamisa Foundation, in San Diego, California, was founded by Azim Khamisa after the murder of his 20-year-old son, Tariq, by four teenage gang members. TariqÕs father joined with the grandfather of the 14-year-old gang member who shot Tariq to form the Foundation, which is dedicated to preventing similar crimes through educational programs in schools. With funding from OVC, the Foundation is developing a video to assist students in learning about gang violence and its impact, and encourage them to seek alternatives to gangs. Hate and Bias Crimes The President's Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report did not address hate and bias crimes. In the intervening years, great progress has been made in identifying, documenting, and prosecuting these crimes. During the 1980s, state legislatures stiffened penalties for acts of hate violence and added other protected classes of victims. Hate crime statutes today not only encompass race, religion, and ethnicity, but include gender, sexual orientation, disability, and persons from foreign nations as well. They vary, however, across the nation. As of 1996, 12 states still have not enacted criminal laws addressing racially motivated crime.47 Identifying and meeting the needs of victims of hate crimes has been a particular challenge to the victim assistance field. Until 1990, most jurisdictions did not collect data on the level and incidence of hate crime, making it difficult for advocacy and assistance groups to press for programs to meet the needs of hate crime victims. Since the passage of the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1990, data on hate crimes have been collected on the national level by the FBI as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting System.48 In spite of this progress, the scope of hate and bias crimes in the United States is still relatively unknown because of the lack of comprehensive data from every jurisdiction in every state. Definitions of what constitutes a hate and bias crime and who constitute protected categories of victims vary across the states. States are not mandated to comply with the Hate Crime Statistics Act, and 8 states failed to collect hate crime statistics in 1996.49 Improved data collection is imperative because hate and bias crimes are underreported and their victims continue to be seriously underserved. Hate and bias crimes can affect the entire community in which they occur. To be effective, victim assistance programs must meet the needs of individual victims and at the same time explore ways to help the community to heal. The recent church burnings are an example of the devastation that a single bias-motivated crime can have upon a community. In June 1996, President Clinton formed the National Church Arson Task Force to address a sharp rise in the number of fires at churches and other houses of worship across the nation. Of particular concern was the large number of reported fires at African-American churches in the South in the mid-1990s. Federal and state criminal charges involving allegations of racial motivation have been brought in connection with 24 church burnings.50 In October 1997, the South Carolina Burned Church Coalition sponsored a retreat for 200 children whose churches had burned to discuss how to cope with hate and bias crimes. A number of states and local communities have developed hate and bias crime task forces and commissions to enhance coordination among agencies, recommend legislation, foster education programs, and develop programs for public awareness and prevention. New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Minnesota have established such commissions. Further, special victim assistance programs have been created in law enforcement agencies, prosecutor offices, courts, and community-based agencies to deal with the broad range of bias crime victims. Many state attorneys general have civil rights units or bias crime units exclusively dedicated to dealing with bias crime and civil rights violations. Special bias crime units also exist in many large city police departments. At the state level, the New Jersey Attorney GeneralÕs Office has developed a Bias Crime Unit that staffs a statewide hotline for bias crime victims to report their victimization and seek assistance. In 1996, OVC and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Justice, supported the creation of a training curriculum on responding to hate and bias crimes for law enforcement and victim assistance professionals by the Educational Development Center in Boston, Massachusetts. The curriculum, entitled National Bias Crimes Training for Law Enforcement and Victim Assistance Professionals, emphasizes that while bias crimes are similar to other crimes, they present unique challenges to victim-serving professionals because of their often devastating psychological impact on the victim and the victimÕs community. The curriculum is available through the OVC Resource Center. White Collar and Fraud Victims Victims of white collar crime and fraud suffer severe psychological and financial harm, and they require assistance and intervention that takes into account their particular needs and the unusually complex nature of their cases. Victims of white collar and fraud crimes include individuals as well as small and large institutions. Examples of these types of crimes include mail fraud, bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud, health care and insurance fraud, pension and trust fund fraud, mail theft resulting in check washing, credit card fraud, embezzlement, security fraud, commodities fraud, cellular phone fraud, antitrust fraud, telemarketing fraud, and advance fee schemes. White collar and crimes of fraud cases are often very complex, with many victims (sometimes numbering in the hundreds) residing over a wide geographical area. Automated systems can help relieve some of the burden on victim assistance personnel to notify these multiple-victim groups of their rights, restitution awards, and other services. However, in light of the resource shortages many victim assistance programs face, it is especially important for agencies to develop interagency, cross-district collaborations to reach these victims. Victims often need immediate information. Brochures should be provided to victims by investigators responding to a crime, and they should include information on local, regional, and national resources. The white collar crime victim population tends not to seek support for mental health or psychological problems they are suffering from as a result of their victimization. When they do, it is usually through a counselor covered by private insurance or a religious advisor. Victim service providers must reach out to white collar crime victims to assist them in developing their own support groups or accessing appropriate emotional support from trained professionals. ¥ In 1996, OVC funded a federal demonstration project on white collar crime victimization at the U.S. AttorneyÕs Office for the Northern District of California. The goal of this San Francisco-based project is to enhance the capability of the Northern District to respond to the needs of federal victims of white collar crime and financial fraud, including telemarketing, health care fraud, investment, and mail and wire fraud. The project includes hiring two Asset Investigative Advocates to assist prosecutors and investigators in the identification and recovery of assets that can be returned to victims via restitution or other mechanisms. The project also includes developing internal guidelines and a training manual for providing comprehensive services to victims of white collar crime. Bank Robbery Victims Victims of bank robbery can include bank customers, bank employees (tellers, managers, and security guards), law enforcement officers, and other members of the banking community. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, just over 7,000 bank robberies were committed in 1994, with losses totaling more than $58 million.53 In almost half of the robberies, a weapon was threatened against the bank employees.54 A common reaction by the largest group affected by bank robberiesÑthe tellersÑis a tremendous amount of self-blame. Many bank tellers in the aftermath of a bank robbery feel that they should have been able to do something to stop the crime. While bank robbery is not generally considered a personal crime but a crime against the bank, most tellers take it very personally. When robberies become violent, tellers are injured, taken hostage, and killed. Moreover, tellers must return to the scene of the crime, their place of employment, to keep their job. In light of the trauma they have suffered, this is understandably difficult for many tellers. U.S. AttorneysÕ offices have developed a variety of useful approaches to deal with victims of bank robbery. ¥ The Victim-Witness Coordinator in the U.S. AttorneyÕs office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has developed an innovative outreach program for victims of bank robberies, specifically addressing bank employees. The office, with input from bank tellers who have been victims of bank robberies, developed a brochure that provides information about the specific trauma reactions of bank employees and offers advice about how to cope and where to go for assistance. In addition, after a robbery occurs, a trained crisis response professional goes immediately to the scene to debrief customers, tellers, and staff, and then follows up with visits to the victims to ensure that they have access to counseling and victim services. The Victim-Witness staff of the U.S. AttorneyÕs office host workshops and support groups for victim tellers as part of the program, which law enforcement officers attend to give case updates, and an Assistant U.S. Attorney is present to answer any questions the tellers have about the court process. With support from OVC, the U.S. AttorneyÕs office has also developed a video for victims called ÒAfter the Robbery: From Crisis to Resolution.Ó Enhancing Victim Assistance Services The victim assistance field has expanded considerably since the Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force in 1982. Many victim assistance programs are well established, and a number are institutionalized within the justice system. But in some communities, especially in many rural areas, few victim services are available. Victim assistance providers must explore new ways to ensure that the greatest number of victims receive the highest quality services possible. Technology increasingly offers new avenues to serve crime victims through the Internet and toll-free telecommunication. In addition, many tools are available, such as needs assessments and surveys, that can help programs target the types of victims that need additional services. Program evaluations also offer an opportunity for victim assistance programs to determine how effective they are in meeting the needs of crime victims. Improving victim services also means establishing program standards, training standards, and a code of ethics for the field. These topics are addressed below. Needs Assessments Conducting needs assessments is an important first step in expanding services to underserved crime victims. Needs assessments help identify the problems that victims encounter as a result of their victimization and can determine to what extent these problems are being addressed. For example, the Alameda County, California Prosecuting AttorneyÕs Victim-Witness Assistance Division learned through a needs assessment survey that the recovered stolen property of nearly 30 percent of victims it serves is never returned to them by the courts. Needs assessments also help victim assistance programs to determine the many barriers that prevent victims from accessing their services. Victim/Witness Services in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, discovered that nearly 45 percent of the victims it surveyed had difficulty finding transportation to the courthouse. Some states have conducted needs assessments to determine which programs should receive VOCA funding. Pennsylvania required each county to conduct an assessment of the type of victim services needed within its jurisdiction. Counties within the state then used the results of the needs assessment to solicit and evaluate proposals from eligible programs within their own communities. All programs should develop means of assessing needs for additional services and evaluating the efficacy of existing services. Technology Technology increasingly offers new avenues for enhancing victim assistance. The Internet offers a powerful vehicle for victim assistance programs to expand their services by providing immediate access to information as well as a means to communicate with large numbers of victims. ¥ The Brazos County Rape Crisis Center in Bryan, Texas, offers online counseling through its website. To ensure anonymity, the Center uses a secure serverÑthe same type of system banks and companies use for electronic financial transactions. The Center currently serves approximately 100 clients online, including clients who live as far away as Bankok, South Korea, and Australia.55 ¥ Victim Services in New York City is exploring the use of the Internet to provide services for crime victims. Victim Services operates two websites, both designed for Internet surfers seeking help. The organization has received inquiries on services from around the country, which it answers via e-mail. When possible, Victim Services provides referrals to local resources and offers encouragement for those taking first steps to continue seeking help. E-mail is the tip of the iceberg in the capabilities of the Internet and the World Wide Web to provide convenient and interactive help to victims. The Web is an ideal resource, for example, for people for whom receiving help is difficult, such as victims in rural communities who do not have access to a local service provider. Or, a battered woman who works and has access to the Internet and could join a support group online during her lunch break without leaving her office. Victim Services is discussing the kinds of activities that could be provided to victims through a website, including chat rooms, bulletin boards, and secure e-mail to protect the privacy of exchanges with online clients. Victim Services is examining the potential of online counseling by exploring the issues of confidentiality, interstate jurisdictional issues, and creating a counseling protocol. In addition, cellular telephone technology can be used to achieve a measure of security to domestic violence victims. Many domestic violence victims fear that they will be attacked and not have a way to call for help. To help these victims, cooperative partnerships have been forged with local criminal justice agencies, sheriffs, police chiefs, state attorneys and local cellular telephone companies to help domestic violence victims by providing them the use of cellular phones. ¥ In Tallahassee, Florida, the Attorney GeneralÕs Office launched a statewide initiative to combat domestic violence with cellular telephones in January 1996. Four major cellular telephone companies, AT&T Wireless, Bell South Cellular Corp., Sprint Cellular, and GTE Mobile Net, have endorsed the program and agreed to encourage local cellular affiliates to make free cellular phones available for victimsÕ use. Under the initiative, the State Attorney General's office provides guidance on establishing a cellular phone program to local police chiefs, sheriffs, and state attorneys and helps coordinate efforts to get local programs running. Program Standards Victim assistance programs need to achieve consistency in the kind of services they offer and in the use of trained staff and volunteers to deliver these services. The importance of instituting standards of services was emphasized in the recently released National Institute of Justice report Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses.56 The publication highlighted the eight basic elements of service standards recommended by the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA). These elements include crisis intervention, counseling and advocacy, support during criminal investigation, support during prosecution and case disposition, support after case disposition, training for allied professionals, violence and substance abuse prevention activities, and public education activities. NOVAÕs standards also provide performance guidelines for activities in the areas of planning, management, service, training, and evaluation. The standards serve a twofold purpose of helping new programs to develop realistic standards and helping established programs to better assess their strengths and weaknesses. Some states have also developed standards of service for crime victims. However, they vary across the nation. New Hampshire, for example, requires that all domestic violence and sexual assault programs meet basic standards in order to qualify for funding. In New Jersey, the state Attorney General has issued standards for services within county prosecutorÕs offices. The project was facilitated by the stateÕs centralized prosecution system, in which all prosecutors are part of the Attorney GeneralÕs office. In Pennsylvania, the state Commission on Crime and DelinquencyÕs Victim Services Program has developed a resource manual that outlines minimum standards for the various victim assistance programs in the state. The Commission encourages these programs to use the manual for self-evaluation and to ensure that they are meeting the minimum standards before they strive for model standards. The standards are also used by the Commission to monitor state-funded programs.57 Continuing Education On the national level, OVC has supported the training of thousands of victim service providers over the past decade. Through its funding of national, regional, and state conferences, approximately 40,000 individuals have been trained in the area of victimsÕ rights and services. Many of OVCÕs training initiatives for criminal justice and allied professionals, as well as topic specific trainings, are cited throughout this report. In order to make comprehensive, academic-based training available to a diverse group of victim service providers, including federal, tribal, state and local justice and allied professionals, OVC funded the development of the first National Victim Assistance Academy (NVAA) in 1995. Now in its fourth year, the Academy is coordinated by the VictimsÕ Assistance Legal Organization and a consortium of universities, including California State University-Fresno, the Medical University of South Carolina, the University of New Haven, and Washburn University. NVAAÕs 45-hour course of study is taught by leaders from the victimsÕ assistance field and the accompanying 600 page Academy Text has been utilized by the field in state and local training programs. Several states have established minimum training requirements that have raised the professionalism and knowledge of victim advocates, including Florida, Arkansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and New Mexico. The Attorney GeneralÕs office in Florida has developed a Victim Services Practitioner Designation Training Program that has been conducted throughout the state for the past 5 years. All programs that receive funding from the office are encouraged to send staff to the training program. Service providers with over 5 years of experience were initially offered a 1-day ÒgrandfatherÓ training on legislative, research, and state guideline developments to qualify for this designation. Arkansas mandates training as a VOCA grant condition. VOCA recipients must receive 24 hours of basic training, 8 hours of administrative training, and 8 hours of continuing education each year. Finally, some states have begun to move in the direction of certifying victim advocates as a means of ensuring a base level of training and knowledge. The California Victim and Witness Coordinating Council established a system of victim advocate certification in 1993 to recognize the professional standing of victim advocates in the state. To be certified as a victim advocate, employees must complete one full year of work in a comprehensive victim services program (as defined by the California Penal Code) and demonstrate through education, experience, and specialized training, the ability to assist victims and witnesses. In addition, the employee must complete a state-approved 40-hour training program within the first year. To be certified as a senior advocate, employees must meet the criteria outlined above and have 5 years of experience as a victim advocate in California.58 Recommendations from the Field for the Victim Assistance Community Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #1 Victim assistance providers should encourage victim involvement in the development and implementation of all programs and services they provide, including public awareness, education, and violence prevention programs. Crime victims have been the true pioneers in the creation of the victim assistance field and have served as a dedicated force for social change for more than 20 years. Their critical involvement should continue. Many avenues are available to increase victim participation in the development and provision of victims services. Victim assistance programs should actively engage victims in paid and volunteer positions at all levels, from facilitating self-help groups to managing programs. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #2 Victim assistance programs and services should be designed to reach diverse constituencies. All policymakers, program administrators, and staff should be knowledgeable and skilled in serving diverse cultural and ethnic groups. The victim assistance field must emphasize cultural sensitivity and awareness in all aspects of services, including in the development, administration, staffing, and funding of victim assistance programs. One of the most overlooked areas of the field has been the development and support of multicultural victim services and cultural diversity among professionals. Advocates should work toward the goal that all victims, regardless of their language or culture, receive a high level of services. Victim service professionals must be educated in diversity to better understand the victims they serve as well as themselves. Training on cultural competency, hate and bias crimes, and outreach to underserved victims should be conducted for VOCA administrators and victim advocates in community- and criminal justice-based agencies. Brochures, posters, and other public awareness efforts for non-English speaking victims should be published and distributed by victim assistance programs. Victim assistance programs should have bilingual and bicultural staff to help non English-speaking victims complete compensation claim forms and victim impact statements. Crisis intervention and counseling techniques should incorporate methods of healing that draw upon diverse multicultural grieving and counseling techniques. Cultural awareness goes beyond printing brochures in other languages, hiring bilingual and bicultural staff, and supporting nontraditional therapies and services. It must also include a commitment to examine underlying cultural differences and work not to assimilate but to respect those differences. Incorporating diversity into all aspects of program development and management increases awareness of the differences that make people who live in America unique, as well as the similarities that bind us together as a community and as a nation. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #3 Victim service providers should join with criminal and juvenile justice and allied professionals to conduct needs assessments in their communities to identify underserved victim population groups and to determine the types of services that should be available for these groups. Although great strides have been made in the past decade to provide services to crime victims, many remain overlooked and underserved. These include victims with disabilities, rural or geographically dispersed victims, white collar and property crime victims; victims of hate and bias crimes, and elderly victims of domestic violence and other forms of abuse. Conducting needs assessments is an important first step in expanding services to underserved crime victims. Needs assessments help victim service programs identify the problems that victims encounter as a result of their victimization and determine to what extent these problems are being addressed. Needs assessments also help victim service programs identify the barriers that prevent underserved victims from accessing their services. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #4 Victim service providers should work with allied professionals, other victim service providers, and leaders in their community to ensure that a comprehensive network of services and support is available for crime victims. The goal of providing comprehensive services to crime victimsÑfrom the point of victimization through the criminal justice system and beyondÑinvolves responding to victimization on many fronts and with many agencies, individuals, and organizations. One victim assistance program cannot possibly provide all the services necessary for all crime victims. Comprehensive victim assistance means establishing strong partnerships among victim-serving agencies and allied professionals. In providing a comprehensive network of services and support, victim service providers should be aware of the needs of victims who are victimized in their communities but live in other jurisdictions. There is a need to provide information and referrals for these victims and to develop cross-jurisdictional partnerships to ensure that the interests of these victims are not overlooked. The Office for Victims of Crime is providing funding for a number of communities to develop a vision for a comprehensive communitywide response to crime victims entitled Victim Services 2000. Over the next decade, these partnerships will serve as models for communities across America in developing comprehensive networks of victim services. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #5 Standards for victim assistance should be developed and instituted to guide those who serve victims in community-based programs as well as across all justice systems. While the number of victim assistance programs has dramatically increased since the time of the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, insufficient attention has been given to establishing standards for victim assistance. On the national level, the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) has developed model program standards with support from OVC, but they have not been formally adopted by the victim assistance field. In addition, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) requires all chapters to provide a threshold of services and to have at least one advocate who has completed a 40-hour education program. Chapters that do not comply lose their chapter charter from MADD. In a 1997 survey of VOCA administrators conducted by OVC, several VOCA administrators cited the need for statewide standards for victim assistance, emphasizing that such standards would greatly enhance decisionmaking efforts on program funding and oversight. According to the survey, some states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Vermont, have initiated the development of program standards. However, the standards vary. Some address only certain types of victim assistance such as prosecutor-based programs, while others address management issues as well. Standards that have already been developed in the field should be used as a foundation for developing national or state program standards. States that have already developed standards for victim services should be included in any national discussions on standards. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #6 Victim assistance providers must receive basic training and annual continuing education on crime victimsÕ rights and services. To be able to respond effectively to crime victims, service providers need up-to-date, comprehensive training, both before and during their service. According to the National Institute of Justice, training for victim assistance is often Òignored or downplayed, usually because of indifference, lackÑor unawareness ofÑtraining opportunities, or limited funds, staff, or time.Ó NIJ reports that a 1994 survey of more than 300 victim assistance programs found that nearly half provided neither preservice nor inservice training for either paid staff or volunteers.59 Training does not have to be expensive. Literally dozens of training curricula have been developed with support from OVC over the past decade, and many of the training materials, including videos, are available free of charge to local victim assistance programs through the OVC Resource Center. OVC also operates a Trainers Bureau, through which victim assistance programs can apply for training and technical assistance from national experts, and supports many local, state, regional, and national training programs. A number of states, including Florida, Arkansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and New Mexico, have already established minimum training requirements that have raised the professionalism and knowledge of VOCA-funded staff. However, it is clear that the national training and education capacity needs to be expanded so that both experienced and inexperienced victim assistance providers can easily obtain cost-effective education. While the goals of all of these training strategies should be in service to the entire victim assistance field, not just to programs supported by VOCA, the federal government has a special obligation to ensure the skills and competence of programs it helps to fund and of all victim assistance activities operated by federal agencies. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #7 A national commission should be established to develop certification and accreditation standards for victim advocacy and assistance. For the victim assistance field to become a recognized profession, accreditation and certification standards will eventually be necessary. Some states have already begun to move in this direction. After program standards are established, it is imperative that a system of accreditation for both individuals and programs be established at the national or state level, or both. To recognize the range of skills that contribute to successful victim assistance, accreditation efforts need to embrace a wide range of factors that consider experience, education, and competence.60 The following methods for certification and accreditation have been used by other professions and should be considered by the victim assistance field as well: preservice and inservice training requirements; continuing education requirements; an ÒexperienceÓ clause that gives credit to years of service; ongoing credit for experience as a substitute or partial substitute for education; education and testing requirements, including observational methods of practitioners at work; licensing examinations; and continued certification contingent upon a designated number of hours of continuing education. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #8 Victim service providers should increase public awareness of their programs and services. Increasing public awareness of victimization is critical to ensuring that victims receive the services they need and that victim assistance programs continue to be supported at every level of government. National public awareness campaigns have been undertaken for domestic violence, child abuse, abduction and exploitation, and drunk driving. These campaigns have helped raise the publicÕs awareness about these devastating crimes. National public awareness and education campaigns should be expanded to include other critical victimsÕ issues such as elderly victimization, sexual assault, hate and bias crimes, victims with disabilities, and white collar/fraud. Such campaigns would heighten the publicÕs ability to recognize and report victimization and would provide victims with information they need to seek assistance. Victim assistance programs in every community should help raise awareness of crime and victimization by conducting public awareness activities during National Crime VictimsÕ Rights Week. More globally, public education efforts can help reduce the stigma of certain types of victimization, such as sexual assault or domestic violence, and encourage victims to seek help, including criminal justice interventions. In addition, male leaders and influential organizations should play an active role in sending a message to other men that violence against women is not acceptable. To address the growing problem of economic crimes committed against the elderly, State Attorneys General should institute or expand consumer education programs for older persons. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #9 Evaluation studies should be conducted to determine if current methods of victim assistance are effective and to identify critical areas in which additional victim intervention and assistance services are needed. Many experts in the field of victim assistance have expressed concern about the lack of information on what types of services and assistance are most effective in serving crime victims. For example, an evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of different individual or group crisis intervention models should be conducted, including examining components of other trauma interventions such as immediate assistance and peer support programs. To address this need, OVC is working closely with researchers at NIJ and with leading researchers and practitioners in the field of victimization and victim services to evaluate the effectiveness of state VOCA-funded compensation and assistance programs in meeting the needs of crime victims. The multiyear project will include a needs assessment of the target population from the victimÕs point of view; an assessment of the services available to victims, including both federally funded and reimbursable programs; identification of unmet needs such as gaps in service or access to compensation; and suggestions for improving the delivery and funding of services to all crime victims. On the national level, the effectiveness of each new program implemented should be evaluated. There is no value in reinventing the wheel, but there is a benefit to replicating successful programs in a new context or with a different target population. In addition, standard evaluation procedures and protocols should be developed for each component of victim services. With such efforts, programs can measure their own success and compare their progress with others in the field. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #10 There should be a clearly defined code of ethics to bind all victim service providers in the field to designated standards of behavior. Most professions have adopted an accepted code of ethics that guide the values and minimum standards of professional behavior by the professionals within it. The field of victim assistance, however, has yet to adopt such a code. On the national level, NOVA has developed a suggested Victim Assistance ProviderÕs Code of Ethics. It begins with this statement of purpose: The victimsÕ movement expects its members to act with integrity, treating all victims of crime with dignity and compassion, and to uphold fair standards of justice for accused and accuser alike. To this end, the following principles will govern the behavior of victim assistance providers.61 The principles address three critical areas: the service providerÕs relationship with victims; the service providerÕs relationship with colleagues, other professionals, and the public; and rules for professional conduct. Victim service providers in South Carolina have drafted a code of ethics that cover similar principles, and MADD has also implemented a code of ethics for their victim advocates. Failure to meet the codeÕs standards results in the advocateÕs removal from service. The development of a code of ethics should be part of the mission of the proposed national commission on standards and accreditation described in recommendation 7. To be effective, the code must include a way to hold victim service providers accountable when they fail to comply. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #11 Victim assistance providers should expand current statewide networks to build a capacity for addressing communities in crisis. Each state should develop a crisis response team and interact with other disaster planning efforts. Each state should develop and train a statewide crisis response team to assist communities within their state that suffer mass acts of violence, terrorism, or community disasters. Local and regional teams should also be developed. The creation of a national office for such crisis response should be seriously considered and charged with the following responsibilities: developing and disseminating a model for state and local community crisis response; developing a national training and education component; coordinating national support in the aftermath of a community crisis; and maintaining a stress intervention program for victim assistance providers and others who become involved in community crisis response. Because many community disasters involve criminal acts, such an office must involve the Department of Justice; but it should also involve the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal departments concerned with the relief and recovery of communities affected by technological and natural disasters. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #12 Victim service providers should develop interagency response protocols for assisting all crime victims, including child victims, elder abuse victims, and victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Developing multidisciplinary responses to victimization is important for all victims, but it is especially critical for children, the elderly, and victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. To help professionals be alert to the signs of elder abuse and neglect, protocols such as the Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines on Elder Abuse and Neglect developed by the American Medical Association should be adapted and used. For stalking intervention, a multidisciplinary approach should be developed that involves law enforcement, the judicial system, correctional and social service agencies, and victim service and advocacy organizations. Appropriate, accessible, and safe shelters should be available that address the special needs of older women, with special attention to rural communities. Cross-training, coordination, and coalition building between the elder abuse and domestic violence communities is imperative. Similar relations should be established between domestic violence and sexual assault programs because sexual violence is often part of the battererÕs abusive behavior. Several excellent interagency response protocols for sexual assault have been developed by local, state and national rape crisis agencies working in coordination with law enforcement, prosecution, hospitals, and the courts. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #13 A national hotline that provides 24-hour immediate crisis counseling, information, and referral to services for all victims of crime should be established. In addition, every state should establish statewide, toll-free 800 numbers to provide information and referrals for victims of crime. As a result of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, a national toll-free hotline was created for victims of domestic violence to call for 24-hour crisis intervention, assistance, and referrals in English and Spanish. Interpreters are available to translate an additional 139 languages. The hotline uses state-of-the-art technology to transfer calls from the national hotline to local domestic violence programs and shelters in the victimÕs community. Extensive public awareness efforts of the hotline have been undertaken with public and private support, and nearly 10,000 individuals across the United States use the hotline each month. The establishment of national and statewide hotlines for all crime victims should be a priority for the victimsÕ movement. In many rural areas across the country, victims have little access to information about their rights, services, and compensation. Expanding the nationÕs capacity to provide information and referrals to crime victims would provide a basis of service for underserved victims. Approximately half of the states operate 800 numbers for certain crime victims, but few are available for all crime victims. Some states operate general victim assistance 800 numbers out of a state office, while others report that 800 number assistance is limited to specific victim population groups, primarily domestic violence or sexual assault victims. A nationwide survey of 800 number programs in operation across the states should be conducted to provide VOCA administrators with ideas on developing and funding these types of services. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #14 Victim assistance programs should integrate technological advancements into their programs to help better meet the needs of crime victims. Victim assistance programs must integrate computer and telecommunication technology into their management and service delivery systems. Technical assistance and training in the development and integration of technological innovations should be provided with support from federal and state funding. A comprehensive victim assistance program database should be established and provided to the field via the Internet and an 800 number. The database should include the names, locations, and types of victim services available worldwide and give users the ability to exchange referrals and other information on services through a telecommunications network. Victim assistance providers should also explore using the Internet to expand their services. A national center should be created to locate or develop, as needed, software that local programs could use for case management, internal evaluations, and reporting, all tailored to the needs of victim assistance programs. Such a center would assist the field in achieving its goal of seeing that all VOCA-funded programs have full access to the Internet and help other victim assistance programs obtain Internet access at no cost. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #15 Victim assistance programs should comply fully with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure that victims with disabilities can access available services. More programs that focus on serving victims with disabilities must be esta-blished. Additional research should be conducted to determine the extent of victimization against people with disabilities and to guide strategies to increase reporting and prevent this type of victimization. Criminal justice professionals and the victim service community must receive additional training in providing outreach and assistance to victims with disabilities. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a disabled person cannot be denied access to services, programs, or activities associated with a public entity. The ADA covers at least 900 different disabilities including mental impairments. It is critical that agencies meet the spirit and the letter of this law by making public buildings accessible to all and ensuring that communications about victim rights and services are understandable by all. While limited research studies have been conducted that document that people with disabilities are at much greater risk for victimization than people without disabilities, large-scale studies are needed to fully understand the extent of victimization and how to prevent it. These studies would help provide needed information to develop relevant training programs and public policy reforms. Victim Assistance Recommendation from the Field #16 Victim service providers should be trained to assist crime victims who interact with members of the media. The increase in the news mediaÕs coverage of crime and victimization has resulted in very specialized discipline within the field of victim services: advocating for crime victims whose cases are covered by the news media. Training programs to help service providers work more effectively with members of the news media, as well as guidelines in media relations that help providers enhance their professional relationships with the news media, are regularly offered at training conferences and as a component of victim service professional education. The constituency most affected by the news media coverage of violence and victimization is crime victims. While sensitive coverage of victimÕs cases can be helpful and in some cases even healing, media coverage that is insensitive, voyeuristic, and uncaring compounds victims' emotional and psychological suffering. The National Victim Center has developed guidelines for victim assistance providers who work with victims who choose to deal with the media. First published in a brochure in 1987 entitled VictimsÕ Rights and the Media, the guidelines offer valuable counsel to crime victims whose cases are covered by print and broadcast news media. While the ÒrightsÓ enumerated in this brochure are not mandated by statute or policy, they should be considered guiding principles that all service providers should provide to crime victims before they interact with the news media. Office for Victims of Crime U.S. Department of Justice Established 1984 The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) to administer federal funds that support victim assistance and victim compensation programs around the country, and to advocate for the fair treatment of crime victims. To this end, OVC administers the Crime Victims Fund, which is derived not from tax dollars but from fines and penalties paid by federal criminal offenders. Over 90% of the Fund is distributed to the states to help fund their victim assistance and victim compensation programs. OVC administers the remainder of the Fund to support services to federal crime victims, provide training designed to educate criminal justice and allied professionals regarding the rights and needs of crime victims, provide technical assistance to criminal justice and allied professionals, support training and victim assistance programs in Indian country, and initiate and support innovative projects with national impact. This office is one of five bureaus within the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. For further information contact OVC at 202/307-5983 or visit OVCÕs webpage at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/. Violence Against Women Grants Office U.S. Department of Justice Established 1994 The Violence Against Women Grants Office (VAWGO) administers the U.S. Department of JusticeÕs formula and discretionary grant programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The program assists the nationÕs criminal justice system in responding to the needs and concerns of women who have been, or potentially could be, victimized by violence. Grant programs emphasize enhanced delivery of services to women victimized by violence; strengthen outreach efforts to minorities and disabled women; and provide Indian tribal governments with funds to develop and strengthen the tribal justice systemÕs response to violent crimes committed against Native American women, through a discretionary grant program. In addition, the Office provides technical assistance to state and tribal government officials in planning innovative and effective criminal justice responses to violent crimes committed against women. OVC works closely with the Violence Against Women Office, which is responsible for Department-wide coordination of this issue. For further information contact VAWGO at 202/307-6026 or visit VAWGOÕs webpage at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/VAWGO/. National Organization for Victim Assistance Founded 1975 The National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) is the worldÕs oldest broad-based victim rights group. A nonprofit, membership organization, NOVA is guided by four purposes: to be of service to its members; to be an advocate for victim rights and services in federal, state, and local legislatures and executive agencies; to be a training and educational resource to victim assistance and allied professionals; and to be of direct service to victims who call the NOVA offices or who are involved in a large-scale disaster to which a NOVA crisis team responds. National Victim Center Founded 1985 The National Victim Center (NVC) is a resource and advocacy center for victims of crime. The Center serves as a national advocate to establish and protect legal rights for victims and to secure the resources they need to recover from the trauma of crime. NVC programs emphasize public education, public policy through legislative advocacy, and resource development for victims. NVC provides technical assistance to victim service providers, criminal justice, and allied professionals and supports the creation of model programs and materials including the nationÕs most comprehensive library collection on victim-related issues. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence Founded 1978 The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) represents more than 2,000 grassroots programs and shelters serving battered women and their children in rural and urban areas throughout the United States. NCADV opposes the use of violence as a means of control over others, and supports equality in relationships and strategies for helping women assume power over their own lives. NCADV also works to educate the public about domestic violence and supports state legislation that appropriately sanctions offenders. National Network to End Domestic Violence Founded 1990 The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) is a membership and advocacy organization of state domestic violence coalitions. NNEDV began as the Domestic Violence Coalition on Public Policy in 1990, and was instrumental in developing policy that became part of the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Its mission is to ensure that national public policy is responsive to the concerns and interests of battered women and their children; to strengthen the development of and relationships among domestic violence coalitions, which provide services, community education, and technical assistance to programs establishing shelter and related services to battered women and their children; and to educate the general public about issues concerning domestic violence. National Coalition Against Sexual Assault Founded 1978 National Coalition Against Sexual Assault (NCASA) is a membership organization committed to the prevention of sexual violence through intervention, education, advocacy, and public policy. NCASA promotes and advocates a national course of action based on the sexual assault victim/survivorÕs perspective and works toward the empowerment of all victims and survivors: children and adults, women and men. Major NCASA initiatives include hosting an annual National Conference and Women of Color Institute as well as producing resources for National Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April. Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network Founded 1994 The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) is a non-profit organization that operates the only national toll-free hotline for survivors of sexual assault. Founded in 1994 by singing artist Tori Amos, a survivor of sexual assault herself, RAINN provides hotline access to trained counselors 24 hours a day from anywhere in the country. Calls are automatically routed to local rape crisis centers, expanding the outreach and service of these centers. In just three years of operation, RAINN has helped more than 170,000 victims of sexual assault. Parents of Murdered Children Founded 1978 Parents of Murdered Children (POMC) was founded by Charlotte and Bob Hullinger in 1978 after the murder of their daughter Lisa. POMC has grown from a single self-help group in Cincinnati, Ohio, to a network of more than 200 local chapters serving 38,000 survivors each year. POMCÕs goal is to allow the grief of family members to be shared with others who have been through similar experiences, thereby breaking down the isolation that many families face. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Founded 1980 Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was started by two mothers whose daughters were victimized by drunk driving. One was killed and the other became the countryÕs youngest paraplegic. MADDÕs mission is to stop drunk driving and support victims of this violent crime. Each of the more than 500 MADD chapters across the country have at least one trained advocate who provides emotional support through one-on-one advocacy and support groups, guidance through the criminal justice system, and assistance with victim impact statements and compensation applications. MADD operates numerous education and prevention programs for children and adults of all ages and advocates for better public policy. The organization publishes a wide array of victim brochures and offers information and assistance through a 24-hour hotline. Guidelines for Victims Who Choose to Deal With the Media62 You have the right: 1. To say ÒnoÓ to an interview. 2. To select the spokesperson or advocate of your choice. 3. To select the time and location for media interviews. 4. To request a specific reporter. 5. To refuse an interview with a specific reporter even though you have granted interviews to other reporters. 6. To say ÒnoÓ to an interview even though you have previously granted interviews. 7. To release a written statement through a spokesperson in lieu of an interview. 8. To exclude children from interviews. 9. To refrain from answering any questions with which you are uncomfortable or that you feel are inappropriate. 10. To know in advance the direction the story about your victimization is going to take. 11. To avoid a press conference atmosphere and speak to only one reporter at a time. 12. To demand a correction when inaccurate information is reported. 13. To ask that offensive photographs or visuals be omitted from broadcast or publication. 14. To conduct a television interview using a silhouette or a newspaper interview without having your photograph taken. 15. To completely give your side of the story related to your victimization. 16. To refrain from answering reportersÕ questions during trial. 17. To file a formal complaint against a journalist. 18. To grieve in privacy. 19. To suggest training about media and victims for print and electronic media in your community. Establishing Comprehensive Victim Services In order to provide crime victims with dignified and compassionate treatment, sustained financial and emotional support, and enforceable rights, every community should strive to ensure that the following services are available for crime victims: Emergency Aid On-scene crisis intervention 24-hour crisis hotline Sensitive death notification Information on victimsÕ rights and services Referrals for emergency financial aid Emergency transportation Accompaniment to hospital for rape examination Referrals for emergency shelter Referrals for short- and long-term counseling Local Emergency Fund to aid victims Assistance with emergency compensation claim Information and assistance on security options Emergency restraining or protection orders Information and assistance on recovery of stolen property Information and assistance on document replacement Child care services Crime scene cleanup Interpreter services Counseling and Advocacy Crisis intervention services Short-term counseling Long-term counseling Access and referrals to self-help support groups Group counseling Community crisis response Access to counseling during criminal and juvenile justice adjudications Intervention with employers, creditors, and landlords Intervention with public agencies Investigation Regular updates on status of investigation Notification of suspect arrest Basic information on the criminal justice system Compensation claim filing and processing assistance Referrals for short- and long-term counseling Interpreter services Protection from intimidation and harassment Notification of pretrial release of accused Input into bail/bond release decisions Prosecution Orientation to the criminal justice system Regular updates on status of case Accompaniment to court Witness alert/on-call technology 24 hours per day Safe and secure waiting areas Employer intervention services Notification of plea negotiations Victim consultation in plea decisions Assistance in recovery of property held as evidence Information on restitution Restitution routinely requested or an explanation in writing Landlord/creditor intervention Transportation/parking assistance Child care services Sentencing Notification of right to submit a victim impact statement Victim impact information in presentence investigation report Victim impact statementÑwritten Victim impact statementÑallocution Victim statement of opinion Audio taped or videotaped victim impact statement Notice of sentence Post Disposition Information/notification of appeal Collection of restitution Restitution payment as condition of probation or parole Notification of parole hearing Victim impact statement at paroleÑwritten Victim impact statement at paroleÑallocution Audio or videotaped victim impact statement at parole Notification of violation of parole/probation Notification of revocation of parole/probation Notification of application for clemency, pardon, or commutation Notification of escape and capture Notification of custody location Name of probation officer or other supervised community release officer Notice of execution date in death penalty cases Advance notification of release Endnotes 1 National Victim Assistance Academy, Academy Text, Alexandria, VA: 1997: 2-5. 2 Id. 3 According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, of the 2,000 programs nationwide that provides services and support to domestic violence victims, 1,300 provide shelter services (November 1997). 4 Rubin, P., The Americans with Disabilities Act and Criminal Justice: An Overview, RESEARCH IN ACTION, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1993:1. 5 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. 6 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1982:50. 7 The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges are collaborating on dissemination of the Model Code. 8 STOP (Services Training Officers and Prosecutors) violence against women formula and discretionary grants are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. In fiscal year 1995, formula grants of $426,364 each were allocated for each state and territory. In total, $26 million was allocated for formula and Indian discretionary grants, including 14 grants to Indian nations. See Hart, Barbara, The Violence Against Women Act. Identifying Projects for Law Enforcement and Prosecution Grants: FY 95 Funding (distributed by the Battered Women's Justice Project and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence). 9 See FBI, Crime in the United States 1993 (1994). 10 Ringel, C., ÒCriminal Victimization 1996ÑChanges 1995-1996 with Trends 1993-6,Ó National Crime Victimization Survey, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, November 1997:3. 11 Id. at 3. 12 National Victim Center & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation 3 (1992) (victim was less than 11 years-old in 29% of sexual assaults involving penetration; 32% occurred between ages 11-17). 13 National Victim Center & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, supra note 2, at 6. The nonreporting rate may be even higher for college students and younger victims. See Warshaw, I Never Called It Rape 50 (of 886 women victims of rape or attempted rape, on 45 reported, a rate of 5%); Final Report: Campus Task Force on Sexual Assault, Abuse and Violence 11 (University if Illinois) (1990) (Two of 88 sexual assaults were reported to police); Crewdson, By Silence Betrayed (1988) (36% of child victims never told anyone, 21% waited one year to tell, and only 3% of those reported to the police). 14 Id. at 4. 15 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Between Intimates, November 1994, 5. 16 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey 1 (August 1995) (Females are victimized ten times more often than males). Minority females are frequent targets of rape; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Female Victims of Violent Crime 8 (1991) (African-American females are sexually victimized twice as often as Caucasians). 17 But see Allison & Wrightsman, Rape: The Misunderstood Crime, 1993:87-95. 18 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report. 19 Kilpatrick, D.G., C. Edmunds, A.K. Seymour, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992:5 (Not advised of pregnancy testing (60%); HIV testing (73%); sexually transmitted diseases, (39%). 20 See American Medical Association, Strategies for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Assault, Chicago, IL: October 1995; American Medical Association, Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines on Child Sexual Abuse, Chicago, IL: March 1992. 21 Ledray, ÒSexual Assault Evidentiary Exam and Treatment Protocol,Ó Journal of Emergency Nursing, vol. 21, August 1, 1995:355. 22 For example, the St. Paul, Minnesota Police Department does not release the name or address of victim on public reports. Epstein, J. and S. Langenbahn, The Criminal Justice Response to Rape, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, May 1994:21, NCJ 148064. 23 Schechter, S., Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered WomenÕs Movement, Boston, MA: South End, 1982. 24 According to the FBIÕs Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), 19,645 murders were reported in 1996 Ñ a rate of 7.4 murders per 100,000. The number of murders per 100,000 U.S. population in 1996 is 10% lower than in 1995. FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1996, in C. Ringel, ÒCriminal Victimization,Ó Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, November 1997:6, NCJ 165812. 25 Stiegel, L., Recommended Guidelines for State Courts Handling Cases Involving Elderly Abuse, American Bar Association, State Justice Institute, 1995:1. 26 American Association of Retired Persons, Domestic Mistreatment of the Elderly: Towards Prevention, Washington, D.C.: Criminal Justice Services, 1987. 27 House Select Committee on Aging, Elder Abuse: What Can Be Done?, Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives, Government Printing Office, 1991. 28 Tatara, Toshio, ÒElder Abuse in Domestic Settings,Ó in Elder Abuse Information Series, National Center on Elder Abuse, vol.1, May 1996:9. 29 Id. 30 Administration on Aging, Aging, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No.367, 1996:101. 31 House Select Committee on Aging, Elder Abuse: What Can Be Done? 32 Bekey, M., ÒDial S-W-I-N-D-L-EÓ in Modern Maturity, American Association of Retired Persons, April/May 1991. 33 National Victim Center, 1996 VictimsÕ Rights Sourcebook.. 34 CitizenÕs Commission on Human Rights, Psychiatry Victimizing the Elderly, CitizenÕs Commission on Human Rights, 1995:6. 35 House Select Committee on Aging, Elder Abuse: What Can Be Done? 36 National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Nexus, UCSF/Mount Zion Center on Aging, vol.i,ii, June 1995:6. 37 Id. 38 National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Nexus, UCSF/Mount Zion Center on Aging, vol.i, January,1995:5 39 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Partners in Progress: National Impaired Driving Goals and Strategies for 2005, Washington, D.C.: March 1995; Miller, T., M. Cohen, B. Wiersema, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1996. 40 Miller, T., M. Cohen, B. Wiersema, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. 41 Lord, J, R. Shearhouse, and M. Green, The Movement to Stop Drunk Driving, Draft, Irving, TX: September, 29, 1997. 42 For further information, see Lord, et al., The Movement to Stop Drunk Driving. 43 National Institute of Justice, Project To Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1993:12, NCJ 144477. 44 Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking Legislation, Annual Report to Congress Under the Violence Against Women Act, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1996:1. 45 U.S. Department of Commerce, Justice and State, and the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, ¤109(b). 46 National Institute of Justice, Project To Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States. 47 National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Audit of Violence Against Pacific Americans: The Violent Impact on a Growing Community, Washington, D.C.: National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Fourth Annual Report, 1996:1. 48 Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-275, 101st Congress (1990); Dees, M., in Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bloodshed and Bigotry, J. McDevitt and B. Levin, New York: Plenum Publishing, 1993:199-202. 49 National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Audit of Violence Against Pacific Americans: The Violent Impact on a Growing Community, 1. 50 National Church Arson Task Force, National Church Arson Task Force Fact Sheet, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, October 1, 1997. 51 Bureau of Justice Statistics, ÒA PolicymakerÕs Guide to Hate CrimesÓ; Monograph, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Association, March 1997. 52 Id. at 13. 53 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bank Crime Statistics, Federally Insured Financial Institutions January 1, 1994 - December 31, 1994, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995. 54 Id. 55 RAINN, ÒOn-Line Counseling: Brazos County Rape Crisis Center, Bryan, Texas: http://rapecrisis.txcber.comÓ RAINN NEWS, Washington, D.C., August 1997. 56 National Institute of Justice, Tomz, J.E., McGillis, D.,Serving Crime Victims and Witnesses, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 2nd Edition, 1997:16, NCJ 163174. 57 Id. 58 Id. at 106. 59 Id. at 101. 60 National Organization for Victim Assistance, ÒVictim Services as a Profession,Ó in The Road to Victim Justice: Strategies for Victims Services, National Organization for Victim Assistance, National Victim Center, funded by the Office for Victims of Crime, 1992. 61 Id. 62 Seymour, A. and L. Lowrance, ÒCrime Victims and the News Media,Ó Fort Worth, TX: National Victim Center, 1988:7-10. Chapter 7 The Health Care Community In 1985, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop declared violence in America to be a public health emergency and convened a historic conference on violence and public health, involving physicians, nurses, public health workers, researchers, policymakers, and advocates. YesterdayÕs emergency has become todayÕs epidemic, with some inner cities looking more like war zones than urban communities. The costs to the U.S. health care system are astounding: ¥ Three percent of U.S. medical spendingÑand 14 percent of injury-related medical spendingÑis caused by interpersonal violence.2 ¥ During 1994, U.S. hospital emergency department personnel treated an estimated 1.4 million people for injuries from confirmed or suspected interpersonal violence.3 ¥ One insurer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Pennsylvania, estimated that more than $32 million a year is spent in that state alone to treat domestic violence injuries.4 ¥ Gunshot violence in the United States costs $4.5 billion a year in medical expenses alone.5 ¥ Alcohol-related crashes cost $45 billion per year, with the average cost per victim at $16,000.6 Whether looking at the cost of the expensive emergency surgery needed by more than half of all gunshot victims, the permanent brain or spinal cord damage suffered by a high percentage of the survivors, or the psychological trauma and long-term health consequences endured by victims of relationship violence and sexual assault, violence in America is both a major health risk for individuals and an enormous drain on the nationÕs health resources.7 Dr. KoopÕs urgent message challenged health care providers and the public to seek out the root causes of violence and develop the best treatments. This new focus for health professionals has been demonstrated at an institutional level, from the U.S. Surgeon General and the American Medical Association to local chapters of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Emergency Nurses, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have taken a strong and visible role in efforts to reduce violence and create a safer, healthier society. Many professional organizations actively supported legislation such as the Brady Law, the Assault Weapon Ban, the Violence Against Women Act, the Child Safety Act, and laws to reduce drug distribution and handgun possession by juveniles. Medical and public health research organizations, often funded by the Centers for Disease Control and other Federal agencies, have examined the risks of violence from many perspectives, greatly increasing the knowledge base of criminal victimization. Physicians have established coalitions with law enforcement personnel, social service workers, clergy, teachers, parents, and government leaders to actively fight the epidemic of violence. Their energy and commitment comes from seeing firsthand the consequences of violence, from the gunshot wound in the trauma unit to the abused child in the community clinic. What happens in the clinical setting is paramount from the victimÕs point of view. Physicians must diagnose, treat, and mend victims of crime, while also consoling and caring for them and their families. Treating patients with sensitivity to their physical conditions, as well as to the psychological impact of victimization, can help the overall physical and mental healing process. The PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime recognized that the medical community is often the first to come into contact with crime victims who have experienced some form of injury. Because victims are understandably fearful and insecure when they arrive at medical centers, the 1982 Task Force recommendations focused on the clinical setting and the need for hospital personnelÑfrom the emergency room to the billing departmentÑto be sensitized to the emotional trauma of victimization and to treat the whole patient, not just the physical manifestations of the criminal violence.8 The Final Report also recommended that hospitals should: ¥ develop and implement training programs for hospital personnel to sensitize them to the needs of victims of violent crimes, especially the elderly and those who have been sexually assaulted; ¥ provide emergency medical assistance to victims of violent crime without regard to their ability to pay and collect payments from state victim compensation programs; ¥ provide emergency room crisis counseling to victims of crime and their families; ¥ encourage and develop direct liaisons with all victim assistance and social service agencies; and ¥ develop, in consultation with prosecuting agencies, a standardized rape kit for proper collection of physical evidence. In the 15 years since the Task Force released its recommendations, changes in professional norms, institutional resources, and clinical practice have made it easier for the health care community to respond effectively to crime victims. One of the most visible indicators of change in hospital response is the adoption of standardized protocols for victim care, as well as statutory requirements for victim services in many states. In addition, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, the organization that accredits these facilities, has added standards for victim response to its review requirements. Great strides have been made to sensitize health professionals to the signs and symptoms of domestic violence and child abuse and educate them in appropriate treatments. Hospital-based Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs are springing up around the country to assist rape victims in supportive settings, and some hospitals have developed comprehensive social services for crime victims, including individual and group counseling. The medical community has responded slowly and inconsistently, however, to the recommendations of the Task Force concerning training of all hospital personnel, counseling in the emergency room, and referrals to victim assistance organizations. The health care community is just beginning to institute pilot projects to address the special needs of crime victims such as adolescent gun violence victims, one of the fastest growing populations of crime victims in the nation,9 and the hidden victims of family violence. In the words of Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services: [W]e simply must do better. Because a battered woman may never call the police... she may never contact a lawyer... she may never enter a shelter, but, eventually Ñ even if itÕs only for a routine check-up Ñ she will probably visit a doctor, nurse, or community health worker. And we must be ready when she doesÉ [W]e want to better reach out to health care professionalsÉ strengthening our ability to screen, treat, and prevent violence against women.10 Established Programs Since the PresidentÕs Task Force Final Report was released in 1982, significant advances have been made in identifying and treating victims of family abuse, providing supportive services for sexual assault victims, and reimbursing crime victims for medical expenses. Family Violence The health care community has responded to family violence, which encompasses abuse across the entire life cycleÑchildren, adults, and the elderly. Coalitions of national health organizations have been established to address family violence and develop protocols on recognizing and treating family violence. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) became the first national medical organization to address domestic violence in response to the high incidence of physical abuse among pregnant women. ACOG collaborated with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence to publish bulletins and brochures about domestic abuse for its members and their patients. Another major health organization, the American Medical Association (AMA), also has pushed the medical community to respond more forcefully to family violence. In 1991, the AMA launched its Campaign Against Family Violence to heighten physiciansÕ awareness of domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse as public health problems. The campaign sought to improve physiciansÕ ability to recognize the risk factors and symptoms of abuse and refer patients for shelter and services when needed. The AMA has published a set of diagnostic and treatment guidelines for physicians in the areas of child physical abuse and neglect, child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and elder abuse and neglect. Both the AMA and the American Nurses Association have developed protocols for appropriate intervention and treatment of family violence. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations now requires hospitals to develop protocols for the identification and treatment of battered women.11 A couple of the more successful hospitalwide protocols for assessing and intervening on behalf of domestic violence victims are the Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) program at ChildrenÕs Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and WomanKind, a 24-hour case management, advocacy, crisis intervention, hospital-wide training, support group, and outpatient assistance program serving three Minnesota hospitals. Sexual Assault Beside providing immediate treatment for victims, medical staff are required to collect relevant evidence to document an assault and to report their findings. Appropriate documentation provides useful information for prosecutors and victims when taking criminal and other legal action against perpetrators. As the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force Report recommended, a primary consideration is the use of appropriate evidence collection kits to gather information in sexual assault and sexual abuse cases for later evidentiary use at trial. This must be done sensitively, but competently, so that the trauma of the rape examination is minimized and evidence is collected accurately. Many hospitals have established protocol for the comprehensive treatment of sexual assault victims, including the use of specialized kits for forensic exams. However, one study found that such an exam occurred in only 17 percent of all rape cases.12 Since 1990, the number of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs across the country has doubled to 86.13 SANE programs offer an innovative approach to handling the medical/evidentiary aspects of sexual assault and child abuse cases through the use of technology, nurse examiners, and specialized settings. Instead of having doctors handle these cases in busy emergency rooms, SANE programs create a special environment for victims and use trained nurse examiners to conduct the evidentiary medical examination and present the forensic evidence at trial. According to the Tulsa Police Department, the nationally recognized Tulsa SANE program has substantially improved the quality of forensic evidence in sexual assault cases. The Sexual Assault Resource Service of Minneapolis is developing a guidebook for starting SANE programs for use by communities. Compensation for Emergency Medical Care Victim compensation programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands reimburse private and public hospitals for the cost of emergency medical assistance to crime victims when that cost is not covered by private insurance or other public medical benefits. In most states, emergency medical assistance is reimbursed to the hospital in the full amount of the cost billed. In others, state law or rule authorize providing victim compensation programs to pay a percentage of the billed amount, similar to the practice followed by private insurance carriers or public medical programs such as Medicaid. For example, Delaware pays 80 percent of billed charges; Arkansas, California, and Maine pay 75 percent; Florida covers 66 percent; and Louisiana pays 65 percent. A number of states also ensure, by law, that victims are not held responsible for the remaining amount of the bill.14 Promising Practices Pilot programs linking victim services with health care settings are increasingly being initiated across the country. These promising practices bring together professionals from many disciplines to create victim services that aid recovery without revictimizing patients or their families. Professional Education and Training Education and training for physicians and other health care providers are essential to ensure a sensitive and forensically sound response to criminal injuries. Until a family violence curriculum becomes standard in all professional schools for medical personnel and in postgraduate continuing education programs, health care personnel are likely to overlook this form of abuse, missing an important opportunity for early intervention and support. Fortunately, excellent training protocols for responding to victims have been developed, and they are being used by some hospitals around the country. ¥ With funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and several major foundations, the National Health Initiative on Domestic Violence, a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), has developed, evaluated, and disseminated multidisciplinary training programs to strengthen the medical communityÕs response to battering in a variety of settings. The programs were tested in 12 California and Pennsylvania hospitals in 1994 and 1995. In only 9 months, all 12 hospitals successfully designed and implemented a comprehensive interdisciplinary emergency department response to domestic violence, which includes physicians, nurses, social workers, administrators, and community advocates. The model is now being used in more than 130 hospitals and health care settings. FVPF recently published a manual with step-by-step instructions to develop this field-tested, low-cost model program, as well as a blueprint to create a citywide health care response to domestic violence.15 In 1997, the Initiative began its second phase, expanding into ten states to work with a coalition of interested organizations to develop and implement a statewide plan for a comprehensive hospital-based response to domestic violence. A national conference, Domestic Violence and Health Care: Initiatives for the New Millennium, was held in Washington, D.C., in November 1997 to flesh out the steps necessary to expand and improve the U.S. health care response to domestic violence. ¥ Individual hospitals are pioneering specialized victim services training for physicians and mental health professionals. The Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress at Harborview Hospital in Seattle, Washington, one of the oldest victim service programs in the nation, has been a national leader in developing comprehensive mental health services for sexually abused children and adults. A medical training program at Harborview, supported by state funds, provides training to physicians and other health care providers who examine sexual assault victims. The program also provides emergency department training in acute response, a mentorship program for doctors, colposcopy16 slide review for quality assurance, and protocols for administering tests for sexually transmitted diseases to adolescent and adult patients reporting rape. ¥ At ChildrenÕs Hospital in San Diego, California, the Center for Child Protection (CCP) was established in 1976 to address the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of child abuse and family violence. Its services include intensive home visiting, assessment, and case management; support for pregnant and parenting teens; assistance to women in identifying and accessing resources to break the cycle of family violence; and individual, group, and family therapy to victims of child abuse and their caretakers. The success of these programs led to numerous requests for training and technical assistance from other health care providers. In response, CCP started a clinical training program that offers accredited continuing education to physicians in conducting the medical evaluation of child sexual abuse and to interview specialists in conducting forensically defensible videotaped interviews of children. CCPÕs San Diego Conference on Responding to Child Maltreatment and Summer Seminars by the Sea provides state-of-the-art multidisciplinary education to 2000 professionals from around the world each year. ¥ An interactive teleconference was used statewide in Alabama to train public health department employees in domestic violence identification and treatment. Developed through a partnership between the Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Alabama Department of Public Health, this innovative training program used a talk-show format: an Alabama newscaster was host, and a physician, shelter director, attorney, and three survivors played the roles of talk show guests.17 ¥ In its continuing effort to educate the medical profession about domestic violence, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has produced a slide lecture about the health care needs of domestic violence victims. Target audiences include OB-GYN residents, third-year OB-GYN medical students, first- and second-year medical students in courses such as Introduction to Clinical Medicine, and other health care providers including emergency department personnel, dentists, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, and mental health providers. ¥ In 1997, the Program Against Sexual Violence and the School of Dentistry at the University of Minnesota received funding from the Office for Victims of Crime to develop a comprehensive education model for dentists and dental auxiliaries regarding family violence. The project will produce a training videotape on the clinical and medical signs of family violence in the dental setting; develop a curriculum for a six-hour seminar designed to train dental professionals to recognize family violence and to implement appropriate intervention; and design a comprehensive training packet which will enable the dental team to easily apply the intervention model to their own office setting. ¥ Victim Services in New York City has launched a 3-year pilot project with HIP, the cityÕs largest managed care health provider, to respond to victims of domestic violence. The pilot has four components: physician and staff training; universal screening of all female patients; care management of identified domestic violence victims; and public education and outreach to HIP members. Other goals of the pilot include developing models of coordinated care between the mental health and primary care physicians, developing outcome measures to track benefits of the intervention, and developing actuarial data on the prevalence and cost of domestic violence to HIP. Over 185,000 HIP members will be served by the project. The project is funded by HIP, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Chase Bank, and the New York State Department of Health. Multidisciplinary Approaches in Health Care Settings Health care, mental health, religious, and social service agencies must work closely with police officers and detectives, prosecutors, judges, court personnel, correction professionals, and victim assistance providers when assisting victims of crime. In the past, these professionals have not necessarily shared the same goals, nor were they amenable to working together. These allied professionals are beginning to recognize that they must cooperate and understand each otherÕs functions when responding to criminal victimization. ¥ The Violence Prevention Task Force of San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) was established in 1994 to build bridges between the many hospital departments that interface with victims of violence, and between the hospital and the community. Comprised of representatives from the hospitalÕs trauma, surgery, emergency services, psychiatry, nursing, pediatrics, family medicine, social work, and administration departments, the task force is facilitating institutional change in the way crime victims are treated. They also seek to foster a culture of violence prevention at SFGH. Members of the task force conduct staff training sessions to raise consciousness about violence and sponsor annual educational fairs for community victim service agencies to share resources and dialogue with health care workers. ¥ The Center for the Vulnerable Child at the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center was founded in 1984 as one of the first hospital-based family violence advocacy centers in the nation. The state-of-the-art medical treatment and forensic documentation provided by the center is complemented by a multidisciplinary approach, including legal, social, and mental health services, to guarantee that all patients are treated with dignity. The center uses new interactive computer technology called telemedicine to consult with health providers in rural areas on conducting examinations of abused children. In addition, the center is using Office for Victims of Crime funding to develop a hospital-based emergency shelter for victims of spousal abuse and their children to serve as a laboratory and training site. The shelter will assist victims of spousal assault by assessing the potential for repeated violence to parents and children in a safe environment. ¥ The ChildrenÕs Advocacy Center in Niagara, New York, a service of Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, is another example of a multidisciplinary program in a hospital setting that offers a single child-friendly facility for children who have been physically or sexually abused. Prosecutors, police officers, social services workers, therapists, victim advocates, and medical professionals work together to investigate allegations and to reduce the trauma for these children. The center also provides training for team members several times a year. ¥ The National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical University of South Carolina provides specialized mental health services while working closely with police agencies, the prosecutorÕs office, the local rape crisis center and battered womenÕs shelter, the state crime victim assistance network, and the crime victims compensation agency. Physically injured crime victims hospitalized in the medical center are provided with information about the justice system, crisis counseling, and referrals for outpatient treatment. ¥ In the rural community of La Crosse, Wisconsin, the Gundersen Lutheran Crime Victim Services and Victim Resource Center, a program of the Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center, is testing a five-county crisis response protocol for victims of traumatic crime. Supported by a Victims of Crime Act subgrant, the program works to improve the accessibility of clinical service resources to victims of serious crimes; increase victimsÕ access to staff; enhance the skills of physicians, nursing staff, and clinicians for crisis management response; and improve communication among law enforcement, district attorneyÕs offices, and clinical support services. ¥ The American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS), in partnership with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the umbrella group for the majority of domestic violence shelters across the nation, provides free medical services to victims of domestic abuse. Shelter counselors refer domestic violence victims who have received injuries to the face, head, or neck to AAFPRS for consultation with a surgeon, and suitable candidates are given reconstructive surgery at no cost. Since July 1994, 614 victims have been referred to plastic surgeons. Programs Assisting Adolescent Gunshot Victims and Victims of Gang Violence While multidisciplinary protocol are becoming routine for treating victims of child abuse, sexual assault, and family violence, guidelines to address the unique needs of violently injured adolescents did not exist until recently. In November 1996, a Task Force on Adolescent Assault Victim Needs convened by the American Academy of Pediatrics published a model protocol for appropriate care of these victims from their arrival in the emergency department to their discharge from the hospital. The work of the task force was guided by the premise that comprehensive care of violently injured adolescents must address their psychosocial needs as well as their physical injuries. The protocol is designed to promote full recovery and to reduce the risks of reinjury and reactive perpetration.18 The OVC Special Report, Victims of Gang Violence: A New Frontier in Victim Services, released in October 1996, recommended that hospital-based counseling and prevention programs be established in medical facilities that provide services to gang violence victims. Several hospitals are already testing pilot programs for children and adolescents that involve a range of disciplines over time and across hospital, clinic, and community settings. A few are highlighted below. ¥ The Teens on Target program at the Summit Medical Center in Oakland, California, and at the Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center in Los Angeles has been hailed nationwide as a model for hospital-based gang violence intervention. It provides immediate and long-term assistance to teenage victims, intervention with gang members who accompany victims to emergency rooms, and gang prevention strategies for schools. The program uses trained peer counselors, many of whom are in wheelchairs because they were victims of gang violence, to give bedside support to injured teens and help them find alternatives to violence. ¥ Project Ujima is a unique multidisciplinary collaboration of the ChildrenÕs Hospital of Wisconsin, the Social Development Commission/Milwaukee Youth Opportunities Collaborative, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Health Education, and Family Services of Milwaukee. The project was created to prevent violence and improve the health of violently injured youth in the Milwaukee community. To accomplish this, the projectÕs partners established a network of medical, psychological, and social support systems to provide emergency service for young victims and their families. In the ChildrenÕs Hospital emergency department, peer counselors, community-based staff, and a social worker provide support and a sense of safety and trust. Following discharge, youth and families are visited at home by service providers who provide them with continued medical care and a complete health assessment as well as integrated violence prevention services. Training sessions for hospital staff focus on effective communication and sensitivity toward violently injured youth of different races and ethnic backgrounds. ¥ KidStART is a Violent Injury Prevention Center for physical and psychological healing of violent injuries that started in 1995 as a pilot at the ChildrenÕs Memorial Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. KidStART counselors meet each week with an average of 21 young victims of violent injury in the hospitalÕs special art studio, where they paint, draw, make masks, and sculpt in clay. Parents, siblings, and other hospital patients may also participate. The program has had a visible impact on these patients by allowing them to express and validate their feelings of fear, frustration, and pain utilizing creative arts as their primary media. ¥ The Violence Prevention Club, established in 1991 by the Boston Violence Prevention Program and now replicated at the Boston Medical Center, is designed to provide guidance and support to young people with spinal cord and other injuries caused by violence. Young gunshot victims in the hospital have immediate contact with a member of the violence prevention staff and are matched with peer counselors who also have sustained gunshot injuries. The recovery period in the hospital and rehabilitation center offers a window of opportunity for survivors to be exposed to supportive resources and peer role models in the community. Once discharged, they are encouraged to become advocates for prevention. Youth and adult staff of the Violence Prevention Club have trained and assisted other spinal cord injury units and city health departments across the nation in developing their own violence and victimization intervention initiatives. Recommendations from the Field for the Health Care Community Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #1 All professional schools that educate future health care professionals, including schools of medicine, nursing, social work, rehabilitation, hospital administration, and public health, should incorporate victim issues into their curricula. It is critical that the health care community learn about the psychological, as well as the physical trauma caused by crime. At a minimum, courses on the trauma of victimization, child sexual and physical abuse, elder abuse and neglect, domestic violence, and sexual assault should be a standard part of curricula for health care providers. The objectives of a violence curriculum should be: to educate about risk factors, indicators, prevalence, and consequences of violence; to increase awareness of the prevalence of family violence; to emphasize the need to screen all patients for alcohol and other drug abuse; to enhance provider-patient communication skills, including how to take a violence history; to foster a multicultural understanding and sensitivity; and to expand knowledge of victimsÕ rights and available services to enhance capability for quality and timely referrals.19 These topics should be included in professional licensing examinations, and continuing education programs throughout their careers. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #2 All patients should be routinely assessed for indications of domestic abuse or other history of violence, and any signs or symptoms of abuse should be documented in their medical records. State legislatures should consider following the lead of California, the first state to mandate that all hospitals and licensed clinics routinely screen patients for indicators of abuse,21 document such indicators in their medical records, and refer patients to domestic violence assistance resources.22 The law also requires all health care providers to complete domestic violence course work or training as part of the licensure and recertification process. Other states, such as Florida and New York, require similar training for physicians licensed by the state. Whether required by state law or not, health care responders should be instructed and trained to gather evidence to document domestic violence injuries for use later in criminal, juvenile, child protective, and civil proceedings. Medical personnel should document the patientÕs injuries and report in as much detail as possible, using sketches or photographs and the exact words the patient uses to describe the incident.23 Support systems for the protection of health care professionals who report child abuse, neglect, and child witnessing of violence should be strengthened. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #3 Hospitals should establish training programs and protocols for all hospital personnel about the rights and needs of victims of crime. Annual mandatory training programs for hospital staff on victimsÕ needs should include presentations by individual victims or victim panels on the trauma of victimization and victimsÕ rights laws. The training should be multidisciplinary and devote special attention to victims of sexual assault, child abuse, domestic violence, elderly victimization, hate and bias crimes, and catastrophically injured patients, including those injured in drunk driving crashes. Protocol similar to those developed by the AMA and American Nurses Association should be developed to ensure appropriate procedures for collecting, preserving, and transmitting evidence and to eliminate repeated interviews of victims by doctors, nurses, and social workers. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #4 Medical facilities including hospitals and rehabilitation and trauma centers should serve as gateways to assist victims of crime. Response staff should be available in these settings to provide onsite crisis counseling, follow up with patients, and serve as links to in-house and community resources. The health care, social service, criminal and juvenile justice, and other professional communities must integrate their response to violence if victims are to be provided a safety net that functions effectively. Medical settings should develop linkages with a variety of area resources including victim service agencies. Special consideration of the needs of victims, such as food, clothing, transportation, and the development of safety plans should be taken into account in emergency rooms and trauma centers. Programs should involve the family in aftercare and should educate them about victimsÕ needs and rights before they leave the hospital. In all cases, victims must be informed about options and be at the center of decisions related to their aftercare. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #5 Victims of sexual assault should be given emergency medical care, forensic examinations, and testing for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases at no out-of-pocket cost and in a supportive setting. More hospitals should consider establishing Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs to respond sensitively to the needs of sexual assault victims. Specialized medical examinations for child and adult victims of sexual assault have forensic, health, and psychological purposes. In these times of dramatic changes in the health care delivery system and a shift to managed care, it is especially important to ensure that victims receive the full range of treatment they need including diagnosis and treatment of injuries, and testing, counseling, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Financing these critical services could be accomplished through government support of forensic practitioners, criminal or juvenile justice system reimbursement for examination costs, or coverage by VOCA-funded crime victim compensation programs. In federal sexual offense cases, the Attorney General should provide for the payment of the cost of two anonymous and confidential tests of the victim for the HIV virus and sexually transmitted diseases, including gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, and syphilis.24 HIV testing should be conducted at an anonymous testing site that provides pre- and post-test counseling. Anonymous testing allows the victim to keep his/her results private and avoids the potential for the results to be discovered by defense attorneys or insurance companies when the test is performed in a hospital setting. Any costs associated with the testing should be covered by the medical community or by crime victim compensation. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #6 Cultural competency guidelines should be developed to help health care providers improve screening and intervention services for victims from diverse backgrounds. Detection, treatment, and prevention services for victims of domestic assault, elder abuse, child abuse, and sexual assault are often nonexistent, inadequate, or culturally inappropriate in rural, inner-city, lower income, minority, and immigrant communities. Where these services do exist, victims may be inhibited from seeking help because of cultural barriers. Health care providers often compound these problems by their lack of knowledge about options available to patients, by not discussing the topic out of their own discomfort, and by insensitivity to the cultural context of abuse. Imaginative approaches are needed to foster multicultural understanding on the part of students in professional schools. For example, where standardized patients are used as a teaching method, they should represent the communityÕs racial, cultural, and linguistic groups.25 Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #7 Medical personnel should be knowledgeable about and have policies in place to ensure that statutory privacy protections are applied to medical records, abuse reporting forms, and medical legal evidence. They should respect the confidentiality and privacy needs of all victims of crime and assist them in dealing with unwanted media attention, especially in cases of sexual assault and assaults on children. Although horrendous crimes may be of interest to the public, crime victims do not have to share the details or their feelings with the public. Hospitals and clinics should develop protocols for protecting the rights of victim-patients in their care who do not want to be interviewed or photographed. Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and gang violence may need to be admitted under an alias to protect them from further acts of violence. Security guards should be alerted when violence or unwanted media attention is a possibility. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #8 Counseling and prevention programs and/or a referral system to such programs, should be established in medical facilities that treat violence-related injury, including gunshot victims, to address the broad spectrum of needs of these victims. The importance of counseling and prevention programs for victims of gang violence was emphasized in the 1996 OVC Special Report, Victims of Gang Violence: A New Frontier in Victim Services. Rehabilitation-based intervention strategies to reduce adolescent acquaintance violence are being used in major trauma centers across the country and should be replicated, wherever possible.26 Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #9 Protocols for appropriate security and safety procedures should be developed to assist hospital personnel in responding to incidents of gang, family, and other violence that might result in staff victimization. Patient assaults on personnel in emergency rooms and other heath care facilities threaten the welfare not only of the assaultive patient, but of staff and visitors. Victims report intense emotional reactions as well as physical injury. While risk management is widely recognized as an important element of the management response, crisis intervention procedures and peer counseling also should be established for emergency service personnel and health care providers affected by assaultive incidents.27 Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #10 Pediatricians, family practitioners, internists, and other health care professionals treating young children should be educated about the effects on children of witnessing domestic violence and violence in the community. Several studies have documented that children are victims of and witnesses to a significant amount of violence, including homicides and serious assaults.28 It has also been estimated that at least 3.3 million children witness physical and verbal spousal abuse each year, from insults and hitting to fatal assaults with guns and knives.29 Pediatricians, pediatric nurses, social workers, and others working in clinical settings need to be able to recognize and treat both short-term and long-term consequences of violence to children, including post-traumatic stress disorder, or ensure appropriate referrals for counseling. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #11 Technology should be utilized to improve medical services for crime victims, especially in underserved and rural areas. Many crime victims who live in underserved, rural, or remote areas do not have access to physicians to conduct forensic and other needed medical examinations. To help provide these crucial services, rural communities should consider using new technology to link nurse practitioners to trained physicians who can help them to conduct examinations and review procedures. Web sites should be established to provide information and links to local resources for families seeking help on victimization issues. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #12 Statutes and policy should be adopted to prevent insurance companies from discriminating against victims of crime by denying and/or canceling coverage or by charging higher premiums for such coverage. Some victims and their advocates report that it has become a practice among some insurance carriers to deny claims made by individuals that resulted from their criminal victimization. In addition, some insurers have either refused to cover such victims or have attempted to charge victims exorbitant premiums to obtain such coverage. As a matter of public policy, insurers granted the privilege of doing business in the various states should be required to provide victims with basic coverage much the same way companies are required to insure high risk drivers.30 Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #13 All health care professionals should be educated about sensitive death notification techniques. Death notification is rarely, if ever, addressed in medical schools, although nursing journals, pastoral care journals, and some medical social worker literature addresses it. OVC has funded the development of four death notification seminars, one geared specifically toward health care providers. The protocol presented are based, in part, on interviews with hundreds of family members who had been notified of the deaths of their loved ones. Health Care Community Recommendation from the Field #14 Catastrophic physical injury victims, including assault and drunk driving crash survivors with serious injuries, should receive specialized neuro-psychological evaluation in health care facilities. Emergency room professionals place primary importance on treatment of injuries that are obvious or are detected by x-ray, CT scan, or MRI. Victims who have been seriously injured should also be referred to neuro-psychologists for evaluation of closed head injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Five to 45% of motor vehicle crash survivors who seek medical attention will develop PTSD within the year following the crash and an additional 15% to 30% will develop symptoms but not enough for the full diagnosis.31 Endnotes 1 Koop, C.E., ÒForeword,Ó in Violence in America: A Public Health Approach, ed. M.L. Rosenberg and M.L. Fenley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. 2 Miller, T.R., M.A. Cohen, and B.Wiersema, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, National Institute of Justice, February 1996, NCJ 155282. 3 Rand, M.R., Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 1997, NCJ 156921. 4 Flitcraft, A., ÒPhysicians and Domestic Violence: Challenges for Prevention,Ó Health Affairs, Vol. 12, Number 4, 1993:159. 5 Headden, S., ÒGuns, Money & Medicine,Ó U.S. News & World Report, July 1, 1996:34. 6 Miller, T.R., and L.J., Blincoe, ÒIncidence and Cost of Alcohol-involved Crashes,Ó in Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 26, Number 5, 1994:583-591. 7 There is increasing evidence that the impact of crime-related trauma takes its toll on the long-term physical health of its victims. Dr. Dean Kilpatrick, a national expert on victimization, notes that crime victims have higher rates of health care utilization than nonvictims of crime. Moreover, female crime victims have been found to have higher rates of several prevalent health problems. Compared to nonvictims, crime victims have higher rates of several behaviors that contribute to health morbidity and mortality such as heavy alcohol and drug use, drunk driving, smoking, bulimia, and obesity. 8 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1982:89-94. 9 According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations 1995 Uniform Crime Reports, juvenile gang killings increased 38% over the last five years. Federal Bureau of Investigations, 1995 Uniform Crime Reports, Washington, D.C.: 1995:17. 10 Shalala, Donna, Remarks to the Family Violence Prevention Fund National Conference, Domestic Violence and Health Care: Initiatives for the New Millennium, Washington, D.C., November 3, 1997. 11 Information on pioneering research and program development by physicians and nurses is contained in ÒBest Practices: Innovative Domestic Violence Programs in Health Care Settings,Ó San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund, February 1997. 12 Kilpatrick, D., Edmunds, C., and A. Seymour, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, Arlington, VA: National Victim Center and the Medical University of South Carolina, National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992. 13 Data obtained from SANE program survey conducted by the Sexual Assault Resource Service of Minneapolis under OVC Grant # 96-VF-GX-K012. 14 Florida law, for example, provides that Òthe deductible or copayment provision of any insurance policy shall not be applicable to a person determined eligible pursuant to the Florida Crimes Compensation Act. . . .Ó FLA. STAT. ANN. ¤624.128. 15 ÒBest Practices: Innovative Domestic Violence Programs in Health Care Settings,Ó published by the Family Violence Prevention Fund, 1997. 16 Colposcopy is the microscopic examination of the cervix. 17 This program is described along with a sampling of other innovative health care domestic violence programs in ÒBest Practices: Innovative Domestic Violence Programs in Health Care Settings.Ó 18 American Academy of Pediatrics, ÒAdolescent Assault Victim Needs: A Review of Issues and a Model Protocol,Ó Pediatrics, Vol.98, No.5, 1996:991- 1001. 19 Alpert, E.J. and S. Cohen, eds., ÒEducating the NationÕs Physicians about Family Violence and Abuse,Ó Academic Medicine, Supp.72, January 1997:1; Thurston, W.E. and L. McLeod, ÒTeaching Second-Year Medical Students About Wife Battering,Ó WomenÕs Health Issues, Vol.7, No.2, 1997:92-98. 20 Shalala, D., Domestic Violence and Health Care: Initiatives for the New Millennium, Remarks to the Family Violence Prevention Fund National Conference, Washington, D.C., November 3, 1997. 21 According to Dr. A. Heger, Medical Director of the Violence Intervention Program at L.A. CountyÑUSC Medical Center, 28% of emergency room visits are related to family violence. 22 WestÕs Ann. CAL. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE ¤1233.5 (West). Patient screening to detect spousal or partner abuse. 23 McAfee, R.E., M.D., ÒMedical Records,Ó in The Impact of Domestic Violence on Your Legal Practice, American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, 1996. 24 Violence Against Women Act of 1994, tit. IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322 (September 13, 1994) codified at 42 U.S.C. 13701, at ¤ 40503. 25 Pinn, M.T., V.W. Chunko, ÒThe Diverse Faces of Violence: Minority Women and Domestic Abuse,Ó Academic Medicine, Supp., January 1997:72.1. 26 See, e.g., De Vos, E. , D. Stone, ÒEvaluation of a Hospital-based Youth Violence Intervention,Ó American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Supp. Vol.12, No.5 1996:101-108. 27 Lanza, M.L., ÒNurses as Patient Assault Victims: An Update, Synthesis, and Recommendations,Ó Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, VI:3, 1992:163-171. 28 See ÒSilent Victims, Children Who Witness Violence,Ó Commentary, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.269 No.2, 1993:262- 264. 29 Osofsky, J.D., ÒChildren Who Witness Domestic Violence: The Invisible Victims,Ó Social Policy Report, Vol.IX No.3, 1995:2-3. 30 Under current federal law (Kennedy-Kassenbaum legislation) it is illegal for insurance companies to discriminate based on a pre-existing condition when a person transfers from one insurance plan to another. Abuse cannot be considered a pre-existing condition. In addition, Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and Representative Bernard Sanders (I-VT) have introduced legislation that would effectively prevent discrimination of insurance carriers against victims of crime. Called the Victims of Abuse Insurance Protection Act, it would prohibit insurers and health carriers from making coverage determinations on the basis that the applicant or insured is or has been the victim of domestic abuse. It would also prohibit insurers from using or disclosing information about the personÕs abuse history, with limited exceptions. S. 467, H.R. 1117. 31 Hickling, E.J., and E.B. Blanchard, ÒPost Traumatic Stress Disorder and Motor Vehicle Accidents,Ó Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Vol. 6, 1992:283-304; Green, M.M., McFarlane, A.C., C.E. Hunter, & W.M. Griggs, ÒUndiagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Following Motor Vehicle Accidents,Ó The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol.159, 1993: 529-534. Chapter 8 The Mental Health Community Victims of crime often suffer a broad range of psychological and social injuries that persist long after their physical wounds have healed. Intense feelings of anger, fear, isolation, low self-esteem, helplessness, and depression are common reactions.1 Victimization can shatter the most basic assumptions that allow people to function normally in their daily livesÑthat they are safe from harm, that the world is meaningful and just, and that they are good, decent people. This happens not only to victims of violent assaults but also to victims of crimes such as burglary and fraud.2 Survivors of prolonged, repeated trauma, such as battered women and abused children, often suffer severe mental health problems. The emotional damage and social isolation caused by victimization can be compounded by a lack of support and even stigmatization by friends, family, and social institutions, producing a Òsecond woundÓ for victims. Those closest to the victim may be traumatized by the crime. They may be so overwhelmed by their own anger, fear, and guilt that they are unable to provide much care and understanding. Some friends and family members, particularly of victims of sexual assault, distance themselves from the victim and blame them for what happened.3 To protect their own belief in a just world where people Òget what they deserve,Ó and to establish distance from the possibility of random or uncontrollable injury, many people prefer to see victims as responsible for their fate. When victims seek help, they are sometimes met with similar insensitivity. They often feel revictimized by the criminal or juvenile justice process, which traditionally has been more concerned with the rights of the accused than with those of the victim. Justice may become a central issue for victims as they seek to reconstruct their lives and begin to heal.4 Participation in the justice process is therapeutic when it helps victims to better understand what happened, allows them an opportunity to tell their story, and validates their loss and sense of being wronged. When victims are ignored, their feelings of trauma may be intensified and prolonged. Progress Since the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime The PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime observed in 1982 that violent crime produces psychological as well as physical injuries.5 In issuing its recommendations, the Task Force challenged the mental health community to: ¥ Provide immediate and long-term psychological treatment programs for victims of crime and their families. ¥ Establish training programs that will enable practitioners to treat crime victims and their families. ¥ Study the immediate and long-term psychological effects of criminal victimization. ¥ Work with public agencies, victim compensation boards, and private insurers to make psychological treatment readily available to crime victims and their families. ¥ Maintain direct liaison with other victim service agencies. In addition, the Task Force suggested that legislation be enacted to ensure that designated victim counseling is legally privileged and not subject to defense discovery or subpoena. While the physical and financial injuries of criminal victimization were emphasized in the victimsÕ movement, for many years crimeÕs psychological toll was not fully recognized. In the early 1980s, landmark documents called attention to the fact that victims of violent crime often experience crime-related mental health problems. In 1980, the third edition of the American Psychiatric AssociationÕs Diagnostic and Statistical Manual included post-traumatic stress disorder as a new diagnostic category and noted that it could be caused by violent crimes such as rape and assault.6 Four years later, the American Psychological Association Task Force on Victims of Crime and Violence examined the field of psychology and its allied professions. Its final report reviewed the state of psychological knowledge on victimization, surveyed theory and approaches to helping victims, and made recommendations for the mental health community.7 Major advances have been made in our understanding of crime-related psychological trauma and the best ways to provide treatment to crime victims. Research on the scope of criminal victimization and its psychological impact has grown substantially. In 1994, the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual pointed out differences between acute traumatic stress disorderÑreflecting what is known in the field as the crisis reaction to victimizationÑand post-traumatic stress disorder.8 It further recognized the impact of the subjective perception of victims in understanding traumatic events, which opened the way for further research on the effects of culture and environment on victim responses and healing. Research has led to a growing acknowledgment of the differences between the types of trauma reactions that occur after a sudden, random, arbitrary event and the reactions that occur when one is repeatedly traumatized over time in situations such as domestic violence, child abuse, hostage taking, or war.9 Other studies have provided new understanding of stress reactions of crisis intervenors, victim assistance providers, and mental health professionals when they work with crime victims.10 Although less well-developed, the research literature on efficacy of treatments for crime-related psychological trauma also has expanded. Prior to 1982, there was virtually no systematic training available for mental health professionals on effective treatments for crime victims. The Society of Traumatic Stress Studies developed the first interdisciplinary curriculum on responding to traumatic stress in 1989.11 This information is now included in the training curricula of some mental health and medical professionals, and postgraduate inservice training through workshops is much more available. The passage of the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) in 1984 had an important impact on improving mental health services for crime victims because state crime victim compensation programs were required to provide payment for mental health counseling in order to qualify for VOCA funding. Within a few years, most states amended their compensation statutes to include mental health counseling as an eligible benefit, providing considerable incentive for mental health professionals to learn how to provide effective treatment to crime victims. The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) has supported expanding mental health services for crime victims by funding important initiatives in education for mental health professionals and counseling for crime victims. These initiatives range from supporting assessment and counseling services for child sexual abuse victims on Native American reservations to funding crisis response teams to assist victims of major mass crimes such as the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In 1995, OVC provided funding to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape to develop a curriculum on collaborative approaches to victim services for mental health and victim service providers.12 In the critical area of financial support for victim counseling, OVC funded the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards in 1991 to develop state-of-the-art guidelines on evaluation and payment of mental health counseling claims. In addition, the National Institute of Justice provided substantial funding for the 1994 National Conference on Family Violence cosponsored by the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association. Important recommendations were made at the conference to improve multidisciplinary criminal justice and health care approaches to family violence, including developing mental health referral sources and a communitywide assessment process that maximizes safety for all family members. The Importance of Understanding and Treating Crime-related Psychological Trauma Crime-related psychological trauma is a major public health and mental health problem for our nation. Because violent crime has been shown to increase both morbidity and mortality, violence and its aftermath have become mainstream public health issues.13 Violent crime puts a large number of Americans at risk of debilitating mental health problems that can severely limit their ability to live productive, emotionally healthy lives. Victims with a history of victimization suffer more crime-related psychological trauma after experiencing a new crime than do victims without prior victimization.14 Because of the sheer number of Americans suffering from crime-related mental health problems, their treatment is one of the most pressing issues facing the mental health community today. Crime-related psychological trauma impairs the ability and willingness of many victims to cooperate with the criminal or juvenile justice system. At every key stage of the justice processÑfrom contemplating making a report to police to attending a parole hearingÑinteracting with the system is stressful for victims and often exacerbates their trauma. When victims do not report crimes to police out of fear or are too terrified to testify, it is extremely difficult for the justice system to accomplish its mission. Crisis Reactions and Short-term Trauma Most crime victims suffer crisis reactions after serious crimes. They often experience shock and a sense of disbelief, thinking, Òthis canÕt be happening to me.Ó Many describe high levels of physiological anxiety such as rapid heart rate and hyperventilation as well as emotional reactions such as feeling helpless, terrified, and extremely angry. These are common Òflight or fightÓ responses that occur in dangerous situations. They may be accompanied by disorientation, confusion, shame, guilt, and grief. Some victims survive the crime and the accompanying reactions with few lingering effects. More continue to experience the reverberations of crisis over the next few weeks or months. This is particularly true if the crime has substantially disrupted their day-to-day lives. Victims of violent crime may feel high levels of fear, anxiety, and general distress, disrupting their ability to concentrate on simple mental activities. Some become preoccupied with the crime, worry constantly about their safety and the safety of their family members, and become concerned that other people will not believe them or will think that they are responsible for what happened. Even more distressing for these victims, especially those who are harmed by members of their family, is that violent criminal acts destroy their belief that their world is safe and that the people they live, work, and go to school with can be trusted. Acute traumatic stress disorder is one description of short-term trauma and reflects findings that indicate that for many people such symptoms subside within a month after victimization.15 It is not unusual for memories of the event to disrupt victimsÕ thoughts and sleep. They may have recurrent nightmares, become irritable, suffer outbursts of tears, feel estranged and isolated from loved ones, or be wary of any sudden, intrusive sensation. With the help of strong social support and pre-existing lifetime coping skills, the intensity of traumatic reactions is likely to decrease over time. But it is not unusual for reactions to continue until individuals feel that their lives have stabilized and that they have regained a sense of safety and security in their world. Crisis reactions can also reappear at later times in their lives when another event triggers their memory of the original trauma. Long-term Psychological Trauma For some victims of violent crime and their families, psychological trauma may last for months or years. Research demonstrating that violent crime can produce long-term psychological harm has grown enormously since the publication of the President's Task Force Report in 1982. Many victims of and witnesses to violent, highly stressful events develop symptoms that are referred to by the American Psychiatric Association as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. For victims of crime, these events may include sexual assault, physical attack, robbery, mugging, kidnaping, child sexual assault, observing the serious injury or death of another person due to violent assault, and learning about the violent assault or death of a family member or close friend.16 Reactions to these events can be a destructive force in a personÕs life for a long time. They include: ¥ Persistent re-experiencing of the event, including distressing recollections, flashbacks, and dreams, and emotional and physiological reactions to anything that triggers an association. ¥ Persistent avoidance of things associated with the traumatic event and reduced ability to be close to other people and have loving feelings. ¥ Persistent symptoms of increased arousal, including sleeping disorders, outbursts of anger, an inability to concentrate on simple tasks, wariness, and highly sensitive startle re