Open Access Publisher and Free Library
09-victimization.jpg

VICTIMIZATION

VICTIMIZATION-ABUSE-WITNESSES-VICTIM SURVEYS

Posts tagged Violent Crime
Federal Efforts in Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities among Victims of Violent Crime

By the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Crime victimization has wide-reaching consequences for victims, their families and friends, their communities, and society in general. The rate of violent crime victimization has decreased dramatically since its peak in the early 1990s,1 providing the most relief to residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods who are most likely to experience violent crime.2 However, the nation recently experienced an increase in serious forms of violence. In 2020, homicide rates were 30 percent higher than the previous year.3 In the same period, aggravated assaults, including nonfatal shootings, also increased.4 While violent victimization rates started to decrease again after the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic,5 violence remains a pressing concern for Americans.6 This trend merits closer investigation given that it follows decades of sustained progress and disproportionately affects underserved communities.7 To gain an understanding of federal efforts to evaluate racial disparities in crime victimization, the Commission voted on July 21, 2023, to examine the U.S. Department of Justice’s data collection on violent crime victimization and what that data show about disparate impacts of violent victimization on minority communities. This report uses social science methodologies to synthesize reliable research and present quantitative evidence from federal sources about racial and ethnic disparities in violent crime victimization from 2017-2021. Because crime concentrates in small geographic areas,8 the Commission also selected five jurisdictions to conduct a more in depth analysis of trends and racial disparities in violent crime victimization over the study period. In addition to relying on publicly available studies and data, the Commission held a public briefing on November 17, 2023, to receive written and oral testimony from academic and policy experts, former and current government officials, members of community advocacy groups, and violent  crime victims (see Appendix B). The Commission also sent formal requests for information to the U.S. Department of Justice. When considering all forms of violent crime, aggregated at the national level, there are no differences in the risk of victimization for White, Black, and Latino people.9 There are, however, enduring racial differences in homicide rates. Black Americans have long been the group most likely to be killed by homicide.10 Black Americans are 12 times as likely as White Americans to die by firearm homicide.11 The risk of homicide is highest for young, Black men. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide is the leading cause of death for Black males ages 1-44.12 Racial disparities in homicide are especially pronounced in large, metropolitan areas, where violent crime rates are the highest.13 The concentration of crime in large cities is a consistent pattern in crime trends over time.14 Within cities, violent crime concentrates in certain neighborhoods, street segments, or blocks.15 Ruth Abaya, Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physician and Senior Director for the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, explains, “In many places throughout the country, community violence is concentrated, it’s cyclical, and it’s networked, creating cycles of harm and trauma that often impact multiple generations.”16 Hyperlocal crime concentration is not a new phenomenon. In their foundational study about the relationship between crime and place, influential U.S. criminologists Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay show that crime rates remain stable in neighborhoods over time even as the demographic composition of residents change.17 They argue that structural conditions, such as physical deterioration and high population turnover, create the conditions for crime.18 This finding is critical for framing racial disparities in crime victimization because it shows that the structure of high-crime neighborhoods, not factors related to the race of their residents, allows crime to flourish. Crime concentration in certain areas became associated with race because contemporary disadvantaged neighborhoods are predominately Black or Latino.19 Outdated government policies that created intentional residential racial segregation have had long-lasting consequences for where Americans still live.20 Ongoing racial segregation is associated with violent crime as the most segregated neighborhoods have elevated levels of violent crime.21 Data show that violence in these racially segregated and socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods drives racial disparities in one serious type of violent crime: homicide.22 During the COVID-19 pandemic, as the overall crime rate fell,23 murder rates rose because of an increase in gun homicides in disadvantaged neighborhoods.24 A recent study demonstrates that the risk of firearm-related death or injury is more acute for young Black and Latino men who live in certain zip codes than for U.S. soldiers who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.25 Enduring racist narratives of crime26 dismiss this violence as “Black-on-Black” without acknowledging that most crimes occur within racial groups (intra-racial).27 Elliot Currie, professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California Irvine, argues that America’s “peculiar indifference” to high rates of murder among young Black men “is not only socially destructive and economically wasteful but a profound moral default.”28 Homicides comprise a small share of all violent crimes; there are no racial disparities in the overall rate of violent crime victimization.29 There are, however, other social and demographic correlates of victimization. One strong predictor of being a victim of a violent crime is having previously been a victim of crime.30 Data suggest that victims of violent crime are four times as likely to experience repeat victimization.31 Additionally, both income and age predict victimization. People living in households that earn the lowest incomes (i.e., less than $25,000), are more likely to be victimized than their higher income counterparts.32 Adolescents and young adults are also disproportionately likely to be victims of violent crime, regardless of geography.33 The relationship between age and being involved in crime, as both an offender and a victim, is one of the most enduring patterns in crime.34 There are no overall gender disparities in violent victimization.35 There are, however, gender disparities in experiencing certain kinds of violence. Men are more likely than women to be homicide victims.36 When women are murdered, however, they are five times more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner.37 Regardless of the severity of the crime, most victims of violent crime know the offender.38 Data show that an individual who commits a violent offense is statistically at a higher risk of becoming a victim of a later violent crime.39 Violent crime victims are also more likely than others to engage in violence.40 Too often, however, this victim-offender overlap is ignored41 because it complicates the false narrative of the “good victim/bad offender” dichotomy.42 This dichotomy is problematic because it risks disregarding past experiences of victimization and trauma for people who have engaged in violence.43 Studies also show that it is highly unlikely that these victims seek or receive any victim services.44 For instance, one study shows that only 16 percent of crime victims who had been involved in the justice system as offenders report accessing programs such as victim compensation, victim advocate services from the police or district attorney, or help with legal proceedings.45 The researchers argue that so few victims accessing services is a “potential harm to the short- and long-term health of offender-victims, and harm to the overall well-being of urban, minority communities.”46 The effects of violent crime extend beyond immediate physical pain and injury. There are long term physical health correlates of violent victimization, including conditions such as heart disease,47 cancer,48 high blood pressure,49 and premature mortality.50 Violent crimes also have emotional and psychological consequences for those who are injured, which can include suffering from post-traumatic stress and other manifestations of trauma that negatively impact the victim’s quality of life.51 The effects of violent crime can also extend beyond the victims to adversely affect  family members and entire communities.52 Access to justice and rehabilitative services offers a vital opportunity to break the cycle of violence in communities. A major impediment to exploring crime victimization rates is that many crimes, even violent crimes, are not known to law enforcement; therefore, official numbers collected by the FBI may underreport the prevalence of the issue.53 For instance, in 2020, less than half (40 percent) of violent victimizations were reported to police.54 Victims may choose not to report a crime to the police for a multitude of reasons, such as fear of reprisal or stigmatization, believing the police would not or could not do anything to help, or believing the crime was too personal to report.55 Not reporting a crime has serious implications beyond public safety; data show that victims are more likely to receive services and access resources if they report an incident to law enforcement.56 Compensation and assistance programs are available to crime victims, but long standing research shows that these programs are underutilized, mostly because victims are not aware of the programs and services available to them.57 For instance, 2016 data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) show that about 13 percent of violent crime survivors reported using victim services. For those who did not report the offense to police, only 5 percent reported utilizing services.58 More recent data show that the vast majority of violent crime victims continue not to receive assistance from victim service agencies; in 2021 just 9 percent of victims received services.59   (Continued) 

Washington, DC: USSC, 2024. 

Evaluation of the Development of a Multijurisdictional Police-Led Deflection Program to Assist Victims of Violent Crime

By Jessica Reichert,  Sharyn Adams, H. Douglas Otto,  Julia Sanchez 

 East St. Louis, Illinois has experienced high rates of violent crime including homicide. In 2019, the city’s homicide rate was 137 per 100,000 residents, which was considerably higher than the state rate and the Chicago rate (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2019). Victims of violent crime may have many service needs, such as behavioral health counseling, medical care, legal services, housing, and financial assistance (Aeffect, Inc., 2017). Many crime victims come to the attention of police, so a program was developed in East St. Louis to refer victims to services they need. The East St. Louis Community Engagement Response Team (ESL-CERT) was created to refer victims of crime to necessary services using a law enforcement task force (composed of dedicated Illinois State Police officers) working on violent crime cases in East St. Louis. The program is considered a “deflection” program in which law enforcement and other first responders (or co-responders) connect individuals to treatment and/or other social services thereby deflecting them from emergency services, crisis interventions, and justice involvement (Firesheets et al., 2022; Kelly et al., 2022; Lindquist-Grantz et al., 2021). The program assists crime victims, so there is no threat of potential arrest charges. This evaluation examined the ESL-CERT’s action planning process. Local stakeholders met virtually for 21 hours over seven days to develop the program’s Solution Action Plan (SAP). Action planning is a way to increase community engagement, develop clear and concise program goals, and create strategies to effectively achieve those goals (Creatly, 2021). The action planning work culminated in an action plan with objectives, strategies, and steps needed to aid in program implementation. Methodology To avoid the risk of spreading COVID-19 in 2021, the action planning process was held virtually via Zoom for three-hours per day for seven days. Representatives of several local community agencies and groups participated; 30 participated in at least one session from 23 organizations and 14 organization types. There were 30 community representatives, with attendance ranging from 12 to 19 participants per session. In addition to local participants, 26 representatives from outside of the community [Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA), and Police, Treatment, and Community Collaborative (PTACC) and subject matter experts] attended at least one session each. ICJIA researchers also provided a local crime victim data presentation on day 6. To evaluate the action planning procedure, the ICJIA research team examined a variety of data sources, including field observations, supporting documents, and participant surveys. The secretary of the ICJIA Institutional Review Board approved the proposed research as a program evaluation. Three researchers completed 21 hours of field observations of the action planning process from June 30, 2021, to August 8, 2021. All action planning sessions were conducted and recorded virtually through Zoom Video Conferencing. A total of 30 community members participated in at least one of the seven sessions. After each session, we administered a survey to action planning participants using the Zoom poll feature. The survey included questions about the action planning process, collaboration with other participants, and their intentions of post-action planning with responses on a 4-point Likert scale. Respondents totaled between seven and 20 respondents per day. Finally, we administered a second online survey using Qualtrics software. The survey included questions about participants (e.g., demographics information) and one open-ended question requesting their thoughts on the action planning process. A total of 13 participants responded. Data Analysis We analyzed field notes and supportive documents. We summarized what transpired sequentially for each of the seven days of action planning as the group built on the previous day’s work in each session. The Zoom platform poll data was exported in Excel for data analysis and the online survey was exported from Qualtrics to Excel for data analysis. We analyzed the poll and online survey data to generate descriptive statistics. Study Limitations We encountered some limitations while conducting this evaluation. First, we could only draw from what was said during the sessions. Participants’ internal thoughts and feelings could only be collected through brief, close-ended poll questions. Second, the participants changed each day because many could not attend all seven sessions leading to varying levels of participation in the action planning and polls. Third, while a number of reminders were sent to the group, only 13 participants responded to the online survey to gather participant demographics. Fourth, COVID 19 precipitated the need for virtual action planning, which had its challenges. For example, because of the large number of participants on the virtual platform, it was difficult to discern who was speaking. Finally, as Chicago-based researchers, we were relative outsiders. Without living or working in their community, it was difficult for us to ascertain group dynamics or potential interpersonal issues and understand historical and community context. Key Findings We noted a number of key findings on action planning participants, engagement, and discussions, as well as participant feedback on the action planning process. The survey, taken by 13 action planning participants, revealed most were female, White, non-Latinx, earned master’s degrees and incomes over $90,000, had over 20 years of experience in various fields such as social services and criminal justice, and were an average age of 52. A poll taken by seven participants on the last day showed five worked in East St. Louis and lived in a city outside of East St. Louis. The group members engaged in discussions to develop the violent crime victim program. Action planning discussions covered many areas, including: • Program purpose, capacity, eligibility, and name. • Community issues, partners, and awareness. • Outcome measures and strategies. • Training needs and topics. • Service provision. • Data and evaluation. During our observations of action planning, we noted that at times, likely exacerbated by the virtual format, it was a challenge to engage some action planning group members. In addition, some participants were initially confused about the action planning process and the program model. Finally, some participants had difficulty formulating measurable objectives. Overall, based on our surveys, participants were pleased with, and supportive, of the action planning process and the program. All participants reported the planned program would help victims of crime somewhat to a great extent. Also all indicated they would be likely or very likely to take an active role in implementation and that the program would be somewhat to very sustainable. However, three of seven participants noted the program had weak community engagement during the action planning process. Ultimately, the discussions culminated in an action plan document—the Solutions Action Plan— with objectives and action steps for the next phase of the program: implementation. The action plan contained four outcomes, 11 strategies, and 21 action steps. Recommendations Based on the evaluation findings, we offered recommendations for action planning. Suggestions to enhance participant understanding and encourage individual engagement on a virtual platform included providing data and background information, personalized invitations, regular introductions, a designated feedback loop, and the use of poll questions to aid in discussion. Another recommendation is to engage a more diverse pool of participants (e.g., East St. Louis residents and younger participants) and limit the number of outsiders participating in action planning. Finally, we recommend setting program goals and using a logic model to ensure all objectives are measurable. Conclusion - Overall, the action planning process resulted in a plan to implement a new deflection program to assist victims of violent crime in East St. Louis. The action plan document contained four objectives, 11 strategies, and 21 action steps. The next steps for the program after action planning, was implementation of the program in which the group would work on completing their action steps. Ultimately, this program supports goals of the Illinois Statewide Violence Prevention Plan including collaborations, pro-social programming, and comprehensive case management and clinical support for victims (Garthe et al., 2021).   

Chicago:  Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2023. 75p.