Performance audit, victims' compensation and victim-witness programs in Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, and Cochise counties

              .
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
VICTIMS' COMPENSATION
and VICTIM- WITNESS PROGRAMS
in MARICOPA, PIMA, COCONINO,
and COCHISE COUNTIES
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
December 1994
Report 94- 1 1
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPYTV & YDITOT1 CIENEmIL
December 29, 1994
Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Stephen D. Neely
Pima County Attorney
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor The Honorable Alan Polley
Cochise County Attorney
Mr. Rex M. Holgerson
Executive Director The Honorable Terrance Hance
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Coconino County Attorney
The Honorable Richard M. Romley
Maricopa County Attorney
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Victims' Compensation Programs and Victim- Witness Programs in Maricopa, Pima,
Coconino, and Cochise Counties. This performance audit was conducted in response
to Laws 1994, Chapter 127.
This statute instructs the Auditor General to determine each county's rate of
compliance with the Victims' Rights Implementation Act, and to ascertain the costs
associated with this compliance. We found that although Arizona has made great
strides in providing victims' rights, changes are needed to ensure agencies fully
comply with victims' rights mandates. For example, in 16 to 48 percent of the case
files we reviewed, we could find no evidence that prosecutors in the four counties
we audited had conferred with victims regarding plea agreements. Further, there is
no meaningful recourse for victims who do not receive their rights.
2910 NORTH 44TH STREET 1 SUITE 410 = PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 l( 602) 553- 0333 FAX ( 602) 553- 0051
December 29, 1994
Page - 2-
We found the agencies responsible for providing victims' rights have not separately
identified the costs associated with complying with victims' rights mandates.
Although some agencies have recently developed projections on what they believe
total costs to be, we could not rely on these projections. However, the four
programs we studied received funding from the Victims' Rights Implementation
Revolving Fund which offset from 27 to 100 percent of their projected compliance
costs.
The statute also directs the Auditor General to determine each county's timeliness
and compliance with victim compensation rules. We faund that compliance rates among
the four victims' compensation programs range from 73 to 94 percent. However,
compliance rates should increase in the future due to the recent revisions of the
compensation rules which have clarified two program definitions that were the
sources of much of the noncompliance. In addition, although county programs do not
always meet established time standards, most claims for compensation are handled
within three to four months of receipt.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on January 3, 1995.
Sincerely,
Auditor General
DRN: lmn
Enclosure
SUMMARY
In response to Laws 1994, Chapter 127, the Office of the Auditor General has conducted
a performance audit of the Victims' Compensation Programs and the Victim- Witness
Programs in Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, and Cochise Counties. This statute instructs the
Auditor General to determine each county's timeliness and compliance with victim
compensation rules. Further, the Auditor General is directed to determine each county's
rate of compliance with the Victims' Rights Implementation Act, and to ascertain the
costs associated with ths compliance.
In 1990, voters approved Proposition 104, an Arizona Constitutional Amendment
known as the Victims' Bill of Rights, with the intent of protecting the victim's right to
justice and due process, while ensuring that the victim is treated with dignity and
respect by the criminal justice system. Statutory changes have also been made in an
attempt to provide crime victims with specific rights, and with assistance and
compensation for their losses. The purpose of our audit was to determine whether
crime victims were being afforded their rights. Our audit results indicate that Arizona's
crime victims are receiving better treatment from the criminal justice system than they
received prior to the amendments, yet mandated rights are not consistently provided.
Changes Needed to Ensure Agencies
Fully Comply with Victims' Rights
Mandates ( See pages 9 through 17)
Arizona's Constitution mandates that various criminal justice agencies afford victims
certain rights, yet it lacks an effective appeals process for victims to pursue should
agencies fail to comply. Our audit work suggests that most criminal justice agencies do
not fully comply with victims' rights laws. For example, our review of the various
county attorney's offices showed that victims were not consistently notified of hearings
during wluch conditions of a defendant's release were discussed; conferred with by
prosecutors regarding plea bargains; or provided an opportunity to request post-conviction
notification. In addition, both victims and victims' advocacy groups
expressed concern with various aspects of the system, ranging from failure of law
enforcement officials to inform victims of their rights to the release of a defendant
without the victim's knowledge.
Victims who are not afforded their rights lack meaningful recourse. Under current laws,
dissatisfied victims must file a lawsuit to assert neglected rights. Further, to recover
damages, victims must prove an " intentional, knowing, or grossly negligent violation"
of the victims' rights laws. Establishng a centralized function to handle complaints
would provide dissatisfied victims with the ability to seek action without the need to
file a lawsuit. For example, Minnesota and South Carolina established a special
ombudsman program to ensure compliance with crime victim statutes, and to provide
victims with a centralized, comprehensive source of information and referral.
State Funds Offset Varying Portions
of Compliance Costs
( See pages 19 through 22)
In addition to reviewing compliance with the Victims' Rights Implementation Act, we
were also directed to ascertain the costs associated with this compliance. Following
passage of the Act, the Legislature established the Victims' Rights Implementation
Revolving Fund ( VRIRF) to compensate organizations for the expenses incurred to meet
the victims' rights mandates. Currently, this Fund provides $ 1.5 million to agencies for
implementation of the Act. While most agencies do not track the costs of
implementation, these monies offset between 27 percent to 100 percent of the costs
projected by the agencies. Our review also found that many agencies are offering
victims services above and beyond those mandated by the Act, primarily at their own
expense.
Crime Victim Compensation Programs
Experience Different Rates of Rule
Compliance and Processing Timeliness
( See pages 23 through 29)
Victims' compensation programs vary in compliance with rules governing disbursement
of funds to crime victims. In 1987, the Legislature established the Victim's Compensa-tion
Fund within the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ( ACJC) to compensate crime
victims for expenses they incur as a result of their victimization. Although the ACJC
administers the Fund, individual compensation award decisions are made at the county
level by victim compensation boards. These boards are to use rules promulgated by
ACJC to guide their award decisions.
Our reviews of the victims' compensation programs in Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, and
Cochise Counties revealed varying rates of compliance with ACJC rules. We found that
program compliance rates varied from as high as 94 percent to as low as 73 percent.
While a portion of the rule violations were caused by the excessive restrictiveness of
the rule defining " valid claimant," over half the errors were due to boards awarding
monies to claimants who either contributed to their victimization or were not
cooperating with law enforcement officials. To ensure monies are targeted to intended
recipients, ACJC needs to provide training, guidance, and oversight to county
programs.
Audit work was also conducted to determine the timeliness of the victims' compensa-tion
programs in processing compensation claims. Although county programs do not
always meet the time standard established by ACJC, most claims are handled within
three to four months of receipt. Based on comparisons with other states, the timeliness
of Arizona's county programs appears reasonable. Further, in financial hardship cases,
we found the county programs effectively utilize the option provided under the ACJC
rules to make emergency awards.
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Finding I: Changes Needed to Ensure Agencies
Fully Comply with Victims' Rights
Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Agencies Must Increase
EffortstoComply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Victims Dissatisfied
- With Delivery of Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4
Centralized Program Would
Afford Victims a Reasonable
Appeal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Finding II: State Funds Offset Varying
Portions of Compliance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State Offsets a Varying Portion
of Victims' Rights Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Costs of Other
Services to Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2
Table of Contents ( cant)
Finding Ill: Crime Victim Compensation
Programs Experience Different
PRraotecse sosfi nRgu Tleim Ceolimnepslisa n. c. e . a. n. d. ........................ 23
Compensation Program Rule Compliance
Rates Varied Among Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ACJC Needs to Strengthen
Its Leadership Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Timeliness of Claims Processing
Appears Reasonable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9
Other Pertinent Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Forty- Eight States Have
Centralized Compensation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Arizona Funding Levels Rank
Low in Nationwide Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Area For Further Audit Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Agency Response
List of Tables
Table 1 Victims' kghts Implementation Revolving Fund
Sources and Distribution of Monies
Fiscal Years 1992- 93, 1993- 94, and 1994- 95
( Unaudited). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2 Victims' Assistance Programs
Sources and Distribution of Monies
Fiscal Years 1992- 93, 1993- 94, and 1994- 95
( Unaudited). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3 Victims' Compensation Fund
Sources and Distribution of Monies
Fiscal Years 1992- 93, 1993- 94, and 1994- 95
( Unaudited). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4 Percentage of Victims Afforded Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5 Crime Victim Compensation Program
Rule Compliance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 6 Victim Compensation Program
Timeliness of Compensation Claim Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 7 Comparison of Compensation Funds Available
for Each Victim of Violent Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In response to Laws 1994, Chapter 127, the Office of the Auditor General has conducted
a performance audit of the Victims' Compensation Programs and the Victim- Witness
Programs in Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, and Cochse Counties. This statute instructs the
Auditor General to determine each county's timeliness and compliance with victim
compensation rules. Further, the Auditor General is directed to determine each county's
rate of compliance with the Victims' Rights Implementation Act, and to ascertain the
costs associated with this compliance.
History and Purpose of Victims' Rights
Constitutional Amendments and Legislation
In 1990 Arizona voters approved Proposition 104, a constitutional amendment known
as the Victims' Bill of fights. The intent of ths amendment is to protect the victim's
right to justice and due process, while ensuring that the victim is treated with dignity
and respect by the criminal justice system. In 1992 the Arizona Legislature passed the
Victims' Rights Implementation Act. This legislation identifies the roles and responsibili-ties
of the various state and local government agencies charged with implementing the
Victims' Bill of fights.
Three Programs Attempt
to Meet the Needs of Victims
Through legislation, three distinct programs have been developed in Arizona to address
the needs of crime victims. First, when an individual is a victim of crime, the Arizona
Constitution guarantees him or her specific rights within the criminal justice system.
Second, victims may receive wide- ranging assistance from various community and
government organizations. Third, victims can apply for monetary awards to compensate
for their financial losses caused by the crime.
Victims' Rights - As outlined in article 11, 52.1 of the Arizona State Constitution,
the Victims' Bill of Rights guarantees crime victims the following: the right to be
treated with respect and dignity by the criminal justice system; the right to be
informed when the accused is released or has escaped from jail; the right to refuse
an interview, deposition, or other discovery request by the defendant; the right to
be notified of court events; the right to confer with the prosecutor; and the right to
be in the courtroom whenever the accused is present.
Many criminal justice organizations are involved in the execution of these rights.
When a police agency comes into contact with a crime victim, it has the duty to
inform that person of their rights as a victim. Once the accused is in custody, it is
the responsibility of various criminal justice agencies to notify the victim if the
perpetrator escapes or is released from jail. If charges are filed against the accused,
the county attorney or the Attorney General's Office have the responsibility to
perform the following major duties:
Notify victims of the charges filed against the defendant and provide victims the
opportunity to confer with the prosecutor should the prosecutor decline to file
charges;
1 Notify victims of all court dates including the outcome of prosecution;
Confer with victims about plea agreements;
Provide victims with a copy of the pre- sentence report;
Provide victims with a form to request post- conviction rights; and
Provide notification and an explanation of post- conviction relief proceedings.
Finally, every agency and person involved in the criminal justice system has the
duty to treat the victim with fairness, respect, and dignity.
Funding for victims' rights services originates with the Criminal Justice Enhance-ment
Fund. This Fund's revenues are generated by a 46 percent assessment on every
fine, penalty, and forfeiture imposed by the courts for criminal offenses, civil traffic
violations, motor vehicle violations, and game and fish statute violations. Of the
total Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund, 7.85 percent is allocated to victims' rights
services via the Victims' hghts Implementation Revolving Fund. Ths Fund's fiscal
resources are used to compensate organizations for the expenses incurred to meet
victims' rights mandates. The Attorney General's Office also draws monies from ths
Fund to cover operational expenses relating to victims' rights. Table 1 ( see page 3),
describes victims' rights funding in more detail.
Table 1
Victims' Rights Implementation Revolving Fund
Sources and Distribution of Monies
Fiscal Years 1992- 93, 1993- 94, and 1994- 95
( Unaudited)
Actual Actual Budgeted
1992- 93 1993- 94 1994- 95
Sources:
Allocation from Criminal Justice
Enhancement Fund $ 1,030,426 $ 1,388,946 $ 1,502,500
Balance carried forward from
prior year 16,660 8,696
Total available to
provide services $ 1,047,086 $ 1,397,642 $ 1,502.500
Distribution:
Disbursed to public and private
organizations for victims' rights
services $ 966,403 $ 1,307,566 $ 1,408,400
Disbursed to Attorney General's
Office for allocated operational
expenses 71,987 90,076 94,100
Total distributed $ 1,038,390 $ 1,397,642 $ 1,502,500
Source: Compiled by State of Arizona, Office of the Attorney General from Arizona Financial
Information System Reports for fiscal years ended June 30, 1993 and 1994, and the
State of Arizona Appropriations Report for fiscal year 1994- 95.
Victims' Assistance - Starting in the mid- 19701s, some Arizona county govern-ments
began to provide victims' assistance services to their residents. Currently,
there are a number of different victims' assistance agencies in each Arizona county,
all attempting to help crime victims recover from trauma. Guidance at the scene
of the crime, temporary shelter, counseling, and advocacy in the court system are
all examples of the assistance offered to crime victims by these agencies. Many
different entities are involved in victims' assistance, including various police
agencies, county attorney's offices, and nonprofit organizations.
The federal Victim of Crime Act ( VOCA) Crime Victim Assistance Fund provides
the majority of public funding for organizations that assist crime victims. The
distribution of Arizona's VOCA funding is administered by the Arizona Depart-ment
of Public Safety. To enhance this revenue source, the Legislature created the
Victim Assistance Fund in 1986. The Victim Assistance Fund, administered by the
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, receives revenue from a fee charged to all
persons currently serving probation or parole. Table 2 describes Victim Assistance
Funding in more detail.
Table 2
Victims' Assistance Programs
Sources and Distribution of Monies
Fiscal Years 1992- 93, 1993- 94, and 1994- 95
( Unaudited)
Actual Actual Budgeted
1992- 93 1993- 94 1994- 95
Sources:
Federal Victim of Crime Act
( VOCA) Crime Victim Assistance grant !$ 947,000 $ 1,041,000 $ 1,003,000
Victim Assistance Fund:
Revenues from fees 389,000 435,300 430,000
Balance carried forward from
prior year 411,000 250,000 178,300
800,000 685,300 608,300
Total available to fund local
victims' assistance programs $ 1,747.000 $ 1,726.300 $ 1,611.300
Distributions to local victims'
assistance programs from:
Federal VOCA Crime Victim
Assistance grant $ 947,000 $ 1,039,268 $ 1,003,000
Victim Assistance Fund 550,000 507,000 450,000
Total distributed to local victlms'
assistance programs $ 1,497,000 $ 1,546,268 $ 1,453,000
Source: Nonappropriated revenue and expenditure data compiled by the Arizona Department
of Public Safety, Federal Grants Administrator, and the Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission, Victim Services Coordinator.
Victims' Compensation - In 1986 the Arizona Legislature established the Victims'
Compensation Fund. This Fund compensates crime victims for expenses they incur
as a result of victimization. A crime victim is defined as a person who suffers
physical injury, extreme mental distress, or death as a result of criminally injurious
conduct. The crime victim, or the dependent of a victim who died as a result of
criminal activity, may receive compensation for medical bills, counseling services,
living expenses, and/ or funeral services. The responsibility of determining,
implementing, and overseeing rules governing the disbursement of these fiscal
resources lies with the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
The awarding of compensation to crime victims takes place at the county level.
Through agreements with the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, a majority of
Arizona counties have chosen to house their victims' compensation operational units
withn their county attorney's office. Each operational unit is responsible for
investigating the victim's claim for compensation. The final decision to pay a claim
is made by the county's Crime Victim Compensation Board. The operational unit
chooses the board members, contingent upon the approval of the Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission.
Funding for victims' compensation programs originates from two sources: the
Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund, and the federal Victims of Crime Act ( VOCA)
Crime Victim Compensation Grant Funds. By statute, 4.7 percent of the Criminal
Justice Enhancement Fund is directed to the Victim Compensation Fund. The
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission is responsible for applying to the federal
government on an annual basis to obtain the State's federal compensation VOCA
funding. Each county's Crime Victim Compensation Board receives funding based
on that county's population, with funding not to fall below a minimum level. Table
3 ( see page 6) describes victims' compensation funding in more detail.
Table 3
Victims' Compensation Fund
Sources and Distribution of Monies
Fiscal Years 1992- 93, 1993- 94, and 1994- 95
( Unaudited)
Actual Actual Budgeted
1992- 93 1993- 94 1994- 95
Sources:
Allocation from Criminal Justice
Enhancement Fund $ 853,600 $ 927,900 $ 884,000
Federal Victim of Crime Act ( VOCA)
Crime Victim Compensation grant 193,000 199,000 266,000
Balance carried forward from
prior year 283,000 434,600 462,500
Total available for victim
compensation $ 1,329,600 $ 1,561,500 $ 1,572,500
Distributed to counties for
victim compensation $ 895,000 $ 1,099.000 $ 1,166,000
Source: Nonappropriated revenue and expenditure data compiled by the Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission, Victim Services Coordinator.
Audit Scope
This performance audit focuses attention on those organizations mandated to provide
the bulk of victims' rights and victims' compensation services. As such, audit work
concentrated on the activities of police agencies, the county attorney's offices, the
Attorney General's Office, and the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Further,
consistent with Laws 1994, Chapter 127, this report does not specifically address the
various victims' assistance programs.
With the passage of the Victims' Bill of kghts, Arizona crime victims have received
improved treatment from criminal justice agencies. However, our audit work suggests
that the criminal justice system is not as responsive to crime victims as mandated by
the Constitution. This report presents findings in three areas:
The need to ensure that agencies fully comply with victims' rights laws.
The extent to whch the State's financial contribution to organizations providing
victim services offsets the total cost related to supplying these services.
The need for sufficient state oversight, training, and guidance for the victims'
compensation programs.
Tlus audit also includes two sections of Other Pertinent Information. The first section
discusses the differences between centralized and decentralized victim compensation
programs. The second section outlines the disparity between victim compensation
funding levels in Arizona and other states. In addition, we identified areas for further
study, including fund distribution and assessment of service needs.
Tlus audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
Acknowledgements
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the many people and organiza-tions
who provided assistance throughout the audit process, including the Attorney
General's Office; the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission; and the County Attorney's
Offices of Maricopa, Pima, Cochise, and Coconino Counties.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING I
CHANGES NEEDED TO ENSURE AGENCIES
FULLY COMPLY WITH VICTIMS' RIGHTS
MANDATES
Although Arizona has made great strides in providing victims' rights, significant work
remains. Most criminal justice agencies do not fully comply with victims' rights laws.
Additionally, many victims are dissatisfied, yet little recourse is available to them when
agencies fail to comply. The State should consider establishing a program to provide
meaningful statewide oversight and to investigate and resolve the complaints of
dissatisfied victims.
While victimization cannot be viewed as a positive experience, Arizona has taken
significant steps to lessen the victim's tragedy through its victims' rights laws and
services. To evaluate criminal justice agencies' performance in fulfilling the requirements
of those laws, we conducted in- depth interviews, and thorough reviews of policies,
procedures, and brochures of many of the agencies mandated to provide victims'
rights. Additionally, an extensive file review was performed at the four county
attorney's offices. Finally, we sought reactions from the recipients of these services -
the victim, and/ or their representatives ( i. e., victim advocacy leaders) through
interviews and the use of focus groups(').
Agencies Must Increase
Efforts to Comply
Criminal justice agencies need to do more to ensure that they meet their mandated
responsibilities. We reviewed agencies involved at all stages of the process and found
that while most agencies have policies in place to protect victims' rights, there is often
a lack of evidence supporting compliance( 2) T. o achieve full compliance with the victims'
(') Representatives from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers ( MADD), Parents of Murdered Children
( POMC), and domestic violence and sexual abuse centers were among those who participated in
our focus groups.
( 2) In instances where evidence was lacking, we regarded the case as one of noncompliance with the
Victims' Bill of Rights. In doing so we used the same standard for the victim that would be used
to protect the rights of a person accused of a crime. Criminal justice agencies are careful to
document that a person accused of a crime has received lus or her rights. Similar documentation
should exist for the provision of victims' rights.
rights mandates, criminal justice agencies will need to increase their commitment to
providing these rights.
Initial rights and responsibilities - A victim's first contact with the criminal justice
system usually occurs when the crime is reported. Law enforcement officials responding
to the crime are bound by Arizona's laws to provide the victim with information about
their rights as a crime victim, as well as information about crisis intervention and
emergency services available. Additional responsibilities of law enforcement agencies
include informing the victim of the date and time of the initial appearance(') in
instances where an arrest has been made, or informing the victim that they will be
notified as soon as possible after an arrest is made. Every law enforcement agency we
reviewed handles these requirements by giving a brochure to the victim. These
brochures list the victims' rights, identify emergency services available, and contain
spaces for the police officer to fill in the required information, such as the date and
time of the suspect's initial court appearance.
In cases where an arrest is made, another primary point of contact for the victim is the
custodial agency, typically the county sheriff. The sheriff is required, upon the victim's
request( 2), to provide the victim a copy of the suspect's " terms and conditions of
release." If the suspect is released on bond, or if the suspect escapes, the Sheriff is
required to notify the victim. These responsibilities are included in departmental
policies and procedures and are fulfilled through telephone or written contact with the
victim. However, if the suspect is released on lus or her own recognizance or to a thrd
party, there is no requirement that the victim be notified.
Most law enforcement and custodial agencies we reviewed stated that they believe they
are in compliance. However, comments made by focus group participants and victims
suggest that agencies are not thoroughly complying, or perhaps that new procedures
may be required to help agencies fully comply. For example, we found that:
Many victims stated they never received any information from the police regarding
their rights. These statements were reiterated by victim advocacy leaders during our
focus groups.
Victims are often so traumatized by their experience that providing a brochure may
not be an adequate means of informing them of their rights.
The initial appearance is a court hearing which must be held within 24 hours of the suspect's arrest.
At this hearing a judge determines whether the person may be released on personal recognizance
or by bond. The victim has a right to be heard at the initial appearance either through an oral or
written statement.
( 2) Many victims' rights must be formally requested. This is usually done by having the victim
complete and sign a form stating that they would like to invoke their rights.
Whle the Constitution mandates that victims be treated with respect, many law
enforcement officials were described as being insensitive to victims' needs.
Although it appears that some law enforcement agencies may not be ensuring that
crime victims are afforded their rights, we do not know the extent of noncompliance.
Only one of the police departments we contacted, Flagstaff Police Department, monitors
the extent to which victims are informed of their rights.
Pre- trial and trial rights and responsibilities - After a suspect is identified or
arrested, the prosecutor ( city or county attorney) decides whether or not to charge that
person with committing the crime. At this stage in the process, the prosecutor is
responsible for providing a myriad of rights. The responsibilities of the prosecutor's
office include, but are not limited to, notifying victims of their rights, notifying the
victim of the charge or charges against the defendant, providing a clear understanding
of the procedural steps in prosecution, conferring with the victim when a plea is
offered, and providing victims with timely notification of all court proceedings. Once
again, many of these rights must be formally requested.
Because the prosecutors are responsible for compliance with some critical rights, we
extended our review at this stage to include an intensive file review"). We concentrated
our case review efforts on the County Attorney's Office since they handle the most
serious crimes, such as murder, child molestation, sexual assault, and aggravated
assault. Further, victims of these crimes are more likely to choose to exercise their
rights.
Although we evaluated several victims' rights responsibilities, we identified three
critical victims' rights that one would reasonably expect the county attorneys to provide
and document. Two of these rights involve notification of the defendant's release from
custody and are therefore safety issues to victims. The third involves the victim's input
on plea agreements and is perhaps the most significant opportunity for involvement
with the prosecutor guaranteed to the victim.( 2) Table 4 ( see page 12) shows the
different rates of noncompliance identified in each county for each of these three rights.
We randomly selected and reviewed a sample of attorneys' case files in each of the four counties.
Additionally, we reviewed victim advocate files, when available, as these files also provide
information that can support compliance.
( 2) In a plea agreement, the defendant is generally allowed to " plea" to an offense that is less serious
than the crime allegedly committed or " plea" to fewer charges. Plea agreements, wlule ensuring
convictions, usually result in a sentence which is less harsh than what would have been imposed
if the defendant was convicted as originally charged.
I
I
I
I
1
I
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
I
I
Conditions of 0 Conference on Notification of
Release Hearings ,- 4 Plea Agreements Post Conviction Rights
Source: Auditor General analysis of data obtained from a review of cases at the four
County Attorney's offices, August through September 1994.
The examples below describe these rights and list the lowest and highest incidence of
compliance we found:
A. R. S. 913- 4422. Post- arrest release decisions - These hearings are held for the
purpose of asking the court to reduce or eliminate bond, or in some way change the
defendant's conditions of release. A victim has the right to be heard at these
proceedings, and to communicate his or her feelings regarding a change in the
defendant's conditions of release. We found that in 12 to 50 percent of the case files
reviewed, there was no evidence that the victim had been notified of the hearing.
A. R. S. 313- 4419. Victim conference with prosecuting attorney - When plea
bargains ( agreements) are offered, victims have a right to present their views
regarding the plea to the prosecuting attorney. The importance of this right becomes
even more significant when considering that the vast majority of cases do not go to
trial but instead are settled through the use of plea agreements ( in the counties we
reviewed, an average of only 20 percent of the cases went to trial). Although the
victim is not allowed to direct the prosecution of the case, information provided by
the victim may impact the decision to offer a plea, the conditions included in the
plea agreement, and the sentence imposed. Further, these conferences allow the
victim a chance to understand the rationale behind the prosecution's plea bargain
decisions. Between 16 and 48 percent of the case files reviewed failed to demon-strate
that the victim was provided an opportunity to confer with the prosecuting
attorney.
A. R. S. 313- 4411. Notice of post- conviction review and appellate proceedings -
The prosecutor's office must provide the victim with a post- conviction form once
the sentence is imposed. This form allows the victim to be notified of all post-conviction
proceedings, such as appeals, parole hearings, or release decisions. Post-conviction
notification is a critical right because it allows the victim to request
notification from not only the county attorney's office but also from the Attorney
General ( on appeals), and the custodial department ( e. g., the sheriff, the Department
of Corrections, or the Probation Office) that would provide the victim with
notification of the defendant's release from jail, prison, or probation. The noncompli-ance
rate on post- conviction rights ranged from 0 to 54 percent of the case files
examined.
Post- conviction rights a d responsibilities - The next set of victims' rights commence
once the convicted defendant is sentenced. The agencies responsible for victims' rights
mandates at this stage are the Arizona Department of Corrections or the county sheriff,
the court ( through county probation offices), and the Executive Board of Clemency. If
the victim chooses to exercise his or her rights during ths phase, these agencies are
required to inform the victim of the terms and conditions of release, any modifications
to those conditions, the earliest possible release date, and dates of any hearings in
wluch post- conviction release is being considered. Interviews and information gathered
from agencies responsible for these rights indicate that policies and procedures are in
place. However, the extent to which these rights are provided was not determined as
it was not included in the statute authorizing tlus review.
Increased c o m m i ~ tot victims' rights is needed - Although victims were afforded
their mandated rights in the majority of cases we reviewed in detail, compliance varied
both by the right in question as well as by the criminal justice agency charged with
providing the right. Depending on the right, up to half of the cases were in noncompli-ance.
Criminal justice agencies need to both increase their commitment to the consistent
provision of victims' rights and ensure these rights are afforded. Most agencies we
reviewed have adopted official policies to protect victims' rights. However, merely
having a policy in place does not ensure compliance. In many agencies, compliance
with the policies is often left to individual members of the organization, with no
monitoring or follow- up. If, as we found in interviews, some agency employees regard
the victims' rights mandates as inconvenient or burdensome, there is no assurance that
they will always follow the policies. In fact, we found that in some instances persons
have reported that victims had received their rights when other evidence showed that
tlus was not the case. Most agencies have not invested any effort to determine how
well they are complying with either the letter or the spirit of the law governing victims'
rights requirements.
One agency which does monitor compliance is the Flagstaff Police Department. Flagstaff
Police Department requires that all officers document when victims have been informed
of their rights. Additionally, the Department conducts regular audits to ensure officers
are complying with the law. During our review we received many positive comments
from victims and victims' advocacy groups about the Department's procedures.
Victims Dissatisfied
With Delivery of Rights
Arizona needs to do more to ensure victims are not dissatisfied by agencies' failure to
fulfill their rights. Our review found discernible dissatisfaction with criminal justice
agencies' delivery of victims' rights. The causes of dissatisfaction and the percentage of
dissatisfied victims, however, are hard to establish. Further, it is not clear that complete
compliance will result in absolute satisfaction. Nevertheless, victims and victims'
advocacy groups reached consensus on several changes they feel would improve
victims' rights and services in Arizona.
Victim dissatisfaction - Through victim interviews and advocacy focus groups we
discovered that many victims are dissatisfied. We found victims and victim advocates
had complaints with all phases of the criminal justice process. For example, some were
upset with treatment they received from law enforcement officials, because these
officials failed to inform them of their rights. Likewise, other victims or advocates
complained that the prosecutor did not confer with them about their cases, or that they
were not informed prior to the defendant's release from jail. Finally, some victims could
not identify any one area of dissatisfaction - they were upset with the whole process,
because they felt the perpetrators had more rights than they did. The following
responses illustrate the types of dissatisfaction we found:
H " I was shocked when I received the sentencing card. It said that if we wanted to be there
we could. I didn't know that any other court events had even taken place. I didn't know
that there was a person who was arrested and charges were filed."
H " I fried to contact him ( the prosecuting attorney), and he never once called me back. I was
the one who was always calling. He had already made decisions about the case without my
input. "
H A focus group participant stated that a client ( a victim) telephoned that day
indicating that the victim's assailant had been released and the victim had only
happened to find out about it from a friend. Other participants stated ths
frequently happens to their clients.
Changes needed to improve victims' rights - Most victims and advocacy leaders we
spoke with were dissatisfied with some aspect of victims' rights and/ or the criminal
justice system. They identified important changes needed to improve victims' rights in
Arizona. For example, most victims and all advocacy leaders thought victim advocates
played a vital role by helping victims understand their rights and assisting victims
through the criminal justice process. The following additional recommendations were
suggested from our focus groups:
Improve initial contact with the victim by ensuring that victims are informed of
their rights and know whom to contact should they have any questions;
Provide more education about victims' rights to the general public and criminal
justice system;
w Establish accountability for agencies responsible for victims' rights to ensure these
rights are provided.
Centralized Program
Would Afford Victims
a Reasonable Appeal Process
Whle the State has made important ackuevements in the victims' rights arena, more
needs to be done to ensure victims' rights mandates are upheld. Victims' rights laws
currently do not provide any meaningful recourse for victims who have been denied
their rights. An ideal program would allow dissatisfied victims the opportunity to seek
recourse without filing a lawsuit.
Law lacks meaningFrl recourse - Victims' brochures and information do not explain
what victims should do if they are dissatisfied with treatment they receive from the
criminal justice system, or feel that their rights have been denied. While victims with
tenacity might learn they do have legal standing, they may be discouraged when they
read the law. A. R. S. S13- 4437 ( A & B) state:
A. The victim has standing to seek an order or to bring a special action mandating
that the victim be afforded any right or to challenge an order denying any right
guaranteed to victims under the victims' bill of rights, article 11, 92.1, Constitu-tion
of Arizona, any implementing legislation or court rules. In asserting any
right, the victim has the right to be represented by personal counsel at the
victim's expense.
B. A victim has the right to recover damages from a governmental entity
responsible for the intentional, knowing or grossly negligent violation of the
victim's rights under the victims' bill of rights, article 11, 92.1, Constitution of
Arizona, any implementing legislation or court rules.. .
Therefore, while victims do have recourse, it is limited and impractical. Victims must
first file a lawsuit to assert neglected rights. To obtain damages, they must prove an
" intentional, knowing or grossly negligent violation." Such violations are difficult to
establish. Therefore, other measures should be considered to provide victims with
recourse.
Recourse program - Arizona should seek an effective way to resolve noncompliance
and respond to victims' dissatisfaction. While many states are gradually increasing their
commitment to victims' rights through constitutional amendments"), very few states
have adopted programs to address victim recourse. The National Victim Center was
aware of only three states that had established specific entities to receive victims'
complaints. Colorado, for example, is implementing a compliance enforcement program.
Ths program, known as the Governor's Victims' Compensation and Assistance
Coordinating Committee, has the power to investigate and resolve complaints or turn
them over to the state's attorney general's office if necessary. Recently, South Carolina
added an ombudsman program, while the State of Minnesota has had an ombudsman
program since 1985.
An ombudsman is an official appointed to investigate and resolve citizens' complaints
against local or state governmental agencies. Both Minnesota and South Carolina
established special ombudsman programs to ensure compliance with crime victim
(') There are currently 20 states that have constitutional amendments. Six of these 20 ratified their
constitutions this year.
statutes. These programs perform other functions as well. For example, Minnesota's
ombudsman program provides a centralized, comprehensive source of information and
referral for victims. The program has these other notable features:
A 24 hour toll- free number, listed in victim brochures, staffed by trained volunteers;
Investigative authority for all criminal justice entities except judges;
Ability to develop findings and recommendations, and identify trends or patterns;
and
An outreach program to victims in rural areas through press releases, radio
interviews, literature distribution, and participation in training.
Minnesota's program costs approximately $ 300,000 annually. South Carolina's ombuds-man
enabling legislation was passed in June 1994, and received $ 125,000 in funding for
the first year.
Program would providk necourse - If Arizona institutes a centralized program,
dissatisfied victims would be provided with a more reasonable option than filing a
lawsuit. Victims with complaints would have somewhere to report complaints for
investigation. Program staff could also perform functions such as providing victims
with information about their rights, and opening up. the lines of communication
between agencies and counties about techruques used to meet their mutual obligations.
However, funding for such a program should be carefully considered. Local officials
expressed concern that if already limited monies from the Victims' Rights Implementa-tion
Revolving Fund are used to support a centralized program, services to victims
could be negatively impacted.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Criminal justice agencies required to provide victims' rights should ensure that the
significance of these rights is clearly understood. Further, they should consider
developing procedures to document, review, and monitor compliance with the
mandates.
2. The Legislature should consider establishing a program to provide meaningful
statewide oversight for victims' rights mandates, and to investigate and resolve the
complaints of dissatisfied victims.
I
I
I
I
I
I
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
I
I
FINDING II
STATE FUNDS OFFSET VARYING PORTIONS
OF COMPLIANCE COSTS
In addition to reviewing compliance with the Victims' Rights Implementation Act, we
were also directed to ascertain the costs associated with ths compliance. Currently the
State provides $ 1.5 million to agencies for implementation of the Act. There is no
reliable cost information available for victims' rights implementation, and in fact, only
recently have service providers been asked to report their projected costs. Our review
found the Victims' Rights Implementation Revolving Fund covers varying portions of
service providers' identified costs. In addition, many agencies are offering victims
services above and beyond the victims' constitutional rights, primarily at the agencies'
expense.
Following passage of the Act, the Legislature established the Victims' Rzghts Implemen-tation
Revolving Fund ( VRIRF) to compensate organizations for the expenses incurred
to meet the victims' rights mandates. Ths $ 1.5 million nonappropriated fund, derived
from a portion of the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund, is administered by the
Attorney General's office. To receive funding, organizations must submit applications
detailing the costs associated with compliance. The Attorney General's Office screens
the applications and makes award decisions.
State Offsets a Varying
Portion of Victims' Rights Costs
Most agencies do not separately track implementation costs. Further, the Attorney
General's Office has not, until fiscal year 1994- 95, specifically asked applicants to project
costs for providing victims' rights services. Instead, the Attorney General's Office
awards funding to organizations through a formula and competition- based system. This
results in some organizations receiving a much higher percentage of their projected
costs than others. However, due to the lack of data on costs, the extent to which the
VRIRF offsets victim services costs cannot be clearly identified.
Onset of victims' rights costs diner - As noted above, most agencies responsible for
providing victims' rights do not track implementation costs as a separate budget item.
However, based on the four counties' VRIRF applications, the awards received varied
from between 27 percent ( Maricopa County) to 100 percent ( Cochse County) of
projected victims' rights costs. It should be noted that these projected costs are
submitted by the agencies and are not verified by an outside source for accuracy and
consistency in interpretation. Our review found significant differences in what
applicants reported as victims' rights costs. In fact, on a statewide basis, our review
found that some agencies make projections and submit requests that appear to overstate
their actual costs. Still other agencies with eligible costs never request VRIRF funding.
As described below, agencies submitting funding applications generally request funds
to cover the salaries and supplies needed for victim notification.
Law enfommmt - Victims' first contact with the criminal justice system is typically
with a law enforcement agency. Police departments are able to fulfill the majority of
their mandated services by giving informative brochures to victims. However, the
printing of brochures is not the only cost that is eligible for funding. For example,
VRIRF money has been awarded to police departments to pay for a portion of officers'
salaries, telephones, and postage.
A law enforcement agency with a detention facility has the additional expense of
notifying victims of a defendant's conditions of release. This can be a substantial
expense, particularly in urban counties such as Maricopa that house a large number of
defendants. In fiscal year 1994- 95, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was awarded
$ 111,301, or 52 percent, of their projected costs of complying with the victims' rights
mandates.
Prosemtms - The bulk of victims' rights implementation services and related expenses
occur in prosecutors' offices. These agencies must track a case and the corresponding
victim throughout the prosecution process and offer the numerous victims' services
previously mentioned. Most costs are administrative in nature and involve notifying
victims of various developments, events, and options available to the victim as the case
unfolds. Some prosecutorial agencies claim that the mandated services have dramatical-ly
increased their attorney salary expenses because of the requirement that attorneys
confer with victims regarding pleas and decisions to decline prosecution. However,
other prosecutors described the impact on their work as " negligible" and " a codified
version of what we were already doing." The Attorney General's Office will not
provide implementation funds for attorneys' salaries.
It is clear that notification requirements represent a significant expense for prosecutorial
agencies. For example, during fiscal year 1993- 94, Pima County's victim notification
unit, whose sole function is to provide mandated notification to crime victims, reported
$ 114,124 in VRIRF- eligible expenses. For the same period, the County received $ 60,628
from VRIRF, or 53 percent of the unit's reported notification costs.
Other agencies - Agencies such as courts and their probation departments, and the
Department of Corrections, reported relatively small mandated expenses in their
applications for VRIRF money. Courts generally need only to notify prosecutorial
agencies of upcoming events, and the probation and corrections agencies need only
notify victims who have requested notification for hearings affecting the conditions of
a prisoner/ probationerls release. For example, the Department of Corrections projected,
and was granted, $ 38,200 to cover their expenses in fiscal year 1994- 95.
Costs of Other
Services to Victims
In addition to providing victims' rights services, many city and county governments
provide additional services to victims. Wlule state- administered funds exist to assist
entities in providing such services, the bulk of these services is paid for by local
governments.
The State administers two victim- related funds to support entities that provide victims'
assistance services. These funds are used by these entities to help victims deal with
their trauma and/ or to participate in the criminal justice system. The funds and their
administering agencies are:
Victims of Crime Act ( VOCA) - provides revenue to public and nonprofit
organizations that offer victims assistance, through such services as counseling,
domestic violence shelters, and victim advocacy. This is a federal grant to Arizona
of approximately $ 1 million, which passes through the Department of Public Safety
( DPS) to service providers.
Arizona Victim Assistance Fund - provides revenue to public and nonprofit
organizations that offer victims' assistance services. The Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission ( ACJC) administers tlus nonappropriated fund of approximately
$ 500,000.
While over $ 1.5 million was available to agencies to provide victims' assistance services,
we found that city and county governments pay most of the costs related to these
services. According to a November 1993 Arizona Department of Public Safety survey
of government and nonprofit agencies receiving monies from state- administered funds,
79 percent responded that less than half of their victim services funding is derived
from the State's funding sources, as illustrated in the following two examples.
The City of Glendale provides a variety of victims' services, including notification
and crisis intervention. The City received $ 67,843 in state- directed funding for fiscal
year 1994- 95, yet its victim assistance unit has a budget of nearly $ 250,000 per year.
This would indicate that the City contributes 73 percent of the unit's funding.
For fiscal year 1994- 95, Maricopa County projects spending $ 2 million for victims'
rights and assistance, but received only $ 282,050 in state- allocated funding.
Therefore, the County contributed 86 percent of its program's funding to- provide
victims' assistance and rights.
RECOMMENDATION
The Attorney General's Office should encourage entities awarded Victims' Rights
Implementation Revolving Funds to separately track their implementation expenditures.
FINDING Ill
CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
EXPERIENCE DIFFERENT RATES
OF RULE COMPLIANCE AND
PROCESSING TIMELINESS
Victim compensation programs differ in their compliance with Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission ( ACJC) rules governing the disbursement of Victim Compensation Funds.
In instances where crime victim compensation boards did not comply with ACJC rules,
the boards chose to award monies to claimants who did not meet specific conditions
outlined in the current rules. To ensure monies are targeted to intended recipients,
ACJC needs to provide training, guidance, and oversight to county programs. In
addition to assessing compliance with ACJC rules, we also reviewed county program
timeliness in processing claims. Although county programs do not always meet time
standards established by ACJC, most claims are handled within three to four months
of receipt.
The victim compensation program allows victims of criminally injurious conduct and,
in case of death, their dependents, to be compensated for medical, mental health,
funeral, and living expenses. Rules promulgated by ACJC list several specific conditions
that compensation recipients must meet to receive an award. For example:
The victim must have suffered physical injury, extreme mental distress, or death as
a direct result of I s or her victimization.
The victim or claimant cannot be on probation or parole or serving a sentence of
imprisonment at the time of the criminally injurious conduct.
The crime suffered by the victim must be reported to law enforcement authorities
within 72 hours of its discovery.
An application for compensation must be submitted within one year of the
discovery date of the crime.
Awards to a claimant must be denied or reduced if the victim, through either
negligence or unlawful conduct, contributed to lus or her injury or death.
Compensation Program Rule Compliance
Rates Varied Among Counties
Compliance rates with ACJC compensation rules varied among the county programs
we reviewed. Wlule a portion of the rule violations were caused by the excessive
restrictiveness of the rule defining " valid claimant," over half the errors were due to
boards awarding monies to claimants who either contributed to their victimization or
were not cooperating with law enforcement officials. By awarding to ineligible
recipients, the boards reduce the monies available for other victims. During our review
of claims, we also identified some cases which, although they did not violate ACJC
rules, were not adequately investigated or handled by program staff. Due to recent rule
revisions, some of the ineligible claimants we identified in our file review would now
be considered eligible for compensation.
Rule compliance rates - We reviewed case files to determine the extent to which
victim compensation programs were complying with the award criteria established by
ACJC.(') We found that compliance rates among the programs varied from as high as
94 percent to as low as 73 percent. All compliance errors identified resulted in awards
. to victims, despite the fact that the rules were not met. Table 5 below depicts each
program's compliance rate.
Table 5
Crime Victim Compensation Program
Rule Compliance Rates
Countv Compliance Rate
Maricopa 94%
Cochise 87%
Pima 81 %
Coconino 73 %
Source: Auditor General Analysis of Random Sample of fiscal year 1993- 94 Compensation
Cases.
(') At least 30 compensation case files were randomly selected from each of the four counties. Fifty
cases were selected from Maricopa County due to the large number of cases processed by that
county as compared to the other three counties. Each case was evaluated for rule compliance using
the Arizona Crime Victim Compensation Program rules promulgated by the Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission.
Contributmy c d u c t - Thirty- seven percent of all noncompliant cases violated the
rule regarding contributory conduct. According to the victim compensation rules,
awards to a claimant or victim shall be denied or reduced to the extent that a " degree
of responsibility for the cause of the injury or death was attributable to the victim"
either through his/ her own negligence or unlawful conduct. Through our file review,
we identified cases in each county in whch the victim was involved in some form of
contributory conduct and still received a full award. The following case examples
illustrate contributory conduct rule violations:
According to the case file, ths victim was involved in an illegal drug transaction
at the time he was murdered. The victim's family was awarded $ 896, the full
amount they requested for funeral expense compensation.
In the second example, the victim instigated a fight by pulling a knife on the
defendant and threatening him after a verbal altercation in a bar. The victim was
awarded the full amount of his request - over $ 1,800 for medical expenses and lost
wages.
Failure to cooperate - In addition to contributory conduct, we found that 21 percent
of noncompliant cases involved awards to victims refusing to cooperate with law
enforcement officials. The victim compensation rules explicitly state that an uncoopera-tive
victim or claimant cannot be compensated for any expenses. Specifically, the rules
state that awards shall be reduced or denied if a claimant " has not fully cooperated
with appropriate law enforcement agencies." The cases from our review included in
ths category of rule violations consist of either domestic violence or sexual assault
crimes. Victims of these two types of crime are often hesitant to cooperate with law
enforcement authorities due to beliefs that they may suffer emotional or physical harm
from the assailant. According to ACJC officials, a victim may receive compensation
despite failure to cooperate. However, in order to be eligible for compensation, the
program must document that cooperation with law enforcement officials would be
detrimental to the victim's health and safety. We found no such documentation in the
cases that were noncompliant with the failure to cooperate rule.
Ineligible claimants - Another frequent violation, identified in 21 percent of all non-compliant
cases, occurred in determining a victim's eligibility to receive compensation.
The ACJC compensation rules in effect at the time of our review stated that a valid
claimant, authorized to receive awards, is " a victim of criminally injurious conduct" or
" a dependent of a victim who died as a direct result of the criminally injurious
conduct." This definition of victim excluded parents of a crime victim from receiving
compensation for such thngs as counseling services. As a result, compensation boards
often chose to bypass this rule as it was felt to be overly restrictive.
Living expenses as a result of work loss - Although ths category was not included
in the calculation of each county's compliance rate, the rule governing living expenses
was consistently violated by each of the four county programs. ACJC compensation
rules allow programs to award victims for " living expenses as a result of work loss
attributable to physical injury, extreme mental distress or death resulting from
criminally injurious conduct." Until recently, compensation programs were required to
document not only the victim's loss of wages but also his/ her living expenses. Because
program coordinators claimed this latter requirement placed an unreasonable burden
on the victim, ACJC revised the rule to require documentation for only the victim's loss
of wages. Based on these factors, we excluded violations of the living expenses rule
from the reported compliance rates.
Poorly investigated cases - In addition to instances of rule noncompliance, we
identified cases that, although they did not clearly show rule violations, were either
poorly investigated or inappropriately handled by program staff. In these cases, the
program staff acted with only limited evidence or did not gather sufficient documenta-tion
to support their recommendation to award or deny the claim. Ths problem
occurred in over 20 percent of the case files we reviewed. Case examples hghlighting
this problem area are discussed below.
A witness saw an " object" being thrown out of a moving car's window. The
" objecf' turned out to be the victim, who later died from his injuries. The
compensation program based their investigation solely on this information found
in a very brief preliminary police report. Program staff did not attempt to establish
the basis for the crime or if any contributory conduct was involved. The victim's
mother was awarded $ 1,500 for funeral expenses.
The victim in this case was the clerk on duty at a convenience store during an
armed robbery. As a result of the robbery, the victim missed time from work and
was eventually terminated. The county compensation program awarded the victim
$ 890 in living expenses as a result of work loss. However, since the robbery was a
work- related incident, workers' compensation would have been a more appropriate
source for compensating the victim. In fact, ACJC rules specifically mention workers'
compensation insurance as an alternative source of benefits that the county
programs should consider when making awards. Despite this, the county program
staff did not investigate the availability of workers' compensation monies to defray
the use of victim compensation funds.
Compensation rule revisions - On October 28, 1994, after completion of our audit
work, the recent revisions to the compensation rules became effective. The two primary
areas of our review affected by the revisions involve the determination of eligible
claimants and documentation requirements to receive living expenses. According to
compensation rules in effect at the time of our review, the definition of a valid claimant
was limited to the victim or a dependent of the victim. Based upon a determination
that this definition was too restrictive, the rules were revised to expand the definition
to include persons living in the household of a victim, as well as witnesses of heinous
crimes. If these rules had been in effect during our review, many of the ineligible
claimants we identified would have been considered eligible for compensation. In
addition, under the revised living expenses rule, compensation programs are now only
required to document loss of wages rather than loss of actual living expenses.
ACJC Needs to Strengthen
Its Leadership Role
Noncompliance with ACJC rules should be addressed in two ways. First, ACJC should
strengthen its role as coordinator of the State's decentralized system by periodically
reviewing compliance and providing increased training as needed. Second, ACJC
should adopt provisions that would allow it to take action against programs that
disregard the compensation rules and inappropriately award victim compensation
monies.
ACJC needs to strengthen its leadership role - Stronger leadership, whch includes
training, oversight, and guidance from ACJC could help overcome rule noncompliance
by the county programs. Since 1988, when Arizona began compensating crime victims,
ACJC has been the statewide coordinating agency. However, it was not until January
1994 that ACJC conducted any compliance audits of county programs. At that time,
ACJC audited only 3 of Arizona's 15 counties, identifying noncompliance with various
program rules. As part of our audit work, we talked to officials in Colorado, the only
other state in the nation with a decentralized compensation program, and discovered
that they conduct audits for each of their 22 districts every other year to ensure
compliance with Colorado compensation standards. -
In addition to monitoring compliance with the victim compensation program rules,
ACJC should also provide the counties with training and guidance about these rules.
All four program coordinators expressed a strong need for compensation rule training
for their staff and boards, but to date, none has been provided. ACJC officials
expressed reluctance to reimburse program staff for travel expenses associated with
statewide training sessions. However, ACJC officials plan to visit each county to
provide training regarding recent changes to the compensation rules. From our
discussion with the coordinating agency for Colorado's program, we learned that they
sponsor statewide training conferences on an annual basis.
Program coordinators also expressed a desire for guidance from ACJC. Questions arise
in the day- to- day process of determining a victim's program eligibility. Three of the
four program coordinators told us they have difficulty getting clear guidance and
answers to their questions from ACJC. Specifically, these three program coordinators
related stories of requesting guidance from ACJC regarding the living expenses rule.
Although ACJC officials feel they are providing adequate guidance and feedback, the
program coordinators explained that ACJC's answers to their questions are typically
very unclear and noncommittal, and in some cases, they receive no response at all.
Across- the- board noncompliance with the living expenses rule is one example of the
poor direction the programs have received from ACJC.
Sanctions should be considered fm programs disregarding rules - As part of a stronger
overall leadership role, ACJC should also be empowered to take action against
programs that disregard compensation rules and award money to ineligible victims.
Cases from our review reveal that the compensation programs, at times, disregard the
rules and made inappropriate awards. However, ACJC has no specific authority to take
administrative action against programs that award money inappropriately. Colorado
recently adopted sanctions to address noncompliance by local programs. These
sanctions can progress from a formal written reprimand to funding limitations.
Timeliness of Claims Processing
Appears Reasonable
Although county programs do not always meet time standards established by ACJC,
most claims are handled within three to four months of receipt. Based on comparisons
to other states, the timeliness of Arizona's county programs appears reasonable. Factors
impacting the timeliness of claims processing include the volume of applications
received and administrative style.
Most claims processed within reasonable timfmme - According to ACJC compensa-tion
rules, a decision on a claim must be rendered within 60 days of receipt of the
claim application except where good cause exists. As illustrated in Table 6, both urban
counties were unable to meet this standard in 50 to 70 percent of their cases. However,
the urban counties processed over 90 percent of their claims within 120 days. The rural .
counties were able to process over 70 percent of their cases withn 60 days and 100
percent within 90 days.
Table 6
Victim Compensation Program
Timeliness of ~ om~ ensatiocnla im Processing
No. of Days From Cochise Coconino Maricopa Pima
Receipt to Initial Disposition County Countv County County
Less than 30 Days 21 16 7 1
30 to 60 Days 6 6 18 8
60 to 90 Days 5 8 11 12
90 to 120 Days 0 0 9 7
More Than 120 Days - 0 - 0 - 5 - 3
Total No. of Cases = 32 = 30 - 50 -- 31
Source: Auditor General Analysis of Random Sample of fiscal year 1993- 94 compensation cases.
28
Although the urban counties are not meeting the 60- day rule for the majority of cases,
their processing times appear reasonable. Other states we contacted indicated that
claims took up to two years to process. Furthermore, in those instances where victims
are in a crisis situation and need immediate financial assistance, we found the county
programs effectively utilize the option provided under the ACJC rules to make
emergency awards.
D i f f m s in processing times affected by case load and progtrrrn administration -
The differing case loads and administrative styles of program coordinators affect claim
processing times in each county. The two rural counties have a much smaller volume
of cases than the two urban counties - the rural counties process about 50 cases each
per year, whereas Pima and Maricopa Counties process over 250 and 500 cases per
year, respectively. Because of the significantly smaller case loads, program staff in the
rural counties are able to begin investigating a claim shortly after it is received and in
some cases present it at a board meeting withn a few days.
Although the differences are not large, each county program coordinator has a different
administrative style that may affect the timeliness of claims processing. For example,
in Maricopa County, each of the program's three staff members typically plays some
role in the processing of cases, which may add extra days to their processing time. In
addition, during the past fiscal year, Maricopa County experienced some turnover that
may have affected claims processing timeliness. Pima County's timeliness is affected by
other factors. The county's program coordinator prefers to gather all of the bills
pertaining to a case and submit them as a package to the board. The other three
counties typically try to present individual bills to the board as they come in, and
present additional bills at future board meetings.
In order to ensure compensation rule compliance
1. ACJC should strengthen its leadership role by providing higher levels of oversight,
training, and guidance to the county programs.
2. Changes should be made to the victim compensation program rules to include
specific actions that ACJC can take in order to enforce rule compliance and hold the
county programs accountable for noncompliance.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
As part of our audit work, we looked at both centralized and decentralized compensa-tion
systems, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages that each structure offers.
We also collected comparative information on victim compensation funding nationwide.
Forty- Eig ht States Have
Centralized Compensation Programs
Forty- eight of the nation's 50 states operate centralized victims' compensation programs
with various structures. Colorado and Arizona are the only two states operating
decentralized programs. Both systems offer advantages and disadvantages to the states
running them and the victims they serve.
Centralized programs have va ying structums - Although 48 states operate centralized
victims' compensation programs, they are not all structured alike. Most states' programs
are housed within agencies that administer justice programs ( 9) or the Attorney
General's Office ( 8). Another very common structure is for states to make the victims'
compensation program a separate agency ( 10). Other structures, not quite as common,
include placing victims' compensation programs under Workers' Compensation ( 5);
Departments of Public Safety ( 4); and court systems ( 4). Some states house their
programs within other agencies, such as the Department of Finance or the State Board
of Examiners ( 8).
Not only does the structure of states' centralized programs vary, claims investigations
and decision- making methods vary also. In most states, investigation of a claim is
conducted by program staff and decisions are made by a specially appointed board or
the court system. However, some states allow program staff to make decisions on clear-cut
cases. Additionally, a few states utilize law enforcement officials or victim/ witness
advocates from around the state to carry out a limited investigation before sending the
victim's claim to program staff for further processing.
Advantages and disadvantages of centmlized and decentralized systems - Although
neither method appears to be superior, both systems offer advantages and disadvantag-es
to the states that operate them. According to proponents of centralized systems, their
greatest advantage is the potential for lower administrative costs due to economies of
scale. However, this may not be true for Arizona. For fiscal year 1993- 94, the combined
administrative costs for all county programs in Arizona were approximately $ 142,000
of the $ 900,000 of state money available to crime victims. According to an analysis by
ACJC staff, the costs of moving the State to a centralized program would be
approximately $ 163,000 for the first fiscal year and $ 148,000 for subsequent fiscal years,
or approximately the same costs as the current decentralized system. A centralized
system does not necessarily mean lower costs for Arizona because of the distribution
of compensation claims statewide. Over 70 percent of all compensation claims are
processed in the 2 urban counties, with the remaining 30 percent spread out among the
13 rural counties. Many of the rural county programs currently have very low
administrative costs due to the low number of cases they process.
Centralized systems may offer other advantages. A centralized program promotes
uniform victim compensation policies and procedures throughout a state, unlike
decentralized systems, which may lack uniform decision- making among county
programs. In addition, investigators in a centralized system may be able to make more
objective eligibility determinations based solely on the information given on the claim
application and supporting documentation. In a decentralized system, close victim
contact may make eligibility decisions more subjective. Finally, a centralized system
allows for task specialization, whereas a decentralized system leads to duplication of
tasks because each county program must provide the same services.
Despite some strong advantages, centralized systems also have disadvantages. First and
foremost would be a potential backlog in claims processing. Our research identified
many states with backlogs of several months to several years. In Arizona, the county
programs are typically able to process an application within 60 to 120 days. Another
disadvantage of centralized systems stems from victims' perceptions that the system is
cold, impersonal, and insensitive to their needs, a perception that may cause victims
to be less likely to apply for compensation. Arizona's decentralized structure is able to
overcome these problems with its locally based programs providing personalized
service that is sensitive to community needs. Tlus aspect of decentralized systems may
actually encourage more victims to apply for compensation.
Arizona Funding Levels Rank
Low in Nationwide Comparison
Arizona has fewer compensation dollars and lower maximum awards than other states,
though eligibility requirements are similar. In a nationwide comparison, Arizona's
victim compensation funding level ranks in the bottom 30 percent. Arizona's per- victim
maximum award is also low compared to other states, and varies among counties
within the State. However, Arizona's victim compensation eligibility requirements are
similar to most other programs.
Arizona ranks low in compensation finding - Arizona's victim compensation funding
levels rank in the bottom 30 percent of programs nationwide. During federal fiscal year
1992- 93, revenue for Arizona's Victim Compensation Fund reached $ 1,066,253. This
funding level ranked Arizona 38 out of the 49 states that operated victim compensation
programs that year. Further, when funding is considered in conjunction with the
frequency of reported violent crime, Arizona drops to 44 of the 49 states, allocating
only $ 41.48 per victim ( see Table 7, page 34).
Despite our comparatively low level of funding for victim compensation, Arizona's
source of funding for these services is similar to most other states. Specifically, as of
1993, Arizona was 1 of 28 states that relied completely on offender assessments to fund
the State's contribution to victim compensation programs. At the same time, 7 states
derived funding from general revenue funds only, while 14 other states allocated a
combination of the two sources.
Maximum awards in Arizona are cornpnrntively low, and vary between counties -
The per- victim maximum award in Arizona is low in comparison to other programs
nationwide. Arizona and 16 other states have set the maximum total award per crime
at $ 10,000. Only Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, and Tennessee have maximum
awards of less than $ 10,000. This leaves 30 states with a maximum award limit greater
than $ 10,000. Nationwide, the median maximum award is $ 20,000.
Of the 15 Arizona counties, 6 have lowered their maximum total payment levels and/ or
their limits on expenditure categories. Maricopa, Navajo, and Apache Counties
decreased their total maximum payment to $ 5,000, Cochse to $ 2,500, and Yavapai to
$ 2,000. Furthermore, Navajo and Mohave Counties have both limited their payments
for funeral expenses to $ 1,000. Also, Yavapai County has instituted a limit of $ 1,500 on
each expenditure category, such as medical or funeral expenses. Victim compensation
program coordinators explained that these limits are imposed to help offset funding
difficulties. They stated that their programs do not receive enough fiscal resources to
fully pay every victim's claim.
Eligibility requirements are similar to other states - Qualification to receive victim
compensation in Arizona requires reporting the crime incident to police authorities
within 72 hours. Twenty- three other states impose identical requirements. Eight states
demand disclosure of the crime in less than 72 hours, while 18 states allow the victim
more time. Like Arizona, a majority of states require that the compensation application
be received by the operational unit within one year of the date of the crime. Five states
demand receipt of the application in less than one year, whle eight other states allow
more than one year. Vermont's eligibility rules are the most liberal, providing the
victim no time limit to report the crime or to file the claim. Arizona, and a majority of
other states, allow these rules to be waived if good cause is shown.
Table 7
Comparison of Compensation Funds Available
for Each Victim of Violent Crimes
Total Number Total Compensation Total Compensation
Violent Crime Revenues Fiscal Year Available for Each
State Victim- 1992 1992- 93 Victim of Violent Crimela)
Vermont
Utah
Delaware
West Virginia
Montana
Washington
Colorado
Iowa
woming
Rhode Island
North Dakota
Hawaii
Tennessee
Idaho
Ohio
Alabama
Nevada
Oregon
California
Wisconsin
South Carolina
Texas
Connecticut
Kansas
Arkansas
South Dakota
New Jersey
Minnesota
Missouri
Pennsylvania
New York
New Hampshire
Alaska
Virginia
Florida
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Massachusetts
Kentucky
Illinois
Indiana
Nebraska
Louisiana
Arizona
North Carolina
Michigan
Georgia
Mississippi
Maryland
Maine
( a) Total Compensation Available For Each Victim is derived by dividing Total Compensation Revenues, fiscal year 1993
by Total Number Violent Crime Victims, 1992
( b) In 1993 Maine did not operate a Victim Compensation Program
Source: Uniform Crime Reporting ( UCR) Statistics, 1992 U. S. Department of Justice, Nationwide Analysis: Victims of
Crime Act, 1994
AREA FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During the course of our audit, we identified an area for further audit work that we
did not pursue due to time limitations.
Does the lack of statewide coordination inhibit the effectiveness of victim
services?
Based upon a preliminary examination, we found Arizona's system of funding services
to victims of crime is fragmented. Currently, three different state agencies administer
five interrelated funds. Further, it appears there is little planning and evaluation to
recognize and fill potential gaps in services. Further audit work is needed to determine
whether the funding process could be consolidated into one agency, and whether
planning can be done more systematically.
OFFICE OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY I
RICHARD M. ROMLEY
COUNTY ATTORNEY
December 28,1994
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General I Office of the Auditor General
29 10 N. 44th Street, Suite 4 10
Phoenix. AZ 850 1 8
Dear Mr: Norton,
I Enclosed is the response from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to the Auditor General's
Performance Audit on victims rights mandates and victim compensation.
I want to express my appreciation for the manner in which your staff conducted the research.
The research was done with a minimum of interruption and inconvenience to my office. It is my
hope that the results of this audit will be shared with the legislature as they contemplate
expanding victims rights to the juvenile justice system. I am a strong supporter of this effort,
however, the associated implementation costs must be taken into consideration when adopting
such a mandate.
Sincerel. y, , I
Richard M. Romley
Enclosure
301 West Jefferson, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 ( 602) 506- 341 1 ( Fax) 506- 8102
Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Victims' Rights and Victim Compensation
Audit Response
Introduction
The Auditor General's Office was charged by the legislature with auditing the
performance of four County Attorney's Offices in how victim compensation services and victims'
rights statutory mandates are provided. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office was included in
this audit.
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has long supported the rights of victims during
the criminal justice process. While the office takes great pride in the services provided to the
citizens of this community, an objective review is welcomed as it will enable the office to
identifjr areas that can be improved.
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office wishes to express our appreciation to the staff of
the Auditor General's Office for the efforts that they took to minimize inconvenience to this
office during the audit investigation.
Victims' Rights
It is the opinion of this office that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office has done an
outstanding job of implementing the Victims' Rights Implementation Act in a short period of
time with limited resources. The magnitude of the victims' rights responsibilities on prosecutor's
offices made the audit very difficult.
In Maricopa County, compliance with the Victims' Rights Implementation Act required a
re- working of several inter- dependant parts of one of the largest criminal justice systems in the
country. More than 25,000 felony cases involving an equal number of victims are processed
through the courts every year. To successfully provide victims with their rights required a
dramatic shift in the way the county conducted business.
In the six ( 6) months prior to the effective date of the legislation, this office developed
interagency cooperative agreements and written policies and procedures, designed computer
programs and notification letters, designed forms for internal use and for the use of victims, and
provided training for hundreds of employees - in the County Attorney's Office, Sheriffs Office,
the Courts, the Probation Department, to name but a few.
The Auditor General's report focused on three ( 3) of the sixteen ( 1 6) statutory
responsibilities of prosecutors offices. The audit found that documentation of specific action
could not be found in a small number of cases.
During the audit of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, the Auditor General's staff
reviewed computer files, prosecutor files, and Victim Witness Division files. In many of these
cases, the Victim Witness Division files had already been destroyed.' The review process found
that the prosecutor had not documented conferring with the victim( s) in 25% of the files. It is the
belief of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office that the lack of documentation in the available
file does not necessitate non- compliance. It is the policy of this office that prosecutors confer
with victims or have the Victim Witness Advocate facilitate this conference. Therefore, it is
quite probable that documentation regarding a plea conference existed in the Victim Witness
Division case file. Nonetheless, the office will focus on the need to confer with the victim and
the need to document the conference in the attorney case file.
The Auditor General's report recommends that a centralized program be developed to
handle complaints or problems from victims. This office disagrees with this recommendation for
the following reasons:
1) The Maricopa County Attorney's Office receives very positive responses from a vast
number of victims each year. In the very few incidences in which victims or their family
members voiced a compliant, the office took appropriate remedial action. Developing a
state agency to monitor local elected officials is not needed.
The Victims' Rights Implementation Revolving Fund fails to adequately provide funding
for this office's statutory responsibilities. During fiscal year 1994195, the Maricopa
County Attorney's Office received $ 1 83,139 in funding from the Victims' Rights
Implementation Revolving Fund. Victims' rights tasks dramatically impact the workload
of prosecutors, Victim Witness Advocates, and clerical staff. In addition, it has increased
administrative expenses such as computer support, training and supervision. The total
costs to this office for this fiscal year will be approximately $ 1,400,000. Therefore, the
Victims' Rights Implementation Revolving Fund offsets approximately 13% of actual
costs for this office. Until local agencies with statutory responsibilities are fully funded
for the costs of this state mandate, no h d s should be diverted to a state agency to
monitor compliance.
While the Victim Witness Division files contain the case notes of the advocates, these files
are considered duplicate files to the prosecutors files. Due to the volume of cases and the
shortage of storage space, the majority of Victim Witness Division case files are destroyed after
the prosecution has been completed.
Victim Compensation
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has centralized the victim compensation program
in the Victim Compensation Bureau. This office assumed the victim compensation function
fiom a private non- profit corporation on July 1, 1993. Therefore, at the start of the audit, this
office had been providing victim compensation services for approximately twelve ( 12) months.
The Victim Compensation Bureau receives approximately 500 applications fiom victims
each year. Four ( 4) staff persons investigate each application based upon the Victim
Compensation Rules promulgated by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. This
investigation includes determining if the application meets eligibility requirements, if the victim
or claimant is eligible to receive compensation, and if expenses are compensable under the rules.
Following the investigation, each claim is presented to a monthly meeting of the
volunteer Victim Compensation Board. The Board makes determinations of whether or not a
victim or claimant receives compensation and, if so, at what amount. Maricopa County has not
received funding commensurate with this county's population or percentage of violent crime.
Therefore, the Victim Compensation Board has been forced to reduce the maximum award to
accommodate the number of victims in this county.
Compensation claims cannot be awarded without an adequate investigation. There are
occasions when a case cannot be investigated within the sixty ( 60) day time limit set by the rules.
Examples of delays include those caused by law enforcement agencies who refuse to release a
police report until the police investigation is complete, victims or claimants not submitting bills
in a timely manner, and service providers not responding to requests for information. In any of
these circumstances, good cause would exist to exceed the sixty ( 60) day requirement.
As a result of the audit, the Victim Compensation Bureau has implemented procedures to
assist in tracking each case. This will ensure that staff are monitoring the timeliness and
thoroughness of the investigation.
Summary
The audit conducted on the victims' rights and victim compensation programs in
Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, and Cochise Counties provided a glimpse at how well prosecutors
offices are assisting victims. A focal point of the audit addresses issues relating to funding for
victim services. The audit does not address funding formulas.
This office supports the recommendation that funding for victim services be better
coordinated. Currently, four ( 4) state agencies provide funding for various victim services.
There is little coordination among the agencies when making annual funding decisions or in the
required reports. As a result, victim services funding is haphazard at best. An example of this
inequity was reported in the audit: the auditors reported that the Maricopa County Attorney's
Office was funded at 27% of direct " eligibleMv2i ctims' rights costs while Cochise County was
funded at 100% of that agency's victims' rights costs. The same issue is played out in funding for
victim compensation, and other victim services.
It is the recommendation of this office that the legislature consider this audit when
debating the implementation of victims' rights in juvenile proceedings. It is expected that the
brunt of the planning and finding for the implementation of new legislation will fall at the local
level. To provide meaningful victims' rights services requires coordinated planning among
several agencies. Prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, the Courts, and others will need
adequate time to develop policies and procedures, design computer programs, and provide
training. As is well known, Maricopa County's current financial difficulties will hinder the
county's ability to absorb additional unfunded mandates. Victims will not be well served unless
agencies are provided adequate time and funding to effectively implement additional state
mandates.
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office disagrees with the Victims Rights Implementation
Revolving Fund formula. The Attorney General's Office has arbitrarily deemed some costs to be
" eligible" expenses under the Victims' Rights Implementation Revolving Fund and other
expenses as " ineligible". Included as " ineligible expenses" are costs associated with the
prosecutor's office responding to victims' requests or inquiries arising from the receipt of a
brochure from a law enforcement agency; costs associated with conferring with victims prior to a
release hearing, plea agreement, trial, and sentencing; costs associated with informing victims
about their right to refuse a defense interview and acting as the supportive person at the victims'
request; and indirect costs such as overhead, administrative support, training, etc.
OFFICE OF THE
Pima County Attorney
id00 GREAT AMERICAN TOWER
32 NORTH S'l ONE AVENUE
Tucson, r( Ariz~ 8m57 01 - 1412
( 602) 7 40- 5600
STEPHEN 0. NEELY
PIMA COUNlY AlTORNN
December 28, 1994
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State nf Arizona
2700 N. Central Ave., Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
The performance audit report for victims' campensation and victim witness
prugrarns in Arizona claims to identify several areas where improvements are needed,
yet spells out only a few recommendations for thc agencies involved. Oversimplifying
the. challenges of implementing the Victims' Bill of Rights is a mistake that may short
circuit the progress made since the 1991 legislation. Insuring victims' rights is a
complex process, primarily due to the traditional emphasis on the rights of the accused.
We are constantly retooling our own agency's infrastructure to continually evolve
toward mare efficient and effective service.
The Pima County Attorney's Office has supported an advocacy program for
victims of crime for 20 years. Victims are provided information regarding justice
system procedures as well as crisis counseling, social service referrals, court interpreters,
transportaiion and more. The focus of the auditors is on doculnentation - paperwork
purporting to evidencing compliance with statutes and rules. The primary goal of this
county's Victim Witness Progran~ is still tn provide serviws'to victims. Documentation
of service delivery is not even a- close second. Our commitment to victims of crime is
unparalleled atid is not diminished by our preference for substance over form.
The report's recommendation to " develop procedures to document, review, and
monitor compliance. .." assumes that current documellt~ ltiolli s inadequate. If so, the
Auditor General's purported measures of statutory compliance presented in Table 4
are, therefore, equally inadequate. In any event, they certainly iIIustrate the auditors'
failure to adequately distinguish between doing the act and documerzfhtg the act.
- Douglas R. Norton
December 28, 1.994
The concerns identified in the report are not news tc) the agencies involved.
Unfortunately, the context within which difficulties occur is frequently ignorcd in the
report. Contextual expertise beyond that of the auditors is critical to fully
understanding the process of providing victims their rights.
Specifically, we wish to elaborate 011 the followi~ lgp oill~ r aised irr Uic report:
CONDITIONS OF RELEASE HEARINGS -- Table 4 on p. 12 of the report
indicates 64.7% documented compliance in Pima County with ARS 513- 4422 concerning
post- arrest release decisions,
After the adoption of the predecessor to ARS 513- 4422, Rule 39, Arizona Rules
of Criminal Procedure! the Pima County Attorney's Office Ned scores of petitions to
secure victim participation in initial release decisions. All were denied or ignored by
the courts. The source of dates and date changes for all criminal proceedings is also
the courts. If the courts cannot, or will not, provide sufficient time for the prosecutor
to notify victims of the accused's release hearings, full compliance cannot be achieved.
The auditors do not comment on this possibility. Nevertheless, we recommend
eliminating the prosecutor as middleman and placing the courts in the role of providing
victim notification of court proceedings,
VICTIM CONFERENCE ON PLEA AGREEMENTS -- Table 4 on p. 12
indicates 57.7% documented compliance with ARS 913- 4419, requiring the prosecutor to
conduct a victim conference prior to offering a plea. Our policy dictates that attorneys
will note on the plea agreement form that a victim conference was held. They dn not
document the contents or nature of the conversation, nor is such documentation
required. Written information of that kind may be discoverable by the defense, This
tactical conflict between effective prosecution of a case and the documentation of
victim conferences illustrates the complexity of victims' rights implementation. To the
extent the auditors relied an our refusal to document the content of conversations as
evidence of non- compliance, the report is flawed.
CENTWIZED PROGRAM FOR APPEALS PROCESS -- The report's
recommendation to " scck an effective way to resolve noncompliance and respond to
victims' dissatisfctction" will not be accomplished by an expensive state agency far
removed from local implementation. We recommend closer coordination among the 15
counties with the assistance of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to ensure
uniform interpretation of statutory compliance - assuming the Auditor General
supposes uniformity to be desireable.
Douglas R. Norton
December 28, 1994
Page 3 of 4
STATE OFFSETS VARYING PORTIONS OF MANDATED SEKVICES'
COSTS - While it is true that nhifiicdtitiun requirements represent a significant expense
for prasccutorial agencies, p. 20 indicates Pima County received 53% of its notification
costs from VFURF funds. Our figures for fiscal 1993/ 91 indicate otherwise. Monies
expended on salaries alone amounted to $ 169,699 for the five notification clerks, one
" c~ unseloro f the day", one unit s~ ipervisor, a nd a portion of the receptionist's time.
This dollar figure does not include additional expenses for a progrmnmer's time,
postage, copying, phones, computer maintenance, and attorneys' time spent in
notification activities. Therefore, the VRIRF contribution of $ 60,628 is at most 36%
of the unit's expenses, not 53%.
Additio~ ially, while we admire the auditors' loyalty to their masters in the
legislature, we believe it wuuld have been appropriate to disclose the nature and source
of the reported $ 1.5 million the State provides to agencies for implementation of the
victims rights act. These funds are actually generated by surcharges on criminal fines
at the local level. The State Legislature skims a substantial chunk off the top of these
surcharges before " providing" them ta us for victim assistance. To our knowledge, the
legislature has never appropriated a single dime to support victims of crime. Even the
costs of this audit were taken from surcharge funds intended far victim services.
COMPENSATION PROGRAM RULE COMPLIANCE RATE - Just as the
report ignores the complexities uf the natif~ cation process, it ignores the complexities of
victim compensation.
For example, Pima County Attorney's Office Victim Compensation Program staff
are knuwledgeable and experienced in the field of victimoIogy. They are working with
this county's compensation board toward a clearer determination of " contributory
conduct", a major issue nationwide for providers of victims' services. The topic was
discussed extensively in November, 1994, at the National Conference of Crime Victim
Compensation Boards. The auditors' report appears to fault prugrarns for reliance on
" preliminary police reports." Full investigations relating to contributory conduct may,
however, take months, bringing programs into conflict with timeliness requirements.
Clearly, conflicting interests are as much a part of the colnpensation process as the
notification process discussed earlier. Given these problems, the report's assessment of
compliance rates is oversimplified.
The: adequacy of " investigations" and the adequacy of the manner in which- cascs
are " handled by program staff' questioned by the report ( at p. 26) are matters of
subjective evaluation. Although we asked, the Auditor General's Office did not provide
the information necessary to assess the qualifications of the auditors to second- guess
Douglas R, Norton
December %? 1994
Page 4 of 4
the professionals in the four prosecutors' offices. The report concedes that the
objective standards, the ACJC rules, were followed. We question the propriety of the
auditors imposing their own standards on this process.
To conclude the discussion of compensation: the report mentions problems with
awards granted to victims refusing to cooperate with law enforcement oficials. ACJC
rules allow claims boards to award victims who fail to cooperate in cases such as
domestic violence or sexual assault. The report mentions inadequate documentation as
a problem yet again. As we stated before, it is inaccurate to assume non- compliance
because of the absence of documentation.
Finally, we feel the report fails to acknowledge the continuing efforts by counties
to improve procedures for victim notification and compensation. The Auditor General
was directed to take a close look at four prosecutors' offi& s and to ignore the other
agencies involved in victim ncltificatian and compensation. This sort of tunnel vision
leads to an unbalanced picture of program effectiveness. While it is true that the
prosecutor carries most of the statutory responsibility in this process, the ability of the
prosecutor to fulfill that responsibility to victims is directly related to these other
agencies.
Over the past two decades, audits have been performed on Pima County's
Victim Witness program by organizations such as the Institute for Social Analysis in
Reston, Virginia, and the Stanford Research Institute, as well as graduate students at
the University of Arizona; often at our request. We have assumed a proactive
approach to victim service in Pima County and will continue to do so.
We appreciate the Auditor General's input and we will address the report's
substantive recommendations. When resources and other factors require that we
chuust: between service and documentation, we will continue to choose service.
Sincerely, vw Step en D. Neely
~ j m aC ounty ~ t t o r n e ~
County Attorney
CAMILLE D. BIBLES
Chief Deputy
MICHAEL H. HINSON
Senior Attorney
RICHARD 5. ViHlL
Senior A tforns y I Deputies
LEONARD BROWN
JILL L. EVANS
SARAH HECKATHORNE
I GARY LARANCE
TIMOTHY MCNEEL
WILLIAM P. RING
TERRl L, STEINKE
NEAL TAYLOR I CHELLI WALLACE
-
JEAN i WlLCOX
COCONINO COUNTY A R I z o N A
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
Debra K. Davenport
Deputy Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
291 0 North 44th Street, Suite 41 0
Phoenix AZ 8501 8
Dear Ms. Davenport:
As we have previously discussed, I have two concerns regarding
the Victim Notification audit. First, there was an assumption on the part
of the auditors that lack of documentation in files equaled lack of
notification. Over the time period being evaluated, there were problems
getting timely hearing notice from the courts. Victims were notified, in
phone or in person; but these contacts may not have been documented
in the case file after the fact. The problems with court notification of
hearings have since been resolved. We have also resolved our internal
policy of documenting phone calls and personal contacts with victims in
the case files.
Second, as Colleen Hendricks of Victim Witness Services has
noted to you previously, problems of rule interpretation in the time
period audited were primarily due to communication; ie, guidelines and
interpretations from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission were
unclear in application.
We appreciated the audit and have used this as an opportunity to
review our victim notification policies and procedures. Please contact
us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Terence C. Hance
Coconino County Attorney
100 k. BIRCH AVE. FI AGSTAFF, AZ Bb0014696
! 602) 779- 6518 FAX ( 6021 779- 5618
OFFICE OF THE
Cochise County Attorney
P. O. DRAWER CA
BISBEE, ARIZONA 85603 ALAN K. POLLEY
COCHISE COUNTY ATTORNEY
( 602) 432- 0377
FAX NO. ( 802) 432- 4208
Debra K. Davenport
Deputy Auditot Gmnaral of Wisona
2910 North 44th Street, Suit. 410
Phomnix, Arizona 85018
Dear Ms. Davenport:
A final written remponae to your r8vis. d preliminary raport draft
of the performance audit of the v i a t b 1 coaupansation and victim
witness programs in Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, and Cochim Counties
is encloeed. The final written reaponme wal faxed to ( 602) 553-
0051 on December 28, 1994.
I
Thank you for providing the revised preliminary report by Doounbar
21. Your consideration i s agprooiated,
sincerely,
Encl .
ALAN K. POLLEX
County Attorncry
/
The following is in response to various items in the audit. The
comrnente are prefaced by the major identification line ( underlined)
in the audit immediately preceding the information to which the
comment ie in response.
Approximately 6 complaints have besn ref erred to this off ice by the
Attorney General's Offiae during the past 3 years regarding
dissatisfaction with victim services ranging froan notification to
compensation iqsues. Not a single one of those complaints was
unknown to the local Victim Witness Off ice. The Off ice has been
able to assist one or two of those victims to a more satisfactory
conclusion. The others involved camplaints about notification, and
were partially justified, and have been rectified. The traumatized
victinr in one of these instances did not reaall being informed
about tha initial appearance or signing a statement that he had
hen informed. The pre- sentence hearing information and victims'
rights packet were sent to the victim, but dig not reach him as the
business address he listed was not a ma1 l ing address. The
situation was reatified, but the viatim stf 1 felt victimized by
the system, and said he would consult his attorney, Another of the
aases involved a compensation claim for a deceased victim who was
clearly a major partici ant in his victimization. Further, the
claimant was not mlig ble under the existing drfinitions of
dependent.
P
The foregoing illustrations are not intended to say that mistakes
are not made, nor to intimate that all victims are treated well and
receive a11 of the eervices to which they are entitled. The
numbers, however, are small in the area of legitimate complaints.
The coot of the operational recourse program in Minnesota is cited
as $ 300,000, annually, which amounts to slightly over 25% of
Arizona's entire victims1 rights implementation budget - juet to
field complaints, There was no indication of the success rate of
the Minnesota program. Even if a success rate were cited, it would
not h credible without an audit of the type to which this response
is formulatmd.
Spending 25% of the state's total annual outlay of VRIRF seems
impractical unless these funds will be acquired from another source
and not impact negatively upon victimst- rights- implementation
activity.
A major outlay, followed by ongoing updates to raise the commitment
of law enforcement, prooecutors, and the judiciary to victims'
issues, to fund more service providers in the area of victim
assistanae could substantially and positively affect the delivary
of rights and victim satisfaction with the system. Creation of
another agency to field complaints when awareness exists that not
enough funds are currently available to aarry out the mandate seems
counterproductive.
F i n d i n s 2 State Funds m s e t Mawortv of - 1e Cost; s I ,
cv Re-
~ ccording to the audit, VRIRF funds 689 of the costs related to
victims right8 implementation. The mandate Is in place, but the
funding I e inadequate in prosecutorial officer; to which the bulk of
notification falls. Decisions are made very quickly at the
courtroom level. Unless someone is standing by ready to contact
victims by phone, or to step in to make the court aware of the
' victims' rights and desires, the process may go forward without the
victims' consent or knowledge. This is particularly true in major
crimes in which the victim has the greatest need to be involved.
State funds at the 68% level cannot accomplish bacric notification,
let alone spur of the moment happenings. More funds are needed at
tho proseoutorial level to protect and assert the rights of
victims ,
Finqina IJJ. ~ o m o e ~ iaont p p C e , PQQ &
ed c-
Violations under the eligibility rules addressed in the aection of
the report speak to case outlines stated in a very basic way. It
is not a requirement for compensation that a conviction occur prior
to compensation being awarded. In fact, it is a goal of
compensation programa not to victimize a victim further by being a
burdensome program. Investigation is done by staff whose role it
is to assist victims. The staff are not private investigatore
attempting to trip up their prey. That being the case, there will
be times when the initial picture presented by the victim, some
witnesses, and the initial police report will change as the aase
unfolds in the courtroom. These will be times when compensation
may be paid in error. The percentage should be very small, but it
will exist. There is an inherent question of how extensive an
investigation needs to be.
One of the ptcases" cited mentions Workman's omp pens at ion as an
appropriate source of assistance. ~ ccording to Workman ' s
Compensation staff, when a claimant applies, providing medical
evidence of quitting because of trauma, Workman's Compencration
turns over the case to the employer's insurance company which,
then, develops the case and determines eligibility - a time
I consuming and complicated process. ( The claimant in this case
would not have been eligible for Workman's Compensation.) A
process needs to be developed for reimbursament from Workman's
Compensation when a elaimant i s eligible for aseiotance from that
program.
ACJC N I ee- ts L e v
The audit states that ACJC did no compliance audits until January
I of 1994. ACJC audited our program for compliance on February 10
and 11, 1993.
Training and guidanae from ACJC do need to be strangtheneii. A
I statewide confarence for Board nteiabers and staff would pose
financial hardship for our program a6 the training is not apt to
be held in our rural area. The plan for ACJC to visit each of the
15 counties to provide training on the new rules will be a hardship I for them, and will take considerable time and money. We would,
howevar, welaome much a training.
We have not had a single instance of l1no responsen from ACJC. Our
program was able with ACJC guidance to develop an instrument for
use in living expense claims which put us in compliance in this
area.
When suggesting that ACJC should give clear- cut answers in the area
of program eligibility, rule application, rtc., care needs to be
taken not to uaurp the decision- making raspoqsibility of the duly-appointed
Compensation Board, ACJC has bemn sensitive to this
topic while exhibiting a willingness to discurns rules and ways in
which claimants may or may not be eligible, and to provide guidance
in a general way. Stronger leadership could be used as a mandate
to usurp local Board authority, and needs close scrutiny.
$ anctions be - ed for disreg- - .
ACJC needs to be empowered to take action in situations wherm clear
disregard tor the rule. and inappropriate awards occur, provided
there is evidence to document the aations.
mER PERT= INFORMATION. Advantases and digarlv- es of
".., objective eligibility determinations based solely on the
information given on the claim application and supporting
documentation" presumes that police reports are always adequately
written and provide sufficient information to document a claim. It
is our experience that police reports may not explain a victimts
situation, and, at times, do not even mention a victim. The
reporting officer is contacted on nearly every claim we process.
Many victim will not receive needed assistance if some local
investigation is not accomplished. Documentation of income is not
easily acquired for tmraporary, domestic, or transient workera.
Viotime nay not have the know- how, ability, or means to acquire
sufficient documentation* Would a centralized system accept that
burden or would the victim be further victimized by the system?
An advantage of centralization mentioned is that wunitorm decision-makingt1
would occur. " Uniform decision- makingn could only occur if
the same person, in the same state of mind, etc., made all
compensation decisions state- wide, There are bound to be
discrepancies or diffrrencem among mtaffero making decisions, even
under the bast of circumstancms.
An advantage of decentralized systems not addressed is that
claimants for compensation routinely become aware o f , and avail
themselves of, other victim services. A rape victim, for example,
in pursuit of compenoation finds that someone will appear in oourt
with her, help her to make an impact statement, or find a volunteer
or conscientious business to repair a broken window. Victim
Advocates do much more than procees compensation claims. Their
coxuaitment to the victim promotes the provision of other services
and resources. That type of contact would be lost in a centralized
system. The victims would, one more time, be on their own to wend
their way through a complicated process, at a time when thmy are
least able to cope with Mat process.
A fufthar advantage of decentralization in our program is that, on
a cam.- by- case basis, mental health, dental, and medical coats are
negotiated downward by 5 to 509. This amounts to a considerable
savings which is used to extend compensatio* to other viatims.
ARIZONA CRlMlNAL JUSTICE COMMISSION ( ACJC) RESPONSE TO AUDITOR
GENERAL REPORT DRAFT OF THE VICTIMS' COMPENSATION AND VICTIM
WITNESS PROGRAMS IN MARICOPA, PIMA, COCONINO, AND COCHISE COUNTIES.
Victim' Compensation Progmrns
FINDING Ill ( Page 23)
COMPENSATtON PROGRAM RULE COMPLIANCE ( Page 24)
Response:
The original rules developed by ACJC in 1988 contained a number of
definitions and limitations which were the subject of considerable interpretation,
legitimate disagreement, and varying opinions by the individuals responsible for
operating the program throughout the State. This was recognized by ACJC several
years ago and the lengthy process for amending the rules began. The new rules
for the Victims' Compensation Program are now in effect and they do address the
areas identified in the audit where alleged " rule violations" occurred. This includes
a new definition for a " valid claimant''.
The new program rules were the result of almost 3 years of developmental
and process work induding input from all concerned parties and a number of public
hearings. It appears that most of the alleged " rule violations" cited in the audit
report are not " rule violations" under the new program rules.
The use of percentages in the audit report to relate occurrence of alleged
" rule violations" and " rule compliance rates" is not very specific. It appears that
approximately 140 cases were selected for review and 21 cases contained some
f m of alleged " rule violations" or " compliance errors" in the opinion of the auditors.
There is no indication in the report if these cases are recent cases or 7 year old
cases when the program was just beginning.
The audit can and does provide a valuable service to the ACJC. A meeting
has been scheduled with the auditors to receive a more in- depth briefing on the
auditors' findingslopinions regarding the program and to obtain as much detail as
possible in order to evaluate and improve the program.
ACJC NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN ITS LEADERSHIP ROLE ( Page 27)
Response:
The ACJC has strengthened its leadership role in this program by
establishing new program rules that more effect~ velya nd efficiently address the
areas of legitimate disagreement and provide for specific parameters on many
subjects. In the last two years, the ACJC and its staff have also provided local
program coordinators and boards with specific guidance on program rules,
definitions, and policy. On occasion, this guidance has not been what the local
program coordinators wanted to hear and some resistance occurred. The
Commission has established new program rules and new policy guidance for the
local programs to operate within.
The need for training for the local program coordinators and the local
compensation boards is a mcqnized need. Plans have been developed to conduct
such training during FY 94/ 95 especially with the onset of the new program rules.
Monitoring compliance with the rules is also a recognized need. The ACJC
staff is conducting such on- site monitoring from both program performance and
fiscal perspectives at the present time. Budget limitations and restrictions have
hindered this activity during the last two fiscal years.
The ACJC does utilize sanctions, such as funding limitations and restrictions,
when it is established that this is appropriate. The Commission, and its Victims
Committee, review pertinent information on each local program each year when
allocations of funds are made.
FORTY- EIGHT STATES HAVE CENTRALIZED COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
( Page 31)
Response:
The audit report presents a succinct and balanced analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized victims'
compensation programs. The ACJC believes that working to standardize and
upgrade the existing decenttalized system is far preferable to the disruption and re-invention
that would have to occur if the program were centralized.
Case backlog is a problem in both systems and seems to be a larger and
faster growing problem in many states with centralized program structures. The
timely award to a legitimate claimant must be a very high priority for any system.
There is no evidence that a centralized system is more eflcient or effective in
accomplishing this. The personalized service in a local community setting under
a dmtralked program would appear to be a key factor in a program that services
crime victims. We are told that a number of states with centralized program3 are
now looking at same form of decentralization to increase their service performance
and to decrease case backlogs.
ARlZONA FUNDING LEVELS RANK LOW IN NATIONWIDE COMPARISON ( Page
32)
Response:
The audit report provides a definite service in reporting the comparative
funding with other states. Most of the variations in per- victim maximum awards in
Arizona could be evened out across the State if sufficient monies were provided to
the program.
DOES THE LACK OF STATEWIDE COORDINATION INHIBIT THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF VICTIMS SERVICES?
Response:
The audit report poses a very relevant question that should be addressed.
The Commission is currently one of three state agencies involved and administers
three of the five related funds. The Commission agrees that four of the five funds
are interrelated and should be administered by one agency. The Commission has
requested the Governor to redesignate the Commission as administrator of the
federaf VOCA v~ ctims assistance funds which would make the Commission
administrator of the four interrelated funds and eliminate the fragmentation
reported. The Victims Rights lmplementatlon Fund ( VRIF) is a distinctly different
function and program from the other four The administration of the VRIF monies
could be handled by the Commission but the larger Victims Rights Notification
Program is specifically and appropriately an operating program of the Attorney
General and the operating elements of the crtrnlnal justice system throughout the
State.