Introduction

The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) created the Victim Services Planning Committee (VSPC) to recommend Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) priority funding areas, a VAWA funding requirement. To better coordinate federal funding for victim services in Illinois, ICJIA also uses the VSPC’s recommendations to guide the administration of Victim of Crime Act funds. The committee is comprised of representatives from victim service and community-based organizations; child welfare, public health, and criminal justice stakeholders, such as law enforcement and prosecutors; and ICJIA Board members.

ICJIA convened two virtual, public meetings with members of the VSPC to consider and discuss priority areas for the 2022-2025 victim service funding cycle. The VSPC met in January 2022 and March 2022. During the second VSPC meeting, members voted unanimously to approve the proposed 2022 victim service priority funding areas. The ICJIA Board approved the priority areas in Spring 2023. These priorities will inform future grantmaking to address victim service needs and gaps in Illinois for the next several years.

Research Methods

ICJIA researchers utilized various research methods to better understand current Illinois victim service needs and gaps. They examined the victim service priority areas established in 2017 and five emerging victim service areas, representing needs and gaps. These emerging areas were identified through ICJIA grants administration, victimization research, and strategic victim service planning. Methods used by researchers included a literature review, secondary data analysis of administrative datasets and pertinent materials, and the 2021 Victim Service Provider Study, a mixed methods study of Illinois victim service providers. They focused their analyses on avenues of inquiry that would inform 2017 priority area revision to reflect current needs and gaps.

In addition, research staff analyzed breakout session materials from the first VSPC meeting. In the sessions, victim service stakeholders shared their perspectives on whether the 2017 priorities reflected current victim service funding needs and considered emerging areas in victim services requiring new or revised funding recommendations. ICJIA researchers utilized research findings and VSPC member feedback to draft new victim service priority funding area recommendations. During the second VSPC meeting, members approved these research-informed priority areas. ICJIA researchers presented the 12 VSPC approved victim service priority funding areas to the ICJIA Board in June 2022. This research project began in Winter 2021, with the development of data collection instruments, and concluded in June 2022, with a research presentation to the ICJIA Board.

Victim Services Funding Priorities

The following priorities were identified and are listed in no particular order:

Priority 1: Fund initiatives that raise the public’s awareness of victim services, including eligibility criteria, service options, and program efficacy.

Research findings pointed to the importance of increasing public awareness of victim services and educating community members on eligibility criteria, available services, and the benefits of service receipt. Many victims, especially those who are underserved, are unaware of the wide array and efficacy of services available to them. Some victims assume they do not qualify for services because of certain demographic characteristics, such as gender or income. Thus, funding should be allocated to raise public awareness of victim services. Awareness efforts should include information on recognizing victimization, impacts, eligibility criteria for victim services, service options, and service benefits.

Priority 2: Increase funding for programs that improve victims’ timely access to services, such as through co-located services and remote service options.

The planning process revealed the need to improve victims’ access to services. Providers said advocates and social workers were crucial for helping victims navigate complex legal and healthcare systems and for providing support. They said co-located services ease the burden of service seeking while fostering relationships between providers. In addition, remote service options had enabled them to expand their service areas. This priority calls for increasing access by connecting them with advocates, social workers, and other providers who can help them locate and receive needed services. Law enforcement, healthcare organizations, and courthouses are meaningful points of contact for victims where co-located services should be placed. Furthermore, remote service options also facilitate service access, particularly in under resourced communities.

Priority 3: Fund initiatives that advance victims’ equitable service access and engagement in services, with a focus on underserved victim populations.

Providers asserted viewing victim needs through an equity lens was crucial for serving underserved victim populations. These populations are most impacted by violence, yet least likely to access services. Underserved victims are those who encounter one or more barriers to accessing services. Victim populations identified as underserved include older adults, minors, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and those dually involved, in the criminal or juvenile justice system as both victims and offenders, living in rural areas, and with substance use disorders. Training on culturally and linguistically appropriate care is needed to ensure equity and accessibility. Therefore, funding should advance equitable service delivery for underserved victim populations. More resources are needed to address barriers to victim service access, such as transportation assistance, interpretation and translation services, and culturally responsive advocacy and therapy. Training on culturally- and linguistically-appropriate care, including how to adapt services to better meet the needs of underserved victims, should be made available to victim service agencies.

Priority 4: Fund efforts to prevent (re)victimization through programming that increases victims’ protective factors and decreases vulnerabilities.

Researchers learned the need for violence prevention services increased as a result of the pandemic. Providers described prevention services as critical for recognizing victimization and preventing future harm to victims. Due to limited funding for prevention providers said they were unable to provide or expand prevention services, particularly for gender-based violence. Violence prevention funding should be made available to increase victim identification and awareness of service offerings, and facilitate victims’ service connection. Prevention programs should be placed in educational settings with an emphasis on the types of victimization most likely to be experienced, including gender-based violence.

Priority 5: Increase funding to address fundamental needs of crime victims, or those needs, that if left unmet, inhibit victims’ engagement in services needed for healing.

Meeting a victims’ fundamental needs, such as food, transportation, child and health care, and employment and financial skills, is crucial for successful service engagement and healing from trauma. Emergency financial assistance is also fundamental because it helps victims meet their most basic needs. This includes funding for emergency financial assistance, emergency shelter, childcare, transportation assistance, employment training, and other services necessary to address victims’ most basic and immediate needs.

Priority 6: Fund direct core direct services to victims of all crime types, including community violence.

Core services address a victim’s presenting needs, or services that help to restore victims’ sense of safety. Provider-identified core services included crisis intervention, counseling, case management, legal services, and medical advocacy. Research pointed to gaps in the availability of core services, particularly among victims of community violence. Providers also called for more holistic services, such as wraparound services, coordinated care, and systems of care, to attend to victims’ multi-faceted needs and victimization histories. Thus, funding should be allocated for core direct services that address victims’ safety and overall well-being for all crime types, including community violence. Furthermore, funding opportunities should encourage collaboration among victim service agencies that specialize in serving a particular crime type.

Priority 7: Fund services that address victims’ long-term mental health, legal, and housing needs.

Providers reported that victims needed ongoing counseling and therapy services, civil legal assistance, and transitional and permanent housing to address their long-term needs. However, gaps in mental health and legal service availability and housing create barriers to meeting victims’ service needs. Funding is needed to expand and extend mental health services, including evidence-based modalities for addressing victims’ trauma symptoms, civil legal assistance for divorce, child custody, and immigration matters, and transitional and permanent housing options for victims who are unable to find affordable housing.

Priority 8: Support programs that address the impact of multiple victimization experiences, such as the intersection of gender-based violence and community violence.

Research has demonstrated that multiple victimization experiences increases risk of future victimization, exacerbates symptoms, and increases service needs compared to one victimization experience. The planning work showed that victim service agencies frequently served victims with multiple victimization histories, yet their capacity to address victims’ complex trauma needs, such as evidence-based mental health treatment, was limited. Thus, funding should be allocated to support programming to address the complex needs of victims with histories of multiple victimization experiences. Due to the overlap between community and gender-based violence, identified by providers, programs that can address both crime types or encourage partnerships among community and gender-based violence service providers are recommended.

Priority 9: Promote community-driven multidisciplinary responses to victimization, including coalition building efforts and expanded use of technology to facilitate collaboration.

Research indicates multidisciplinary approaches are more responsive to victims and achieve better criminal justice outcomes than single agency or disciplinary approaches. Planning efforts underscored the need for more community-driven multidisciplinary responses. This included expanding beyond law enforcement-based multidisciplinary teams, noted by providers as the most common type, to teams based in community organizations, such as victim service agencies. Stakeholders cited increased use of technology as a strategy for engagement and collaboration among multidisciplinary team members. Funding should support expansion of multidisciplinary approaches to victimization to improve case outcomes and minimize trauma to victims. Multidisciplinary responses should be inclusive of victim service agencies and other community-based organizations, like health care and social service agencies, and leverage technology to increase communication among multidisciplinary team members.

Priority 10: Expand trauma-informed and trauma-focused service availability and support efforts to mitigate staff vicarious trauma.

Trauma-informed care attends to victims’ trauma histories and symptoms, mitigates the potential for re-victimization, and recognizes the impact indirect trauma exposure may have on staff. Providers asserted trauma-focused services were essential for healing, but they noted that it was challenging to find them in some communities (e.g., rural) or for certain populations, particularly children. Study findings also revealed that providers were concerned about the impact of vicarious trauma on staff and organizational well-being. Funding should support and expand trauma-informed and trauma-focused services and include efforts to address and mitigate staff vicarious trauma. Programs that seek to build capacity to provide trauma-focused services to communities and populations with notable service gaps and that incorporate vicarious trauma-informed strategies in their program design are recommended.

Priority 11: Promote the use of evidence-informed (or promising) and evidence-based practices and programming that have been successfully implemented with diverse victim populations.

Evidence-informed practices use research to guide program design and implementation, whereas evidence-based practices, when implemented with fidelity, have been linked to positive outcomes. Providers expressed support for evidence-informed and -based practices because they are effective and can improve service delivery. The planning work also revealed more education is needed on evidence-informed and evidence-based practices and that individuals with lived experiences should participate in efforts to adapt the practices to the needs of diverse populations and culture. Funding should promote and increase evidence-informed or evidence-based programming. Furthermore, providers should be encouraged to use evidence-informed or evidence-based practices effective with diverse populations and adapt practices to better meet victims’ cultural or linguistic needs.

Priority 12: Fund activities that support program evaluation efforts through data collection and reporting, and increase providers’ capacity to document meaningful outcomes.

Program evaluation can demonstrate program effectiveness, but necessitates robust data collection. Recent initiatives have increased provider capacity to gather victim service data and improve program implementation. They include development of new InfoNet data fields enabling domestic violence and sexual assault providers to document victims’ needs over time. Findings indicated strong support among providers for continued efforts to prioritize data collection and evaluation and to document victim outcomes. Therefore, funding should support program evaluations that assess activities, outputs, and outcomes. To increase victim service agency evaluation capacity, reporting requirements should be streamlined to ease administrative burdens and more technical assistance and training should be provided on data collection and analysis.