Victim Empowerment,Safety,and Perpetrator Accountability Through Collaboration: A Crisis to Transformation Conceptual Model

Community Readiness as the Foundation

VAWA recognizes that community awareness, appropriate training, and equipment and infrastructure all contribute to a community’s readiness and ability to prevent and reduce violence. ³ Because VAWA-funded programs offer support to build capacity as the foundation for community readiness, we identified this component as the starting point of our model, a perspective consistent with other violence prevention efforts, such as the rape prevention and education model developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Niolon, Kearns, Dills, Rambo, Irving, Armstead, Gilbert, 2017; see also Cox, Lang, Townsend, & Campbell, 2010).

A strong foundation is necessary to implement effective programming to support victims of violence and hold perpetrators accountable. Communities must have the appropriate attitudes, knowledge, resources, and skills to successfully offer interventions for victims and perpetrators. Communities need to be aware that violence against women continues to be a problem, and victims need to be cognizant of community resources to help and support them through this difficult time. Training is also a key component of community readiness. Those responding to calls (i.e., police, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), nurses, and physicians), providers assisting victims, and advocates need formal training so that they can interact appropriately with and best help victims of violence and not traumatize them further.

Victim/Survivor Services and Justice Responses

Victimization experiences often are accompanied by ongoing risk of further harm and can result in a loss of resources (Hobfoll et al., 2007), creating a cascade of additional problems that interfere with victims seeking and attaining help. Victims often experience feelings of hopelessness, powerlessness, and isolation, in addition to facing tangible resource challenges, such as transportation difficulties, lack of child care, inadequate or no housing, and income loss (Goodman & Smyth, 2011). VAWA-supported programs recognize these problems, and thus many purposes focus on victim services and justice responses. We discuss these together because they are intertwined. Ensuring victim safety and providing victims with needed resources, while addressing perpetrator accountability, rely on mutually supportive responses by different community agencies and organizations. Given VAWA’s goal of improving criminal justice responses, it is not surprising that a substantial number of purpose areas, as well as funds, have been focused on victim services and criminal justice responses. This is reflected in how legislation specifies funds are to be distributed. For example, in the STOP grants a statutorily created formula directs 30% of funding toward victim service programs and 55% for criminal justice responses (25% for law enforcement, 25% for prosecution, 5% for courts). Only 15% can be used for discretionary projects or other service categories and 10% for administrative management of the grant program (Aday, 2015). As described below, the various purposes include services and interventions that may occur immediately or long after a specific violent incident occurred and is reported. ⁴

On the victim side, immediate responses to a reported assault focus on victim safety and may include responding to a victim’s use of a hotline, call to the police, and/or arrival at a domestic violence shelter, rape crisis center, or Family Justice Center. At the time of crisis, the victim ideally should receive immediate services from trained police officers or other first responders, such as those who are a part of a Domestic Abuse Response Team (DART) or Sexual Assault Response Team (SART). Sexual assault victims may also receive the services of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) to address their health care needs and to consider having a medical forensic exam and sexual assault kit to collect evidence. At the same time, it is assumed that police are addressing immediate victim safety by dealing with the offender, holding the offender accountable through at least temporary restraint, investigation, and possible arrest. Ideally, police and first responders are trained in providing support to victims and are knowledgeable of each other’s strengths in providing available community resources.

Follow-up to initial responses to both victim and offender may ensue. At this point, victims’ various needs may be assessed and provided for, including safety planning (risk assessment), temporary housing, microloans, physical and mental health needs, transportation, and legal assistance. Simultaneously on the perpetrator side, accountability and victim safety are addressed through various criminal and civil justice responses which may include issuance of protective orders, prosecution, probation, and incarceration. The third phase in the model acknowledges the opportunity for short-term well-being for victims and the beginning of rehabilitation for perpetrators. At this point, rehabilitation trainings, such as BIPs or Sex Offender Treatment Programs (SOTPs), may be recommended or mandated. Lastly, the model acknowledges the possibility of long-term well-being for both victims and perpetrators. Although no intervention or program guarantees the long-term well-being for a victim, this last phase acknowledges that survivors can become empowered by their experiences and cease to be victims of circumstance (Davies & Lyon, 2014). Perpetrators may be rehabilitated (although no program or intervention guarantees this), thus contributing to their long-term well-being and reduced risk of recidivism. Within this model, victims progress from crisis to healing, while perpetrators move toward an improved quality of life through being held accountable and engaging in rehabilitation programs.

Despite VAWA’s focus on victim safety and perpetrator accountability, there is adequate flexibility in the statement of purpose areas and charge to OVW to address the emerging body of research that suggests that involvement with the criminal justice system may not lead to the best outcomes for victims (Bumiller, 2008). Research documents that victims/survivors may have needs and priorities that are not consistent with the goals of the criminal justice system. Many victims never report their victimization to the police (McCart, Smith, & Sawyer, 2010). Various factors may limit willingness or ability to seek help, such as mistrust of the system, prior negative experiences with the criminal justice system, and cultural values that emphasize the role of family and community in addressing problems, as well as lack of resources (e.g., transportation) (Koss, White, & Lopez, 2017). Some critics note that a primary reliance on interaction with the criminal justice system detracts from the possibility of civil remedies (Seidman & Pokorak, 2011) or innovative approaches such as restorative justice (Koss, 2014). It is important to emphasize that neither the VAWA grant-funded purpose areas nor the VESPAC model precludes the option of exploring alternative approaches. Hanson (2017) stated, “OVW stakeholders have expressed an interest in alternative options to pursue safety, accountability and well-being and to increase community engagement in these efforts.” For example, OVW issued a 2017 solicitation pertaining to restorative justice acknowledging that

the implementation of a restorative justice framework or the infusion of restorative justice practices into existing processes may be a viable option to repair the harm and open the doors for continued education. . . . RJ is intended to promote victim autonomy and change offender behavior through a process that is designed to provide meaningful accountability for the person who has inflicted the harm. ⁵

CCRs as the Critical Link

The fourth aspect of the model consists of CCRs, with purpose areas including cross-training and development of policies, procedures, and practices, that link the work of victim service provision and justice responses. CCRs usually reflect coordination across advocacy groups, the criminal justice system, child services, health care, counseling, vocational services, and educational and media interventions (Shorey, Tirone, & Stuart, 2014). Carbon (2011) states that “the concept of a CCR is one of the most critical and visible achievements of VAWA” (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/celebrating-17-years-violence-against-women-act). Furthermore,

by requiring and supporting grantees’ participation in a coordinated community response to violence against women, OVW ensures that its funded programs can serve as models for other agencies and programs addressing violence against women in their jurisdiction, thus improving the quality of victim services and the criminal and civil justice response, and potentially changing the attitudes of their partners and their communities as a whole. (Carbon, 2011)

Coordinated collaboration by the numerous service agencies involved is critical for an effective response to crimes involving domestic violence and sexual assault. The Blueprint for Safety report noted that

processing a single domestic violence related case involves five levels of government and over a dozen intervening agencies. Hundreds of practitioners might touch these cases every day. An effective response, meaning one that leads to an end to the violence, requires solid coordination across and among the many practitioners involved, as well as a strong system of accountability. (Praxis International, 2013, p. 2)

Similarly, processing a sexual assault case involves many different agencies, including medical, criminal justice, and other service providers, as reflected in the elements of SART programs (Campbell, Greeson, Bybee, & Neal, 2013; Moylan, Lindhorst, & Tajima, 2015), a specific example of a CCR. Across various forms of violence, CCRs are essential for victim safety and perpetrator accountability to be actualized. Collaborations may include multidisciplinary teams for cross-training and the development of policies, procedures, and practices. The VESPAC model could prove helpful by providing an explicit map for each partner to see the unique strengths of each other and help mitigate challenges that may arise when working together. This could also encourage focus on systemic change as well as on prevention through community education.

Cultural Relevance

In VESPAC, culturally specific services are the fifth component and the umbrella under which all other activities must be considered. Advocates of VAWA are cognizant of the unmet needs of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking who are members of multiple specific populations, including LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisesxual, transgender, queer), older adults, those with disabilities, members of various ethnic and racial groups, tribal groups, and immigrants. In general, members of these communities are more likely to be victimized, are less likely to report incidents, and experience multiple barriers to accessing services. It is beyond the scope of this article to systematically review rates of victimization for underrepresented groups, but some examples are in order (see Abbey, Jacques-Tiura, & Parkhill, 2010; Black et al., 2011; Perilla, Lippy, Rosales, & Serrata, 2011). American Indian women experience more rape by both strangers and intimate partners than other U.S. racial and ethnic groups. More than one third of American Indians report rape compared with 7-24% of other racial groups (Hamby, 2008). One study estimated a domestic violence prevalence rate of 80-90% among seven tribes studied (Jones, 2008). Rates for other groups include a lifetime victimization prevalence of 52% among African American women (Black et al., 2011). Raj and Silverman (2002) report that intimate partner violence against immigrant women is at pandemic levels, and the LGBTQ community is also affected disproportionately by violence (Gentlewarrior, 2009). Rates of victimization are also elevated for women who live in poverty (Hetling & Zhang, 2010), bear various disabilities (Hughes, Lund, Gabrielli, Powers, & Curry, 2011), or are elderly (Acierno et al., 2010). Most victims never report their victimization or delay reporting (Monroe et al., 2005). If they disclose, they are more likely to turn to family and friends than to formal service providers (Ullman, 2010). Seeking medical and legal assistance is also less likely to occur (Monroe et al., 2005). Thus, it is logical that culturally specific services should cut across the mandated purposes of VAWA-funded grants. For example, OVW grants to enhance culturally specific services support the development of innovative culturally specific strategies and projects to enhance access to resources for victims and address the sustainability of services provided by organizations serving underrepresented populations. Marginalized communities may be more reluctant to seek services due to service providers’ lack of sensitivity to a community’s needs and experiences. Barriers that underrepresented populations may experience when accessing services may include immigration status, fear of shaming the family, or sharing the same social circles of the perpetrator. To be culturally sensitive, an intervention must have content that is welcoming, relevant, and not offensive to the target population. In addition, it must “be familiar and endorsed by the target culture” (Bell, 2005).

The focus on cultural relevancy as part of the work of CCRs encourages adopting intersectionality as a strategic approach (Crenshaw, 1989), one that embraces a diversity of voices at the planning table. This approach acknowledges the role of local communities which can offer insights into local cultural values and practices to expand options for meeting the safety and empowerment needs of victims. Culturally sensitive services are an important way of increasing access and comfort when seeking services. “The failure to address the multiple oppressions of poor women of color (race and class) jeopardizes the validity and legitimacy of the antiviolence movement” (Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005, p. 41).