US law enforcement’s role in victim compensation dissemination

Abstract

Victim compensation programs seek to alleviate adverse effects of victimization and repay victim losses. A few studies have concluded that US compensation programs are under-utilized because victims are unaware of such programs and police officers overlook sharing the information. The present study sought to further explore this issue from the perspective of state compensation directors and police executives. Survey respondents were asked their opinions about police officers’ basic knowledge of victims’ compensation programs, reasons for under-utilization of the programs, and the most effective ways to inform victims of their right to compensation. Surveys were administered to 38 state compensation directors and 23 law enforcement executives from across the US. Survey results confirmed the belief that many eligible victims are not receiving compensation and that better training of patrol officers on compensation eligibility and benefits was needed. However, just one in 10 of the state directors implicated police failure to notify victims as a major reason for victims not filing claims. The consensus of both police administrators and state compensation directors was that, while patrol officers should be tasked with providing basic notification of compensation availability, it is important that victim advocates and police detectives follow up with more detailed information in the days following victimization. Policy implications and future directions for research are discussed in light of the findings.

Keywords

Compensation law enforcement victims’ assistance crime victims

Introduction

In 1965, US President Lyndon B Johnson established the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice to examine issues of crime and justice in the United States. The Commission was charged with providing strategies to reduce crime and increase safety in American communities. In 1967, the Commission released an extensive set of recommendations, among which it asserted that there should be public means to alleviate the adverse effects experienced by victims of crime (Sims et al., 2005). The recommendation was grounded in the belief that the government has a role in preventing crime and is therefore responsible for compensating citizens when they become victims. Compensation may include loss of wages, medical expenses, legal fees, and other financial burdens. To help restore victims to pre-crime functioning, states began to implement victim compensation programs as early as the late 1960s, and in 1984 the federal government authorized the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), through which victims could be compensated for federal crimes (Doerner and Lab, 2002). The federal Crime Victims Fund was established by VOCA to support programs that significantly impact the lives of millions of crime victims each year. Since its inception, the Crime Victims Fund has not been supported by taxpayer dollars, but by the fines, penalty assessments, and bond forfeitures collected from convicted federal offenders, unlike compensation programs found in most other countries (Department of Justice (DOJ), 2002).

The DOJ Office of Victims of Crime distributes monies directly to states to support compensation programs and assistance services for victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, homicide, and other crimes. Each of the country’s states, inhabited territories, and the District of Columbia have established compensation programs which reimburse victims for crime-related expenses such as medical costs, mental health counseling, funeral and burial costs, and lost wages or loss of support (Evans, 2014). Maximum compensation amounts typically range from $10,000 to $25,000 and are only paid when other financial resources do not cover the loss (DOJ, 2002). The website of the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards states that each year state compensation programs provide nearly $500m to more than 200,000 victims (www.nacvcb.org).

Yet, as large as this figure is, it pales in comparison to the estimated 3.1 million violent crimes reported to law enforcement agencies in 2017. Historically, victims of crime have faced many obstacles blocking their access to state compensation programs. In applying for compensation, victims often struggle with acquiring necessary documents, meeting deadlines, and inconsistencies in the application process (Danis, 2003). A content analysis of US state legislation conducted by Boateng and Abess (2017) revealed that victims must meet strict eligibility criteria to qualify for compensation and in most states there are no legal provisions allowing victims to hold criminal justice officials accountable if their rights are ignored.

Early empirical victimology research showed that most victims do not receive compensation or other social services: Knudten et al. (1976) reported that only 15% of Milwaukee crime victims received assistance from victim programs, while Davis and Henley (1990) reported less than 1% sought compensation and other formal assistance among a sample of New York City crime victims. In a nationwide US study, McCormack (1991) found that only 8.5% of all recorded victims of violent crime sought compensation. Later studies have found little change. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Zaykowski (2014) found that less than 10% of victims of violent crimes sought help from victim services. A survey of Pennsylvania crime victim service providers found that respondents believed that only a small percentage of victims had applied for compensation assistance (Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2008), and an analysis of data from the British Crime Survey found that among victims who reported a crime and desired information regarding compensation, 78% did not receive it (Ringham and Salisbury, 2004).

Studies indicate that many crime victims do not apply for compensation because they are unaware that such programs exist. Sims et al. (2005) reported that nearly half of victims in a statewide Pennsylvania survey did not avail themselves of compensation or other services because they did not know help was available. In a California survey, 65% of crime victims were unaware of assistance available for expenses incurred as a result of the crime (Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013). In a randomized trial, Alvidrez et.al. (2008) demonstrated that victims who received an explicit and thorough explanation of compensation were much more likely to apply than those who did not. In Canada as well, Wemmers (2017: 153–167) argues that there is a lack of victim awareness concerning compensation programs, and without being supplied with the proper information victims are left unable to access necessary services.

Most states in the US require law enforcement officers and other criminal justice officials to inform victims of their rights regarding compensation (Herman and Waul, 2004). As the first responders to a crime scene, patrol officers have an essential role in providing victims with information about where they can get help and connecting them with appropriate services.

There is evidence that the police can make a difference in linking victims with compensation and other social services. Among violent crime victims from 2000 to 2009, 14% of victims who reported to the police received assistance from victims’ services, compared to 4% who did not report (Langston, 2011). Similarly, Zaykowski (2014) found that victims who reported crimes to the police were three times more likely to receive social services than victims who did not report. Fritsch et al. (2004) reported that the characteristics of police organizations were related to the rate of victims referred to compensation programs; larger agencies and those with more capable victim liaison generated more referrals than other law enforcement entities.

However, some research suggests that police often fail to talk to victims about compensation. A survey of Texas law enforcement officers found that only 25% agreed that they almost always advise crime victims about methods of applying for compensation (Fritsch et al., 2004). A Pennsylvania study suggested that stronger supervision, better training, and holding officers accountable were key to comprehensive patrol officer notification to victims (Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2008).

In a study by McCormack (1994) on whether coordinating immediate aftercare assistance to victims was an appropriate use of police resources, results found that 45 of 51 responding police chiefs in his state survey responded negatively. His conclusion, based on this survey and more than 40 years of policing research and experience, was that ‘police view victims as an added burden on their already overtaxed resources rather than as an opportunity to enrich their jobs and perform a vital service to their communities’ (McCormack, 1994: 218–219). Maguire (1991) expressed a similar sentiment, suggesting that a key failing of British compensation programs is their reliance on police referrals, which are heavily influenced by officer discretion.

Officers also may fail to inform victims of the resources available to them because they mistakenly believe that victims are not eligible for or are not deserving of compensation. In his review of the literature, Miers (2014) addresses the assumption that there are deserving and undeserving victims in the eyes of the state when it comes to matters of victim compensation. Undeserving victims are those who are deemed responsible for their victimization, and deserving victims are those regarded as innocent as it pertains to the injuries they endured (Miers, 2014). Similarly, Christie (2018) discusses five criteria that define ‘ideal victims’: they are weak, their offender is unknown to them, their offender is intimidating, and they are in a visible public location participating in a respectable task at the time of their victimization.

It has commonly been argued that victims of sexual assault are often not seen as ideal or innocent victims by some law enforcement officers (Daly and Holder, 2019). In a Canadian study of sexual assault reporting, Johnson (2017) found that although some officers treat victims in a procedurally just manner regardless of their circumstances, others are dismissive, displaying judgmental responses characterized by skepticism and disbelief toward victims who do not fit the ‘ideal’ victim stereotype. Male victims are particularly underrepresented across victim support services even though they have a higher likelihood of violent victimization (Kersten and Budowski, 2016). Hatten and Moore (2010) argue that this is because police officers assume that, because male victims may not appear as emotionally distressed as female victims, they are less in need of assistance.

The present paper

Shapland (1984) noted that victim cooperation with the police is critical to the functioning of the justice system and that the willingness of victims to cooperate is partially based on the attitude and concern with which police officers handle their cases. She further argues that victims view compensation as a symbolic acknowledgement of their loss and suffering. A study conducted in the Netherlands supported the idea that victim satisfaction with the justice system partly depends on whether compensation was received (Kunst et al., 2017). In a study of Israeli victims, Aviv and Weisburd (2016) found that victims tend to hold more negative attitudes toward the police than the general population, but they argue that this gap can be overcome by police efforts to address the needs and rights of victims.

As mentioned above, most US states have mandated that police inform victims of their right to compensation, and it is clearly important to the smooth functioning of the justice system that they do so. However, the extent to which police do or do not provide victims with information about compensation has only been addressed in a handful of studies, all of which are dated. As the job of patrol officers has shifted over the years away from a purely law enforcement role, we thought it was important to revisit the issue of police responsibilities in helping victims to receive compensation. Are the police still the main providers of information about compensation? Are they doing an adequate job of notifying victims? How could the process of getting information to victims be improved?

To try to answer these questions, we conducted surveys with the directors of state compensation programs and law enforcement executives. The surveys were conducted as an initial step in a project funded by the DOJ, Office for Victims of Crime and designed to develop materials to expand the role of law enforcement in supporting victims’ access to their state’s compensation program. Partners in the project included the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC), and the National Police Foundation.

Method

Survey development

Two surveys were developed, one appropriate for state compensation directors and the other for law enforcement executives. Both surveys included similar, but not identical, items that queried respondents about: (a) whether many eligible victims do not file for compensation; (b) primary sources through which victims learn about compensation; (c) statutory requirements for law enforcement to provide victims with information about compensation; (d) the extent to which police officers actually do inform victims of compensation; (e) how the police inform victims; (f) reasons why police officers may not inform victims about compensation; (g) police officer understanding of victim compensation; (h) types of training that officers receive on victim compensation; and (i) ways to increase provision of information by police officers.

The two survey instruments each used semi-structured questions, allowing respondents to provide free-form answers to questions and allowing surveyors to probe for additional information when it seemed warranted (see Appendices 1 and 2). Both survey instruments were cognitively tested with three compensation directors and three law enforcement executives. In the cognitive testing, participants were queried about their understanding of the survey items. Following the cognitive testing, minor adjustments were made to the instruments.

Procedures

State compensation director survey

The 53 state compensation program directors in each US state and territory were invited to participate in the survey through an invitation from the executive director of the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards. This invitation was followed by an email from NCVC providing a link to the project webpage for more information. NCVC staff followed up with compensation directors who did not respond through two more emails and one telephone call over the next several weeks. Participants were invited to schedule a call at a convenient time and were provided with the questions in advance. The survey period lasted 4 weeks, with a total of 38 of the 53 compensation directors completing surveys. The telephone surveys conducted by NCVC staff ranged from 30 minutes to 70 minutes.

Law enforcement executive survey

IACP identified a total of 55 law enforcement agencies to invite to participate in the project. These agencies were selected to yield a diverse cross-section of police agencies from across the US; the list of agencies included large, medium, and small municipal police departments, as well as county sheriff’s offices, state police departments, university police departments, and tribal police departments. IACP sent introductory emails to the 55 selected agencies, and followed up by email to all agencies not responding to the initial request. Final follow-up to unresponsive agencies was done by National Police Foundation staff via telephone to the IACP’s point of contact in each agency. Responding participants were invited to schedule a survey time by National Police Foundation staff and were provided with the survey questions in advance upon request. The survey period lasted 5 weeks, with a total of 23 senior law enforcement administrators representing 21 law enforcement agencies in 16 different states. The telephone surveys conducted by National Police Foundation staff ranged from 20 minutes to 30 minutes.

Results

Are there many victims who do not file compensation claims?

State directors were asked whether they believed that there was a significant number of eligible victims who did not file for compensation. Overwhelmingly, the answer was ‘yes’. As Figure 1 shows, three in four state compensation directors felt that there was a significant number of eligible victims who did not file claims. Most of the remainder were unsure of whether there were ‘significant numbers’ of victims not filing, and just 3% did not think that low filing rates are an issue.

Figure 1.

Is there a significant number of eligible victims who fail to file for compensation? (N=38)

Of the directors who said there was a significant number of eligible or likely eligible victims not seeking compensation, only one had conducted research on that point. Others said they based it on their observations. For example, nine mentioned the apparent disparity between reported crimes and the number of compensation cases filed. A few others noted a disparity between numbers of sexual assault victims seeking forensic examinations who do not file for compensation (two states), or the number of domestic violence victims utilizing shelter who do not seek compensation (one state). Some directors noted that their data showed victims of certain crimes were much more likely to file claims than victims of other crimes. One director reported that child sexual abuse claimants make up a majority of their claims statewide, even though they do not comprise the majority of violent crime victims. Four directors named categories of victims who routinely did not file, including victims in rural areas without victim services, and victims of crimes that are not charged. Eight directors said they are aware through training, outreach, or other sources that many service providers and victims are still unaware of the compensation program.

Several state compensation directors attributed failure to file to bad information: people just do not know about the program or do not think they would qualify. After running TV adverts, one director said they ‘received an increase of 15–20% in claims’. One respondent believed that many of the victims who did not file just ‘don’t trust the government’. Another said that ‘some individuals who are insured might not know their deductibles could be covered (by compensation) or think they can’t apply if offender isn’t caught’. Still another felt that some victims failed to apply because they looked on compensation as a form of welfare.

Are police officers the most common source of referrals to compensation?

State compensation directors were asked which were the most common ways that victims are referred to compensation. Although the authors expected that the police would be the most common referral sources, the directors were most likely to name hospitals. As Figure 2 shows, 31 of the 38 respondents named hospitals or other medical services (respondents were able to name multiple sources). Several respondents mentioned the reason they believed that hospitals were the primary referral source was that hospitals have an interest in being reimbursed for the care they provide. The next most common means of referral was victim advocates, named by 26 respondents. Police and district attorney staff were each named by 14 respondents. Less commonly mentioned were funeral homes, mental health professionals, and word of mouth. Five respondents named other sources, including dentists, child protective services, and schools.

Figure 2.

Most common sources of referral to crime victim compensation (N=38)

Are police required by statute to notify victims about compensation?

We asked the state compensation directors whether law enforcement officers in their states were required by statute to inform victims about compensation. Two-thirds (68%) answered affirmatively. However, when asked the same question of law enforcement executives, they were equally divided as to whether a requirement existed in statute (nine respondents, or 43% responded affirmatively, and nine negatively). At the same time, several police executives elaborated on their responses to explain that while police officers in their state may not be required by statute to notify victims about compensation, police agencies in their state are required. Accordingly, 67% of respondents (14 agencies) said that police agencies have a statutory duty to inform victims – the identical percentage to what was found in the state compensation director survey.

Are the police doing an adequate job of informing victims of compensation?

Given that most law enforcement agencies seem to be statutorily required to inform victims about compensation, we next asked state directors how well the police were executing their responsibility. Just 1 in 10 of the state directors implicated police failure to notify victims as a major reason for victims not filing claims and 1 in 3 believed that police failure to notify was a minor reason. However, a majority of state directors (53%) candidly admitted that they did not know (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

To what extent is inaction by law enforcement a factor in victims failing to file for compensation? (N=38)

While compensation programs generally do ask claimants how they were referred to victim compensation, only a small portion of claimants record that information. Furthermore, as some directors noted, victims may be receiving information from multiple sources and may only credit the source that provides the most assistance with a compensation claim. Moreover, victims may not remember receiving information about compensation from law enforcement: Several directors noted that victims of violent crime may not be in a position to receive information about compensation in the immediate aftermath of crime because they ‘have “trauma brain” and are not going to remember tomorrow what they were given or what it meant’. Some respondents noted that victims were more likely to remember receiving notice from a detective, who typically speaks with victims a day or two after the crime, and may have repeated conversations with victims. As one director observed, ‘people need to hear about something multiple times’.

A follow-up question to state directors asked whether they thought that law enforcement officers were more thorough about notifying certain types of victims about compensation. The most frequently mentioned category was victims of homicides (16 mentions) – according to the directors this is because officers see an immediate need for compensation and want to help in these cases (see Figure 4). The second most common group of victims mentioned by the state directors was domestic violence victims (11 mentions), with many directors noting that there are special requirements relating to law enforcement response to domestic violence victims, including the provision of special forms or resources that include a mention of victim compensation. Sexual assault victims were mentioned by seven state directors who noted that these victims needed to know immediately whether compensation would cover a forensic medical exam. Two different respondents suggested why some victims are more likely to be informed about compensation. According to one, ‘sexual assault, domestic violence, and homicide because these victims have advocates’. The other stated that notification about compensation is ‘pretty good across the board’, but that ‘child victims of sexual assault who have an advocate are especially likely to receive thorough information’.

Figure 4.

Which victims are most likely to be notified about compensation by police? (N=38)

Conversely, directors also described victims who they believed were less likely to be informed, most commonly victims in bar fights (four) or drug or gang-involved victims (six). Similarly, prostitution, aggravated assaults in the street, or misdemeanor assaults – cases where an officer might not view the person harmed as a ‘victim’ or might be focused on contributory misconduct – were perceived as less likely to receive information on compensation.

How do the police notify victims about compensation?

We asked the state compensation directors what they believed were the most common methods used by law enforcement to inform victims about compensation. Percentages reported here are based on the number of answers, since each respondent could provide multiple answers. As depicted in Figure 5, a majority of state directors (23, or 52%) mentioned cards, brochures, or tear-offs handed out by police officers. Ten, or 24%, described verbal notification by police officers, while six or 14% named notification by a victim advocate.

Figure 5.

What are the most common ways police inform victims about compensation? (N=38) (Number of mentions)

The responses of police administrators were similar, with a majority of respondents reporting that the most common method of notification was brochures or pamphlets handed out by a responding officer (12 responses). However, the next most common methods named were telephone calls routinely made to victims (11 responses) and then verbal notification by responding officer (8 responses). This was followed by written information routinely mailed to all victims (four responses) and information provided to the victim at the stationhouse by victim advocates or others (three responses). Mention was also made of using an agency website to post information about victim compensation.

What are the chief reasons police do not inform victims about compensation?

We asked state compensation directors: ‘If some police agencies are not doing a good job of notifying victims about compensation, what would you say are the significant causes?’. The most common response was insufficient training (see Figure 6). Lack of training was, in fact, mentioned more than twice as often as the next most frequent response, which was that compensation was not a priority. Several state directors noted in their responses that law enforcement agencies were focused primarily on dealing with offenders – ‘catching the bad guys’ – and less with providing assistance to victims. However, one director commented that ‘if your whole focus is on the perpetrator, you are missing 50% of the equation’, indicating that victims are a critical component of the role performed by law enforcement officers. Seven respondents also mentioned ‘other’ causes that included lack of capacity or budget to produce written material on compensation, lack of time, and no statutory requirement that agencies inform victims.

Figure 6.

Reasons why police do not notify victims about compensation (N=38)

We asked the state directors whether they knew of agencies that were especially effective or ineffective at notifying victims about compensation, and what was noteworthy or problematic about their approach. Most of the agencies that were mentioned as especially effective were reported to have victim advocates on staff. Several respondents noted that advocates were usually found at larger agencies, who not only have the case volume to support victim assistance staff, but are more likely to have the capacity to write a successful grant proposal to fund such a position. One compensation director pointed out that notification was ‘better if police agencies have a specialized unit. Advocates make a lot of referrals. Some advocates screen affidavits to see if they should make referrals.’

Agencies that were mentioned as ineffective were generally smaller agencies without the benefit of victim services staff. Several respondents also noted that very small rural agencies saw so little violent crime that they were not conversant with the needs of victims who might be eligible for compensation.

Police officer understanding about compensation

State compensation directors and law enforcement executives were both asked whether they thought that law enforcement officers understand the basics of victim compensation. There was strong agreement between the directors and law enforcement executives (see Figure 7). More respondents than not from both groups felt that officers generally understood eligibility requirements, benefits, and other basics of victim compensation (47% versus 42% for compensation directors; 43% versus 29% for law enforcement administrators). However, one in five state directors and one in three police executives were unsure. Ironically, one state director believed that ‘newer officers tend to know more than those who have been there long term’ because newer officers received academy training that their older peers had not received.

Figure 7.

Do you think that officers understand the basics of victim compensation?

Even directors who responded positively often thought that officers’ knowledge was incomplete or superficial. Several said that officers knew that there was a compensation program in their state, but knew little about eligibility and often made inappropriate referrals or gave out incorrect information. Many noted that law enforcement often gets the details wrong, stating that some officers seem to believe that compensation is only for homicide and domestic violence victims, incorrectly inform victims of property crime that they are eligible for compensation, or give victims the impression they are entitled to a lump sum payment to the amount of the cap on a claim ($15,000, or $25,000), rather than reimbursement of certain expenses. One director said: ‘Police do more harm than good when they try to explain it’.

Several compensation directors mentioned particular areas of confusion for law enforcement. For example, determinations of eligibility by compensation programs may use a different standard of ‘lack of cooperation’ than law enforcement. Also, police officers may have a broader interpretation of ‘contributory misconduct’, involving lifestyle choices or acquaintances, while a compensation program may look more narrowly at actions directly related to the crime.

What kind of training do police officers receive on compensation?

Law enforcement respondents were asked whether officers in their agency receive formal training about victim compensation. Most respondents (15 of the 21) said that their officers receive formal training about victim compensation either in the academy, in-service, or both. Five said that officers did not receive formal training. Two of the police executives said that their agency was looking to do more in-service training involving victim compensation.

The state directors were asked whether their office provided training on compensation. Fifty-eight percent said that their staff provided training at the academy level and 50% said their office participated in in-service training on compensation. However, the existing training may not be enough, with one director stating that ‘no matter how much training we do, law enforcement seems to believe compensation is only for homicide and domestic violence’. In fact, several directors expressed disappointment that the time allotted for compensation training was as little as 10 or 20 minutes. They noted that academies already have very full agendas, with ever more required elements of basic training being added, which leaves little time for training on compensation. Several state directors argued the importance of stressing to officers how they can benefit by informing victims of compensation: ‘If you show you care, they (victims) might be more apt to provide assistance’.

Are there ways to ensure that all victims receive information about compensation?

Asked what they thought would be the most effective way for law enforcement to ensure that victims receive information about compensation, the law enforcement agency representatives mentioned a number of different methods. Again, many respondents mentioned more than one type of method. The method most highly cited was having responding officers hand out a detailed brochure to victims (nine mentions) (see Figure 8). One respondent mentioning the value of a brochure elaborated that providing victims with information in writing is beneficial in case the victim cannot be reached by follow-up phone calls or mailings since they will have the information to reach back out to victim services staff if desired. Another respondent elaborated that a brochure was valuable because victims may not otherwise retain the information, such as if received verbally, immediately after an incident. The second most highly mentioned effective way for law enforcement to inform victims was to make this the responsibility of a specialized victim services staff member who could better handle the flow of information between officers, victims, and state compensation staff (eight mentions).

Figure 8.

What do you think would be the most effective way for law enforcement to inform victims about compensation? (N=61)

Additional ways to inform victims that were mentioned by the police executives included making follow-up phone calls to victims (five mentions), having more informed in-service training for officers so that they can better provide information to victims (three mentions), meeting with families in person (three mentions), sending victims information by mail (three mentions), and providing information to victims on the law enforcement agency’s website (two mentions). Single mentions were made of other methods, including public service announcements, email, the development of an informative video on compensation, and the provision of a ‘cheat sheet’ for officers to help them with victim notification.

The opinions of the police executives were echoed by the compensation directors. Thirteen state directors mentioned better training for law enforcement; eight directors favored creating a position in law enforcement agencies dedicated to dealing with victims; six directors suggested that officers give out cards to victims providing information about the compensation program or provide cards in different languages; five mentioned instituting a method of verifying whether officers provided compensation information to victims – either a tear-off sheet or checkbox on incident forms; and three suggested changes in state statutes or law enforcement agency policies requiring officers to notify victims about compensation.

A couple of respondents recognized that all of the onus should not be placed on the police. According to one: ‘We need to tell victims about it multiple times. Law enforcement should not be the most important source of information. They don’t need to know everything, need to know enough to get them to someone who does’. The other said: ‘Police need to do the initial notification, but the focus shouldn’t be only on them. You may not want police explaining compensation, just give enough basic information so they see importance; emphasize purpose and eligibility’.

Finally, both sets of respondents were asked if they could think of any innovative ideas for getting information to victims. Among the responses were:

Having a victim advocate in every agency, or, for smaller agencies, contracting with advocates or sharing an advocate between multiple agencies.

Greater use of tablets and other modern technology to communicate.

Texting information about compensation to the victim, so they are more likely to have it.

Texting or emailing to a victim that links to a short video about compensation.

Requiring hospitals to display compensation posters.

Discussion

Surveys results from US state compensation directors confirmed the belief that many eligible victims are not receiving compensation. Their opinions were well reasoned, often based on the apparent disparity between reported crimes and the number of compensation claims filed. This finding is consistent with previous literature on low rates of compensation claims (e.g. Boateng and Abess, 2017; Danis, 2003; Ringham and Salisbury, 2004).

The study also confirmed – again in agreement with prior literature (e.g. Fritsch et al., 2004; Herman and Waul, 2004) – that police play an essential role in notifying victims of compensation, with two in three compensation directors and police officers noting that police agencies in their state had a statutory obligation to provide information about compensation programs to eligible victims.

However, contrary to expectations and prevailing views in the literature, we did not find evidence that failure of police officers to notify victims was a major reason for victims not applying for compensation. Fewer than 1 in 10 state compensation directors believed that inaction by law enforcement was a major factor in victims failing to file for compensation. (However, we also caution that a majority of state directors did not have enough information to have an opinion on that question.) Moreover, surprisingly, the state directors did not name police officers as the primary source of information about compensation. Rather, they believed that this role was played by hospitals and victim advocates. That hospitals were thought to be the most common source of information about compensation is perhaps not surprising since hospitals have a financial interest in seeing that victims have the resources to pay their bill.

That is not to say that survey respondents did not see the need for police officers to play a stronger role in informing victims about the availability of compensation. Although three-quarters of the law enforcement executives indicated that their officers received training on the subject either at the academy level or in-service, officers’ understanding of compensation programs was seen as superficial. Less than half of state compensation directors and police executives felt that police officers had a basic understanding of compensation programs. Moreover, a number of the state directors commented that the amount of training that was provided was often very brief. Both police executives and state directors believed that officers could benefit from more training on compensation, just as many criminal justice officials suggested in an earlier study (Kilpatrick et al., 1998).

State directors and police executives agreed that the ideal way to ensure that more eligible victims apply for compensation is to develop comprehensive notification systems. That would begin with patrol officers verbally informing victims and distributing a brochure describing the program, and summarizing eligibility requirements and application procedures. Because victims often are in a state of shock following the crime, the initial notification needs to be reinforced several days later with detailed information. This can be done in multiple ways – by detectives assigned to investigate a case, via a computer-generated letter, and (ideally) by victim advocates who are well acquainted with eligibility and application guidelines. Small departments might explore partnering with neighboring municipalities to hire regional victim advocates.

Policy implications

The findings from our study have several noteworthy policy implications. As a beginning, steps should be taken to revise the training that law enforcement officers receive on victim rights and compensation to reflect state legislation. The findings of this study, and prior research, demonstrate that there is an agreed-upon need for more officer training concerning compensation from the perspective of both state compensation directors and law enforcement executives. Our surveys suggest that among the topics that need to be emphasized in training police officers is the concept of contributory misconduct as applied to victims of prostitution, aggravated assaults in the street, or misdemeanor assaults. State laws vary, but these categories of victims are not automatically disqualified from seeking compensation. A larger issue that needs to be addressed through training is the role of police officers vis-à-vis victims. Several state compensation directors opined that, while assisting victims with compensation ought to be a priority, officers too often see themselves only in a law enforcement role.

Whenever possible, law enforcement agencies should also employ multiple means of disseminating information about compensation programs. Patrol officers informing victims about these programs is a good first step. But to be truly effective, these initial notifications need to be followed up at a later time by more detailed information, ideally from victim advocates who are expert in compensation eligibility and the application process.

Conclusion

As the first responders at crime scenes, patrol officers will continue to play a key role in ensuring that victims are aware of their rights and have the information needed to exercise them. The important role of patrol officers notwithstanding, information about compensation can and should be provided to victims from multiple sources – victim advocates, computer-generated letters from police or prosecutor’s agencies, hospitals, and other sources of victim services. Multiple methods of disseminating information help to ensure that most victims are reached at least once and then reminded about compensation at a later time when they are not in a state of trauma.

The study was not able to definitively answer the question of whether police officers are doing an adequate job of notifying victims of the availability of compensation. When asked about the issue, a majority of state compensation directors said they simply did not know. To truly answer this question would require contacting victims who have reported crimes and asking them. But even that method would not be definitive since victims in a state of trauma immediately following a crime might not recall whether or not this subject was touched on by the responding police officer. Moreover, such a study would have to be replicated over a large representative sample of police agencies in order to gain a definitive national picture.

We believe that further research resources would be put to better use exploring the optimal ways that victims can be reached about filing for compensation. Small-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could test effects of brochures handed out by patrol officers, notification letters, cell phone texts providing links to compensation information, and phone follow-up by victim advocates. These experiments could help to determine the impact of these various outreach methods on rates of filing claims and the cost effectiveness of each. Secondary analyses could determine whether particular modalities work best for different subpopulations of victims based on type of crime, age, gender, and ethnicity,

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by the Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, USA, award no. 2015-VR-GX-K006.

Appendix 1

Interview guide for use with victim compensation administrators

Name _____________________________

Title ___________________________

State____________________________

Date______________________________

Interviewer_________________________

INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

Taking part in this interview is voluntary. You may choose to not participate or may terminate the interview at any time. If you agree to participate and then decide against it, you may still withdraw for any reason. By participating in this interview, there is no direct benefit to you or your organization. However, the information you share will benefit crime victims in the future. Your responses are confidential and will not be shared beyond the partner agencies of this project.

INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

1. How long have you been with the victim compensation program? For how much of that time have you been in your current position?

2. In your opinion, are there a significant number of eligible (or likely eligible) victims who do not file for crime victim compensation?

Yes

Unsure

What is the basis for your answer?

3. To what extent is the failure of victims to seek compensation due to law enforcements’ failure to inform victims about compensation? Is it…

A major reason why victims fail to file

A minor reason why victims fail to file

Not at all a reason why victims fail to file

Unsure

VICTIM NOTIFICATION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

LAW ENFORCEMENT UNDERSTANDING AND TRAINING

CONCLUSION QUESTIONS

Appendix 2

Interview guide for use with law enforcement administrators

Name _____________________________

Title ___________________________

State____________________________

Date______________________________

Interviewer_________________________

References

Alvidrez

Shumway

Bocellari

, et al. (2008) Reduction of state victim compensation disparities in disadvantaged crime victims through active outreach and assistance: A randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health 98(5): 882–888.

Aviv

Weisburd

(2016) Reducing the gap in perceptions of legitimacy of victims and non-victims: The importance of police performance. International Review of Victimology 22(2): 83–104.

Boateng

Abess

(2017) Victims’ role in the criminal justice system: A statutory analysis of victims’ rights in US. International Journal of Police Science and Management 19(4): 221–228.

Californians for Safety and Justice (2013) California crime victims’ voices: Findings from the first ever survey of California crime victims and survivors. Available at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_XXII_IIIE_3.pdf (accessed 1 July 2018).

Christie

(2018) The ideal victim. In: Duggan

(ed.) Revisiting the ‘Ideal Victim’: Developments in Critical Victimology. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.11–24.

Daly

Holder

(2019) State payments to victims of violent crime: Discretion and bias in awards for sexual offences. British Journal of Criminology 59(5): 1099–1118.

Danis

(2003) Domestic violence and crime victim compensation. Violence Against Women 9(3): 374–390.

Davis

Henley

(1990) Victims service programs. In: Lurigio

Skogan

Davis

(eds) Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies, and Programs. Newbury Park: SAGE, pp.157–171.

Department of Justice (2002) OVC fact sheet: Victims of Crime Act Crime Victims Fund. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/193697NCJRS.pdf (accessed 2 July 2020).

10.

Doerner

Lab

(2002) Victimology. New York: Anderson Publishing.

11.

Evans

(2014) Compensating Victims of Crime. New York: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. Available at: https://johnjayrec.nyc/2014/06/09/justicefellowship3/ (accessed 6 March 2019).

12.

Fritsch

Caeti

Tobolowsky

(2004) Police referrals of crime victims to compensation sources: An empirical analysis of attitudinal and structural impediments. Police Quarterly 7(3): 372–393.

13.

Hatten

Moore

(2010) Police officer perceptions of a victim-services program. Journal of Applied Social Science 4(2): 17–24.

14.

Herman

Waul

(2004) Repairing the Harm: A New Vision for Crime Victim Compensation in America. Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime.

15.

Johnson

(2017) Why doesn’t she just report it? Apprehensions and contradictions for women who report sexual violence to the police. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 29(1): 36–59.

16.

Justice Research and Statistics Association (2008) Assessing the use of Pennsylvania’s Victims Compensation Assistance Program (VCAP). Available at: http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/reports/FINAL_VCAP_Final_Report.pdf (accessed 6 March 2019).

17.

Kersten

Budowski

(2016) A gender perspective on state support for crime victims in Switzerland. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 10(1): 128–140.

18.

Kilpatrick

Beatty

Howley

(1998) The rights of crime victims – does legal protection make a difference? Research in Brief . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

19.

Knudten

Meade

Knudten

, et al. (1976) Victims and Witnesses: The Impact of Crime and Their Experience with the Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

20.

Kunst

Koster

Van Heugten

(2017) Performance evaluations and victim satisfaction with state compensation for violent crime: A prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 32(19): 3027–3044.

21.

Langston

(2011) Use of victim service agencies by victims of serious violent crime, 1993–2009. Report no. NCJ234212 for Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice

22.

McCormack

(1991) Compensating victims of violent crime. Justice Quarterly 8(3): 329–346.

23.

McCormack

(1994) United States crime victim assistance: History, organization and evaluation. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 18(1): 209–220.

24.

Maguire

(1991) The needs and rights of victims of crime. Crime and Justice 14: 363–433.

25.

Miers

(2014) Offender and state compensation for victims of crime: Two decades of development and change. International Review of Victimology 20(1): 145–168.

26.

Ringham

Salisbury

(2004) Support for Victims of Crime: Findings from the 2002/2003 British Crime Survey. London: Home Office.

27.

Shapland

(1984) Victims, the criminal justice system and compensation. British Journal of Criminology 24(2): 131–149.

28.

Sims

Yost

Abbott

(2005) Use and nonuse of victim services programs: Implications from a statewide survey of crime victims. Criminology and Public Policy 4(2): 361–384.

29.

Wemmers

(2017) Victimology: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

30.

Zaykowski

(2014) Mobilizing victims’ services: The role of reporting to the police. Journal of Traumatic Stress 27(3): 365–369.