[Senate Hearing 111-459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-459
THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT: 25 YEARS OF PROTECTING AND SUPPORTING VICTIMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2009
__________
Serial No. J-111-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-685 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RON WYDEN, Oregon TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Nicholas A. Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Californa...................................................... 2
Leahy, Hon. Ptrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1
prepared statement........................................... 41
WITNESSES
Derene, Steve, Executive Director, National Association of
Victims of Crime Act Assistance Administrators, Madison,
Wisconsin...................................................... 11
Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims
of Crime, Washington, D.C...................................... 7
Perkins, R. Keith, Esq., Founding Attorney and Executive
Director, The Never Again Foundation, Chandler, Arizona........ 9
Rex, Judith A., Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime
Victims Services, Waterbury, Vermont........................... 5
Russell, Susan S., M.A., Warren, Vermont......................... 3
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Steve Derene to questions submitted by Senators
Specter and Coburn............................................. 22
Responses of Judith A. Rex to questions submitted by Senator
Specter........................................................ 30
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Allie Bones, MSW,
Executive Director, Phoenix, Arizona, statement................ 31
Derene, Steve, Executive Director, National Association of
Victims of Crime act Assistance Administrators, Madison,
Wisconsin, statement and attachment............................ 37
Houde, Elizabeth, President & CEO, Arizona Sexual Assault
Network, Tempe, Arizona, statement............................. 39
Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims
of Crime, Washington, D.C., statement.......................... 43
Perkins, R. Keith, Esq., Founding Attorney and Executive
Director, The Never Again Foundation, Chandler, Arizona,
statement...................................................... 48
Rex, Judith A., Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime
Victims Services, Waterbury, Vermont, statement................ 50
Ruegg, Kevin S., CEO/Executive Director, Arizona Foundation for
Legal Services & Education, Phoenix, Arizona, statement........ 53
Russell, Susan S., M.A., Warren, Vermont, statement.............. 54
THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT: 25 YEARS OF PROTECTING AND SUPPORTING VICTIMS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Wyden, and Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good morning, everybody.
This past Sunday marked the start of National Crime
Victims' Rights Week. Now, since 1981, here in Washington and
in communities across the Nation, people have observed this
week with candlelight vigils and public rallies to renew our
commitment to crime victims and their families. I think it is
important that we do this to recognize the needs of crime
victims and their families.
I was talking with Susan Russell and Judy Rex from our
State of Vermont about this, and I am reminded, of course, that
this is the 25th anniversary, and in some ways, it seems like
just yesterday that the Victims of Crime Act was passed. I was
one of the supporters of that at the time. It has supported
essential services for crime victims and their families. The
people in Vermont have heard me tell about how, when I was a
prosecutor, there were not any of these programs, and we had to
make them up as we went along. I remember my wife and I
personally financing a number of the programs and a number of
volunteers and others. And now we have grants for direct
services to victims, State crime victim compensation programs,
emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and
assistance in participating in the criminal justice system--all
these, and I should note that these do not cost taxpayers any
money. They are funded from a reserve fund created from the
fines and penalties paid by Federal criminal offenders.
A lot of us have worked hard over the years to protect the
Crime Victims Fund. They serve nearly 4 million crime victims
each year, including victims of violent crime, domestic
violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk
driving. This makes it possible. I think of the number of times
we congratulate ourselves that we have prosecuted somebody, and
they go off, and we spend a fortune to prosecute the person,
and at that time there was nothing to do anything for the
victims.
I was worried that the Crime Victims Fund would be there in
good times and bad. Several years ago, I worked to make sure it
had a ``rainy day'' capacity so that we would not have to worry
about it running out of money and being left stranded. More
recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to
be spent from the fund in a given year. I remember when the cap
was established, and former President Bush sought to empty the
Crime Victims Fund of unexpended funds--funds that we had put
in there to have for a rainy day. I joined a bipartisan effort
with Senator Crapo of Idaho and others from both political
parties to make sure that the money was preserved. There are
enough other places we can find money. This was one that was
being well used.
So we are working as hard as ever. We are working with
Senators from both sides of the aisle. I hope we can raise the
cap this coming year to devote more than $700 million to crime
victims.
I want to commend Senator Mikulski, who is the Chairwoman
of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
Subcommittee, and Senator Shelby, the Ranking Member, for
working with the President to provide $100 million in the
economic recovery program for crime victims. I look forward to
working with Senator Mikulski, Senator Crapo, and, of course,
Senator Feinstein, who has been a tremendous help in all of
this, to keep us going.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Two of our
witnesses, as I mentioned, come from Vermont. Susan Russell has
an incredible story. Her courage and strength is an inspiration
to us all. And I should mention she lives just a few miles from
where I live in Vermont.
Judy Rex, I have enjoyed over the years calling Judy to
say, ``Judy, you know that money that was not coming? It is
coming.'' And knowing it is going to be done well, and, of
course, Mary Lou Leary, from the National Center for Victims of
Crime, is well known to this Committee, as is Steve Derene from
the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, and
R. Keith Perkins from the very well named Never Again
Foundation.
Before we go to the witnesses, Senator Feinstein, did you
want to say anything?
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
very much appreciate the good work you have done, and these
witnesses present.
In 2004, Senator Kyl and I introduced and subsequently
passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and that was essentially
giving crime victims certain basic rights--the right to be
present in the court, the right to know when your attacker has
been released, the right to make a statement. But what we found
was that the defendants had essentially all the rights, and a
crime victim had virtually no rights. And I would just be
curious at a later time if in the comments of your witnesses,
if they would be willing to comment on how effective they
believe this has been, and if they think there still is
additional action to be taken.
I was appalled when I learned that a victim, let us say a
rape victim, had no right to be notified if her attacker is
released from jail. And theoretically, at least by the law, now
this is taken care of.
So my question is: Are these rights, in fact, being carried
out? And perhaps if you can, you would address that in your
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Since 1998, Susan Russell has served as a criminal justice
victim services consultant with the Office for Victims of
Crime. For the past 7 years, she has worked for the Central
Vermont Council on Aging as the Director of Community Service.
Central Vermont is the area where I am from. She also chaired
Vermont's Sexual Violence Task Force, served as a member of the
Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. She has
received several awards for her efforts, including the 2005
National Organization for Victim Assistance Edith Surgan Award
for outstanding dedication and leadership, and Vermont's 1995
Outstanding Victim Advocacy and Awareness Award.
Ms. Russell, please go ahead. Make sure that is on.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN S. RUSSELL, M.A., WARREN, VERMONT
Ms. Russell. Good day. I would like to thank you, Chairman
Leahy, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Member Senator
Specter, for inviting me here today to testify on behalf of
victims. Indeed it is quite an honor and privilege to be here
today to provide testimony on the Victims of Crime Act. While I
have over a decade of experience working within victim
services, the most significant experience I bring before you
today is as a survivor of violent crime.
Seventeen years ago, a man who resided in the same small
rural community as I kidnapped, raped, and nearly killed me.
This man slashed two of my car tires and then followed me. It
is highly likely that he had been stalking me for some time as
several years after my assault, I learned that he had broken
into my husband's truck and had stolen identifying information.
This man held no regard for life as, after begging and pleading
for my life, he fractured my skull in three places with a tire
iron, broke several facial bones, and left me to die in a
remote wilderness area. I can recall gaining consciousness
hours later, cold, shivering, naked, and in intense pain. I
recall touching my head and feeling something very sharp and
protruding. And as a trained emergency medical technician, I
knew that I was in serious trouble and needed help. Somehow, I
managed to stumble through the woods a tenth of a mile where
there were five teenagers camped. They managed to keep me warm
and awake, and two of them hiked 3 miles to the nearest phone.
I was taken to a nearby hospital where they stabilized my
injuries and prepared me to be sent to another hospital that
specialized in traumatic brain injuries. While in the emergency
room of the first hospital, I was met by a detective who
gathered information which led to the apprehension of my
assailant 4 days later.
Upon arrival at the emergency room of the second hospital,
I had a team of nurses and doctors working to prepare me for
surgery. During this time my husband was brought in, and he
immediately passed out and was escorted out of the emergency
room. However, after he recovered, he was met by a rape crisis
advocate who provided him with information and a supportive
ear. During my 3-week stay in the hospital, the rape crisis
advocate came several times to talk and/or listen. And after I
returned home, I was able to call the rape crisis hotline any
time day or night. Rape crisis centers which provide a host of
victim services such as this one are funded with VOCA funds.
At the time of my assault, I worked as a hiking/canoeing
guide. I subsequently lost my job and had no income. It took me
many months--really many years--to recuperate physically, and
part of my recover hinged on physical therapy--something not
covered by my medical insurance. The medical bills alone even
with health insurance reached over $30,000. Another VOCA-funded
service which I benefited from is the Victims Compensation
Program. Vermont's Victim Compensation will allocate $10,000
per victim for things such as medical costs, including physical
therapy and counseling. These are two of the services that I so
desperately needed and would not have had access to if it were
not for VOCA.
Soon after my assault, I was contacted by the State's
Attorney Victim Advocate, and we found ourselves having to go
through the criminal justice system. Again, due to VOCA funds,
we were able to have a victim advocate help us navigate the
criminal justice system. I am quite certain I would never have
survived the criminal justice system without the information
and support provided by the victim advocate. Fortunately for
all of us, due to having a way to be involved and informed, a
plea agreement was met and the offender was convicted and
sentenced to 25 to 35 years.
However, in approximately 5 years, he will be released in
Vermont having maxed out his sentence for a total time served
of 23 years. He will be released, untreated and unsupervised.
His only requirement will be to register with the Vermont Sex
Offender Registry.
In closing, I would like to state that had I not received
these VOCA funding services, I would not be here today. I would
also like to add that these services helped my husband and I
remain together as next month we will celebrate our 26th
wedding anniversary. There is no doubt in my mind that without
VOCA funding services, I would not have been able rebuild my
life and recover in a manner that moved me from a victim to a
survivor.
Thank you again for inviting me here to share my story.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Russell appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Russell. I knew
the story, but I thought it was important that others hear it.
It is a very moving one. I also think it is fortunate we have
these programs. Certainly I wish there was no need for them. I
wish there would never be an experience like you went through.
But you know and I know that happens, whether in our State or
other States. And I think back to the days of my own experience
in law enforcement when we did not have that and how we had to
piece these things together and the number of people who must
have fallen without the help they needed. So thank you for your
bravery in repeating it, and congratulations on 26 years. It
seems like so long ago. In our family we will celebrate our
47th this summer.
Judy Rex is the Executive Director of the Vermont Center
for Crime Victim Services that administers the Victim
Compensation Program, the Victim Assistance Program, and other
Federal and State grants for community-based programs serving
victims of crime. Previously, she had been the Executive
Director of Vermont Protection and Advocacy, the coordinator of
the Vermont Victim Assistance Program, a State program serving
victims of crime through the Vermont Department of State's
Attorney. She served as the coordinator of the Vermont Network
Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, a statewide
association of 17 private, nonprofit domestic violence and rape
crisis program well known to all of us in Vermont.
Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. REX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VERMONT CENTER
FOR CRIME VICTIM SERVICES, WATERBURY, VERMONT
Ms. Rex. Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Leahy and
Ranking Member Specter for giving me this opportunity to speak
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is an honor for me to
appear here today as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the
Victims of Crime Act.
I have worked on behalf of crime victims for over 25 years,
and I remember what it was like before the Victims of Crime Act
was enacted. In Vermont, there were very few services and
supports for crime victims. In the early 1980s, Vermont had
four domestic violence shelters and two rape crisis programs.
The entire State appropriation for these programs was $50,000 a
year, and the State allocation for the domestic violence
shelter where I worked was $5,000 per year.
The passage of the Victims of Crime Act in 1984 has had a
tremendous impact on how crime victim services have evolved and
expanded in this country--and certainly in Vermont. When the
Victims of Crime Act passed, then-Governor Kunin earmarked the
funding to establish rape crisis programs in every county in
Vermont. As a result of the VOCA funding, Vermont was able to
establish ten additional programs, ensuring that every victim
of sexual assault in Vermont could access a 24-hour hotline and
advocacy services.
In 1986, it was the Victims of Crime Act funding that
helped Vermont establish its Victim Assistance Program. These
prosecutor-based victim advocates ensure that crime victims
receive information, notification of court hearings, and a
variety of support services throughout the criminal justice
process. The program has played a critical role in ensuring
that Vermont's crime victims receive restitution for their
crime-related losses and, even more importantly, in empowering
crime victims to address the court at sentencing to share the
impact of the crime on their lives.
In 1990, Vermont finally established its Victims
Compensation Program, and it was the Federal VOCA match that
convinced the Vermont Legislature to fund this initiative. In
2000, when there was an increase to the VOCA cap, Vermont was
able to establish a Victim Services Program within the
Department of Corrections that is now fully funded with State
funds. These advocates provide an array of services to crime
victims to help prepare them for an offender's release from
incarceration. Services for underserved populations were also
established at this time. One example is our Deaf Victim
Advocacy program, comprised of three deaf victim advocates who
provide education and advocacy services to the deaf and hard-
of-hearing communities throughout Vermont.
The most recent impact of VOCA was the inclusion of $100
million for crime victims in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. In January, I was faced with making cuts of
up to 20 percent to victim services programs in Vermont due to
declining State revenues. The impact of these cuts would have
been significant for those very small domestic violence
programs, child advocacy centers, and supervised visitation
programs operating in the most rural areas of Vermont. Some of
these programs would have closed. But as a result of the
Recovery Act funding, I was able to level- fund all direct
service programs serving crime victims in the 2010 State
budget. This infusion of funding could not have happened at a
more critical time, since we all know that crime rates often
increase during hard economic times.
Despite all of these accomplishments, there is still much
more to be done. In 2003, the Center for Crime Victim Services
engaged in a lengthy strategic planning process. A number of
gaps in services were identified, including the need for victim
advocates in police departments, specialized services for
people with disabilities who have been victimized, and services
for the elderly--a growing population that is particularly
vulnerable to financial fraud and exploitation. However,
because Vermont has not seen any significant increase in our
VOCA allocation for the past 8 years, little has been
accomplished in these areas. In fact, in some years we have
seen our allocation reduced, even though the number of crime
victims needing services continues to grow.
I know that other States are also struggling with this same
dilemma. I would urge this Committee to consider raising the
VOCA cap to $705 million in the 2010 Federal budget so that we
can begin to address some of these gaps in services. One
important lesson we have learned over the last 25 years is that
the sooner we are able to respond to a crime victim's trauma,
the sooner they are able to recover. As a society, we cannot
afford to delay services to crime victims. The cost is too
great.
In closing, I want to thank the Judiciary Committee, and I
want to especially thank Chairman Leahy, for all of the support
you have given us for the last 25 years, and I look forward to
another 25 years of progress.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rex appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. I look forward to 25 years of progress, but
not 25 years more here in the Senate.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. But thank you very much.
Mary Lou Leary is currently the Executive Director of the
National Center for Victims of Crime. She has served there
since 2004. She previously served as United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia and as Acting Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs. As the leader of
the Office of Justice Programs, she oversaw the Department of
Justice's Office for Victims of Crime and the Office of
Violence Against Women. She also served as Acting Director of
Community-Oriented Policing Services at the Department.
As always, Ms. Leary, it is good to see you, and I am
delighted to hear you are going to be rejoining the Department.
Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Leary. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Leahy. Thank
you to you and Ranking Member Specter for this opportunity.
Good morning, Senator Feinstein. I want to say thank you for
holding this hearing during Crime Victims' Rights Week. I think
this is just the ideal time for us to be focusing on one of the
Nation's most successful programs: the Victims of Crime Act and
the Crime Victims Fund that it created.
I am Mary Lou Leary, and as the Senator said, I am
Executive Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime.
At the National Center for almost 25 years now, we have worked
to make sure that victims have the rights, the resources, and
the respect that they need to rebuild their lives after a
crime.
Steve Derene's written testimony explains all about VOCA
and how the fund works, the difference between compensation and
assistance, so I will not go into any of those details. But
you, Senator Leahy, understand better than just about anybody
that VOCA funds are essential to our national response to
victims. In fact, the National Center recently surveyed our
membership, and more than 98 percent of our nonprofit victim
service provider members tell us that VOCA funds are ``very
important,'' and you heard that in Judy Rex's testimony this
morning. More than 90 percent of the system-based providers--
people in law enforcement and prosecutors' offices--say the
same thing.
For the past several years, Congress has imposed a cap on
the funds disbursed each year, and in recent years, the balance
has grown to about $1.9 billion. And the cap has been hovering
around $625 million. Last year the cap dropped down to $590
million.
I came before this Committee in January and told you that
this reduction of funding, coupled with the economic climate,
was devastating to victim service programs. And, again, you
heard that from Judy Rex this morning. People were cutting
staff hours, laying people off, and programs were reaching
fewer victims and, in fact, providing even fewer services to
the ones that they could reach. For example, in many places
victims were placed on very long waiting lists for services;
even child victims of sexual abuse, weeks before they could get
into counseling.
When we reported to you in January on this situation, you
responded by working to ensure that $100 million for crime
victim compensation and assistance would be included in the
stimulus package, and we cannot tell you how grateful we are
for that. Then, the fiscal year 2009 appropriations package
passed in February released $635 million from the VOCA Fund. So
this combination will restore victim funding to the levels it
received in 2006, before those reductions.
So the dollars have not reached the front-line service
providers yet, but relief is already being felt across the
country. So we thank you for that. The relief was much needed
and well timed, but I am here to tell you there is still much
more to be done.
Compensation assistance, for instance, is helpful, but some
states have told us they expect to disburse all their stimulus
compensation money within just a few weeks. The restoration of
funding for victim services may take more victims off waiting
lists for services, but there are so many more victims who are
not being reached and who do not even know that help is
available.
State and local programs tell us they desperately need
money for awareness and outreach so that victims in their
communities will know where to turn for help. And then they
need money for the services to help them when those victims do
come forward.
As you know, the economic crisis is having a terrible
impact on victims, increasing victimization, increasing the
need for services, and increasing the range of services that
are needed. Our Helpline, for instance, is seeing a big spike
in calls from victims, and we have seen a big spike in calls
from fraud victims. Many victims of fraud have lost absolutely
everything, and they are at the end of their rope, no place to
turn.
These victims are in desperate need of financial counseling
to help them pull together what remaining assets they have, and
time is very often of the essence. They have nowhere to turn
for this. They also need mental health counseling to overcome
the stress and the shame of this kind of victimization, but it
is not available.
States could, under regulations, pay for this kind of
counseling, but they have been reluctant to expand the pool of
eligible victims because there just is not enough money to go
around. Too many victims of crime have no services outside the
criminal justice system. Too many victims are going unserved.
Congress has the ability to provide the funding that is
necessary to bridge this gap. There is $1.9 billion in the VOCA
Fund. Additional fines over $2.7 billion have already been
announced against corporate defendants, so additional moneys
can be released from the VOCA Fund without compromising the
long-term stability of that fund.
In 1984, Congress created the VOCA Fund, and it
fundamentally changed the way this Nation responds to victims
of crime. This funding, as you heard from Susan Russell's
testimony, truly helps victims of crime rebuild their lives,
and we know that is a slow process.
Congress reaffirmed its commitment to victims earlier this
year through the stimulus funding and it restored the
appropriations levels. Now we ask you to take the very next
step. We urge you to tell victims of crime that you are still
committed; you still hear their voices; you recognize their
needs; and you will extend them a helping hand by raising the
cap on the VOCA Fund.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Ms. Leary. And I can assure you
I hear their voices, and I think of them. I still have
nightmares about some of the things I saw at 3 o'clock in the
morning and 4 o'clock in the morning when I would be at some of
these crime scenes with the lights from the police cars,
blinking lights reflecting off the walls, and some of the most
horrific scenes. I do not forget.
The next witness is Keith Perkins. He is the Founding
Attorney and Executive Director of the Never Again Foundation
Legal Services, provides free legal representation for crime
victims in civil lawsuits directly against the criminal
perpetrators. He authored the highly acclaimed Arizona crime
victims rights programs, received several top awards--the 2007
Arizona Attorney General Distinguished Service Award, the 2007
Foundation for Justice Work, and the Arizona State Bar's
Foundation for Legal Services, the 2009 College Honored Alumni
Award from Brigham Young University's J. Reuben Clark Law
School, in recognition not only for his achievements but
dedication to a life of services. That is actually a nice thing
to hear, an award for a life of services.
Please go ahead, Mr. Perkins.
STATEMENT OF R. KEITH PERKINS, ESQ., FOUNDING ATTORNEY AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NEVER AGAIN FOUNDATION, CHANDLER,
ARIZONA
Mr. Perkins. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Specter, Senator
Feinstein, and members of the Committee, my name is Keith
Perkins. I am the Founding Attorney and the Executive Director
of the Never Again Foundation Legal Services.
How grateful we are for the tremendous amount of good that
the Victims of Crime Act has been able to do for so many over
the last 25 years.
My testimony to you today will comprise primarily of three
parts: the successes that we have been able to have within the
spirit of VOCA, challenges that we have had with VOCA, and a
suggestion that we bring to you today to improve VOCA.
The purposes of VOCA are vitally important, and they
include the help to provide that emotional healing as well as
that economic restabilization that victims of crime need after
they have been a victim of crime.
The Department of Justice confirms that the cost of crime
is staggering. It costs us billions of dollars each year. There
are only three parties that can bear that cost: the
perpetrators of the crime, the victims of the crime, or somehow
it being absorbed by the rest of us in society. The criminal
justice system was not designed to send that cost back to the
criminal perpetrators. It was only the civil justice system
that was designed to take that burden that is being borne by
the victims as well as by us in society and shift it back to
put it back upon those who have caused the harm, back upon the
criminal perpetrators.
However, most crime victims have been unable to gain access
to that civil justice system, primarily because it is not a
matter of law office economics. For most lawyers, it simply
does not make financial sense to just simply represent crime
victims in civil actions as long as it is just against the
criminal perpetrators.
So, with that in mind and to fill that void, in Arizona for
the last 10 years we have provided free, nonprofit legal
representation to crime victims in civil lawsuits directly
against the criminal perpetrators. The results have been quite
dynamic. We have now won over $170 million in judgments--
directly against criminals.
Chairman Leahy. How much?
Mr. Perkins. $170 million in judgments directly and only
against the criminal perpetrators.
Now, what we have found is that many of the crime victims,
as well as the public, have been anxious to have the
opportunity to finally take that full cost of crime and send it
back and place it directly and squarely upon the shoulders of
those who have caused it.
Now, we know that all of that is not going to be
collectable from the criminals. However, we are very pleased to
report that we have actually been able to collect over $2
million of that directly from the criminal perpetrators; 100
percent of that has all gone back to the victims to help
provide that economic restabilization.
Now, one of the things that might come as a bit of a
surprise is that money is not the primary motivating factor for
why the crime victims have requested to have civil remedies.
Rather, the No. 1 reason that they requested the civil remedies
is to help provide an additional sense of emotional healing
that they may not have been able to get in their particular
circumstance through the criminal justice system. Examples of
that may include an opportunity to regain power and control and
the right to make the decisions in the case; an opportunity to
fully tell their side of the story; an opportunity to place
that economic responsibility for the cost of crime personally
and directly upon the perpetrator who caused it.
In other words, the civil justice system can play a very
important part of fulfilling the very purposes for which the
Victims of Crime Act was enacted.
But now for the problem: VOCA does not support civil
actions by crime victims directly. I think, Mr. Chairman, the
reason why that was originally put in VOCA was because we
wanted to make sure that the sacred money of VOCA could not be
used for civil actions against negligent deep pockets of third
parties.
However, with that broad prohibition, we have unnecessarily
restricted victims of crime from being able to put that
financial accountability directly upon the very people that all
of us think should be responsible for it in the first place--
that is, upon the criminal defendants. And as a result, the
victims of crime have only been able to look to secondary
sources for that economic restabilization.
So we come today on behalf of a broad base of victim
service providers throughout Arizona, and we would like to ask
that VOCA--and VAWA as well--allow a very narrow exception that
it can help to provide that emotional healing and economic
restabilization for crime victims and civil actions directly
and only against criminally convicted perpetrators. This will
help victims nationwide be able to gain further access to that
justice that they desire with the help of nonprofit legal
service organizations willing to give it all back to the
victims to help them rebuild their lives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perkins appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Steve Derene is Executive Director of the National
Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators. Since its
creation in 2001, he has represented State agencies and
administers State VOCA victim assistance grants. He has served
as an expert consultant to the U.S. Justice Department Office
for Victims of Crime, formerly the Director of Research and
Information for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, worked in
the Department's Office of Crime Victim Services, is the 2005
recipient of the National Crime Victims Services Award and the
2006 Congressional Crime Victims Lois Haight Award.
Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF STEVE DERENE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATORS,
MADISON, WISCONSIN
Mr. Derene. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Committee. As has been mentioned, it is appropriate that
we are discussing this during the 25th anniversary of the
enactment of VOCA, and while much of the focus has been on the
funding aspects of VOCA, I would just like to acknowledge the
fact that VOCA since its inception has really represented
considerably more than just the dollars, just another funding
stream. It has been very significant, and I think you have
heard some of the reasons why. It really represents a
commitment that the Government made to treat victims with
fairness and dignity and respect about 25 years ago. So I think
it was a catalyst to making much of the improvements throughout
the Nation over the last 25 years. And our challenge now, as
has been mentioned, is: Where are we, and where are we going to
go?
I will just summarize some of what you have heard already
in terms of a national perspective. When VOCA was first adopted
in 1984, the first year there was $68 million collected, and in
2007, there was over $1 billion. And I think that signifies the
resources that are available to help victims of crime.
As has been mentioned, one of the challenges here is how do
you release that money to the field to do what it is intended
to do, and I would just note that under the language of the
statute itself, had there not been a cap, all of that money
would already have been out providing services to victims. And
I think one of the functions that has been served by a cap--and
I think there have been some positive features--and one I think
is necessary for people such as Judy, who administers this
money, is that it is very helpful to have some predictability,
some sustainability of the money going forward. And we know
that money is coming in.
But just to put it in perspective a little bit, from 2006
to 2008, as deposits in the fund increased by 53 percent,
grants to State victim assistance programs were actually cut by
22 percent. And thanks to your efforts and the efforts of
Senators Mikulski and Shelby in 2009, we made some very
important inroads into restoring that money back to the level
it was in 2006. And what we anticipate the funding will be for
State assistance programs in 2009 with the appropriations and
the Recovery Act together will get us back to where we were in
2006. So we are sort of back to square one, and when we hear
proposals for additional uses of VOCA, one of the basic
purposes of VOCA was really to sustain programs, to sustain
services to victims. And as we know, there is a great deal of
additional needs. There are new types of services. There are
new types of victims that we want to respond to: stalking,
identity theft, dating violence. There is a whole panoply--
human trafficking--that we did not recognize 25 years ago. And
so a State's ability to not only sustain programs but to meet
these increasing needs in populations really depends on our
ability to release the money that is there, that is not
taxpayer money, as you know, and that was dedicated both by
statute and in the appropriations solely for the use of
victims.
And so I would sincerely endorse the suggestion that, at
least for 2010, the level of funding of $705 million will
sustain that level that we had in 2006, it will get us back to
2006 with inflation, and begin to make some inroads, very
modest inroads into the ability to meet the ongoing needs. And
so I thank the Committee for all its efforts.
I would just like to respond briefly to Senator Feinstein's
question about the CVRA, and I think that was a very
significant proposal. We understand that the rights there
really pertain to victims in the Federal system, which we are
talking about maybe 1 or 2 percent. But it also contains some
other features. I know it came from Senator Leahy's
contribution to that bill in terms of services, in terms of
funding. I know there are studies underway as far as the
effectiveness of the rights. But one part of that act which I
do think pertains to VOCA as well, there was authorization to
fund victim services in the U.S. Attorney's Offices, legal
clinics, which are very important in defining and establishing
the case law, other compliance programs, notification programs,
and there were a variety of services intended to be supported
without using VOCA funds, to use other funding streams. And I
do not believe any of that money--I believe Congress just
reauthorized those provisions, but I do not believe any money
has ever been appropriated for those services. And I think
those services go toward making the rights effective both at
the Federal level and the State level. And I know the
appropriations process is apart from that, but to the extent
those funding streams are implemented and funded, it will
relieve or be in addition to the amounts available for similar
types of things under VOCA. So I do know as far as the services
and funding parts of that act go, that has not been implemented
at all.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Derene appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Let me start. We have been joined by Senator Klobuchar of
Minnesota, who is also a former prosecutor. I will start with
you, Ms. Russell. It cannot be easy telling the story of what
you went through and having to relive the fact that you nearly
died, aside from the horrendous attack, the rape, the tire iron
to your skull, and all the rest. I commend your bravery because
we have to be reminded periodically that the Victims of Crime
Act, these programs are not just something on paper. There are
real people involved.
You talked about the advice and the help you and your
husband got. What would you say are the most important parts of
help that the two of you got during this time? And were there
things that were not done that should be done? I realize that
is kind of open-ended, but I am just curious. We rarely have
somebody with such firsthand knowledge as yourself before the
Committee.
Ms. Russell. I would say that my awareness of my husband
being a secondary victim really raised the question to me later
on of what kind of services that we could provide family
members. We were fortunate that that rape crisis advocate
recognized that he was a secondary victim and he needed to have
that information. So I look at that.
I also look at the spectrum of all the help that has been
given in terms of relieving that stress of some of the
financial burden. In my particular case, restitution was not
ordered, and so there was no process coming back from that.
I think times have really changed----
Chairman Leahy. I see Mr. Perkins shaking his head on that
one. I thought you might note that.
Go ahead.
Ms. Russell. But this was 17 years ago, and we certainly
have seen a lot of improvement in 17 years.
Chairman Leahy. But you said you had about $30,000 in
medical bills alone.
Ms. Russell. Yes.
Chairman Leahy. The victim compensation cap in Vermont is
$10,000, correct?
Ms. Russell. Correct. We were really fortunate that I live
in a very, very supportive community, and they held fundraisers
for us. I was also able to work with the hospital in reducing
some of those costs. One of my concerns back then was that I
was told that I should have a CAT scan done every couple of
years, and those things are not always covered by medical
insurance. So I was worried about that. So, you know, raising
the cap per victim might be something that should be looked at.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. We will. We will. Did you have
expense out of pocket? Well, obviously you did if they had to
have a fundraiser, they had fundraisers in the community for
you.
Ms. Russell. Yes. I was unable to drive for almost a year,
so we always had to find a way to get me to appointments and
things like that. So that was an additional thing. Losing my
employment was a struggle, but fortunately, we were able to tap
into unemployment. But that is another avenue that might be
considered, too, because somebody might not be eligible for
unemployment.
Chairman Leahy. Let me ask Ms. Rex, the State cap is there
to make sure there is enough money for a victim. If we increase
the cap on spending, do you think that there is a possibility
the State cap, the $10,000, might be raised? And should it be?
Hit the button.
Ms. Rex. Yes, I would love to see the State cap raised. I
think what could help convince the Vermont Legislature to do
something like that would be if the Federal matching dollars
were also increased. I think right now the VOCA match is 60
percent. Is that right? So if that were to go up to, let us
say, 75 percent, then I think Vermont could do the same.
Chairman Leahy. You know, one of the things--and we are
going to be voting on a bill here in just about an hour on the
Senate floor on fraud, mortgage fraud, and other things. We
looked at elderly especially being hit with this, their life
savings gone, their money they set aside for retirement gone;
oftentimes their home, the one area where they have built up
equity, gone, by unscrupulous people. Our bill will allow us to
go after those people and put them in jail. But in the Victims
of Crime Act, is there an emphasis on the elderly?
Ms. Rex. Well, I think one of the challenges for us is
getting the elderly to report the crime in the first place.
Particularly when you are talking about fraud, I think when
they realize that they have been taken advantage of, they are
often embarrassed. They do not want other people to know about
it, and they do not often report it.
But I can tell you, since the center--we now do restitution
for the State of Vermont, and so we process all those
restitution orders, and it was alarming for me to see the
number of elderly people who are the victims of fraud in the
State. And the sad thing is we do put those offenders in jail,
but we rarely collect money from them. And, fortunately,
Vermont does have a restitution fund, and so those victims will
at least get $10,000 out of the fund. But these cases usually
involved over $100,000, their life savings, which they will
never see during their lifetime.
Chairman Leahy. Does anybody else want to add to that just
on the elderly part? Feel free.
Ms. Leary. Senator Leahy, I would add that our toll-free
crime victims helpline receives many, many calls from elderly
victims, and many of them actually find us in the Yellow Pages,
in the phone book. But we have seen an increasing number of
elderly victims of all kinds of financial scams. Just a couple
weeks ago, in fact, we had a call from a man who is over 70 who
lost everything in a Ponzi scheme. It was not Madoff. It was
another case. And there were 50 victims in that case, and none
of those victims had expected to get anything back. And so he
was dealing with the embarrassment and shame of having, you
know, allowed himself to be victimized. That is how he saw it.
He had no idea how to stabilize his financial situation, let
alone where to turn to get some help with the emotional impact
of it.
It is really devastating. You lose your independence and
your hope, really, to live out, you know, a good life for the
remaining years. It is very sad.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I am going to turn to Senator Feinstein. I have to leave
just for a few minutes. I have got a call from the Leader,
apparently, regarding the bill on the floor.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. [Presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for your leadership.
I have been looking at the figures, and what I see is quite
startling to me. I see California in a lose-lose-lose position
in terms of money. No State has been cut more than California,
from $64 million to $31 million. So California has been cut $30
million over the last 5 years.
My question, Mr. Derene, is: Why?
Mr. Derene. If you are referring to the victim assistance
grants, those are distributed among the States. There is a base
amount plus population. And so it is proportionate to the size
of the----
Senator Feinstein. Well, nobody has the population that we
do. We are at 38 million people now, with a high crime rate.
Mr. Derene. Correct. And the distribution of the money that
is available under the victim assistance grants is distributed
proportionately by population, so being the largest State, you
are going to see the largest cut in absolute dollars for your
State.
Senator Feinstein. Is that the way the formula goes?
Mr. Derene. Yes, ma'am. There is a base amount that----
Senator Feinstein. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. Derene. There is a base amount that goes to every
State, and then the amount that remains after that is
distributed among the States based on population.
Senator Feinstein. So if you gain people, as all of the
sunshine States are doing, you lose money.
Mr. Derene. Proportionately.
Senator Feinstein. There are 13 States that have lost
money.
Mr. Derene. Proportionately, yes, every State is going to
lose money when the amount available is cut. And as I said in
my testimony, all States experienced across the board a 22-
percent cut, but a State like California that has a larger
population is going to have proportionately a larger cut in
terms of dollars. That is the statute.
Senator Feinstein. Then it seems to me we need to fix the
formula so that does not happen. I will do the research and
look into what California produces for the program and try to
make a determination whether we get our fair share. But to cut
the money in half when no other State takes that kind of hit
because the State has no way of controlling the people that
come to the State, I think, I must tell you, is grossly unfair
and unacceptable.
Mr. Derene. And that is in the statute, so every State is
going to be cut, and it is going to be approximately within a
similar range. But a larger State, obviously----
Senator Feinstein. But what you just told me is that you
are penalized if you gain population. You do not lose when you
lose population. Maybe we should take a look at that. But you
lose when you gain population. That is reverse of the way most
things are figured on a fair basis.
Mr. Derene. Every State--if the amount available nationally
declines, every State is going to lose. Some States will lose
proportionately a little bit more than others.
Senator Feinstein. I look at the big States--Texas, New
York, Florida, and California. None of those other States have
lost. Only California has lost. And something is not right, and
it would be my intention to find out what it is. I would like
to have you know that.
Mr. Derene. Excuse me. Are you referring to the victim
assistance chart or the compensation chart?
Senator Feinstein. Compensation.
Mr. Derene. Okay. I am sorry. I am referring to the
assistance. Compensation is a different matter. I apologize,
because I was responding to a different program.
The compensation grants are based solely on how much the
State uses of its State dollars to pay out compensation
benefits, so that decline is because the State used fewer State
dollars to make compensation benefits, and that is based in the
statute. As Judy mentioned, each State gets a percentage. It is
60 percent of what they used State dollars for. And, frankly,
over time it may vary because, as States get larger grants,
they are going to use less of State money. And if they use less
of State money, they will get more in Federal money. And so
there is sort of a natural fluctuation.
Senator Feinstein. Where is the chart that says how much
Federal money States get? I am reading your materials.
Mr. Derene. There is a chart there for victim compensation
that will show you how much State money each State received for
the last several years, and I think you would be accurate in
terms of compensation that, if California's VOCA grant went
down, it is because the State paid out less. But that year they
probably used more Federal money for benefits. That is going to
vary from State to State.
Senator Feinstein. So I really need to figure this because
if I follow your chart, in grants we have gone from $44.9
million to $40 million, $40.8 million, in 5 years.
Mr. Derene. If you go back, you will see----
Senator Feinstein. No, 4 years.
Mr. Derene. If you go back several years, you will see
California, I think there was a year where it received over
$100 million. And that all depends on how much the State
program pays out using State dollars.
Senator Feinstein. So do you add the two together? How do
you----
Mr. Derene. Every year the VOCA grant to a State is based
on how much the State paid out the 2 years prior in State
money. The State certifies an amount to the Federal Government,
and that is the basis for determining how much their VOCA
compensation grant will be.
Senator Feinstein. Well, this bears some additional
research.
Mr. Derene. It is not easy. I understand.
Senator Feinstein. I will ask my staff to do it so that I
get a clear picture. Thank you very much.
Ms. Russell, I must say, I am one that believes that we are
sorely tested in life, and how we measure up to those tests is
really the measure of the kind of person we are. And let me
just say you have certainly measured up to your test. It is
incredible, and it is wonderful to see you smiling and well and
here. And so I just want to--I wish this were California wine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. But I just want to raise my glass to you
and say, you know, much of the best to you.
Ms. Russell. Thank you so much.
Senator Feinstein. You are very welcome.
Senator, would you like to ask some questions?
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
Thank you for your leadership in this area for so many years.
And, again, I would echo what Senator Feinstein said, Ms.
Russell. Thank you for having the courage to come forward and
talk about what happened to you. Many people cannot do that,
and that you have been able to do this is so helpful to so many
other victims. You are not just speaking for yourself. You are
speaking for them.
I wanted to talk a little bit about actually what Ms. Leary
had raised, and these are white-collar crimes, because I see
that we are seeing an increase in those kinds of crimes, and I
have known firsthand the hope that these victims need. And what
I always remember when I was county attorney in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, managing an office of about 400 people, we
had an incredibly active victim witness program, and it was one
of--we think it was one of the best in the country, but it was
certainly one of the most active. I saw the hope that the
program gave not only in individual compensation and helping
victims, as they should be helped, but it also helped us with
our prosecutions and mentally, because people felt comfortable
to come forward. The shame that you alluded to, Ms. Leary,
where victims do not want to come forward, they are scared, to
have someone there with them every step of the way makes a
difference.
But the white-collar area, what I most remember of this is
we had--I spoke to one of our victim witness advocates once in
a case, and I saw there were deputies outside of our courtroom.
And I said, ``Oh, that must be that gang case you are doing,
huh?'' She said, ``No. It is that white-collar case.'' I said,
``What?'' And she said that there was--I think she was about 85
years old--a widow who was so angry because her husband, he had
died, but he had invested his money, all their life savings
with someone, and that guy then happened to go and spend all
their money. He pretended he was religious, he was using the
money to invest in religious things. And he ended up going down
to Costa Rica for plastic surgery with all their money. And
there were a number of victims in the case, and that 85-year-
old woman was so angry and had said some threatening things
about the victim, that is why those deputies were outside the
door. And I remember that because it just hit to me how these
white-collar cases for many good reasons--as you said, people's
life savings down the drain--can have the kinds of emotions and
difficulties for people, and we have to remember that. And as
we look at these increasing white-collar cases, whether it is
the Madoff case or any others that are coming through the
system, we have to remember that.
I wondered, first of all, Ms. Leary, and then maybe Ms.
Rex, you both have raised this issue, if you could talk a
little bit about the kinds of programs you would want to see
how we could address those kinds of needs of these victims of
white-collar crimes.
Ms. Leary. Thank you. We are very concerned about this,
and, you know, currently under the regulations, the Federal
regulations, the States have the ability to pay for financial
counseling and mental health counseling for victims of
financial crime through the compensation programs. But, you
know, as I said in my testimony, they are very reluctant to
expand that pool of eligible victims. The assistance programs
could be developed for these victims, but there is a tremendous
amount of competition for the funds that are available. You can
see even some people go ``Oooh'' when Mr. Perkins testified,
because people are nervous about being able to preserve what we
have now. And, in fact, there is a huge need. Victims of
financial crime need a tremendous amount of guidance.
It is a complex world out there. The crooks are way ahead
of law enforcement in terms of their sophistication, and so
unraveling the damage that is done to your credit history, to
your reputation, there may be warrants out for your arrest be
somebody has misused your information, you know, restoring your
fiscal stability is only one part of it.
People need those services. They need the mental health
counseling. They need some very practical, hand-holding
financial advice. They need connections to pro bono or low-cost
consumer attorneys. People forget that it often requires
litigation to get your life back on track, to ward off those
creditors, to restore your financial well-being, get your
credit history repaired, get those arrest warrants that are
based on false information quashed.
People need legal assistance to do this, and particularly
less sophisticated and perhaps older folks are just completely
stunned by what confronts them. So they need those services,
absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Ms. Rex, do you want to add anything?
Ms. Rex. I would just say that I do think, as an
administrator of a compensation program, you know, that the
face of crime changes with the decades. And I think we do need
to look at as the pool of elders grows in Vermont and in this
country, to look at what is happening to them. And our
compensation program does provide the financial counseling, and
we will do the mental health counseling. But I think we need to
start looking at helping people with their living expenses if
they do not have any money to live and making sure they get to
stay in their home.
So I think those are some of the challenges we need to look
at in the years to come.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you for appreciating that because,
you know, we had one person that could not qualify for student
loans because her ID was stolen 4 years before. She did not
think much of it. She just got a new one. And then she had
racked up 14 prostitution convictions, which, of course, was
not her, and she could not get any student aid and was going to
have to drop out of college. So there is this whole grouping of
services that normal county attorneys or State attorneys'
offices are not used to providing. And so we have to find some
way to help these victims of identity theft and much more
complicated crimes than that.
Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. [Presiding.] Thank you. Thank you very
much, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend
you particularly for standing up for the rights of victims. We
have had an excellent panel, and I am sorry that I have missed
at least part of this. This is a hectic morning, even by Senate
standards.
I strongly support the legislation involved here, the
Victims of Crime Act. It is the bedrock of support for victims'
services across the country. And I think a number of you have
made some good suggestions with respect to updating the law.
My first question is directed to you, Mr. Derene, because I
think you have laid out particularly some of the issues with
respect to the cap on payments from the fund that was
established in the legislation. As you noted in your testimony,
in 2000 Congress put the cap on. It was designed to deal with
fluctuations in the deposits into the fund. And I think it
would be helpful if you could describe to the Committee what
the negative consequences are because there is this cap.
Mr. Derene. Thank you. I think the problem with the cap is
that the formula for distributing the fund according to the
statute--and we just went through part of the problem--is kind
of complicated. But the bottom line is that the amount
available for State assistance programs, many of the ones that
we have been talking about here, is sort of at the bottom of
the food chain. So unless the cap is set at a sufficient level,
the amounts that go for other programs increase, or if the cap
is lowered, the amounts available for States decline. And it is
a simple matter of the operation of the formula in the statute.
So what we have seen is that while deposits have actually
increased, the amount available for State programs has
declined. And, in fact, you may have gotten letters from
constituents why if the cap is raised, the programs are still
getting cut. And part of it is because of that formula.
As a result of those cuts--as I mentioned, between 2006 and
2008, there has been a cut of $87 million, or 22 percent--State
programs at the State level try to buffer those cuts. But at
some point in time, we pay the piper. The loss of money is
seen, and we have just seen that in a recent report by the
Office for Victims of Crime where in 2008 the number of victims
served by this program nationally was actually reduced by over
336,000 victims.
Senator Wyden. Why would this be the right time to raise
the cap? You know, obviously, when you are talking about this,
you are always in a balancing act. You have got to ensure the
stability of the fund. All of you are interested in that, and I
think at the same time, we understand there are a number of
critical services for victims that need to be addressed.
So if someone asked you who was skeptical of this, you
know, why should we do it right now, what would be your answer?
Mr. Derene. Of course, I think it is always the right time
to raise the gap. And I would simply point out that under the
statute, if there had not been a cap, all of this money that we
are talking about, about $2 billion that we are talking about
that has been retained in the fund, would already have been out
serving victims. And as was mentioned before, you cannot delay
services to victims. If a woman needs shelter, she needs
shelter now. She does not need it, you know, in 6 months or
when the cap is raised. So I always think there is a need
I did a survey of State administrators and simply said,
``What is the gap between the amount of funds that you have
been asked to award and how much you had available? And
nationally that was over $100 million.
Senator Wyden. How would you prioritize the services that
could be offered if the cap was raised?
Mr. Derene. Well, I think the first--very honestly, I think
the first need now is to restore what has been cut. We have had
programs that have shut their doors, staffs that have been laid
off, so we are really looking at trying to get back to where we
were, and I think there is a host of needs there for shelter.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence does an annual
census, and they reported, I believe, on one day some 9,000
requests for services have been denied because of lack of
funding.
So there are immediate needs for counseling, for shelter,
for emergency support that I think would be the first priority
among States if they were able to get more funds.
Senator Wyden. I have not meant to ignore the other four
very valuable witnesses. Would any of you like to add a comment
both with respect to the question of raising the cap and the
priorities for services if the cap was raised?
Ms. Leary. Thank you, Senator. I would like to just add
that not only is there a need for additional VOCA funding to
release more of those funds, but we need to have steady,
predictable increases in funding, because, you know, it is kind
of like your family budget. If you know how much you are going
to make that year, then you may not like it, but you can decide
what to do with it. And it is the same thing with victims'
services. You need to have a steady increase, a predictable
increase, so that you can ensure the continuity of staff,
ensure the continuity of services. Victims can rely on you.
They know 6 months from now you will still be doing whatever
the service is that they need. And, in addition, victim service
providers can focus on their mission, which is serving victims
of crime, and not be distracted and totally preoccupied all the
time with raising money and worrying about laying your staff
off and so on. That predictability is equally important.
Ms. Rex. I would echo what Mary Lou just said, but I would
also say that one of the things we have been able to do in
Vermont is to use the VOCA funds to leverage other funding. So
when I get new VOCA funds, I am able to pilot a new program
that is serving, you know, some crime victims that are
currently not being served. And after a couple years, if I can
show good results, it is really valuable for me to bring to the
State legislature and say, look, you need to invest in this
program, too.
So I think that is another reason why we really need to
give States a steady increase each year so that we can do these
kind of innovative programs.
Senator Wyden. I went to school on a basketball
scholarship, and they always said you should take one shot to
close on. And sometimes it would take me a long, long time to
get that shot to wrap up. But I think your comment really
summed it up and why Chairman Leahy's hearing is so important.
If you look back at the history of this legislation, when
the Victims of Crime Act was passed, there was not a whole lot
at the State level. There certainly was not a lot of State
initiative in this area, programs and funding and the like. And
as a result of this legislation, just as you have suggested,
when there is attention at the Federal level, when there is
attention on the rights of victims, it does spread fairly
quickly to the State level, and we see interest among
nonprofits and service organizations. So there are many reasons
why we should bolster this act now as we look back on 25 years
particularly of the work you all and others have done at
protecting and supporting victims.
But one of the most important is when there is Federal
leadership. Just as you suggest, it does spread to the State
level, to nonprofits, to organizations outside Washington, D.C.
So your point is one to quit on.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for your leadership on
this issue, and as I have told you before, it is a pleasure to
serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Chairman Leahy. Well, we have got a chance to do things
that so many of us agree with, and I know this is an area where
you have been a strong supporter, and I appreciate that.
With that, we will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]