Issues Unique to Faith-Based Victim Assistance
The VS 2000 Faith Community Initiative and subsequent meetings of the Peaceful Communities Committee revealed several broad issues that specifically affect faith-based victim assistance:
Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is derived from the theological and ethical concept, "to decide what belongs to whom and return it to them" (theologian Walter Brueggemann, as quoted by Susan Russell in "Notes on Forgiveness"). Vermont's Peaceful Communities Committee is exploring the use of a restorative justice model to address the needs of both victims and offenders, in collaboration with Vermont's network of Community Justice Centers.
Victim-offender mediation, one type of restorative justice practice, has been popular with faith communities because it proposes to "heal" the relationship between the offender and the victim. In his essay, "Christian Care for the Victims of Crime," Christopher Marshall states, "When one person injures another, both victim and perpetrator are unavoidably bound together by their common experience . . . one is bound by guilt and shame, the other by bitterness and pain . . . victim and offender need each other to experience liberation and healing from the continuing thrall of the offence."13 Critics of this approach argue that this concept is flawed because it assumes that there is, or was, a relationship between the victim and perpetrator before the crime—which is simply untrue in many cases. Others object because the concept assumes the victim's recovery is contingent on the repentance of the offender.
Victims also express many reservations about this model, some of which are outlined in Taking Victims and Their Advocates Seriously: A Listening Project.14 Of particular concern is the use of restorative justice to resolve cases in which domestic violence is a factor. As one victim stated, "Domestic violence is not a conflict that can be mediated; it is not a dispute when you are dealing with someone whose method of dispute resolution is to beat you up."15
Indeed, the subject becomes even more tangled. Domestic violence often hides behind other offenses, as in the classic example of the woman who was brought before a reparative board for forging checks. In truth, she had been forced to forge the checks by an abusive partner. The volunteer staff of that reparative board may not have had sufficient training in the dynamics of domestic violence to see below the surface of this situation or to know how to deal with it, if they did recognize it. After hearing testimony from victims, VS 2000 and the Vermont victim assistance community sought to ensure that restorative justice and victim-offender mediation are not automatically embraced as solutions for all victims.
Back to Top
Confidentiality and Mandatory Reporting
Within the victim assistance arena, confusion frequently arises over confidentiality issues and which victim service providers are required to report abuse. In Vermont, for example, victim advocates who work for the State's Attorney are not required to keep communications with victims confidential. Community-based advocates, on the other hand, are required by state statute to keep those communications confidential (Title 12, Section 1614: Victim and Crisis Worker Privilege). This situation can understandably result in confusion and frustration for victims.
Confidentiality is no less complex for communities of faith, whose communications with members of their congregations traditionally have been protected as confidential. At times, religious leaders may minister to members of their congregations who have committed criminal acts. "In these situations, clergy must weigh the importance of respecting privileged communication in relation to the need to protect victims and society from harm."16
Although Vermont clergy are not mandated reporters of abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults, or of adult sexual or domestic violence, the state added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse and neglect in 2003 (Title 33 VSA, Section 4913). Nevertheless, clergy still have the option of not reporting a crime if the information is received in a confidential setting, if the clergy member is acting in the capacity of spiritual advisor, if the information is intended as an "act of contrition or a matter of conscience," or if it is required to be kept confidential by religious law, doctrine, or tenet. Despite these exceptions, if a clergy member has also received this information in a setting outside those that are exempted, he or she must report the crime.
The legislation requires clergy in Vermont to consider their responsibility to the child. Clearly, to make responsible decisions, clergy must receive training on not only the implications of the statute but also on issues of child victimization. Any faith leader's obligations as a mandated reporter should be clarified before allowing the victim to continue with the details of his or her story.
Back to Top
Separation of Church and State: Do's and Don'ts
When partnering with faith communities, all involved organizations that receive federal funding must understand what actions are prohibited and what actions are required. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that faith-based organizations may not use federal funding to directly support religious worship, proselytization, or instruction, or to purchase religious or scriptural materials. Such funding may be used only to support the nonreligious social services they provide. Guidelines developed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Task Force for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives are available at the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Web site, which provides a useful overview of legal issues faced by faith-based groups that receive federal funding.
According to the White House Web site, faith-based organizations that receive direct funds should separate—either by a difference in time or venue—their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services they offer. For example, organizations may set up a charitable organization that would conduct nonreligious programs (although this is not required, it facilitates the tracking of funds). Furthermore, faith organizations that receive direct federal aid may not require their program participants to attend any of the religious activities that they sponsor; they may only invite their voluntary participation. Faith-based initiatives that receive federal funding are required to inform the beneficiaries of their services (counseling, pastoral care, and referrals for victims of crime, for example) and that they have a right to not participate in any religious activities. This requirement is particularly important when faith leaders provide pastoral care to victims and families who are not part of their congregation and when clergy provide publicly funded cross training to victim services programs.
Further regulations outlining President George W. Bush's policy of including faith-based charities in the federal grants process are available.
Back to Top
OVC Home | About OVC | OVC Publications | Web Site Links Disclaimer
|
