JCVVS Newsletter
June 2007
At a recent Advisory Council meeting it was
suggested
that the JCVVS monthly e-newsletter include reviews
of relvant research or practices that may contribute to
the field. Starting with this e-newsletter, we will offer
a
brief synopsis of research and programs relevant to
violence and victim studies. Brevity does not allow
for
comprehensive analysis, rather key points and
observations for further review and consideration.
Reviews are provided by persons affiliated by the
JCVVS and do not necessarily reflect the position of
the JCVVS or the affiliate Universities.
I hope
these reviews prove helpful to your work. As always,
feedback and comments are
appreciated.
Thomas Underwood
Executive Director
The following professional development courses are
scheduled for fall:
Critical Analysis of
Victim Assistance
September 17-19,
2007
Fresno, California
Morita
Therapy
October 16-17, 2007
Hartford,
Connecticut
In addition, the online self-study
course Violence in the Workplace: Assessment
and Strategies for Community Agencies is
available now.
A brochure describing these
courses and listing academic courses will be mailed
in
the next few weeks.
|
|
Research and Program Review |
"The Efficacy of Victim Services Programs:
Alleviating the Psychological Suffering of Crime
Victims"
Authors:
Barbara
Sims (Penn
State Harrisburg)
Berwood Yost and Christina
Abbott (Franklin and Marshall College)
Source:
Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 17
(4), Dec 2006, pp 387-
406
http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/17/4/387
Reviewers:
Thomas Underwood
and Dan Petersen
The field of victim services
has evolved over the years to address a variety of
functions. Services that seek to alleviate psychological
suffering typically do so through crisis intervention,
individual counseling, and group counseling. This
study attempted to evaluate whether the goal of
alleviating psychological suffering is actually met by
victim services by comparing individuals who utilized
victim services and those that did not in Pennsylvania.
In addition to descriptive variables about the individual
and the victimization, a telephone questionnaire
included a measure of perceived social support,
individual coping skills, and psychological functioning.
While there were several variables related to
psychological functioning, use of victim services was
not one of them. In other words, while things like the
extent of social support, strong coping skills, age, and
education are related to higher psychological
functioning, the study found that participating in the
services offered by victim assistance programs
makes no difference.
There are several limitations of the study. First, the
authors acknowledge that there was no analysis of
victim service quality. It is possible that some
agencies provided efficacious interventions and some
made it worse (the latter is important to balance off
effect across the subject population) or it is possible
that none of the agencies provided services that
produced significant effects. Second, it may have been
more appropriate to compare like-type of programs
instead of victim services in general since the
functions of a systems-based program, such as a
prosecutor office victim-witness programs, are
typically different than those of a community-based
program, such as a domestic violence program.
Sample selection is another limitation of the study.
Those who did use services were identified and
contacted by cooperating victim service agencies. This
method of selection resulted in a lower than expected
sample of crime victims who used victim services and
also created an acknowledged potential for bias. The
sample of victims who did not use services was
generated via a random survey of adults in the state,
possibly a matched sample comparison rather than
random assignment would have been better in order
to ensure equivalency. Finally, it is possible that the
sensitivity to change of the instruments used may not
have been sufficient. Even if this is the case, the
argument could only support the conclusion that
change is small at best.
As victim services has evolved, so has the breadth of
goals and the associated services. Recognizing
common organizational limitations to effectively
provide long-term counseling, possibly it is
appropriate "to reconsider the overall goals of
services provided to crime victims" (p. 401). If a goal of
victim services is the alleviation of psychological
suffering, then programs and services that can make
a demonstrable impact should be considered. But to
do so will require new paradigms of intervention,
additional organizational resources, and/or
specialized professional expertise. Or possibly the
goal of victim services should be limited to victim
safety, prevention, or the enforcement of rights.
Furthermore, if victim services cannot demonstrate
effectiveness of core functions, then how relevant is
the goal of social advocacy that promotes victim
empowerment and political ascension in the
dominant society? There is a parentalism of sorts if
the agency determines the nature of its services
without addressing - and meeting - the critical needs
of its consumers. For the field to continue its
identification as a profession, these questions of
purpose must be entertained. This research sheds
some light for analysis and consideration of these
important questions.
|
|
|
|
