New Directions from the Field: VictimsÕ Rights and Services for the 21st Century CONTENTS Foreword ii Executive Summary vii Section I: New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights 1 Chapter 1: VictimsÕ Rights 3 Section II: New Directions for Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Agencies 45 Chapter 2: Law Enforcement 47 Chapter 3: Prosecution 73 Chapter 4: Judiciary 97 Chapter 5: Corrections 119 Section III: New Directions for Victim Asssistance and Allied Professions 147 Chapter 6: New Directions for the Victim Assistance Community 149 Chapter 7: The Health Care Community 199 Chapter 8: The Mental Health Community 219 Chapter 9: The Legal Community 249 Chapter 10: The Educational Community 263 Chapter 11: The Faith Community 283 Chapter 12: The Business Community 295 Chapter 13: The News Media Community 313 Section IV: New Directions in Financial Recovery 323 Chapter 14: Crime Victim Compensation 325 Chapter 15: Restitution 355 Chapter 16: Civil Remedies 373 Section V: New Directions for Child Victims 381 Chapter 17: Child Victims 383 Section VI: New Directions in International Victim Assistance 413 Chapter 18: International Perspectives in Victim Services 415 Conclusion 429 Appendix A: Contributors to New Directions A-1 Appendix B: Staff of New Directions B-1 Foreword Fifteen years have passed since the chair of the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime called the neglect of crime victims in the United States a national disgrace. Today, we can be proud that our nation listened and responded to victims and their advocates. VictimsÕ rights laws have been enacted in every state, more than 10,000 victim assistance programs have been developed around the country, and every state has established a crime victim compensation program. The creation of a federal Crime Victims Fund, which was first proposed by the task force, has provided more than $2.3 billion from fines paid by federal criminal offenders to support many of these lifeline services for victims. But even today, too many victims and their families are not active participants in the criminal or juvenile justice process. In the words of President Clinton, they are still Òon the outside looking in.Ó They are denied meaningful participation in the justice system and services to meet their most basic needs. VictimsÕ rights laws vary significantly from state to state and often remain unenforced. For millions of victimized Americans, the system still hurts more than it helps. This documentÑNew Directions from the Field: VictimsÕ Rights and Services for the 21st CenturyÑis a comprehensive report and set of recommendations on victimsÕ rights and services from and concerning virtually every community involved with crime victims across the nation. The report is the result of more than three yearsÕ work by more than 1,000 individuals in different professions. It examines how victimsÕ rights and services have been realized since the 1982 Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force and recommends what we as a society should strive to achieve for victims as we enter the 21st century. While the recommendations may not reflect all of the individual contributorsÕ views, the contributors agree that all of the recommendations are worthy of discussion and consideration. The work of these individuals and the publication and dissemination of this material has been supported by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) of the United States Department of Justice. The report and recommendations represent views from the field, however, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. We are grateful to the Department of Justice for providing resources so this important document could be developed and made widely available. The Authors and Process New Directions incorporates views from the fieldÑincluding crime victims, representatives from national victim advocacy and service organizations, criminal justice practitioners, allied professionals, and many othersÑwho provided the background materials and recommendations contained in this action plan. That group includes 32 nationally recognized experts who developed background papers on the areas addressed in this report. The ideas and proposals in the background papers were enhanced by the comments of nearly 100 expert reviewers. Many individuals from the criminal justice and victim service fields provided substantive input into this document through expert summits; public hearings; focus groups of representatives from the judiciary, law enforcement, prosecution, and corrections, the faith community, and the crime victim compensation field; and symposia on hate and bias crimes, workplace violence, and the news media. Additional input was obtained in 1997 from state administrators of Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) assistance programs from all 50 states. Further program information on Òpromising practicesÓ was derived from OVC grant projects in the areas of law enforcement, prosecution, corrections, probation and parole, victims of juvenile offenders, death notification, rural victims, technology, and victim involvement with community service. In late 1997, meetings of leaders in the crime victims field were held to review and finalize the recommendations. All who participated in those meetings were impressed by the scope and innovation of the collective work of the field that is presented in New Directions. On behalf of all those committed to improvement of services to crime victims, we express our deep appreciation to the Department of Justice for its financial support of this effort. We are especially grateful to Aileen Adams, who served as Director of OVC during the core 3 years of this projectÕs development. Her extraordinary leadership ensured that this report truly reflects the diverse views from the field. Moreover, her commitment to justice and healing served as a guiding force to listen to the voices of crime victims across America as Ònew directionsÓ were identified. We also want to acknowledge current Acting Director Reginald Robinson for his support in bringing New Directions to publication and in ensuring that this report is widely disseminated throughout the nation. A project of this magnitude requires the hard work of many individ-uals. Ashley Oliver Barrett, Special Assistant to the Director, deserves special distinction for her tireless efforts in every aspect of this remarkable endeavor, not the least of which was guiding this document through final publication. We are also grateful for the outstanding work of former OVC staff members Katia Garrett, who provided keen legal analysis and insight into the many complicated issues addressed in this report, as well as Sharon English and Melanie Smith, for their efforts in laying the foundation of New Directions. Many other OVC staff deserve special thanks for the guidance and insight they provided along the way. Christine Edmunds, who joins us in signing this foreword, also should be recognized for her exceptional work over the past 3 years in developing this report. As a consultant to OVC for New Directions, Ms. Edmunds conducted extensive research to amplify sections of the document, identified additional promising practices, shaped and refined ideas and recommendations, and wove together the information obtained from the field to present in this report. Finally, the essential contributions of crime victims themselves must be acknowledged. Victims presented their views and priorities during hearings and forums, as members of advisory boards on grants, in focus groups, and as writers and researchers on this project. The concerns and recommendations of hundreds of victims of all agesÑchildren, adults, and the elderlyÑhave been invaluable in developing and shaping this report. The Challenge Ahead New Directions is intended to foster a dialogue in which various participants listen to differing views, refine the reportÕs recommendations, and develop a strategy for providing justice and comprehensive services for all crime victims in the 21st century. We urge every American who interacts with victims, from police officers to prosecutors, from judges to corrections officials, from members of the clergy to business leaders, to join in this dialogue and implement the programs and reforms that make sense for their own communities. During all the years that we have worked with and on behalf of crime victims, we have seen the doors of justice gradually open for some. It is our great hope that this report and the dialogue it fosters will move our nation closer to the day when the doors of justice open for all victims of crime. With this wish, we sign this foreword on behalf of all those who contributed to New Directions. David Beatty Director of Public Policy National Victim Center Arlington, Virginia Christine Edmunds Criminal Justice and Victim Services Consultant Washington, D.C . Lucy Friedman Executive Director Victim Services New York, New York Susan Herman Executive Director National Victim Center Arlington, Virginia Ralph Hubbard Outreach Coordinator Parents of Murdered Children of New York State New York, New York Janice Harris Lord Consultant for Crime Victims Issues Mothers Against Drunk Driving Irving, Texas Aurelia Sands Belle Consultant for Crime Victim Issues Fayetteville, North Carolina Brian Ogawa Director Crime VictimsÕ Institute Office of the Attorney General Austin, Texas Anne Seymour Public Safety Consultant Washington, D.C. John Stein Deputy Director National Organization for Victim Assistance Washington, D.C. Marlene Young Executive Director National Organization for Victim Assistance Washington, D.C. Executive Summary New Directions from the Field: VictimsÕ Rights and Services for the 21st Century challenges the nation to renew and refocus its efforts to improve the treatment of victims of crime. It is the first comprehensive plan regarding how the nation should respond to crime victims since the 1982 PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime identified the American justice system as Òappallingly out of balance,Ó and made 68 recommendations for how rights and services for crime victims in this nation could be substantially improved. New Directions highlights the progress and the momentous changes that have taken place across our nationÕs justice systems and in the private sector since the release of the 1982 report. It identifies hundreds of innovative public policy initiatives and community partnerships that are revolutionizing the treatment of crime victims in America today, and it recommends improvements that still need to be implemented on behalf of crime victims. Today only a fraction of the nationÕs estimated 38 million crime victims receive much-needed services such as emergency financial assistance, crisis and mental health counseling, shelter, and information and advocacy within the criminal and juvenile justice systems. This report presents more than 250 recommendations targeted to nearly every profession that comes in contact with crime victimsÑfrom justice practitioners, to victim service, health care, mental health, legal, educational, faith, news media, and business communitiesÑand encourages them to redouble their efforts to enhance victimsÕ rights and services. New Directions reflects views from a broad cross-section of the criminal and juvenile justice, allied professional, and victim service fields. Contributors to this report include crime victims themselves and representatives of the agencies and organizations that serve them. Hundreds of individuals across the country proposed recommendations for this report by participating in public hearings; submitting background papers on diverse victimsÕ issues; serving on working groups with representatives from law enforcement, prosecution, and corrections agencies as well as the judiciary; and participating in focus groups with allied professionals. All who contributed to this report hope that it will serve as a catalyst to a dynamic and far-reaching discussion about how our nation can improve its response to victims of crime, and that it will precipitate practical steps toward making the ideas presented in this report a reality. New Directions was developed by the field, and its recommendations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Justice Department or the Office for Victims of Crime. In addition, all of the recommendations may not represent the views of every contributor, as over 1,000 individuals provided input into this document. Organization of New Directions As an update to the 1982 Final Report of the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime, New Directions follows the format established in the original report in setting forth its recommendations. It begins with a discussion of important public policy issues affecting crime victims, and each section that follows discusses how individual justice agencies and allied professionals can implement these, as well as other, important initiatives. Additional topics and issues have been added as a result of the tremendous growth in the field and in response to new problems that have emerged during the past 15 years. As in the original report, each section of New Directions contains individual chapters designed to serve as stand-alone documents that present recommendations for specific issue areas or professions. Section I New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights For many years, victims of crime were virtually invisible in the laws and policies that govern our justice systems. To the extent victims of crime had a role in the justice system, it was narrow; to the extent victims had rights, they were few. Section I, New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights, reviews the nationÕs progress over the past two decades toward establishing state and federal rights for victims of crime, including a proposed federal constitutional amendment to guarantee those rights. It also presents recommendations from the field for ensuring that victimsÕ rights, including fundamental rights for victims of juvenile offenders, are expanded and enforced within the American justice system. Tremendous strides have been made to enact victimsÕ rights laws and deliver services to victims in the United States. Few movements in the history of this nation have achieved such success in igniting the kind of legislative response that victim rights activists have fostered over the past two decades. In the early 1980s, state laws addressing victims rights, services, and financial reparations numbered in the hundreds. Today, there are more than 27,000 crime victim-related state statutes, 29 state victimsÕ rights constitutional amendments, and basic rights and services for victims of federal crimes. Nevertheless, serious deficiencies remain in the nationÕs victimsÕ rights laws as well as their implementation. The rights of crime victims vary significantly among states and at the federal level. Frequently, victimsÕ rights are ignored. Even in states that have enacted constitutional rights for victims, implementation is often arbitrary and based on the individual practices and preferences of criminal justice officials. Moreover, many states do not provide comprehensive rights for victims of juvenile offenders. In tribal, military, and administrative proceedings, the rights extended to victims differ dramatically or do not exist at all. Many victims, including victims from diverse cultures and those with disabilities, are not informed of their rights nor given the opportunity to participate in criminal and juvenile justice proceedings. In New Directions in VictimsÕ Rights, the field strongly recommends that the enactment and vigorous enforcement of consistent, fundamental victimsÕ rights should be a priority for the 21st century. The first recommendation from the field is for the passage of a Federal VictimsÕ Rights Constitutional Amendment to establish a basic level of rights for crime victims in every state. These include the following fundamental rights: ¥ To notice of public court proceedings and to attend them. ¥ To make a statement to the court about bail, sentencing, and accepting a plea. ¥ To notice of parole hearings and to attend them and speak. ¥ To notice of a defendant or convictÕs escape or release. ¥ To an order of restitution from the convicted offender. ¥ To a final disposition of the proceedings relating to the crime free from unreasonable delay. ¥ To consideration for the safety of the victim in determining a defendantÕs release from custody. ¥ To notice of these rights. ¥ To standing to enforce these rights. The report strongly recommends that these fundamental rights should be established and enforced not only in the criminal justice system, but also for victims in all juvenile justice, military, tribal, and administrative proceedings. As a first step toward this goal, New Directions recommends that the federal government, states and tribes review their victimsÕ rights laws to determine if these fundamental rights are extended to all crime victims. This report also reflects the view of the field that states and the federal government should address the lack of implementation of many victimsÕ rights laws by establishing effective enforcement mechanisms for victims, including victimsÕ rights compliance programs. It recommends that audits of local, state and federal compliance with victimsÕ rights laws be conducted frequently by justice agencies and independent auditors to determine the reasons for noncompliance and how enforcement of victimsÕ rights can be improved. Finally, a system of comprehensive services requires dedicated resources. A major step toward that goal was the enactment of the 1984 Victims of Crime Act, which established a creative federal funding mechanism that relies on the collection of fines and penalties from convicted federal offenders rather than federal tax-based appropriations. That amount varies, however, and may not be enough to ensure consistent and comprehensive implementation of victimsÕ rights laws and needed services. Many criminal justice officials and victim advocates continue to assert that there is a lack of comprehensive services in every community for victims of crime resulting in part from inadequate funding. New and creative sources of funding must be identified to ensure the implementation of rights and quality services for all crime victims. Section II New Directions for Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Agencies When a person is harmed by a criminal act, the agencies that make up our criminal and juvenile justice systems have a moral and legal obligation to respond. It is their responsibility not only to seek swift justice for victims, but to ease their suffering in a time of great need. Section II, New Directions for Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Agencies, discusses the critical role that each agency within the justice systemÑlaw enforcement, prosecution, judiciary, and correctionsÑmust play in implementing and enforcing victimsÕ rights and in improving the overall treatment of crime victims within our nationÕs justice systems. Chapter Two, New Directions for Law Enforcement, addresses law enforcementÕs role as the frontline of victim assistance. As the first responders to reported crimes, law enforcement agencies must ensure that victims are treated with sensitivity and provided with essential information and emergency assistance. This chapter addresses innovations including law enforcement-based victim assistance units; on-scene crisis units where specially trained counselors and law enforcement officers respond together to victims; and multidisciplinary programs that have been launched in hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the nation to respond to the needs of child, elderly, domestic violence and sexual assault victims. A number of recommendations for the law enforcement community are advanced by the field. For example, law enforcement agencies should adopt community policing philosophies that are both victim and crime prevention oriented. The field also recommends that law enforcement agencies establish policies and procedures for the provision of legally mandated victimsÕ rights and services such as notifying victims of the status of an investigation, arrests, and pretrial release of suspects in their custody. In addition, compliance with victimsÕ rights policies and procedures should be included as a standard in officersÕ performance appraisals. Chapter Three, New Directions for Prosecution, addresses our nationÕs prosecutors. Today, prosecutors are recognizing that to most effectively prosecute a case, the victim must be part of the process. The chapter highlights programs such as special prosecution units for child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence; victim/witness assistance programs that provide comprehensive information, notification, advocacy, and support to crime victims; and community prosecution initiatives. This chapter also contains several recommendations that specifically address the prosecutorÕs role in informing, consulting with, and notifying crime victims. For example, because the overwhelming majority of felony cases are resolved through plea agreements, the field recommends that prosecutors consult with victims on the terms of any negotiated plea. The field also recommends that prosecutors confer with victims of violent crimes before declining to file charges. Other recommendations for prosecutors include the need to notify victims in a timely manner of public court proceedings and to advocate for their rights to be heard regarding bail decisions, continuances, sentencing, and restitution. The field also recommends that prosecutors and leaders of victimsÕ organizations develop protocols for ensuring appropriate notification and consultation in cases involving large numbers of crime victims. Chapter Four, New Directions for the Judiciary, addresses the pivotal role that judges play in the justice process. The judiciary has initiated many victim-sensitive problem-solving efforts such as specialized drug courts; domestic violence courts; community courts that handle Òquality of lifeÓ misdemeanor crimes; unified family courts that handle all problems relating to the family including criminal, civil, and juvenile matters; and courts designed specifically for child victims. The report recommends that as leaders within the justice system, judges should ensure that victimsÕ rights laws are fully implemented. New Directions recommends that judges should advise victims of their rights as routinely as they advise defendants of their rights and should facilitate the input of crime victims regarding proposed plea agreements. In addition, judges should permit the victim to present a victim impact statement before imposing a sentence, and courts should utilize communications technology (audio/video) to facilitate victim communication. The field also recommends that judges manage their cases and calendars to make victim involvement as feasible as possible, and that they order full restitution from offenders to help compensate victims for the harm they have suffered. The last chapter in this section, New Directions for Corrections, encompasses the adult and juvenile justice agencies responsible for the incarceration, detention, supervision, and surveillance of those accused or convicted of committing crimes. Over the past decade, the basic philosophy of correctional agencies has undergone radical change. Traditionally, correctional agencies viewed their role as limited to punishing and rehabilitating offenders. Today, serving crime victims is also widely accepted as an important part of the mission of many correctional agencies. This new role is reflected in their governing laws and internal policies and procedures, as well as in the attitudes of correctional personnel. More work is needed in this area, however. The field recommends that adult and juvenile correctional agencies open channels of communication with the community and with crime victims; that correctional agencies designate staff to provide information, assistance, and referrals to victims of crime; that they place a high priority on ensuring the protection of victims from inmate intimidation, threats, physical or other harm from offenders under their supervision; and that they inform victims of any change in the status of offenders that would give them access to victims or the community. To increase offender awareness of the consequences of their actions, correctional agencies for both adult and juvenile offenders should use victim impact panels and conduct courses on the effects of crime on victims. New Directions for Criminal Justice System Agencies emphasizes the need for all criminal and juvenile justice personnel to ensure that the voices of victims are heard throughout the criminal justice process so that justice agencies are able to develop effective, victim-sensitive policies and programs. Education for these professionals should include presentations by victims about their justice system experiences. Crime victims are the ÒcustomersÓ of that system, and the agencies that interact with victims have an obligation to ask them to evaluate whether their needs are being met. Section III New Directions for Victim Assistance and Allied Professionals Members of many different professions work directly with crime victims or come into contact with them on a daily basis. In addition to victim service providers, primary among these are professionals in the health care, mental health, legal, education, faith, business, and the news media communities. New Directions for Victim Assistance and Allied Professionals describes the important roles that these professions can play in assisting victims. It identifies areas where services for victims of crime can be enhanced and highlights the innovative promising practices that each profession has developed to improve victim services. Chapter Six, New Directions for the Victim Assistance Community, addresses the very broad and diverse victim assistance field, including local, state and national programs. The chapter traces the roots of the victim assistance movement from the first state victim compensation program in the United States established in 1965 and the early victim assistance programs of the 1970s, to the full-fledged advocacy and service field that today is dedicated to meeting the physical, financial, and psychological needs of victims and their families. More than 10,000 victim assistance programs exist across the country, including over 2,000 that assist battered women, over 2,000 rape crisis centers, as well as countless other community-based and justice system-based programs that serve child victims, survivors of homicide victims, drunk driving crash victims, and others. These are extraordinary accomplishments for a movement that started less than three decades ago. Yet for many victims in America, adequate services are still not available. Crime victims with disabilities, who are victimized at an unusually high rate, have great difficulty accessing services to meet their needs. Many victim assistance programs lack the ability to communicate effectively with deaf or blind victims, and most service providers are not trained to communicate with victims with cognitive or developmental disabilities. Criminal justice and other victim service providers are often not equipped to meet the needs of victims from diverse cultures or victims who speak languages other than English. As a result, these victims are not informed adequately of the services available to them or of their rights in the criminal justice system. In this chapter, the victimsÕ movement seeks to define a comprehensive system of victim services for all crime victims that includes immediate trauma and emergency response, short- and long-term psychological counseling, shelter, and advocacy throughout the criminal, tribal, military, and juvenile justice systems. It addresses the issues facing specific types of victimsÑincluding victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, gang violence, white collar crime, bank robbery, hate and bias crimes, survivors of homicide victims, elderly victims, and drunk driving crash victimsÑand makes recommendations for meeting their needs. Other recommendations in this section include conducting needs assessments; developing standards for victim assistance; providing basic training and continuing education for all victim assistance providers; and developing a national commission to establish certification and accreditation standards for victim advocacy and assistance. The next chapter in this section, Chapter Seven, focuses on New Directions for the Health Care Community. In 1985, the Surgeon General declared violence in America to be a public health emergency. Today, this emergency has reached epidemic proportions. U.S. hospital emergency rooms treated an estimated 1.4 million individuals injured by interpersonal violence in 1994. Each year, gunshot violence costs $4.5 billion in medical expenses alone. This chapter discusses creative initiatives that have been taken by the health community to reduce violence and to provide assistance to crime victims. Hospitals are reaching out to rural victims through telemedicine, to victims of gang violence through violence prevention programs, and to victims of sexual assault through sexual assault nurse examiners programs. However, many challenges still remain. Recommendations in this chapter include encouraging all medical professionals to adopt protocols for responding to domestic violence, child, elderly, and sexual assault victims developed by their professional associations and to provide professional education programs on crime victims issues. Intense feelings of anger, fear, isolation, low self-esteem, helplessness, and depression are common reactions to victimization. Chapter Eight, New Directions for the Mental Health Community, addresses the many short- and long-term mental health problems that can result from experiencing trauma including acute and post-traumatic stress disorder. Major advances have been made in furthering our understanding of crime-related psychological trauma and the best ways to provide treatment to crime victims. This chapter outlines a number of multidisciplinary programs which have been developed to address the mental health needs of crime victims. Recommendations encourage the mental health community to develop linkages with crime victim compensation, victim assistance programs, and criminal and juvenile justice agencies to ensure that victims have access to adequate crisis and mental health treatment at each stage of the justice process. They also address the continuing need for research on the mental health consequences of victimization and treatment of crime-related psychological disorders, as well as the importance of education and training for mental health professionals in providing appropriate mental health treatment to crime victims and their families. Chapter Nine, New Directions for the Legal Community, addresses the role of lawyers serving in positions outside the justice system in private law firms, corporations, law schools, and government, who frequently come in contact with crime victims through their work. Attorneys and the organized bar associations to which they belong have worked to improve access to the justice system for crime victims by providing pro bono legal assistance to crime victims through community outreach and legal advocacy programs. The field encourages state and local bar associations to follow the lead of the American Bar Association, and many state and local bar associations, in establishing victim committees and to strongly support continuing legal education on crime victimsÕ issues. Chapter Ten, New Directions for the Educational Community, examines the pervasive problem of crime on school and college campuses, as well as how the educational community can assist crime victims. Our nationÕs schools provide the richest opportunity to teach children about victimsÕ rights and services and crime prevention strategies. Education on these issues should begin in grade school and continue through college and graduate school. On many college campuses, where sexual assault and other crimes affect large numbers of students, information about these crimes and prevention strategies is rarely incorporated into classes or student activities beyond student orientation. Many victims turn first to their friends for assistance, and it is critical to educate those most likely to be called upon for advice. Since the release of the 1982 report, attention to school violence has greatly increased, and scores of programs have been developed to protect the safety of students, teachers, and administrators. The recommendations in this chapter focus on the continuing need for schools and universities to establish comprehensive programs to assist students, faculty, and staff who are victimized by crime or who witness violence. In addition, the report calls upon all school districts, colleges, and universities to design and implement a standardized system for documenting, analyzing, and reporting crimes to law enforcement. Equally important, New Directions encourages colleges and universities to establish undergraduate and graduate programs with a concentration in victimsÕ rights and services, as well as to develop specialized education and training programs for faculty, administrators, and staff on crime victim issues. In times of crisis, many individuals turn to clergy and leaders in the faith community for spiritual guidance, support, and information. Chapter Eleven, New Directions for the Faith Community, encourages faith community leaders to recognize that the victim, no less than the victimizer, is in need of aid, comfort, and spiritual ministry. It reviews the range of faith-based victim assistance programs that have been developed over the past decade, including providing shelter for battered women and camps for abused children. Training on victimsÕ issues for those in the faith community is recommended as a priority so that they are better able to recognize signs of violence, understand critical issues of confidentiality, and make appropriate referrals for services. Chapter Twelve, New Directions for the Business Community, addresses the importance of this communityÕs response to crime victims. Employers have begun to recognize that it is good business to offer employees a full spectrum of assistance programs to help them deal with problems, including criminal victimization, that affect job performance and the safety of the workplace. Employee assistance programs are now routinely offered in many workplaces. Many employers and unions are implementing policies to prevent violence in the workplace and to assist employees who become victims. This chapter highlights innovative private sector approaches to improve the response to victims of workplace violence, including monetary and in-kind donations to individual victims and community victim services, and memorable programs that the television industry has produced to increase public awareness about crime victimsÕ issues, particularly in the area of child abuse, sexual assault, gun violence, stalking, and domestic violence. The field recommends that all workplaces educate their employees about victimization and its impact. The final chapter in this section, New Directions for the News Media Community, addresses the longstanding tension between the publicÕs right to know versus the victimÕs right to privacy. The mediaÕs coverage of many high-profile cases and emerging crimes has contributed to positive changes in public policy, such as recognition of the need for community notification of sex offenders and anti-stalking statutes. News coverage has also helped to change public attitudes about the seriousness of violent crimes such as drunk driving and rape. But the media can have a negative impact on individual lives when victims are thrust, often unwillingly, into the media limelight in the aftermath of crime. This chapter encourages the media to adopt guidelines for sensitively covering victimsÕ issues, such as protecting the privacy of sexual assault and child victims. Section IV New Directions in Financial Recovery The costs to crime victims for medical expenses, mental health counseling, and lost wages alone are estimated at $105 billion annually. The fourth section of this report, New Directions in Financial Recovery, addresses the three major avenues that victims can pursue to recover their financial losses due to crime: compensation, restitution, and civil remedies. The first chapter of this section, Chapter Fourteen, New Directions for Crime Victim Compensation, addresses the great progress that has been made to establish victim compensation programs in every state and to expand program benefits. Crime victim compensation programs pay for expenses such as medical care, mental health counseling, lost wages, funeral expenses, and crime scene cleanup. In 1996, state compensation programs paid approximately $240 million to more than 110,000 crime victims nationwide. The recommendations from the field in this chapter suggest that the circle of victims who qualify for compensation should be widened, and barriers that may prevent victims from applying for compensation, such as mandated time limits for reporting to law enforcement or submitting a claim, should be removed. Additional recommendations for compensation programs address issues such as improving claims management, expanding benefits for crime victims, and utilizing technology to facilitate program initiatives. Chapter Fifteen, New Directions for Restitution, addresses restitution, which can be ordered in juvenile and criminal courts to hold offenders financially accountable for their crimes against victims. This chapter calls for mandatory, full, and consistent restitution orders nationwide. In addition, the field suggests all justice systems should establish more effective restitution programs that require coordinated efforts among officials across the entire justice system to increase restitution collections. The final chapter of this section, New Directions for Civil Remedies, addresses the potential financial remedies that crime victims can seek through the civil justice system. Recommendations focus on informing victims and victim service providers of the legal rights of crime victims to pursue reparations through the civil justice system. Victims should be provided with information regarding their options within the civil justice system as another means of holding offenders accountable. Each chapter in this section also addresses the importance of education and training for all who serve victims, as well as victims themselves, about these potential avenues of financial recovery. In addition, the section explores the use of technology, which offers exciting possibilities for improving claims processing and restitution collections so that crime victims no longer will be forced to wait several months or even years to receive critical financial support. Section V New Directions for Child Victims Each year in America, millions of children directly experience or witness violence in their homes, neighborhoods, and schools. The impact of such crime and violence on our nationÕs youth is undeniably profound. Section V, New Directions for Child Victims, addresses the unique needs of young victims and outlines the legal rights and protections that have emerged at the federal and state levels for child victims of physical and sexual abuse, exploitation, abduction, and other types of crimes. It reviews the long-term impact of crime on child victims and presents examples of programs and services that have been developed across the nation to address their health and mental health needs, and to help them through the criminal justice process in sensitive and comprehensive ways. Much needed services include childrenÕs advocacy centers, court-appointed special advocates, and other multidisciplinary approaches. This section also contains a number of recommendations to improve services for child victims, to develop training programs for all professionals who come into contact with child victims, and to enhance data collection and research initiatives in the area of child victimization. Section VI New Directions in International Victim Assistance Individuals throughout the worldÑin large urban cities and in small villagesÑface problems with crime and violence, and much can be gained from examining the unique approaches to addressing the rights and needs of crime victims that have been undertaken by diverse communities and nations. Increasing numbers of people travel and live abroad, and are victimized in countries where they may be unfamiliar with the language as well as the legal and social service systems. Crimes such as international terrorism and commercial sexual exploitation of children are well documented, highlighting the need for countries to look beyond their national boundaries to share information and assist victims. The final chapter of this report, Chapter Eighteen, discusses global issues facing the field of victim services today and briefly highlights approaches that have been taken in other countries to address crime victimsÕ needs. In addition to serving their own victims domestically, many countries are participating in international collaborative efforts to improve the rights and treatment of crime victims worldwide. Recommendations in this section include improving services to American citizens who are victimized abroad and foreign citizens who are victimized in the United States, as well as continued collaboration and reciprocity in the provision of victim services worldwide. Conclusion The victimsÕ movement owes its beginning and many of its accomplishments to the activism of crime victims and their families and supporters. Many crime victims have struggled not only to survive and heal after their own victimization, but also to bring much-needed legal reforms, financial relief, and services to other victims. In charting New Directions, the field emphasizes the importance of recognizing the needs, desires, and potential contributions of crime victims themselves. VictimsÕ voices must remain a powerful guiding force in developing new directions. Since 1982, a substantial number of the 68 recommendations in the PresidentÕs Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report have been enacted and implemented due in a large part to the efforts of crime victims. These accomplishments include the Victims of Crime Act in 1984, the landmark Crime Act of 1994, the countless state statutes that strengthen victimsÕ rights and hold offenders accountable to their victims, and the 29 state victimsÕ rights constitutional amendments. Throughout this report, the field urges representatives of justice agencies, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, and corrections administrators, to recognize the important role that crime victims play in helping to guide public policy. Justice and allied professionals must also realize that crime victims are an essential resource in developing and participating in victim assistance, training, and crime prevention programs. Community activism and service are often part of the healing process for many crime victims. Their contributions to groups that provide support for other crime victims and to programs that provide education about the impact of crime and how to prevent victimization in the future have been invaluable. The many contributors to this report hope that communities around the country will benefit from the many Òpromising practicesÓ and recommendations highlighted throughout New Directions, and that the dialogue on improving the response to victims continues in a spirited and visionary fashion. The Office for Victims of Crime is committed to facilitating this dialogue and to assisting communities everywhere with implementing innovative, comprehensive programs that provide victims with even greater opportunities for justice and healing. Five Global Challenges from the Field Summary of Recommendations In the course of compiling the hundreds of recommendations from the field and in listening to the voices of victims, their advocates, and allied professionals who work with crime victims throughout the nation, certain key recommendations emerged. The following five global challenges for responding to victims of crime in the 21st century form the core of the hundreds of ideas and recommendations presented in this report. ¥ To enact and enforce consistent, fundamental rights for crime victims in federal, state, juvenile, military, and tribal justice systems, and administrative proceedings. ¥ To provide crime victims with access to comprehensive, quality services regardless of the nature of their victimization, age, race, religion, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, capability, or geographic location. ¥ To integrate crime victimsÕ issues into all levels of the nationÕs educational system to ensure that justice and allied professionals and other service providers receive comprehensive training on victimsÕ issues as part of their academic education and continuing training in the field. ¥ To support, improve, and replicate promising practices in victimsÕ rights and services built upon sound research, advanced technology, and multidisciplinary partnerships. ¥ To ensure that the voices of crime victims play a central role in the nationÕs response to violence and those victimized by crime. New Directions provides recommendations that point specifically to the implementation of these five global challenges. Each section and chapter is based upon papers submitted by leading experts in the field as well as the input of victim advocates, justice system and allied professionals, crime victims, and others who participated in public hearings, working group meetings, and those who provided individual comments and review as the document progressed towards completion. Sampling of Promising Practices That Are Transforming Victim Services In the last two decades, many promising practices in victim services have been developed across the nation. These innovative programs use a multidisciplinary or team approach to respond to the needs of diverse crime victims, maximize technology to deliver high-quality services to victims more quickly and effectively, and utilize community police, prosecutor, court, and corrections programs. An important objective for the victimsÕ movement in the 21st century should be to support and replicate these innovative ideas, with the goal of improving the quality of programs nationwide. In the new millennium, it is hoped that every community can adopt these promising practices in victims services to ensure that victims are provided services in specialized settings by agencies that work together and utilize technology to bring services to victims with greater efficiency. Over 100 promising practices are highlighted throughout New Directions. These are just a few examples of the range of excellent services and multidisciplinary partnerships that have been established to assist crime victims. ChildrenÕs Advocacy Centers The first childrenÕs advocacy center was initiated in Huntsville, Alabama in 1984 by a dynamic district attorney who wanted to change the traditional system in which sexually abused children were revictimized by having to retell their stories to numerous agency officials in frightening settings. ChildrenÕs advocacy centers are designed especially for kids, allowing law enforcement officers, social workers, medical and mental health personnel, and prosecutors to work together to reduce the number of interviews and coordinate cases. Today, there are more than 350 childrenÕs advocacy centers in 48 states. Community Criminal Justice Partnerships In 1989, the sheriff of St. Martin Parish, Louisiana began a program to help his department respond to the needs of elderly crime victims. Called Triad, this collaborative program between law enforcement and senior citizens has been duplicated in communities across the country. Today, there are more than 500 programs in 46 states, Canada, and England. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, for example, the chief of police provides a bus and officers to help seniors living in a high-crime area go to the market and conduct their banking safely. Services offered by Triad programs include transportation to medical services and criminal justice proceedings, courtroom escorts, and repairs to damaged residences. The program is cosponsored by the American Association of Retired Persons, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs Association. Crisis Response Teams The nationÕs first crisis response teams for victims were organized by the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) following the 1986 Edmond, Oklahoma post office shooting in which more than a dozen employees were killed. Since that galvanizing event, with NOVAÕs leadership and training and a growing interest among some states, response teams comprising professionals from a variety of disciplines, including psychologists, law enforcement officers, doctors, social workers, victim advocates, and religious leaders, have been assembled around the country. These teams provide assistance to communities in the aftermath of major crimes and acts of terrorism such as mass murders and bombings. In the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, NOVA organized three crisis response teams to debrief and train more than 1,000 emergency responders, teachers, and school children. Technologies to Benefit Crime Victims Emerging technologies hold great promise for improving services to crime victims. In Kentucky, following the murder of a woman who was notified of the release of her accused assailant, the state developed a computerized system to inform victims when their accused or convicted offenders are released. Similar systems are being adopted around the country. Technology can be used to help victims participate in proceedings, to view trials moved to other communities using closed-circuit television, or to participate by satellite hookups during parole proceedings. In addition, telemedicine can be used to provide assistance from physicians in other locations to nurse examiners in rural areas during sexual assault or child abuse forensic examinations. Technology can also provide increased protection for victims of crimes such as domestic violence and stalking by utilizing cellular phones, house perimeter alarms, and electronic bracelets. Community Police, Prosecutors, and Court Programs Community policing, prosecution, and court programs are excellent vehicles for ensuring victim assistance. Law enforcement officers based in neighborhoods are uniquely situated to identify underserved crime victims and help them obtain needed assistance. In San Diego, California for example, community police officers are informed through a computerized database 24 hours a day of shelters that have available space and other information that helps them respond more effectively to victims of crime. Community prosecution programs such as the community drug impact program in the Eastern District of Wisconsin permit prosecutors to advise citizens of drug arrests in their neighborhood and request their participation in submitting community impact statements. A community court, like the Midtown Community Court in Manhattan, can address misdemeanor, quality-of-life crimes such as graffiti, prostitution, minor drug offenses, and shoplifting, and become an important victim service institution by enforcing immediate and meaningful restitution to victims and the community. Initiatives of Allied Professionals The efforts of allied professionals have greatly improved services to crime victims in many areas. Working with law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system, hospitals in some communities have created programs that provide a safe and secure atmosphere in which to conduct sexual assault examinations. Schools are presenting special violence awareness courses on topics ranging from child abuse and dating violence to gang awareness and prevention. Bar associations are establishing special trainings for attorneys who want to donate their services to crime victims and to represent them in civil litigation. The religious and spiritual community has established camps for abused children and broad-based educational programs and has provided locations for many victim assistance programs. The business community has not only provided millions of dollars to support victim assistance programs, but also over the past decade has increased public awareness of victimization among employees through new training programs and advertising campaigns about victimsÕ issues. The mental health community is playing a pivotal role by establishing multidisciplinary teams to respond to victims of crime in a more coordinated way. In addition, many allied professionals contribute their services to crisis response team efforts around the country. Comprehensive Victim Service Centers This concept originated in Jacksonville, Florida where a comprehensive victim center, provides a wide range of services in one location for all crime victims. Center staff operate an emergency fund for victims, and counselors provide immediate crisis counseling and accompany law enforcement to all homicides. A staff member representing the state compensation program processes compensation claims onsite, and chapters of self-help groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Parents of Murdered Children operate in the center to provide emotional support to victims and survivors of victims of violent crime. Specialized Programs for Diverse Crime Victims Many of the innovative programs described in New Directions provide comprehensive services to underserved crime victims and encourage victims to participate in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The Seattle Abused Deaf WomenÕs Advocacy Services, established by a deaf victim for whom there were no services when she was sexually assaulted as a child, provides comprehensive assistance to deaf and deaf-blind victims who began reporting crimes in record numbers after this organization was founded. Victims of gang violence in Orange County, California, receive extensive services from the Gang Victim Services Program, in which multicultural, bilingual staff provide assistance with crime scene cleanup, funeral arrangements, victim-witness protection issues, interaction with the media, referrals to counseling, court advocacy, and victim compensation applications. SECTION I New Directions in Victims Rights The backbone of our justice system is the laws that give it shape and coherence. For many years, victims of crime were unrecognized in criminal and juvenile justice laws. To the extent victims of crime had a role in the justice system, it was narrow; to the extent victims had rights, they were few. This section examines the nations progress in enacting laws to establish and enforce rights for crime victims. It is based upon papers submitted by leading experts in the field as well as the input of countless victim advocates, justice system professionals, crime victims, and others at public hearings and in working groups. This section reviews the nations progress in the past two decades toward establishing state and federal rights for victims of crime, including a fed-eral constitutional amendment to guarantee those rights. It also presents recommendations from the field for ensuring that victims rights, including fundamental rights for victims of juvenile offenders, are expanded and enforced within the American justice system. CHAPTER 1 Victims Rights Victims Rights: Two Decades of Dramatic Change The enactment of the nations first state bill of rights for crime victims in 1980 in Wisconsin ushered in an era of dramatic progress for victims rights.1 In 1982, the passage of the federal Victim and Witness Protection Act2 and the release of the Final Report of the Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime brought national prominence to crime victims concerns. The Final Report established a broad agenda for implementing victims rights and services, and most of its 68 recommendations are highlighted throughout this report. This section reviews many of the state and federal initiatives to expand the rights of crime victims since these seminal events. State Initiatives State progress in legislating rights for crime victims within the criminal and juvenile justice systems since the 1982 Final Report has been remarkable. When the Task Force began its work, only four states had enacted a set of basic rights for crime victims in the criminal justice system, commonly referred to as victims bills of rights.3 Today, every state has laws protecting victims rights. Moreover, victims rights have been strengthened in 29 states by constitutional mandate.4 The scope of rights extended to crime victims also has expanded significantly.5 Although states have not established one standard set of rights for victims, most bills of rights contain basic provisions for victims to be treated with dignity and compassion, to be informed of the status of their case, to be notified of hearings and trial dates, to be heard at sentencing and parole through victim impact statements, and to receive restitution from convicted offenders. Most states afford victims the right to notice of events and proceedings at various stages of the judicial process. Moreover, 35 states give victims the right to attend most criminal justice proceedings and 24 constitutionally protect that right.6 Every state now allows courts to consider victim impact information at sentencing, and at least 41 states allow victims to make oral statements during sentencing hearings.7 Virtually every state requires victim impact information as part of the presentence report, and at least half of the states expressly require the court to consider that information in sentencing decisions.8 Each year, hundreds of new victims rights laws and innovative practices are enacted and implemented across the country. Since 1990, after cases of stalking received national attention from the media and victim advocacy groups, all 50 states and the District of Columbia modified their laws to criminalize stalking.9 Some state legislatures also reacted swiftly to the escalation of juvenile crime to record levels in the early 1990s by extending at least some rights to victims of juvenile offenders. In 1992, for example, only five states provided victims the right to be notified of a disposition hearing involving a juvenile. By 1995, 25 states provided this right.10 Despite this record of success, however, victims are still being denied their right to participate in the justice system. Many victims rights laws are not being implemented, and most states still have not enacted fundamental reforms such as consultation by prosecutors with victims prior to plea agreements, victim input into important pretrial release decisions such as the granting of bail, protection of victims from intimidation and harm, and comprehensive rights for victims of juvenile offenders.11 Federal Initiatives The 1982 passage of the federal Victim and Witness Protection Act and the release of the Final Report of the Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime were the catalysts for a decade of advances in victims rights.12 The Act became a national model for state victims rights laws, while the Final Reports 68 recommendations spurred legislative reforms and initiatives to improve criminal justice and allied professionals response to crime victims. Congress strong advocacy for crime victims was reflected in the Victim and Witness Protection Acts statement of purpose: to enhance and protect the necessary role of crime victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process; to ensure that the federal government does all that is possible to assist victims and witnesses of crime, within the limits of available resources, without infringing on the constitutional rights of the defendant; and to provide model legislation for state and local governments.13 Congress instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement guidelines for the Victim and Witness Protection Act within 270 days of its enactment. In response, the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (AG Guidelines) were issued in 1983, establishing standard policies and procedures and a code of conduct for federal criminal justice officials who interact with crime victims.14 The AG Guidelines have been updated periodically to incorporate new rights for victims, such as those set forth below. In 1990, the Crime Control Act established a new framework for victims rights by creating the first federal bill of rights for victims of crime.15 This legislation, referred to as the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, or the Victims Rights Act, requires federal law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and corrections officials to use their best efforts to ensure that victims receive basic rights and services.16 These include the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victims dignity and privacy, to be reasonably protected from the accused, to be notified of court proceedings, to be present at all public court proceedings unless the court determines otherwise, to confer with the prosecutor, to restitution, and to information about the offenders conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release. The best efforts standard, however, made the federal law weaker than many state victims rights laws, which make the provision of victims rights and services mandatory. In 1994, passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act created new rights for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, child abuse, and telemarketing fraud. The legislation also included significant funding for combating domestic violence and sexual assault, placing 100,000 community police officers on the street, and launching a variety of other crime prevention initiatives.17 In 1996, the Megans Law amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexual Violent Offender Act was enacted to help ensure that communities are notified of the release and location of convicted sex offenders.18 President Clinton also signed the Antiterrorism Act that year to strengthen efforts against terrorists and to make restitution mandatory in violent crime cases. In 1997, Congress passed the Victims Rights Clarification Act, asserting that victims should have the right to both attend proceedings and deliver or submit a victim impact statement. This clarification was issued in response to a judicial ruling prior to the first trial regarding the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that precluded victims who chose to attend the trial from providing a victim impact statement at sentencing. Also in 1997, Congress adopted the Federal Antistalking Law, which made it a federal offense to cross a state line to stalk another. The act also made stalking within federal jurisdictions a federal offense.19 The Proposal for a Federal Victims Rights Constitutional Amendment The 1982 Presidential Task Force urged the passage of federal constitutional protection for victims rights, advocating that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be amended to create specific rights for crime victims.20 Subsequently, at a meeting sponsored by the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), victim activists and national victims organizations created the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network (NVCAN) to provide leadership and coordination of efforts to amend the federal constitution.21 A decision was made by NVCAN to seek amendments to state constitutions before addressing a federal amendment. This strategy was adopted to enhance knowledge about the impact of state constitutional reforms for victims rights and to establish a strong base of support prior to seeking a federal amendment. NVCAN spent the next decade assisting states in their efforts to pass amendments. One of the NVCAN members, the National Victim Center (NVC), played an important role during this period by serving as the central repository for information regarding constitutional amendment efforts around the country. Efforts to pass state constitutional amendments produced impressive results. In each of the 29 states where victims rights amendments were put to a vote of the electorate, they won by an overwhelming majority, receiving 80 to 90 percent of the vote in most states.22 In 1996, federal lawmakers focused on the significance of federal constitutional rights for crime victims when resolutions to add crime victims rights to the Constitution were introduced in the Senate by Senators Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein and in the House by Representative Henry Hyde. Constitutional protection of victims rights has proven to be a nonpartisan issue. The proposed federal constitutional amendment received bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress and was supported in both political party platforms and by both Presidential candidates in 1996. In a Rose Garden ceremony on June 25, 1996, President Clinton endorsed a federal victims rights constitutional amendment, stating: Participation in all forms of government is the essence of democracy. Victims should be guaranteed the right to participate in proceedings related to crimes committed against them. People accused of crimes have explicit constitutional rights. Ordinary citizens have a constitutional right to participate in criminal trials by serving on a jury. The press has a constitutional right to attend trials. All of this is as it should be. It is only the victims of crime who have no constitutional right to participate, and that is not the way it should be. Rights for Victims of Juvenile Offenders The Presidents Task Force recognized that many reforms in the juvenile justice system focused solely on the benefits to be extended to offenders while ignoring the needs of a society burdened by their offenses.23 The Final Report challenged the federal government to evaluate the juvenile justice system from the perspective of the victim who, the report argued, is no less traumatized because the offender was under age.24 For most of this century, the emphasis on rehabilitating youthful offenders and protecting their confidentiality in the juvenile justice system has overshadowed the needs of their victims. The 1980s brought a decade of reforms to Americas juvenile justice system, but few addressed the needs of crime victims. For example, when rights for victims of crime were enacted in state bills of rights in the 1980s, few states extended rights to the juvenile justice system. Of the 45 states that had enacted some form of victims rights legislation by 1988, only 13 specifically defined their population to include victims of juveniles.25 However, the dramatic increase in juvenile crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the increase in the violent nature of such crimes, prompted demand for greater accountability from the juvenile justice system.26 To ensure that victims of juvenile crimes are protected, states are enacting or amending victims bills of rights to extend basic rights to victims of offenders in the juvenile justice system. While 46 states now allow courts to order restitution from juvenile offenders as part of the disposition of a delinquency proceeding or as part of an informal disposition, only half of the states have legislated comprehensive notification and participatory rights for victims of serious juvenile offenses.27 With respect to victim notification, at least 25 states provide the right for victims to be notified of the disposition hearing, 23 states provide the right for victims to be notified of the adjudication hearing, and at least 25 states provide the right for victims to be notified of final adjudication.28 With respect to victim participation, at least 28 states allow victims of juvenile offenders to submit a victim impact statement at disposition hearings, and 25 states allow victims to attend the disposition hearing.29 Some of these states, however, only recognize these rights in cases involving offenses that would be considered felonies if committed by adults.30 In the important area of plea consultation, by 1995, only 16 states had extended the right to victims of juvenile offenders to receive an explanation of or consultation about plea agreements.31 While protection from intimidation and harm remains important, laws in only 15 states establish the right of victims to be notified of juvenile offenders bail and predisposition release.32 Texas has addressed this problem by passing a statute that gives victims the right to have the court consider their safety when determining if a juvenile should be detained prior to adjudication.33 By 1997, eight states had raised victims rights in the juvenile system to constitutional status. Alaska, Idaho, Missouri, Oregon, and South Carolina have included victims of juvenile offenders in their victims rights constitutional amendments, and Arizona, Oklahoma, and Utah have authorized legislative extension of victims constitutional rights to juvenile proceedings.34 At the national level, juvenile crime and victimization received considerable attention in the 1990s. In 1991, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the U.S. Department of Justice released a nationwide evaluation of juvenile justice-based victim service programs, Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System, which served as an important early roadmap for federal action.35 OJJDP also sponsored, in cooperation with the American Probation and Parole Association, the development of juvenile restitution programs, policies, and procedures. In 1994, the Victims Committee of the American Correctional Association issued a report on victims of juvenile offenders, which found that the majority of victims rights statutes enacted up to that time did not include protections for victims of juvenile offenders and that most state juvenile codes were silent about victims.36 In 1996, crime victims rights and services within juvenile justice systems were elevated to national importance with the release of the National Juvenile Action Plan, a comprehensive strategy to address juvenile violence, victims of juvenile offenders, and the juvenile justice system.37 The document, developed by the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, chaired by Attorney General Janet Reno, with extensive input from the Office for Victims of Crime, called for the expansion of victims rights and services within juvenile justice systems. While much has been accomplished for victims of juvenile offenders through state and federal action to reform the juvenile justice system, much remains to be done. Not only are rights for victims within the juvenile justice system inconsistent nationwide, many are not enforced. According to the National Victim Center, which conducted an in-depth review of victims rights within the juvenile justice system, most of the rights for victims of juvenile offenders should more accurately be called suggestions, or recommendations, as they are only advisory in nature.38 As additional laws are enacted across the nation, enforcement of victims rights in the juvenile justice system must be made as great a priority as it is in the adult criminal justice system. Recommendations From the Field for Victims Rights A global challenge issued by the field that serves as the foundation for every recommendation in this section is that consistent, fundamental rights for crime victims should be implemented in federal, state, juvenile, and tribal justice systems, as well as in administrative disciplinary proceedings, including military hearings. The rights described in this section are among the most significant recommendations in New Directions. While victims rights have been enacted in states and at the federal level, they are by no means consistent nationwide. All too often they are not enforced because they have not been incorporated into the daily functioning of all justice systems and are not practiced by all justice professionals. Moreover, most systems lack enforcement mechanisms, leaving crime victims without adequate legal remedies to enforce their rights when they are violated. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #1 The U.S. Constitution should be amended to guarantee fundamental rights for victims of crime. Constitutionally protected rights should include the right to notice of public court proceedings and to attend them; to make a statement to the court about bail, sentencing, and accepting a plea; to be told about, to attend, and to speak at parole hearings; to notice when the defendant or convict escapes, is released, or dies; to an order of restitution from the convicted offender; to a disposition free from unreasonable delay; to consideration for the safety of the victim in determining any release from custody; to notice of these rights; and to standing to enforce them.a A federal constitutional amendment for victims rights is needed for many different reasons, including: (1) to establish a consistent floor of rights for crime victims in every state and at the federal level; (2) to ensure that courts engage in a careful and conscientious balancing of the rights of victims and defendants; (3) to guarantee crime victims the opportunity to participate in proceedings related to crimes against them; and (4) to enhance the participation of victims in the criminal justice process. A victims rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the state and federal levels. Such an amendment would ensure that rights for victims are on the same level as the fundamental rights of accused and convicted offenders. Most supporters believe that it is the only legal measure strong enough to ensure that the rights of victims are fully enforced across the country. They also believe, however, that the efforts to secure passage of a federal constitutional amendment for crime victims rights should not supplant legislative initiatives at the state and federal level. a On June 25, 1996, President Clinton announced his support for a victims rights amendment to the Constitution. The President did not endorse any particular language, but made clear that any amendment should establish several rights, including the right: (1) to be notified about public court proceedings and not to be excluded from them; (2) to be heard, if present, regarding bail, sentencing and the acceptance of a plea; (3) to be told about parole hearings and to attend and speak at such hearings if present; (4) to notice of a defendants release or escape; (5) to appropriate restitution; (6) to input concerning conditions of confinement and release to protect the victim from the defendant; and (7) to notice of their rights. At a June 1997 hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Janet Reno testified to the Administrations belief that the victims rights amendment must not erode defendants fundamental protections. The Attorney General further testified that this goal can be achieved most effectively by including express language to that effect in the amendment. Granting victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government deprives one of life, liberty, or property. While the Justice Department has not endorsed specific language for a victims rights constitutional amendment, the importance of extending constitutional rights to crime victims has been strongly supported by Attorney General Janet Reno. In August 1996, she stated: [It] is clear to me that the best way to secure consistent and comprehensive rights for victims is by including those fundamental rights within the U.S. Constitution. . . . What victims want is a voice, not a veto, in our criminal justice system. Today, victims rights vary significantly from state to state. The federal government, adult and juvenile justice systems, and the military all provide different rights for victims. Victims rights should not depend upon the state in which they live, whether the crime is federal or state, or whether it occurs on a military base or in Indian country. Fundamental rights for victims should apply in every forum.39 The Attorney General reiterated her support for a victims rights constitutional amendment in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 16, 1997, and before the House Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1997. While the vast majority of national victims organizations and a number of other groups including the National Governors Association, the American Correctional Association, and the Victims Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police favor a victims rights constitutional amendment, some victims organizations and civil rights and civil liberties groups do not support such an amendment.40 Many of these organizations believe that such an amendment would undermine the rights of the accused, particularly the right to due process, and that reforms should be achieved through statute rather than constitutional amendment. Organizations that advocate for battered women have expressed concern that victims of domestic violence who are tried as offenders may be disadvantaged by a victims rights constitutional amendment. In addition, judges have raised concerns over the potential increase in federal court supervision of state court activities, and prosecutors and other justice officials have expressed concerns, including that they do not have the resources to implement victims rights laws in cases involving large numbers of victims. Advocates for a victims rights constitutional amendment respond to these concerns by indicating that they are not proposing that victims rights be given more weight than the rights of the accused. Rather, they want victims rights to be given equal weight which would require courts to engage in a careful and conscientious balancing of the rights of both. They note that many judges across the country routinely bar victims of violent crime from attending the trials of the individuals accused of committing those crimes and do not consider whether prohibiting attendance actually would violate the defendants right to due process. In addition, a victims rights constitutional amendment is needed to ensure that courts do not determine that victims statutory rights are automatically trumped by defendants federal constitutional rights. Proponents of a federal amendment also note that while states victims rights statutes and constitutional amendments have led to positive reforms, states have failed to implement state statutory and constitutional rights for victims in significant numbers of cases. In the mid-1990s, the National Victim Center, under a grant from the National Institute of Justice, studied implementation of victim rights laws in four states.41 Two states were selected because they had strong state statutory and constitutional protection of victims rights, and two were selected because they had weaker protection. The study surveyed more than 1,300 crime victims and was the largest of its kind ever conducted. It found that many victims were still being denied their rights, even in states with strong legal protection.42 It concluded that state protections alone are insufficient to guarantee the provision of victims rights.43 Key findings of the study included: ¥ Nearly half of the victims, even in the two states with strong protection, did not receive notice of the sentencing hearingnotice that is essential for victims to exercise their right to make a statement at sentencing. ¥ While both of the states with strong statutes had laws requiring that victims be notified of plea negotiations, and neither of the weak protections states had such statutes, victims in both groups of states were equally unlikely to be informed of such negotiations. Laws requiring notification of plea negotiations were not enforced in nearly half of the violent crime cases included in the study. ¥ Substantial numbers of victims in states with both strong and weak protection were not notified of other important rights and services, including the right to be heard at bond hearings, the right to be informed about protection against harassment and intimidation, and the right to discuss the case with the prosecutor.44 National victims organizations have reported several cases that illustrate how easily victims statutory rights can be violated in the judicial process. In one case, a woman and her family were injured by a drunk driver. The defendant was charged with a felony. The woman told the prosecutor she wanted to provide a victim impact statement in open court, a right secured by the states victims bill of rights. The judge denied her request, citing his busy docket. Many victim advocacy groups believe that a federal constitutional amendment is needed to increase the involvement of victims in judicial proceedings. Today, many victims do not report crime or participate in the criminal justice system for a variety of reasons, including fear of revictimization by the system and retaliation by the offender. Victims will gain confidence in the system if their rights are recognized and enforced, their concerns for safety are given serious consideration, and they are treated with dignity and respect. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #2 Crime victims should have the right to notice of public court proceedings, including pretrial release hearings, plea agreements, sentencing, appeals, and appropriate postconviction release proceedings such as probation and parole hearings. Victims should also have the right to notice of any significant change in the status of defendants and to receive timely notice, upon request, of inmates temporary or permanent release, or inmates escape or death. The right for crime victims to be notified about public court proceedings in a timely fashion is fundamental to their exercise of other rights such as the right to be present and heard. Without timely notification of proceedings, victims cannot exercise other participatory rights. The 1982 Task Force on Victims of Crime recommended legislation and policies to ensure that victims are furnished case status information, prompt notice of scheduling changes for court proceedings, and prompt notice of defendants arrest and bond status. Fifteen years later, many states, but not all, have adopted laws requiring such notice. While the majority of states mandate advance notice to crime victims of criminal proceedings and pretrial release, many have not implemented mechanisms to make such notice a reality. Procedures for notification, if defined at all, vary widely. Some states require immediate notice of a defendants pretrial release. Others only provide victims with a telephone number to call to find out whether the arrested defendant has been released. Many states do not require notification to victims of the filing of an appeal, the date of an appellate proceeding, or the results of the appeal. Also, most do not require notification of release from a mental facility or of temporary or conditional releases such as furloughs or work programs. Some state laws require that notice be made promptly or within a specified period of time. Both prosecutors and victims often complain that in many instances the time between the scheduling of a hearing and the date of that hearing is too short to give victims adequate notice. Victims also complain that prosecutors do not inform them of plea agreements, the method used for disposition in the overwhelming majority of cases in the United States criminal justice system. Many state victims rights laws do not require this type of notice. Many states require victims to request notice, and most require victims to maintain a current address and telephone number on file with the notifying agency. In such cases, efforts should be made to establish a system whereby a single request will entitle victims to notice throughout the criminal justice process. Similarly, victims should be required to keep their addresses current with one agency that would serve as a central source of information for other officials within the criminal justice system. The most effective means of implementing this recommendation is to establish a centralized case tracking system that allows all relevant agencies to both access and update victim notification files, which would then be incorporated on secure, confidential screens. Victims could request notice and maintain contact information with all agencies by notifying only one agency. Notification of victims when defendants or offenders are released can be a matter of life and death. Around the country, there are a large number of documented cases of women and children being killed by defendants and convicted offenders recently released from jail or prison. In many of these cases, the victims were unable to take precautions to save their lives because they had not been notified of the release. Notice of release is an essential part of a victims right to reasonable protection, a fundamental right described more fully in Recommendation 6. Today, some communities use automated voice response technology to notify victims of release information, including systems that phone victims repeatedly until they are reached. Other jurisdictions are implementing victim notification systems that combine several technological solutions. Georgias law requires officials to notify a stalking victim by telephone before an offender is released, or, if such notice cannot be made, to call the victim at least twice in no less than 15 minute intervals within 1 hour of the offenders release.45 The court is also responsible for notifying victims of bail hearings by telephone. The nations largest offender release notification system was recently implemented in New York City, where 133,000 inmates are released annually from city jails. Any victim with access to a telephone can register for notification simply by calling a number and providing an inmates name, date of birth, and date of arrest, or the inmates state identification number. When the inmate is released or transferred from custody for any reason, the victim receives periodic telephone calls for 4 days or until the victim confirms receipt of the notification by entering a personal code. The police, local prosecutors, victim assistance providers, and local hotline staff have all been trained to explain the system and to encourage victims and intimidated witnesses to use it. Other systems in operation around the country allow victims and members of the public to determine the status of any incarcerated offender by calling an automated telephone information system. Technology offers increasingly powerful tools for providing immediate notification to large numbers of crime victims through the Internet, televised press conferences, and community meetings when victim contact information is limited or when usual procedures are impractical. The Illinois Department of Corrections website allows victims to track the status and location of all inmates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Similar approaches are being developed in Ohio and Missouri. During the cases concerning the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, prosecutors and victim-witness coordinators held several highly publicized meetings in the community for victims who wanted updated information and an opportunity to interact with prosecutors and other staff members. Representatives of prosecutors and victims organizations should meet to discuss protocols for ensuring appropriate notification in cases involving hundreds of victims, not only in cases of massive criminal violence, but also in white collar crime cases such as telemarketing fraud. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #3 Federal and state laws should be strengthened to ensure that victims have the right to be present throughout all public court proceedings. The right of crime victims to attend proceedings is fundamental and essential to the meaningful exercise of the other participatory rights described in this report. Notice of proceedings means little if the victim must remain outside the court or hearing room while the proceedings take place. The most common justification for denying a victims right of attendance in court is the need to keep them sequestered as potential witnesses. There can be no meaningful attendance rights for victims unless they are generally exempt from this rule. Just as defendants have a right to be present throughout the court proceedings whether or not they testify, so too should victims of crime. Moreover, the presence of victims in the courtroom can be a positive force in furthering the truth-finding process by alerting prosecutors to misrepresentations in the testimony of other witnesses. The legitimacy of victim attendance has been recognized in a number of states that provide that victims should not be subjected to court exclusion if they are potential witnesses, or in states where laws have been enacted that generally recognize an essentially unqualified right for victims to be present at these proceedings.46 A number of states provide that crime victims should have the right to attend every proceeding that the defendant has the right to attend47, or that victims be sequestered only on the same basis by which defendants are sequestered.48 Louisiana deals with the sequestration issue by providing that victims must testify first and thereafter may attend the proceedings. Alabama allows victims to sit at the prosecutors table during trial.49 Statutes to give victims the right to attend proceedings should be adopted in more states, extended to the juvenile justice system, and strengthened and clarified in states that already purport to provide that right. In many states, the right to attend and be heard often attaches to all crucial proceedings, with no clear definition of which proceedings are covered by the statute. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #4 Prosecutors should provide victims an opportunity for meaningful consultation prior to major case decisions such as dismissal, reduction of charges, or acceptance of plea agreements. Judges should not accept plea agreements without first asking prosecutors on the record if they have consulted the victim, and judges should take the views of the victim into account before making a final sentencing decision. Special procedures should be developed for cases involving multiple crime victims, such as acts of mass violence, massive antitrust or telemarketing cases, where consultation may be difficult. Many states give victims a right to consult with prosecutors. The most common of these laws require prosecutors to consult with victims prior to accepting plea agreements.50 Others require prosecutors to consult with victims prior to dismissing charges,51 declining prosecution,52 or making other disposition decisions.53 State laws also compel consultation with victims prior to trial.54 Some states extend the right to consultation to victims in juvenile cases.55 In addition, legislators have attempted to address victims lack of knowledge about the justice system by requiring prosecutors to provide explanations of procedures and dispositional decisions in nontechnical language.56 Typical are the Nebraska statutes requiring consultation regarding the content of and reasons for the plea agreement.57 Louisiana goes further by giving victims the right to retain private counsel to confer with the prosecution regarding disposition.58 Enforcing victims right to consultation, however, is another matter. Some states specifically require prosecutors to consider the recommendations of victims when making diversion decisions. Other states require prosecutors to confirm their consultation with the victim before a plea agreement may be accepted. In these states, prosecutors must state on the record that the victim was notified and the plea discussed, or explain why consultation was not possible.59 Lack of communication about a proposed plea agreement continues to be one of the highest sources of victim dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system.60 Victims should have the opportunity for meaningful consultation with the prosecutor at the plea agreement stage or prior to the dismissal of charges. While victims should not have the ability to veto prosecution decisions in a case, they should have a voice. Victims rights laws should recognize that cases involving large numbers of victims may call for exceptions to the requirement for victim consultation. This recognition should not, however, excuse prosecutors from their obligation to use any appropriate and reasonable means of consulting with victims. In the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing case, which involved hundreds of crime victims, prosecutors held widely publicized community meetings to give victims numerous opportunities for consultation. Representatives of prosecutors and victims organizations should meet to develop a protocol for ensuring appropriate consultation in cases involving numerous victims. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #5 Crime victims should have the right to be heard in major court proceedings including pretrial release hearings, bail hearings, at sentencing, and before the disposition of plea agreements, probation, parole, and commutation. Input should be permitted through both allocution and submission of written, videotaped, or audiotaped statements. In recognition of the special safety risks victims face when offenders are released, some states have also passed laws granting victims the right to attend and participate in pretrial release hearings. Many legislatures have adopted laws allowing judges to consider the risks offenders pose to the community in general and to individual victims when ruling on their release.61 Maryland has taken the concept one step further by passing a law that establishes a rebuttable presumption that those accused of violent crime constitute an inherent danger to other persons or to the community at large.62 Allowing the victim to be heard on the issue of pretrial release helps to inform the court about the degree of danger posed by a defendant. Because most criminal cases are resolved through negotiated pleas, the right of victims to be heard by judges before a plea is accepted is essential to meaningful participation in the justice process. In sentencing proceedings, convicted offenders traditionally have been given the right of allocution, while their victims have not. While all jurisdictions have adopted rights for victim input, not all states permit allocution, an oral statement provided in court by the victim or his or her representative. In addition, the right of victims to provide impact statements has not been extended to all victims, including those in the juvenile justice system. These shortfalls in existing laws must be corrected. States should consider adopting the use of vertical impact statements and include them in criminal and juvenile case files at the outset. When necessary, victims should be allowed to update these statements to record the impact of victimization as time passes. While the right to be heard at sentencing is well-established, statutes allowing victim input at other stages of the justice process are just now gaining prominence. A few states provide that victims may make a written statement at the outset of the case; the statement then remains in the file for the court's consideration throughout the criminal justice proceedings. Victims should also have the right to submit audio- or videotaped statements, or statements via teleconferencing, particularly in parole and other postsentencing hearings, when appearing in criminal or juvenile justice proceedings would create a physical, emotional, or financial hardship for victims or put their safety at risk. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #6 Victims and witnesses of crime should have the right to reasonable protection, including protection from intimidation. The safety of victims and witnesses should be considered in determining whether offenders should be released from custody prior to completing their full sentence. The right to protection from intimidation, harassment, and retaliation by offenders and the accused is becoming a major focus of public and law enforcement attention. Justice officials report an increase in the harassment and intimidation of witnesses, making it increasingly difficult to obtain convictions because crime victims and witnesses are afraid to testify.63 Legislatures have attempted to address this problem by mandating no contact orders as a condition of pretrial or posttrial release. In addition, victims bills of rights generally require victims to be notified at the outset of the judicial process about legal action they can take to protect themselves from harassment and intimidation. Harassment or intimidation of a victim or witness by a defendant or convicted offender should result in automatic revocation of pretrial or supervised posttrial release, and should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. Such violations should be charged and prosecuted under relevant antiharassment, intimidation, and stalking laws. Any punishment imposed for the separate crime of intimidation should run consecutively after the sanction for the original crime. All protective orders, including those issued as a condition of release, should be maintained in a central, automated database that can be accessed by law enforcement and other justice officials throughout the country. Violations of protective orders should be taken seriously, swiftly sanctioned, and enforced not only within states but across state lines in accordance with current federal law. Courts must have clear authority to detain defendants whose danger to victims or others cannot be controlled adequately by other means. Retaliation against a victim or witness when an offender is sentenced to probation or released on parole should result in revocation of that release. States should also increase security in the courthouse to reduce the likelihood of violence when offenders and victims come into contact before, during, and after justice proceedings. Waiting areas for victims should be separate from those for defendants. Victim awareness education should be required for corrections, parole, and probation officials to increase their understanding of the dangers victims face and to help them communicate with victims about their concerns for safety. These needs have been met in varying degrees by the states. Many states have enacted laws requiring courts to establish separate and secure waiting areas to protect witnesses and victims waiting to testify from contact with a defendant or his family and friends.64 Many states have established specific offenses for the harassment of victims and witnesses65 and made harassment grounds for bail revocation and reincarceration.66 Some state legislatures have provided that victims need not submit to defense counsel requests for interviews or contact prior to trial.67 At least 30 states have taken steps to limit or control face-to-face confrontations at parole hearings by holding separate proceedings for offenders and victims, permitting victims to testify outside the presence of the offender, including outside the prison setting, and teleconferencing offenders into parole hearings at which only parole officials and the victim are present.68 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #7 Orders of full restitution for crime victims should be mandatory. Restitution orders should be automatically entered as civil judgments at the end of the offenders supervisory period if not paid. Alternatively, legislation could be enacted giving judges and paroling authorities jurisdiction for enforcing restitution orders until they are fully paid. Restitution is one of the most significant factors influencing victim satisfaction with the criminal justice process.69 While restitution has always been available via statute or common law, it remains one of the most underutilized means of providing crime victims with a measurable degree of justice. In part, this neglect led the President's 1982 Task Force to call for mandatory restitution in all criminal cases unless the presiding judge can offer compelling reasons why restitution should not be ordered.70 More than half of the states (29) passed laws in response to this recommendation by the end of 1995.71 The exceptions permitted in state restitution laws vary considerably from state to state. South Carolina's statute requires that compelling and substantial reason be given for not ordering restitution, while courts in West Virginia need only show that restitution would be impracticable.72 In 1996, Congress made restitution mandatory in federal criminal cases involving violent crimes with the enactment of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, Title II of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.73 Historically, only persons who have suffered physical injury or financial loss as a direct result of crime have been eligible to receive restitution for out-of-pocket expenses. But as restitution statutes have evolved, definitions of who qualifies and the losses covered have broadened. Today, in some states, family members, victims estates, and victim service agencies and private organizations that provide assistance to victims are eligible for restitution.74 Definitions for compensable losses under state restitution laws have broadened as well. They now include the costs of psychological treatment, sexual assault exams, HIV testing, and occupational or rehabilitative therapy, as well as lost profits, moving and meal expenses, case-related travel expenses, and burial expenses. Judges should be encouraged to order full restitution, which can be more effectively enforced through recent legislative innovations. Offenders who willfully fail to pay risk being held in contempt, imprisoned, or having their parole or probation extended or revoked. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize financial assets and property to satisfy restitution orders. Other states allow restitution orders to be enforced as civil judgments at the time of the order or at the end of the offender's supervisory period. During incarceration, prison wages, inheritances, federal and state income tax refunds, and lottery winnings should be automatically attachable. Moreover, probation and parole officials must be provided the motivation and means to administer restitution collection, and both must play an active role in enforcing orders when offenders refuse to pay. (For more information on restitution, see Chapter 15.) Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #8 Victims should have the right to disposition of proceedings free from unreasonable delay. One of the greatest hardships victims endure in the criminal justice process is the delay of scheduled proceedings. Just as defendants have the right to a speedy trial, so too should crime victims. Repeated continuances cause serious hardships and trauma for victims as they review and relive their victimization in preparation for trial, only to find the case has been postponed. Delays are sometimes used as a defense tactic. As a case drags on, witnesses move away, die, give up in frustration, or lose clear recollections of the facts. The impact of continuances is particularly difficult for victims whose memories may fade over time or whose health may deteriorate. The schedule and concerns of victims should be taken into consideration by judges before they grant continuances. A disposition free from unreasonable delay helps to ensure that victims as well as defendants receive speedy trials and that the impact of delay on victims is considered by judges in response to requests for continuances. Several states have already adopted such standards as law. As of 1996, 12 states gave crime victims a constitutional right to a speedy trial or prompt disposition of proceedings. At least 13 others have enacted statutes to give victims such a right or to ensure that their interests are considered in rulings on continuances.75 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #9 All crime victims should have the right to a full range of services and support to help them recover physically, psychologically, and in practical ways from the effects of crime, whether or not they report the crime or become involved in related criminal prosecutions or juvenile adjudications. In the aftermath of victimization, victims may have many different needs. Victims who report crime need information, assistance and protection when they choose to participate in the criminal and juvenile justice process. Not only should victims have the right to be heard or consulted in decisions that affect them, but they should receive protection if they are witnesses and transportation to and from legal proceedings. Victims respond differently to their experiences. Some victims may be reluctant or unwilling to report the crimes committed against them and may fear involvement in the justice system. For example, some battered women may be too frightened to report violent incidents to the police. Sexual assault victims fear the loss of privacy in coming forward to report the crime. Other victims distrust law enforcement agencies, and immigrants who become victims sometimes fear deportation. Regardless of whether they report the crime, many victims need emergency and ongoing services such as health care, shelter, lock replacement, cash assistance, social and community services and support, mental health counseling, victim compensation, child care services, referrals to support groups, translators, and transportation. Chapters 6 and 14 address these issues in greater detail. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #10 Crime victims should have fundamental rights that are enforced in all juvenile justice proceedings. Traditionally, juvenile justice systems have been cloaked in secrecy. Victims have had limited rights within those systems, which were designed years ago to protect the confidentiality of juvenile offenders. Although some state victims bills of rights and constitutional amendments include rights for victims of juvenile offenders, most states have extended only selected rights to these victims. Moreover, victims rights enacted on the federal level do not apply to victims of juvenile offenders. The participation of victims in juvenile justice proceedings is important because it recognizes the impact of the crime on victims and encourages young offenders to consider the personal impact of their offenses. Putting a human face on the results of their destructive behavior helps offenders take responsibility for their actions and deters future crime. The rights of victims of juvenile offenders should mirror the rights of victims of adult offenders. Victims of juvenile offenders should receive information and notification about the status of the case and the offender from the point of arrest through the juvenile corrections system. Victims of juvenile offenders are frustrated by their chronic inability to access vital information about their case due to confidentiality restrictions. Confidentiality protections for juvenile offenders which preclude victims from receiving vital information must be lifted. Victims of juvenile offenders should have the right to provide input through victim impact statements. While all states now allow victim impact statements at sentencing in the criminal justice system, only 28 states had extended this right to victims of juvenile offenders as of 1995.76 Without victim impact information, the financial, physical, and emotional injuries of crime cannot be considered when determining adequate restitution or appropriate sentencing. Victims of juvenile offenders should have the right to restitution, and states should aggressively pursue collection and disbursement of such awards. Restitution is underutilized for victims of juvenile offenders. Restitution has two important benefits. It compensates the victim for losses suffered as a result of the juveniles behavior, and it holds the juvenile accountable for the damages he or she has caused. Forty-six states have statutory authority to order juvenile offenders to pay restitution.77 Some states make juveniles and their parents jointly responsible for damages in a civil action or restitution. The majority of the statutes place limits on the amount of damages or restitution that can be ordered.78 Nonetheless, this important right is underutilized. A 1991 nationwide study found that only 17 states collect restitution from juvenile offenders, and only 13 state juvenile corrections agencies disperse the restitution to victims.79 Finally, victims of juvenile offenders should have the same right to reasonable protection they would have enjoyed had the offender in their case been older. Half of the states give victims of adult offenders the right to be reasonably protected from the offender during the criminal justice process, while this right in most cases is not extended to victims of juvenile offenders. Given the increase in violent crimes by juveniles,80 the need for protection is plainly present. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #11 All criminal and juvenile justice agencies, including courts, as well as victim assistance programs, should help ensure that victims receive information about their rights in a form they understand. Justice system and allied professionals who come into contact with victims should provide an explanation of their rights and provide written information describing victims rights and the services available to them. Furthermore, rights and services should be explained again at a later time if the victim initially is too traumatized to focus on the details of the information being provided. Explanations of rights and services should be reiterated by all justice personnel and victim service providers who interact with the victim. To provide this critical information, justice and allied professionals need specialized training on the most effective communication techniques to use with victims, including child and elderly victims, victims who do not speak English, victims from diverse cultures, and victims with disabilities, including those who are blind or deaf or who have cognitive or developmental disabilities. Brochures describing victims rights and services should be developed in the languages used by crime victims in each community, and all brochures and critical victim information written in English should include a sentence offering the literature in other languages as needed. Special provisions should be made for communicating with victims who are blind or visually impaired using audiotapes, special computer disks, Braille, or other communication technologies. Service providers should be trained to use sign language interpreters and TDD technology to communicate with victims who are deaf or hard of hearing. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #12 Victims of crime should receive assistance in exercising their participatory rights. Advocates should be available to explain rights to victims, help them to exercise those rights and, when necessary, serve as their representatives in court and other key justice processes when victims are underage or incapacitated or if representation is otherwise appropriate. One of the greatest barriers to victims participating in justice proceedings is their not having the means to do so. Many victims cannot afford to pay for parking, child care, or time off from work. Others do not have the resources to cover transportation costs to courts, especially if the trial or hearing is held outside their community. In these cases, every effort should be made to facilitate victim participation by providing special services such as child care, or paying for transportation and lodging expenses. For example, in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing cases, government and non-profit agencies and the private sector formed a partnership to provide funding for victim travel expenses after the trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, Colorado in 1997. In addition, the court in Denver set up a closed-circuit television communication in Oklahoma City to allow victims there to view the proceedings in Denver. New uses of technology should be considered to provide access to trials and other proceedings for victims who are physically unable to attend them. Furthermore, more consideration must be given to the tremendous diversity among victims in the design and delivery of victim services. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #13 States should review their victims rights statutes and constitutional amendments to determine if fundamental rights are extended to all crime victims. Victims rights in many states apply only to a special class of crime victimsvictims of felonies. Many serious domestic violence and drunk driving cases prosecuted as misdemeanors are thus not covered by victims' rights statutes. States should consider extending victims rights in all cases, regardless of their classification as felony or misdemeanor or violent or nonviolent. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #14 States that have not already done so should adopt truth in sentencing reforms to ensure that victims know how long offenders will actually be incarcerated. Under traditional sentencing practices in most jurisdictions, release dates for offenders were set by parole authorities, and the actual periods of incarceration served by offenders had little relationship to the prison terms specified in criminal sentences. In recent years, many jurisdictions have adopted truth in sentencing reforms to limit or abolish parole and to make the time an offender serves more predictable. In federal cases, for example, parole has been abolished and good time credits are limited to 15 percent of sentences, forcing federal offenders to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence imposed in court.81 In addition to furthering penal objectives, truth in sentencing reforms serve important interests of victims. Victims as well as the public are entitled to know how long an offender will actually be incarcerated. Victims should not be burdened with the anxiety that offenders will be released prematurely, compelling them to appear repeatedly at postconviction hearings. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #15 Federal and state laws should prohibit employers from taking adverse action against victims who must miss work to participate in the criminal or juvenile justice process. In his statement endorsing a Victims Rights Constitutional Amendment on June 25, 1996, President Clinton indicated that [t]here ought to be . . . in every law, federal and state, a protection for victims who participate in the criminal justice process not to be discriminated against on the job because they have to take time off. That protection today is accorded to jury members; it certainly ought to extend to people who are victims who need to be in the criminal justice process. Without this protection, many workers cannot exercise their fundamental right to participate in justice proceedings. All jurisdictions should adopt the reform proposed by the President, and it should be enacted into federal law. While protections for jurors are limited, victims should have, at minimum, the same levels of protections as jury members. To the extent possible, employers should be required to work with employees and their unions to ensure that victims maintain their employment after absences due to attendance at criminal and juvenile justice proceedings. Victims should continue to receive salaries or wages, reduced by any witness fees received, for a designated period of time. Afterwards, they should be able to use vacation and sick leave. In addition, judges should be encouraged to take employment concerns of victims and their employers into consideration when scheduling proceedings. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #16 In cases where there is good cause to believe that bodily fluids were exchanged, victims should have the right to be tested and to have the accused or convicted offender tested at appropriate times for the HIV virus and sexually transmitted diseases. State statutes should require these tests to be conducted by specially trained personnel who can advise victims of the reliability, limitations, and significance of the test, as well as HIV treatment options. In addition, laws should specify the agency that will pay for HIV testing and pre- and posttest counseling, as well as treatment for any victims who test positive. According to the National Victim Center, as of the end of the 1995 legislative session, 44 states had adopted laws providing mandatory testing of sexual offenders in cases involving sexual penetration or other exposure to an offenders bodily fluids. Of those, 16 make testing mandatory before conviction, and 33 require testing after. Six states make testing mandatory both before and after conviction. Twenty-six states have a mandatory testing law that applies to juvenile offenders.82 In 1990, the Federal Government passed legislation making HIV testing of convicted sexual assault offenders mandatory for states to be eligible for certain prison grants.83 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 gives Federal victims of sexual assault the right to obtain an order requiring the defendant to submit to an HIV test, and to obtain the results of that test.84 It also provides for follow-up testing and counseling. Typically, pretrial testing of defendants is left to the discretion of the court, which must find that there has been significant exposure and that the health and safety of the victim may be threatened. The court is required to hold a hearing, during which the victim must show that the defendant has been charged with a sexual offense and that the test would provide information necessary to protect the health of the victim and his/her partner(s). Some statutes permit a series of tests at 6-month intervals for up to 2 years to detect viruses that do not show up on initial tests. When victims have possibly been exposed to HIV, they should be referred to an anonymous testing site that uses the most advanced technologies, guarantees maximum reliability of test results, and provides pre- and posttest counseling regarding transmission of the virus and the testing process. If after receiving pretest counseling the victim wants to determine the offenders HIV status, the offender should be tested as soon as possible, including prior to conviction, with a second test at least 3 months later. Regardless of the decision to test the offender or the test results, victims should be encouraged to be tested to determine their HIV status. Although testing the offender may be important to the victim, it should be emphasized that testing the offender does not replace focusing on the victims medical and emotional needs. Testing the victim in the immediate aftermath of a victimization will only provide information about the victims HIV status prior to the crime. If a victim was exposed to HIV during the crime, testing 1 month and then 3 months after the event (or at other times recommended by health authorities) will provide a clearer indication of whether the virus was transmitted by the crime. While there is a relatively low risk of transmission, victims who test positive should be given access to free FDA approved medical treatments of their choice. Counseling is an essential part of responding to the risk of HIV transmission in a crime. Victims may not understand the latency of the disease, and may not fully appreciate the limited reliability of a negative test result. States frequently require counseling in conjunction with testing, but specifications vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some states, counseling must be provided contemporaneously with the test, as in Maine, where counseling must discuss the nature, reliability, and significance of the test, as well as its confidential nature.85 In contrast, other states such as Michigan simply require that the agency notifying the victim of the results of the test also refer the victim to counseling.86 Oklahoma specifies that the victim receive counseling before and after the test.87 Florida requires the testing agency to afford immediate opportunity for face-to-face counseling when the results are revealed to the victim.88 In some states, the statute fails to provide for counseling. Most laws require confidentiality of test results, but advocates still report problems with insurance companies that, upon learning of the victims HIV test or results, raise health insurance premiums or cancel the victims policy altogether. Minnesota has enacted a law to prohibit such practices.89 Wisconsins law provides that the results of a test ordered by the court will not become part of a persons permanent medical record. States should enact legislation to protect victims from such practices. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #17 State and federal laws should allow, and criminal and juvenile justice agencies should facilitate, community impact statements as a means for members of a neighborhood or community that has been impacted by crime to have input into sentencing. In many cases, neighborhoods and communities as well as individuals are victims of crime. This is especially true in drug, gang, and prostitution cases where criminal activity endangers and degrades entire neighborhoods, affecting property values and quality of life issues. A few prosecutors have pioneered the use of community impact statements, which are, in effect, an expanded version of the victim impact statement. For example, as noted in Chapter 3, the District Attorney for Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin notify members of the community when drug arrests are made and encourage them to become involved in the criminal proceedings by submitting impact statements. These offices inform residents in affected neighborhoods of arrests and trial dates and coordinate outreach efforts in concert with probation agencies to help them prepare their statements. To encourage this important type of participation in criminal justice proceedings, both state and federal laws should recognize communities as victims and permit this form of input. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #18 Victims should have standing to enforce their rights, and sanctions should be applied to criminal and juvenile justice professionals who deny victims their fundamental rights. Although more than 27,000 state and federal laws have been enacted to protect and enforce the interests, rights, and services for crime victims, the consistent implementation and enforcement of these laws is an area of great concern. Victims report that criminal and juvenile justice officials at times disregard their statutory and constitutional rights, and that they have no legal recourse when their rights are violated. States should enact provisions that give victims measures to enforce their rights when they are disregarded. While limited legal remedies such as court-ordered injunctions and writs of mandamus are generally available to force criminal justice personnel to comply with the law, states are beginning to pass laws that provide specific statutory remedies and recourse for crime victims. A Maryland statute enables victims of violent crimes to apply for leave to appeal any final order that denies victims certain basic rights.90 Arizona law grants victims the right to challenge postconviction release decisions resulting from hearings at which they were denied the opportunity to receive notice, attend, or be heard. Arizona law allows victims to sue for money damages any government entity responsible for the intentional, knowing or grossly negligent violation of the victims rights.91 It is critical that effective measures be available to remedy violations of victims rights, including authority for the government to obtain redress through applications for mandamus and appeal. The need for this reform in federal proceedings is illustrated by the first trial in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, in which the trial court ruled that victims would not be allowed to attend the trial if they wished to be heard at the sentencing stage. On review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that victims had no standing to assert their right to be present and that the government could not enforce that right by appeal or by seeking a mandatory order.92 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #19 States and the federal government should create compliance enforcement programs, sometimes referred to as victim ombudsman programs, to help facilitate the implementation of victims rights. State victims rights compliance enforcement programs oversee justice officials and agencies compliance with crime victims statutory and constitutional rights and investigate crime victim complaints relevant to those rights being violated.93 A few states have created such programs within an existing agency or have established a new, state-level oversight authority. In initiating such a program, officials should consider the importance of meaningful remedies and sanctions for noncompliance with victims rights laws; and ensure that victims, victim service providers, advocacy groups, and victim-sensitive justice professionals are involved in the program planning process. In addition, justice agencies should consider increasing crime or court surcharges to support a compliance enforcement functions, and should evaluate overall compliance enforcement system. Innovative approaches to victims rights oversight have been implemented in several states: ¥ The Minnesota Office of the Crime Victims Ombudsman (OCVO) protects the rights of victims by investigating statutory violations of victims rights laws and mistreatment by criminal justice practitioners. OCVO is authorized to initiate its own investigation of alleged violations, recommend corrective action, and make its findings public to both the legislature and the press. ¥ The South Carolina Office of the Crime Victims Ombudsman is empowered to act as a referral entity for victims in need of services, a liaison between victims and the criminal and juvenile justice systems in the course of their interaction, and a resolver of complaints made by victims against elements of those systems and against victim assistance programs. In addressing complaints, the South Carolina Ombudsman program is not limited to inquiries into violations of specific statutory rights, but may review other conduct that is potentially unfair to victims.94 ¥ Colorado has recently enacted a state-level coordinating committee that serves an ombudsman function for victims rights implementation.95 The Colorado Victims Compensation and Assistance Coordinating Committee and its Victims Rights Act (VRA) subcommittee help victims enforce their rights by overseeing the actions of local government agencies. The subcommittee and full coordinating committee have the power to investigate VRA violations and to recommend action with which an agency must comply to rectify victims complaints. The two bodies also monitor the implementation of those suggestions and may refer issues of noncompliance to the governor or attorney general.96 ¥ Wisconsin has a state-level victims services officethe Victim Resource Center (VRC)which provides information and service referrals to victims and acts as a liaison between victims and criminal justice agencies in resolving complaints concerning unlawful or inappropriate agency action. Though it lacks enforcement authority, the VRC protects victims rights by investigating complaints and presenting its recommendations for corrective action to state criminal justice officials. The Wisconsin legislature is currently debating a measure that would prescribe remedies for violations of victims rights laws and provide for the enforcement of Wisconsins victims rights constitutional amendment.97 Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #20 Federal crime victims rights should apply in military proceedings. The extensive range of information, notification, and participatory rights that have been enacted on the federal level should be fully implemented for victims rights within military justice proceedings. Some victims rights established at the federal level are not implemented in military courts. Restitution for victims is frequently ordered as part of sentences for federal crimes, but there is no authority to do so under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.98 Moreover, the military justice system has failed to adopt truth in sentencing reforms and continues to parole offenders, a practice that generally has been abolished in federal criminal cases. The Uniform Code of Military Justice should be amended to make restitution mandatory. Victims Rights Recommendation from the Field #21 Indian tribes should review their legislation, policies, and court systems to