5/24/2015

Victim Assistance in Ohio An assessment of the extent to

which victim assistance units provide

advocacy work for victims of crime.

Vytas Aukstuolis

1

An Assessment of Victim Assistance in Ohio

Executive Summary

When crimes occur, the needs of victims are typically not met. Nationally, 9% of victims

of violent crime between 2006 and 2013 received assistance from a private or public entity

(Langton). For the victims who do not receive assistance, the associated risk of socio-economic

problems and criminality increases. There have been no notable efforts made nationally to

increase the number of victims that receive assistance, and nearly all efforts to increase victim

services are concentrated at local levels. This report will seek to answer three questions in regard

to victim assistance in Ohio:

1) What efforts are made in Ohio to assist victims?

2) Could one ideal model be applied to all victim assistance units?

3) How would new policies help enhance victim services?

In Ohio, nearly all victim assistance is administered at the county level with funding

coming from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office along with local non-profits and prosecutor

offices. There are strong relationships between many of these local units, although typically only

neighboring units coordinate efforts. One group, the Ohio Victim Witness Association seeks to

create some statewide coordination of training and efforts, but does not centralize victim

services. Due to the local administration of victim assistance, outreach levels to victims of

violent crime are highly inconsistent.

Every victim witness assistance unit in Ohio wishes to reach out to more victims. All of

these units recognize shortcomings that limit their ability to reach that goal. There is currently no

Ohio victim witness assistance unit that would rate itself as being perfectly effective, and no

2

outside group has the means to evaluate a victim witness assistance unit as ideal. However, there

are enough consistencies across these individual units that comparisons can be drawn and

evaluated. Therefore, one ideal model may not be possible that could be applied to all victim

assistance units, but standards can be implemented that could improve every victim assistance

unit in Ohio and evaluate the success of each unit in its goal to provide high quality assistance to

the highest number of crime victims.

Some efforts can be made to improve individual units such as increased funding, a

consistent evaluation system for each county, and a task force with the objective of creating a

plan to provide victim assistance to every victim of a violent crime in Ohio. Increased funding

would improve services across all counties, but it would be difficult to measure the extent to

which funding would improve services. It would also be difficult to track the cost-effectiveness

of spending for individual units currently. An evaluation system would create greater consistency

of observed outcomes across units, which would in turn increase the number of victims that are

served as well as the quality of services provided. Although consistency would be provided, an

evaluation would be difficult to administer for counties with fewer resources. A task force would

gather members from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, victim witness advocates, and other

officials to evaluate the potential to increase quality victim services to more victims of the state.

This report recommends the creation of a task force that has the goal of prioritizing

quality victim assistance to nearly all victims of crime. Such a task force could potentially prove

the state benefits from assisting victims, implement evaluations, and provide other means to

increase quality victim services to a high number of victims.

3

Background

Socio-Emotional Impact on Victims

The reparative needs of victims of violent crimes extend beyond simply providing justice.

“In 2009-12, 68% of victims of serious violent crime-rape or sexual assault, robbery, or

aggravated assault-reported experiencing socio-emotional problems as a result of their

victimization” (Langton and Truman).

According to the same report, 12% of those reporting socio-emotional problems received

any assistance from a victim service agency (Langton and Truman). These psychological

problems associated with victimization from the crime are oftentimes carried over to

relationships, work, and school. Of the victims surveyed, 21% reported developing problems

with family and friends while 18% of victims reported developing problems in work or school

due to victimization (Langton and Truman).

Victimization and Criminality

The victims of crime are often young and susceptible to being impacted greatly by the

crime. One study notes that “a strong relationship exists between age and risk of violent

victimization; risk is greatest in childhood and adolescence” (Macmillan). This may lead to

concern since “victimization is most likely to occur during a period of the life course in which a

variety of life course trajectories are formed” (Macmillan).

Victimization has been linked to increased criminality. One study notes that it was “found

that self-reported victimization is a significant predictor of the seriousness of an adult career and

that being shot or stabbed is the best predictor of serious violence” (Fagan). The study also found

that “being a victim of crime has been shown to contribute to violent juvenile crime, adult

4

criminality, and adult violence toward family members, including wives and children” (Fagan).

Police have taken notice of this strong link. “One group of victims, namely those who have

experienced repeat or multiple victimization, have been seen increasingly as a particularly

important group for policing” (Deadman and Macdonald).

Victimization occurs in populations that have increased crime and has been linked to

increased criminality, but after extensive review of journals, reports, and interviews with victim

advocates, no study was found that has explored the relationship between helping victims of

crime recover from victimization and crime prevention.

Historical Outreach Efforts

Typically in violent crimes, there is a criminal, at least one victim, and there may be at

least one witness. Victims may have lost money, property, and sustained mental and physical

injuries. Victims may apply to the Attorney General for financial Victim Compensation, and the

victim may also receive other assistance from local victim service agencies. Victim service

agencies are defined as “publicly or privately funded organizations that provide victims with

support and services to aid their physical and emotional recovery, offer protection from future

victimizations, guide them through the criminal justice system process, and assist them in

obtaining restitution” (Langton). Their roles typically also consist of referring victims to resources such

as counseling, safety services, and support through the period after victimization.

The majority of victims do not receive help from victim assistance agencies. In fact, 9%

of victims of violent crime (15% female victims and 6% of male victims) received any assistance

from any victim service agency according to the National Center for Criminal Justice between

1993 and 2009 (Langton). To some, “Justice isn’t served until the victims are” (Jackson),

5

meaning that despite the billions of dollars spent to punish the criminal, justice is still not served

in 91% of crimes in the United States.

Although a significant number of victims have not historically received assistance, there

has been no national effort to increase the

number of victims that receive assistance

since 1984. As Figure 1 shows, even though

violent crime reduction efforts have been

successful from 1993 to 2009, the

percentage of victims receiving assistance

has not significantly increased (Langton).

Victim Compensation

In 1984, the United States passed a

law called the Victims of Crime Act in order to provide financial compensation for victims of

crime. The money is distributed by states through each state’s Attorney General’s offices. Some

of the money from the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) is administered to county victim witness

assistance units. The majority of these units in Ohio are prosecutor-based offices. Additionally,

some counties also have child advocacy centers that specialize in juvenile cases.

Across Ohio, most counties have prosecutor-based victim witness assistance units,

meaning units that operate as divisions in the prosecutor’s offices. The victim assistance units in

Cuyahoga County and Allen Counties are not prosecutor-based, but still work alongside the local

prosecutor’s office. Within each unit, there are victim advocates who are trained to aid victims

and witnesses after a crime has occurred. An advocate may guide the victim through the court

Figure 1

6

process, refer the victim to counseling, and offer guidance to receive financial restitution among

many other tasks. Most victim advocates work at the local county prosecutor’s office, while

others might work at the local child advocacy center or the local municipal court house.

Literature Shortcomings

There is little data reporting the total number of victims of violent crime. “During the

period from 2006 to 2010, 52% of all violent victimizations, or an annual average of 3,382,200

violent victimizations, were not reported to the police” (Langton). These gaps in data illustrate

the difficulty of reaching every victim of a violent crime. Therefore when victim assistance units

attempt outreach efforts to victims, there is an additional challenge in reaching out to a victim of

an unreported crime who may not know about victim assistance services.

The data provided for the number of victims that receive help in the United States could

not be found on a county or state level basis and did not offer explanations as to why many

victims do not receive the kind of help they deserve. Therefore, this analysis aims to gain a

stronger understanding of how Ohio helps victims of crime, what can be done to improve victim

assistance services, and to understand what an ideal victim assistance unit may look like.

Research Method

Unit Selection

The analysis is based on phone interviews and on-site visits to victim assistance units in

relatively high-crime areas of Ohio. The units selected for the study of this report are either from

cities with higher crime rates in Ohio based from the FBI Uniform Crime Report from 2013, or a

board member from OVWA was based in that county. The counties in which these cities are

located were selected to for a phone survey. A Google search was made for “[County] Victim

7

Witness Assistance Unit” and the first relevant result was selected for the phone survey. There

were 11 total phone interviews, one email interview, and 6 on-site visits. The counties and the

types of interviews are listed in the table below:

Phone interviews

The purpose of the phone surveys was to gain an understanding of victim witness

assistance units and to understand the perceived successes of each unit. The survey consisted of

open-ended questions. The respondents were given the ability to freely describe the strengths and

difficulties. Respondents included victim advocates and executive directors of the local victim

witness assistance unit. Due to the variety of roles, the answers could vary from other members

of the unit.

On Site Visits

On-site visits were selected based availability of the respondents. Units with executive

board members of the Ohio Victim Witness Association and units based in counties with larger

County Main city/cities On-site Phone Email

Franklin Columbus Yes Yes No

Allen/Putnam Lima Yes Yes No

Stark Canton Yes Yes No

Cuyahoga Cleveland Yes Yes No

Montgomery Dayton Yes Yes No

Lucas Toledo No Yes No

Guernsey Cambridge No Yes No

Hamilton Cincinnati No Yes No

Butler Hamilton No Yes No

Mahoning Youngstown No Yes No

Trumbull Warren No Yes No

Summit Akron No No Yes

Greene Xenia Yes No No Figure 2

8

populations were the primary targets for on-site visits. Visited units were either child advocacy

centers, prosecutor-based victim witness assistance units, family justice centers, independent

victim witness assistance units, or municipal courts.

On-site visits to units were conducted in order to gain a more in-depth comparison

between units. During visits, the researcher collected documents displaying the services and

work provided, partner organizations, backgrounds of victim advocates, and asked questions

regarding the programs and potential notable pieces of information from each unit.

Advocates reported the annual number of victims that receive help from each county.

Across various units, some counties had detailed documentation of how many crime cases were

handled by the units as well as the total number of victims that received assistance from the unit,

while other counties provided estimates of the number of victims that received assistance.

As units employ different programs and have independent goals depending on the crime

rate of each county and resources available to address crime, the qualitative data was broad and

the questions posed to each unit were open-ended. Each victim advocate surveyed is an expert in

the field. Therefore open-ended questions were intended to relay the expertise of victim

advocates as well as the perceived success of each victim advocacy unit.

Shortcomings of Report

There was a lack of resources to accomplish a comprehensive analysis of all units across

Ohio that may have attributed to disparities in the research. Many rural units may only have one

advocate or need help from surrounding counties to accomplish their goals of advocating for

victims. Therefore, advocates from higher populated counties were asked questions regarding

some issues many rural counties may encounter.

9

While quantitative data may help diminish the bias from surveyed advocates towards the

success of each program, it does not take into consideration whether or not there are other means

employed to increase the number of victims that may receive help other than advocacy.

Understanding that each unit may have various challenges helps solidify the reasoning for an

open-ended survey for each response.

What efforts are made in Ohio to assist victims?

Outreach

Of the twelve interviewed subjects during the phone interviews, every interviewee

expressed an interest to help more victims of crime within the county, although the extent of

victim outreach between various counties varied widely. In one rural county, every victim of

crime that is listed in the police report receives a letter in the mail outlining the services that are

available to the victim. The county reported that a large number of the victims were receptive to

the letters and most of the victims receive services as long as the addresses are still correct.

Another county goes to local health fairs to pass out literature in order to raise awareness about

the services offered to victims, while others take efforts to reach out to victims before

victimization such as giving presentations in school and to local community leaders regarding

victim assistance.

Stark County victim services reaches out to local schools with presentations that allow

students to know the resources available to victims in case they or their peers are victimized.

There is also a case tracking system in Stark County where the advocates have an outline of all

the reported victims of crime and can track the services offered to each victim. The results of the

outreach in Stark County is a situation where over 10,000 victims have received help by the local

victim advocates within the last year. It is noted by the interviewee that this number could not

10

have been achieved without the 10 full time staff members and the two part time staff members.

Still, there was an expressed desire in Stark County to reach a higher number of victims in the

county.

Many victim assistance units work closely with the police department for several

purposes including outreach. Of the twelve interviewed units on the phone, eleven reported a

strong relationship with the police department. This may involve the ability to go through police

reports to find the contact information for victims or giving the police officers state-mandated

flyers to hand out to victims to offer services. It was difficult for every county victim service to

know whether or not the police were in fact delivering the flyers to the victims. In Cuyahoga

County, it was noted that there are eight domestic violence advocates who work with the police

unit. In Guernsey County, the victim advocate himself worked as a detective for a long time and

noted that he has a really strong relationship with the police department. According to the phone

interview with Guernsey County, it appears that a significant number of victims have been

helped.

The variety in the strategies for outreach created an inconsistent rate of victims that

received assistance. In the table below, even though most of the reported number of victims that

received are estimates, many larger counties reported assisting fewer victims than smaller

counties.

* Number reported is just for domestic violence cases. Unreported for other cases. **Estimate

Figure 3

11

Financial Compensation

Another important role each county had was helping victims receive financial

compensation. Through the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, victims of crime are eligible to

compensation for loss of property, damages, counseling, and other services. The Ohio General’s

Office provides the application process and gives money to the victims who meet the

qualifications. In one interview, it was noted that according to federal rules, states must be

allowed to give financial compensation to all victims over the age of 18, but the application in

Ohio disallows any victims with criminal records to receive compensation. Many of the victim

advocates interviewed over the phone and personally were against this clause in the Ohio

Attorney General’s application and feel victims of crime, regardless of criminal record, should

be given financial compensation while citing the fact that not helping any victim of crime could

lead to further damage for the victim and for those surrounding the victim.

Differences in Individual Units

Despite the variety of names for all the victim assistance units, the goals and strategies in

each unit were similar. Every person working for or with the victim assistance units was

passionate about his or her work and took great pride in the work performed. As demonstrated in

one study “Victims generally feel they received meaningful help for their problems” (Ybarra and

Lohr). The high level of quality victim assistance was especially apparent in one of the visited

child advocacy centers called the Children’s Network.

12

At the selected Children’s Network, juvenile victims of crime and their parents are

guided through a standardized process. Instead of victims telling the story of their

victimization to lawyers, police, and victim advocates, the Children’s Network provides

children with the opportunity to recount their story once given certain circumstances.

Two interview rooms are set up with cameras, microphones, and a comfortable setting.

The parent is taken to another room with a television and conference table where victim

advocates and the parent may watch the interview with the child. The child and parent

understand the interview is being viewed and recorded. A victim advocate interviews the

victim using non-leading questions. This means that the advocate will ask questions

being carefuly not to solicit a specific response from the victim. If the victim needs

counseling after the crime, a counselor is stationed at the Children’s Network as to help

the victims who may have been psychologically affected after the crime.

CHILDREN’S NETWORK CASE STUDY

Many of the interviewed members of the individual units believed that since there are 88

different counties in Ohio, there are also 88 different ways to provide victim assistance. There

was some truth in the matter as to the differences between each unit. In Cuyahoga County the

main unit for victim assistance is the Family Justice Center. The stated mission of the Cuyahoga

County Family Justice Center “is to ensure the safety and healing of all victims of family and

intimate partner violence through easily accessible, coordinated and comprehensive services”. In

the same building as the Family Justice Center is the Cuyahoga County Witness/Victim Service

Center, the Domestic Violence and Child Advocacy Center/ City of Cleveland Municipal

13

Prosecutor, Frontline Services, and Cleveland Rape Crisis. Since all efforts are consolidated in

one location, victim assistance is easier for the victim as well as for the advocate. Such a Family

Justice Center does not exist in other parts of the state, but the work done within the Family

Justice Center greatly resembled the work done in other victim witness assistance units.

Ohio Victim Witness Association

The Ohio Victim Witness Association, or OVWA, is an association of various victim-

centered organizations and individuals across the state of Ohio. The group meets several times

during the year and provides a setting for many victim advocates to compare best practices and

encourage better victim services. OVWA helps with several events such as 2 Days in May and

National Crime Victim’s Rights Week. 2 Days in May is an event where parties interested in

victim assistance gather to compare services in different counties. National Crime Victims’

Rights Week is a week in April focused to increase awareness for victims’ issues.

OVWA, 2 Days in May, and National Crime Victims’ Rights Week are useful and

necessary steps to increase the quality and scope of help for victims, but are not enough to

provide high-quality assistance to every felony crime victim in Ohio. Rather, they could be used

as bases for discussion and collaboration to move victim assistance towards a system that helps

more victims in Ohio. The scope of each service is limited by the volunteer nature of the

executive board of OVWA. With paid staff, many roles enacted by OVWA could potentially be

greatly improved such as increased coordination, fundraising, and means to communicate with

all member groups.

14

Could one ideal model be applied to all victim assistance units?

None of the visited units would say that their units are perfect and all agree that their own

individual units could be improved. One interview mentioned that there is talk to begin

implementing evidence-based practices to improve victim services. In order to implement

evidence-based practices, there needs to be an agreed consensus across all counties as to what

constitutes a successful unit. Some of the visited units mentioned that there is some

standardization of the practice within the unit, but not across different counties. For example,

many counties had surveys for victims to see whether or not victims were satisfied with the

service, but the surveys across different counties are not the same. Some units standardize the

priority and extent to which certain victims should receive help, while other units evaluate the

quality and extent of victim services actually provided to the county.

There have been some efforts from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to provide

consistency throughout the units in order to have ideal victim assistance. There around 287

programs that the Ohio Attorney General’s Office funds received from VOCA. Units that receive

funding from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office have a standard list of questions that must be

asked for the victims. This creates a consistent quality of service for when victims are assisted by

advocates.

Throughout many of the interviews and on-site visits, there were enough consistencies

across assistance units to show that many of the services provided in the units could be

standardized and monitored on a state-level. While some services could be standardized and

monitored, every county units has unique needs and one ideal model for providing victim

assistance could not be applied in every county.

15

Many visited counties in Ohio have strengths that other counties can learn from. Two

counties which displayed unique programs that seemed to improve the quality of services are

Allen County and Montgomery County. Both show that unique ideas can be implemented across

a variety of counties to improve local service to victims.

The Allen County Victim Witness Assistance Unit is not a prosecutor-based office. It

focuses on achieving the highest quality of victim services to Allen and its neighbor Putnam

County. In order to achieve high quality care, there are two evaluations performed for staff

– one for the general services of the county and one for the individual advocates. The

general evaluation asks five general questions:

1) Are victims able to find us?

2) Are agency reliability & services right for victim needs?

3) Are victims treated right?

4) Are victims’ lives improved?

5) Are victim services cost effective?

From the broad questions, more specific questions are asked with specific answers to

evaluate the true success of the unit to achieve a system that ultimately provides safety,

healing, justice, and restitution to all victims of Allen and Putnam Counties. Therefore,

Allen and Putnam Counties are able to self-evaluate success and take appropriate measures

to improve their services. The results have shown that 2,486 cases were handled and 4,008

victims were served in 2014.

ALLEN COUNTY

16

How would new policies enhance victim services?

Research into crime prevention

Further research is necessary to evaluate the use of victim assistance as a crime

prevention tool. If it was found that helping victims of certain crimes is able to prevent certain

future types of crime, then victim services could be used as a preventative tool for crime.

Typically victim services cost much less than police, courts, and prisons. If it was found that

certain efforts could reduce crime in a cost effective way, it could be found that increased efforts

to prevent future crime through victim services could reduce other criminal justice costs. Further

research needs to be done to prove the cost savings and crime prevention victim service agencies

can provide.

Increased Funding

Another recommendation is to increase funding to the victim assistance units. While the

results of some of the counties vary, all counties do not have the resources available to help out

Montgomery County implemented a few unique policies that helped spread

awareness to the community regarding victim services. One of the services is the Homicide

Victim Memorial Day it hosts annually. This event provides local families of homicide

victims the opportunity for a non-religious service to honor their lost loved ones that year.

Hundreds from the community arrive annually, sometimes including the mayor of Dayton

and many from the police department arrive too.

A large campaign hosted by the Montgomery County advocates is a Violence

Prevention Poster & Writing Contest. All students in Montgomery County are invited to

participate in the contest and several thousand entries are submitted annually. The contest

serves multiple objectives including spreading awareness about victim services and giving

students from elementary school through high school the opportunity to think about their

role in preventing violence. There have also been a few cases of victims that have been

discovered through the contest.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

17

all the victims in the county. Providing financial assistance to counties would help provide

assistance to more victims. Research may help determine the amount of funding needed to

provide quality assistance for a county. It should be noted that although increased funding will

help every individual county, it will be difficult to track the efficiency of money due to

inconsistency between units.

Standard evaluations

Even though the duties described for each victim advocate are similar in each county and

the training done for victim advocates is the same, there is no standardization of the goals

presented to each unit. The victim assistance unit in Allen and Putnam Counties created an

evaluation sheet to provide consistency among practices performed by each advocate. The

evaluation can be seen in Appendix A. Evaluation of standard practices also allows the unit at

Allen and Putnam Counties to improve the services performed by the advocates.

Greene County standardized the priority of which victims received help. This provides

consistency with the victims who receive help given limited resources, as seen in Appendix B.

Even though there were some examples of standardization within county units for victim

advocacy, there was no state-wide standardization outside of training for victim advocates.

Since the process of victim advocacy is similar across counties, but results vary widely

across counties, an evaluation of the success of each county will help provide consistency for

high quality advocacy across Ohio. With a standard evaluation, funding may be allocated

accordingly to need for each county. If funds were allocated according to results taken from a

standard evaluation of units, funds could be used most effectively to increase the quality and

quantity of victims that need assistance after victimization.

18

Every unit interviewed feels that it may be able to improve services pending an increase

of funds, but it is recommended to evaluate the effects funds may have on individual units. In

case of an increase of funding, there are no means to understand the effects of the funds and

outreach efforts or quality improvement. It is recommended that individual assistance units

receiving funding from the Attorney General’s Office provide reports regarding the status of a

unit before receiving funding and the status of a unit after funding has been received. This will

evaluate the effectiveness of each dollar spent to help victims, and may give a better

understanding of how much funding may be necessary to give high quality assistance to all

victims of felony crimes in Ohio.

While there are many advantages to standardize the evaluation of units, there are also a

few problems that the state may encounter when implementing this policy. The seemingly largest

difference between counties was the available staff. According to interviews, rural counties may

have a difficult time implementing their current duties while at the same time filling out self-

evaluations. In cases where there is not much staff, it could also be difficult to track all the

proper numbers.

An alternative to implementing a state-wide evaluation process is to implement

evaluations for only a few volunteering counties. This way, any problems that may occur during

the evaluation process on the statewide level may be discovered when volunteering groups are

using the same evaluation process. Once the volunteering counties have found a standardization

of evaluation, the evaluation can be applied to other counties. Volunteering units should take

note how an evaluation process would occur in a county with limited resources.

19

Recommendations

Task Force

One means to evaluate the potential for each viable solution is to create a task force. This

task force should include parties that have the greatest expertise regarding victims including

members from the Attorney General’s Office, victim advocates, police, and other interested

parties such as hospital representatives. Such a task force could understand the most cost-

effective means to improve victim services across the State of Ohio, which would therefore be

cost-effective. It should evaluate ideas such as increased funding, standard unit evaluations, and

increased research to determine an evidence-based practice towards victim assistance. There may

be some difficulties including recruiting staff with enough resources and time that would be able

to work for the task force. Still, the long-term benefits of such a task force should exceed any

costs imposed by creating such a task force.

It is also recommended that victims that have criminal records may be eligible for victim

assistance. Many victim advocates are in favor of such a policy and no victim advocates

protested such a policy during the research.

Conclusion

There is a group of passionate people working to help victims of crime, but does not have

the capacity to reach all victims of crime in Ohio. A system that spends billions of dollars

focused on the criminal when many victims are left abandoned is one that requires change

towards a system when all victims receive the proper assistance needed. A criminal justice

system that incorporates the needs of victims is one where justice is truly served.

20

Works Cited Deadman, Derek and Ziggy Macdonald. "Offenders as Victims of Crime? An Investigaion into the

Relationship between Criminal Behavior and Victimization." Journal of the Royal Statistical

Society: Series A (n.d.): 53-67. Print.

Fagan, Jeffrey. "Contributions of Victimization to Delinquency in Inner Cities." The Journal of Law and

Society (2003). Web.

Langton, Lynn and Jennifer Truman. Socio-emotional Impact of Violent Crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2014. Web.

Langton, Lynn. Use of Victim Service Agencies by Victims of Serious Violent Crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2011. Web.

—. Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006-2010. National Crime Victimization Survey.

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. Print.

Macmillan, Ross. "Violence And The Life Course: The Consequences of Victimization For Personal And

Social Development." Annual Review of Sociology (n.d.): 1-22. Print.

Ybarra, Lynn and Sharon Lohr. "Estimates of Repeat Victimization Using the National Crime Victimization

Survey." Journal of Quantitative Criinology (2002). Web.

21

Appendix A

22

23

Appendix B