Knowledge Tree
Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes
Facts (57)
Sources
Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes americanprogress.org Aug 20, 2025 57 facts
claimThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that states should not require survivors to report their victimization to police, but instead allow reporting to entities not affiliated with the justice system, such as medical, mental health, or victim service providers.
claimThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' identified four themes for their scoring rubric: awareness and accessibility, adequate compensation, eligibility barriers, and experience with the process.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that states reform 'contributory conduct' policies, which allow administering agencies to deny or reduce a victim’s compensation award based on judgments of the victim’s actions.
claimThe primary objective of the document analysis in "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" was to understand the experiences of survivors, providers, and advocates when filing or supporting a claim for victim compensation.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that states move away from reimbursement-based models for victim compensation programs because many survivors lack the funds to pay for expenses upfront and may lack proof of purchase.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" acknowledge that state laws and funding levels frequently constrain the scope of victim compensation programs.
measurementReviewers of the report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' ranked and weighted evaluation criteria as follows: eligibility barriers (x1.75), experience with the process (x1.5), awareness and accessibility (x1.25), and adequate compensation (x1).
perspectiveThe authors of the report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' advocate for state policies that do not deny victim compensation awards based on a victim or applicant’s arrest or conviction history, probation or parole status, or outstanding warrants, fines, or fees.
measurementThe survivor focus group participants in 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' ranged in age from 26 to 70, with an average age of 48.
measurementAmong the 28 survivor focus group participants in 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes', 17 identified as Black or African American, three as white or Caucasian, two as Hispanic or Latino, one as Native American, four as two or more races, and one did not report their race.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" acknowledge that their focus groups do not represent the full range of experiences of survivors, providers, and advocates nationwide.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that states expand the scope of costs covered by emergency awards and raise compensation caps to accommodate rising costs, particularly for burial expenses.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" incorporated data from focus groups into the rubric weighting and policy recommendations of the report.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" excluded victim compensation program administrators from focus groups due to the project's focus on the user experience and organizational capacity constraints.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' argue that states should remove all restrictions on victim compensation eligibility related to involvement with the criminal legal system to ensure victims and survivors receive support.
claimIn the 'Hope After Harm' evaluation, states with policies representing the most equitable and inclusive provision of victim compensation received all possible points in a subcategory.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" engaged with state victim compensation programs through email outreach, information sessions, and opportunities for feedback on state-specific evaluations.
procedureThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' evaluated states based on the time taken to issue application decisions, the availability and amount of emergency awards, and the incorporation of the perspectives of individuals who are or support those who are directly impacted by violence in their process.
measurementSurvivor focus group participants in the study 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' resided in 17 different cities across California, Georgia, Illinois, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" assert that focus group participants provided a diverse range of viewpoints and experiences that align with existing research regarding Crime Victim Compensation (CVC) programs.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' assert that consistent funding from both state and federal governments is essential to the rigor and longevity of victim compensation programs.
claimThe 'adequate compensation' theme in the 'Hope After Harm' scoring rubric includes subcategories for maximum compensation limit, burial expense coverage limit, and types of eligible expenses.
perspectiveSurvivors, legislators, and advocates should utilize the findings and recommendations from the report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' to develop more equitable, expansive, and inclusive victim compensation programs.
claimThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that the 40 victim compensation programs that have not yet done so should codify survivors’ roles on victim compensation and advisory boards.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' encourage other states to draw inspiration from Maryland and reform their victim compensation programs by removing requirements for reporting to or cooperating with law enforcement.
measurementAmong the 16 survivor focus group participants who applied for victim compensation, seven received full awards, two received reduced awards, four had their applications rejected, two were awaiting a decision, and one reported being denied an award for one application while receiving a reduced award for another.
measurement16 of the 28 survivor focus group participants in 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' applied for victim compensation, with one participant applying in two different states.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that states maintain a continued presence for survivors at the table and center their voices when implementing programmatic reforms.
claimThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' propose a model policy where states have no limit on the amount of time survivors can apply for compensation after their or their loved ones’ victimization.
perspectiveThe author of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' argues that contributory conduct reductions and denials are highly subjective and deeply racially inequitable, similar to police reporting and cooperation requirements.
claimThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' argue that victims and survivors of police violence may be largely excluded from receiving victim compensation in many states because law enforcement often determines eligibility through reporting, cooperation, or contributory conduct requirements.
procedureThe authors of the report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' limited the weights for evaluation criteria to a range between 1 and 2 to account for the fact that focus group participants did not represent all survivors’ experiences or geographic regions.
perspectiveThe authors of the report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' argue that while providing application materials in a victim's native language does not guarantee program accessibility, it represents the bare minimum requirement for such programs.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' believe in promoting equitable access to victim compensation for all survivors, rather than relying solely on exceptions for specific groups.
procedureThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' adjusted the $58,606 estimated cost of robbery for the cost of living in each state to evaluate maximum compensation limits.
claimThe report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' evaluates states based on the time allotted for survivors to report victimization and apply for victim compensation, acknowledging the nonlinear nature of grief and healing.
claimThe Center for American Progress (CAP) and Common Justice acknowledge that victim service advocates and experts provided expertise and insights that shaped the report "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" and its accompanying scorecard framework.
claimThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' use the 75th percentile of emergency award limits, which is $3,750, as the benchmark for evaluating state victim compensation policies.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' argue that denying or reducing compensation due to contributory conduct may stunt victim healing and perpetuate cycles of violence.
measurementThe advocate and provider focus group participants in 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' possessed a cumulative total of 85 years of experience working with or advocating for survivors of violence.
referenceThe report titled 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' is a joint effort of the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Common Justice that provides an in-depth examination of victim compensation law in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.
claimThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that states should not deny or reduce victim compensation awards based on a victim or survivor’s cooperation with law enforcement.
procedureThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' evaluated states based on the inclusion of the following additional areas of coverage in statute or publicly available materials: relocation expenses, security improvements, property loss, crime scene cleanup, travel assistance to court or medical and mental health appointments, future loss of support or loss of support for dependents, legal fees, replacement services, nontraditional healing modalities, bereavement leave, and accessibility modifications.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' argue that all states should stop requiring victims to cooperate with law enforcement as a condition for eligibility for victim compensation awards.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" analyzed statutes, regulations, and public documents to evaluate victim compensation programs from an external perspective.
procedureBetween June 2024 and September 2024, the authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' developed subcategories for their scoring rubric based on patterns and trends from document analysis and focus groups.
claimThe Center for American Progress (CAP) and Common Justice acknowledge the contributions of Heather Warnken and Gabriel Garcia to the report "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" and its accompanying scorecard framework.
measurementThe report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' was informed by focus groups involving 28 survivors and six advocates and victim service providers.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' recommend that states explicitly codify eligibility for victims and survivors of police violence in statute and reduce the role of law enforcement in the victim compensation process.
measurement86 percent of the survivors who participated in the focus groups for 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' were women.
claimThe authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" acknowledge that scheduling conflicts may have prevented some potential participants from attending focus groups.
accountOf the 28 survivor focus group participants in 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes', seven reported experiencing harm themselves, 20 reported losing or caring for a harmed loved one, and one reported both experiencing harm and losing or caring for a harmed loved one.
measurementAdvocate and provider focus group participants in 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' supported survivors in four different states, were all women, and were split evenly between Black or African American and white or Caucasian identities.
referenceThe authors of the report 'Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes' evaluated U.S. states based on the types of expenses covered by victim compensation programs and the dollar amount of victim compensation available.
accountThree advocate and provider focus group participants reported helping survivors access victim compensation directly, and three reported advocating for reform of the victim compensation program or the rights of survivors.
measurementThe webinars conducted by the authors of "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" were attended by 37 administrators representing 24 state programs.
claimThe project "Hope After Harm: An Evaluation of State Victim Compensation Statutes" does not address the issue of funding for state victim compensation programs.