Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:33 am
Time: 3:33 am
Results for victims of crime (u.s.)
4 results foundAuthor: National Center for Victims of Crime Title: Making Restitution Real: Five Case Studies on Improving Restitution Collection Summary: Across the country, policymakers, criminal justice officials, and victim advocates are becoming increasingly attuned to the problem of uncollected victim restitution. Even when ordered by the court, restitution often goes uncollected and victims remain without the financial resources they need to rebuild their lives after crime. While most jurisdictions do not track the amount of restitution ordered or collected (a problem itself), existing reports indicate a widespread failure to collect vast amounts of victim restitution. The most recent public figures show uncollected criminal debt at the federal level to be over $50 billion — most of which is restitution owed to individuals and others harmed by defendants. A study released in 2005 by the Government Accountability Office examined five high-dollar white collar financial fraud cases and found that only about seven percent of the restitution ordered in those cases was collected, up to eight years after the offenders’ sentencing. The experience at the state level is equally discouraging. In Iowa, for example, outstanding court debt, including restitution, amounted to $533 million as of 2010.3 Recent figures show that in Maryland, the Division of Parole and Probation had collected only 12 percent of the restitution that judges had ordered in fiscal year 2007 by December of 2008. In Texas, a 2008 examination found that more than 90 percent of offenders discharged from parole between 2003 and 2008 still owed their victims restitution. In Pennsylvania, $638 million in restitution was outstanding; in Arizona, the amount of unpaid criminal debt, including restitution, totaled $831 million; and in a single Nevada county, $70 million in victim restitution went uncollected during an eight year period. Behind these numbers are real crime victims in need — individuals trying to recover from financial losses related to the crime they experienced. They include victims without medical insurance struggling to pay off their hospital bills; victims suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder but forgoing counseling because they can’t afford it; small-business owners struggling to keep their businesses open after being defrauded by employees; and elderly victims who have lost their life savings to fraud and are suffering not only financial loss, but also the loss of their dignity, security, physical health, and independence. The recent economic downturn has further hampered the ability of victims to recover from crime-related financial losses. Repayment of victims’ financial losses from a crime, including property losses, can be crucial in helping to repair the damages from the offense. Repayment is also important as a tangible demonstration that the state — and the offender — recognizes the harm the victim suffered and the offender’s obligation to make amends. Failure to collect the ordered restitution creates another, even more insidious, harm: when court orders are regularly disregarded with no apparent consequence, it causes crime victims and the public to lose faith in the criminal justice system. Restitution is important for offenders as well. Courts have recognized that restitution is significant and rehabilitative because it “forces the defendant to confront, in concrete terms, the harm his or her actions have caused.” In fact, a study that examined the connection between restitution and recidivism found that individuals who paid a higher percentage of their ordered restitution were less likely to commit a new crime.7 Significantly, the payment of criminal fines did not have this effect, indicating that it is the act of reparation to the victim that is important. To improve the collection and payment of victim restitution nationwide, the National Center for Victims of Crime, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, commissioned five papers by expert practitioners in the field of restitution who discuss their jurisdictions’ current issues, challenges, and promising practices. Drafts of these papers were presented at a national roundtable discussion with invited criminal justice practitioners, policymakers, and victim advocates to review these promising programs. That event was Webcast to another 200 professionals located throughout the United States. The five papers presented here offer valuable case studies. Two of those reflect statewide efforts — in California and Michigan — to promote and support greater collections. While these efforts differed in scale and some of the methods used, both were grounded in a commitment by their state’s chief justice to make increased collections a priority. Both states used deliberate approaches that sought input from stakeholders at the state and local levels. Both adopted statewide mandates that allowed for elements of local flexibility, allowing local jurisdictions to adopt a certain number of best practices from a list developed at the state level. And both created tools to help local courts improve their tracking and reporting of collections. A third paper also addresses a statewide effort, but one using a far different framework. Rather than improving local collection efforts throughout the state, Vermont created a centralized Restitution Unit that pays individual victims upfront and then takes on the burden of collecting from offenders. This program represents fresh thinking, as it reconceptualizes the process to restore victims through restitution. Two local programs are also featured. Maricopa County, Arizona, through the commitment of a local judge and the probation department, created a Restitution Court using existing legal tools to improve collection from offenders. And Project Payback, in Florida’s Eighth Judicial Circuit, embraced victim restitution as a means to rehabilitate juvenile defendants as well as restore their victims. Despite the variation in approaches among the five programs highlighted, they share important elements in common: • Leadership. Each program exists because an individual stepped forward with the authority to change the status quo. In two statewide programs it was the state’s chief justice; in the third it was the statewide victim services center. For one local program, it was the state’s attorney; for the other it was a superior court judge. • Commitment. Each program demonstrates a commitment to change, coupled with the development of partnerships and collaborations to transform good intentions into measurable progress. For four of the programs highlighted, this commitment included dedicated staff. • Openness to new thinking. In different ways, the approach of each program reflects an openness to new thinking. For some, that new thinking involved reframing the issue of uncollected criminal debt as an issue of the failure of courts to enforce their own orders. For the juvenile restitution program in Florida, it involved recasting the issue of financial responsibility as central in the rehabilitation of juveniles. And for Vermont, it was openness to a new model for victim restitution. The papers highlighted here address important lessons learned and the challenges that remain. From statewide, multi-year initiatives to vigorous local programs, it is our hope that these examples will inspire advocates and officials around the country to reexamine their own policies and programs and renew their commitment to improving the lives of crime victims through the collection of restitution. Details: Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime, 2011. 140p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=48480 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=48480 Shelf Number: 121882 Keywords: RestitutionVictim CompensationVictims of Crime (U.S.) |
Author: Langton, Lynn Title: Use of Victim Service Agencies by Victims of Serious Violent Crime, 1993-2009 Summary: Presents data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) on trends in the percentage of serious violent crime victims who received help or advice from a victim service agency from 1993 to 2009. This special report examines the relationship between a victim receiving assistance and criminal justice system actions pertaining to the crime, such as reporting the crime to the police, the police making an arrest, or a judge or prosecutor contacting the victim. It also examines the percentage of serious violent crime victims who received assistance by the characteristics of the victim and the victimization, including the victim's age, gender, race, the type of crime, the extent of the victim's injury, and victim-offender relationships. Highlights include the following: About 9% of serious violent crime victims received direct assistance from a victim service agency from 1993 to 2009. From 2000 to 2009, 14% of violent crime victims who reported the crime to the police received direct assistance from a victim service agency, compared to 4% when the crime was not reported. Victims who received direct assistance from a victim service agency were more likely to see an arrest made in the case and have contact with a non-law enforcement criminal justice official, such as a judge or prosecutor, than victims who did not receive direct assistance. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/uvsavsvc9309.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/uvsavsvc9309.pdf Shelf Number: 122552 Keywords: Crime StatisticsVictims of Crime (U.S.)Victims of Crime, Services forViolent Crime |
Author: Kruttschnitt, Candace Title: Customer Satisfaction: Crime Victims’ Willingness to Call the Police Summary: Results from the original victimization survey conducted by the 1967 President’s Crime Commission and the most recent National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate relatively little improvement in citizens’ willingness to call the police when they have been victimized, despite substantial improvements in police recruitment standards and the implementation of community policing. Using data from a sample of women offenders in Minneapolis, who have a low probability of being included in a NCVS, the authors explore who reports crimes to the police and the reasons given for failing to report being victimized. The analyses are confined to crimes of violence perpetrated by intimates, acquaintances, and strangers. Findings indicate both that NCVS data underestimate the extent of non-reporting and that in a substantial number of cases the police failed to respond to citizens’ reports. The authors consider both the practical and theoretical significance of these findings. Details: Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 2009. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Ideas in American Policing No. 12: Accessed October 5, 2011 at: http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/Ideas_12.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/Ideas_12.pdf Shelf Number: 117748 Keywords: Female VictimsVictims of Crime (U.S.) |
Author: Finkelhor, David Title: Child and Youth Victimization Known to Police, School, and Medical Authorities Summary: Considerable efforts have been made during the last generation to encourage children and their families to report victimization to authorities. Nonetheless, concern persists that most childhood victimization remains hidden. The 2008 inventory of childhood victimization—the National Study of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) — allowed an assessment of whether authorities, including police, school, and medical authorities, are identifying victimizations. The victim, the victim’s family, or a bystander may have disclosed the victimization to those authorities, or the authorities may have directly observed the victimization or evidence of that victimization. Among the survey findings: • Thirteen percent of children victimized in the previous year had at least one of their victimizations known to police, and 46 percent had one known to school, police, or medical authorities. • Authorities knew about a majority of serious victimizations, including incidents of sexual abuse by an adult, gang assaults, and kidnappings, but they were mostly unaware of other kinds of serious victimizations, such as dating violence and completed and attempted rape. • In general, school officials knew about victimization episodes considerably more often (42 percent) than police (13 percent) or medical personnel (2 percent). However, police were the most likely to know about kidnapping, neglect, and sexual abuse by an adult. • More victimization and abuse appears to be known to authorities currently than was the case in a comparable 1992 survey. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2012. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin, N AT I O N A L S U R V E Y O F Children’s Exposure to Violence: Accessed April 27, 2012 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/235394.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/235394.pdf Shelf Number: 125075 Keywords: Children as VictimsChildren, Crimes AgainstVictimization, ChildrenVictims of Crime (U.S.) |