Office Of Justice Programs Office For Victims Of Crime
U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsOffice for Victims of Crime
U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531Eric H. Holder, Jr.Attorney GeneralMary Lou LearyActing Assistant Attorney GeneralJoye E. FrostActing Director, Office for Victims of CrimeOffice of Justice ProgramsInnovation Partnerships Safer Neighborhoodswww.ojp.usdoj.govOffice for Victims of Crimewww.ovc.govNCJ 239957May 2013The mission of the Office for Victims of Crime is to enhance the Nation’s capacity to assist crimevictims and to provide leadership in changing attitudes, policies, and practices to promote justice andhealing for all victims of crime.The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provides federal leadership in developing the Nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims.OJP has six components: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. More information aboutOJP can be found at www.ojp.gov.
ContentsExecutive Summary. vChapter 1. Forging a Future Informed by Research .1Chapter 2. Meeting the Holistic Legal Needs ofCrime Victims .9Chapter 3. Extending the Vision: Reaching AllVictims of Crime .17Chapter 4. Serving Crime Victims in the Digital Age .25Chapter 5. Building Capacity To Serve All Victims .33Chapter 6. Making the “Vision” a Reality:Recommendations for Action .37References .43Acknowledgments.45.Appendix .47Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Reportiii
Executive SummaryThe goal for Vision 21: Transforming VictimServices (Vision 21) is simple yet profound:to permanently alter the way we treat victims of crime in America. The Office for Victims ofCrime (OVC) at the Office of Justice Programs, U.S.Department of Justice, and many others who workin the victim assistance field recognize the need fora better way to respond to crime victims. We seeka comprehensive and systemic approach, drawingfrom a wide range of tangible yet difficult to accessresources, including legislation, more flexible funding, research, and practice, to change how we meetvictims’ needs and how we address those who perpetrate crime. We have heard the call for a betterway, and it is our fervent hope that Vision 21 creates that path.Vision 21 grew from a series of meetings sponsoredby OVC across the country, to facilitate conversations about the victim assistance field. These meetings brought together crime victim advocates andallied professionals to exchange information andideas about enduring and emerging issues andhow we treat victims of crime. What emerged fromthose intense and fruitful discussions was a common understanding about current challenges facingvictims and, most importantly, a shared expressionof the urgent need for change. Vision 21 is theresult of those conversations. We believe it can beour call to action—the motivation to address theneeds of crime victims in a radically different way.Our discussions and research centered on fourtopics: (1) defining the role of the victim assistance field in the overall response to crime anddelinquency in the United States; (2) building thefield’s capacity to better serve victims; (3) addressing enduring issues in the field; and (4) identifyingemerging issues in the field. It was an ambitiousagenda for a relatively brief timeframe, but onethat was long overdue.HistoryVision 21 began with the perspective that thecrime victims’ movement is still a fledgling field—Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Reporta phenomenon of the past 40 years. The movementcrystallized at the national level in 1981 with theproclamation of the first National Crime Victims’Rights Week to honor courageous victims and theirsurviving family members. The release of a groundbreaking report a year later—The Final Report ofthe President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime—ledto the passage of the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)of 1984. This landmark legislation establishedthe Crime Victims Fund to provide stable funding for victim assistance programs and to changethe landscape of a criminal justice system that wasunwelcoming and all too often hostile to victims’interests.The next major examination came in 1998, withOVC’s release of New Directions from the Field:Victims’ Rights and Services for the 21st Century,noting substantial progress made since 1981 withrecommendations for improving victims’ rights,services, and freedom from discrimination. By 2010,OVC leadership recognized it was time for the fieldto revisit those goals, assess the progress madetoward reaching them, and chart a course for thefuture. At the same time, an outpouring of concernfrom victim advocacy groups and their allies illuminated a growing number of victims being turnedaway for lack of funding or the ability to provideappropriate services. The advocates detailed theadditional challenges in reaching and serving victims of emergent crimes such as human trafficking,child commercial sexual exploitation, and financialfraud. Clearly, the time is here for a renewed assessment of the state of victims’ services, which canonly come from those who know it best—crimevictims, victim service providers, and advocates.The Vision 21 strategic initiative, launched byOVC in fall 2010, competitively awarded fundingto five organizations: the National Crime VictimLaw Institute, the National Center for Victims ofCrime (NCVC), the Vera Institute of Justice Centeron Victimization and Safety, OVC’s Training andTechnical Assistance Center, and the NationalCrime Victims Research and Treatment Center ofthe Medical University of South Carolina. For 18v
months, the partners examined the status of thevictim assistance field and explored both new andperennial challenges. Five stakeholder forums wereheld, with representatives of traditional and nontraditional victim service providers, from NCVC toa community rape crisis center, from sexual assaultnurse examiners to prosecutors. They discussed theproblems they saw in the field and recommendedways to advance the state of victim assistance in theUnited States. OVC and its partners also conducteda review of relevant literature, hosted interactivediscussions at conferences and meetings with stateVOCA administrators and other key constituenciesand, through OVC’s Web site, invited interestedparties to join the discussion.This final report reflects those discussions. As such,it is a document created by the field, for the field.We at OVC hope that crime victim service providers and advocates embrace Vision 21 as their own.OVC and its partner organizations believe that itunites voices from the field, including crime victimsand those who speak on behalf of victims who arenot able to speak for themselves. The success of thisvision lies with the field and its desire to overcomechallenges—for only the field can drive transformational change.ChallengesAll who took part in Vision 21 quickly identified agreat need to expand the base of knowledge aboutcrime victimization. This report examines the needfor victim-related statistical data, evidence-basedpractices, and program evaluation. Although Vision21 identifies some exemplary applications of current research, there is no comprehensive body ofempirical data to guide policymakers, funders, andpractitioners. We know that research is the road,not the roadblock, to victim-centered practice andpolicy.Equally troubling was the absence of certain victims’ voices and perspectives in criminal justice policy debates, which remain focused primarily on theprosecution and incarceration of offenders. OVCand stakeholders in the field, on the other hand,routinely heard from individuals who shared adifferent vision of justice. For those victimized byfamily members rather than strangers, as well asvictims from Indian Country and crime-ridden cityneighborhoods, justice is not always about a retributive system. These victims brought to the conversation a passion for promoting broader policies ofprevention and innovative public safety programsto hold offenders accountable and reduce recidivism while promoting healing for victims.Another of the report’s findings affirms the increasing difficulty of defining the victim assistance field.We grappled with the question of whether or not“victim assistance” includes allied practitioners—that is, professionals who do not self-identify asvictim service providers, such as emergency roomphysicians, prosecutors, and court personnel. Weagreed that we must cast a wide net to connectwith the mental health, indigent defense, juvenilejustice, and other fields that intersect with victimassistance. We discussed the historically low salariesfor victim service providers who perform some ofsociety’s toughest jobs. We also acknowledged theinherent conflict between a focus on responding toa specialized type of victimization and the need toexpand that focus—beyond the presenting victimization—to the holistic needs of the victim.Report findings reflect the sobering reality thatalthough some violent crime rates may be decreasing, the incidence of other types of victimizationin this country—including crime perpetrated incyberspace, human trafficking, and crime committed against older people and those with disabilities—may not even be captured by traditionalsurvey instruments or reported to law enforcement.A staggering 42 percent of victims never reportserious violent crime to law enforcement.1 We needto know why. Stakeholders described a maze ofoverlapping, complex legal issues facing victims; forexample, a single victimization can involve immigration status, civil legal assistance, administrative lawremedies, and rights enforcement.The use of technology was woven through theVision 21 discussions as well. Although it can drivenew types of crime such as online child pornography and can facilitate other crimes such as stalking,technology can be a powerful tool in expandingVictimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006–2010, National Crime Victimization Survey: Special Report, August 2012, pdf (accessed October 23, 2012).1viVision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Report
victims’ access to services. Web-based and mobiletechnology offer amazing potential for outreachand collaboration and increasingly can be used tobring services directly to victims. There are challenges: technology is not cheap, we must addressprivacy and confidentiality concerns, and too manyorganizations that already struggle with fundingdo not have the money to invest in technology.However, technology is critical to building the infrastructure for the systematic collection and analysisof victimization data and evaluation of programs.It also offers a potential solution to the increasingburden placed on providers by administrative andfinancial reporting requirements.Overcoming these barriers, including the researchgap, lack of a technology infrastructure, obstaclesto collaboration, and insufficient funding, meanstaking a hard look at the statutory framework forthe funding and administration of much of thevictim assistance at the state and local levels—VOCA. VOCA is permanently authorized but hasbeen amended infrequently since its passage. Itremains rooted in the practices of the early 1980s:direct services focused on crisis response providedthrough a substantially volunteer workforce.VOCA is largely silent on the issues of prevention, research, and program evaluation; the use oftechnology; the need for collaborative and multijurisdictional responses to victims; and the capacityof organizations to provide increasingly complexand longer-term support to victims. Raising thecap on Crime Victims Fund spending as proposedin the President’s 2014 Budget provides additionalresources to begin to drive transformative changein the victim assistance field.These challenges offer an unprecedented opportunity to craft a new vision for the future. Againstthis background, we present our vision for transforming victim services in the 21st century.Vision 21 BeaconsAppearing throughout the report are boxes containing “Vision 21 Beacons.” Each Beacon providesexamples of innovative programs and practices inthe topic area of the chapter in which it appearsthat may help to “light the way” into the futureframed by Vision 21.Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final ReportRecommendationsThe discussions that formed the basis for Vision21 demonstrated that only a truly comprehensiveand far-reaching approach would achieve thevast changes needed to move the field forward.Stakeholders saw that a holistic approach to victims’ needs is essential but will require unprecedented collaboration among service providers, anongoing challenge for the field.Vision 21’s reach must extend to mental health,medical, indigent defense, research, homeless advocacy, juvenile justice, legal services, and other fieldsthat play an integral role in promoting safe andhealthy communities. Substantial, systematic, andsustained collaboration will be essential to fulfillingthe promise of Vision 21. The final chapter of thisreport outlines Vision 21 stakeholders’ recommendations for beginning the transformative change,which fall into the following four broad categories:1. Conduct continuous rather than episodic strategic planning in the victim assistance field toeffect real change in research, policy, programming, and capacity building.2. Support the development of research to builda body of evidence-based knowledge and generate, collect, and analyze quantitative andqualitative data on victimization, emerging victimization trends, services and behaviors, andenforcement efforts.3. Ensure the statutory, policy, and programmaticflexibility to address enduring and emergingcrime victim issues.4. Build and institutionalize capacity through aninfusion of technology, training, and innovationto ensure that the field is equipped to meet thedemands of the 21st century.When OVC and its project partners first embarkedon the Vision 21 process, we hesitated to use“Transforming Victim Services” as part of the Vision21 title. We wondered if advocates and serviceproviders in the field would interpret “transforming” as dismissive of the current state of practice orminimizing the extraordinary successes of the pioneering advocates in the field. Yet, we found thatVision 21 clarified that practitioners in this field,vii
which began as a transformative movement, wouldnot be content with maintaining the status quo ora less than bold exploration of the issues.Now, 30 years after the release of the 1982 FinalReport of the President’s Task Force on Victims ofCrime, we believe that the Vision 21: TransformingviiiVictim Services Final Report captures another seminal opportunity in the history of the crime victims’movement. Armed with the information summarized in this report, we must take the next step:turning today’s vision into tomorrow’s reality forcrime victims in this country.Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Report
ChapTer 1Forging a Future Informed by ResearchVision 21 StatementVictims of crime will be served through a nationalcommitment to support robust, ongoing researchand program evaluation that informs the quality and practice of victim services throughout theNation. Evidence-based, research-informed victimservice programs will become the standard of excellence in providing assistance and support to victimsof all types of crime.Making Research a 21stCentury PriorityThe Vision 21 initiative engaged a broad group ofstakeholders in a discussion about the strategic andphilosophical challenges and opportunities theyface in serving crime victims. The Office for Victimsof Crime (OVC) interviewed victims, providers ofdirect services, and other practitioners who play anessential role in supporting victims, including thosein law enforcement, the court system, medical andmental health care, social services, academia, technology and telecommunications, and federal, tribal,state, and local governments. The stakeholders’most singular finding was the dearth of data andresearch in the field. That gap is reflected in everyother finding of the Vision 21 initiative as well, soit is fitting that this report begins by focusing onthe role of research in victim services policy andpractice.Vision 21 participants overwhelmingly expressedan urgent need to expand the knowledge baseabout crime victimization and effective response.They viewed research, development of evidencebased practices, and program evaluation as thefoundation of successful victim services policy andpractice. As the victim services field competes forscarce resources, it must have the knowledge andtools to document the value and cost effectivenessof its services. Vision 21’s highest priority is promoting evidence-based strategies and programs thatVision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Reportwill expand the profession’s fundamental understanding of who is affected by crime, how they areaffected, what works to help victims recover fromtheir trauma, and what other issues affect the delivery of services to victims and the protection of theirlegal rights.This chapter summarizes (1) the current state ofvictim-related research and its accessibility; (2) theinterdependence of basic research, evidence-basedpractices, and program evaluation; and (3) majorchallenges to the integration of research in victimservices.The Three Research PillarsVision 21 participants agree that three research pillars must play a significantly greater role in shapingvictim services in the 21st century:1. Basic Research. Crime victim services must bedesigned with a clear understanding of who isvictimized and by whom, what victims need, whysome victims access services and others do not,and to what extent victims’ rights are enforced.2. Program Evaluation. Providers of crime victimservices must make ongoing evaluation an integral part of their programming to ensure continual quality control and improvement in supportof victim safety and well-being. They must continually assess the effectiveness of practices nowin use and new practices as they are developed.3. Evidence-Based Practices. Crime victim serviceproviders should expand their use of practicesthat have been proved to be effective and reliable for the broad array of victims they serve.Research Pillar 1: Basic ResearchServing crime victims requires a solid foundationof research about the causes and consequences ofcrime and its impact on victims. Unfortunately, for1
too many years victim service providers have lackedempirical data to guide their program development and implementation. We need research togive us better answers to basic questions aboutvictimization: Who is victimized, by what crimes,and by whom? Who does or does not seek services,and why? Which victims report the crime to lawenforcement, which do not, and why? How reliablyare victims’ legal rights enforced across the Nation?The first places to look for answers are the twomajor national crime data research programs thatmeasure the magnitude, nature, and, to a morelimited degree, the impact of crime in the UnitedStates. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) administers both of these programs: the Federal Bureauof Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) NationalCrime Victimization Survey (NCVS).2UCR is an annual compilation of offense and arrestdata reported voluntarily by more than 17,000 localpolice departments nationwide. UCR data reflectonly the most serious offenses associated with eachcriminal incident, including rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicletheft, and arson. Simple assault is measured onlywhen an arrest is made. Except in its SupplementaryHomicide Report, UCR does not measure the impactof crime on victims.NCVS is a telephone and in-person survey of anationally representative sample of persons age 12or older. It provides data on personal crime victimization, including rape and sexual assault, robbery,aggravated or simple assault, and larceny and property crime, including burglary, motor vehicle, andother types of theft. NCVS encompasses data oncrimes reported and not reported to the police, aswell as limited data on the type of assistance provided by law enforcement (when crimes are reported) and whether the victim received services from avictim service agency. Separate NCVS supplementsalso provide statistics on stalking, identity theft,school crime, and contacts between the police andthe public.Despite the breadth of NCVS and UCR data, becauseof the limitations of these two surveys (describedin the Appendix), there are significant gaps in ourunderstanding of the prevalence and impact ofmany forms of criminal victimization. Compoundingthis dearth of information is the fact that over thepast decade, the nature and reach of crime—andits implications for victims—have changed dramatically. For example— U.S. demographics have changed substantially asthe result of immigration, changing birthrates,and longer life expectancy, resulting in greaterdiversity among victim populations. Remarkable advances in technology and telecommunications have created a breeding groundfor new crimes, the perpetration of traditionalcrimes in new ways, the ability to victimize manypeople through a single criminal enterprise,and the capacity to victimize individuals acrossnational borders. Seismic attitudinal shifts in American culturehave made populations of previously underserved victims more visible, such as minor victimsof domestic sex trafficking; victims with disabilities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, andqueer or questioning (LGBTQ) victims; and oldervictims of sexual abuse.BEACONStandardized, automated data collection. Pennsylvania instituted a Data Collection, Reporting, and OutcomesProject to provide victim service programs with a standardized data collection and reporting system. All VOCAgrantees, as well as grantees funded through the state sexual assault or domestic violence coalitions, are requiredto use the aggregate reporting and outcome reporting parts of the system, with the option of using the client datamanagement aspects of the system as well. Funders can now generate data reports without having to burdenlocal providers.2For more detail about the methodology of the UCr and NCVS, see the appendix.2Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Report
Increased globalization has magnified the impactof crime that may originate in other countries,such as human trafficking and crimes committedagainst American citizens in foreign countries oron cruise ships in international waters.These and other major changes in society are transforming the nature of crime victimization. Thevictim services field must respond with programsand practices informed by up-to-date, accuratedata that are adequate to meet the needs of theexpanding population of crime victims.More information is needed, for example, aboutthe incidence and prevalence of crime victimization in historically underserved populations, as wellas the barriers they face in asserting their rightsas victims and gaining access to services. Thesepopulations include persons with disabilities, boysand young men of color, adults and juveniles indetention settings, youth and women who are trafficked, LGBTQ victims, undocumented immigrants,Americans who are victimized while living in foreign countries, and American Indian/Alaska Nativepeoples. Logistical, cultural, and practical hurdlesto studying and reaching underserved groups mustnot deter the field’s resolve to provide culturallycompetent, appropriate services to all victims ofcrime.The field also must become more knowledgeableabout the reach and impact of crimes new to thevictim services landscape, such as cybercrime in itsmany permutations: online identity theft, financialfraud, hacking, cyber-stalking, online child pornography and sexual exploitation, and informationpiracy and forgery. New kinds of online victimization are expanding dramatically as technology continues to spawn new tools of use to criminals.Once hidden in the shadows, human trafficking isbecoming more and more visible in cities, towns,and rural areas. We need data about the originsand immigration status of trafficking victims andperpetrators, as well as the factors that contribute to the sex trafficking of children in the UnitedStates and the interventions that are most effectivein rescuing them. We need to know what percentageof victims participate in the criminal investigationsthat are essential to bringing traffickers to justice,and the reasons they are willing and able to takepart in these investigations.Responding to victims harmed by environmentalcrime is beyond the current reach and capacity ofmost in the victim services field, due largely to apervasive lack of data about victims and the defining characteristics of such crimes, as well as thelong-term unfolding of evidence about the criminal nature of some environmental “accidents.”Nevertheless, Vision 21 stakeholders stressed theimportance of serving these victims and holdingcorporate and other offenders accountable for theharm they cause to victims. Regardless of whethernature, human error, or criminal acts cause thedamage, environmental incidents may impact crimevictims. After the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spillin the Gulf of Mexico, for example, the LouisianaCoalition Against Domestic Violence reported largespikes in reports to the state domestic violencehotline, accompanied by a dramatic drop in privatefunding to support domestic violence programs.Finally, critical questions persist regarding manyenduring challenges such as effective interventions for victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and child abuse. American society has yet toembrace the causal relationship between childhoodvictimization and later criminal behavior or repeatvictimization. Nor do we clearly understand thefull range and impact of property crime (burglary,motor vehicle theft, robbery, and arson). We alsohave little information about violent crime committed against Americans who reside in or travel toforeign countries.Addressing these and other gaps in the knowledgebase will require the expansion of NCVS. To initiate the process, OVC provided BJS with funding toexpand the data collection activities of NCVS3 toextend beyond simply enumerating the number ofcrimes to collecting more descriptive informationabout victims, the services they receive, and theirreasons for accessing those services. The researchwill help identify the service gaps that have beenshared anecdotally by the field for years but whichremarks by Mary Lou Leary, acting assistant attorney General, Office of Justice programs, U.S. Department of Justice, at the National Crime Victims’rights Week awards Ceremony, april 20, 2012, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/speeches/2012/12 0420mlleary.pdf (accessed May 11, 2012).3Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Report3
have never been documented empirically. Wemust also expand the FBI’s National Incident-BasedReporting System (NIBRS) to compile a nationallyrepresentative system of police administrativerecords that provides detailed descriptions ofcrimes, victims, and police responses to victimization. This information will lead to a greater understanding of very specific types of victimization andsubgroups of victims that are not well captured byvictim surveys. It also will help us compare victimsknown to the police with those served by victimservice agencies, so we can more readily identifyunderserved groups.Research Pillar 2: Program EvaluationThe second research pillar for the victim servicesfield is program evaluation—systematic, objectiveprocesses for determining the impact of a policy,program, or practice. Using a variety of researchdesigns and methodologies (logic models, serviceobservations, client surveys, cost-benefit analyses,and others), program evaluation answers questionsabout whether and to what extent a program isachieving its strategic goals and objectives. Whenconducted properly, program evaluation providesinformation to help managers make informed decisions about future program enhancements andmodifications.Victim service programs throughout the UnitedStates increasingly perform ongoing programevaluation, due in part to a growing demand foraccountability by government, foundation, andother funding sources.4 Not surprising for a fieldcomprising mostly non-researchers, however, program evaluations by these agencies vary greatlyin quality and content. Most evaluations includea wide range of process measures, which focus onprogram implementation (e.g., number of victimsserved, number of referrals made, number of casesclosed, types of services offered) and outcomemeasures, which focus on a program’s effectiveness(e.g., change in program usage, change in satisfaction with case outcomes, reduction in recurringvictimization, change in reporting future incidentsto
The mission of the Office for Victims of Crime is to enhance the Nation's capacity to assist crime victims and to provide leadership in changing attitudes, policies, and practices to promote justice and healing for all victims of crime. Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Report iii Contents
Mr.Justice Sh.Riaz Ahmed, HCJ Mr.Justice Munir A.Sheikh Mr.Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Mr.Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Mr.Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Mr.Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah Mr.Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Mr.Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Mr.Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2002
and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven tion is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Criminal Justice Information Project Catherine Plummer, SEARCH Pamela Scanlon, Automated Regional Justice Information System Laurie Smith, Kalamazoo Criminal Justice Council Integrated Justice Information System Institute (Integrated Justice Information Systems): Susan Bates, Justice Management Inc. Steve Mednick, Law Offices of Steven G.
Justice David S. Wiggins Justice Daryl L. Hecht Justice Brent R. Appel Justice Thomas D. Waterman Justice Edward M. Mansfield Justice Bruce B. Zager In Memoriam Chief Justice W. Ward Reynoldson (Iowa Supreme Court 1971-1987) Justice James H. Carter (Iowa Supreme Court 1982-2006)
E O F JUST I C E P R O G R A M B S J N I J OJJ D P B J S O V C U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 1999 National Report Series Juvenile Justice Bulletin Shay Bilchik, Administrator DECEMBER 1999 Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change As the Nation moves into the 21st century .
This survey was made possible through a cooperative agreement between the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) and the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (Cooperative Agreement #85-SN-CX-K036) U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice 115541
Community School students: (l-r) Justice William J. Crain, Justice Piper D. Griffin, Chief Justice John L. Weimer, Justice Jay B. McCallum, and Justice James T. Genovese. (l-r) Louisiana Supreme Court Justice William J. Crain, Chief Justice John L. Weimer(seated), and Law Library of . Louisiana Director Miriam Childs.
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1-800-421-6770 This document was prepared by The Spangenberg Group for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,U.S.Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not neces-
