Victim Service Delivery at the Federal Level: A Case Study

• NCJ Number: 199258
• Journal: Journal of Crime and Justice Volume: 25 Issue: 2 Dated: 2002 Pages: 121-128
• Author(s): Kevin M. Bryant; Nancy K. Brown
• Editor(s): J. Mitchell Miller
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 8 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article discusses the delivery of victim services at the Federal level from the the point of view of Federal probation officers.

Abstract

This article begins with a brief overview of the history of the victims' rights movement in the United States and the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. A literature review is provided concerning the subjects of victim restitution, presentence investigations and victim impact statements, and sentencing disparities and their impact on the victim. A multiple qualitative data collection and analysis strategy was used in this study. Field notes were analyzed, semi-structured interviews were coded, and offender files underwent a content analysis. The research site was a United States Probation office in a southern city. Twenty-three Federal probation officers were interviewed more than once to provide triangulation and increase trustworthiness of the data as the study evolved. Because probation officers deal directly with convicted defendants, they are critical agents in the delivery of services to victims, and their work in doing presentence investigations influences decisions concerning victim restitution. This study found that the quality of information obtained concerning victim impact directly affects compliance with the objectives of victim rights' legislation. Probation officers reported on victim participation factors that negatively affected the quality of their information collecting. Recommendations to improve victim service delivery conclude this article. Overall, the officers stated that victims should have more input, including written statements, than they presently do due to guidelines that limit discretion. And, additionally, community collaboration is needed to fill the gap between the limited time available for probation officers to provide these services and the victim's legislated rights to services. A list of references is provided.