Advertisement

New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

  • Janne FenglerEmail author
Chapter
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

A large body of research has produced knowledge about victims’ needs and how to respond to them. Mostly, respective elaborations refer to either victims’ rights or to specific requirements to be considered with certain groups of victims, alternatively to detailed procedures. In contrast to that, little can be found about overarching methodological approaches that put the victims’ needs in focus. Professionals working in victim support often find themselves between conflicting priorities such as those shaping their interventions in a target-oriented vs. process-oriented, standardized vs. individualized way. Traditional intervention concepts tend to emphasize rather than resolve the conflict. No concept so far offers methodical help by providing procedural guidelines for professionals to both shape interventions that are tailor-made (characterized by being e.g. process-oriented, individualized) and conform to professional conduct (characterized by being e.g. target-oriented, standardized). On the basis of established concepts and case vignettes, a new model (“ALOHA-Intervention-Model“) that serves as a meta-methodological concept and as a tool was developed. By providing orientation for sound decision making, professionals can proceed in a both target- and process-oriented, standardized and individualized way. This new perspective on victim support can substantiate victimology practice as well as stimulate future theory development and research.

Keywords

Methodology Methods Intervention Victim support Victim assistance Client-centered 

References

  1. Choi, J. J., Green, D. L., & Kapp, S. A. (2010). Victimization, victims’ needs and empowerment in victim offender mediation. International Review of Victimology, 17(3), 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs. (2009). Non-criminal remedies for crime victims. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  3. Fengler, J., & Schäfer, P. (2014). Children of offenders: Guilt by association? Dangers of “psychological clan custody” and approaches of psychological support. In P. Schäfer & E. Weitekamp (Eds.), Establishing victimology – a pioneer’s involvement in creating the science of victimology – A Festschrift on the occasion of the 30th anniversary Dubrovnik course “Victimology, Victim Assistance and Criminal Justice” (pp. 397–413). Mönchengladbach: Schriftenreihe FB Sozialwesen HS Niederrhein.Google Scholar
  4. Fengler, J. (2016). The ALOHA-Intervention-Model: A methodical approach to support clients in social work. Poster: Decisions, Assessment, Risk and Evidence in Social Work, 4th Biennal Symposium in Templepatrick, Nothern Ireland, July 5th-6th 2016.Google Scholar
  5. Fengler, J. (2017a). Pädagogisches Handeln in der Sozialen Arbeit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  6. Fengler, J. (2017b). “Either-or-Polarities” vs. “Both-and-Combinations” for core competencies in social work: The ALOHA-Intervention-Model. Poster: EASSW Conference 2017 in Paris, France, June 26 th-29 th 2017.Google Scholar
  7. Fengler, J., & Taylor, B. (2019). Effective Assessment: A key knowledge and skill for a sustainable profession. Thematic Issue of The International Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3), 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Filipp, S.-H., & Klauer, T. (1991). Subjective well-being in the face of critical life events: the case of successful copers. In F. Strack, M. Argyle & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being : An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 213–234). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gal, T. (2011). Child Victims and Restorative Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Groenhuijsen, M. S. (2009). Does victimology have a theoretical leg to stand on? Victimology as an academic discipline in its own right? In F. W. Winkel, R. M. Letschert, G. F. Kirchhoff, & P. C. Friday (Eds.), Victimization in a multi-disciplinary key: recent advances in victimology (pp. 313–331). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP).Google Scholar
  11. Kirchengast, T. (2017). Victimology and victim rights. International comparative perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Kuijpers, K. F., & ten Boom, A. (2012). Victims‘ needs as basic human needs. International Review of Victimology, 18(2), 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laxminarayan, M. (2013). Interactional justice, coping and the legal system: Needs of vulnerable victims. International Review of Victimology, 19(2), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Letourneau, N., Morris, C. Y., Stewart, M., Hughes, J., Critchley, K. A., & Secco, L. (2013). Social support needs identified by mothers affected by intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 2873–2893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari Window: a graphic model for interpersonal relations. University of California Western Training Lab.Google Scholar
  16. Ministery of Justice UK (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. Retrieved from https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/best_evidence_in_criminal_proceedings.pdf.
  17. Seligman, M. E. (1974). Depression and learned helplessness. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Oxford, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Shulman, L. (1992). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities (3rd ed.). Itasca: F. E. Peacock Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Staub-Bernasconi, S. (2009). Social Work as a Discipline and Profession. In V. Leskošek (Ed.), Theories and Methods of Social Work – Exploring Different Perspectives (pp. 9–30). Slovenia: Faculty of Social Work / University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, B. J., & Devine, T. (1994). Assessing needs and planning care in social work. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Taylor, B. J. (2013). Professional decision making and risk in social work (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Viano, E. C. (1989). Victimology today: Major issues in research and public policy. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Crime and its Victims: International Research and Public Policy Issues (pp. 3–14). New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  25. Victim Support Europe. (2013). Handbook for implementation of legislation and best practice for victims of crime in Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/assises-justice-2013/files/contributions/51.1.1374573250handbookforimplementationandbestpracticeforvictimsofcrimeineurope_23713_en.pdf).
  26. Wedlock, E., & Tapley, J. (2016). What works in supporting victims of crime: a rapid evidence assessment. Retrieved from http://victimscommissioner.org.uk/app/uploads/2014/10/What-works-in-supporting-victims-of-crime.pdf).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Institute of Early Childhood EducationAlanus University of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of Human Sciences and Social SciencesAlfter/BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations