How Programs Operate: Similarities and Differences
In all states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the ques- tion of whether to compensate victims has been answered for the time being. But the programs vary in many ways, reflecting the diversity in the traditions, populations, crime rates, and resources of the states and the differing rationales on which the programs were based.
Certain requirements are the same in each state (see Parent, Auerbach, and Carlson, 1992). All of the programs grant reimbursements only to “innocent” victims. Compensation board investi- gators always look for evidence of contributory misconduct. If it is established that the individual was partly to blame for getting hurt, the grant can be reduced in size or disallowed entirely. For example, applicants would not be repaid if they were engaging in an illegal activity when they were wounded (such as being shot while holding up a liquor store, being stabbed while buying drugs, or being beaten after agreeing to perform an act of prostitution). Most boards would rule injured parties in barroom brawls ineligible if they had been drinking, uttered “fighting words,” and provoked the fracas in which they were seriously hurt. However, applicants could appeal claims that were denied.
Another common feature is that the programs deal only with the most serious crimes that result in physical injury, psychological trauma, or death: murder, rape, assault, robbery, child sexual abuse, child physical abuse, spouse abuse, other types of domestic violence, and also hit-and-run motor vehicle collisions caused by drunk drivers. Most do not repay people for property that is damaged or lost in thefts, burglaries, or robberies (unless they are elderly or their possessions are essential, such as hearing aids or wheelchairs). Only out-of-pocket expenses are reimbursed: bills not paid by collateral
sources such as Medicaid or private insurance such as Blue Cross. Payments can be for medical expenses, mental health services, dental bills, and earnings lost because of missed work. Families of individuals who succumb to their wounds are eligi- ble for assistance with reasonable funeral and burial costs; dependents can qualify for a death benefit or pension to compensate for their loss of financial support. Some states go further and pay for the services of home health aides and housekeepers, child care, transportation costs for medical treat- ments and court appearances, and even for reloca- tion when necessary (New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Agency, 2008). Each program requires that all parts of a claim be fully documen- ted with bills and receipts. Every program prohibits double recoveries. Money collected from insurance policies or other government sources (such as Veteran’s Benefits) is subrogated (subtracted) from the compensation board’s final award. In the statistically unusual cases in which offenders are caught, found guilty, and forced to pay restitution, this money is also deducted from the award. For a claimant to be repaid, the assailant does not have to be caught and convicted. But in every state, the applicant must report the crime promptly to the police and cooperate fully with any investigation and prosecution to remain eligible.
Despite sharing these basic features, the 50 state programs differ in many ways: How long victims can wait before telling the police about the crime (from one day to three months, with a mode of three days); how long victims can take before applying for reimbursement (from six months to three years, with a mode of one year); how much claimants can collect (maximum awards of $1,000 to $50,000 plus limitless medical expenses, with modes at $10,000 and $25,000); whether the pro- gram will grant an emergency loan before fully investigating a case; and whether lawyers can be hired to help present cases and collect fees. Eligibil- ity rules differ slightly from state to state. For exam- ple, survivors of those who are slain can include parents, siblings, and in-laws in some programs, but most states limit coverage only to children and spouses (NACVCB, 2011).
444 CH APT ER 12
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
In 1988, amendments to the Victims of Crimes Act mandated that eligibility in all states be extended to innocent family members injured by domestic violence, people hurt by drunk driving crashes, and nonresidents (visitors and commuters). Some states have gone further in expanding the list of covered individuals and offenses. For example, besides victims of violence such as kidnappings and carjackings, New Jersey compensates indivi- duals injured in hit-and-run collisions, people sick- ened by drug and food tampering, bystanders hurt by criminals trying to elude the police, and people brought in to the state by human traffickers (New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Agency, 2008). New York’s Victim Compensation Board will consider claims from individuals who were not physically injured if they were Good Samaritans or suffered from stalking, harassment, menacing, unlawful imprisonment, or even frivolous counter- lawsuits by offenders. The board covers the expenses of those subjected to sexual assaults for forensic examinations at hospitals (to collect evi- dence for “rape kits”) and for people who incur losses from attempted strangulations, whether or not physical injuries result (Stanford, 2011).
On the other hand, entire groups of people may be ruled ineligible. In each state, the list varies. Law enforcement officers and firefighters injured in the line of duty generally are excluded because they are covered by workers’ compensation. In some jur- isdictions, prison inmates, parolees, probationers, ex- convicts, and members of organized crime are auto- matically eliminated from consideration (National Institute of Justice, 1998). In eight states, all persons with a felony conviction are ineligible for aid, even if their current predicament has nothing to do with their past illegal activities (Mitchell, 2008).
Many trends in compensation regulations are worth noting. One change over time has been to broaden coverage to include the cost of cleaning up a crime scene and replacing essential personal prop- erty such as eyeglasses and false teeth. In just a handful of states, money is available to offset pain and suffering. Some programs extend eligibility to include individuals who suffered incest as children, people who were sexually assaulted but escaped
without physical injuries, the elderly whose homes were burglarized, and parents of missing children.
Initially, the money given out by compensation programs came from general revenues, which essentially means from taxpayers. Since the 1970s, the trend has been to rely more heavily on funds derived from penalty assessments or abusers’ taxes (more than half of the programs get all or part of their money this way). These funds are raised from fines and surcharges levied on persons convicted of traffic violations, misdemeanors, and felonies. Some states impose taxes on the earnings of offenders on work release and from collateral forfeited by defendants who jump bail. Offender- funded compensation programs reflect a larger trend that compels convicts in some jurisdictions to shoulder all kinds of financial obligations, includ- ing restitution, charges for room and board, fines, court costs, and supervision fees. By the start of the twenty-first century, 90 percent of state and federal funding came from money extracted from offen- ders. Taxpayer dollars supplemented these limited and unpredictable revenues in only 13 states. Although making wrongdoers pay their collective debts has symbolic value as a form of group restitu- tion, albeit indirect and impersonal, this is an insuf- ficient source of money to meet all the critical needs of the eligible and worthy claimants seeking financial aid (Herman and Waul, 2004). For exam- ple, in Idaho, every person convicted of a misde- meanor has to pay a fine of $37, and of a felony, $74. Convicted sex offenders must send in $300 to the state compensation fund (Nelson, 2014).
Before the 1980s, in about one-third of the states, only claimants who faced severe financial hardships could pass a means test to become eligi- ble for reimbursement. The others were told they could afford to absorb their losses. By the end of the 1980s, only 11 programs still required their appli- cants to establish a dire fiscal need before receiving an award. Encouraged by VOCA’s financial sup- port, some states have raised the upper limits for awards because of substantial hikes in the cost of living over the years. Minimum loss requirements and deductible provisions (usually of $100) designed to eliminate minor claims have been scrapped and
REP AY IN G V I C T IMS 445
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
persist in less than half the states (NOVA, 1988; Parent et al., 1992; NIJ, 1998; and NACVCB, 2011). However, many states have frozen maxi- mum benefits (still usually capped at $25,000, even after years of rising prices), so compensation payments fail to keep up with the rate of inflation year after year. For example, in Georgia, the maxi- mum amount any one victim can receive is $25,000. Breaking that down, medical expenses can’t exceed $15,000, economic aid is capped at $10,000, and $3,000 is the limit for counseling costs (West, 2014).