A Multi-Site Evaluation of Illinois Police Department-Based Victim Assistance Programs

Introduction

Communities across the country are re-examining how the police interface with citizens. Research and evaluation can help inform these conversations by examining existing innovative models within police departments that impact interactions between police departments and the public. The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) funded a study by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Illinois at Chicago to conduct an evaluability assessment of one such model, police department-based victim assistance programs (VAPs) in four Illinois sites.

Helping crime victims address their needs is a critical component of supporting their healing and recovery, and achieving justice. Victim advocates are trained to support victims of crime and the co-location of advocacy services within the criminal justice system can facilitate victim access to those services. Victim advocates affiliated with police departments have substantial access to victims and can use their knowledge and relationships within the criminal justice system to advocate on victims’ behalf. Seeking to expand the use of victim advocacy in police departments, ICJIA has used funding from the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) to support VAPs in four sites: Arlington Heights, Elgin, Mundelein, and Wheeling, Illinois.

Methodology

Researchers aimed to conduct an evaluability assessment of each VAP that would create the foundation for ongoing evaluation beyond the first year of funding. These assessments are particularly useful for programs in which stakeholders may vary in their understanding of program goals, objectives, and activities, and where programs may look very different from site to site. This evaluation design was selected because sites had minimal prior evaluation experience and varied considerably in their organization, number of program staff, resource infrastructure, communities served, and length of time they had been in operation. Evaluability assessments help to articulate and build a shared understanding of operations with a program, and prepare the program for future evaluation work.

The following questions guided the study:

1. How is each program designed to operate?
2. Are services being provided as intended?
3. What are the anticipated benefits of the program, and how can they most appropriately be measured?

Researchers employed multiple methods to achieve the goals of this evaluability assessment. This included: document review, stakeholder interviews, Theory of Change modeling, a police questionnaire, review of client case data, and a literature review. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board (IRB) was the IRB of record for this project. All methods and corresponding protocols, including informed consent procedures, were implemented consistent with IRB-approved protocol.

Program documents were reviewed to gain a greater understanding of each VAP’s organization and operation. Interviews were conducted in-person during site-visits by 2-3 members of the evaluation team. In the interviews, stakeholders were asked about the following:

1. Program structure, purpose, and development
2. Referral, eligibility, and intake processes
3. Assessment of and response to victims’ needs
4. Coordination and referral to outside agencies
5. Successes, benefits, and challenges in providing victim services within a policy agency
6. Training
7. Perceived program impact
8. Self-care

The evaluation team conducted a total of seven site visits to complete these interviews, visiting each site 1-2 times to interview VAP staff and other police department personnel. A total of 37 people were interviewed across 27 interview sessions (i.e., 19 individual interviews and eight group interviews). Individual interviews were primarily used with police department leadership, and when VAP staff consisted of a single individual. Group interviews were used to interview several individuals of the same rank (e.g., three patrol officers), and when there were multiple VAP staff members.

Following the site visits, a questionnaire was administered to police personnel at each site. The police questionnaire was designed to hear from a wider, more diverse sample of sworn police personnel at each site, since only a subset of police personnel had an opportunity to participate in stakeholder interviews. A total of 224 questionnaires were completed across the sites.

Theory of Change (TOC) logic models offer a big picture of strategies employed by a program in order to achieve intended results.^[1] These models focus on what the program does (i.e., strategies) and what the program hopes to achieve (i.e., intended results). Initial drafts of site-specific TOC models were developed based on what was learned in the stakeholder interviews. The evaluation team then worked with each site to identify a select group of personnel that know the VAP well and could participate in a group meeting to provide feedback on the initial drafts. The evaluation team then led participants through a guided feedback session to confirm whether the content of the model was accurate and to identify inaccuracies, misspecifications, and missing items. The evaluation team then worked with each site in an iterative process of revising and reviewing until each site was satisfied that the model accurately represented their VAP.

VAP staff used client case data to select a purposive sample of ten non-identifiable cases. For the service years 2018-2019, VAP staff were asked to identify 3-4 cases that fell within different levels of service provision. To understand service provision at each site, the evaluation team then analyzed these data by coding each case for the type of services provided, number of case notes and services rendered, and length of time the case was active. A targeted literature review was also conducted to determine what is known about police-based VAPs and best practices in serving crime victims.

Findings

How is Each Program Designed to Operate?

The four VAPs staff either a full-time social worker or clinical counselor and some sites maintain up to four full-time staff. Anyone who is a victim of a crime within the program’s jurisdiction is eligible for services, and the majority served are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. A variety of services are provided across the programs, including case management, court accompaniment and advocacy, crisis intervention and counseling, safety planning, assistance with court paperwork and personal protection orders, and assistance with housing and employment.

Referral for service can originate from the police department or responding officer, word-of-mouth, an outside agency, community outreach, or via the VAP website. All services are provided in a space dedicated to the program and located within the police department. Three of the four programs offer bi-lingual services.

All VAPs spoke about how police perception of the VAP has changed over time, with police having increasingly positive valuations of the role and contribution of each VAP. This is thought to be a result both of police having more opportunity to learn about the value of the VAP over time and the police force changing to become more aware of victims’ needs.

The programs described providing an array of training and outreach efforts, both within their police departments and in the community. Some sites made their VAP a subject of field training for all new police personnel. Staff within some VAPs pursued additional means for developing relationships with police officers. This included going on ride-alongs, and providing consulting or support for their departments’ officer wellness and peer support programs. To build awareness and positive relationships with the community, all VAPs describe engaging in community outreach and education efforts. This includes attending and tabling at community events; partnering with other service providers to develop and provide information sessions and training in public venues (e.g., the public library); participating in Citizen’s Police Academies and other police department-based programming; and relationship-building with select community organizations.

Half of the VAPs described providing or participating in formal self-care and wellness efforts within their police departments. This most often took the form of VAP staff providing consultation and support for officer wellness and peer support programs, if they existed. In two departments, police personnel discussed the critical role that VAP staff played in providing informal support to them. These officers knew that they could seek out assistance and support from the VAP staff when needed.

In addition to describing how victims get connected and the services provided, the TOC logic model describes outcome pathways for the victim, community, and police, and a series of ultimate intended impacts that unite them. In these models, police aim to increase their understanding and awareness of victimization and confidence in their ability to provide assistance. Victims will increase their understanding of their options, rights, process and access to services. Ultimately, better relationships, increased positive interactions and greater trust develops between victims, the community and the police.

Are Services Being Provided as Intended?

Each of the four VAPs demonstrated congruence between intended service provision and actual service provision. Key informants across all four sites reported that although victims of any crime are eligible to receive services, victims of intimate partner violence or sexual assault are referred more often than victims of any other type of crime. The higher proportion of referrals for these types of victimizations, then, directly relates to the types of clients who ultimately become engaged in VAP services. This was verified with the review of the supplied client case data, and is consistent with prior research on the odds of seeking victim services after experiencing violent crime. Specifically, Zaykowski’s research using a subset of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data found that, although fewer than 10% of victims of violent crime engaged in victim services, victims who were attacked by an intimate partner were 4.5 times more likely to seek help from victim services than victims who were attacked by a stranger.^[2]

Importantly, considerable variation exists in the nature and duration of service provision, even among victims of the same category of crime. For example, program staff may have contact with a client only one time, or they may have weekly contact for a number of months. This variation in the nature and intensity of services provided, even among victims of the same type of crime, is consistent with prior research identifying victim profile ‘clusters’ that reflect different victim identified priorities.^[3] This variation is also consistent with what was observed in the review of client cases data for these VAPs.

The study found that the VAPs incorporate established best-practices throughout their work in a variety of ways. For example, research has established that advocacy services for victims of domestic violence are most effective when they are individualized, comprehensive, and driven by survivors’ self-identified priorities (as opposed to priorities identified by a service provider).^[4] Each of the four VAPs in the current study described an emphasis on client self-determination. Programs also implemented other best practices such as assessing victims’ unmet needs and intervention priorities, fostering interagency linkages whenever possible, engaging in routine record keeping, and implementing organizational accountability processes. In addition, the four VAPs offer services that are not contingent on whether a victim chooses to participate in criminal or civil proceedings against an abusive partner.

The VAPs described encountering a variety of challenges in the course of their work. Specifically, VAP staff reported challenges related to:

1. sustainability and limited resources.
2. providing victim services within a police agency.
3. coordination and collaboration with external agencies. For example, while co-location was identified as a benefit for police-victim assistance collaboration and for timeliness of program-client contact, nearly every program commented on co-location as a potential barrier to victim engagement, particularly for those with immigration concerns.

According to the police questionnaire, while most officers across sites seemed to refer most victims to the VAP, relatively few officers referred 100% of the time. Referral rates and reasons for not referring varied from site to site. This included not referring for certain types of crimes (e.g., non-violent crimes property crimes); only referring for certain types of crimes (e.g., domestic violence); a perception that the case is not relevant for victim assistance; the victim already being connected to victim assistance; or a perception that the victim was being uncooperative or showing no interest in assistance. All VAP staff reviewed police reports to identify victims for follow-up. So, while referrals from officers were common, this was not the only mechanism for victims to be linked to services.

What are the Anticipated Benefits of the Program? How can They Most Appropriately be Measured?

Anticipated benefits reported by police and VAP staff were largely consistent across the four sites; even with existing variations in program structure and service processes, programs articulated many of the same desired outcomes. The most salient shorter-term outcomes described by key informants relate to increasing victim awareness of their options and rights, and increased victim access to needed services. Relatedly, most stakeholders describe their VAP program as providing critical and effective support as people navigate various complex systems post-victimization. Stakeholders observed more successful connections between victims and needed external services when facilitated by VAP staff. Although service provision is not contingent on a victim’s involvement in the criminal justice system, many stakeholders did express a desire to see increased victim participation in the system.

Stakeholders articulated various ways that the VAP might help people to maintain involvement throughout the duration of a case, including providing transportation and reminders of court dates, “translating” court jargon into more easily accessible language, and clearing up miscommunications and inaccurate information that legal professionals may convey to victims.

Police and VAP staff reported anticipated benefits for police as a result of VAP collaboration. These include increased understanding of trauma and victim behavior, increased police awareness of and access to victim-relevant resources, and increased police efficiency. One particularly salient benefit described by multiple police is the potential for co-located VAPs to simultaneously decrease the burden on police officers while improving the experience for victims. When asked to describe the contribution of the VAP, VAP staff and police mentioned several community benefits: increased community awareness of and access to resources; increased community confidence and trust in the police response; and improved community perceptions of safety. These short-term outcomes were thought to contribute to greater reciprocal trust and better relationships between the community and police.

Recommendations

In addition to guidance for future evaluation efforts, evaluators provided five recommendations that may improve program operations.

Develop Means of Accountability to Ensure Consistency in Officer’s referrals to the VAP

The majority of officers engaged in regular referral to the VAP. However, this was not uniform across officers and some officers indicated they did not refer when they did not think the victim was interested or cooperative. While this was relatively rare, given the range of assistance the VAP can provide, uniform referral seems valuable and provides all victims the opportunity to choose if they would like to receive or decline VAP services. Mechanisms to ensure that officers are consistently referring to the VAP in accordance with program policies should be developed and implemented. This could include supervising officers checking for documentation of referrals to the VAP during case review, and following up with officers when reviews are not made or documented properly.

Make Explicit Police Leadership Support for the VAP Through Formally Integrating Training on the VAP Into New Hire Training

Most officers were introduced to the VAP through training. In some departments, all police learn about the program during initial field training when they were onboarded into the department. In other departments, police learned about the VAP during select roll call training. The early introduction of the VAP to incoming officers by integrating it into initial field training builds the VAP into routine police work rather than an optional program. The integration of the VAP into the department should be standard across sites to communicate police leadership’s commitment to the program.

Review Confidentiality Practices as it Concerns the Boundaries Between VAP Services and What Occurs in the Context of the Criminal Justice System

For the most part, there were clear boundaries on confidentiality for victims receiving services through the VAP. Yet, in a context of coordination and collaboration, issues of confidentiality can become challenging. All programs should develop and ensure compliance with explicit protocols that define the boundaries of what information can be shared, with whom, and under what conditions.

Continue to Partner with External Agencies to Support Comprehensive, Coordinated Responses to Crime Victim

Crime victims’ needs are varied, as indicated by the array of external agencies that refer to and receive referrals from the VAP. When a crime victims’ needs cannot be met by a specific service provider, it is possible that another provider in the service delivery array is equipped to respond. These different services are often complementary to one another. VAPs should continue to partner with external agencies to identify where they might fill the gap in services provided by such agencies, and where external agencies can provide services that the VAP is not able to provide due to varied constraints. The VAP and these other agencies should consider developing and formalizing coordinated, comprehensive responses for crime victims to ensure they receive needed services and don’t slip through the cracks.

Use the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) Model Standards for VAPs to Continue to Develop Each Program

While the VAPs have various iterations of best practices in place, OVC provides a comprehensive overview of what constitutes best practices in programming. VAPs should self-assess to examine the extent to which their current victim services are aligned with these OVC recommendations.