Anyone who will be interested in or impacted by a Network. (Examples: Network Partners, allied professionals, services providers, system actors.)

Outside partners that agree to refer victims to the Network and/or receive victim referrals from the Network. (Examples: victim service providers, community organizations or system-based agencies.)

Evaluators of the effectiveness of the Network and its services based on their understanding of the Network’s goals.

Anyone who is formally committed to active and regular participation in a Network. (Examples: victim service providers, funders, and researchers)

Network Partners that serve as leadership or on a steering committee for a Network.

What is the level of interest in creating coordinated and collaborative victim legal services? Introductions between individuals and agencies involved as Stakeholders should take place, including identifying existing resources available in the community. Past discussions involving victims’ legal needs should be taken into account.

What are the current perceptions of under- or unmet needs in the community? Stakeholders should identify current gaps and barriers in services and the need for and scope of the Network.

Who needs to be involved in further in-depth conversations? Stakeholders should identify and cultivate relationships with potential Partners to better understand existing community resources, needs, gaps, and barriers to access.

Best practice to ensure roles and responsibilities are clear is to use an Agreement or MOU to secure Stakeholder commit to the Network. Network success will depend upon consistent coordination of Stakeholders, including dedicating time and effort to identify the availability and capacity of individuals and organizations to achieve the vision of the Network and to learn more about Stakeholder concerns, such as increased workload versus funding, increased competition for funding streams and/or volunteer resources, etc.

Network geographic scope can vary from a city to an entire state and may change over time. Because there is no perfect geographic area, determining scope of any particular network can be informed by asking the following questions:

• If the network is to serve a single urban center what are the implications (e.g., do victims and service providers need to know city/county lines)?
• If the network is to serve a mix of urban, suburban and rural areas what are the implications (e.g., transportation options to access services)?
• What are the demographics of each possible geographic area and what are the implications of the variations (e.g., language access)?

Will the geographic area include tribal jurisdictions? Campuses? Military facilities? Prisons? What are the implications of the variations?

The geographic scope of a network need not be stagnant; piloting in a small region, followed by a phased geographic rollout allows for the structures and processes to be tested and evaluated. The Alaska and Texas Networks proceeded this way.

Stakeholders may serve victims of particular crimes such as intimate partner violence, sexual violence, stalking or human trafficking. Understanding which victim populations and which crime types are currently served by which organizations and comparing this to the desired scope of services for victims will reveal gaps. Common gaps include victims of identity theft, fraud, homicide and gun violence, robbery and burglary, vehicular crimes, hate crimes, and cybercrimes. With this information, the critical determination will be whether filling these gaps is best achieved by inviting additional Stakeholders and/or building capacity within existing Stakeholders. As with geographic area, a phased rollout of crime types served may be desirable. To determine gaps and the desired scope of crime types to serve consider asking:

• What crimes are the primary foci of Stakeholders?
• What services does each Stakeholder provide to victims of that crime type?
• What victim populations contact Stakeholders that are not ultimately served, and to whom are they referred?
• To what extent does current service capacity meet the needs of victims of all crime types, in terms of the number of victims seeking services and the timely availability of services?
• How could service capacity be increased?

An effective, holistic legal Network should be able to respond with cultural intelligence and humility to diverse populations which experience unique barriers, including victims who are immigrants, houseless, elders, people of color, Native Americans or Alaska Natives, LGBT, religious and/or living in rural or frontier areas. In addition, there must be capacity to work with victims who have physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities or have limited English proficiency, little or no access to technology, transportation barriers or limited financial resources. Assessing the current landscape and identifying gaps will ensure these capacities exist. Questions that can help assess capacity include:

• Which communities and populations exist in your jurisdiction (looking beyond census data)?
• Which communities and populations are served by each Stakeholder in a significant and culturally appropriate way?
• Which communities and populations contact each Stakeholder but are not served and to whom do they refer?
• Are there populations present in the community that are not seeking services from any Stakeholders but who statistically are likely to be victims of crime? To whom are they turning?
• To what extent does current service capacity meet the legal needs of victims from each community and population in the geographic service area?
• To what extent are policies and resources in place at each Stakeholder organization to eliminate barriers and increase access to services for each community and population in the geographic service area?
• How could service capacity be increased?

While the vision is of networked legal services responsive to every victim’s every need, articulating which services (legal and non-legal) will be included in the Network, which will be by extra-Network referrals, and establishing a process for fluid movement between each is critical. With regard to legal services the inquiry must include what types of law will be covered (e.g., rights enforcement, immigration, employment, housing, education, family, benefits, Indian, military) in what settings (e.g., criminal, civil, administrative, campus, tribal, immigration). With regard to non-legal services the inquiry must include what types of services will be covered (e.g., housing, health services, language access, education, safety planning). As with geographic area, a phased rollout of crime and service types served may be desirable. An achievable vision of a Network requires asking both what exists and what one hopes will exist, including:

• What services are already provided by Stakeholders?
• What services are available from non-Stakeholders in the community or surrounding areas?
• What unmet legal and non-legal needs of crime victims are believed to exist?
• To what extent does current service capacity meet the demand, in terms of the number of victims seeking services, the timeliness of services, and accessibility?
• What commonalities exist among victims not seeking services (e.g., crime type, community)?
• How could service capacity be increased?

Accurate information regarding available resources, including funding, personnel and technology, will affect decisions about the scope of a Network and how Partners refer, coordinate and share information. Critical information to assess includes:

• Service Provider capacity (e.g., staffing, volunteers, pro bono networks, funding);
• Service eligibility requirements and restrictions (e.g., income, population type);
• Accessibility of services (e.g., including language accessibility as evaluated by languages spoken by service providers, available interpretation services and languages of written materials);
• Existing technologies and victims’ access to them (e.g., websites with legal information for the public; referral lines or networks); and
• Methods and processes of inter-service provider collaboration and information sharing.

The Needs and Capacities Assessment process should consider factors that may impact the amount of resources, time, and funding needed. Among the internal factors to consider are staff expertise and capacity, financial resources, technology needs and competing organizational needs. External factors include timelines for design, approval, and deployment of research instruments; delays due to slow return rates for surveys, weather, holiday and school schedules, translation or transcription; and any applicable Institutional Review Board (IRB) processes.

For a Needs and Capacities Assessment to prove useful, sufficient data must be collected. A mixed methods approach that gathers information from a diversity of persons provides the most complete picture of victim needs and gaps in services. Common instruments include one-on-one interviews, focus groups, listening sessions and surveys that solicit input from victims, service providers (both front line and leadership) and others who work within systems and live in our communities. Assesments won’t necessarily go as smoothly as planned and require patience in implementation.

The Alaska Network began with surveys to allow for recruitment of participants for focus groups or interviews. By comparison, the Colorado Network began with professional interviews, then moved into focus groups including victim and survivor voices organized loosely by crime type which revealed findings to inform survey items for victims. The Montana Network used a combination of focus groups of service providers, phone interviews with victims, and online surveys of service providers and victims.

While each jurisdiction’s assessment will reveal unique needs, findings common to the ten OVC-funded Network Needs and Capacities Assessments included:

• Victims and service providers alike lack awareness of available services;
• Service coordination is lacking;
• Inadequate availability of services, resources and funding;
• Victims experience barriers to accessing services; and
• Crimes are often concurrent or consecutive and focusing on one type of crime type often misses victim need.

In addition to anticipated results, assessments may produce results that are challenging to confront, such as the following results from several of the OVC-funded Networks:

• Victim service staff are under-trained, lack knowledge of victim needs, or make inappropriate and untimely referrals;
• Agencies have inaccessible locations and information;
• Trauma-informed, culturally appropriate services are lacking;
• Different crime victims receive different levels of services; and
• The community has a limited knowledge of victims’ rights.

A network organizational chart provides an overview of groups (e.g., Stakeholders, Network Partners) and their respective roles (e.g., steering committee, referral agency); describes the role of technology; and identifies network staffing, including project leadership, program management, intake workers, case workers, attorneys, navigators, and case managers. The Plan should detail if and when these roles may overlap or, conversely, when multiple personnel are assigned to a role.

Network intake and referral processes should be detailed, including points of entry, conflict check processes, client eligibility criteria, accessibility and accommodation plans (e.g., for victims with disabilities, limited English proficiency or who might experience other barriers to service). With regard to intra- and extra-network referral processes, the Plan should detail methods for enhancing issue spotting, information sharing and data tracking. This documentation should include key policies, guidelines and other structures that will guide the work of the network, including confidentiality, privilege, consent, and mandatory reporting policies of the network and Partners. Finally, include planned communication channels and training of network staff and Network Partners.

Strategies for marketing of the network and outreach to stakeholders, victims and the general public regarding the availability of network services should be included. These efforts might take the form of a public website, creation of a logo and branding strategy, presentations in the community, or trainings and individual meetings with potential partners.

A plan to evaluate the quality and impact of networked services should be articulated, including ensuring a process for reviewing and integrating newly identified needs and gaps. In addition to client and community impact evaluation, evaluation of the network itself through an examination of team meetings, trainings, and modifications to the existing structures and processes of service provision may be desirable.

Innovative use of technology can aid services. Considerations to ensure thoughtful use of technology in networked victim legal services include:

• The human component of services is important as not everyone has access to or capacity for technology
• Technology must be accessible (e.g., reading level of content – particularly legal information, disabilities, Internet and cell phone service in rural areas)
• Legal and ethical issues may be affected by technology (e.g., sharing information between legal and non-legal providers; providing remote legal services)
• Technology can streamline data collection processes among Partners and reduce duplication while still protecting client privacy
• An organizational skills and capacity review can inform what technology needs can be managed internally or externally and how technology will be sustained

Marketing should be ongoing to increase awareness of a Network and its services. Marketing efforts may include:

• Leveraging existing relationships and Stakeholders
• Cultivating relationships with local collaboratives, consortiums, work groups, professional groups and associations
• Using print and electronic marketing
• Using social media (e.g., blogs, websites, mass email)
• Branding

Cross-training provides opportunities to leverage limited staff and resources to achieve Network goals. Cross-training can include:

• Formal onboarding of new staff and Network Partners
• Leveraging Partners as training subject matter experts
• Providing professional educational opportunities (e.g., CLE and CEU) to develop a pro bono network

Victim service professionals should familiarize themselves with the myriad of ethical questions, issues, and conflicts that may impact the effectiveness of holistic victim services, including technical considerations with remote representation and information sharing, mandatory reporting, and unbundled services just to name a few.

Intake processes should be designed and structured to streamline the process for victims and service providers while balancing and coordinating logistical, technical, legal and evaluation considerations and maintaining victim control over privacy. An Intake Checklist is a useful tool to clearly identify legal and non-legal needs, provide enough information to accurately assess potential clients, and facilitate smooth and accurate intra- and extra-Network referrals.

Efficient, accurate, and timely referrals require knowing other service providers’ capacities, scope of services, representation agreements, eligibility requirements, proximity to mass transit, case processing and closing processes and more. Written Network referral policies should be developed with broad input to inform how cases are balanced and prioritized between and among Partners, and provide for tracking of and processes for victims that have unmet needs.

A map or flowchart is a useful tool to visually represent a client’s interaction and flow through a Network and points when tasks should be completed, particularly when victims present with multiple legal needs that necessitate multiple attorneys (e.g., Will attorneys be co-counsel? Are common interests at stake that allow for privilege?). A useful flowchart reveals entry and exit points, who is responsible for tasks, when information releases and conflicts checks should be completed, and when and how information and data is collected and shared.

For an evaluation to inform Network services, a combination of outcome and output data should be collected and assessed, including:

• How a victim found/entered the Network
• Unduplicated totals for met and unmet legal and social service needs
• Intra and extra-network referrals
• Client outcome, such as increased feeling of safety and well-being, satisfaction with systems, empowerment, and goal(s) met
• Quality assurance data and process for handling good and bad feedback
• Documentation of declined cases to identify service gaps
• Barriers to accessing services
• Barriers to providers’ ability to provide services

Policies, processes, procedures and best practices should be documented to allow for replication.

The Denver, Montana and New York Networks have each tackled sustainability.

A phased roll out or soft launch allows for early identification of and response to issues, service gaps and barriers.

Technology ownership and design should prioritize longevity, leverage existing community resources, select user-friendly platforms, minimize resources needed for maintenance, and identify who is responsible for maintenance (funding, staff, hardware, and software).

Multiple funding streams should be leveraged to increase community knowledge and referrals into the Network.

Cultivate pro bono networks to strengthen relationships, increase capacity, and enhance referrals.

Marketing, outreach and branding will increase community awareness about the Network and its services.