Conscience and convenience: American victim work in organizational context
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Author | Edna Erez,Julie Globokar |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758018805553 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Conscience and convenience:
American victim work in
organizational context
Julie Globokar
Kent State University, USA
Edna Erez
University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed the proliferation of victim-focused positions inside and outside the
criminal justice system, yet little is known about the occupational characteristics and organi-
zational context of this field in the United States. In this article, we draw on 42 semi-structured
interviews with victim workers from a variety of settings and organizational affiliations in the
midwestern USA to describe their pathways, activities, and challenges. The data reveal key
differences among the experiences of those who were publicly employed, affiliated with the
nonprofit sector and working independently. The findings underscore the significance of orga-
nizational affiliation in understanding victim work, the value of strong public/private partnerships,
and the necessity of reforms to the organizational culture of criminal justice agencies to optimize
victim experiences.
Keywords
Victim services, criminal justice system, victim advocacy, criminal justice reform
Introduction
The victim rights movement of the 1970s and 1980s spurred the integration of victims into justice
proceedings in the United States and elsewhere (Booth and Carrington, 2007; van Dijk, 1988) and
led to a growth of roles that provide victims with support, information, services, referrals,
and advocacy in the criminal justice infrastructure and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
(Globokar et al., 2016). Despite the expansion and diverse manifestations of victim work in the
Corresponding author:
Julie Globokar, 201 Merrill Hall, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242, USA.
Email: jglobok1@kent.edu
International Review of Victimology
2019, Vol. 25(3) 341–357
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0269758018805553
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
USA, research about the field’s occupational mosaic and the experiences of victim workers across
organizational contexts has been relatively under-developed (Globokar et al., 2016). Scholarship in
this area has instead largely focused on underlying ideologies (van Dijk, 1988), service organiza-
tions (e.g. Mawby, 2016; Simmonds, 2016), and the effectiveness of services provided (e.g. Zweig
and Yahner, 2013).
The current study describes the activities and experiences of victim workers in the USA and
documents how organizational affiliation affects their work, drawing upon interviews with 42
individuals in a variety of victim-focused positions from a number of agencies and jurisdictions.
The article concludes with implications for research and policy.
Review of the literature
Growth in victim support infrastructures
In recent decades the informational, practical, and emotional needs prompted by victimization (e.g.
Chelimsky, 1981; Maguire and Corbett, 1987) have been met with expanded assistance, services,
legal rights (O’Hara, 2005), and opportunities for victim participation in justice processes (Beloof,
1999; Erez and Roberts, 2013). There has been a corresponding expansion of paid and volunteer
positions focused on victim needs inside and outside the justice system (Globokar et al., 2016),
spurring a new ‘victimindustry’ (Best, 1997) reinforcedby a growth in ‘victim capital’ (Hall, 2017).
The victim supportinfrastructure has been variedin its development acrossthe globe. In the USA,
jurisdictions have adopted legislation to advance victims’ procedural rights, inclusion in legal pro-
ceedings, restitution, and dignified treatment,
1
but in contrast to mandates put into place elsewhere
(e.g. theEuropean Union, Directive2012/29/EU), Americanlaw has remained largely silenton access
to emotional support or referralsto other services, which are oftenprovided by NGOs.
2
As new roles
have been formedwithin criminal justice agenciesto implement victim-focusedlegal reforms, victim
services have become a patchwork thatcurrently spans across the publicand NGO sectors.
Public versus nonprofit placement of victim services
Victim support schemes vary in the extent to which they are embedded within the criminal justice
system.
3
The desirability of such placement is open to debate. Those who work in the system may
have greater access to officials such as law enforcement officers or prosecutors who affect victims’
experiences (Smith et al., 2000). Their placement also facilitates the accessibility of victim support
to victims at the moments that they engage in (often-stressful) interactions with the criminal justice
system (e.g. Englebrecht, 2011; Erez and Ibarra, 2007; Erez et al., 2011; Hartman and Belknap,
2003; Schuster and Propin, 2011). Research has documented, for instance, how support by criminal
justice agents can help battered women overcome apprehension about testifying in court (e.g. Erez
and Ibarra, 2007), assist victims with the preparation and submission of impact statements (e.g.
Schuster and Propin, 2011), and ease the stress of attending high intensity trials such as those
related to the murder of a loved one (e.g. Erez et al., 2011).
Yet, history suggests the need for caution when embedding services within the criminal justice
system. It may risk the compromise of client needs in favor of institutional interests if the insti-
tutional ‘convenience’ of reforms overwhelms their ‘conscience’ (Rothman, 1980/2002).
4
In
countries such as the USA where the criminal justice system is rooted in a largely retributive
ideology (van Dijk, 1988), victim reforms may be motivated by interest in victims’ cooperation
342 International Review of Victimology 25(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial