The position of the victim-activist in crime victim service organizations

Abstract

The emergence of community-based service organizations for victims of violent crime, rape, domestic violence, child abuse and murder have become a part of the organizational underpinnings of the crime victim movement. Prominent figures in this movement are the victim-activists who speak for victims because they have the experiential expertise that comes from being a victim (survivor). This study examines the organizational positions of two types of victims, the individually harmed victim and the family member of a crime victim. The findings show that although both types of victim-activists can speak as victims, family victims tends to hold unpaid authoritative positions such as board member or president, whereas individual victims hold a variety of positions. Victim status serves as a credential for decision-making positions in the case of family victims, and as a career credential for individual victims.

Notes

1 The academic response to the crime victim movement also begins in the 1970s with the development of courses, symposiums, and research in victimology. The study of victimology can be traced back to the work of Hans von Hentig in his 1948 book “The Criminal and His Victim” but the subject did not develop very much in the United States until the social political issues of crime victims arose. The academic response contributed research that gave validation to the claims about the serious impact of victimization on individuals and their families, and also provided an academic criticism of the policies of police departments, prosecutors, and the courts (Elias, 1986; Wortman, 1983).

2 To isolate the characteristics of individual victim and family victim statuses the model is configured to predict victim status instead of victim status predicting organizational positions and status characteristics (see Menard, 1995, pp. 1, 92). This model offers a better presentation of the relationships of education and work experience on victim status. The zero order correlation's of victim status by organizational positions reflects the pattern of relations found in Table 2. The relationships of individual victim status are for board member (r = −.098), president (r = −.046), director (r = +.099), and counselor/caseworker (r = +.005). The relationships of family victim status are for board member (r = +.240), president (r = +.324), director (r = −.173) and counselor/caseworker (r = −.118).