[Senate Hearing 112-356]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-356
FULFILLING OUR COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT VICTIMS OF CRIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 13, 2011
__________
Serial No. J-112-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-846 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa...... 3
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, prepared
statement...................................................... 63
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 65
WITNESSES
Burbank, Kent, Director, Victim Services Division, Pima County,
Attorney's Office, Tucson, Arizona............................. 7
Garvin, Margaret, Executive Director, National Crime Victim Law
Institute, and Clinical Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law
School, Portland, Oregon....................................... 10
Leary, Mary Lou, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC................................................. 5
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Kent Burbank to questions submitted by Senator Kyl.. 27
Responses of Margaret Garvin to questions submitted by Senator
Kyl............................................................ 31
Responses of Mary Lou Leary to questions submitted by Senators
Grassley and Kyl............................................... 35
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Burbank, Kent, Director, Victim Services Division, Pima County,
Attorney's Office, Tucson, Arizona, statement.................. 40
Farr, Amy, Victim Advocate, Vermont Attorney General's Office,
Montpelier, Vermont, statement................................. 49
Garvin, Margaret, Executive Director, National Crime Victim Law
Institute, and Clinical Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law
School, Portland, Oregon, statement............................ 54
Leary, Mary Lou, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 67
FULFILLING OUR COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT VICTIMS OF CRIME
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken,
Blumenthal, and Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good morning. I apologize. Things with the
budget and all have been a little bit mixed up on schedules,
and Senator Grassley and I have been going in three different
directions trying to get things scheduled all at once. But I
appreciate the people who are here.
We had one other witness from Vermont, but she has a family
emergency, and she will not be here.
But this week is the 30th annual National Crime Victims'
Rights Week. I was here in the Senate for the first one, and I
thought how overdue it was 30 years ago to begin, and
fortunately we have kept it going. We recognize the losses
suffered by crime victims and their families, and we
acknowledge the hard work being done to help people rebuild
their lives after tragedy hits. It would be a cruel irony if
this were the week the Crime Victims Fund was gutted, as was
suggested in some news accounts yesterday. No one should be
contemplating raiding this vital resource for crime victims for
some shortsighted, short-term advantage.
I know the needs. I have seen the needs. I saw it as a
prosecutor, and I have seen it as a Senator.
For nearly three decades, the Crime Victims Fund has played
a central role in providing help to crime victims. We created
the fund in the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. It has been the
primary way that the Federal Government supports crime victims
and their families. It funds State victim assistance and
compensation programs that serve nearly 4 million crime victims
each year. These services are priceless to the people they
support, but they cost taxpayers nothing. It is supported by
fines and penalties paid by Federal criminal offenders, not by
taxpayer dollars.
I have always thought the irony is if we have a victim of a
serious crime and we catch the person, we can spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars--sometimes it is very necessary--to
prosecute the person who did it, to lock them up, to keep them
there. And the victim is told, ``You are on your own.''
Something is upside down in a case like that. It is almost like
they are victimized twice.
After the tragedy, if you will recall, in Oklahoma City, I
worked with this Committee and the Appropriations Committee to
ensure that there would be funds available to help victims of
mass violence and also to provide a ``rainy day'' reserve. We
did this because nobody can predict with certainty in advance.
We certainly could not predict something like Oklahoma City. So
instead of distributing all of the funds collected the previous
year, we have a trust fund with deposits retained so that in
leaner years crime victims and their advocates are not left
stranded without resources.
More recently, when some, including former President Bush,
sought to go into that trust fund and take the reserves, I
worked hard and I got Senators from both parties to work with
me to protect the fund and ensure that the reserves were
preserved for their intended purpose, and only one: helping
crime victims. I remain committed to maintaining that reserve.
I also want to make sure increased funds are there. No less
than Social Security and other trusts that the American people
have established, the Crime Victims Fund represents our
commitment to crime victims. It should be respected and
honored. It cannot be used just as some kind of a convenient
piggybank.
So it is fitting that this Committee today considers what
the Federal Government has been doing to support those whose
lives have been affected by crime and what more we can do to
renew this vital commitment. These efforts have never been more
important than they are today. Difficult economic times have
stretched our State and local services, including victim
services, to the breaking point. That is in virtually every
State in this country. Families, made more vulnerable by
financial stress, struggle more than ever to overcome the
emotional, financial, and physical damage caused by crime, and
they need help.
The theme of this year's Crime Victims' Rights Week,
``Reshaping the Future, Honoring the Past,'' is appropriate.
Let us take stock of what we have accomplished in these past
three decades and determine what is needed ahead. As a country,
we have made great strides in three decades in addressing the
needs of crime victims, but we also know we can do more.
Crime changes. Our responses have to adapt in turn. You
have complicated financial offenses on the rise in the form of
identity theft and mortgage fraud. Nobody really thought 30
years of the problems of identity theft. We did not have the
Internet, we did not have all these other things. Victims of
these crimes have unique needs. The elderly, who make up an
increasing population in many of our communities, are being
targeted with greater frequency. They often require specialized
services to recover from abuse and exploitation. There is a
greater need for legal services to help crime victims with
housing and medical needs, immigration, and the financial
consequences of crime. Transitional housing services are more
essential than ever for crime victims in difficult times.
Also, as the criminal justice community becomes
increasingly and appropriately focused on evidence-based
practices grounded in scientific research, it is becoming ever
clearer how much more data we need about crime victims--who
they are, how they are victimized, what needs they have, and
what services help. I think it is this kind of comprehensive
research that is going to make it a lot easier with what
resources they do have for States to tailor their needs.
I know our witnesses have been thinking about these issues,
and I look forward to learning from their experience. I am
sorry, as I said, that Amy Farr, who serves as Victim Advocate
in Vermont's Attorney General's Office, has a family emergency
and could not be here, so she will submit her written
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farr appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. I also want to thank Robert Paolini. He is
Chairman of the Board of the Vermont Center for Crime Victims
Services, for attending this hearing.
Just on a personal note, Bob, you help us in Vermont all
the time, and you make me extraordinarily proud of what you do.
You have always been there.
So, with that, Senator Grassley.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. I think you and I agree on this subject,
so I do not know whether I need to speak or not. But I have not
said it, and every Senator wants to say it himself, right? I
also want to notify you that I have got the 10:30 time reserved
on the floor of the Senate, so I will be absent a little while.
Thank you for this hearing. Thank you to the witnesses as
well. Crime victims deserve better than they have been getting.
Crime victims receive compensation and assistance, as we know,
from this Crime Victims Fund. It is not dependent on tax
revenue. It is funded for the purpose of helping crime victims,
and it comes from fines and penalties paid by those convicted.
For more than a decade now, there has been a cap on the
amount of funds that each year can be distributed to victims.
The Chairman and I recently wrote a letter to the Budget
Committee in which we asked that the cap of the next fiscal
year be raised more than 30 percent from current levels. That
is a much larger increase than is proposed by the
administration. The cap illustrates the problems with so many
Federal grant programs. Programs get created. Sometimes they
duplicate existing programs. They do not get fully funded. So
the effectiveness of the program is often not as strong as it
could be.
We should be cautious about creating new programs, Mr.
Chairman, for victims until we raise the VOCA cap to funding
existing programs the way they ought to be funded. The failure
to adequately raise the cap means that the number of victims
who receive assistance under the existing program has fallen in
recent years. It is not right. Nor is it right to talk about
new programs until existing ones and the victims who benefit
from them receive the adequate support, especially support that
does not derive from taxpayer dollars.
The administration is following a different path, however.
They have not proposed raising the cap by nearly enough. It is
this sort of gamesmanship with the VOCA funds that has let
crime victims down. Capping the fund has limited the resources
that are provided to victim services and the organizations
thereof throughout the country. Instead, the fund has built up
an unobligated balance of over $6 billion. The limited
disbursement has led to the creation of additional grant
programs to provide service to victims. These grants break the
formula of the VOCA fund by using taxpayer dollars to fund
victim programs instead of the fines placed in the VOCA fund
from convicted criminals.
Another consequence of this cap is highlighted in the
forthcoming continuing resolution that was recently negotiated
by the President and the Congress. Unfortunately, the proposal
includes a number of budget gimmicks that are more sleight of
hand than funding cuts. One of those gimmicks impacts the VOCA
fund. In the legislation, nearly $5 billion in unobligated
balances held in this fund is rescinded to the general
treasury, so all the money that we have been supposedly holding
onto for victims has now gone to pay for spending in other
programs that have not been cut. This is the wrong policy. If
we are serious about cuts, we should cut spending, not simply
writing that spending off with non-taxpayer dollars from this
fund.
I have concerns with the President's budget for fiscal year
2012 and the way it deals with crime victims. The President has
proposed zeroing out an important existing program, the Federal
Victim Notification Program. This program notifies victims when
the perpetrator who offended against them will be released from
incarceration. Congress passed a list of victims' rights, which
includes the right to be notified of the release of criminal
offenders who harm them. Apparently, the fiscal year 2012
budget does not recognize this basic victim right.
Until just last week, the administration was willing to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try terrorists in
downtown Manhattan, but opposed spending $7 million to notify
crime victims that the person who harmed them would be
released.
It is against this backdrop of tough budget decisions that
we must address the issue of the VOCA cap along with
duplication, overlap, and fraud in grant programs. While I
strongly support pushing more VOCA money out to the victims and
victim support groups, which is the money from the people
convicted of a crime, I believe we need to take a hard look at
other grant programs. I think we need a comprehensive review of
grant programs to review where savings can be achieved.
I would note the testimony of Mary Lou Leary from the
Department of Justice supports my calls for a review. She
states in her written testimony, ``We need rigorous evaluations
of victim service programs to learn what works and what does
not work.''
So I agree, especially in light of the fact that in the
last 10 years the Inspector General has found serious problems
with many of the individual grantees funded by the Department
of Justice. In fact, in the last 10 years, the Inspector
General has reviewed 19 grants involving funding for victim
programs. Of those 19, the Inspector General found 15 that
contained unallowable costs, unsupported documentation, and
other problems.
One stunning example: This report examined the Legal
Assistance for Victims Grant Program administered by the
Community Legal Aid Society in Delaware. The Inspector General
found that the grantee was in material noncompliance with grant
requirements. Further, because of the deficiencies, the
Inspector General questioned over $829,000, which accounted for
93 percent of the grant.
So here we are. Given the dire fiscal situation the Federal
Government faces, it is more important than ever to ensure that
Federal dollars are spent in an efficient way. As we study how
to provide victims of crime receive the help they deserve, we
need to examine both the source of funding as well as how the
grantee utilized those funds.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley.
We will begin with Mary Lou Leary, who is no stranger to
this Committee. She is the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of
Justice. She has held that position since September 2009. Prior
to rejoining the Department in May of 2009, she served as
executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime,
and we talked to her in that time, too, and she has also
previously held a number of positions within the Department of
Justice, serving as United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia. We have one other former United States Attorney on
this Committee with Senator Whitehouse. She was Acting Director
of the Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, Deputy
Associate Attorney General. She earned her bachelor's at
Syracuse University, a master's at Ohio State, and her law
degree at Northeastern University School of Law.
Ms. Leary, always good to have you here. Go ahead, please.
STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Leary. It is a pleasure, Senator Leahy.
Chairman Leahy and distinguished members of this Committee,
thank you so much for inviting me here today, and I am pleased
to talk about what we do in order to fulfill our obligations to
victims of crime.
The Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs has
a broad mission, but it includes providing resources and
leadership to support key services for crime victims.
My own personal commitment goes well beyond the Office of
Justice Programs. As the Senator just said, I am a former
United States Attorney in the District of Columbia and a local
prosecutor in Massachusetts. So I have been working with
victims pretty much my entire career, and I am very proud to
have served as the director of the National Center for Victims
of Crime, a national nonprofit here in Washington.
As you know, this is National Crime Victims' Rights Week,
and just last week the Attorney General at a special ceremony
honored men and women from across this country who have devoted
their lives to serving victims of crime. Several of the people
who were honored actually were victims themselves and had used
that experience to help others. The stories that they told
remind us that crime victims must never be forgotten. Justice
for victims is justice for all.
I do not think there is any better example of that kind of
commitment than what we have seen in Arizona, in the wake of
the shootings there. I am proud to be on the same panel with
Kent Burbank, who has done so much to help Pima County, and the
State of Arizona, recover.
This is the 30th anniversary of the first National Crime
Victims' Rights Week, as the Senator said. During this Reagan
Centennial year, we should really honor that part of his
legacy, which is lesser known than other aspects of his
administration. Thirty years ago victims were almost entirely.
They had no rights; they had very little support.
So in 1982, President Reagan commissioned the Task Force on
Victims of Crime. They held hearings across this Nation, and
actually several of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office
in D.C. staffed that commission. Their findings led to the
establishment of the Office for Victims of Crime in 1983. And
then in 1984, the VOCA statute was passed into law. That
created the Crime Victims Fund, which Senator Leahy has
described for us. And since then, more than $8 billion from the
Crime Victims Fund has been distributed to States and to
communities.
So what does that mean? In human terms, it means 2 million
victims have received compensation, and more than 67 million
victims have received counseling, courtroom advocacy, temporary
housing, and other services. Funds also have been used to aid
other victims of terrorism and to train thousands of victim
service providers.
Every year 87 percent of the Crime Victims Fund allocations
go directly to the States, and, believe me, those funds are
sorely needed in these budget times.
Last night, thinking about the hearing, I was re-reading
the 1982 task force report. Ironically, it cited that very same
fact 30 years ago. They said, ``These are tough budget times.
States are having to cut back, and victim service providers are
suffering.'' So here we are. Deja-vu all over again.
We would like to assume, of course, that all victims will
be taken care of, but that is simply not the case, especially
for elderly victims, victims of financial fraud, human
trafficking, crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgendered people. And, in fact, just like 30 years ago
today, 51 percent of violent crimes still go unreported. It is
the exact same statistic.
Crime victimization itself is also changing with the advent
of technology. It actually makes the criminals more anonymous,
and the victims are sometimes harder to identify. Because
victimization is changing, victim services must also change,
and that is the goal of Vision 21. It is a marvelous initiative
of the Office for Victims of Crime at the Department of
Justice. They are undertaking a comprehensive analysis of crime
victim services, who are the victims, what do they need, how
can we serve them better, how can we serve them smarter.
Several themes have emerged from that. One of the most
powerful is the need for wrap-around services for victims of
crime. Victims need legal services; they need civil legal
assistance. They need legal assistance in the criminal justice
system and all kinds of support mechanisms.
Another major theme of Vision 21 is technology. How can we
use technology to better serve victims? And how can we better
understand the technology that is used in victimization?
The Vision 21 recommendations will be fleshed out in a full
report, and I cannot wait to share that report with this
Committee.
Please be assured that the Department of Justice will not
waver in its dedication to serving victims of crime, and we
welcome any suggestions from you all about how our efforts can
be improved.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And it is interesting. I
remember my conversations with President Reagan during this
time of his interest in this area, and that was extremely
helpful to get the bipartisan support we needed for the
legislation.
Kent Burbank is the director of the Victim Services
Division of the Pima County Attorney's Office in Tucson. He has
held that position since 2007.
I was surprised by this number. You and your staff serve
nearly 8,000 crime victims a year. Of course, the one that
everybody in America saw was at the January 8 shooting of
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others.
Mr. Burbank and his office coordinated dozens of staff and
volunteer victim advocates who supported the victims and their
families at the crime scene. In recognition of his work in
response to that horrible tragedy and other good work, he
received the 2011 Arizona Attorney General's Distinguished
Service Award. He has worked for more than two decades in local
social and human services. He has a master's degree in social
service administration from the University of Chicago.
We hope you can continue to help crime victims out there,
Mr. Burbank. Everybody here, and I am sure you especially,
hopes you will never have another situation like the one you
had in January. Please go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF KENT BURBANK, DIRECTOR, VICTIM SERVICES DIVISION,
PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TUCSON, ARIZONA
Mr. Burbank. Thank you. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman
and honorable Senators. My name is Kent Burbank, and I am the
director of the Victim Services Division of the Pima County
Attorney's Office in Tucson, Arizona.
On January 8, 2011, indeed our close-knit community was
shaken by the tragic and senseless shooting that took place at
Representative Giffords' ``Congress on the Corner'' event. The
havoc created by one man's horrific act left 6 people dead, 13
injured, over 100 witnesses in shock and panic, and a community
stunned.
Victim advocates from our office were among the first
responders. Within minutes, we had several advocates on-scene,
and within an hour, we had 35 advocates deployed across Tucson,
including at the four hospitals that were receiving the
wounded.
I was at the crime scene along with Pima County Attorney
Barbara LaWall for most of the day coordinating communication
and overseeing our advocacy efforts. Throughout the day and
night, our victim advocates worked with literally hundreds of
victims, witnesses, and their family members, providing them
with crisis intervention services and emotional support. On
more than one occasion our advocates had to deliver the
difficult news to family members that their loved one had been
killed.
Angela Robinson is the daughter of two of the January 8th
shooting victims. Angela's mother was gravely wounded in the
shooting, and her father was killed. Angela described how
incredibly difficult the day was for her and her family. She
told how her sister and brother-in-law ``raced to the Safeway,
ran through the carnage, frantically looking for Mom and Dad,
while Mom kept talking to my sister on her cell phone and Dad
lay dying on her lap.''
Angela recounted how her son met them minutes later at the
hospital to ``find his grandmother covered in blood, five
gunshot holes in her legs.'' Angela said to me, ``Victim
Services was beside them. Victim Services provided the trauma
counselor to guide my precious loved ones not only through
grief and loss but extreme violent trauma.''
This is a testament to the critical importance of having
highly trained, experienced, and professional victim advocates
in our communities. With over 35 years of experience, ours was
one of the first programs of its kind in the Nation. Over the
years our advocates have been called out to work with victims
of natural disasters and terrorism, including the Oklahoma City
bombings and 9/11. Currently under the leadership of Pima
County Attorney Barbara LaWall, our Victim Service Division has
a staff of 28 employees and more than 120 volunteers that allow
us to do this work.
The Pima County Attorney's Office has been very fortunate
to have just received an Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance
grant through the Victim of Crimes Act, otherwise known as
VOCA, to help us meet the ongoing needs of the January 8th
tragedy victims over the next several years as the cases move
through the courts. Without these VOCA funds, our resources
would have been strained to meet the needs.
But the downturn in the economy has put a tremendous strain
on our partner service organizations in the community.
Nationally, most of the newly founded legal clinics for victims
are in crisis. Since 2004, when Congress passed the Justice for
All Act, which enumerated the rights for Federal crime victims
and included funding for the enforcement of these rights, 11
clinics have opened across the country. But despite their
successes, virtually all these clinics will be closed by the
end of the year without further action by Congress to support
their work.
In Arizona, the recession has meant a significant decrease
in State and local funding for victim services and for victims.
There has been a 42-percent reduction in State funds for
domestic violence services and shelter since 2008. Tucson's
primary domestic violence service agency, Emerge! Center
Against Domestic Abuse, lost 24 percent of its State funding
for shelter services over the past couple years. Sarah Jones,
the executive director of Emerge! said to me, ``Our shelter
beds are full, our phone lines are ringing day and night, and
we are turning away on average 10 to 12 women a week.''
Cuts in private and public health care coverage have made
it difficult for victims to get medications they need for
conditions like depression and anxiety that are a direct result
of their victimization. Foreclosures and cuts in housing
assistance have forced domestic violence victims to return to
their abusers or sleep in their cars.
During these troubling economic times, communities depend
on victim compensation and victim assistance funds provided by
VOCA and also by the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. This is
precisely the time when the Federal Government should be
increasing funding to victims and victim service organizations
by raising the VOCA cap. VOCA funds come entirely from fines
and fees and other assessments on criminals, not tax dollars.
So increasing this fund cap would immediately result in more
funds flowing to the victims who most need them.
It is not only the compassionate and right thing to do, but
it also makes financial sense. If these funds do not come from
criminal activity, they will most likely come from local
communities and State governments, who will pay them in the
form of higher unemployment claims, Medicare and Medicaid
costs, and community mental health services.
In Arizona, we are fortunate to benefit from some of the
most robust victims' rights statutes in the Nation. These
rights make a real difference in the lives of victims,
affording them a measure of fairness, dignity, and respect in a
system that is often confusing and overwhelming. And these
rights co-exist harmoniously with the rights of the accused
within the criminal justice system.
Victims' rights statutes are an advance over the days in
which victims were left uninformed about proceedings, excluded
from hearings and courtrooms, and denied the ability to confer
with prosecutors. But more work needs to be done because we
know that these rights and protections are incomplete and
inconsistent across the Nation.
So it is crucial that we finish the work begun by President
Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime. We should carry out
its recommendation for a Federal constitutional amendment
recognizing victims' rights and providing uniform protection
for all Americans.
I want to end with the words of Susie Hileman, one of the
victims of the January 8th shooting, who said, ``I could not
have managed to sit in the arraignment without Victim Services.
You anticipated my fears and my tears, and you had people
surrounding me. You answered my questions and told me the
truth. You are my touchstone in an otherwise unwieldy and
overwhelming process. I could not have done it without you.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burbank appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Burbank.
Meg Garvin is currently the executive director of the
National Crime Victim Law Institute and clinical professor of
law at the Lewis & Clark Law School. She also co-chairs the
Oregon Attorney General's Crime Victims' Rights Task Force,
serves on the Legislative and Public Policy Committee of the
Oregon Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force, served as
co-chair of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice
Section Victims Committee, was a board member of the National
Organization of Victim Assistance, undergraduate at University
of Puget Sound, master's in communications studies from the
University of Iowa--I will have to remind Senator Grassley--and
her law degree from the University of Minnesota Law School. And
I do not have to remind Senator Klobuchar or Senator Franken.
We are surrounded by people from Minnesota here today.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. Go ahead, Ms. Garvin.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET GARVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CRIME VICTIM LAW INSTITUTE, AND CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF LAW,
LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL, PORTLAND, OREGON
Ms. Garvin. Thank you. It is a good way to be surrounded.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, thank you so much
for having me here today. It is quite an honor to be here
during the 30th National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
I want to spend some time talking about the theme of this
year's Crime Victims' Rights Week, which is, ``Reshaping the
Future, Honoring the Past.'' And the reason I want to spend
some time on that theme is because we have made commitments to
victims in this country, and our history shows what those are,
and our history also shows us how we can fulfill those
commitments to crime victims.
The history of victims in this country going back more than
30 years, if we go back to the founding, shows that victims
were an integral part of our criminal justice system from the
start. And yet sometime over the years at some point they
became mere witnesses to cases and pieces of evidence in those
cases, and that was shown quite dramatically in the 1970s and
early 1980s when literally victims were asked to sit outside
courtroom doors, peek through cracks in the door to try and see
what was happening. We know that Vince and Roberta Roper, whose
daughter was kidnapped, raped, and murdered, were literally
told to sit outside during the trial of the offender in that
case. And that was happening in nearly every case. It was
happening in homicide cases, sexual assault cases, domestic
violence cases. It was happening throughout the 1970s and
1980s; victims were mere pieces of evidence in a case. They
were not treated with humanity and dignity.
To remedy that imbalance, fortunately, a lot of laws have
been passed. They have been passed in every State. More than 30
States--33 actually have passed State constitutional
amendments. Every State has passed a statutory scheme or system
to afford victims rights. But what is interesting is when you
look nationally, the rights vary greatly. So quite literally,
we have what I call, when I do my more informal trainings, the
``Judge Judy/Judge Joe effect.'' Depending on which judge you
are in front of, you get different rights if you are a crime
victim in this country. And it can happen within a State, it
can happen across State borders, and it certainly happens if
you are in a State system versus the Federal system. You are
treated differently.
Fortunately, efforts at the Federal level have passed
statutes that have allowed for some similarity of treatment,
some fairness to happen for crime victims regardless of what
system they are in. The key piece of that legislation was the
Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. That Act provides
eight specific rights to crime victims to allow them
participatory status in the system, and most importantly, it
allows them independent standing, which means that the rights
are actually owned by the victim. They get to assert them when
they want. They get to say what they want when they need to say
it.
The very first Federal circuit court that analyzed the
Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act was Kenna v. District Court,
and that happened in the Ninth Circuit. That court said of the
CVRA that the CVRA was changing the modern criminal justice
system's assumption--the assumption that crime victims should
behave like good Victorian children: seen but not heard. So
what we have is a Federal law that is allowing us to have
victims not only seen but heard in the system.
Notably, the CVRA contains not just rights but also
authorizes funding for appropriations for legal services to
make sure those rights have meaning. Having legal services to
protect rights is critical. As the U.S. Supreme Court has even
said, ``The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of
little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by
counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and
sometimes no skill in the science of law.'' Having a lawyer
sitting next to you makes a difference in court proceedings.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court was saying that in 1932 about
defendants' rights, but it has no less meaning or weight when
you think about victims' rights. In the case I referenced just
a minute ago in my testimony, Kenna v. District Court, Mr.
Kenna was trying to exercise his right to be heard. The only
way his right to be heard was allowed in that case was because
he had pro bono counsel sitting next to him and he took an
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Where did that pro bono counsel come from? It came from a
national network of victims' attorneys that NCVLI launched in
2004. What started as five clinics in 2004 is now 11 clinics
operating across the country. Since its launch that network has
represented more than 4,000 victims, filed 2,300 pleadings, and
supplied more than 100,000 hours of attorney times to victims
in this country.
Sadly, as Mr. Burbank has already said, this network is in
jeopardy. All 11 clinics will shut this year. There will be no
legal services for enforcement of victims' rights at the end of
the year if funding continues as it is. The impact of these
closures is going to be significant.
As of March 31st, NCVLI's clinical network had 235 open
criminal cases in this country. The impact of those numbers is
a little more meaningful if you actually look at the people who
are being served. One of the victims being served is in the
Tucson shooting case. Our Arizona clinic is representing one of
the victims in that case, seeking justice and making sure that
that victim can exercise his rights when he needs to and in the
manner in which he wants to.
Another clinic is representing a victim in the case of
United States v. Keifer. In that case, it is a complex fraud
case, and the victim was not even notified of proceedings
because those proceedings had been under seal. So the victim
did not know if they were a victim, were not a victim, whether
restitution was going to be ordered or not until a pro bono
attorney stood next to them and fought for the right for
restitution and to be heard at sentencing. Fortunately, they
succeeded, but now the defendant has filed a habeas action and
is challenging restitution again.
In 1984, with the passage of VOCA, Congress made a promise
to victims, a promise that funds would be available and
services would be available. In 2004, Congress made another
promise to victims, that they would have rights in the criminal
justice system and would not be mere interlopers on the system
anymore. Vision 21 is a wonderful project that the Office for
Victims of Crime is using to envision the future of victims'
services, and NCVLI is fully committed to that effort, as we
too are committed to envisioning a better future. But notably,
as has already been said, one of the key findings coming out of
Vision 21 is that victims must have access to competent and
independent lawyers to protect their rights. Thus, even when
looking anew or afresh at victim services, the answer coming
back is the very one that Congress articulated in 2004: fund
legal services for victims of crime.
This promise can be kept. It can be kept because while
there is a cap set on VOCA, that cap can be raised. It seems
indisputable that there are sufficient funds in VOCA to fund
legal services for victims and to have services that are
necessary across the country. I urge Congress to look
critically at the promises that have already been made to
victims in this country and to re-commit to upholding those
promises, including legal services for victims.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garvin appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you, and I thank all the panel.
I read your statements earlier, and those whole statements are
in the record. But I hope people are listening, and I am glad
that many are, because as Senator Grassley pointed out it is
something he and I both agree on, this is not a partisan issue.
You do not ask whether a crime victim is a Republican or a
Democrat or an Independent. They are a victim.
Again, we have several former prosecutors on this panel,
Senator Klobuchar and I and, of course, Senator Whitehouse who
was here earlier. And we all know how we can bring down all
kinds of efforts, and should, to go after the perpetrator of
the crime. But too often it is too easy to forget the victim.
Now, Mr. Burbank, as you know, the whole country's heart
goes out to your community and the people whose lives were
changed forever. Those who survived, their lives have changed
forever from January 8th. And something like that is
overwhelming, and it can quickly deplete victim services funds
to help the communities be able to provide ongoing services
when you have something extraordinary like this happen. I
worked after the Oklahoma City bombing to create the
Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance Program. I worked with
Senators on both sides of the aisle, and we got it done. It
sets aside funds from the Crime Victims Fund to be used in an
emergency situation, like the tragedy in Tucson.
Now, I understand Pima County recently received $1.7
million for that emergency fund. Is that right?
Mr. Burbank. That is correct.
Chairman Leahy. What is that going to do?
Mr. Burbank. Well, it is going to help us enormously. As
you were mentioning, these types of situations can very quickly
overwhelm the services that are available because already we
are operating on a very stretched budget, and so to have
suddenly this magnitude of victims in our community that are
needing additional services means that we need to be able to
ramp up, and ramp up very quickly. And so having this grant
that we have just received from the Antiterrorism and Emergency
Assistance funds that were set aside in VOCA has been and will
be incredibly beneficial over the upcoming years, and that is
the benefit of this. These will provide funds over the next 3
to 4 years as these cases move through the court system.
Chairman Leahy. You know, it was interesting. When I put
that money in, fought to put that money in, I prayed that it
would never be necessary to use it. We all did. We never could
have anticipated something that happened there, but we have
also had other horrific situations in other parts of the
country.
I do not want to put words in your mouth, and just because
I helped create the fund, but would you suggest we keep that
fund?
Mr. Burbank. Absolutely. Of course.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Burbank. And you do not need to put words in my mouth.
Chairman Leahy. It would have been a heck of a hearing if
you had said----
Mr. Burbank. If I had said no, that would be terrible,
wouldn't it? I mean, obviously, it is an incredibly important
piece. Being able to access funds very quickly in an emergency
situation makes all the world of a difference. And we are most
grateful for your wisdom and foresight in being able to create
this fund to begin with, and then the work with the Office of
Justice Programs and OVC, to be able to access those funds very
quickly through a special process, so thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Ms. Leary, you talked about seeing changes in crime
victimization and there are perhaps some gaps in crime victim
services. What are some of these changes? And what are the kind
of gaps that it might create?
Ms. Leary. Well, I am sure you remember from your days as a
prosecutor, as I do, that I almost felt like the criminals were
way ahead of law enforcement all the time on technology and
everything else, and that is continuing. We are seeing
criminals becoming increasingly anonymous, victims harder to
identify because of things like financial fraud, all the myriad
of schemes that you read about in the financial news every
single day, and sometimes we do not even recognize these crimes
because people do not understand the instruments that are being
used.
There are all kinds of technology being used to stalk
individuals, and it goes way beyond the Internet, although that
certainly has proliferated all kinds of cyber crime. Child
exploitation on the Internet is absolutely appalling, very
widespread.
A friend of mine who is the Inspector General for the New
York City School System told me that he used to really worry
about teachers having access to kids, teachers who should not
have been in the classroom in the first place. And now, he
said, it is almost impossible to deal with that because these
folks are having contact with the kids online, and you cannot
really monitor that.
So there are all kinds of technological challenges that we
are just beginning to recognize. And, of course, the flip side
of that is how can we use technology to our own advantage as
law enforcement and particularly as victim service providers.
You want to talk to a 15-year-old victim. They are unlikely to
chat with you on the phone. You have got to be able to do the
texting and the tweeting and all kinds of chatting with kids
online. We need to be able to use smart phones and cell phones
and webinars and, you know, just all kinds of things that,
frankly, I cannot even imagine sitting here right now, but I am
sure that within the next 5 years there will be----
Chairman Leahy. It will be changed that much more. I mean,
Skype, the fact that you can sit there----
Ms. Leary. Absolutely. Look at telemedicine. Same thing.
Chairman Leahy. Grandparents love it. Everybody else does.
You know, Professor Garvin talked about the Crime Victims'
Rights Act, how that helped legitimize crime victims' rights
since it was passed in 2004, one of the reasons we are trying
to strengthen the Justice for All Reauthorization Act.
I have to go to a different hearing. I am going to
recognize Senator Franken before I do, but Senator Klobuchar
who has done this quite often, I appreciate her being willing
to take the gavel. Thank you. Just be sure to give it back.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Leary, I want to start with you today. Thank you. I
have been hearing such tremendous things about the work that
you have been doing in your department to help States and local
agencies. The Minnesota Office of Justice Programs has raved
about your office, how great of a partner it has been on victim
services. They said you have really just gone out of your way
to reach out to Minnesota to see how you can help, and you have
been incredibly flexible and supportive, so I want to say thank
you.
Ms. Leary. Thank you, sir.
Senator Franken. Minnesota has long been a leader in
innovative domestic violence programs, and the city of St. Paul
recently came up with a blueprint for domestic violence
intervention strategies that really should be a model for how
criminal justice agencies can work together.
I was excited to see that you are also making sure that
programs are relying on evidence-based decisionmaking that
guarantees that every dollar we spend is being used to fund
programs that are proven to work.
Can you tell me more about what the Department is doing to
promote evidence-based decisionmaking and ensure that other
States have access to the kind of innovative programs and
strategies being designed in places like St. Paul?
Ms. Leary. Certainly, and Minnesota does have a long and
rich history of serving victims of crime. I know that Senator
Wellstone was significantly involved in that.
In terms of the evidence-based approach and disseminating
that kind of information, I am particularly pleased--this is a
big priority at the Department of Justice overall and
throughout the Office of Justice Programs, but I am
particularly pleased to see that we are moving in that
direction in victim services as well. You know, it started out
as a movement. It is kind of grass-roots advocates, volunteers,
and it is all about passion and compassion for victims. And it
has evolved, is much more of a professional field. We will
never lose the passion. We will never lose the compassion. But
it has been much more professionalized as well. And like the
rest of the criminal justice system, victim services has got to
work smarter. We have to base what we do on what we know from
research and from statistics.
So I think the most significant thing that we are doing
right now is an exercise called Vision 21, which the Office for
Victims of Crime has convened, and it is a comprehensive effort
to look at victim services to see who are the victims, what are
we doing to serve them, where are the gaps in that service,
what are the emerging challenges, the new types of
victimization, new types of victims and so on, and how can we
build the capacity of victim service providers across the
country to serve these victims.
Obviously, if this is going to be evidence based, the key
is we have got to do more research. We have to collect better
data.
We have the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is a
wonderful tool, but it is not adequate for the task. There are
certain types of crime where that kind of survey does not
really get at the nuances. And there are all kinds of other
statistics that need to be gathered.
For instance, we need to be doing a lot more research and
data collection in Indian country. You certainly know from your
experience in your State that the violent crime and the
domestic violence and sexual assault crime rates in Indian
country are absolutely unacceptable. We would never put up with
that in any other community in this country. And we do not even
really know the half of it because it is unreported, because we
have not done enough. That is the kind of thing that we need to
do, so that when you plot the strategy for victim services
going forward, you have a solid base of knowledge. You have
your data. You have your research on what works with victims.
You have your research on the characteristics of victims, the
needs both now and in the future. And then you can tailor your
programs, and you can apply your dollars wisely.
Senator Franken. Well, thank you. I just have a few seconds
left, but I agree with you on Indian country, and in the Indian
Affairs Committee I have tried to address that and increase
data collection on crime in Indian country.
Madam Chair, can I ask one more?
Senator Klobuchar [presiding]. Oh, please do.
Senator Franken. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Burbank, I, like most Americans was horrified by what
happened in Tucson, but I have to say the services you and your
team of staff and volunteers were able to provide to the
families and friends and witnesses of this horrible tragedy was
just amazing.
You mentioned in your testimony that crime victim
compensation funds are frequently a last resort for States, and
when the States run out of Federal dollars, victims often pay
the price.
Last Congress, I introduced legislation to ensure that
survivors of sexual assault are never charged for the cost of
their rape kit exam. I find it appalling that States sometimes
bill victims or force them to apply for insurance coverage
before seeking reimbursement.
As someone who works on the ground with victims of sexual
assault, do you think the practice of billing sexual assault
victims for their medical exams makes victims more reluctant to
report their crimes?
Mr. Burbank. Well, I certainly agree with you that charging
victims for things like medical forensic exams is simply
unconscionable. We should not be shifting those burdens onto
victims. I am not sure whether or not that would be a deterrent
to a victim coming forward, but I do know that it certainly can
be a hardship for victims, but also there is an emotional
burden that comes with that. Having to pay for a medical
forensic exam after you have been raped or sexually assaulted
is very, very difficult for victims and feels like an
additional victimization oftentimes.
Senator Franken. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse, are you ready?
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
the panel very much for being here, for their testimony, and
for their service, particularly those who have been
prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys and so forth. Thank you, Ms. Leary.
I just wanted to get your reactions to the news that has
come out about the extent to which the cuts that have recently
been agreed to have focused on victims of crime in the
Department of Justice budget and what your advice is to all of
us to try to prevent that damage from having too much impact on
the victims that, frankly, are prototypical innocent victims of
this, and there is no reason that they should be bearing the
cost here. But it looks like they will be.
So have you had the chance yet to analyze how deep those
cuts will go and to what extent they may affect programs and
grants that support what you are doing right now?
Ms. Leary. You are looking at me, Senator Whitehouse, so
I----
Senator Whitehouse. I will go right down the line, but I
will start with you.
Ms. Leary. Thank you. We have not had a chance to do a full
analysis. I, too, read the article in the Washington Post
saying that almost $5 billion has been cut from the fund. But,
in fact, we later learned to our relief that that is actually
not the case, that, rather, it is an accounting issue. So we
were very relieved to hear and that, in fact, the amount of
funding in the Crime Victims Fund will remain the same for this
coming year, so that the Office for Victims of Crime will have
that same amount of money to work their programs.
Senator Whitehouse. As was expected.
Ms. Leary. But there are other cuts, you know, in other
parts of the Department of Justice that may have an impact. We
have not had a chance to analyze yet. You know, there is a
percentage cut across the board. So it really depends on how
that plays out.
For instance, there are programs in the Bureau of Justice
Assistance that augment the work of the Office of Victims of
Crime in things like training law enforcement, and we all know
that a victim's first encounter with law enforcement--that is
often the first person that a victim might encounter, and
research really shows that that can have a significant impact
on how that victim moves forward, whether that victim is able
to move forward toward recovery.
So we have not had a chance to analyze all that yet, but
there may be some impact.
Senator Whitehouse. Just so you know, I have heard the same
thing that you have, that the reduction from $6 billion to $1
billion is an accounting adjustment and would not have
immediate effects in the actual expenditures that are available
to the victims of crime group in the Department of Justice. And
I hope that is true, but when you see big money moving around
like that, it is hard to imagine that it could actually have as
little effect. You would think that would have disappeared
already somehow if it was purely an accounting trick. So I am
watching carefully to see that.
Mr. Burbank.
Mr. Burbank. Well, I am glad that it is being watched very
carefully. As I was mentioning in my testimony, the downturn in
the economy, the economic recession, has had tremendous impacts
on the local and State levels. In Arizona, at least two
organizations that served victims have closed their doors,
including a family advocacy center serving a rural area in our
State. Other agencies across the board pretty much have had to
cut services to victims because of decreases in State and local
income coming in for victims of services.
So the concern here is that these agencies depend on
Federal monies at this moment to keep their doors open. VOCA
funding and VAWA funding is incredibly important for these
victim services organizations. And if that money should go away
or be reduced in any way, we would see further cuts in already
damaged victim services. The safety net is beginning to crumble
at the local level in many cases.
Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Garvin.
Ms. Garvin. Just quickly, my understanding is that it is an
offset also, but even if it is an offset and it is an
accounting thing, I would appreciate it if a close eye was kept
on it, because even as an offset and an accounting maneuver,
then rhetorically we have less money in the fund, which means
people are not going to be as comfortable raising the cap and
giving money to victim services.
So even if the exact amount is going to come back out to
the field as came out in prior years, that is not enough for
the field, and we are seeing the ramifications of that right
now. So we have to keep a close eye on it. But also the Victims
Fund is victims' money, and that is where it should be going.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you all very much for what you do
and for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Grassley, you are up.
Senator Grassley. I explained to the Chairman that I was on
the Senate floor. I am sorry I did not hear the testimony. I
have read it.
Ms. Garvin, can you tell me about the effect that the cap
on the Crime Victims Fund has had on the victims to whom you
provide services?
Ms. Garvin. The services that NCVLI provides are funded
through two streams. The Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act has
an authorization for appropriations in it, and some money has
come directly through appropriations to fund some of our work,
although that has not happened since 2008. Then other funds
have come through grant programs, including VOCA, through the
Office for Victims of Crime. And the cap, I would say what is
happening to our services and services nationally is that there
is not enough money making its way out to the field.
We know that victims have more needs than are being funded.
We know that the legal clinics that we oversee are going to
shut down this year and that victims, including victims in the
Tucson shooting, will not have an attorney with them. As of
July of this year, actually, that clinic will not have funding
to continue and to provide representation. So the cap is
putting restrictions on the services that are available.
Senator Grassley. I want your judgment of whether or not
you think it makes sense for us to create new crime victim
programs before the existing programs that are now being
shortchanged are fully funded.
Ms. Garvin. Well, as has been spoken about this morning
already, those programs that are providing good services and
have been tested and are evidence based, they should continue
being funded. Our program has been tested. We have been
evaluated. Other programs around the country have been also.
Those should be funded first because that is a promise we
already made to victims. Looking forward and creating new
programs is a visionary thing to do, but not at the sacrifice
of the promises we have already made to crime victims.
Senator Grassley. Ms. Leary, the administration proposes
only a small increase in the cap from the Crime Victims Fund,
and it would zero out the Federal Victim Notification System,
which I said in my statement notifies crime victims when an
individual who committed that crime is released. Further, it
would reduce by one-third the budget for the National Crime
Victimization Survey.
Do you support these cuts that the administration has
proposed to Victim Notification and to the National Crime
Victimization Survey?
Ms. Leary. Well, Senator Grassley, one of the things that
the Department is thinking about is the impact of the Vision 21
initiative, which is ongoing now, which is taking a
comprehensive look at what we need to better serve victims
going forward from here. And in the past, there have been
piecemeal looks, and you look at one piece of the system, and
you try to improve things there. Then you look at another
piece, and you try to improve things there. But it does not
work unless you look at the whole and you look at all of the
kinds of programs that are needed and make decisions based on
that. And that is exactly what we are doing. And I think out of
that process will come a different way of looking at victim
services, proposals to fund all of those things that work, that
fit into that comprehensive view, and to use the funds in the
ways that are most appropriate for what we know victims need.
I totally agree we need to avoid duplication of services. I
think we need to help victim service providers learn more about
how to base what they do on evidence. We need to help them
learn how to increase their own capacity to serve victims in a
smarter, more efficient way.
Senator Grassley. I cannot find fault with your survey and
studying things and being evidence based and all that, but it
seems to me that by doing to these two programs what they are
doing, they have already made a declaration that those programs
are not serving. So you would think that they would wait
until--you and they would wait until the study is over before
you reached a conclusion that to me puts low priority on
supporting crime victims as evidenced by these proposed cuts.
I will go on to ask you this question, and it will be my
last one. Despite the cuts that I mentioned, the administration
proposes $135 million more be spent on victims of violence
against women. You have also called for continuation of a new
hate crime victim discretionary grant program that the Justice
Department created with stimulus funding.
Given the shortfalls in funding for crime victims that has
been made clear today, do you believe that certain types of
victims should take priority over others? And that is what I
sense from the priority given to these programs. And I do not
see anything wrong with those programs, but it just seemed to
me that you have a greater priority.
Ms. Leary. What we know, Senator Grassley, is that, in
fact, right now, a good percentage of the VOCA funds go to
victims of violence against women because, unfortunately, that
is one of the enduring challenges of the victim services field.
There are so many overwhelming unmet needs. You heard Mr.
Burbank talk about the shelter in Tucson having to turn away 12
women a week. The beds are full. The phones are ringing off the
hook.
We know the National Network to End Domestic Violence does
a snapshot every year, and they survey all of the shelters and
the crisis service providers. And the last snapshot they took,
in that 1 day these organizations had served 70,000 victims,
women and children for the most part. But they had to turn
almost 10,000 away on a single day.
So it is just that we already know that that is such a
pervasive form of victimization with needs, unmet needs that
are almost--they are difficult to comprehend, really, because
it is just so significant. We still need to do a lot more in
that arena, and it crosses all age lines, race lines,
socioeconomic lines.
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have a question regarding longer-term services. Many of
the victim advocates or victim services focus on short-term
needs, as you know, and very rightly and deservedly so. My
office has been working with a group called Voices of September
11th, which does work on mental health screening and counseling
and other kinds of casework, and that group provides services
in those areas, and I wonder if you could talk about the
strategy of your respective efforts in terms of dealing with
the longer-range services that can be provided to crime
victims.
Mr. Burbank. Well, you know, speaking for the Pima County
Attorney's Office, you are absolutely right. We recognize not
only the short term but the long term. The short term is met
through our on-scene crisis intervention work, so when we
actually go out at the request of law enforcement to work with
those victims, as we did on the January 8th shootings at the
Safeway where this occurred and in the hospitals. But then we
follow those victims, providing them with supports throughout
the entire criminal justice system. And a big piece of what we
are doing is not only the criminal justice system advocacy, but
as you mentioned, they have lots of other needs. And making
time to make sure that those advocates are well versed in what
community resources are available, getting them connected with
victim compensation funds that can help fund some of those,
mental health as well as other health needs for these victims,
is crucial.
In this case, because of the nature that it is both a
Federal case as well as a State case, these victims most likely
will be in the criminal justice system for at least 5 years,
and potentially much longer than that, as we know, for example,
with the Oklahoma City bombings. And we also know that after
cases conclude, many of those wounds still are there for these
victims, and they have needs that go on for years and years and
years. And so it is a very important part, and I am glad that
you are focusing time and energy to look at the ongoing and
long-term needs of victims, so thank you for that.
Ms. Garvin. I would like to echo that, that I appreciate
the focus on it. I know in our work so far in Vision 21, one of
the things that we have noted that is coming from the field is
that long-term care for victims is critical. And some of the
cases that our lawyers are working on demonstrate this. There
is an Oregon case, a habeas case going on right now where a
women was stabbed 18 years ago, and the habeas proceeding was
just filed, and she was ordered to go to deposition 18 years
after her stabbing. And so we needed to have a lawyer there for
her in that moment, not just in the original prosecution.
So the ongoing care is critical as well as continuity of
care. Making sure the same programs that she or he as a victim
have developed a relationship with are there when they need
services 5, 10, 15, even 20 years later is critical.
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Leary.
Ms. Leary. Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. I am
familiar with the September 11th organizations through my work
at the National Center for Victims of Crime, and I know that
Joye Frost, who is the Acting Director of the Office for
Victims of Crime, is very familiar with that organization. They
represent the significance of those kinds of needs, those long-
term needs. And as Meg said, there is a lot of focus on that
through the Vision 21 initiative.
I would like to add that we need more research into this
arena as well so that we have a much better understanding of
the impact of crime over the long term. What are the mental
health issues that can arise? What are the emotional kinds of
issues? What kind of an impact does your victimization, you as
an individual, what kind of an impact does that have on your
family, on your loved ones, over the long term? It is hugely
significant. And many victims, including the September 11th
victims, have spoken to us about the pain of people treating
them as if they should just have gotten over it by now. That is
just not the case. And, unfortunately, our society still is
rather insensitive about that.
Senator Blumenthal. My time has expired, but I just want to
commend you and thank you for the great work that you are
doing, and particularly as we celebrate this month, thank you
very much for all you are doing.
Ms. Leary. Thank you.
Mr. Burbank. Thank you.
Ms. Garvin. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
all of you for being here on this important day. It is the 30th
anniversary of the first National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
We have come a long way despite the challenges that we are
facing now. I know in my own office that I used to head up, the
Hennepin County Attorney's Office, and I met my counterpart in
the county attorney's office there. We certainly were a leader
in these areas, including our Domestic Rights Center where we
really had a one-stop shop, and still do, under County Attorney
Mike Freeman for victims of domestic assault where not only are
there prosecutors and police but also the shelters and others
are there to help them with their needs. And I have been a big
believer in this. We did surveys in our office and found that
while obviously the results were important, cases and
convictions were important, just as important, and sometimes
more important, to the victims was how they were treated in the
system. And so many times it was victim advocates that were
their interface because the prosecutors would be off doing
cases.
So beyond the things that I think people think about in
terms of help and counseling and services, just having people
there with them through the process so that they felt it was
fair, even if a case had to be dismissed because there was not
enough evidence, or even if a plea had to be taken that was not
exactly what they wanted in the first place, having a victim
rights advocate there gave them faith in the system and made
for such better cases so that victims and witnesses felt
comfortable about going forward and did not back out at the
last minute from testifying, because they had someone there for
them. So I just want to thank all of you for all the good work
that you are doing.
I have questions, first of all, Ms. Leary, about the Vision
21 process, and I was thinking, as we talked about the funding
and some of the cuts, that we are concerned about and will
continue to advocate for the funding, that it be there.
You mentioned in your testimony that one area that Vision
21 is likely to tackle is improving data collection and
research on victimization issues, and I think data can help not
only with finding the most effective programs so we are making
sure that the money is going where it should, but also to
support the work that is being done.
Could you talk about that data collection aspect of Vision
21?
Ms. Leary. Yes. The Vision 21 groups have, I think, really
focused in on the need for research and data collection because
there is an awful lot about victimization, and particularly
among underserved victim populations, that we do not know. You
know, underreporting of crime is a huge problem, so we have to
figure out how do you get at that.
And, you know, it is really interesting. Thirty years ago,
the underreporting was exactly the same statistic as today. I
found that quite astounding.
So we know that it is unlikely to change dramatically going
forward, so we have got to find ways to collect our data
without relying strictly on reported crime or convictions and
so on. And that is one of the things that the National Crime
Victimization Survey attempts to do. But, you know, the survey
has been in existence for quite some time. I know that Jim
Lynch, who heads up the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is
actually looking at a redesign of the survey and has been
working on that, because we have to kind of come into the 21st
century and figure out better ways of getting folks to respond
to the questions about victimization. And we need to find ways
to collect data from populations that have traditionally just
been either left out or have withdrawn. The Native American
population is a good example. Young African-American males. We
know very little about that type of victimization other than
what you read, you know, in the Metro section of the Washington
Post, the sort of sensational crimes that get covered. But we
do not know that much about the process of victimization and
the needs of those victims and so on. That is another group.
We know almost nothing about victims who are in
institutional settings, and that is where you are going to find
your victims of elder abuse of all kinds. You are going to find
your victims who have mental health issues or developmental
challenges. We do not really know anything about that group.
And particularly when you think about the elderly, those 85 and
above are the fastest growing segment of this population. We
cannot afford not to know about that.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes. I also took note when you talked
about the technology and the changing nature of crime. I
actually have a bill with Kay Bailey Hutchison about updating
our stalkers legislation and the cyber legislation that is on
the books that is very outdated to reflect cases like we had in
the last year with the newswoman who was undressing and someone
filmed her and then put it out on the Internet. It was actually
hard for the U.S. Attorney's Office to put a case together in
that case. And they did, but it could be made a lot easier if
we updated our laws in election surveillance.
Along those lines, you said that Vision 21 would address
how the latest technology could be leveraged to transform how
we reach and serve victims.
Ms. Leary. That is right.
Senator Klobuchar. Could you talk about that?
Ms. Leary. One of the huge gaps that has been identified by
Vision 21 is in the capacity of victim service providers. Their
technology is so unsophisticated because they barely have money
to pay their staff to keep them around to help the victims.
They do not have the funding for their general operations or to
improve technology, to figure out how can we reach out to
victims, for instance, in a rural area, which I am sure there
are plenty of those in Minnesota. How do we connect to those
victims who are far away? How do we connect to those victims
with our language barriers and cultural barriers that
technology could actually facilitate bridging those gaps?
Translation services and things of that nature.
How can we use technology to meet victims where they are
at, not just geographically but culturally, and in terms of the
technology that those victims use. If you read those Pew
studies, you will find that certain segments of the population
are much more likely to use a particular type of technology
than others.
For instance, in Chicago, the Hispanic community there is
much more likely to be using the cell phone than a computer,
which I learned from Pew when I was working on a project with
the Chicago Police Department out there and trying to figure
out how you could engage the community. You cannot just rely on
those, you know, beat meetings every 2 weeks. How are you going
to reach out? Well, you need to find the kind of technology
that they relate to that they actually use.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
Mr. Burbank, you described the crime scene on January 8th
and that horrible day when so many people were senselessly
gunned down. I think people sometimes think this is just like
magic, the victims people there. Could you tell us about the
kind of training that goes into building a victims advocacy
division?
Mr. Burbank. Absolutely. You are right, it just does not
magically appear. It takes a lot of work to put this together.
We are fortunate, as I mentioned, to have 35 years of
experience doing this. And what it looks like is we actually
send our volunteers through almost the identical training that
we use for our staff paid positions because we rely on those
volunteers to do the exact same work as a staff person. They
have to be ready out in the field to respond to any type of
crime at any time, day or night.
So we send them through 36 hours of basic crisis
intervention training, that is actually available to anyone in
the metro area of Tucson to partake in if they want. And then
on top of that, they go through an advanced course that is
about 30 hours of advance training. And then they do
essentially on-the-job training.
So it is a very long process. We ask for at least a year
commitment from folks, and we ask for 20 hours a week from--
excuse me, 20 hours a month from our volunteers. Twenty hours a
week would be a lot, wouldn't it?
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Yes. So I think one of the things people
think, well, you know, obviously with budget crunches we can
use more volunteers and we should use more volunteers. I think
it is a good idea we have interns in our office. When I was the
only Senator for 8 months, we had to use a lot of interns
because we could not add any staff to the budget. But I think
what people do not understand, you still need training and you
still need people to oversee the volunteers.
Mr. Burbank. Absolutely. It cannot all be done with
volunteers. We make an amazing use of volunteers in our
program, and we are very proud of that. But the reality is we
have to have staff overseeing those volunteers, training those
volunteers. It is an enormous commitment of time and energy in
order to maintain this volunteer pool to be able to provide
these services.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Garvin, do you want to answer that question as well
about how volunteers are critical to the National Crime Victim
Law Institute's work and how we could utilize volunteers and
how they still have to be supervised and trained?
Ms. Garvin. Absolutely. As I mentioned in my testimony,
NCVLI has 11 clinics operating around the country, but we have
been trying to complement that by growing a national pro bono
pool of attorneys and advocates, and we put them through
training. The name of that is the National Alliance of Victims'
Rights Attorneys, and we have almost 1,000 members right now.
But what is critical is we can have an attorney anywhere in
the country, but often they have not had the training on what
victims' rights are. Any of the lawyers in the room know, and
as I know you know from law school, the words ``victim'' and
``victims' right'' does not yet show up in the law school
curriculum, even today. And so training lawyers how to
represent victims is a pretty intensive process.
So we are working on it. We are working nationally to try
to have lawyers around the country know how to do it, know how
to do it without re-victimizing victims. But it takes intensive
work, and we need to keep at it.
Senator Klobuchar. And is the model that we had in our
office in Hennepin County the norm? And we had--I do not know
if it was 20 people or 30 who were non-lawyers for the most
part--a few were lawyers--who were basically the victims'
contacts. And it did not mean the prosecutors were not working
with the victims. They were. But it actually saved a lot of
their time so they could actually do the cases.
Now, these were all felony-level cases, so we were able to
do it that way. And to me it saved money in the long term
because the prosecutors could focus on the cases and keeping up
with their casework, and the victims' rights advocates handled
a number of victims for teams of attorneys.
Ms. Garvin. So that model within a prosecutor's office is a
great model. It allows the prosecutor to do the prosecution. It
allows the victim advocate within a system to help navigate for
the victims. But the complementary model is to also have
community-based legal advocacy and advocates out there that can
liaison with the prosecutor's office and independently protect
victims' rights. And it saves money all around to have all of
those because of the long-term care aspects that have been
talked about. If we give victims wrap-around services in the
criminal justice system, good prosecution, good prosecution-
based victim advocates, and community-based legal services and
advocacy, we help reduce the trauma that they experience going
through the system.
Senator Klobuchar. We did kind of a common--I mean, the
domestic victims had their own people with the Domestic Service
Center, and then we had the property team which actually was
community based. They handled things by area, and so they had
people that dealt with it that way. Then the rest were in
specialty areas of types of crime. But I just found it to be
incredibly helpful. It was more than just holding hands. I
mean, it was actually helping to get the cases running and make
sure the victims were there on time.
I still remember talking to one of our victim advocates,
and she had a white-collar case, and it was a case where--it
was a widow, and her husband had been ripped off by some guy
that went and took all their money and went to Costa Rica and
got a facelift. And I remember saying to her, ``Well, at least
you are not dealing with the murder case they got down the
hall.'' And she goes, ``Are you kidding? '' This woman had
basically threatened to kill the perpetrator in the facelift
case. And it reminded me that for victims of crime every case
is important and that people need someone by their side to calm
them down and also to make sure the criminal justice system is
fair.
Anyway, I want to thank you. What law firm did you work
with in Minnesota?
Ms. Garvin. Maslon Edelman.
Senator Klobuchar. See, you cannot lie because you are on
the record.
Ms. Garvin. I know.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Garvin. A great law firm.
Senator Klobuchar. This is how I get my little curious
things I have. I just ask them on the record so that it will be
there forever. But I have a lot of friends there.
Anyway, I want to thank all of you. As you can see, we have
a lot of work to do. I think you see a Committee that is
devoted to victims' rights here. Certainly Chairman Leahy is,
and a lot of former prosecutors on our Committee that
understand how this works and how important it is, and we will
continue to advocate for you as we deal not only with the
budget but with the VAWA reauthorization and other bills that
we have going forward.
So thank you so much. So much of the work you do is in the
trenches. People never know the hard decisions that victims'
rights advocates have to make and the wrenching stories that
they have to hear, and then they have got to go home and, you
know, be with their families and smile and pretend everything
was OK during the day when it really was not. So I just want to
thank you for the work that you are doing in the justice system
and the help that you give people.
So, with that, we are going to keep the record open--oh, I
lost Chairman Leahy's gavel. Hold on.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. All right. We will keep the record open
for further testimony or anything people want to put on the
record from the Committee, and thank you.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73846.049