History of the Crime Victim’s
Rights Movement in the US and
the Development of Victimology
Victim Academy 2015
Dr. Helen Eigenberg, Professor
Criminal Justice Department
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Objectives – to understand:
● Fear of crime and impact upon society
● Extent of crime and crime trends in US and TN
● Effect of Victim Blaming
● Development of the field of victim’s rights and
victimology
● Origins of victim’s rights movement in US
Too often
● Society views crime and victimization as and
individual problem and not a social problem.
● We “don’t want to get involved”
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvBKlBhfgPc
We are especially afraid of random
“street crime”
Fear of crime continues to permeate the
social fabric of America
(Kilpatrick, Seymour, and Boyle 1991)
● In a 1991 survey of a national probability sample –
a majority of adult respondents reported that they
were at least "a little fearful" of being attacked or
robbed:

When traveling on vacation or business (72%)

Out alone at night in their own neighborhoods
(61%).

At home in their own house or apartment (60%)
Things people do or have done b/c of
fear of crime
Measuring Crime and
Victimization
Two major sources of national
data:
● Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and or
NIBRS/TIBRS
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
in TN: http://www.tbi.state.tn.us/
● National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
● Prepared annually by police
departments
● Measures crimes known to police
● Limited or no information on
victim/offender relationship –
especially a problem for
assault/domestic violence
● State data – TIBRS better in this
respect
National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS)
● National random sample
● Victimization survey as opposed to police
reports
Nature of Crime and
Victimization
Most crime in the US is property crime as
opposed to violent crime. (Source NCVS 2013)
Crime Shows Steady Decline:
Property and Violent Crime
40000000
35000000
30000000
25000000
Property
20000000
Violent
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
Who is most likely to be
victimized?
● Age
● Race
● Gender
Your risk of criminal victimization
decreases as you get older.
Violent crime rate per 1,000 persons in age group: NCVS (2012)
Whites are less apt to be victimized
than other racial groups.
Race of Victims: Violent crime rate per 1,000 persons (NCVS: 2012)
Men are more apt to be victimized than
women.
Gender of Victims: Violent crime rate per 1,000 persons NCVS (2012)
Women are most apt to be victimized
by non-strangers.
64
Relationship of Offender to Victims by Gender of Victim for Violent Crime
(In percentages: NCVS 2012)
Correctional Population: BJS 19782012
Perceptions and Reality
Perceptions = Reality
BUT
Reality ≠ Perceptions
Effects of Fear of Crime
● It ruins the sense of community -- “no-go” areas.
● Wealthy people protect themselves – isolate or moving
from the area – leading to (street) crime being
disproportionately located in poor areas
● When people are afraid, they change their habits. They to
stay at home more and avoid “dangerous” activities like
taking public transport, walking down a certain road, being
near certain “types of people” etc.
● Leads people to become disillusioned with the criminal
justice system -- a feeling of helplessness – and a sense
that the law does not serve victims.
Victim Precipitation/Blaming
Exercise
Who is to blame for this crime?
● A=you
● B=grouchy hermit
● C=some one else
Victim Precipitation
● Divides some finite amount of
responsibility between victims and
offenders -- Victims can be fully responsible,
completely innocent of precipitation, or somewhere in
between.
● Proponents: victim’s actions are
important to establish responsibility
● Opponents: results in blaming the
victim -- diverts attention away from
perpetrators
Problems with Concept of Victim
Precipitation
Problems Explaining the “Cause”
● Assumes there are differences between victims
and non-victims
● Measure characteristics of victims only
● Failure to identify common characteristics that
“cause” victimization
● Only thing that causes victimization is to be
victimized.
Excuses Offenders Behavior
● Attention shifts to victim’s behavior rather
than the offender
● Provides cultural framework which
offenders use to rationalize their behavior
● Provides cultural framework which the
criminal justice system uses -- endorses
victim blaming in principle and in practice
(e.g. affect judges, juries, prosecutors, and
police actions)
Offender Responsibility
Victim
Offender
Places Undue Responsibility on
Victims
● Implies that victims know how to prevent
●
●
●
●
victimization
Ignores that many people in society have
disproportionate risk of victimization
How does one live in a society to ensure they
are not victimized?
Even if it were possible, do you want to live that
way?
Sometimes “risky” behavior is not avoidable
Victim Blaming
● Results in additional trauma to victims who must
deal not only with victimization but the added
burden of being told that it is their fault
● Results in SILENCE
● But is often accepted with little outrage
Why do we, as a society, endorse this
idea?
● Just world hypothesis – provides false sense
of security and allows us to ignore random
and unpredictable nature of crime
● Gives (false) sense of empowerment for
individuals but may increase harm done to
victims
● Helps answer difficult questions about the
motivations of offenders
● Draws our attention away inability to
prevent crime
● Allows us to shift our attention from social
structural problems to individual
explanations –
● Causes further victimization to some
victims who blame themselves or who
experience victim blaming by the criminal
justice system or others in society
What if:
● the real career criminals were corporate
offenders, not common criminals?
● we found that victims have often been offenders
before, and vice versa?
● we discovered that we were as likely to be
victimized by a friend or relative as by a
stranger?
Developments in the Victim’s
Rights Movement
Social Movements of 1960s
● The Civil Rights, Antiwar, Women's Movements
● Raised issues related to civil disobedience, role
of government, and equality.
● Demonstrated power of grassroots movements.
● (re)Introduced violence against women as a
social problem and pursued changes to benefit
women.
Landmarks in the History of
Victim Assistance Field
Five Stages of
Development
Stage 1: Federal Focus on Crime
● Begins 60s and 70s
● Rising crime rates
● Civil unrest
● Creation of state crime commissions
● Some victims rights developments
● Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(LEAA)
Impact of LEAA
● Begins in 1965 as part of Johnson’s war on crime
● Makes crime a federal issue – really for first time
● Focuses on system wide planning, upgrading
●
●
●
●
training/education of cj personnel, and improving law
enforcement
Uses formula grants at state level (blueprint for all that follow)
Gave out billions of dollars – highest was in 1973 – 1.75
billon
Never any agreement or congressional debate about
substantive approach in terms of national crime policy – only
about how to distribute funds
Politically expedient – taking action on crime w/out a
coherent philosophy
Advances
● In 1965, the first crime victims’ compensation
program was established by the California
legislature. Movement led by grassroots activists
● Many victim witness programs funded by LEAA
beginning early 1970s
● In 1974, the first battered women’s shelter was
established in Denver, Colorado. It was
operated by volunteers who used their own
funds and a few donations.
● Grassroots rape crisis programs developing
Stage 2: Conflict and Unstable
Funding
● 1979 LEAA defunded by Congress ending
funding stream for many programs
● Professionalism and training emerged as
competing themes
● contrasting perspectives, purposes, structure,
and operation of grassroots victim programs
versus criminal justice-based programs
increasingly became issues.
Other victim organizations
● Two new grassroots programs enter stage:
 Parents of Murdered Children (POMC),
 Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
● Sometimes compete for resources with victims
of violence against women – especially in 1980s
w/ get tough on crime policies
Stage 3: Public Awareness
● Movement continues to make advances in public
awareness and changes in law and policy
● legislative changes -- victims’ bills of rights,
proposals for training and education, and
expansion of existing victim/witness programs.
● 1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). Established
fund to provide funds for local victim assistance
programs and state victim compensation -- 1986
first funds distributed to states
● 1988 VOCA amended to require states to pay
benefits to domestic violence victims and drunk
driving victims
VOCA
(more information at: http://www.ovc.gov/)
Funds come from fines and asset seizures:
NO federal tax dollars
Funds:
● Formula grants to states to improve investigation and
prosecution of child abuse
● Federal victim services (victim witness coordinators,
federal VINE)
● Victim compensation programs for state level programs
(direct expenses reimbursed to victims; e.g., medical,
dental, lost wages, funeral expenses, forensic sexual
assault exams)
● Victim assistance at state level (direct services – e.g.,
shelters, hotlines, advocacy, counseling)
VOCA: Most funds go to states
● State crime victimization programs for victims
compensation
● State victim assistance program formula grants
($ given by states to providers who do direct
services w/ victims – base of $500,000 and then
formula based on population of state – 95%
must go directly to victim services agencies –
nationally about 50% of these awards go to DV)
● Tennessee – 2014 allocation: $4.9 million
dollars for victim compensation and $9.2 million
for victim assistance
Deposits and Funding Caps
● Many large fines paid in installments
● Argument is can’t depend on these very large
●
●
●
●
settlements in the future
Thus caps set as “rainy day fund”
Currently about a $12 BILLION dollar surplus
Request for 2014 and 2015 was about $810
million (up from about 730 million in 2013
allocated)
US MILITARY BUDGET 2015 – 496 BILLION
DOLLARS
http://www.navaa.org/budget/14/docs/VOCA_Backgrounder%202014.pdf
VOCA $ - Funding Caps versus
Deposits to Fund
Source: http://navaa.org/budget/index.html
Fund Balance
● Currently about a $12 BILLION dollar surplus
● Request for 2014 and 2015 was about $810
million (up from about 730 million in 2013
allocated)
● 2016 budget request from President is $1 billion


BUT specifies 20 million tribal assistance, 10 million
domestic trafficking victims and 77 million for OJP
management and administrative requests
Estimates are that it would result in 70% reduction in
FY 15 state victim compensation grants
http://www.navaa.org/budget/14/docs/VOCA_Backgrounder%202014.pdf
Impact of Funding
● Funding in 2013 was 13.7% less than inflation
adjusted dollars than in 2000
● OVC reports 15.5% reduction in number of crime
victims served from 2007-12
● In general victim related services losing other
funding while experiencing increases in
demands for service
● Consistent calls to increase cap yearly to the
amount deposited annually (about 1.5 billion)
which would be almost double current amount
Victims Served (2012)
http://www.navaa.org/budget/14/docs/VOCA_Backgrounder%202014.pdf
Benefits Funded (2012)
Number of Victims Served Declining
Fiscal Year
VOCA
assistance
funds*
No. VOCA
Funded
Agencies
No. Victims Served
2006
2007
395.9
370.6
4,397
4,201
3,813,128
4,116,648
2008
2009
309.0
363.8
4,358
4,020
3,780,068
3,526,736
2010
2011
2012
412.1
428.1
379.7
3,730
3,780
3,879
3,609,421
3,760,235
3,486,655
* in millions
Victim Assistance Grants to TN
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
(for more information visit: http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/)
● Passed 1994
● First piece of federal legislation designed
specifically to address violence against women
including domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault and stalking,
● Provided for improved prevention and
prosecution of violent crimes against women
and children
● Increased the amount of federal funding
available to support service programs at state
level
● Re-authorized many times
VAWA funds in Millions of Dollars
2015 appropriations about 605 million dollars
http://nnedv.org/downloads/Policy/CampaignAppropsChart_FY16_withCJSHouse.pdf
Stage 4: Expanding Legislative
Agenda
● legislative agenda has continued to grow and expand
● U.S. Congress passed major legislation that addressed
hate crimes, campus victimization, child protection,
violence against women, sexual assault, kidnapping, and
gun control.
● Currently, all states have passed victims’ rights
legislation in the form of a victims’ bill of rights or a
series of statutory protections
Challenges
● Implementation
● Identifying and meeting the needs of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and child abuse victims
● Adequate funding -- cuts in city, county and state
funding coupled with a large growth in claims
● More applicants who lack private medical
insurance
● Processing cases in efficient and timely nature
5. Stage 5: Emerging Professionalism
● Victim service providers work in a very diverse array of
●
●
●
●
settings -- areas of expertise and training are increasing
multidisciplinary in nature.
Growing recognition that certification or some other form of
credentialing is necessary.
Increased professionalization related to salary issues
California State University-Fresno (CSUF) developed the first
victimology major (1991) and the first graduate concentration
in victimology (1992)
National Victim Assistance Academy (NVAA) curriculum and
NOVA certification
Backlash against the Movement
●
●
●
●
●
Victim feminism
“abuse excuse”
Claims of exaggeration of problems
Commercial exploitation
Sensationalizing exploitive civil suits (McDonalds
hot coffee)
● Dismissing experts/researchers as victims with
“chips on their shoulders” – challenge their
objectivity
Effects of Backlash
●
●
●
●
Trivializes the real and prevalent issues
Silences victims (stigmatization)
Perpetuates victim blaming and invisibility
Continues to make certain types of victimization
seem rare and isolated rather than pervasive
and common
● Perpetuates a victim blaming culture
● Continues to perpetuate mis-information about
the nature of crime and victimization
Future Developments
● Continued legislative reforms
● Acknowledgement of other major social systems
and the role they play (e.g., medical, religious,
educational)
● Continued increase in partnerships and
coordinated responses
● Massive proliferation of research and continued
(piecemeal) programmatic changes in the field
● Continued politicization of crime and hence
victimization