(Eva Mulder & Antony Pemberton, Intervict. Also representatives from APAV and LINC will participate in this workshop) To what extent do cultural differences and diverse historical trajectories lead to different understandings, valuation and experiences of victimisation and the reaction to victimisation? This is the topic of a second workshop. It presents and discusses key findings from project IVOR (Implementing Victim-Oriented Reform of the Criminal Justice System in the European Union) which sought to ascertain the progress made in the development of the position of victims of crime across Europe. This project was led by APAV, in cooperation with INTERVICT, the Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC) and VSE. IVOR concerned three interrelated work-streams. The state of the art concerning the transposal of the EU-directive into legislation and practice, a review of the current empirical evidence base of the provisions of the Directive across Europe and an analysis of the different context in EU member states. The highlights of each of the results of the work-streams will be presented. Subsequently we will invite participants to reflect with us, how given the diverse contexts in EU member states, and the relative lack of empirical research across large parts of the EU, we could best go about improving the position of victims, to achieve the Directive’s goal of minimum standards across the European Union. Can we advance on the current one-size-fits-all approach still underlying the EU’s efforts, and if so how?

1. Project IVOR
Findings on the implementation of
the EU Directive
Emanuela Biffi, KU Leuven (Belgium)
Eva Mulder, Tilburg University (The Netherlands)

2. Outlinepresentation
• IVOR project
• Zoom-in
• Individual needs assessment
• Training
• Context matters: discussion
2

3. The IVOR project (2014-2016)
• IVOR: ‘Implementing Victim-Oriented Reform of the criminal justice
system in the EU’
• Focus on the impact of the Victims Directive:
• changes in domestic legislation in all EU MS
• victims rights, support and protection in practice
Project partners
3

4. IVOR’s objectives
To identify:
• Model(s) of victim assistancein EU
• Lacunas in the knowledge of victims’ experiences
• Recommendations for fostering the implementation of the EU Victims
Directive
• Within the criminal justice system...
• overview of current victims rights & services across the EU
• Outside the criminal justice system...
• overview of auxiliary factors relevant for encouraging or discouraging the
implementation of victim assistance in the EU
4

5. IVOR’s methodology & outputs
• Methodology
• Country summaries
• Interviews with national experts
• Literature review
• Expert seminar
• Outputs
• Policy seminar with experts on victimology, criminal justice and EU law
• Recommendations for the implementation of the EU Victims Directive
• Research report
5

6. Within the Criminal JusticeSystem
Victims assistancein the EU
• Main lacunas and/or issues:
• Definition of victim (Art.2)
• Victim support (Art. 8 & 9)
• Restorative justice (Art. 12)
• Victims resident in another MS (Art. 17)
• Individual needs assessment (Art. 22)
• Vulnerable groups (Art. 23 & 24)
• Training (Art. 25)
• Cooperation and coordination (Art. 26)
• Interviews with national experts
• Legal basis of rights
• Practical implementation (availability, accessibility and coordination of services)
6
Victim
assistance
Legal basis
Availability
Accessibility
Coordination

7. Outside the criminal justicesystem
Societal Political
Social
Economic
Institutional Within justice system (Work stream 1)
Outside justice system
Individual Characteristics of victim population(s)
High profile cases
7

8. IVOR’s auxiliary factors outside the CJS
• Selected auxiliary factors:
• Civil society and volunteering
• Demographic inequality
• Economicinequality
• Rule of law and access to justice
• Social representation of crime
• Trust in authorities and corruption
• Victim type and nature of crime
• Welfare, health, insurance
8
Context matters!

9. Zoom-inon Individual Needs Assessment (Art.22)
Why focus on the Individual Needs Assessment?
• Recognition; respectful, sensitive and professional treatment of victims
• Prevention of/protection against secondary and repeat victimization:
(55): “It is possible that such a risk derives from the personal
characteristics of the victim or the type, nature or circumstancesof
the crime”.
9

10. VulnerableGroups
• Personal characteristicsof the victim: his or her age, gender and gender
identity or expression, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, health,
disability, residence status,communication difficulties, relationship to or
dependence on the offender and previous experience of crime.
• Type or nature and the circumstances of the crime: whether it is a hate
crime, a bias crime or a crime committedwith a discriminatory
motive, sexual violence, violence in a close relationship, whether the
offender was in a position of control, whether the victim's residence is in a
high crime or gang dominated area, or whether the victim's country of
origin is not the Member State where the crime was
committed.
10

11. Individual needs assessment of victims
• To identify specific protection needs and related appropriate protection
measures that may benefit the victim
• Taking into account (a) personal characteristics of the victim, (b) the type
or nature of crime, and (c) the circumstances of the crime.
• Timely and individual assessment
• Involvement of the victim
• Adaptable throughout the criminal justice process
11

12. Findings I
• Several countries have (to some extent) implemented the individual needs
assessment
• No mention of Individual Needs Assessmentdoes not mean that certain
vulnerable groups (e.g. children, victims of sexual/domestic violence) are
not identified and certain rights for them made accessible (e.g. automatic
referral to specialist VS; interrogation by police officer of the same sex).
• Importance of distinquishing between different vulnerabilities is acknowledged
• Pilot studies (EVVI project)
12

13. Findings II
• Alternative: to broaden the current group of vulnerable victims (Latvia)
• Currently much still depends on the insight and good will of the police
officer regarding whether victims will be granted special protection
measures
• This is not necessarily prevented by adherence to Directive:
(59): “In the event of such operational or practical
constraints, a special measure envisaged following an
individual assessment may not be possible to provide
on a case-by-case basis”.
13

14. Worries and Difficulties I
• Nothing like Art. 22 has been required before
• Lack of (financial) resources
• Who is the competent authority who should do the assessment?
• Specific training required
• What will the assessmentconsist of? (actual checklist, open interview)
• What will happen with the information attained by the assessment?
• Privacy (Art. 21)
• How to take into account the wish of the victim?
• May lead to (unrealisticly) high expectations on the side of the victim
14

15. Worries and Difficulties II
• What will really change?
• Some groups are already easy to identify and have their own rights
• Some groups are difficult to identify
• Slight mental handicaps
• Hate crime
• For sufficient implementation of the needs assessment,a thorough
understanding of vulnerabilities is needed. Currently, victims of hate crime,
ethnic minorities and non-residents are still frequently not mentioned as
vulnerable groups.
15

16. Possiblebenefits
• Systematic;One central decision that can be followed up on
• More attention towards interaction between multiple vulnerabilities of the
victim
• Better information to victim about options of protection
?? Are certain questions more important to ask in
some countries/contexts than in others? Is a one-
size- fits-all approach possible?
16

17. Possiblegood practices
• Training
• Poland: (adaptationEVVI Questionnaire) Two different versions of
questionaire:
• 1) Police and prosecutors: short, simplified, aimed at applying means of
protection (with an additional focus on the circumstances of the crime
and on the perpetrator)
• 2) Victim Support services: more extensive
• Communication
17

18. Zoom-inon Training (Art. 25)
• General and specialist training for all professionals dealing with
victims of crime, including police officers, court staff, judges,
prosecutors, lawyers, VS and RJ practitioners
• Why focusing on training?
• Safeguard to grant competentand safe services
• Questions on availability of trainings for different categories of
professionals or lay people, in particular
• contentsand format of trainings
• timing and frequency
• compulsory or mandatory education
18

19. Training police officers, judges, prosecutors I
Some findings:
• Victims’ rights mentioned in the general educational programme for
police and the judiciary
• Additional professional development trainings for police and the
judiciary
• Experts from several MS were not knowledgeable about trainings
19

20. Training police officers, judges, prosecutors II
Other findings:
• VS organisations may be asked to provide trainings for police forces
and the judiciary
• Different professional groups may be brought together in trainings to
increase cooperation and share more knowledge
• In terms of contents, vulnerable groups of victims have been hot
topics in trainings
• The adoption of new legislation (e.g. Victims Directive) has been a
topic to organise training and raise awareness
20

21. Training & occupational culture
“Even the impact of intense and high-quality training may quickly
dissipate once officers are exposed to the powerful effects of everyday
work, the organisation, and the occupational culture of more
experienced and veteran co-workers” (Haarr, 2001)
• Insufficient to change attitudes
• Risk of being counter-productive
• Vicious cycle
• No ground of comparison across EU MS
21

22. Training VS and RJ practitioners/ volunteers
• No specific educational programme, but background in psychology,
law, social work, sociology, criminology
• No standards for professional development training
• Certified compulsory trainings with different formats/contents
• No standards even within the same MS
• ‘Learning by doing’ approach
• Volunteering is strongly influenced by the history, politics and culture
of a community and a country
22

23. Contents of training
Information
• the contents of the Victims Directive and other relevant legislation
• who is a victim of crime, what is victim support, what is victim-offender mediation,
what other services are available
• the impact of crime on victims, the impact of giving evidence at court
• dealing with vulnerable groups
• practice tools for preventing secondary victimization
• (basics of) restorative justice
Skills (VS & RJ)
• communication
• restorative justice
• cooperation
23
?? Are certain contents more important in
some countries/contextsthan in others?

24. Some missing contents of training
Training for supporting victims of crime
• Individual needs assessment
• A new profession needed?
• Post-traumaticgrowth of victim
• ‘positive change that the individual experiences as a result of the struggle with a
traumatic event’
• Recognise signals and assist victims in this process
Training for supporting workers with victims of crime
• Vicarious traumatisationof people working with victims
• Two main risks: 1) workers leaving their job, 2) workers providing a disservice
24

25. Training for supporting workers
Target groups
• (VS & RJ practitiones, criminal justice authorities,) therapists,
caregivers, volunteers, interpreters
Awareness about vicarious traumatisation (and ‘vicarious post-
traumatic growth’)
• Effects: job burnout, traumatic stress, compassion fatigue, traumatic
countertransference
• Risk factors: young professionals, occupational role, (level of
education)
Assessment of the problem & practical solutions
25

26. Possiblegood practices on training
Some conclusions:
• Standards for training professionals and lay people supporting victims
of crime are needed
• Contents/format/ timing and frequency
• Victim-oriented modules in educational programmes
26
?? Is it possible to agree on quality
standards for trainings across all EU MS?

27. On Cooperation& Awareness (Art. 26)
• Cooperation between the EU Member States, collection of good
practices and raising awareness on victims’ rights
• Why focusing on this article?
• For granting accessibility to victim support services
• For scientific advantages: new skills, sharing knowledge, different viewpoints
• Social advantages: encouraging interactions, understanding, relationships
within and beyond borders
• Not ‘welcomed’ question: considered rather soft law
• Practical ideas collected, but no standardised structured way to act
27

28. Cooperation betweenMS
• Some international cooperation practices:
• Participation in European projects
• Participation to international events, such as conferences,seminars
• Membership to international organisations
• E-tools for increasing interactions
• Establishmentof national working groups
• Celebration of international days commemoratingvictims of crime
• International conventions encouraging cooperation between different MS
• Cross-border judicial cooperation between competentauthorities focusing on
victims’ rights
28

29. Awareness on victims rights
Responsible for raising awareness:
• victim support services , other NGOs and local social services
• the State if the campaign needs to reach the national level
Practices vary:
• From informative campaigns on the media, to printed communication
materials, to trainings and seminars, to research publications, to
events for discussing new legislation or cases...
• Legislation on victims rights for raising awareness and for stimulating
attitudes’ changes among criminal justice authorities
29

30. Some reflections
• Same (legal) rights in different MS may lead to different outcomes
• Interaction with individual needs assessment
• Personal assessment
• Shame and stigmatisation
• Interaction with training
• Awareness vs. Attitudes
• Vicious cycle
30

31. To the future
• Considering (cultural) context and practices in your own countries,
what answers would each of you give to the following questions
concerning the situation of victim assistance and the implementation
of the Directive:
• Where are we going?
• Is this desirable?
• What should be done?
• Who gains and who loses, by which mechanisms of power?
31

32. Context matters: For discussion
•Which historical occurrences shaped victim policy in
your country?
•Which historical instances play a role in the
understanding of victimisation in your country?
32

33. THANK YOU!
Questions?
Eva Mulder e.mulder@tilburguniversity.edu
Emanuela Biffi Emanuela.Biffi@law.kuleuven.be
33