U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Crime Victim Crisis Centers - The Minnesota Experience (From Perspectives on Crime Victims, P 399-404, 1981, Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson, ed. - See NCJ-74246)

NCJ Number
74257
Author(s)
S Chesney; C S Schneider
Date Published
1980
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The development, operation, and implementation problems of crime victim crisis centers in Minnesota are described.
Abstract
In 1977, legislation was passed in Minnesota directing the Commissioner of Corrections to establish at least three centers to provide direct crisis intervention, emergency transportation, referral, and other services to victims of crime. The centers were directed to coordinate and encourage the development of crime victim services in other social service agencies, to educate the public as to the programs' availability and the needs of crime victims, and to encourage the development of educational programs to reduce victimization. The programs have been implemented and operated by a private agency on contract with the Minnesota Department of Corrections for the purpose of delivering a variety of service to crime victims in designated areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The centers were characterized by a crisis intervention approach and were planned to be community-based, although few crisis-oriented cases were referred to the centers. Recruiting minority staff was difficult, and program flexibility contributed to an inability to take action quickly. These centers need to coordinate their efforts closely with law enforcement agencies to receive referrals. If such referrals are not forthcoming, program staff must either redefine their functions or undertake more aggressive outreach activities. Advantages and disadvantages also result from the centers' multiple funding sources. The burden of accountability to six different reporting requirements and different budgeting cycles makes coordination among agencies difficult. Nevertheless, the centers have worked, and efforts should be made to replicate them in other cities and in rural areas of the nation. One reference is supplied.