SECTION IV

New Directions

in Financial Recovery

Each year, victims of crime suffer enormous finan-cial losses. The costs of
medical expenses, mental health counseling, and lost wages alone are
esti-mated at $105 billion annually. This section addresses the three major
avenues that victims can pursue to recover their financial losses due to
crime: compensation, restitution, and civil remedies. Chapter 14 addres-ses
crime victim compensation programs, which exist in every state and can pay
for expenses such as medical care, mental health counseling, lost wages,
funeral expenses, and crime scene cleanup. Chapter 15 dis-cusses
restitution, which can be ordered in juvenile and criminal courts as a way
to hold offenders finan-cially accountable for their crimes against
victims. Finally, Chapter 16 addresses the potential financial as well as
preventative remedies that crime victims can seek through the civil justice
system.

The recommendations in these chapters address issues such as improving
claims management, expanding benefits for crime victims, and utilizing
technology to facilitate compensation programs. The restitution chapter
calls for mandatory, full, and consistent restitution orders nationwide. In
the area of civil remedies, recommendations focus on informing victims and
victim service providers of the legal rights of crime victims to pursue
reparations through the civil justice system. Each chapter also addresses
the importance

of education and training for criminal justice, victim service, and allied
professionals, as well as victims themselves, about these potential avenues
of financial recovery.

Chapter 14

Crime Victim Compensation

Compensation for victims of crime is one of the earliest forms of victim
assistance. The first compensation programs in modern society were
established in New Zealand and Great Britain in 1964 based on the concept
suggested by British Magistrate Margery Fry in the late 1950s. In the
United States, the first compensation program was established in California
in 1965. New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, and the Virgin Islands
soon followed suit, and by the time the Presidents Task Force on Victims of
Crime released its Final Report in 1982, 36 states had established
programs.1 Today, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands operate victim compensation programs.2

Compensation programs provide financial assistance to victims of nearly
every type of violent crime including rape, robbery, assault, sexual abuse,
drunk driving, and domestic violence. The programs pay for expenses such as
medical care, mental health counseling, lost wages, and, in cases of
homicide, funerals and loss of support.3 With a few exceptions, however,
they do not cover lost, stolen, or damaged property.4 Most programs cover a
basic core of offenses, although eligibility requirements and specific
benefits of compensation programs vary somewhat from state to state.5

In 1996, state compensation programs paid approximately $240 million to
more than 110,000 victims nationwide.6 The range of total payments among
states is considerable, varying generally by the size of the state. Ten
states pay less than $500,000 annually and about 15 pay more than $3
million.7 The states with the two largest programs, California and Texas,
pay out nearly one-half of all compensation benefits.8

State programs have established limits to the maximum benefits available to
victims that typically range from $10,000 to $25,000, although a few states
have lower or higher maximums. For example, California, Maryland,
Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin have maximum award limits between
$40,000 and $50,000. It is important to note that New York has unlimited
medical coverage, and Washington State has established a $150,000 cap for
medical injuries. In addition, many states have limits on specific
compensable expenses such as funerals and mental health counseling.
Nationally, the average amount paid to each victim applying for
compensation is $2,000.

State compensation programs are represented by the National Association of
Crime Victim Compensation Boards (NACVCB), an organization founded in 1977
to provide advocacy, training, and technical assistance, and to foster
communication among state programs. NACVCB provides a strong national voice
on all matters affecting state compensation programs before Congress and
the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). In addition, it provides extensive
training to its members on a wide range of issues facing programs today,
from administration and funding matters to coverage of emerging areas of
victimization.

In 1995 and 1996, with funding from OVC, members of NACVCB and advisers
from victim assistance programs developed standards for state compensation
programs to achieve four broad goals: effective outreach, training, and
communication; expeditious and accurate claims processing; good
decisionmaking; and sound financial planning. The states progress in
implementing these standards is discussed throughout this section and in
the recommendations.

Compensation Issues Addressed by the Presidents Task Force on Victims of
Crime

Fifteen years ago, the Presidents Task Force made one significant
recommendation for crime victim compensation programsthe creation of a
federal funding source to increase support for state compensation programs.
That recommendation was followed in 1984 with the passage of the Victims of
Crime Act (VOCA), which established the Crime Victims Fund. Today, the Fund
reimburses states for up to 40 percent of their annual compensation
payments to crime victims.9

In addition, the Task Force raised several concerns regarding state
compensation programs, including the absence of emergency awards in some
states to cover immediate needs for food, shelter, and medical assistance;
the need to eliminate or raise the maximum allowable compensation award;
the lack of coverage for domestic violence victims due to provisions
barring victims living with their batterers from receiving compensation;
and differences in residency requirements for eligible crime victims. Many
of these problems have been remedied by subsequent federal and state
legislation and by increased funding from both state and federal sources.

State compensation programs have grown dramatically since 1982 in the
benefits they provide and the types of victims that qualify for these
benefits. However, some concerns raised by the Presidents Task Force, such
as the need for timely emergency awards and the raising of maximum limits
on awards, have not been fully addressed by all states. While many
compensation programs have undertaken extensive public awareness efforts,
eliminated minimum loss requirements, and made efforts to cover such costs
as crime scene cleanup and replacement of clothing for sexual assault
victims, these gaps in coverage still need to be addressed.

Impact of the Victims of Crime Act

With the enactment of VOCA in 1984, each state compensation program became
eligible to receive annual federal VOCA funds that by statute equaled 35
percent of the states total payout in the previous year. Subsequent
amendments have raised this amount to 40 percent and allowed states to use
up to 5 percent of federal funds for administrative costs. The VOCA
compensation grant program is administered by OVC, which also provides
technical assistance to state compensation programs.

VOCA Program Requirements

To qualify for federal funding under VOCA, states must:

Ñ Cover medical expenses, mental health counseling, and lost wages, as well
as funeral expenses and loss of support for families of homicide victims.

Ñ Consider drunk driving and domestic violence as compensable crimes.

Ñ Not categorically exclude domestic violence victims because they are
related to or living with the offender.

Ñ Provide compensation for crime within their borders, even when the
victims are from out of state.

Ñ Comply with statistical reporting requirements.

Victims must apply for compensation in the state where the crime occurs.
Until the passage of VOCA, many states restricted coverage to their own
residents, unless a reciprocal agreement was in place with another state.
Since 1986, states have been required to cover both residents and
non-residents, as well as victims of federal crimes. Only two states
restrict eligibility to U.S. citizens.

Recent Trends in Compensation

From 1985 to 1992, victim compensation claims doubled, tripled, and even
quadrupled in some states. The greater visibility of the programs, the
growth in other victim services, and new laws mandating that rights,
services, and information be provided to victims resulted in more and more
victims applying for financial assistance.

More recently, the number of applications has leveled off in many states.
Between 1995 and 1996, 23 states reported a slight increase in
applications, and 26 states recorded a slight decrease. In addition, many
states have moved to control costs and boost funding mechanisms. The result
is that while some states are still struggling to pay all eligible claims,
more and more have sufficient funds to do so.

The new challenge is for states with adequate funding to determine how best
to use their funds and coordinate compensation services with other victim
services in the community and across the state. Many compensation programs
have increased outreach and public awareness efforts and are educating
criminal justice personnel and allied professionals on compensation
benefits. Programs are also working with victims and victim service
agencies to identify uncovered expenses. Finally, compensation programs
increasingly are using technology to improve program administration and
deliver payments to victims more quickly and efficiently. For example,
technology has allowed many programs to greatly increase the speed with
which they process claims.

Eligibility Requirements for Victims

Each state has eligibility requirements victims must meet to qualify for
compensation benefits. While eligibility requirements vary from state to
state, virtually all programs require victims to:

Ñ Report the crime promptly to law enforcement. Seventy-two hours is the
general standard, although a few programs have shorter or longer periods.
Nearly all states have good cause exceptions applied liberally to children,
incapacitated victims, and others with special circumstances.

Ñ Cooperate with police and prosecutors in the investigation and
prosecution of the case.

Ñ Submit a timely application to the compensation program, generally within
one year from the date of the crime. A few states have shorter or longer
deadlines, and most have the ability to waive these deadlines for
exceptional circumstances. Children are generally excepted from timely
filing requirements.

Victims are required to provide other essential information as needed by
the program, and they generally are not eligible for compensation if the
victimization giving rise to the claim resulted from the claimants own
criminal activity or significant misconduct.

The VOCA Victim Compensation Final Program Guidelines encourage state
compensation program staff to meet with victims and victim service
providers to carefully review whether state statutes, program guidelines,
and policies are responsive to the needs of crime victims and to determine
possible barriers that might impede a victims cooperation with law
enforcement.

Possible impediments to cooperation include apprehension about personal
safety and fear of retaliation and intimidation by the offender or others.
Some victims, for example, are reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement
after offenders make threats of violence and death against them and their
families. Age, psychological, cultural, or linguistic barriers may also
influence the extent of victim cooperation with law enforcement. For
instance, there may be special barriers deterring a young child or senior
citizen from reasonable cooperation. Likewise, embarrassment and shame may
delay the reporting of sexual assault.

Compensation programs are payers of last resort, meaning that the victim
must exhaust all other sources of insurance or public benefits that could
pay for medical care, funeral benefits, or counseling before receiving
compensation. Since these sources must be used before compensation can be
paid, eligibility depends on whether the expenses for which reimbursement
is sought have not been or cannot be paid from some other source. If
another source such as offender restitution could potentially make payment,
the compensation program generally will pay first and then expect to be
repaid if the victim later receives payment.

Another important eligibility requirement is that the victim cannot be
engaged in criminal activity or in substantial contributory conduct to the
crime. The eligibility of a victims dependents or other secondary victims
depends largely on the eligibility of the person who suffered the injury or
death. If a homicide victim, for example, was engaged in criminal activity
at the time of his or her death, the surviving family generally would not
be eligible for benefits.

Compensation for Federal Victims

With the passage of VOCA, victims of crimes that occur under federal
jurisdiction, such as on Indian reservations, military installations,
national parks, and other federal lands, became eligible for compensation
in the state in which the crime occurred. Because there is no federal crime
victim compensation program, each state treats federal crime victims as
fully eligible for all the benefits available for victims of state and
local crimes. Compensation programs depend on the help of federal
victim/witness coordinators to inform federal victims of their opportunity
to apply for benefits, and many states have initiated cooperative efforts
with them. States are now conducting joint training with federal and state
law enforcement personnel and planning and implementing joint crisis
responses to bank robberies.

Compensation for Victims of Crimes Occurring in Other Countries

A few states extend coverage to residents who are injured in other
countries, but awards are usually conditioned upon the victim first
applying in that country. A number of countries, including Canada, Great
Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, and Australia, have compensation
programs. In 1997, OVC and the U.S. Department of State compiled the
International Victim Compensation Program Directory, which provides basic
information concerning 30 countries compensation programs.10

A significant development affecting international crime victim compensation
was the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996, which mandates that crimes involving terrorism become compensable
crimes under state crime victim compensation programs receiving VOCA funds,
regardless of where the terrorism occurs. To continue receiving VOCA funds,
each state must ensure that a resident or nonresident injured by a crime
involving terrorism occurring within the state is eligible for
compensation. In addition, the state must cover its own residents injured
in terrorist acts abroad.11

Benefit Criteria

All compensation programs cover the same major types of expenses, although
their specific limits vary. The primary costs covered by all states are
medical expenses, mental health counseling, lost wages for victims unable
to work because of a crime-related injury, lost support for dependents of
homicide victims, and funeral expenses. Nationwide, medical fees comprise
well over half of the amount of all compensation awards, and lost wage and
support payments comprise the next largest source. In a few states, 20 to
40 percent of awards are now paid for counseling, and compensation in this
area is growing rapidly throughout the country. Of total claims awarded
nationwide, 25 to 30 percent of recipients are children 17 years of age and
younger.

In addition, many compensation programs pay for other essential expenses
resulting from violent crime. They include:

Ñ Moving or relocation expenses when a victim is in imminent physical
danger, or when relocation is medically necessary in the aftermath of
victimization.

Ñ Transportation to medical providers when the provider is located far from
the victims residence or when other special circumstances exist.

Ñ Replacement services for work such as child care and housekeeping the
victim is unable to perform because of crime-related injury.

Ñ Essential personal possessions lost or damaged during the crime. Eleven
states will cover medically necessary equipment such as eyeglasses or
hearing aids, but only a few will cover other items.

Ñ Crime-scene cleanup or the cost of securing a home or restoring it to its
pre-crime condition.

Ñ Rehabilitation, which may include physical or job therapy, ramps,
wheelchairs, and modification of homes or vehicles for paralyzed victims,
and driving instruction.

The Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Commission has developed a separate
assistance program for victims of domestic violence. The program pays
awards of up to $500 to help domestic violence victims establish
independent, violence-free living. Expenses covered include the costs of
relocation, document replacement, transportation, and health and welfare
needs.

Emergency Awards

Many states allow the program to make an emergency award to a victim within
a few days or weeks. The maximum payment allowed under these awards ranges
from state to state. However, emergency awards can pose significant
problems due to the difficulty of verifying the claims under such expedited
situations and because of the delays in processing other claims when staff
must attend to emergency requests. Most programs limit emergency awards to
cases of extreme hardship.

According to an October 1997 survey of compensation programs, 36 programs
indicated that they provide emergency awards, while another two reported
that they handle emergency requests by coordinating with VOCA assistance
programs. Fourteen states do not provide emergency awards.12 Of the states
that do, most limit awards to between $500 and $2,000. Four states do not
place caps on emergency awards under the total award amount.

A number of programs limit awards to instances when disability or death
results in lost income and a subsequent problem in paying for food,
shelter, and utilities. For other types of expenses, compensation programs
reduce the need for emergency payments by calling medical providers,
therapists, and funeral homes to ensure that services will be paid for upon
review and acceptance of the victims application.

Several state compensation programs have undertaken extra efforts to ensure
that emergency support is available to crime victims.

Ñ Delawares program helped foster the development of a special fund that
uses VOCA victim assistance funds to meet the emergency needs of crime
victims when local and state resources and private insurance are not
available. Up to $2,500 is available for emergency services such as crisis
intervention, food, temporary shelter, transportation to services, and lock
replacement. Financing for the fund comes from a VOCA assistance grant
awarded to the Delaware State Police Victim Services Unit. All victim
advocates in law enforcement and prosecutors offices in the state can make
requests for funds on behalf of crime victims. The fund is overseen by a
committee of representatives from victim service programs.

Ñ Vermonts program has established interagency agreements with sexual
assault task forces located within law enforcement agencies to expedite
emergency financial assistance to sexual assault victims. Law enforcement
officers have been trained to provide enough documentation about the
victimization to the compensation program so that an emergency award can be
made within a few days.

There is considerable debate over whether compensation programs are the
best vehicles for payment of emergency expenses. Many victim advocates and
service providers believe that victim assistance programs should be funded
to respond to the emergency financial needs of crime victims, noting that
meeting these needs is one of the primary objectives of both VOCA
compensation and assistance programs according to VOCA Guidelines. In
addition, assistance programs are not limited by the eligibility
requirements of compensation programs, and it will usually be quicker to
seek assistance from a local victim assistance program than from a distant
state agency. With the huge growth in VOCA assistance funding in recent
years, state VOCA administrators should consider VOCAs emergency award
requirement by providing more emergency funds to VOCA assistance programs.

Public Awareness of Compensation

Victims typically learn about crime victim compensation programs from local
victim assistance providers, police, prosecutors, and public awareness
products such as posters, billboards, and public service announcements.
Public awareness of the availability of compensation is critically
important because missing the application filing deadline is one of the
most painful second injuries in the aftermath of victimization.

While some compensation programs have policies for increasing victim
awareness of compensation benefits, implementation of the policies can be
improved. Notable efforts to increase public awareness of crime victim
compensation have been undertaken by many states, including Arkansas,
Texas, and Ohio.

Ñ Arkansas compensation program distributes notification cards to crime
victim service providers, law enforcement officials, and the state's
victim/witness coordinators explaining how to help crime victims file a
claim. The programs staff prepare monthly news releases with information
about the compensation program and the awards that have been made to
residents of that county. Members of the states Crime Victims Reparation
Board and the state attorney general and his staff frequently appear on
radio and television talk shows to heighten public awareness. During a
recent National Crime Victims Rights Week, the compensation program
organized a statewide victims' rights tour with rallies in more than a
dozen cities. The programs Smart Choices, Better Chances initiative, funded
by an education grant from the U.S. Attorney Generals office, educates
elementary school students about juvenile violence and the state's crime
victim compensation program.

Efforts are also underway to increase awareness of victim compensation on
the national level. The National Association of Crime Victim Compensation
Boards, with support from OVC, developed significant outreach products to
increase awareness about crime victim compensation support in 1996. The
Association developed 30-second radio and television public service
announcements and two 10-minute training videotapes, one for police and
service providers and the other to increase awareness of compensation in
Native American communities. Programs that undertake public awareness
campaigns, however, need to be prepared for the influx of claims which may,
in some states, outstrip available resources.

Using Technology to Enhance Claims Processing

Claims processing is the nuts and bolts of any crime victim compensation
program. How it is accomplished speaks clearly about a state's commitment
to serving victims of crime. Currently, the median time nationwide for
processing and paying a compensation claim is 21 weeks, although it takes
far less time in some states and more in others.

Many state compensation programs have implemented automated systems to
process claims more quickly and accurately:

Ñ New Mexico uses a software system in which staff enter all claim
information into a database when the claim is opened. Thereafter,
correspondence to the claimant, law enforcement agency, court officials,
and service providers can be generated through the database. The software
allows the programs director to monitor staff caseloads and productivity by
generating aging reports and monthly claims processing statistics. All VOCA
reports are also generated automatically. In addition, through the states
restitution database, program staff are able to monitor compliance with
restitution orders, generate delinquency notification letters to offenders,
and generate periodic restitution reports.

Ñ Iowa uses different software, but it also provides the program director
with an efficient way to track every claim from the moment the victim calls
or writes to the office for assistance. Like New Mexicos system, the
database can be used to generate correspondence with the victim, the
district attorney, the courts, probation, and service providers.

The Office for Victims of Crime Mentoring Program

The Office for Victims of Crime established a nationwide compensation
mentoring program in 1995 that facilitates state-to-state transfer of
knowledge of compensation program staff expertise. Under this program in
1996 and 1997:

Ñ Iowas program modified its claims processing software to meet the
specific needs of the District of Columbia, Kansas, Rhode Island, and South
Dakota.

Ñ Floridas program installed a copy of its compensation claims tracking
software for use by the Mississippi program.

Ñ Californias program staff assisted Hawaii in evaluating their restitution
process.

Ñ New Mexicos program staff provided mentoring to the Vermont program to
help improve its compensation claims processing system.

Ñ Georgias program staff visited the Texas compensation program to study
claims processing, workflow, and program operations.

Funding of Compensation Programs

Two primary state sources, in addition to federal VOCA dollars, provide
funding for victim compensation programs: funding from fees or charges that
offenders pay in state and local courts and funding from general revenue
appropriations from legislatures. According to the National Association of
Crime Victim Compensation Boards, more than four-fifths of the states are
in the first category, gaining most of their income from offenders. In
fact, in a large majority of states, no tax dollars are involved in either
the administration of programs or in the awards they provide to victims.

An increasingly significant funding issue facing compensation programs
today is recovering restitution from convicted offenders to help offset the
cost of compensation benefits to their victims. Programs are making special
efforts to seek restitution from offenders, including working with
prosecutors and judges to ensure restitution is ordered and collected.

Several states have developed systems that maximize collections from
offenders, insurance, and other parties, and also hold offenders
accountable. For example, California aggressively pursues criminal
restitution payments owed to crime victims, collection of fines, and
community outreach.

Iowas program recaptures a full 15 percent of its payouts, primarily by
mailing notification letters to county attorneys when a victim files a
claim, and then again after he or she receives benefits. Iowa has also
implemented strategies to initiate contempt of court proceedings against
defendants who become delinquent in their restitution payments and garnish
and assign their wages. To accomplish these reforms, Iowa pushed for
legislative changes that:

Ñ Specifically list the compensation program as an eligible recipient in
the restitution statute so the court can order the defendant to reimburse
the program directly. The compensation program is listed second in the
order of payment so that the defendant must first pay the victim for their
noncovered losses.

Ñ Allow the county attorney to attach a restitution lien to a defendant's
property or other assets at the time of indictment so their assets cannot
be divested if convicted.

Ñ Enter all restitution orders as civil judgments, which permits the victim
or the compensation program to execute a judgment for nonpayment of the
debt.

However, fund recovery remains a small source income for programs across
the country thus far, with only a few beginning to recover more than 10
percent of their awards.

Recommendations from the Field for Crime Victim Compensation Programs

The promising initiatives highlighted in this chapter, as well as the
recommendations that follow, encourage compensation programs to increase
their efforts to be strong advocates for crime victims, not only in
striving to minimize the financial impact of crime, but working in
conjunction with others to ensure that victims get the services and support
they need.

The recommendations in this chapter address the following areas: improving
claims management, expanding benefits for crime victims, removing barriers
and making programs more accessible, enhancing outreach activities and
collaborative partnerships, expanding program funding; conducting program
evaluations, and applying technology to improve overall operation,
communication, and efficiency. Compensation programs across the nation are
implementing a number of strategies to meet these goals, and some of the
most promising practices are highlighted throughout this chapter.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #1

Every state victim compensation program should establish goals to process
claims, including emergency awards, in the most expeditious manner
possible.

From the victims standpoint, an important measure of a compensation
programs performance is the speed with which it processes a victims
application for benefits. Delays in application processing can result in
victims and survivors receiving harassing calls from bill collectors or
delaying health or mental health treatment, as well as increased anxiety
for crime victims and frustrations for service providers.

It is crucial for programs to impose internal performance standards for
processing claims. States should strive to process claims within 90 to 150
calendar days in accordance with the goals established by the National
Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards in 1996. A number of
compensation programs have boosted productivity tremendously through
automated claims-tracking systems and compensation programs are encouraged
to improve their technological capacity to speed processing. OVC continues
to support the transfer of this technology and managerial expertise through
its mentoring initiative. In addition, programs should notify victims as
early as possible whether they are eligible to receive compensation to
avoid making victims wait anxiously for months before learning whether they
will receive an award.

Compensation programs should strive to process and pay emergency awards
within 24 hours. However, because compensation programs must be cognizant
of statutory requirements regarding police reporting and non-criminal
activity, they may need to contact law enforcement to confirm the
circumstances surrounding the crime before an emergency payment is made.
States should consider the model used in Delaware and New Mexico, where
compensation programs refer some emergency requests to designated VOCA
assistance programs that have access to special VOCA emergency grants and
are not under the same statutory restrictions as state compensation
programs. Moreover, compensation programs should be aware that some victim
service programs can help victims meet emergency needs by providing food,
clothing, transportation, and shelter, and services such as boarding up
broken windows, replacing locks, and arranging security measures.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #2

States should examine the nature, level, and scope of benefits they provide
for mental health treatment to ensure that all victims traumatized by crime
receive financial support for adequate and culturally meaningful counseling
services or healing practices. To achieve this goal, victim compensation
programs should consult with advisory groups composed of mental health
experts to develop guidelines for counseling benefits, including
appropriate treatment lengths and types of mental health providers,
documentation requirements for treatment plans and progress reports, and
payment levels.

Compensation programs have an obligation to review whether they are dealing
appropriately with the mental health needs of crime victims. Mental health
counseling benefits covered by state compensation programs vary greatly
across the nation. Currently, 22 states do not place a limit on the amount
of mental health benefits they will award, and victims in those states can
qualify for mental health coverage up to the states maximum compensation
award. The other states restrict mental health benefits to some degree,
generally by: limiting the length of treatment for which compensation may
be awarded, limiting the number of counseling sessions that may be covered,
or imposing a maximum dollar limit for counseling benefits.13

In the few states that limit the length of allowable treatment, limits
generally range from 6 to 18 months. In states that limit the number of
compensable counseling sessions, the number generally ranges from 26 to 50
sessions. In states that limit benefits to dollar amounts, allowable
compensation ranges from $1,500 to $5,000. However, there are numerous
exceptions to these restrictions. Several states apply distinct criteria
depending on the type of crime or the age of the victim. For example,
California allows up to $10,000 for direct victims and surviving family
members of homicide victims, Florida allows up to $2,500 for adult victims
and $10,000 for minors, and Idaho allows up to $2,500 for direct victims,
$500 for surviving family members of homicide victims, and up to $1,500 per
family following sexual assaults.

For child victims, 29 states provide $10,000 or more in counseling
benefits. Of those states, 18 can authorize $25,000 or more, six provide at
least $5,000, three provide $3,000, five provide $2,500, three provide
$2,000, and one provides $1,500.

Victim advocates and crime victims have raised the concern that some state
ceilings on counseling benefits may be too low, especially for victims of
catastrophic physical injury, sexual assault, domestic violence, and child
abuse. Compensation programs should be cognizant of research findings that
may inform their policies and standards, and should consult with therapists
to gain better insight into victims needs, particularly children. Standards
for mental health treatment should also be informed by the advice and input
of advisory groups comprising leading representatives of the mental health
community.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #3

Victim compensation programs should expand the types of victims eligible to
receive counseling benefits.

All but six states compensate surviving family members for mental health
counseling. Every state should provide this vital service. Losing a loved
one to homicide is one of the most traumatic events a person can
experience. Survivors of homicide victims experience feelings of intense
grief and overwhelming loss, often accompanied by guilt, shame, anger,
depression, isolation, and spiritual crisis. Survivors face a long period
of emotional struggle, and mental health counseling should be available to
help them rebuild their lives.

Children who witness violencethe silent victimsshould have access to
counseling paid for by compensation programs. According to recent research
conducted by the Medical University of South Carolina with funding from the
National Institute of Justice, 43 percent of male adolescents and 35
percent of female adolescents surveyed had witnessed some form of violence
firsthand, and of these young witnesses, 15 percent developed
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), compared to 3 percent of surveyed
youths who had not witnessed violence.14 Research also reveals that
exposure to violence adversely affects childrens development, emotional
stability, and risk-taking behavior. Children who display symptoms of PTSD
should be treated by specialized mental health services and
psychotherapists with expertise in childhood PTSD, depression, and
grief/mourning.15

In a recent survey conducted by the National Association of Crime Victim
Compensation Boards, two-thirds of the states indicated that they are
authorized to pay for counseling for children who witness domestic
violence.16 Some state compensation programs fund benefits for all child
victims and witnesses, and a few states are making special efforts to help
secondary victims. Utah and Iowa now pay up to $1000 for mental health
counseling for secondary victims who witness or are traumatically affected
by violent crime, including children who are psychologically harmed by
incidents of domestic abuse.

In addition, the needs of many white collar crime victims are overlooked.
Traditionally, counseling services are provided to victims of violent crime
but are not generally available to victims of serious white collar crimes
such as telemarketing fraud. These crimes have severe consequences in the
lives of their victims. Fraud, for example, can have a devastating impact
by depriving peopleoften seniorsof their life savings. Compensation
programs should evaluate how they can assist victims of white collar crime
who suffer significant financial loss, particularly by providing
intervention with the elderly, who are especially vulnerable to
revictimization.

Finally, compensation programs should evaluate whether the mental health
needs of workplace violence victims are being met, including bank tellers
and other people present in banks when they are robbed. In some states,
these people are considered witnesses, not victims, despite the high level
of trauma they suffer. Large financial institutions have established
policies for addressing the immediate needs of employees in the aftermath
of a bank robbery. These institutions provide on-scene crisis response and
immediate counseling services as well as referrals for victim assistance
and other support services available through employee assistance programs.
However, where crisis intervention services are not made available by
financial institutions, victim compensation programs should extend
compensation to cover counseling services.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #4

Victim compensation programs should increase medical benefits for victims
of catastrophic physical injury.

Occasionally, a victims losses due to catastrophic injury exceed the state
programs cap on benefits. Victims who are permanently disabled as a result
of their victimization will likely pay for installing wheelchair ramps in
their homes, modifying vehicles, as well as other transportation,
communication, or medical aids.

Compensation programs must go beyond the norm to help victims who are
significantly injured as a result of crime. Two states have done so by
raising their maximum amounts of medical benefits. The state of Washington
provides up to $150,000 in medical benefits for victims of catastrophic
injury, and New York provides unlimited medical coverage. In addition,
Texas provides a separate compensation award for special home and health
aids for victims of catastrophic injury.

State compensation programs should strive to increase compensation coverage
for victims who have suffered serious injuries. The 1997 VOCA Victim
Compensation Final Program Guidelines allow states to include expenses not
specifically identified in VOCA, such as medically necessary devices and
building modifications, in their annual certification to OVC,17 which is
the basis for determining the amount of federal funding a state will
receive.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #5

Victim compensation programs should eliminate restrictive statutory
reporting requirements and permit victims to

report the crime within a reasonable period of time and to agencies other

than law enforcement.

Most state statutes governing compensation programs mandate that victims
report the crime to law enforcement within a limited period of time,
generally 72 hours. The large majority of states have already removed, in
practice or by statute, this reporting requirement for cases involving
child sexual abuse. Moreover, many compensation programs currently allow
victims to delay reporting for legitimate reasons such as incapacity due to
injuries or hospitalization.

Research indicates that the majority of some categories of crime victims,
such as sexual assault victims, never report the crime to law enforcement
because of their fear of participating in the criminal justice system and
retaliation from the perpetrator. A nationwide study of rape victims found
that only 16 percent report the crime to the police, and more than half of
these victims do not report the crime immediately.18

Many victims, including victims of domestic violence and gang violence,
often report late, if they report at all, due to threats of intimidation
and legitimate fears of physical retaliation from significant others,
caretakers, employers, and friends. Only with counseling and encouragement
are many victims able to acknowledge their victimization, even to their
closest associates, and report it to law enforcement. The requirement of
immediate reporting to law enforcement denies these victims compensation
they could use to pay expenses for important services such as medical care,
counseling, and funeral arrangements. It is time for states to reassess
their reporting requirements and remove unrealistic barriers for victims to
receive compensation.

In 1997, Texas removed its statutory time requirement and now requires that
a report be made within a reasonable period of time so as not to unduly
interfere with or hamper the criminal justice investigation.19 It did so
after learning that most rape crisis centers discourage victims from filing
claims if they had not reported the crime to law enforcement within 72
hours. New York allows the report in family violence cases to be made to
the family court in the form of a petition for an order of protection or a
determination that a family offense occurred. California does not set a
time limit on when a report to the police must be made, rather it simply
requires that the report be timely. In addition, California accepts reports
to law enforcement in domestic violence cases from sources other than the
victim, including battered womens shelters, friends, relatives, neighbors,
and members of the clergy.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #6

Statutorily mandated time restrictions on filing claims that require crime
victims to apply for compensation within one year of the crime should be
reevaluated. State compensation programs should consider eliminating filing
restrictions or at least extending the time limit to three years, as was
done in Texas and Massachusetts.

Every state except Vermont requires that victims submit a timely
application to the compensation program, generally within one year of the
date of the crime. While filing deadlines historically have been a part of
compensation program requirements because of a legitimate need to have
accurate documentation, according to Lori Hayes, Executive Director of the
Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, they impose an artificial and
harsh burden upon victims who very well may be overwhelmed by the trauma of
the victimization and the frustration of dealing with a slow-moving
criminal justice system.

Some states have even shorter filing deadlines than the standard one-year
limit. Six states require that victims file a claim within 6 months after
the crime occurs. Other states have longer timeframes. Nine states allow
victims to file a claim up to two years after the crime, and two states,
Massachusetts and Texas, have extended the filing deadline to three years.

The majority of states waive or extend the filing deadline for victims of
child abuse. This is especially critical because child abuse victims should
not be penalized when their parents fail to file a timely claim. Because
the effects of child sexual abuse may not be manifested until adolescence
or later, child victims should be permitted to apply until the age of 21. A
number of states also make good cause exceptions for victims of sexual
assault and domestic violence, as well as for the elderly and victims with
disabilities.

For victims who are significantly traumatized by a crime, such as survivors
of homicide or victims of sexual assault, the effort required to file a
claim may be too overwhelming to undertake for many months. This legitimate
hardship should not jeopardize their eligibility for receiving a
compensation award. Other victims may not have been informed of their right
to receive compensation within the filing deadline. For example, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has reported several cases in which badly
injured victims of drunk driving crashes were not informed by law
enforcement of possible compensation benefits or referred to MADD or other
groups for counseling services. Eventually, these victims contacted MADD,
but the filing deadline to receive a compensation award had passed and
their claims were denied.

Recognizing that the real concern should not be the timeliness of claims
but rather the availability of accurate information to support them, the
Texas Legislature recently extended the states filing deadline to 3 years.
This reform should be seriously considered by other states so that
compensation is available to the greatest number of injured victims,
including those who are not notified of their right to compensation benefit
by those responsible for doing so.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #7

Every victim compensation program should coordinate with victim assistance
programs to develop an effective community outreach strategy to increase
public awareness about the purpose and availability of crime victim
compensation. This strategy should include extensive outreach efforts to
ensure that all victims, regardless of their race, culture, or language,
have knowledge of and access to compensation program benefits.

Compensation programs must widely publicize the availability of
compensation benefits for crime victims. A major focus of any outreach
program must include educating those who work with victims of crime on a
daily basis, including law enforcement officers, victim service providers,
advocates, and medical and mental health professionals. Ultimately, it is
the responsibility of every person who assists victims on the frontline to
inform them that they may be eligible for compensation.

Program outreach efforts should, at a minimum, include distribution of
program brochures and applications throughout the state, as well as use of
television and radio public service announcements, posters, community
billboards, and the Internet. Hospitals, libraries, counseling clinics,
child care centers, physicians offices, and funeral homes should be among
those targeted for outreach.

Every victim service provider and police officer should provide timely
information about crime victim compensation benefits to crime victims. They
should follow up with the victims after the crime to see if they understand
the compensation process and need assistance in applying. Very often in the
immediate aftermath of victimization, it is difficult for victims to focus
on the issue of compensation.

Compensation programs should routinely evaluate whether they are adequately
serving special population groups and should reach out to those who,
because of cultural or language barriers, may not be accessing compensation
assistance. Some compensation programs have undertaken extensive public
awareness efforts to reach traditionally underserved crime victims. These
efforts include developing public service announcements in languages other
than English. The state of Washingtons compensation program, for example,
has developed pocket-sized cards describing compensation in 12 languages.
The Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office reports success in reaching
non-English speaking crime victims through the Victims Division of the
International Institute of Boston, which provides translation and other
language services. The Institute is part of a national network operated
through Immigration and Refugee Services of America.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #8

Victim compensation programs have a responsibility to listen to and address
the issues of the victims they serve. All programs should establish
advisory boards that include victims. When developing policies for
eligibility and benefits, compensation programs should seek the input of
victim service groups, and criminal justice and allied professionals.

Victims who have applied for compensation can provide helpful information
to programs about their strengths and weaknesses. Their advice, and that of
their advocates, can be solicited through appointments on boards,
commissions, and advisory bodies that assist with program development and
implementation.

Some compensation programs have established advisory boards, although only
a few are mandated by state law to do so. To ensure that the policies,
procedures, and communications of the compensation program are fully
informed by the experiences of crime victims, at least one of the members
should be a crime victim or survivor. While all states should strive to
establish advisory boards, those programs that have not should routinely
meet with victims and victim service providers to review whether state
statutes, program guidelines, and policies are responsive to the needs of
crime victims and to determine possible barriers that might impede a
victims access to compensation benefits.

Compensation programs must work to ensure that their programs and policies
coordinate with and complement the range of services and assistance
provided to victims in the state. When making policy decisions,
compensation programs should seek input from local victim service groups,
as recommended in the VOCA Compensation Guidelines.20

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #9

Victim compensation programs should establish multidisciplinary
cross-training programs to ensure that victim advocates and allied
professionals are fully informed of the scope of compensation programs and
that compensation professionals are kept up to date on the services victims
need most.

Cross-training is essential to a responsive, accessible compensation
program. It is important that victims and those who serve them have a
thorough understanding of the requirements for receiving compensation, the
process for applying for benefits, and the legislative and programmatic
limitations of assistance. In addition to general outreach, compensation
programs should conduct trainings and briefings throughout the state on a
regular basis, and should ensure that adequate training is available for
law enforcement, prosecution, emergency room staff and other medical
providers, and victim service providers.

At the same time, in order to ensure that compensation programs are
responsive to the needs of crime victims, compensation professionals should
build strong relationships with victim assistance providers, advocacy
groups, and criminal justice professionals. Training of compensation
program staff on issues these groups encounter in working with crime
victims will help programs address emerging needs.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #10

Victim advocacy should be institutionalized in victim compensation
programs. Every program should include an advocate on staff to help victims
access services and resources that are not available from the program.

Victim advocacy skills and knowledge should be emphasized in all hiring and
training decisions to ensure that all staff are skilled at addressing the
broader needs of crime victims. Compensation program staff should focus not
only on proper claim documentation and expeditious claims processing, but
also in assisting victims in accessing services outside of compensation.
Ideally, every compensation program should provide victim advocacy by
intervening with creditors, making referrals to victim assistance programs
throughout the state especially for victims who are not eligible for
compensation, providing assistance in the filing of a claim, or simply
taking extra time to explain the compensation process.

In larger programs, victim advocacy may require more than one staff
position. Floridas compensation program employs nine victim advocates
throughout the state to assist victims with filling out and filing
compensation claims. Massachusetts compensation program employs advocates
to assist victims through the entire claims process, including translation
for non-English speaking crime victims. In 1997, the VOCA Victim Assistance
Program Guidelines were revised to allow VOCA victim assistance grant funds
to be used to support such positions.21 As a result, the District of
Columbias compensation program recently hired a full-time advocate to
assist victims who apply for compensation within the District.

In some states, compensation claims processors also serve as victim
advocates. It is critical that these individuals receive training on
providing services for traumatized victims, including making appropriate
referrals to resources in the victim assistance community. States that
include victim advocates as part of their compensation program staff find
not only that the advocates are helpful to victims but that they help raise
awareness of the impact of victimization and the important role that
compensation plays within the community.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #11

States should maximize victims ability to recover losses and cover
expenses, and should institute mechanisms for ensuring sufficient funding
sources for victim compensation programs.

Although the total amount of state funds awarded to crime victims has
nearly tripled since the enactment of VOCA in 1984, some states continue to
experience funding crises and are unable to pay claims for all of the
eligible applications they receive. Programs should continue to ensure the
availability of resources by exploring new funding options and maintaining
reasonable controls over costs. In cases in which the victims losses exceed
the programs maximum payment, programs should, in addition to expanding
caps, intercede with creditors and providers and request that they accept
reduced payment on a victims outstanding bills. This is often a viable
alternative to spending more money. It is also in keeping with the
financial advocacy and service mission of compensation programs. For
example, Massachusetts recently assisted a victim with lost wages and over
$40,000 in medical bills by negotiating with the victims providers to
accept $7,000 on the outstanding bills. As a result, the program was able
to reimburse the victim for lost wages and pay for the purchase and fitting
of a prosthesis under the states $25,000 cap.

Some states have found restitution to be a significant source of additional
revenue. Restitution payments can serve a dual purpose: first, they can be
used to cover victims expenses that cannot otherwise be met through
compensation; second, programs can be reimbursed, through a process known
as subrogation, for compensation payments made to victims who subsequently
receive restitution for the same expenses.22 When compensation programs
pursue restitution from offenders, however, they should ensure that
restitution payments are applied first to cover losses not covered by the
compensation program. This requirement should be mandated by law.

To be effective at recovering restitution, compensation programs must
establish partnerships with local criminal justice agencies. Both
California and Iowa, who have established such partnerships, have made
significant strides in increasing payments to victims and securing program
revenues by aggressively pursuing criminal restitution payments owed to
crime victims and fines or fees owed to the compensation fund. Californias
program worked closely with prosecutors and the courts to develop
strategies to increase collections. Their collaborative efforts resulted in
the enactment of legislation to facilitate restitution collection,
including the establishment of a rebate program allowing a 10 percent
reimbursement to counties on all restitution fines remitted to the states
compensation program. In addition, a wage garnishment program was
established within the states department of corrections that deducts 20
percent of inmate wages to pay outstanding restitution fines. Iowas program
more than doubled its restitution and subrogation revenues by urging
prosecutors to seek restitution, urging probation and parole officials to
collect restitution payments, and contacting offenders directly for
payments. The program also initiated an automated computer system to assist
in garnishing wages and seizing income tax refunds from delinquent
offenders. These innovative efforts should be replicated by other
compensation programs to increase program revenue.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #12

All state compensation programs should evaluate themselves to determine
whether: (1) there are barriers to compensation that should be removed, (2)
the programs outreach efforts are effective, (3) the services provided are
effective, (4) the scope of victims that qualify for compensation is broad
enough, (5) claims are processed as efficiently as possible, (6) available
benefits for mental health treatment are sufficient, and (7) reasons for
denial of compensation claims.

All victim assistance programs, including state compensation programs,
should be evaluated on a regular basis. In addition, state compensation
programs should develop customer satisfaction surveys and provide them to
victims for their input. Some states such as Wyoming and Iowa routinely
send client satisfaction surveys to all approved and denied claimants to
solicit input into the states processes, benefits, and services. OVC is
currently supporting a nationwide evaluation of compensation and assistance
programs, and findings are scheduled for release by the year 2000.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #13

Compensation programs should make effective use of advanced technologies
such as automated claims management systems and electronic linkages with
medical providers, insurance companies, and criminal justice agencies.

An automated system for processing victim applications can significantly
increase a programs ability to serve crime victims efficiently and
expeditiously. Many programs have moved from manual to automated operations
and have implemented strategies for correcting inefficiencies. An automated
claims management system enables program staff and managers to quickly
retrieve information from a victims application form to generate routine
correspondence, verification requests, and statistical reports.

Compensation programs should also explore ways in which technology can
foster communication with local service providers and facilitate victim
referrals among programs throughout the state. Victims and advocates in
Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, and other states now have the ability to download
compensation applications from the Internet,23 and Florida operates an
automated telephone system for medical providers and others to use to
receive current information on claim status. These services provide
valuable information to the public while freeing staff time to process
victim applications. However, no programs currently allow applications to
be filed electronically.

OVC encourages states to use their VOCA administrative grant funds to
explore innovative approaches to using technology to facilitate claims
filing and expedite claims processing. Compensation programs should take
advantage of emerging communications technologies such as the Internet to
inform victims and the general public about the availability of victim
compensation. Many compensation programs have established websites on the
Internet that provide information about eligibility requirements and
application procedures.24

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #14

State compensation programs should work with other state programs that
provide funding for victim services to ensure that victims needs are met
comprehensively throughout the state.

The need for state compensation programs to be aware of the range of victim
services funded throughout the state has been raised in many of the
recommendations in this section. Many compensation programs provide
extensive referrals to victim assistance programs and should work with
state level funding agencies to identify local victim assistance programs
and areas in which services are lacking. In some states, services such as
counseling, shelter, crime scene cleanup, emergency transportation, and
child care are provided by local victim assistance programs. In others,
compensation programs must fill in the gaps. Many state compensation and
assistance programs are working together, even functioning out of the same
state agency. In other states, compensation programs need to enhance their
partnerships with other victim service funding agencies.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #15

Compensation programs should consider the effects that more universal
health care coverage (through expanded public benefits and broader private
coverage) might have on their eligibility and benefits structures.

Most other countries with victim compensation programs also have some form
of national health care that provides coverage to all citizens for medical
treatment. As a result, victim compensation can be used to address the
effects of long-term psychological or physical injuries, to make payment
for pain and suffering, and to reimburse property losses. While the debate
on a national health care program in the United States has moved into the
background of public policy issues, efforts at the federal and state levels
to provide more coverage to greater numbers of Americans are continuing. It
is possible that the United States may eventually achieve more universal
coverage, which likely would have a substantial effect on the payments made
by compensation programs for medical care, which is currently the largest
source of claims nationwide. To be prepared for the future, compensation
programs should explore ways in which victims can be served beyond current
benefits by using any funds freed by future national changes in medical
coverage.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #16

Compensation programs throughout the world should agree to compensate
victims of crime within their borders regardless of nationality. The U.S.
Departments of State and Justice should continue to work together to
establish this principle as a basis for coverage in all countries.

Nearly all compensation programs in the United States provide coverage to
foreign citizens injured in their jurisdiction. U.S. residency and
citizenship are not required for eligibility. A number of other countries,
however, including France and Japan, have either nationality or residency
requirements. The principle of universal coverage, regardless of
citizenship, should be extended throughout the world through changes in
law, or reciprocal agreements if necessary. Representatives of the U.S.
Department of Justice have participated in a number of forums to discuss
these issues, and they should continue to work with the State Department
and state governments in the United States to make universal coverage for
all travelers a reality.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #17

Compensation programs should consider providing funds to cover
transportation costs for victims who must travel across state lines to
attend criminal proceedings.

In some cases, victims and their families must travel to other states to
attend trials. For example, in the Oklahoma City bombing cases, many
victims traveled from Oklahoma City to attend the trials in Denver.
Compensation programs should consider reimbursing victims when the costs of
traveling to criminal proceedings would create hardship.

Compensation Recommendation from the Field #18

Compensation programs should use excess funds to support victim assistance.

Compensation programs should maintain sufficient reserves to guarantee
prompt payment of victims losses, provide greater levels of benefits, and
expand coverage to more victims. While programs must be careful to maintain
a healthy flow of funds, they should, in appropriate circumstances,
consider using reserves far in excess of current and projected needs to
support activities that benefit victims.

States that have excess funds in their compensation programs should find
ways to ensure that the money remains earmarked for crime victims and is
not diverted for other purposes. The Texas Constitution, for example, has
been amended to dedicate the Texas Crime Victims Compensation Fund to crime
victims, protecting the money it provides to local rape crisis centers,
family violence shelters, childrens advocacy centers, and similar programs.

Endnotes

1 Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1982:39.

2 National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, Crime Victim
Compensation: An Overview, Washington, DC: National Association of Crime
Victim Compensation Boards, 1997:1; National Association of Crime Victim
Compensation Boards, Crime Victim Compensation: A Fact Sheet, Washington,
DC: National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards 1997; National
Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, Crime Victim Compensation
Program Directory, Washington, D.C.: National Association of Crime Victim
Compensation Boards 1996.

3 National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, Crime Victim
Compensation Program Directory, 1.

4 Id. One notable exception is crime scene clean-up incident to violent
crimes.

5 D. Parent, B. Auerbach, B and K. Carlson, Compensating Crime Victims: A
Summary of Policies and Practices, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office for Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1992,
NCJ 136500.

6 Nation Wide Analysis, Victims of Crime Act, 1996 Victims of Crime Act
Performance Report, State Compensation Program, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of
Crime, April, 14 1997.

7 The information was provided by the National Association of Crime Victim
Compensation Boards and reflect information provided by the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 1996.

8 California operates the nations largest program, paying nearly one-third
of all compensation benefits nationwide (approximately $75 to $80 million
annually). The second largest program, Texas, pays out approximately $20 to
$30 million to victims each year.

9 Victims of Crime Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 104-235, codified at 42 U.S.C.
ñ10601-10605, 18 U.S.C. ñ3050 (1996).

10 Office for Victims of Crime, International Crime Victims Compensation
Program Directory, Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, 1996. To create the International Directory, U.S.
embassies in 174 countries were contacted and asked to collect compensation
program information from the appropriate officials in each country. OVC
also contacted victim assistance programs throughout the world. Of the 91
countries responding to the survey, 30 reported having compensation
programs, and they are listed in the International Directory with programs
in the United States.

11 Office of General Counsel, Office of General Counsel (OGC)
Recommendations for Bringing State Statutes into Compliance with the
Requirements of the Antiterrorism Act under VOCA. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of General
Counsel. The new provisions of VOCA pertaining to crimes involving
terrorism are located at 42 U.S.C. 10602(b)(6)(B) and (d)(3).

12 Telephone survey by Dan Eddy, Executive Director, National Association
of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, October 1997.

13 National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, Crime Victim
Compensation Program Directory. In addition, this information was compiled
into a chart entitled Mental Health Counseling Limits, compiled by the
National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, September 1997.

14 Kilpatrick, D. and B. Saunders, Prevalence and Consequences of Child
Victimization, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Justice, April 1997.

15 Commentary Silent Victims, Children Who Witness Violence, Journal of the
American Medical Association, 1993:269:2 at 262- 264.

16 National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, Rules,
Benefits Adapted for Domestic Violence, Crime Victim Compensation
Quarterly, Autumn 1997:3.

17 VOCA Victim Compensation Final Program Guidelines, February 1997,
III.B.3 provides: Compensable expenses to be included in the annual
certification must be authorized by state statute or rule, providing there
is a rule making authority in state law. States may include expenses, not
specifically identified in VOCA, such as pain and suffering; crime scene
clean-up; replacement costs for clothing and bedding held as evidence;
medically-necessary building modification; medically-necessary devises; and
attorney fees related to victims claim for compensation.

18 Kilpatrick, D.G., C.N. Edmunds, and A.K. Seymour, Rape in America: A
Report to the Nation, National Victim Center & Medical University of South
Carolina, 1992.

19 TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. art. 56.46 (West 1997).

20 VOCA Victim Compensation Final Program Guidelines, February 1997,
III.A.4.

21 Id., IV.E.1.c.

22 Compensation programs are subrogated to the victim for any expenses the
victim recovers from the offender or a third party. That means that if the
victim recovers any money from the offender or any other party liable for
the victims expenses, the compensation program must be paid back for that
portion of the expenses for which the program has paid. Generally, if the
victim's losses are greater than the amount paid for by the compensation
program, the program will expect repayment only after those other losses
are fully reimbursed. In other words, if the victim's total losses are
$100,000, and the compensation program awards $10,000, the amounts the
victim receives from other sources can go to pay for the remaining $90,000
in losses before the compensation program needs to be repaid.

23 See e.g., ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/derene/cvc.htm

24 See e.g., www.nccrimecontrol.org/VJS/;
www.treasury.state.tn.us/injury.htm;
www.ink.org/public/Kdhr/community/shawnee/agentfile/96030.html