Knowledge Tree
Hope After Harm
Facts (17)
Sources
Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes americanprogress.org Aug 20, 2025 17 facts
procedureStates receive 1 point in the 'Hope After Harm' evaluation if their statutes or regulations do not mention involvement with or use of illicit drugs as a factor in the approval, denial, or reduction of victim compensation.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm' argue that it is wrong to ignore a person's victimization because they previously broke the law, just as it is wrong to excuse a person's criminal actions simply because they were previously victimized.
claimFocus group participants for the 'Hope After Harm' report provided insights into victim compensation programs in 13 states, though the groups were limited to English speakers and those with access to technology for video or telephone calls.
measurementThe authors of "Hope After Harm" conducted eight focus groups with 28 survivors and two focus groups with six advocates and victim service providers during June and July 2024.
procedureThe authors of 'Hope After Harm' graded states based on whether they included a statutory requirement that medical providers, state attorneys, district attorney’s offices, or law enforcement officers inform victims and survivors of their right to compensation.
measurementRecruitment for focus groups for "Hope After Harm" occurred in May and June 2024 via digital flyers and email, targeting 117 representatives from nonprofit and community-based organizations across 12 states or with a national footprint.
measurementSurvivors who participated in the focus groups for "Hope After Harm" received a $100 gift card.
procedureThe authors of the report 'Hope After Harm' provided administrators of all 52 evaluated programs the opportunity to review their state’s evaluation and offer feedback before the results were finalized to mitigate potential bias.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm' argue that state statutes should mandate that law enforcement officers inform survivors of the availability of victim compensation programs.
claimMost survivor participants in the 'Hope After Harm' focus groups who had lost a loved one to violence identified as Black or African American women.
claimThe report 'Hope After Harm' does not assess the efficacy, efficiency, or fairness of the administration of victim compensation programs as they relate to applicant outcomes, but instead examines the statutes and regulations that govern the programs.
claimDuring the webinars, the authors of "Hope After Harm" presented an overview of the project’s goals, the methodology used to evaluate state statutes, key findings, and a preview of recommendations and model policies.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm' argue that the positive, supportive experience Jones had while applying for victim compensation should be the standard for all survivors across the United States.
procedureThe authors of 'Hope After Harm' propose five key recommendations for statutory and programmatic reform of victim compensation: (1) raise awareness and increase outreach, particularly in Black and brown communities; (2) make application processes less arduous and more trauma-informed by reducing paperwork and expanding application windows; (3) reduce law enforcement’s role in determining eligibility and award amounts; (4) move away from reimbursement-based models; and (5) increase the amount of compensation available for burial expenses.
procedureIn June 2025, the authors of "Hope After Harm" sent state-based fact sheets and scoring breakdowns to state contacts for review and feedback before finalizing the report results.
procedureEach focus group conducted for "Hope After Harm" lasted approximately 90 minutes and was held via Zoom.
measurementThe provider and advocate focus groups for the 'Hope After Harm' report were limited to six participants, all of whom were women working in a total of four states.