Français	Contact us	Help	Search	Canada Site

Justice Home	Site Map	Programs and Initiatives	Proactive Disclosure	Laws

Policy Centre for Victims Issues

Latest updates

News and Events

Publications

Legislation

Funding

Frequently Asked Questions

Other Resources

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page

3.0 A Model of Victimization and Recovery

3.1 The Basics…

Working with Victims of Crime: A Manual Applying Research to Clinical Practice

3.0 A Model of Victimization and Recovery

In trying to understand the victim's experience, it is helpful to look at criminal victimization as a whole, not just the criminal event itself. From this view, victimization includes how the person deals with the stress of being victimized by something beyond his control. Before discussing the theories and research looking at victims, a key point needs to be highlighted: All crime victims are not alike. This is the major point in this section, which looks at how each victim moves from the criminal event to recovery and getting back to so-called "normal" life. Whenever possible in this manual, the specific nature of the crime will be linked to the relevant research. However, the reality of reviewing research is that each study can set slightly different definitions for how they define the crime and crime victim. Thus, readers should recognize that each person will take a very unique path, but there are some things that most victims will face in becoming a crime victim. This section focuses on some of these common elements.

As we try to understand our clients, we need to look closely at how people psychologically change as they are faced with a criminal event and begin to identify themselves as a "crime victim". Casarez-Levison (1992) reviewed several models of victimization. She developed a straightforward model of how people move from being a member of the general population to being a victim to becoming a survivor. She indicated that people move from a precrime state, to the crime event itself, to initial coping and adjustment and finally to a state where being a crime victim is just part of their life experience (Casarez-Levison, 1992).

Figure 1: The process of victimization and recovery (Casarez-Levison, 1992)

Previctimization

Victimization

Transition

Reorganization

Before the crime: Previctimization/organization

Before the crime, the person is basically living life. She has a life history, strengths and weaknesses, a support system, financial pressures and so on. This includes her history of previous victimization, trauma and coping. This point is key since research shows that current victims of crime often have a history of previous victimization (Byrne, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Best & Saunders, 1999; Messman & Long, 1996; Norris, Kaniasty, & Thompson, 1997; Nishith, Mechanic & Resick, 2000). This is important information for workers to know because how a person has dealt with previous victimizations may give clues about how she may handle current victimization and trauma (Casarez-Levison, 1992). In fact, research has shown that having a poor reaction to previous trauma increases the chances that the victim will have a poor reaction to new trauma (Brunet, Boyer, Weiss & Marmar, 2001).

The crime: Victimization/disorganization

The person is now faced with the crime. This might include walking in to find that her home has been burgled, being assaulted while walking home from the gym, etc. This stage may continue for a few hours or days as she tries to make sense of what happened. Greenberg and Ruback's (1992) research shows that victims' thinking shifts as they decide:

Was this a crime?
If yes, how serious was the crime?
How will I deal with the crime and my victimization?

The victim will base decisions on her previous experiences, current level of emotional distress and knowledge about options. Greenberg and Ruback (1992) point out that victims don't necessarily pick the best option, but rather the choice that meets a minimum set of requirements (do nothing, notify police, re-evaluate the situation or seek a private solution). Thus, a victim of date rape may decide to "just put the crime behind her" and not press charges because this meets the requirement of "no-longer-focusing-on-the-violation". Further, given that victims are very open to the opinions of others during this time (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992), even the perpetrator can sway her decisions. Thus, workers could meet victims who are experiencing severe reactions weeks, months or even years after the event (Thompson, 2000) and may not be aware that their problems relate to the victimization.

Given that victims are often the people who report the crime, these decisions can be crucial in how they deal with their distress. Research on crime reporting reflects these different decision-making processes (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992). The type of crime and situation issues are key to whether the person decides to report the crime. For example, victims who know the perpetrator are less likely to report or seek help (Ullman, 1999), and thus domestic violence victims are less likely to report the crime. Research also supports the view that others judge victims of date rape more harshly than victims of stranger rape (Abrams, Viki, Masser & Bohner, 2003), which likely affects the victim's willingness to report the crime. These results will not surprise most workers working with victims of domestic violence or date rape.

Once the person begins to identify herself as a crime victim, assuming the person is a victim, she will now follow a relatively unique coping and decision-making path based on her precrime status (as stated above). However, she is likely to feel threatened, confused, helpless, angry, numb or fearful. She may have physical, emotional or mental injuries from any loss and be dealing with traumatic stress. The key is that the victim will likely cope using whatever skills and abilities she has (Casarez-Levison, 1992).

Initial coping: Transition/protection

After the initial reaction, the person is then left to adjust to the long-term effects of the crime. This adjustment can start within a few weeks of the crime to 6 to 8 months later. This stage is similar to the previous stage, but now the victim is beginning the process of putting her life back together. Basically, she has started to make sense of her victimization (meaning-making). Meaning making has often been seen as a part of grief work (Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema & Larson, 1998), a spiritual element of coping (Cadell, Regehr & Hemsworth, 2003), and has been used in treating crime victims (Layne et al., 2001). Meaning making is important to general crime victims (Gorman, 2001), rape victims (Thompson, 2000), and in dealing with any type of trauma (Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999). In fact, it is often included as a major element in treatment interventions (Foy, Eriksson & Trice, 2001).

It is during this time that the victim will likely need the most help, either from friends and family or professionals. Support may help the victim better deal with stress, get information and improve his attempts to cope. Respect, honesty and trust build emotional engagement, the basis of a good helping relationship. Emotionally engaged clients recover faster (Gilboa-Schechtman & Foa, 2001). To be respectful of clients, workers should ensure that victims understand that treatment may mean getting worse before getting better (Nishith, Resick & Griffin, 2002). Workers should also be watchful of poor coping strategies such as drug and alcohol abuse, worsening of personal relationships, and increased isolation or withdrawal (Casarez-Levison, 1992). Further, workers should keep in mind that some victims may look as though they are doing well, but are hiding deep problems under a calm exterior.

Given the above discussion, workers need to be wary of a "trauma bias" where one assumes that crime victims are automatically traumatized when they are not (Nelson, Wangsgaard, Yorgason, Higgins Kessler & Carter-Vassol, 2002). Workers should remain sensitive to the possibility that certain victims may be hiding trauma while others are actually coping well. Respecting the victim means that you must trust her self-assessment of her internal state. You can still provide support and education (Nelson et al., 2002) that helps your client cope. The goal of work during this stage is to increase positive coping behaviours. This helps the person rebuild her life and move forward. However, if not handled well, she is unlikely to fully move into the final stage and may even reach a state of total exhaustion (Casarez-Levison, 1992).

Moving forward: Reorganization/resolution

This period focuses on the victim rebuilding herself into a stable functioning person who is doing well and has normal relationships. In the best case, this may occur in 6 to 12 months; in the worst case, the process can take many years (Casarez-Levison, 1992). Most people will face feelings of denial and acceptance around their experience. Workers will often find that the victim asks questions about the world being a safe place, her new "survivor" role, and linking her new experiences with her pre-victim characteristics. Workers and victims need to understand that this rebuilding does not mean returning to "the past", as though the crime did not occur. Being victimized changes how the person views herself and the world and this makes it very unlikely that she will return to "precrime normal" (Norris et al., 1997). The person needs to understand the crime as something that happened and put it together with her understanding of her world. Workers should address poor responses, such as substance abuse and mental health problems as soon as possible as these behaviours delay moving forward (Casarez-Levison, 1992). These poor responses should be addressed by teaching the victim new, more effective coping techniques.

On a positive note, research looking at sexual assault victims shows that interventions appear to be able to help victims many years post-victimization (Resick, Nishith, Weaver, Astin & Feuer, 2002).