Report to Congress, December 1999

During the last biennium, OVC continued its efforts to promote the delivery of comprehensive, quality services for all crime victims, regardless of the type of crime they experienced, their age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, capability, or geographic location. Because the funding available for direct services during the FYs 1997–1998 biennium exceeded any previous biennium, OVC exercised leadership in working with State administrators to plan for, implement, and operate programs that not only continued and expanded services already in place, but also reached communities not yet served and supported innovative approaches to meeting victim needs.

According to public opinion surveys and evaluation of services provided by government-based and private nonprofit programs, increasing numbers of the general public now accept and expect that services will be in place for crime victims.

The victims' rights movement has achieved visibility and credibility. From its beginnings in the early 1970s with grassroots efforts to respond to rape victims and battered women, the movement has effected significant legislation, funding, creation of services, and a research base, and victim advocates are beginning to look at standards for programs and individual providers. State programs have improved outreach efforts, and victim advocacy organizations have learned to work effectively with legislators and policymakers. OVC has encouraged these developments through funding and training, provision of technical assistance, and advocacy for systemic change. Shelters and court-based advocacy programs have been created for domestic violence victims, self-help groups have evolved for survivors of homicide and drunk driving, and child advocacy centers have opened for child sexual abuse victims. According to public opinion surveys ⁵ and evaluation of services provided by government-based and private nonprofit programs, increasing numbers of the general public now accept and expect that services will be in place for crime victims.

OVC-Supported State Programs To Compensate and Assist Crime Victims

Through its State Compensation and Assistance Division, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) administers the two major formula grant programs authorized by VOCA: Victim Compensation and Victim Assistance. OVC distributes over 90 percent of the Crime Victims Fund deposits directly to the States to support State victim compensation and assistance services for victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, drunk driving, homicide, and other crimes. The amount of money distributed to States and territories for compensation and assistance programs has fluctuated since the passage of VOCA and the establishment of the Crime Victims Fund. During FYs 1997–98, OVC distributed $682.5 million to States in the form of formula grants. This 2-year distribution represented 40 percent of all funds distributed since the inception of VOCA.

All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have established victim compensation programs. Each of these compensation programs reimburses victims for such crime-related expenses as medical costs, mental health counseling, funeral and burial costs, and lost wages or loss of support when other financial resources, such as private insurance or offender restitution, do not cover the loss.

During FYs 1997–1998, victim compensation programs expanded eligibility to new categories of crime victims (e.g., victims of stalking and of hit and run motor vehicle crashes) and compensated victims for additional types of service (e.g., counseling for children who witness domestic violence). The increase in the number of applications for compensation received in FYs 97–98 reflects increased awareness of and use of these programs by victims and expanded coverage of crimes and services by States. This also reflects the increase in the number of programs receiving funds under VOCA victim assistance, since, as a requirement of receiving funds, these programs must assist victims in applying for compensation.

"The words thanks, gratitude, etc., are all fitting, but I know in my heart that God sent you to help me. Your demeanor invokes an atmosphere of trust. I know that I can still count on you whenever I need someone to talk to because you've never failed to be there for me. . . . I hope this program will be there for the many people who need special help."

—A victim who received services from a
New Orleans Rape Crisis Center

Victim assistance programs provide direct services such as crisis counseling, criminal justice system advocacy, shelter, and other needed assistance to crime victims. All States and territories receive an annual VOCA victim assistance grant. Each State, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico receives a base amount of $500,000. The territories of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa each receive a base amount of $200,000. Remaining funds are distributed on the basis of population. VOCA funds, awarded to States each year, support more than 4,000 community-based programs that serve crime victims. From FY 1986 through FY 1998, States received more than $1 billion in VOCA victim assistance grants.

"Overall my stay at the shelter provided me with the options necessary to make a new start and break away from an unhealthy and dangerous situation. Without places like Passageway it would be really hard for women without any support systems in their lives to have any shot at starting over."

—A victim who received services from Passageway,
a VOCA-funded program serving
domestic violence victims in Oklahoma

The FY 97 and 98 increase in Federal funding occurred in concert with implementation of State constitutional amendments for crime victims' rights, which were passed prior to and during the biennium: eight States passed an amendment during this biennium alone. As a result, significant activity was directed toward making services available to victims to exercise their rights in the criminal justice system and toward educating criminal justice and human services professionals on the availability of compensation for crime victims. In effect, the availability of VOCA victim assistance funding during the last 2 years played a major role in many States' ability to respond to victims at a time when crime victims were visible, assertive, and effective in influencing State legislative agendas.

VOCA Victim Services Trends for Priority Populations in FYs 1997–1998

The VOCA statute requires States and territories receiving victim assistance funds to give priority consideration to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and those previously underserved. These "priority populations" are the categories used in this report to track the flow of VOCA funds.

Services for Victims of Domestic Violence

Victims of domestic violence have historically received a major commitment of VOCA victim assistance dollars (see Figure 6). While States and territories must spend a minimum of 10 percent of their funds on programs for domestic violence, they have regularly committed almost four times this amount. This commitment continued during the last biennium even as States received funding authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VOCA dollars fund direct services to domestic violence victims, such as crisis intervention, advocacy, shelter services, and counseling. VAWA dollars, in turn, focus on changing the criminal justice system's response to domestic violence through training and support of law enforcement activity and policy development and implementation. In effect, the systemic change envisioned by VAWA is supported by the direct services funded through VOCA victim assistance.State compensation programs have made concerted efforts to reach out to victims of domestic violence and to adapt program requirements to better respond to these victims. The result is a steady increase in the number of claims filed and the amount of money awarded to victims of domestic violence and their families.

Domestic Violence Funds and Services

Under VOCA victim assistance, domestic violence receives the largest commitment of funds and serves the largest number of victims of any victim category.
Under VOCA victim assistance, States must spend a minimum of 10 percent of their award on domestic violence. During the last biennium, States exceeded that by almost 4 times.
For both VOCA victim assistance and victim compensation, the number of victims served and the amount of money expended for victims of domestic violence increased.
Under VOCA victim compensation, domestic violence claims continued a 4-year increase and funds awarded to domestic violence victims increased by 58 percent over the previous biennium.

Services for Adult Victims of Sexual Assault

VOCA establishes the same priority for funding for victims of sexual assault ⁶ as it does for victims of domestic violence (see Figure 7). Sexual assault programs are entitled to receive a minimum of 10 percent of funds made available to States from OVC to support direct services. Nationwide, States have allocated almost 20 percent of total VOCA funding for programs and services for sexual assault victims. Between FY 1997 and FY 1998, sexual assault programs, including programs serving adults molested as children received more than $73 million dollars in funding. This funding provided for a wide range of services including crisis counseling, criminal justice advocacy, and information and referral. These services were augmented by benefits from forensic medical examination, mental health counseling, medical services and lost wages covered by State compensation programs.

The amount of compensation funds awarded by States to victims of sexual assault decreased from the last biennium. This is most likely due to the dramatic increase in programs funded by VOCA victim assistance and by VAWA for sexual assault victims. However, the amount expended by compensation programs for forensic exams increased significantly from the last biennium and has become a stable funding source for these procedures. Use of these exams is a direct reflection of increased sensitivity by medical and criminal justice personnel to victims of sexual assault who consent to this means of evidence collection, but the ability to collect this evidence has facilitated efforts by State and local criminal justice officials to investigate and prosecute sexual assaults. This effectiveness, in turn, has increased willingness on the part of victims to report these crimes.

Services for Victims of Child Abuse

Like other categories of crime victims, victims of child physical and sexual abuse benefit from resources available from both local victim assistance programs and State crime victim compensation programs that receive VOCA funding annually (see Figure 8). On average, States expended roughly 21 percent of their VOCA victim assistance dollars to fund child abuse treatment programs and children's advocacy centers. In the last biennium, this amounted to nearly $81 million allocated for victim assistance programs serving these victims. During FYs 97–98 alone, this constituted a 250-percent increase in VOCA victim assistance funds committed and an almost 70 percent increase in community-based programs funded during this reporting period. VOCA-supported compensation programs expended more than $63 million on child abuse.

Services for Underserved Victims

The underserved crime victim category represents a fourth priority added to the VOCA victim assistance program by Congress in 1988 (see Figure 9). In implementing this statutory provision, OVC provided broad discretion to States and territories in determining which victim populations fall within this category. Many State VOCA administrators routinely survey crime victim advocates and organizations, analyze crime statistics, and utilize other mechanisms for determining which victims to designate as"previously underserved" and allocate the minimum 10 percent funding for programs serving them. Underserved victims may include victims of drunk driving, homicide (surviving family members), physical assault, elder abuse, robbery, hate crimes, arson, and financial fraud. With the exception of American Indians and victims in rural areas, OVC has discouraged States from designating underserved by their demographic characteristics to ensure that victims of crimes other than child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault receive funding support under the VOCA victim assistance program.

Like the other priority categories, programs responding to underserved victim populations received more than 20 percent of the VOCA funding awarded to States for crime victim services. Under VOCA-funded crime victim compensation programs, on the other hand, underserved victims commanded 77 percent or more of total expenditures. In addition, this group comprised 61 percent of all claims approved. This reflects the significant expenditures in this program for medical care for physically assaulted and drunk driving victims and funeral expenses for homicide victims. With underserved victims, the victim assistance and compensation programs complement one another. The compensation program addresses many of the physical care needs of injured crime victims, while the victim assistance program provides for the crisis intervention, criminal justice advocacy, and social services needs of crime victims. Both programs address the psychological consequences of crime victimization.

On average, States expended roughly 21 percent of their VOCA victim assistance dollars to fund child abuse treatment programs and children's advocacy centers. In the last biennium, this amounted to nearly $81 million allocated for victim assistance programs serving these victims.

Comparison of Services and Funding Among Categories of Victims

During the last biennium, VOCA victim assistance funded programs served more than 5.6 million victims. Some 53 percent of the victims served were victims of domestic violence. The next largest category of victims served, at 26 percent, was underserved victims, followed by child abuse victims at 12 percent and adult sexual assault victims at 9 percent. When domestic violence and child abuse victims are combined, the number of family violence victims served is 65 percent of all victims. This demonstrates a strong commitment by the States in using VOCA victim assistance funding to serve these victims and break the cycle of violence.

Total VOCA victim assistance funding for programs serving priority categories, i.e., domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault, was approximately $4,141,855. At 38 percent of funds allocated, States gave first priority to funding services to domestic violence victims. Services to underserved populations at 23 percent, child abuse at 21 percent, and adult sexual assault at 19 percent, followed in rank order of funds allocated (see Table 5). When domestic violence and child abuse funding are combined, 58 percent of VOCA victim assistance funding in the FY 97–98 biennium was committed to assisting victims of family violence.

Funding for the priority categories (i.e., domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, and previously underserved victim populations) has exceeded the level of funding established in the VOCA victim assistance guidelines (see Table 6). Likewise these victim categories received substantial funding support from State crime victim compensation programs. The original priorities of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence received more than $115.7 million in compensation benefits during the biennium. It is much more difficult to determine with any degree of certainty, however, the exact amount of compensation expenditures for the previously underserved category because the data are not collected in a way that provides this information. State compensation programs expended more than $353.7 million in VOCA victim compensation and State funds on victims of assault, survivors of homicide victims, and DUI/DWI victims during the biennium (see Figure 10).

Crime victim compensation programs expended the largest amount of VOCA and State funds on nonfamilial crime. The family violence categories of child sexual and physical abuse and domestic violence comprise 19 percent of total expenditures for the biennium. While the remaining categories may include family violence (e.g., homicide by a spouse), broadly speaking, compensation programs awarded more funds for benefits to victims of violence outside the family.

Other VOCA Victim Assistance Program Trends For FYs 1997–1998

"This VOCA grant has made the difference between our program meeting the basic needs of those victimized by crime in Clackamas County and having to prioritize and/or reduce the service provided by our division . . . .Thank you very much for the opportunity to serve on the human side of the criminal justice system."

—Terry Gustafson
District Attorney
Oregon City

VOCA victim assistance programs fund programs that provide direct services to crime victims. The 361-percent funding increase in the CVF from the previous biennium resulted in an increase in the number of victims served and the number of services provided through VOCA victim assistance grants. States awarded subgrants to 3,722 victim services programs in FY 1997 and 4,143 programs in FY 1998, compared with 2,535 in FY 1995 and 2,678 in FY 1996, a 51-percent increase on average in funded programs for FYs 1997–1998. Several trends emerged that are responsible for the successful expansion and improvement of crime victim services over the last biennium: integration of victim participation and services into the criminal justice system; development and expectations of competence in the victim services field, a multidisciplinary, multisystem approach to responding to crime victims; outreach to unserved victim categories; improved management of programs and administrative capability and capacity; and greater use of technology.

Integration of Victim Participation Into the Criminal Justice System
In FYs 1997–1998, major steps were taken to integrate victim services into the criminal justice system and to legitimize victims' roles in that system. States passed laws concerning victims of domestic violence, stalking, juvenile crime, child abuse, and hate and bias crimes, among others. This increased attention to the rights of victims promoted an increase in the number of subgrants to criminal justice organizations, including prosecutor, law enforcement, and probation offices. In addition, 29 percent more victims received VOCA-funded criminal justice system support services in FY 1997 than in FY 1996. This number increased by an additional 22 percent in FY 1998.

"It is with a great deal of pride that I send in our VOCA performance report. Because of your grant, we have been able to work more efficiently with survivors of homicide. This money has enabled us to soften the pain on the long journey each survivor of homicide makes."

—Parents of Murdered Children
Portland Oregon Chapter

Consistent with these numbers, State VOCA victim assistance administrators reported increased cooperation among law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim services programs, and greater coordination between State victim assistance providers and Federal criminal justice agencies. Cooperation among sexual assault advocates, hospitals, law enforcement, and prosecutors in standardizing and adapting evidence collection to the sensitivities of victims resulted in better outcomes for both prosecution and victim services. In several States, Federal victim/witness coordinators are members of organizations' advisory boards that serve victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and other victims of crime—also resulting in more effective coordination of the delivery of services to Federal crime victims.

During the last biennium, VOCA victim assistance funded programs served more than 5.6 million victims.

Development and Expectation of Competencies in Providing Victim Services
OVC has directly contributed to the movement to improve the quality of services victims receive through its sponsorship of training and technical assistance, development of program standards, and efforts to offer educational opportunities to victim advocates and allied professionals. At the same time, during the last biennium, States' VOCA victim assistance programs also have been instrumental in providing for, arranging, funding, and sponsoring considerable training of victim services providers and criminal justice officials. In FYs 1997–1998, VOCA victim assistance administrators in several States conducted statewide conferences and training academies. States sent advocates to OVC's National Victim Assistance Academy and several States—including California, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, and Ohio—have developed their own training programs for advocates.

FYs 1997–1998 performance reports show victim advocates reaching out to other professionals and their organizations to expand services to crime victims. For instance, Maryland successfully integrated domestic violence workplace policies within State agencies and created a domestic violence in the workplace training curriculum for State employees. Other States provided training for clergy and social workers in grief and trauma therapy and emergency medical technicians and hospital emergency room staff on domestic violence.

VOCA victim assistance funds were also used to raise program and provider standards. For example, Alabama enacted legislation to establish standards for domestic violence shelters, Kansas required accreditation for sexual assault and domestic violence organizations, and Pennsylvania established uniform standards for serving co-victims of homicide, robbery, burglary, and assault.

Multidisciplinary, Multisystem Approaches to Responding to Crime Victims
In the aftermath of crime, a victim may interact with a variety of professionals and their systems, including health care, law enforcement, victim services and compensation, prosecution, courts, human services, public assistance, corrections, probation, and parole. No one system can independently provide all services needed by a victim. State VOCA victim assistance reports document the formation of multiple advisory committees, councils, coalitions, and task forces covering general crime victims, sexual assault, child abuse, and domestic violence during the last biennium.

The incorporation of multidisciplinary, multisystem approaches to serving crime victims—beyond the traditional criminal justice agencies and nonprofit organizations—is a major factor in improving responses to victims of crime. Many States have funded child advocacy centers that incorporate medical, mental health, law enforcement, prosecution, and child protective services into a single program that allows for victims of child sexual abuse to be interviewed and examined, thus facilitating decisions regarding prosecution and delivery of services to the victim and family at one meeting. The multidisciplinary team approach to child abuse is now common in many States. In addition, several communities in Minnesota introduced models of whole community responses to sexual assault. The Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program requires medical personnel, law enforcement, prosecutors, and sexual assault advocacy organizations to collaborate on behalf of the victim, again saving the victim from repeated questioning.Crisis response teams require collaboration of law enforcement, prosecutors, trained victim crisis interveners and counselors, and victim compensation programs to effectively respond to mass violence. These teams have been established in many States with OVC facilitating the delivery of training to these professionals, often through a grant to NOVA.

Other unique relationships have developed to meet the needs of specific groups of crime victims, such as establishing a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) advocate on a reservation in Arizona, opening a free legal clinic in a sexual assault program in Minnesota, and initiating training of local law enforcement, sheriff officers, prosecutors, judges, advocates, social workers, and hospital emergency room staff to provide an interdisciplinary response to domestic violence and sexual assault victims by South Dakota victim assistance programs.

State VOCA victim assistance administrators reported increased cooperation among law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim services programs, and greater coordination between State victim assistance providers and Federal criminal justice agencies.

Outreach to Unserved Victim Categories
Diversity is inherent in American culture and, as a result, multiple avenues must be developed for crime victims to access the criminal justice system and victim services. As a part of OVC's commitment assuring that all victims of crime receive services and have access to the criminal justice system, States have been encouraged to establish innovative programs for crime victims, to increase outreach to diverse victim populations, and to ensure services are accessible. Through OVC's diligence to increase awareness of and sensitivity toward diverse victim populations, the following changes have developed in States throughout the Nation:

Understanding that low-income individuals and families may need assistance in accessing crime victim services, Oregon placed crime victim services staff at the State welfare office.
Tennessee developed comprehensive services in rural and socially isolated areas of the State.
Many States made greater efforts to reach and serve ethnic groups. Hispanic hotlines were established in Connecticut and Delaware. In Minnesota, culturally specific domestic violence shelters were established for Asian, Spanish-speaking, and American Indian women. To reach Asian populations, Minnesota has also funded a pilot program for Southeast Asian victims of gang-related activities, as well as a sexual assault program through the Women's Association of Hmong and Lao. Washington and Wisconsin sponsored specialized training on immigrant issues as they affect crime victims.

"Ujima is a wonderful program. It has helped my family and me in many ways with housing, food, and moral support. I really think this program can assist a lot of families. I was very blessed and happy to come in contact with this program. Keep up the good work."

—A victim who received services from Project Ujima,
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin

Several States recognized the specialized needs of crime victims who are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing. For example, in Missouri, the Midwest Leadership through Education and Advocacy for the Deaf Institute (LEAD) provided, with VOCA funding, statewide services to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing victims of violent crime. The South Carolina Department of Mental Health provided enhanced services to deaf adults and children by providing interpreters to work with counselors. In Connecticut, several agencies collaborated to provide services to victims of sexual assault and their families who were hearing impaired.

Other populations to whom States conducted outreach included youth, victims of gang violence, child witnesses of domestic violence, women and children victims of Internet-related crimes, elderly victims, and victims who were owed restitution.

In FY 1997, 14 States awarded subgrants to Indian Country. During FYs 1997–1998, victim assistance formula grant funds committed to Indian Country increased by 66 percent over the previous biennium—from $2,662,651 to $4,042,092.

Improved Management of Programs and Administrative Capability and Capacity
Because of the increase in legislative mandates, the growth of programs for crime victims, and the major increase in Federal funding, States increased their capacity and expertise to manage funding and programs for crime victims by using up to 5 percent of their awards for administrative costs, as authorized by VOCA. In FY 1997, State compensation programs used less than 1 percent of their Federal funds for administration and in FY 1998, they used 1.69 percent. Rather than using the full allocation of administrative funds available to them, State administrators placed priority on paying claims from victims. States continued to use State revenues to pay for program administration. This is a reasonable approach, considering the relative stability of claims activity and expenditures, and reflects States' commitment to crime victims.

Thirty-four States and territories used administrative dollars to increase staffing, particularly for managers, administrators, grant specialists, and program specialists. Key functions supported with these funds included monitoring, sponsorship of conferences and training, and provision of technical assistance. Some other examples of administrative expenditures include the following: Connecticut and Illinois contracted with a conduit organization to monitor subgrantees, while several States used administrative dollars to upgrade office technology and support the implementation of automated systems intended to improve the coordination and delivery of services. In the VOCA victim assistance program, States and their subgrantees designed and implemented quality assurance and evaluation processes of victims services.

Greater Use of Technology
States used VOCA victim assistance administrative funds to improve management and delivery of victim services. Several States and territories, during FY 1998, used a portion of the 5-percent allocation to develop technology and purchase equipment. These funds increased the efficiency of grants management, in part through the development of databases and programmed statistical and financial reporting. As an example, Virginia used administrative dollars to create a Statewide Client Information Management System (CIMS) that tracks provision of services by client and service agency. Police crime incident reports, when correlated with CIMS-generated information, can assess areas of the State that may need additional victim assistance resources.

States also awarded direct services funds to develop and operate notification systems to inform victims of activities concerning their cases in the criminal justice system or expand victim protection. For example, nine States reported using VOCA dollars to implement statewide automated victim notification systems that allow victims to be updated on the legal status and whereabouts of their offenders. In Arizona, VOCA moneys were used to pay for cellular phones for domestic violence victims so they can summon the police for help at a moment's notice.

By investing in advanced technology, States increased their capacity to serve victims. For example, Montana utilized VOCA victim assistance program dollars to purchase CD-ROM technology to train emergency medical technicians, as they are often the first to respond to victims in the immediate aftermath of violent crime. In addition, five States reported using VOCA funds to create victim service Web sites, making it possible for service providers and victims to quickly and easily obtain information about available resources.

Not only has technology made services available to more victims, but advanced technologies are being used to enhance the quality of services offered. In Illinois, for instance, VOCA funds supported development of InfoNet—an integrated Information Network that allows victim services providers across the State to communicate freely with one another, collect accurate program performance data, and standardize program reporting. In fact, many States have used VOCA funds to purchase computers and printers for victim services providers thus enabling them to share information about victims' needs quickly and to locate appropriate resources. Finally, access to the Internet, with VOCA-funding support, is helping victim services professionals stay current on medical and psychological research regarding traumatic victimization and on "promising practices" that can help victims recover from the consequences of violent crime.

Nine States reported using VOCA dollars to implement statewide automated victim notification systems that allow victims to be updated on the legal status and whereabouts of their offenders.

In sum, VOCA administrative dollars were widely used during the biennium to help State agencies manage their grants—a trend OVC expects will continue. VOCA-funded technologies improved crime victim services by helping the States do the following:

Reach more underserved crime victims.
Enhance victim safety through implementation of automated victim notification systems.
Improve the transfer of information among providers regarding victims' needs and available local resources.
Increase the professional expertise of victim services providers through Internet access to current academic literature on the consequences and treatment of criminal victimization.

VOCA Victim Compensation Program Trends For FYs 1997–1998

While VOCA victim assistance funds programs that provide direct services to crime victims, compensation programs pay certain related expenses for individual victims of violent crime, such as funeral expenses and lost wages. During FYs 1997–1998, States undertook initiatives to reduce their backlogs of claims and expedite claims processing.

The number of claims received increased during FYs 1997–1998 by 10 percent over the previous biennium (see Figure 11). This most likely reflects increased outreach activities by State compensation programs. The percentage of claims approved increased by 6 percent, while the percentage of claims denied decreased by 8 percent over the previous biennium. While key indicators, such as number of claims, number of determined and denied claims, and total dollars spent for FYs 1997–1998 increased, compensation claims activity remained relatively stable during the biennium. This occurred even as rates of violent crime decreased. Reasons for this seemingly incongruous occurrence may be explained by several trends occurring in victim compensation over the last 4 years and underscored during the last biennium.

A number of emerging trends in victim compensation programs were noted from FYs 1997–1998 performance data and onsite monitoring visits conducted by OVC staff. Compensation programs engaged in greater outreach to the general public and to crime victims through statewide conferences and other public awareness initiatives that informed victims of compensation benefits. State compensation programs increased their responsiveness to crime victims by expanding covered costs and improving their claims processing. Compensation programs received more claims from crime victims and expended more funds for benefits, even in the face of declining crime statistics. More effective use of peer consultation and training was facilitated by OVC-supported National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards (NACVCB) annual conferences that encouraged networking and fostered communication between State compensation and assistance administrators. OVC's Mentor Program supported States' efforts to improve claims processing, revenue recovery, and other program improvements by facilitating technical assistance between programs. Taken together, OVC and State efforts resulted in increased help for victims and a corresponding increase in the receipt of claims from victims and larger payouts from State compensation programs.

Of the types of crimes covered by the crime victim compensation programs, physical assault consistently ranks as the crime capturing the largest number of claims and the largest expenditure of money. (See Figure 12 for number and amount of victim compensation paid by type of crime.)

The number of homicide claims covered by compensation decreased 6 percent from the last biennium, likely reflecting a decrease in the homicide rates nationally. The amount of money paid for homicide claims, however, increased because of increases in State caps on amounts paid for funeral and burial expenses, coverage of mental health counseling for survivors, and other expanded benefits. As reported, domestic violence compensation claims continued a 4-year (2 biennia) increase. DUI claims were down from the last biennium, a trend consistent with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's figures released in April 1999 on the number of fatalities resulting from alcohol-related crashes during those years.

Amounts Paid by Type of Expense (Crime Victim Compensation)
Not surprisingly, medical and dental expenses consumed a major share of VOCA compensation dollars during the biennium (see Figure 13). Many victims incurred uninsured medical costs as a result of their victimization and so they turned to State compensation programs for coverage. Medical treatment ranged from repairing a broken arm to reconstructive surgery for victims of arson and other catastrophic injuries. The second largest expense category supported by VOCA was for loss of economic support ($105,811,118). Crime victim compensation programs provided funds to both adult and child survivors of homicide victims as well as to victims who were temporarily and permanently disabled as a result of their injuries. The third largest category consuming substantial payments to victims was for mental health counseling expenses ($92,635,056). Crime victims, including both victims who suffered physical injury and substantial financial losses, often sought assistance from professional mental health counseling therapists. Mental health counseling rendered by licensed clinicians frequently was coupled with group counseling offered by lay persons in community-based victim services programs. The therapy focused on a wide range of treatment modalities intended to help victims cope with the devastation of the crime committed against them.

In total, State crime victim compensation programs paid out roughly $521.5 million to crime victims for medical and dental expenses, mental health counseling, economic support, funeral expenses, forensic sexual assault examinations, and other costs incurred by crime victims over the biennium using VOCA funds.

Compensation Programs Boost Benefits To Meet Victims' Needs

"Compensation programs across the country are increasing maximum payment amounts, raising the cap on specific expense categories, and adding new types of allowable expenses as they strive to meet more of the needs of victims.

"Twelve States upped their caps on funeral expenses in the past year, with new limits ranging from $3,500 to $7,500. . . . Overall maximum award amounts increased in five States. Colorado doubled its top allowable award to $20,000, and North Carolina increased its maximum award to $30,000. . . . Other changes include a 50-percent increase in allowable medical costs in Iowa; substantially higher lost-wage limits in Alabama, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas; increases in mental health benefits in Arkansas and New Jersey; and a doubled emergency award maximum in Colorado.

"To provide more help to domestic violence victims, Colorado, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wyoming are now paying for lost support formerly provided by offenders to abused spouses and their dependents. Relocation costs for domestic violence victims are also being paid in a number of States.

"Programs also are moving forward with new legislative proposals to add more benefits. For instance, Arkansas expects to add a $25,000 catastrophic benefit; Maine soon will pay for crime scene cleanup; and Missouri plans to cover all crimes occurring outside the U.S.

"These programs and others continue to listen to 'victims' voices,' and they are making substantial progress to meet their needs."

—Excerpt from front-page article in
Crime Victim Compensation Quarterly,
Winter 1999

Integration of Crime Victim Compensation Into a Coordinated, Collaborative Response to Crime Victims
In FYs 1997–1998, crime victim compensation programs increasingly participated with criminal justice officials and victim services providers in developing coordinated and collaborative responses to crime victims, an approach strongly encouraged by OVC. State compensation programs conducted outreach to two different and key audiences. The first group included the general public and crime victims themselves. This form of outreach involved public awareness campaigns, brochures, public speaking, and other initiatives. The second key audience included officials and agency staff who interact with victims in the aftermath of crime. These included criminal justice, advocacy and human services staff, and volunteers.

Several States achieved greater coordination of victim compensation and assistance programs through statewide conferences and other means. Results from these conferences showed up when students in Arkansas and Oregon schools were killed in mass shootings. Compensation directors were involved in mobilizing State crisis response teams, implementation of streamlined compensation application processes, and sending staff out to communities to provide assistance to the victims and surviving family members.

Increased Responsiveness to Crime Victims
The purpose of crime victim compensation programs is to alleviate the economic impact of crime on victims (i.e., to expediently pay bills resulting from the crime thereby preventing dunning, damaged credit ratings, and bankruptcies). Consequently, State compensation programs have made concerted efforts to meet the needs of crime victims in the following ways:

In response to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, States that had not previously covered residents who were victimized by terrorism in other countries worked to change legislation to include these victims.
Utah added, as a compensable expense, counseling for family members of homicide victims.
Oregon included children affected by domestic violence. Other States increased the amounts payable to crime victims.
Michigan increased the maximum allowed for funeral expenses.
Mississippi increased payments for lost wages.
Ohio paid lost wages to battered women who left their jobs because of fear of the batterer.
Iowa and New Jersey accepted temporary restraining orders in lieu of police reports as verification that a crime occurred and evidence of victim cooperation with law enforcement. In addition, Ohio considered a report to child protective services as meeting the police report requirement.

Expanding and Enhancing Programs and Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness
Throughout the 1990s, State crime victim compensation programs across the Nation have had three primary goals—to increase and stabilize program funding, to improve program efficiency and effectiveness, and to increase awareness and access to program benefits. States have sought assistance from both State and Federal Government officials to address these goals. Compensation programs have relied upon promising practices among their peers and upon assistance available from the Federal Government to improve the overall quality of services to crime victims. States rely on fines, fees, forfeitures, and assessments imposed on convicted offenders to fund their crime victim compensation programs. This trend mirrors the efforts of Congress to hold offenders accountable for their actions by making them statutorily contribute to the Federal Crime Victims Fund established by Congress when VOCA was passed. States have undertaken other innovative efforts to raise funds for their crime compensation programs. For instance, Missouri hired a compliance auditor to develop a tracking system for fees to fund its crime compensation program. Minnesota and Mississippi added a portion of inmate wages to the revenues set aside for crime victim compensation.

Crime victim compensation programs also have made innovative inroads in the areas of subrogation and restitution collection. Significant efforts were undertaken to access restitution payments for individual victims and for State programs. California conducts regular outreach to judges, and Iowa coordinates with probation officers in their pursuit of restitution due from offenders. Yavapai County, Arizona, has a restitution project to raise awareness among judges, district attorneys, and probation officers. The theme is "Victims need respect—and restitution. It's up to you."

In an effort to improve program efficiency, States took advantage of administrative cost authorized by VOCA albeit at a significantly lower level than State VOCA administrators. During the biennium, State crime compensation programs expended only $1.8 million (less than 2 percent) of the administrative funding made available to them. VOCA administrative dollars were used to help States improve the quality of services provided to crime victims. For example, States used administrative funds to improve claims processing through the use of technology, to hire outreach staff, and to produce public awareness materials to increase awareness of their programs and benefits. For example, Oklahoma began implementing a system that will allow victims to submit claims electronically; Utah established standardized hospital rates that resulted in a 15-percent savings on most medical bills; and Texas contracted for the analysis of hospital bills and mental health treatment costs. Compensation programs also sought expert assistance in examining costs and claims received from victims for benefits.

States rely on fines, fees, forfeitures, and assessments imposed on convicted offenders to fund their crime victim compensation programs. This trend mirrors the efforts of Congress to hold offenders accountable for their actions by making them statutorily contribute to the Federal Crime Victims Fund established by Congress when VOCA was passed. States have undertaken other innovative efforts to raise funds for their crime compensation programs.

Effective Use of Peer Consultation and Training
State compensation administrators represent an exemplary model of peer support. This has been fostered by the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards (NACVCB), which conducts annual conferences, encourages networking, and establishes an arena in which administrators can critique and advise on one another's programs. NACVCB supports communication among members by means of its newsletter, national and regional workshops, and listserv. In their interactions, compensation and assistance administrators recognize the varying environments, politics, and complexities in which each program operates. At the same time, they challenge one another to adapt their programs to the changing needs of crime victims.

During the biennium, OVC also established a VOCA Administrators' Mentor Program, which gives administrators the opportunity to learn from one another onsite. State compensation administrators made effective use of this program 13 times during the biennium. Administrators in the Iowa program have been particularly instrumental in helping other States examine their claims processing systems, automation, and revenue recovery programs.

OVC-Supported Direct Services for Federal Crime Victims

Direct services for Federal crime victims reflected OVC goals of increasing the participation of victims in the Federal justice system, facilitating and funding unmet emergency needs, and reaching out to remote populations. OVC reserves a portion of discretionary moneys from the CVF to provide emergency services to victims of Federal crime when no other resources are available. OVC also makes awards directly to Indian Tribes/Alaskan Native Villages under Federal criminal jurisdiction to establish reservation-based victim assistance services in remote areas of Indian Country where services to crime victims are limited.

OVC reserves a portion of discretionary moneys from the CVF to provide emergency services to victims of Federal crime when no other resources are available.

Facilitating and Funding Unmet Emergency Needs
VOCA emphasizes the importance of fair treatment for crime victims in the Federal criminal justice system and supports emergency services to victims of Federal crimes when no other resources are available (i.e., crisis counseling, paying temporary shelter costs, covering travel for victims' participation in criminal justice proceedings, defraying emergency medical treatment expenses, and hiring interpreters for nonsubpoenaed victims). OVC previously funded just one emergency assistance fund—with Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). In FY 1997, OVC also funded the FBI to provide emergency services to Federal crime victims. In FY 1998, additional funding was made available to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Through victim/witness coordinators in the 94 U.S. Attorney's offices and in the 56 FBI field offices nationwide, OVC-funded projects facilitated victim participation in trials and provided emergency shelter, counseling, transportation to court, short-term child care, and temporary housing and security measures when these services were unavailable. The success of these programs has secured their continuance in FY 1999.

Increasing Participation of Victims in the Federal Justice System
The Children's Justice Act (CJA) provides for increased participation of victims in the Federal justice system. It established a priority for discretionary funding supporting services for child victims in Indian Country (see Appendix 4, "Children's Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities"). CJA funds go toward programs to improve the handling of child sexual abuse cases in Indian Country. It is the only Federal program for Tribes that focuses exclusively on lessening the trauma to American Indian children who participate in criminal justice proceedings. A total of $1.5 million is available annually for this grant program. Since CJA was established in 1989, OVC has funded 40 Tribal programs, with an increase in the number of Tribes operating effective CJA programs. The program addresses shortcomings in the Tribal criminal justice system and has led to systemic change in the treatment of child abuse in Indian Country.

CJA's resulting improvements in the handling of child abuse cases on Indian reservations include—

Establishment, expansion, and training for multidisciplinary teams.
Revision of Tribal codes to address child sexual abuse.
Provision of child advocacy services for children involved in court proceedings.
Development of protocols and procedures for reporting, investigating, and prosecuting child sexual abuse cases.
Improved coordination that minimizes the number of child interviews.
Enhanced case management and treatment services.
Specialized training for prosecutors, judges, investigators, and other professionals who handle child sexual abuse cases.
Development of procedures for establishing and managing child-centered interview rooms.

"American Indian children were abused and neglected at a rate almost twice their proportions in the national child population."

—National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect,
(1998). Child Maltreatment 1996: Reports From
the States for the National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

The following is a sample of CJA programs funded by OVC in FYs 1997–1998. They indicate the kinds of systemic change brought about through infrastructure development and establishment of comprehensive services to better investigate, prosecute, and prevent cases of child abuse and neglect in Indian Country.

Pueblo of Laguna. The Pueblo of Laguna used its grant to establish a special prosecution unit. The Tribe hired a prosecutor, who worked with the law and order committee to revise the criminal code to include new provisions for child abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and the buying and selling of Indian children. A family protection code was also drafted and approved by the Tribal council.
Muscogee Creek Nation. The Creek Nation developed a three-phase program to implement a comprehensive system for responding to cases of child abuse throughout the investigatory, prosecutory, and treatment phases of the child protective process. Incidents of child abuse within the Creek Nation decreased as a result of new prevention and treatment processes.

Reaching Out to Remote Populations
The Victim Assistance in Indian Country Program (VAIC) makes awards directly to Indian Tribes under Federal criminal jurisdiction to establish reservation-based victim assistance services in remote areas of Indian Country where limited services are available for victims of crime. Often American Indians suffer from high crime rates, particularly resulting from domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and driving under the influence of alcohol. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study based on responses by American Indians revealed that this population suffers the highest crime rate of any minority ethnic group (February 1999, BJS-American Indians and Crime). Since 1988, OVC has awarded more than $7.2 million to fund over 52 VAIC programs. In 1998, VAIC programs served some 8,300 victims of domestic violence, child physical abuse, elder abuse, assault, and DUI/DWI crashes as well as survivors of homicide victims. Activities that are funded include hiring victim advocates, establishing a 24-hour crisis hotline, recruiting victim service volunteers, transporting victims in an emergency, and providing bilingual counseling services. Approximately 20 VAIC programs have been funded in 1999.

OVC's commitment to honor Tribal sovereignty and improve the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes prompted OVC in 1997 to modify its VAIC discretionary grant program so that Tribes could receive funding directly from OVC rather than through State agency subgrants. Under this new strategy, OVC also encouraged States to increase their efforts to fund Tribal victim services programs with State VOCA assistance grant funds.

In FY 1997, OVC awarded funds to 32 programs in 17 States to provide services such as crisis intervention, domestic violence shelters, court advocacy networks, and court transportation. These programs served 7,685 victims, increasing the number of victims served by 419 from FY 1995. Approximately 25 percent of these funds supported child abuse services, 40 percent supported domestic violence services, 9 percent supported adult sexual assault services, and more than 26 percent supported services for victims of other types of crime such as drunk driving crashes, assault, elder abuse, robbery, and adults molested as children. Domestic violence also received a large share of the funding available for Indian Country, like funding provided for State and local victim services.

In FY 1997, funds went to serve many more victims in the areas of child physical and sexual abuse—in both cases the number of victims increased by about 85 percent. This most likely reflects heightened efforts by OVC's CJA program to reach out to American Indian victims of child abuse with expanded services. Other types of crime victims served, such as victims of robbery, increased by 29 times, from 8 to 231, as a result of increased VAIC funding and efforts to expand victim services in Indian Country. Also, OVC encouraged States to fund more Tribal victim services programs with State VOCA assistance funds. For similar reasons, the number of adult sexual assault victims served more than doubled from 1995 to 1997, going from 310 to 693.

Conclusion

Congress voiced its concern for crime victims by allocating the majority of CVF dollars for direct services and assistance to our Nation's crime victims. In addition, congressional intent, to allow States to decide what services are needed for which victim populations, has been carried out by OVC in the development of program guidelines that provide broad discretion to States and by States in their implementation of both the VOCA crime victim compensation and assistance grants. Likewise, OVC has attempted to reshape the treatment of Federal crime victims not only at the Federal level but also at the State and local levels by facilitating access to services at more local levels. Again, much of this effort has been with congressional intercession dictating that Federal crime victims have access to compensation benefits on the same basis as victims of State crimes, setting aside funding specifically for child victims in Indian Country and requiring States to compensate and assist victims of terrorist acts. The driving force behind VOCA implementation comes from the voices of victims, which play a powerful role in passing legislation, shaping policies, and encouraging the establishment of comprehensive programs. OVC is committed to improving the response to crime victims and helping communities everywhere to implement innovative, comprehensive programs for greater justice and healing. During the biennium, increased victim participation in the criminal justice system, enhanced services for crime victims, and a more sensitive response to victims needs have been recognized with funding support for victims. But most importantly, victims in every community and virtually every demographic group have greater access to much needed services and financial assistance to deal with their victimization.

⁵Council of State Governments Eastern Regional Conference conducted a survey in 10 Northeastern States in November 1998 to assess public attitudes about crime, victimization, and rights and services afforded to crime victims.

⁶For the purposes of this report, service data for adult sexual assault victims and adults molested as children have been combined. The number of programs funded during the biennium to provide services to adults molested as children totaled 3,403, dollars allocated to these programs totaled more than $11 million, and victims served totaled 157,075.

Contents

Report to Congress

December 1999

Office for Victims of Crime

The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.