Seen and Heard: What the Crime Victims' Rights Act Teaches Us About Why Policy Matters

In 2005, W. Patrick Kenna walked into a federal courtroom in Los Angeles expecting to be heard. He was one of dozens of people defrauded by a father-and-son team who had taken nearly $100 million from investors. Their stories were devastating: retirement savings gone, businesses bankrupted, lives upended. At the father’s sentencing, Patrick and other victims stood up and told the judge what the crime had cost them. The father received a 20-year sentence.

Three months later, at the son’s sentencing, the same judge refused to let the victims speak. The judge said he had already heard from them and didn’t believe anything they could say would make a difference.

A few years earlier, that would have been the end of the story. But Patrick had something new: a federal law that said crime victims have the right to be reasonably heard, and a way to enforce it. He petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in January 2006 the court ruled in his favor. Victims, the court held, have a right to speak at sentencing, not just to submit written statements. It was the first time a federal appeals court used that law’s enforcement mechanism to require a trial court to honor a victim’s rights.

For generations, our justice system treated victims as people to be seen but not heard. Patrick Kenna’s case demonstrated how effective federal policy created in Washington impacts victims on the other side of the country.

A personal note

The law that made Patrick’s victory possible was the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) of 2004, and it is personal for me because I worked for one of the authors of this bill Senator Jon Kyl, during this time. He passed away last week and was known for his incredible bipartisan legacy for working effectively across the aisle and among other issue leading on this Act. I shared my tribute to him here.

Senator Kyl and Senator Dianne Feinstein spent years working across the aisle to add victims’ rights to the U.S. Constitution. When that path stalled, they turned the same principles into federal statute. The CVRA is part of his legacy, and it has changed how victims are treated in every federal courtroom in the country.

With many of our partners preparing grant proposals for the Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), I want to walk through the two laws that shape this work and how OVC connects them.

VOCA (1984): Building the services

The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 created the Crime Victims Fund. The Fund is not financed by taxpayers. Its money comes from fines, penalties, forfeitures, and special assessments paid by people convicted of federal crimes. The principle is simple and powerful: offenders, not taxpayers, help pay for victims’ recovery.

VOCA dollars flow primarily through formula grants to states for two purposes. The first is victim compensation, which reimburses survivors for costs like medical care, counseling, lost wages, and funeral expenses. The second is victim assistance, which funds thousands of local organizations: domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, child advocacy centers, and the advocates who walk alongside survivors every day.

Before founding Ascend Consulting DC, I was the Senior Advisor for the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and saw the effectiveness of this law in action.

The CVRA (2004): Guaranteeing the rights

Twenty years after VOCA built a national network of services, the CVRA gave victims in federal cases enforceable rights. These include the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, to receive timely notice of court proceedings, to not be excluded from those proceedings, to be reasonably heard, to confer with the prosecutor, to receive full and timely restitution, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy.

The most important innovation was enforcement. Earlier victims’ rights laws often read like good intentions. The CVRA let victims go directly to an appeals court and required a decision within 72 hours. That provision is what Patrick Kenna used.

These two laws depend on each other. Services without rights leave survivors supported but sidelined in the justice process. Rights without services leave survivors with a voice but nobody to help them use it.

How OVC brings it together

OVC administers the Crime Victims Fund, distributing VOCA formula grants to states and awarding discretionary grants for training, technical assistance, and demonstration projects. OVC has also invested in legal services that help victims assert and enforce their rights, including the rights the CVRA established. Every April, OVC leads National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, which keeps these rights visible to practitioners and the public.

For organizations writing OVC proposals now, my advice is to not only describe the services you provide. Show how your work helps survivors understand and exercise their rights, whether under the CVRA in federal cases or under your state’s victims’ rights laws and constitutional provisions. The goal of all services should be to help survivors thrive and fully recover which includes a restitution of rights.

Organizations that only engage at the service level are often reacting to decisions that have already been made. Organizations that engage in policy help shape them. That is the mission behind the work we do at Ascend Consulting DC. That’s the Ascend Advantage.

It’s not too late for a federal grant proposal review. If you would like our team to help you navigate the latest cycle, contact us.