HISTORY OF THE VICTIMS’ MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

HISTORY OF THE VICTIMS’ MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Steven D. Walker, California State University, Fresno

This article will discuss the four somewhat diverse movements that pre-dated the victims’ movement and set the stage for its emergence and outline the history in four distinct stages. Legislative changes, victim involvement, and changes in victims’ services are discussed in each stage. In addition, the emergence of new organizations dedicated to assisting crime victims is described, as well as challenges facing the field today.

In the last twenty years, the victims’ movement has emerged as a powerful source of social, legal and political change. This article will discuss the four somewhat diverse movements that pre-dated the victims’ movement and set the stage for its emergence. It will also outline the history in four distinct stages. An effort will be made to review legal changes, victim involvement and services, changes in services, changes in service providers’ attitudes, and new theoretical concepts during each phase. Any historical description by necessity is not inclusive of all the acts; rather, the purpose here is to acquaint the reader with the zeitgeist, or spirit, of each stage.

There were four movement that strategically opened the way for the victims’ movement:

• • Civil Rights Movement (1936-72);

  • Anti-war Movement (1967-72);

  • Women’s Movement (1970-Present);

  • "Law and Order" Movement (1968-Present).

The Civil Rights Movement

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders of the Civil Rights Movement changed this country’s view of civil disobedience, clarified that all Americans have rights under the U.S. Constitution, and focused on forging change through non-violent means. Even though this country has had a long history of civil disobedience dating back to the Boston Tea Party and continued by 19^th century literary figures (Thoreau, Whitman, etc.), this approach had been progressively diluted through 20^th century patriotism engendered by two world wars.

Civil disobedience was not new in 1963, but it re-emerged and was applied to a new group: American minorities. The Civil Rights Movement enabled society’s disenfranchised minorities to exert power over American governmental and private institutions and to demand equal rights and equal access to society’s opportunities.

The Anti-War Movement

The Anti-war Movement focused on America’s propensity towards violence, the influence and predilections of governmental/military bureaucracy, and expressed a distrust in authority that is still evident today. This movement, through its well orchestrated marches in cities across America, showed that grass-roots (street level) politics could overpower establishment politics (if even for a brief period). More importantly, it raised questions not only about governmental decision-making, but also about the moral implications of these decisions. This movement clarified that even young people could have power in a democratic society. Many of those in the Anti-war Movement believed that this power did not entail difficult personal and political choices; this critical mistake was not made by the next important movement.

The Women’s Movement

The Women’s Movement focused on American family values, traditional male/female roles, sexism in bureaucracy (especially the criminal justice system), and economic discrepancies between men and women. This is the most important precursor of the victims’ movement (Karmen, 1990, p. 30). The definition and discussion of male/female roles have not been the same since it began. The victimization of women and the bureaucratic facilitation of this violence in all areas of society were clarified and politicized. This movement stated that the other fifty percent of society should have equal political and economic opportunity and power. A direct result of increasing the power of women was the formation of rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters in the early 1970’s.

The "Law and Order" Movement

The "Law and Order" Movement predated the victims’ movement, but it actually allied itself with some victim advocates ten years later to press for stiffer punishment of offenders. Since the emergence of this movement in the 1960’s, there has been a focus on the common person who deserved at least equal rights with the criminal. However, this movement firmly believed the common citizen could manage his or her own protection, and "justice" should be accomplished without the expanding of governmental assistance and monetary support (Karmen, 1990, p. 35). It felt that criminals should be punished more; potential victims should be more careful; and victims, once victimized, should be self-sufficient. By the early 1980’s, there was a shift that resulted in more emphasis on victims’ needs. The support for increased offender accountability and a "back to the basics" constitutional approach produced a new emphasis on restitution and individual rights. This movement has been particularly influential in the fourth stage of the victims’ movement.

Stage One: Response to Crime (1972-1976)

Starting in the early 1960’s, crime began to steadily rise in the United States, reaching its highest point in 1981. By the early 1970’s, the effect on American life was evident. In response, the victims’ rights movement began on multiple fronts (Young, 1986, p.312).

In 1965, the first crime victims’ compensation program was established in California. However, the major strides of this period were accomplished by the energy of volunteers, many of whom were victims themselves of both a major crime and of less than appropriate responses by various agencies that interacted with them.

In 1972, volunteers founded the first three victim assistance programs:

• • Aid for Victims of Crime, St. Louis, Missouri

  • Bay Area Women Against Rape, San Francisco, California

  • Rape Crisis Center, Washington, D.C.

Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, many state and federal commissions were established to study crime and its consequences. Following these efforts, the federal government took two significant steps to address the problem: the creation of the first government sponsored victimization survey (National Crime Survey, 1972) and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)(Karmen, 1990, p.17).

• • The National Crime Survey gathered crime data from individuals and

households all across America—an approach that was very different from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), a compilation of statistics reported to law enforcement agencies. The new information made it devastatingly clear that the rates of child abuse, rape, and domestic violence were much higher than imagined. It was renamed the National Crime Victimization Survey in 1990 and identified actual crime rates that were three to four times higher than the UCR’s published "official" rates.

• • LEAA monies were used to combat victimization by increasing law enforcement funding and establishing victim/witness programs across the United States. Funds were also used to help educate and increase the sensitivity of police officers dealing with victims.

By 1974, the first battered women’s shelter had also been established in Denver. These first service programs were operated by volunteers using their own funds and donations. Their major focus was to provide victim support utilizing the approach of self-help groups. Their goals quickly expanded to target the insensitive and unfair treatment of victims by the criminal justice system (Young, 1986, p.314).

Fortunately, several key leaders within the criminal justice system recognized the problems of victims and witnesses and responded (National Victim Center, 1994, p.1):

• • LEAA created some pilot victim/witness programs (1974).

  • James Rowland, Chief Probation Office in Fresno, California developed the first victim impact statement used by the criminal justice system to clearly ascertain and specify the victims’ losses (1976).

  • In Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Indianapolis, Indiana, the first law

enforcement-based victim/witness programs were established.

In 1975, Frank Carrington’s book, The Victims, was published, promoting "the proposition that the victim’s current sorry status in the criminal justice system need not be so and that something can and must be done to enhance the rights of the victim." That same year, LEAA called together leading victim activists to discuss methods of increasing victims’ rights.

• • The major result of this meeting was the founding of the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA).

  • The following year, 40 to 50 leaders met in what has been called the first

victim assistance conference in Fresno, California (Young, 1986, p.314).

During this stage, mental health providers had limited involvement at the grassroots level. However, practitioners working with victims of sexual assault recognized characteristics common to many victims.

• • In 1974, Anne Burgess coined the term "rape trauma syndrome." Although not officially used or universally accepted until years later, its initial use during this time would later facilitate better services for victims in both the mental health and criminal justice systems.

  • In addition, the attention of child advocates and the Congress to the work of C. Henry Kempe (the "battered child syndrome," 1962) led to the creation of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1974).

Stage Two: Polarization and Unstable Funding (1977-1981)

During this second stage, it appeared that many of the gains of the victims’ movement might be lost. Federal funding began to diminish and, in 1979, LEAA ceased to exist due to the lack of congressional support. As is often the case when there is limited funding paired with numerous identified needs, the various community-based and government-based programs began to compete for limited resources (Lurigio, 1990, p.188).

The issues of professionalism and training emerged as divisive themes. Despite their common purpose of assisting victims, the contrasting perspectives, purposes, structure, and operation of grassroots victim programs versus criminal justice-based programs increasingly became an issue. This was exacerbated by the frequent complaint of victim advocates that the criminal justice system did not adequately support victims of rape and domestic violence. Even today, some of the residual animosity from this period is still evident.

In 1978, sexual assault programs and domestic violence programs created their own national organizations to pursue their specific agendas (Young, 1986, p.314):

• • National Coalition Against Sexual Assault (NCASA)

  • National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV)

During this period, program leaders and administrators debated the strengths and weaknesses of the various programs. Less time and money were directed toward those in need. The focus and direction of the victims’ movement was consequently diluted.

Many movements (including some of the precursors of the victims’ movement) fail because there is no "second generation" trained to continue with the original fervor and energy. Fortunately, this was not true for the victims’ movement. In spite of the dissension between the established programs, new grassroots organizations developed. These organizations used the media very effectively. Often led by victims, they directly attacked the indifference of the criminal justice system and the stigmatizing approach of the mental health system.

Two new grassroots programs grew in response to a void in services to under served victims. The cumulative effect was a new infusion of energy into the movement. These were:

• • Parent of Murdered Children (POMC)

Founded by Robert and Charlotte Hullinger (1978)

• • Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

Founded by Candy Lightner (1980)

Also during this time, in 1978, Frank Carrington founded the Crime Victims’ Legal Advocacy Institute, renamed the Victims’ Assistance Legal Organization (VALOR) in 1981, to advocate for the legal rights of crime victims.

By the late 1970’s, mental health providers became more aware of the trauma of victimization. Research began to show the efficacy of peer support groups; some research indicated that these groups were much more helpful than professionals, often because these professionals had little training in the grieving process and crisis therapy.

As specialized service providers gained new insights into victimization, mental health practitioners began to acknowledge their lack of expertise and began to listen to advocates and victims. For example, the description of the "battered woman syndrome" was published and provided a theoretical framework for working with the victims of domestic violence.

On the legislative front, crime victim advocates pressed for reforms, and state legislators enacted laws that increasingly supported victims (National Victim Center, 1994, p.2):

• • In 1977, Oregon passed the first law mandating arrest in domestic violence cases.

  • In 1978, Minnesota enacted legislation to allow warrantless arrest in domestic violence cases, whether or not there was a prior protection order.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan became the first President to proclaim "Crime Victims Week". Later that year, the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime issued its report. The Task Force, which included Frank Carrington, a leading advocate for improved treatment of crime victims, recommended that a separate Task Force be created to consider victims’ issues.

Stage Three: Public Awareness (1982-1986)

As the revitalized victims’ movement learned to better access the news media, public awareness of victims’ issues increased. The 1981 Uniform Crime Report had clearly shown the increase in victimization, and the movement actively used these new statistics for its cause.

• • In 1982, Ronald Reagan appointed a Task Force on Victims of Crime. Chaired by Lois Haight Herrington, this Task Force published 68 recommendations to improve the treatment of Crime victims. The recommendations were directed at all segments of the public and private sector, including the criminal justice system. The report included a recommendation for a constitutional amendment for crime victims’ rights.

  • Later that year, Congress passed the first law addressing victim/witness issues: The Federal Victim and Witness Protection Act. This Act provided for witness protection, restitution, and fair treatment for federal victims and witnesses of violent crimes.

Changes at the federal level led to legislative changes at state levels: Victims’ Bills of Rights, new proposals for training and education, and the expansion of existing victim/witness programs. The single greatest event in the victims’ movement to date occurred in 1984: the passage of the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). This act established the Crime Victims Fund to provide funds for local victim assistance programs and state victim compensation. The fund was made up of money from federal criminal fines, penalties, and bond forfeitures. The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), created in the Department of Justice in 1983 to implement the 68 recommendations of the President’s Task Force, was designated as responsible for administering VOCA. OVC distributed VOCA funds to states for existing victim programs.

With increased public awareness and high level political support for victims’ issues, numerous programs were started and myriad laws were passed during this period. The greatest increase in victim/witness programs occurred in this third stage (Roberts, 1990, p.50). Some of the highlights of this stage were the following:

• 1. National conference of the Judiciary on Victims of Crime (1983)

  2. Missing Children’s Assistance Act, which included the establishment

     1. Of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by Congress (1984)

  3. Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence (1984)

  4. Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (1984)

  5. National Victim Center (1985)

  6. NOVA Constitutional Amendment Meeting (1986)

While "second generation" grass-roots organizations feared that increased governmental involvement and the new competition for funding of victims’ programs would lead to dissension as in previous years, these fears were not realized.

In addition, during this stage, theoretical concepts were put to more practical use in both the criminal justice and mental health systems:

• • The concept of "second victimization" made it clear that often the victim

was harmed as much by the system’s response as by the crime itself.

• • The various syndromes identified earlier were being discussed within the

context of the new diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). With the identification of PTSD, a general diagnosis was now developed that did not stigmatize the victim, but clarified and legitimized the victim’s normal response to an abnormal situation. (This diagnosis was recognized by the field of psychiatry and formalized with the publication of DSM III-R in 1987).

In addition, better training in trauma and crisis intervention enabled mental health professionals to learn about victims’ issues. They also began to provide better support services. Peer support groups began to be seen as a necessary adjunct to successful individual therapy with victims.

In academia, California State University, Fresno created a Victim Services Certificate Program, offering academic credit for victim services training for the first time at the university level.

During this period, the victims’ movement came of age and was more focused and sophisticated (Young, 1986, p.318). The first ten years were initiated and perpetuated by strong leaders with forthright personalities. At this time, an important paradigm shift was taking place. The movement had expanded beyond the dynamics of individual-level politics to group-level national politics, resulting in necessary changes for growth in the next period.

Stage Four: Legislation and Professionalism (1987-Present)

An axiom among historians is that every generation re-writes history. It is reasonable to believe that he next generation of victimologists will expand on the present stage, as well as the preceding ones, since the victims’ movement is an ongoing phenomenon. However, the recent years of the movement have been very active and productive and must be discussed.

Since 1987, four major issues have emerged:

• 1. Victim service funding

  2. Victims’ rights

  3. Law and order concerns

  4. Professionalism

The growing sophistication of the victims’ movement noted above enabled advocates to exert power and influence on several fronts. Political efforts during this time were much more organized and presented a clear and cohesive agenda. This agenda included efforts that addressed funding, victims’ rights, and law and order concerns including:

• • Increasing the cap on VOCA funding to provide expanded and more stable funding for both crime victim compensation and victim assistance programs.

  • Promoting a common sense interpretation of the Bill of Rights as it pertains to due process rights of criminals.

  • Expanding victims’ rights through more extensive and more effective state legislation.

  • Adopting crime victims’ rights constitutional amendments instate constitutions.

This agenda has been very successful as symbolized by the following facts from this period (NVC, 1994, p.10):

• 1. In 1988, VOCA was reauthorized and the Office for Victims of Crime was established in legislation. Crime victim compensation was expanded to include victims of both domestic violence and drunk driving.

  2. As of 1995, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had enacted Crime Victim Compensation Programs.

  3. As of 1995, 48 states had passed victims’ rights legislation in the form of Victims’ Bills of Rights for a series of statutory protections that essentially mirrored a unified Victims’ Bill of Rights statute.

  4. Congress has also passed major legislation that addresses hate crimes, campus security, child protection, violence against women, sexual assault, kidnapping, and gun control; the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the use of victim impact statements in capital cases.

The final issue in recent years is professionalism and training. As with other grassroots movements, there is a fear of "professionalizing" a community-based service system that originated and developed its strength as volunteers extended themselves personally to victims in need. Many of the victim service programs are led by dedicated professionals who have years of experience working with victims in a specialized setting.

The historical distrust of professionals who have no "specialized" training or experience in victim treatment issues has persisted in many areas. Experience has made some of these concerns both legitimate and urgent. However, salary issues, increased availability of training, and a growing interest in program evaluation and quality services have increased discussion in this area. For example:

• • Victim service providers work in a very diverse array of settings. Advocates typically perform a variety of tasks that require an understanding of social, psychological, and legal principles and basic clerical skills.

  • The areas of expertise and training needed are multidisciplinary in nature.

  • There is a growing recognition that in order to be accepted by other professionals, certification, or some other form of credentialing, is necessary.

  • Such a step would be beneficial in pursuing professional-level salaries for experienced victim services program and administrative staff.

The changes in this area have often been small, almost unnoticed, and yet significant. Some states have adopted training guidelines (especially in the areas of rape crisis and domestic violence), and certification initiatives are underway in several states. A handful of community colleges and universities also offer extensive training to victim service providers.

Some victimology programs have also developed legal advocacy components in addition to their training, technical assistance, and educational activities, e.g., the Center for the Study of Crime Victim Rights, Remedies, and Resources of the University of New Haven in Connecticut. This program, part of the School of Public Safety and Professional Studies, provides Amicus Briefs in selected appellate cases including victim issues.

In the Summer of 1989, California State University, Fresno started the first Victim Services Institute to make its Certificate Program available to professionals in other states. By 1990, the number of graduates from this program had tripled. In 1991, CSUF developed the first victimology major and in 1993 the first graduate major in victimology. At least 10 community colleges throughout the United States have developed certificate programs. Such steps represent the foundation for expanding professionalism of the field. Academics, advocates, and criminal justice and allied professionals have worked together as equals in order for these changes to occur.

Academic credit and the development of more degree programs will be necessary for the next phase of the victims’ movement to take place. The next step includes the development of curriculum standards to be used at the national and state levels. The National Victim Assistance Academy, which began in 1995, has an extensive curriculum that now offers the opportunity to move in the direction of national standards.

References

Andrews, A. Victimization and Survivor Services: A Guide to Victim Assistance. New

York: Springer Publishing Co., 1992.

Karmen, A. Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Pacific Grove, Ca:

Brook/Cole Publishing Co., 1990.

Lurigio, A., Skogan, W., & Davis, R. Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies and

Programs. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.

National Victim Center. Crime Victims’ Rights in America: A Historical Overview.

Washington, D.C.: NVC, 1994.

Roberts, A. Helping Crime Victims. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.

Young, M. History of the Victims’ Movement. In Ochbery (Ed.), Victims of Violence

(pp.311-321). New York: Harper and Row, 1986.