Volume 27, No. 3 1
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center Governor’s Crime Commission
Volume 27, No. 3
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
A Division of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
SystemStats
Introduction/Study Rationale
The primary mission of the Crime Victims’ Services
Committee of the North Carolina Governor’s Crime
Commission is to advocate for victims by promoting
the development of effective programs that improve
the response of human service professionals and
the criminal justice system to crime victims. This
report presents the findings of a statewide survey
administered to those agencies in North Carolina who
provide basic services for crime victims. The results
of this study/needs assessment will enhance the work
of the committee by providing them with current
data, critical and timely input from local practitioners
who work in both rural and urban areas, identifying
needs or gaps in services as well as emerging ideas
for the future.
Specifically, the use of data driven decision making
will allow the committee to develop grant funding
priorities which are directly tied to the voices from
the field, facilitate more informed policy and program
development, formulate legislative agenda items
which truly emanate from local constituents and
result in significant improvements for both statewide
and local or regional planning initiatives.
Ultimately, data driven planning will significantly
improve the work of not only the committee but
also the work of the state’s service providers and
consequently better assist those individuals who
become victims of crime.
Methodology
A 45-item questionnaire was developed with
respondents being asked a variety of yes-no questions
as well as open ended questions where they were
encouraged to elaborate or comment further on their
original responses. Procedural questions addressed
mental health and drug screening at the time of shelter
admission, the existence and extent of collaborative
mental health partnerships, direct service provision
for children, counseling services and the ability to
provide services for non-English speaking victims.
Questions on other organizational features included
those addressing the use of employee background
checks, victim follow-up interviews and operational
bed space. The respondents were also asked to
elucidate the extent to which a variety of services or
programmatic issues were needed at their facility.
Examples of these 15 questions, which were posed
on a continuum or Likert type scale ranging from
‘No Need’ to ‘Great Need’, included program
sustainability and staffing, bilingual services, shelter
security, accessible transportation and transitional
housing.
Every agency providing basic victims services in
North Carolina received a letter outlining the purpose
of the needs assessment and a link to the automated
survey questionnaire on the GCC Web site. Of the
81 programs surveyed, 24 completed and returned the
survey for a study response rate of 29.6 percent.
Research and Analysis by Douglas Yearwood, Director, N.C. Criminal Justice Analysis Center
2 SystemStats
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
Results
Respondents were queried about the use of screening
tests or procedures which their shelters or agencies
utilized when admitting new clientele. Twenty-three
survey participants completed this question with 16
(69.5%) answering in the affirmative that screenings
are conducted by their respective organizations. Of
the 16 shelters that conduct screenings, nine (56.3%)
offer mental health screenings, eight (50%) offer drug
or alcohol screenings while seven (43.8%) offer both
types of screening during the admissions process.
Several respondents noted that their shelters screen
for other issues such as danger or risk assessments,
post traumatic stress disorder and mental health
diagnoses for minor children who accompany the
victim.
In order to gather more information about collaborative
efforts across the state between shelter staff and
mental health professionals the survey respondents
were asked to elucidate the extent of their involvement
in this type of relationship. Of those completing this
section of the questionnaire eight (34.8%) participants
noted that their agency does employ a licensed mental
health professional while 15 (65.2%) do not employ
licensed professionals.
Of those agencies that do not retain a licensed
provider on staff, referrals to local management
entities, or LMEs, and mental health hospitals
or facilities were the most common form of
reported collaboration with 16 (72.7%) respondents
suggesting that their agency does have a collaborative
partnership with either a regional LME and/or a
local provider. However, only five (31.3%) of these
agencies have a formal memorandum of agreement
or understanding with the LME or service provider.
Contracting for mental health service provision and
mobile crisis units were also described as being a
vital component of the shelters’ collaborative efforts
in this area. In total, over 90 percent of the surveyed
shelter staff did note that their respective agencies
have access to some form of mental health services
within their jurisdiction and as Figure 1 reveals 26
percent felt that these collaborative endeavors were
somewhat important while 73 percent noted that this
collaboration is very important for their agency and
its clientele.
The Crime Victims’ Services Committee has
prioritized the importance of addressing the needs
of minor children who witness and/or experience
violence for several years now. Consequently, the
survey included questions in this area to further guide
this group in its planning and policy development
work. More than half (54.2%) of the respondents
reported that their agency does provide direct
services to children on site. These services include
the provision of food, shelter and clothing, offering
group support and individualized counseling, basic
child care in the victims’ absence and play therapy.
The shelters were evenly split with 50 percent of the
participants noting that their respective agency does
inquire about health insurance for the children while
the other half do not.
Of the 11 survey participants whose agencies do not
currently offer direct and on-site services to children,
all of these agencies reported that they nonetheless
do make referrals for service provision by another
organization which is typically a local LME or child
abuse counseling center.
Figure 1: How important is your mental health partnership?
1%
73% 26%
Neutral
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Figure 1: How important is your mental health
partnership?
Volume 27, No. 3 3
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
Seventy-five percent of the surveyed shelter staff
noted that counseling services are provided at their
facilities; however only 10 (55.6%) shelters offer
counseling by a certified or licensed practitioner.
These practitioners are typically licensed clinical
social workers or certified through the state as rape
crisis counselors and/or have completed training
sessions offered by the coalitions.
An overwhelming majority of those surveyed
(95.8%) reported that their programs do have the
capability to provide services to victims who possess
limited English proficiency. Respondents were also
asked to report the number of these victims that they
have served during the last 12 months. A total of
566 victims with limited English proficiencies were
served during the past year by the 23 responding
shelters who offer this type of service provision. The
number served at each shelter ranged from zero to a
sample high of 150 victims with the typical program
serving an annual average of 24 victims.
Respondents were asked to comment on bed space
restrictions; i.e. they were specifically asked if their
shelter had a maximum number of beds which were
directly reserved for out-of-county victims. Ninety-five
percent of the programs do not have a maximum
number of beds for out-of-county victims while only
one program does indeed have this restriction or a
set limit or specified maximum number of beds for
non-county residents.
The importance of maintaining contact with victims
who leave the shelter and/or received prior services
was reiterated as 22 (91.7%) of these shelters do
conduct some form of follow-up after the victim has
left the program.
Twenty-one of the 24 survey participants (87.5%)
reported that their agencies are now conducting
background checks on employees and/or volunteers.
Seven (one-third) of those agencies that do these
checks obtain criminal history records from the
local clerk of court or courthouse personnel. Four
agencies (19%) use Internet based companies to run
these criminal histories while other shelters obtain
this data from the local law enforcement agency.
Sixty- six percent of these agencies reported that costs
were associated or incurred for obtaining background
checks on staff and/or volunteers.
The second part of the survey involved the
identification of barriers or obstacles to more
effective and efficient service delivery with the
survey participants being asked to comment on 15
commonly recognized issues that have the potential
to negatively affect or prevent and impede basic
service provision to crime victims. Response sets
were phrased to allow the participants to select the
extent of need for each item ranging from ‘no need’
to ‘great need’. The following section and figures
outline this portion of the needs assessment.
As Figure 2 depicts, program sustainability is a
concern for the majority of the respondents with 22
Figure 2: Needs Assessment Ratings
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percent
Program
Sustainability
Staffing Services for
Children
Bilingual Services Cultural Specific
Services
Figure 2: Needs Assessment Ratings
No Need Some Need Great Need
4 SystemStats
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
(91.6%) of the 24 program staff noting that there
was either some need or a great need for work to
be completed which would help their respective
programs become permanent or institutionalized
in the local community. Twenty of the respondents
(83.3%) expressed needs for program staffing
improvements with 62 percent stating there was some
need while 21 percent noted a great need in this area.
A comparable percentage of the survey participants
noted the need for increased services for children
with an equal number of respondents expressing
the need for more bilingual services. The need for
culturally specific or culturally sensitive services was
also apparent as 21 (87.5%) respondents selected
either the some need (58.3%) item or the great need
(29.2%) item.
Of the five issues listed in Figure 3 the greatest
needs of the shelters included more access to
mental health services for their clients (54.2%) and
more access to substance abuse treatment (52.2%).
Slightly more than 30 percent of these respondents
noted at least some need for access to these two
service types. Needs were also expressed for the
remaining three issues but at a lower rate than for
mental health and substance abuse treatment. The
need for supervised visitation centers was apparent
with 26 percent noting at least some needs in this
area while 39 percent expressed a great level of need
for these visitation centers. Sixty-five percent of the
participants expressed the need for abuser treatment
programs with 30 percent noting some need for this
service and an additional 35 percent noting a great
level of need for abuser treatment. Shelter security
was not a need or issue for approximately one out of
three respondents while the remaining participants
suggested either some need for increased security
(52.2%) or a greater need (17.4%).
Figure 3: Needs Assessment Ratings
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percent
Supervised
Visitation Ctrs
Abuser Treatment Substance Abuse
Treatment
Mental Health
Services
Shelter Security
Figure 3: Needs Assessment Ratings
No Need Some Need Great Need
Volume 27, No. 3 5
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
Figure 4 depicts the level of need for legal services,
accessible transportation, affordable or transitional
housing, improving local law enforcement and/or
prosecution and training.
As the figure clearly shows there is a substantially
great need for improving access to transportation
and for affordable and/or transitional housing as
documented by the fact that over 75 percent of the
respondents reported great needs in these areas with
the remaining respondents reporting at least some
need. None of the survey participants stated that there
were no needs for affordable/transitional housing and
accessible transportation. In a similar vein, over 90
percent reported a need for improved law enforcement
and/or prosecution and for criminal justice system
training. A slightly lower 87 percent noted some
level of need in the area of legal services.
The following table presents a rank ordering, for the
15 system attributes and critical issues outlined in
the survey, based upon the percentage of respondents
expressing either a great level of need or at least
some need.
Table 1: Percentage of Respondents Expressing
Either Some Need or Great Need by
System Attribute or Critical Issue
Attribute/Issue Percent
Accessible Transportation 100.0
Affordable and/or Transitional Housing 100.0
Improve Law Enforcement/Prosecution 91.7
Training 91.7
Program Sustainability 91.6
Services for Children 87.5
Bilingual Services 87.5
Culturally Sensitive Services 87.5
Access to Mental Health Services 87.5
Access to Substance Abuse Treatment 87.0
Legal Services 87.0
Program Staffing 83.3
Shelter Security 69.6
Abuser Treatment 65.2
Supervised Visitation Centers 65.2
Figure 4: Needs Assessment Ratings
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percent
Legal Services Accessible
Transportation
Housing Improve
LE/Prosecution
Training
Figure 4: Needs Assessment Ratings
No Need Some Need Great Need
6 SystemStats
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
Discussion, Policy Recommendations and
Implications
Survey results indicate that while the shelters provide
a vital service for the community several areas should
be scrutinized in more detail as significant needs were
identified by the respondents. Only slightly more
than half of these programs currently offer mental
health and substance abuse screenings for incoming
victims and an even lower percentage offer both
types of screening. A large percentage of the survey
respondents noted that their programs are involved
in beneficial collaborative partnerships with mental
health providers; however a much smaller percentage
employ licensed mental health professionals and
have active ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ in place
to ensure a more formal and professionally operated
partnership.
The percentage of programs offering on-site direct
services for children was also slightly more than half
and suggests that more programming be developed
and implemented within the shelter itself. Also,
the need for more licensed counselors should be
addressed and considered as only 55 percent of
the responding programs have certified or licensed
specialists available to offer counseling services.
The most significant gaps in service that emerged
from the study were a lack of access to transportation
and affordable/transitional housing; every respondent
noted some level of improvement needed in these
areas. A high percentage also noted a need for
improved law enforcement/prosecution responses,
training for members of the criminal justice system
as well as more guidance or assistance with planning
for program sustainability.
Other areas of need that should be investigated further
and require more planning and policy development
include access to mental health and substance abuse
treatment, services for children and more bilingual
and culturally sensitive programming.
Despite a lower survey return rate it is anticipated
that these findings will stimulate much debate
and spark more directed discussions and open
communication about the identified areas of need and
system weaknesses. As federal funding declines, or
remains level, data driven decision making becomes
tantamount and critical for allocating limited
resources in the best manner possible in order to
ensure a more effective and efficient targeting of
funding and improved service delivery.
Note: In order to protect the identities of victims, images used in this publication do not illustrate facilities within
North Carolina.
Volume 27, No. 3 7
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
SYSTEM STATS
A Publication of the
Governor’s Crime Commission
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
(919) 733-4564
http://www.ncgccd.org
	 Scott E. Thomas
	 Chair, Governor’s Crime Commission
Gwendolyn Burrell 	 Douglas Yearwood
Executive Director 	 Director, Statistical Analysis Center
Dr. James Klopovic Richard A. Hayes Justin Davis
Criminal Justice Planner Senior Research Analyst Social/Clinical Research Specialist
Karen G. Jayson 	 Yu Li Hsu
Social/Clinical Research Specialist 	 Research Assistant
Research and Analysis by Douglas Yearwood, Director
Criminal Justice Analysis Center, N.C. Governor’s Crime Commission
The Governor’s Crime Commission was established in 1977 by the North Carolina General Assembly under G.S. 143B-479. Its primary duty is “to be the chief advisory body to the Governor
and the Secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety for the development and implementation of criminal justice policy.” The Crime Commission is always open to comments
and suggestions from the public as well as criminal justice officials. Please contact us and let us know your thoughts and feelings on the information contained in this publication or on any
other criminal justice issue of concern to you.
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Scott E. Thomas, Chair
Governor’s Crime Commission
Secretary Reuben F. Young
Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
Dr. June Atkinson, Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
Robin Baker
N.C. Victim Assistance Network
Judge Joseph M. Buckner
Chief District Court Judge
Sheriff Steve W. Bunn
Bladen County Sheriff’s Office
Secretary Lanier M. Cansler
Dept. of Health & Human Services
Steven Cogburn
Clerk of Superior Court, Buncombe County
Judge J. C. Cole
Superior Court Judge
Attorney General Roy Cooper
Department of Justice
Chief Harry Dolan
Raleigh Police Department
Mayor James K. Festerman
City of Reidsville
Judge Carl Fox
Superior Court Judge
Dr. Catherine Mitchell-Fuentes
UNC Charlotte
Representative R. Phillip Haire
N.C. House of Representatives
Secretary Linda Wheeler Hayes
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Jean R. Irvin
Private Juvenile Justice Program
Dr. Robin Jenkins, Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
David E. Jones, Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Senator Edward “Ed” Jones
North Carolina State Senate
Secretary Alvin W. Keller, Jr.
Department of Correction
Sheriff James L. Knight
Edgecombe County Sheriff’s Office
Robert Lewis, Director
Division of Prisons, DOC
Sheriff Jerry G. Monette
Craven County Sheriff’s Office
Chief Rodney Monroe
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Katelyn Moore
Student Member
Timothy Moose, Director
Division of Community Corrections, DOC
Michael Page, Chair
Durham County Board of Commissioners
Chief Justice Sarah E. Parker
North Carolina Supreme Court
Robin Pendergraft, Director
State Bureau of Investigation
James W. Pierce, Jr.
Kids Making It
Sandra Lynn Reid
Elon University
Jennifer Roberts, Chair
Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners
Sharon Sadler
Hyde County Clerk of Superior Court
Captain J. Wayne Sears
Rocky Mount Police Department
Richard L. Shaffer
27B Prosecutorial District
Detective Crystal Lynn Sharpe
Graham Police Department
Judge John W. Smith, Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Senator John J. Snow
North Carolina State Senate
Kerstin Walker Sutton
Attorney
Representative Michael H. Wray
N.C. House of Representatives
Commission Members as of March 1, 2010
8 SystemStats
Assessing the Needs of Crime Victims’ Basic Service Providers
Current and previous issues of SystemStats can be found online at www.ncgccd.org/sysstat.htm.
North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission
1201 Front Street, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
The printing of this document was supported under grant number 2005-DJ-BX-0402, as awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice. The opinions and findings presented in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Justice. This document
was printed at a cost of $ 832.04 or $ 0.83 per copy for 1,000 copies. June 2010