Abstract
The authors report a systematic review of 33 empirical studies into the needs of victims of crime. They were especially interested in differences in needs between groups of victims, like differences for type of crime, gender and ethnic background. The needs were interpreted against the background of basic human needs theories. The expressed victims’ needs seem to occur among victims of crimes across the entire spectrum, and this appears to be particularly true for the need for information and for financial needs. However, the surviving relatives of victims of homicides and victims of violence (including victims of domestic and/or sexual violence committed by a known offender, in particular) were found to have specific needs. With regard to the correlation between needs and the variables gender, ethnic origin and the question of whether or not a person is a repeat victim, the most striking finding is that very few results were found. More victims of violent crimes than victims of crimes against property report ‘basic needs’ (in terms of the human needs theories) in the ‘safety’ category. In this category there are also more people with a need for a court decision. For victims of crimes against property, the ‘non-basic needs’, such as practical needs and the need for financial restoration, play a role more frequently.
Introduction
Much has been written in the last few decades about the needs of victims of crime. This certainly has led to a general understanding of victims’ needs: victims need emotional support and information and they want to be heard, compensated and acknowledged. However, reviewing the literature, the answers to more specific questions appear not to be evident at all. For example: what needs actually exist in general and what specific needs are prevalent among certain groups of victims? What are the differences between these groups? What are the most urgent needs according to victims themselves? The Dutch Ministry of Justice formulated these questions in their attempt to differentiate in their policy and services between different groups of victims.
Instead of designing an empirical study, it was decided to first make an overview of what is known and has been studied previously. A systematic review of empirical research into the needs of victims since 1980 was conducted, in which we not only concentrated on the needs mentioned, but in addition on the exact group reporting them and the exact moment they were reported. Furthermore, we focused on the differences between groups (types of crime but also gender and ethnic background) that were found. By synthesizing the results of 33 studies it was possible to come to new conclusions about qualitative and quantitative differences between groups, in addition to the conclusions that the authors had drawn themselves. Finally, the findings were interpreted as concrete manifestations of more fundamental human needs, thereby trying to come to a more in-depth analysis of the importance of fulfilling certain needs for the wellbeing of people who had become a victim. In this article the most eye-catching findings as well as the most striking gaps in our knowledge until now are presented.
Theoretical framework
A framework of needs to be expected according to human needs theory was constructed, based on Maslow (1943) and Staub (2004). Maslow’s theory will be discussed here because his classic ‘hierarchy of needs’ has been of major influence in the field of psychology and later theoretical conceptualizations of needs. Maslow distinguishes five basic needs. The ‘lowest’, most dominant needs are the physiological needs, followed by the need for safety, love, esteem and self-realization (self-actualization in Maslow’s terms), respectively. According to Maslow, a need will manifest itself only if the ‘lower’ underlying needs are met to a certain degree. 2 Someone who has nothing in life will most strongly feel physiological needs – in particular be hungry for food and drink – far more than for love, for instance. All other needs do not ‘exist’ in that situation, or they are pushed into the background. Maslow also distinguishes a set of preconditions for basic need satisfaction. He names conditions such as freedom to seek for information and justice. According to Maslow these conditions are not ends in themselves (like the needs) ‘but they are almost so since they are so closely related to the basic needs’ (Maslow, 1943: 383). Finally, Maslow also distinguishes a desire to know and to understand.
In order to describe more recent ideas and viewpoints regarding human needs, the theory of Staub (2004) is included in our framework of needs as well. Staub distinguishes the following basic needs: security, effectiveness and control, positive identity, positive connection (to others), comprehension of reality and independence/autonomy. Staub views basic needs as ‘equally basic, all needing to be fulfilled, with security possibly an exception; it may need to be fulfilled before other needs can be addressed’ (Staub, 2004: 58). Staub supposes that his list of needs might be not exhaustive. It is also possible that having or creating justice is a basic need, he states.
According to Maslow (1943), thwarting of basically important needs produces psychopathological results. He states that a conflict or a frustration is not necessarily pathogenic – it becomes so only when it threatens or thwarts basic needs or partial needs that are closely related to basic needs. Similarly, Staub (2004) claims that the fulfilment of basic needs fosters effective functioning, well-being and growth or optimal functioning. Frustration can lead to psychological and social processes that develop tendencies in individuals and groups to turn away from or against people in evasive, defensive or hostile ways. So the realization of needs is not only pleasant, but could be really important for the well-being of people.
The theories of Maslow and Staub described above concern general basic human needs. They are not specifically concentrated on needs of individuals in the field of criminal justice, although in the current study needs are considered in this context. Therefore, we decided to add a set of needs relevant to the field of justice to our framework. Needs were drawn from theory on procedural justice (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Röhl, 1997) and from theory on restorative justice (Umbreit, 1989; Walgrave, 2002; Strang, 2002), and include the following: process control; decisive power; proper treatment; a desire to express oneself regardless of its further influence; a decision-making process free from bias or dishonesty (impartial authority); being treated with courtesy and consideration; victims’ rights being respected by the authorities; provision of information about procedures, decisions and progress of the case; opportunity to ask questions; involvement in one’s ‘own’ criminal case; and reparation of harm by the offender.
The general human needs proposed by the theories of Maslow and Staub will be linked to the domain-specific needs derived from procedural and restorative justice (Table 1). We expect that we will be able to interpret the most important needs that will be found in this review in terms of this framework of basic needs. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that some basic human needs might be dependent on the social or cultural context in which they are expressed. Basic needs described in the current review acquire their real significance in the field of justice in mainly Western countries.
Theoretical framework
Methodology
Definitions
In the current review, the focus was on the needs of victims of crime. The definition used in this study for the needs construct will be described below, but first we would like to elaborate briefly upon defining the term ‘victim’. Viano (1989) states the importance of ‘the impact that social and cultural values and forces have on the determination of who is a ‘real’ victim, (p. 3). In this, he distinguishes four stages: (a) the person experiences harm, injury or suffering; (b) the person perceives the harm as undeserved, unfair and unjust and therefore perceives him/herself as a victim; (c) the victim attempts to get others to recognize the harm and validate their victimization claim; and (d) the victim actually receives the validation he or she attempts to get and becomes an ‘official’ victim (Viano, 1989: 3–4). In reviewing the needs of victims in this study, someone is considered to be a victim if they define themselves as a victim. In terms of Viano’s four stages those victims in stages (b)–(d) were included. Furthermore, when measuring needs in this study only self-expressed, claimed, or ‘felt’ needs (cf. Maguire, 1985) were included. So we only looked at studies where victims were asked about their needs directly. As a result of this decision needs that are not claimed or expressed by victims are beyond the scope of this review.
Something that indeed is a problem that has to be solved, but which the victim can perfectly handle themselves (or with some help from people around them), is also not considered as a need in our study. For instance, findings referring to a percentage of crime victims with an anxiety disorder, sleep problems or chronic post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to the crime may be interpreted by psychologists in terms of a need for emotional treatment (e.g. Winkel, 2007); however, in a broader sense this method does not answer the question of what needs a person has. To further illustrate this point we refer to the practical example of Maguire and Corbett (1987): the fact that a large percentage of victims of burglary have broken locks does not necessarily mean that they need help with their repair or replacement.
Furthermore, needs that are not expressed by victims themselves but by others, for example social workers, and needs that can be deduced from other data (like the use of particular services or reasons for reporting a crime) are also excluded from this review. As a result, one restriction of this review is the fact that only needs into which empirical research among victims has been conducted are included; needs that have so far not caught the interest of researchers, by definition, remain outside the scope of this review.
What we did consider as needs are things where one does indeed have to play a role oneself to meet them, but for which one also needs help from another person (for example: meeting the offender), and/or in which it is inherent that they clearly cannot be arranged quickly and easily by the victim him- or herself, for example closure.
While going through the studies included in this review we constantly had to decide whether the information emerging from each study would be scored as a need or not. The choices made during this stage are presented in Appendix A. The exact words the authors used in their research reports were the decisive factor here.
Core publications
Searches for relevant literature were performed in several databases and other sources. 5 On the basis of the title and, if available, the summary the potential relevance of all publications on the obtained lists of literature was determined. Publications concerning the evaluation of one particular victim service or project, such as an evaluation of the implementation of victim impact statements, were not selected. Literature selection was close in May 2007.
Thirty-three publications were considered to be core publications; they constitute the core of the analysis, i.e. studies in which empirical research among victims was conducted and in which their needs were under discussion. The majority of core publications come from the United States (15), followed by Great-Britain (7), Canada (4), the Netherlands (3), Germany (2) and other countries (2). It should be noted here that only publications in the Dutch and English languages are included. Most publications concern victims of various crimes (13), followed by domestic violence (7), multiple forms of violence (4), sexual violence (3), bereaved after a murder (3) and other (3). Domestic violence and sexual violence are also often included in the category ‘multiple forms of violence’. They are only mentioned individually in the overview (Appendix B) if the publication concerned is restricted to that specific form of violence. Needs were expressed in answers to open (17) and yes-or-no questions (10); in 6 studies both open and yes-or-no questions were used. All publications regarded as core publications were summarized according to a predetermined format.
A preliminary analysis of seven of the 33 core publications in this study was performed (Baurmann and Schädler, 1991; Bazemore, 1999; Shapland et al., 1985; Apsler et al., 2003; Davis et al., 1999; Maguire and Kynch, 2000; Murdaugh et al., 2004). On the basis of this analysis it was concluded that there were two dimensions to be distinguished: one with respect to content (like prevention) and one with respect to actors/parties (like the offender) whom one expects to fill the need. It was decided to make the content dimension the central focus. The dimension concerning the probable person who would meet the need was decided not to be useful for further analysis, because in most cases it is not important who exactly meets the need.
Further clustering of the needs found in all core publications provided a categorization into emotional needs, needs concerning the criminal proceedings in a broad sense, information needs, practical needs, financial needs and primary needs. This clustering appears to correspond with clusters found in other reviews over time. Maguire (1985), for instance, mentions medical, financial, information, practical and emotional or psychological needs. Zedner (1994) distinguishes psychological, practical, information and financial needs, and Wemmers (2006) mentions information, medical and emotional, practical, reparation, protection needs and the need for inclusion in the criminal justice system. The cluster of medical needs that was sometimes found is categorized under practical needs in our review; reparation need is categorized under various clusters depending on the type of reparation (financial, emotional), and the need for protection is classified as a primary need in our study.
Research findings
In Table 2, a complete list of (clustered) expressed needs is presented. Every need that was expressed by at least one victim of any crime is assigned to a cluster of needs. It is important to stress that, as a consequence, not all needs mentioned are applicable to all victims. Some needs are even contradictory to others. For instance, one victim might prefer to meet with the offender whereas the other would definitely not. Both needs – the need to meet and the need not to meet the offender – are part of the whole set of needs that were found.
Clusters of needs expressed by victims and the organization expected to fulfil them
P = police; PJ = police/judiciary; V = victim; D = offender; O = other persons/agencies or non-specified person or agency
As indicated in Table 2, victim needs were found in the field of emotions, in the field of criminal proceedings in a broad sense, in the field of information, in practical fields, in the financial field and in the primary field. Most of these needs are addressed to police and the judiciary and ‘other persons and agencies’. This latter category includes the victim’s own network of family, friends, etc. but also, for instance, Victim Support and legal aid providers.
Differences between victim groups
Differences between victim groups have been explored in several ways. First, we analysed whether certain needs were expressed exclusively by victims of certain crimes. Secondly, it was examined whether differences exist in the extent to which a need is expressed by different groups. Finally, it was explored what can be said about the question whether victims of more severe crimes have more needs or that they have certain needs more often than victims of less severe incidents.
Qualitative differences between victim groups
In many studies victims of different crimes were interviewed about needs they might have. However, results were seldom categorized by victim group; in general, only one list of needs was presented. An extreme example is Elliot (2002): the author studied victims of violence (among whom were victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, child abuse and stalking), driving under the influence, fraud, theft, arson, hate crime and attempted murder, but brought his results down to one list of victim needs without reference to which group actually expressed needs.
As far as may be deduced from the publications, the expressed needs found in the current study appeared to occur among victims of crimes almost across the entire spectrum (but this does not mean that every victim has every need). However, it is possible that this is a consequence of the rough categories used by many studies, as indicated earlier.
Only the surviving relatives of victims of homicides and victims of violence (including victims of domestic and/or sexual violence committed by a known offender, in particular) were found to have specific needs. Among victims of violence (including domestic violence), in particular, a need for immediate safety was found (e.g. Landau, 2000; Koloto, 2003) and, in victims of domestic violence specifically, a need for employment or education (e.g. Murdaugh et al., 2004; Wolf et al., 2006). One possible explanation for this finding is that these victims might want to start generating their own income, because they cannot rely any more on the income of their (ex-)partner. The need for temporary and permanent housing was found particularly among victims of domestic violence (e.g. Lein et al., 2001; Brickman, 2002; Koloto, 2003; Murdaugh et al., 2004; Grossman et al., 2005; Wolf et al., 2006), however, victims of other crimes sometimes needed a temporary place to stay as well (e.g. Stuebing, 1984; Davis et al., 1999).
Furthermore, victims of specifically domestic and/or sexual violence were the only groups that expressed a need for repair of relationships with the offender (e.g. Landau, 2000; Wolf et al., 2006) but sometimes also with the wider community (e.g. Herman, 2005). This was also the only group that wished certain typical outcomes: whereas most victims wanted, for instance, arrest and punishment by the authorities (e.g. Kilchling, 1991; van den Bogaard, 1992), these victims thought it was important that the community condemned the offence (e.g. Feldthusen et al., 2000) and that the perpetrator’s enablers and accomplices made an apology (e.g. Herman, 2005). Here, the fact that victim and offender do often know each other means that the role of the wider community manifests itself. A unique need of victims of domestic violence is the wish to not arrest or prosecute the perpetrator (their husbands) (e.g. Landau, 2000), but instead, for instance, to remove him from their home for a while (e.g. Ganapathy, 2006). This relates to the fact that the victim may sometimes still want to stay with the perpetrator. ‘I don’t want my husband arrested but I wanted the police to talk to him and to tell him to behave…’ (Ganapathy, 2006: 98).
Unique needs that were observed among people bereaved by homicide included crisis management (someone to take charge of the situation at home, who deals with phone calls, communicates with employers and schools, sorts out and arranges things). Bereaved people also expressed a need for help with sorting the belongings of the victim and protection from and guidance on dealing with the media (e.g. Dunn et al., 2006). Both the need for information and financial needs are being reported for all types of victims – here no offence-specific clusters of needs were found.
Quantitative differences between victim groups
As stated above, most of the expressed needs seem to occur across the entire spectrum of victims of crime. But what about the proportion of victims per offence type that have certain needs? Only three of the 33 studies could be used to compare the incidence of certain needs between victims of different crimes (Baurmann and Schädler, 1991; Maguire and Kynch, 2000; Stuebing, 1984). For instance: do a similar proportion of victims of violence and victims of property offences need emotional support? In comparing the relative weight of each need per victim group, differences in order of ranking as well as differences in percentages were considered.
It was found that victims of violence more often mention the need for someone to talk to/emotional support (27% to 57%) than do victims of property offences (10% to 35%) (Table 3). In order of ranking, the need for someone to talk to is often one of the most mentioned by both groups.
Percentage of victims of different crimes with certain needs
Other needs that are more frequently expressed by victims of violent offences are needs in the field of protection (27% to 50% versus 8% to 22% for victims of property offences) and effective preventive measures (25% and second rank versus 10% and sixth rank). Also the need for a verdict/court decision is more common among victims of violence (33% and third rank versus 23% and sixth rank).
On the other hand, a greater proportion of victims of property offences express the need for types of practical help: in making emergency repairs (13% and third rank versus 7% and seventh rank of victims of violence) and in contacting companies (10% and fifth rank versus 3% and eighth rank). Their need for financial compensation by an insurance company is indicated most: this is their number one need (61%), whereas for victims of violence this need is the last in the order of ranking with 5%.
Needs of victims of severe crimes
Only three of the 33 studies could be used to compare the needs of victims of crimes of different degrees of severity. We scored violent crimes as more severe than crimes against property, and a larger property loss is scored as more severe than a small loss. So the term severe is used in a somewhat relative way. From some studies it appears that victims of more severe offences more often have at least one need. Davis et al. (1999) found that victims with a property loss of more than US$100 and victims who had been injured more often had certain needs. Maguire and Kynch (2000) state that victims of theft and vandalism less often have a need than victims of burglary, violence and threats. Shapland et al. (1985) found that victims of violence who would have liked help from a scheme were not concentrated among those offences that would be presumed to produce high emotional stress (such as sexual assaults). However, that study was conducted only among victims of violence – an offence that (even if not the most severe form) would fall in the group of more severe crimes according to the first mentioned authors. Therefore, this finding does not necessarily contradict the former findings.
Most frequently expressed needs
In 12 publications, information was found about the frequency of expressed needs. We did not discriminate by type of offence – the focus was on the needs that in general are expressed the most. From each study the two most expressed needs were listed. In six studies (Maguire and Kynch, 2000; Baurmann and Schädler, 1991; Davis et al., 1999; Stuebing, 1984; Newmark et al., 2003; Grossman et al., 2005) the need for emotional support/someone to talk to was part of the two most mentioned needs. In the other six studies this need was not included in the list of possible answers, which means that the need for emotional support was the most or second most mentioned need every time when it was one of the possible answers.
The need for information also occurred several times: in the form of information from the police (Maguire and Kynch, 2000); the right to information about the progress of the case (Kilchling, 1991); and in the form of the need for information about preventing repeat victimization (Davis et al., 1999).
The need for safety/protection (Stuebing, 1984; Maguire and Kynch, 2000; Landau, 2000 and indirectly also Apsler et al., 2003) occurred more than once in the list of most frequently expressed needs as well; however, this need was not always, when it was a possible answer, one of the top two (e.g. Davis et al., 1999; Wolf et al., 2006; Newmark et al., 2003). The last need we identified more than once is the need to be heard in the criminal proceedings (Wemmers and Cyr, 2004; Kilchling, 1991). Hardly any research appears to have been conducted into the prioritization of needs according to victims. Sporadic results in this field (Bazemore, 1999; Devalve, 2005; Murdaugh et al., 2004) are not mutually comparable.
Gender, ethnic origin and repeat victims
In our search for correlations between expressed needs and gender, ethnic origin and repeat victimization, we will only present results that were found in more than one study. We decided to do so because not every study met high methodological standards – instead of selecting and using only a few top quality studies we chose to make a security check this way and not exclude the less sophisticated ones.
With regard to the link between needs and the variables gender, ethnic origin and the question whether or not a person is a repeat victim, the most striking finding was that very few results were found. In eight studies differences related to gender were not applicable because only men or women were studied. Of the 25 other publications, only five reported results concerning needs in relation to gender. Gender thus appears not to be a standard variable in this type of research. Our main finding on this topic is that women appear to have more need for emotional support/someone to talk to than men (van den Bogaard, 1992; Maguire and Kynch, 2000; Stuebing, 1984). Other results concerning gender differences were assessed by just one study in our review or were not consistent with each other.
Seven of our 33 core publications reported about needs in relation to ethnic origin. In four studies it is concluded that ethnic minorities have more unfulfilled needs (Brickman, 2002; Davis et al., 1999; Wolf et al., 2006; Newmark et al., 2003). In addition, it was found that victims from ethnic minorities more often report a need for help in the field of personal safety: for instance, protection against further victimization, and advice on safety (Wolf et al., 2006; Maguire and Kynch, 2000). Other results were found only once or were not consistent with each other.
Although in four studies some attention is paid to repeat victimization (Shapland et al.,1985; van den Bogaard, 1992; Davis et al., 1999; Maguire and Kynch, 2000), in only one study is this variable related to the needs of victims (Maguire and Kynch, 2000). In this study, repeat victims report more than others the need for someone to talk to/moral support and the need for protection.
Needs over time
The current review examines what needs were most urgent according to victims themselves in the aftermath of the crime, and what needs emerged in the longer run. We found that some needs exist immediately after the offence, such as ‘someone to talk to after the police left’ and ‘help in making emergency repairs to secure home’ (e.g. Stuebing, 1984), and that some needs come up during the process, such as the wish to be heard in the legal proceedings (e.g. Bazemore, 1999). However, on the basis of this review we were not able to find any results beyond these evident immediate or longer term needs.
The period of time in days, weeks or months that had passed between the offence and the moment of needs measurement was, in the majority of publications, not reported at all (19) or in very broad terms (7). With the latter we mean, for instance, that ‘the victims were contacted for the survey anywhere from 14 to 29 months after they had been victimized’ (Brickman, 2002). In addition, the moment referred to is not always clear when victims are interviewed about their needs. Sometimes it is explicitly stated that the researchers want to know something about needs that were felt at a particular moment (for example, just after the offence) but in other cases this remains unclear. In three studies the needs felt right after the offence appear to have been measured shortly after the offence (Apsler et al., 2003, Van den Bogaard, 1992; Shapland et al., 1985), so one can assume that these answers are valid. More (primary) research is needed to gain more insight on this subject.
Synthesis
Research findings were interpreted as concrete manifestations of more fundamental human needs, thereby trying to come to a more in-depth analysis of the importance of fulfilment of certain needs for people’s well-being. In the third column of Table 4, an attempt has been made to embed the needs expressed by victims of crime found in this review into our theoretical framework explained in the introduction.
Expressed needs related to theoretical framework
Physiological needs are sometimes found in terms of an urgent need for food. In some cases this need is shown by victims who are homeless (because they have run away from domestic violence, for example) and have virtually nothing at that moment.
Safety needs are prominently found in the category that we labelled primary needs. Victims indicate they have a need for immediate safety and appear to be focused on the prevention of repeat victimization. Moreover, the (emotional) need for early care and support can be seen in terms of the need for safety. This is also true for the need to cope need for closure, as well as for the need for, further support. In general, the fundamental human need for safety is not felt in ‘normal’ circumstances. However, if personal safety is threatened because of an offence, it does arise logically. In that case, safety is not a matter of course anymore.
The need for love, security and positive relations with other people is clearly recognizable in the need for restoration of relations. The relationship that one wants to restore is sometimes the one with the offender (for example, in the case of domestic violence) but sometimes also with others from the community. In that case, the need for mediation often arises as well.
The need for self-realization or autonomy is not clearly apparent. If this is interpreted in the terms used by Maslow (1943), this is quite logical. After all, this is the ‘highest’ need in his assumed hierarchy and it does not come as a surprise that this need is not easily felt in a crisis situation like a crime. In fact, ‘lower’ needs for physical safety and sometimes also food and a roof over one’s head play a more important role here. The need for self-realization will manifest itself if these other needs are met sufficiently. However, in line with Röhl’s expressive theory (Röhl, 1997), one could assume that the frequently expressed need to be able to provide input into the criminal proceedings has an independent value for people, by which one could possibly confirm one’s own autonomy. On the other hand, it is also possible that it rather reflects a wish for process control. We would suggest that providing input can be instrumental (a means to an end) for some and expressive (an end in itself; a form of self-presentation) for others.
The need for esteem or positive identity is clearly found in the need for acknowledgement: one wants to be appreciated and treated with respect during the criminal process, and be seen as a person concerned. According to Maslow, satisfaction of this need leads to feelings of self-esteem and the feeling of being useful. Undermining it would lead to feelings of weakness and helplessness. Following this line of argument, correct and respectful treatment of victims would be of major importance in getting them out of their ‘victim role’. This should be emphasized more strongly in the promotion of careful treatment of victims by police officers, the public prosecutor and the judiciary.
The need for an impartial authority as proposed by the theory of procedural justice was not found. This might indicate that this need is fulfilled in general according to victims.
However, the need for comprehension of reality, or the desire to know and to understand, is clearly recognizable in the needs expressed by victims of crime. This was also expected according to procedural justice theory. Victims report a need for information about the progress of the case – this information enables victims to play a role as an interested party in the proceedings. In addition, victims often need information about the (criminal) system, although this depends, of course, on the personal knowledge and experiences of the victim in question. Victims also have a need for information about what exactly happened and why, for reasons concerning self-protection and preventing repeat victimization, for example. In Maslow’s terms (1943: 384), ‘acquiring knowledge and systematizing the universe are techniques for the achievement of basic safety in the world’. Information would therefore contribute to fulfilment of the need for safety. Maybe this explains why the need for information is reported so often by victims of crime.
The need for effectiveness and control is very prominently found in our review as well, certainly in terms of its definition in the theory of procedural justice. The need for the possibility of providing some input into the criminal procedure, for being consulted and in some cases also providing approval and decision-making power are clear expressions of this. At the same time, there are also victims who do not have this need at all.
Our theoretical framework concludes with the need for justice. On the one hand, this concerns the need for material and immaterial reparation (for example, an apology) by the offender, as expected on the basis of the literature on restorative justice. On the other hand, the desire for punishment also seems to be an aspect of the need for justice. Although the need for justice is not included in fundamental human needs according to Maslow and Staub, apparently this need cannot be neglected in the context of victimization.
Discussion
In this article we reviewed 33 studies into the self-expressed needs of victims of crime. Needs are found in the field of emotions, in the field of criminal proceedings in a broad sense, in the field of information, in practical fields, in the financial field and in the primary field. The expressed needs found in the current study appear to occur among victims of crimes across almost the entire spectrum (but this does not mean that every victim has every need). Only the surviving relatives of victims of homicides and victims of violence (including victims of domestic and/or sexual violence committed by a known offender in particular) are found to have specific needs. For instance, victims of domestic and/or sexual violence express a need for repair of relationships, with the offender or with the wider community. A unique need of victims of domestic violence is the wish to not arrest or prosecute the perpetrator (their partner) but instead, for instance, to remove him from their home for a while.
Unique needs that are observed among people bereaved by homicide include crisis management and the need for help with sorting the belongings of the victim and protection from and guidance on dealing with the media.
More victims of violent crimes than victims of crimes against property report ‘basic needs’ (in terms of the discussed needs theories) in the ‘safety’ category. In this category there are also more people with a need for a court decision. For victims of crimes against property the ‘non-basic needs’, such as practical needs and the need for financial restoration, play a role more frequently.
It appears that victims of severe offences more often have at least one need than victims of less severe crimes: most often expressed is the need for emotional support or someone to talk to, followed by the need for information. Hardly any research appears to have been conducted into the prioritization of needs in the victim’s own opinion.
With regard to the link between needs and the three variables gender, ethnic origin and the question whether or not a person is a repeat victim, the most striking finding was that very few results were found. Gender thus appears not to be a standard variable in this type of research. From the sporadic results we found it can be concluded that women appear to have more need for emotional support/someone to talk to than men, and that victims from ethnic minorities have more unfulfilled needs.
The period of time in days, weeks or months between the offence and the moment of needs measurement is, in the majority of publications, reported either in very broad terms or not reported at all. In addition, the moment referred to is not always clear when victims are interviewed about their needs. In only some studies the needs felt right after the offence appear to have been measured shortly after the offence, so that one can assume that the answers are valid. More (primary) research is needed to gain more insight in this subject. Shapland and Hall (2007) make a similar statement with regard to measuring the effects of crime.
These findings can be used to improve interventions and services for certain groups of victims. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Ministry of Justice recently started financing a special program in which case managers give extra support to people bereaved by homicide and to victims of severe violent crimes. Depending on the needs of the client, case managers can give practical support with domestic matters, crisis management in the immediate aftermath, and/or emotional support over the longer term. Another improvement however not as a direct consequence of our study includes a recently adopted law by which mayors (or in practice often the police) can impose a temporary restraining order in the case of perpetration of domestic violence. If the perpetrator poses a serious threat to the safety of the partner, children or others in the household, he or she is ordered away from the home and banned from returning for a certain period of time. Furthermore, victims of severe crimes now have the right to obtain information about the release of ‘their’ offender. These improvements are good examples of measures that contribute to the fulfilment of frequently expressed victim needs, such as the basic safety needs of victims of violent crimes.
Despite relevant results for improving victim interventions and services, there are several limitations to this study that need to be addressed. First, our theoretical framework is restricted to some main needs theories from the field of (social) psychology. Although this framework enabled us to discuss the needs found in our review against a meaningful background, it would be interesting to see what additional insights we might gain if theories from other domains, such as sociology, were added to our framework. Second, it was decided only to include needs that were expressed by victims themselves in this review. As a consequence, needs not claimed or expressed by victims, needs expressed by others (e.g. social workers) and needs that can be deduced from other data (e.g. reasons for reporting a crime) are beyond the scope of this review. Third, in the studies that were reviewed, little differentiation was made between the various victim groups that expressed the found needs. Results were seldom categorized by victim group; in general, only one list of needs was presented without reference to which specific victim group(s) actually expressed the needs. On the basis of the current review, we conclude that only the surviving relatives of victims of homicides and victims of violence (including domestic and sexual violence) have specific needs. However, it might be possible that there are other victim groups with specific needs that have not been identified yet as a result of the above-described lack of differentiation between victim groups. Fourth, we encountered some difficulties in answering the question regarding the proportion of victims per offence type that had certain needs. Only three of the 33 studies could be used to compare the incidence of certain needs between victims of different crimes. In addition, with regard to the correlation between needs and the variables gender, ethnic origin and the question whether or not a person is a repeat victim, very few results were found. In order to establish more certainty about our findings on these issues, more research is needed. Finally, we examined what needs were most urgent according to victims themselves in the aftermath of the crime, and what needs emerged in the longer run. However, on the basis of this review we were not able to find any results beyond some evident immediate or longer term needs. One of the reasons for this is that in only a few cases was it explicitly stated that the researchers wanted to know something about needs that were felt at a particular moment (for example, just after the offence). However, in most cases this remained unclear.
Although violence against women and the experiences of female victims have been studied very often from a feminist perspective, it appears from our review that both gender and ethnic origin are forgotten variables in the majority of mainstream studies on victim needs. Authors seldom mention results with respect to differences between men and women, which was a remarkable and unexpected finding to us. In order to gain more insight into possible gender differences in victim needs, as well as needs relevant for specific ethnic groups, more research is needed.
Furthermore, we think that in future research it is important to discriminate between victims of violent crimes that are committed by a (for the victim) known or unknown offender. The current review shows that the needs of these victims vary substantially. In prior research, victims of violent crimes were often included as one category. In terms of distinguishing between victims of violence with a known versus unknown offender this is problematic; in that way no attention is paid to the different needs of these victims, or variety in experience and impact of the crime.
Despite the limitations mentioned above, the relevance of this review is primarily that it shows clearly the blanks in our knowledge about victim needs and identifies problems with adequately measuring needs and related constructs (e.g. length of time after the offence) in some studies. An important notion from our study is the fact that correct treatment of victims is of major importance in getting them out of their ‘victim role’. Respectful treatment thus serves a higher aim than just being polite. This should be emphasized more strongly in the promotion of careful treatment of victims by police officers, the public prosecutor and the judiciary.
In the Netherlands, we currently translate our knowledge of victim needs into an instrument that aims to measure the quality of judicial victim assistance (see for more information Van Mierlo and Pemberton, 2009). In this, victim needs are translated into concrete requirements that can be met by victim services. The instrument measures victims’ experiences with the most important Dutch victim services (e.g. ‘Did the staff of the prosecution service give you sufficient information concerning the next steps in the process?’) as well as the importance of these services (e.g. ‘How important is it for you that the staff of the prosecution service give you sufficient information concerning the next steps in the process?’). By doing so, possible quality gaps can be identified: items with high importance to victims, but with poor results in terms of the experiences victims had with that particular service. These quality gaps are useful starting points for policy-makers in determining priorities in policy on improving victim assistance in order to meet victim needs in an optimal way.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B Core publications,arranged alphabetically by author
| First author | Country | Theoretical position | Offence | n | Context | Questioning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apsler et al., 2003 | USA | none | Domestic violence | 95 | Interviews with victims who came to the notice of the police | Yes-or-no |
| Baurmann and Schädler, 1991 | Germany | none | Violent and against property | 203 | Interviews with victims shortly after reporting the crime to max. one year after the offence | Open |
| Bazemore, 1999 | USA | Restorative justice | Violent and against property, murder | 18 | Interviews with victims after handling of case by juvenile court | Open |
| van den Bogaard, 1992 | The Netherlands | Theory concerning coping processes | Offence against property | 276 | Interviews with victims who reported a crime | Yes-or-no |
| Brickman, 2002 | USA | none | Violent and against property | Over 800 | Interviews with victims who had contacts with victim services. Almost all had reported the crime. | Open and yes-or-no |
| Clawson et al., 2003 | USA | none | Human trafficking | 6 | Probably: interviews with victims who had contacts with organisations that provided services to victims of human trafficking | Open |
| Davis et al., 1999 | USA | none | Violent and against property | 470 | Interviews with victims who reported a crime and victims who were involved in a legal case | Yes-or-no |
| Devalve, 2005 | USA | none 8 | Violent and against property, murder | 36 | Interviews with victims who were recruited for earlier research and partly a group that reacted to a call to share experiences | Open and yes-or-no |
| Dunn et al., 2006 | Great Britain | none | Murder | 41 | Interviews with bereaved persons who had contacts with Victim Support or with a group called ‘Support after Murder and Manslaughter’ | Open |
| Elliot, 2002 | USA | none | Violent and against property, murder, arson, traffic offences, hate crime, stalking | 485 | Interviews with clients of victim services including a compensation programme | Open and yes-or-no |
| Feldthusen et al., 2000 | Canada | Therapeutic jurisprudence | Sexual violence | 87 | Interviews with victims who applied for financial compensation or instituted a civil liability case | Open |
| Freeman et al., 1996 | USA | none | Murder | 15 | Interviews with children and mothers from families who were found through murder reports of the police | Open |
| Ganapathy, 2006 | Singapore | none | Domestic violence | 26 | Interviews with victims who were recruited from the police, social work and centre for family services | Open |
| Grossman et al., 2005 | USA | none | Domestic violence | 53.275 | Interviews with victims who wanted to receive support from a domestic violence programme | Yes-or-no |
| Herman, 2005 | Great Britain | Restorative justice 9 | Domestic and sexual violence | 22 | Interviews with victims who were recruited from lawyers, victim witness advocates and indirectly | Open |
| Kilchling, 1991 | Germany | Intrinsic and procedural victim interests | Violent and against property | 781 | Interviews with victims who were a victim in the past 5 years | Yes-or-no |
| Koloto, 2003 | New Zealand | none | Violent and against property | 88 | Interviews with victims who were recruited from the national survey of crime victims, own networks and Pacific service providers | Open |
| Landau, 2000 | Canada | none | Domestic violence | 94 | Interviews with victims who had a case as a consequence of mandatory charging; it is not clear how or where they were recruited exactly | Open and yes-or-no |
| Lein et al., 2001 | USA | none | Domestic violence | 67 | Interviews with victims who received assistance from TANF: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families | Open |
| Maguire and Corbett, 1987 | Great Britain | none | Violent and against property | 265 | Interviews with victims who had contacts with Victim Support and a smaller group that had not; these were recruited through the police | Open and yes-or-no |
| Maguire and Kynch, 2000 | Great Britain | none | Violent and against property | 8700 incidents | Interviews with people who indicated in the British Crime Survey that they had been victims | Yes-or-no |
| Masters et al., 1988 | USA | none | Murder | 1182 | Interviews with bereaved persons who went for help to Victim Support | Yes-or-no |
| Meredith et al., 2000 | USA | none | Sexual violence | 60 | Interviews with victims who received victim services | Open |
| Murdaugh et al., 2004 | USA | none | Domestic violence | 309 | Interviews with women who were recruited from participants of a Hispanic women to women project aimed at increasing awareness concerning domestic and sexual violence | Yes-or-no |
| Newmark et al., 2003 | USA | none | Violent, murder, traffic offences, stalking, other | 594 | Interviews with clients of victim support programmes; 84% had reported the crime to the police | Yes-or-no |
| Shapland et al., 1985 | Great Britain | none | Violent | 276 | Interviews, several times, with victims who were followed through the entire legal process starting at the point of reporting the crime | Open |
| Stanko and Hobdell, 1993 | Great Britain | Masculinity/ gender | Violent | 33 | Interviews with victims who had contacts with Victim Support, the police or rehabilitation. Most of them had reported the crime | Open |
| Stephens and Sinden, 2000 | USA | none | Domestic violence | 25 | Interviews with victims who were found through a victim programme; they all had contacts with the police | Open |
| Stuebing, 1984 | Canada | none | Violent and against property, murder | 354 | Interviews with victims who reported a crime; a number of cases had been solved at the time of questioning and some cases had not | Open and yes-or-no |
| Veerman, 2000 | The Netherlands | none | Sexual violence | 8 | It is not known where and how respondents were recruited | Open |
| Victim Support, 2006 | Great Britain | none | Hate crime | 107 | Interviews with victims who had contacts with Victim Support and victims who were recruited from other, not specified methods | Open |
| Wemmers and Cyr, 2004 | Canada | Restorative justice and procedural justice | Violent and against property | 59 | Interviews with victims who had been asked to participate in mediation (not all had participated in the mediation) | Open |
| Wolf et al., 2006 | The Netherlands | none | Violence, to a large extent by (ex-)partner | 218 | Interviews with women in shelters (crisis and follow-up shelters) | Yes-or-no |
