About Us Contact Us Membership

Publications and Documents
Upcoming Events Publications and Documents
Victims' Rights in Texas
Victims' Resources
Community Education Materials
How Can I Help?
 

IV. Austin/Travis County Victimization Statistics

Victims of Index Crimes

Where Does Victimization Occur?

   Demographics

   Relationships Between Victims and Offenders

   Race and Ethnicity

   Special Topics in Victimization

   Age

      Homicide Victims

   Gender

      Sexual Assault and Rape Victims

 

      Intimate Partner Violence Victims

 

      Hate Crime Victims

 

      Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Victims

 

      Child Victimization

 

      Elderly Victimization

 

      Victimization of Persons with Disabilities

 

      Hidden Victims

Victimization can be considered from two different angles: the type of crime that created a victim, such as homicide, or from the type of victim, such as a child. This section will consider victimization from both angles. Certain types of victims have special needs or are particularly vulnerable to being victimized and therefore are considered separately from the type of crime committed. For the purpose of this assessment, victim is defined as a person who has suffered physical, sexual, emotional or financial harm as a result of reported or unreported criminal conduct, abuse, neglect or exploitation.

Top Of Page

Victims of Index Crimes

Crime rates provide a starting point for describing the prevalence of victimization in our community. Crime rates (the number of crimes per 100,000 residents) are calculated using incident-based data reported by each police department to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). The Federal Bureau of Investigation collects this data from each state repository (in Texas, this is DPS) and calculates crime rates for cities, states, and the nation. In order to compare numbers from year to year and decade to decade, the federal government has used the same “Index Crimes” in calculating crime rates.

Who is most vulnerable to violent crime?

  • Children from single parent or very large low-income families
  • Females ages ten to nineteen
  • Males ages sixteen to twenty-three
  • Hispanic or Black individuals
  • Individuals living in densely populated areas

The Index Crimes fall into two categories: violent and property. Violent index crimes are homicide, rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are burglary, theft, and auto theft.

City of Austin’s Index Crime Rate. From 1991 to 2001, the City of Austin’s overall Index Crime Rate fell by 41%. This decrease occurred during a time that the metropolitan area experienced explosive population growth (APD 2002). Additionally, this decline coincided with a tremendous economic boom in the region, marked by low unemployment and rising wages. Research suggests that low unemployment and higher wages are linked to lower crime rates (Amburgey 2002). Although crime rates have decreased from ten years ago, an increase has been noted in the last couple of years. Violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, sexual assault, and aggravated assault) incidents increased 5% from 2,990 in 2000 to 3,145 in 2001 and 3,203 in 2002 (APD 2002; APD 2003). It is possible that the economic downturn over the last few years is impacting crime rates. Research indicates that the economy affects both property and violent crime rates (Amburgey 2002).

Many incidents for which victim services programs provide assistance do not get counted in crime rates. For example, arrest charges in a domestic violence situation may be reduced to simple assault and not recorded as an index crime. Other crimes are not recorded in the category that accurately reflects the crime. For example, a DWI defendant may be charged with involuntary manslaughter which makes it difficult to track as a DWI case. These caveats are evident in this section and throughout the report. Every effort is made to point them out as necessary. The following sub-sections report demographics on the Index Crime categories.

Top Of Page

Demographics

It is impossible to count all victims of violent crime due to the fact that there are those who do not report crimes and that there are often multiple victims of one crime, including primary and secondary victims. However, as stated above, reported crimes provide a starting point. In addition to the reported number of crimes, local law enforcement collects some information on victims they serve. It should be noted that the number of victims served does not always match the number of crimes reported or the number of incidents that occurred in the community. Factors that influence the consistency of data on crime victims include: 1) victim services are mostly voluntary; 2) multiple victims may be served for one crime; and 3) many crimes remain unreported to law enforcement.

Race and Ethnicity

Chart 1 below shows the racial/ethnic differences between the Austin population and victims served through the Austin Police Department Victim Services Division. This Division saw proportionally higher numbers of Hispanic and Black victims than are represented in the community. White and Asian victims were seen at proportionally lower numbers.

According to the Office of Victims of Crime (2002), for the five year period between 1993 and 1998, nationally, blacks experienced significantly higher rates of victimization than whites. However by 1998, blacks and whites experienced violent crime at similar rates. Overall, blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims. During the five year period, the majority of violent crimes committed against whites (66%) and blacks (76%) were committed by offenders of the same race. This is not true for Asian American and Native American victims who were victimized by individuals of other races (Rennison 2001).

Age

As shown in Chart 2, the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime generally decreases with age. Persons ages 15 to 24 sustained violent victimization at rates higher than individuals of other ages. Individuals in this age range comprise 7.4% of the Austin population and were victims of 16.25% of the violent crimes. Persons ages 20 to 24 comprise 12.6% of the population and were victims of 21.36% of the violent crimes (APD NIBRS 2002).

 

Gender

For violent offenses in general, males in Austin were victimized at rates 60% higher than females. Rape and sexual assault are the exception; all victims of rape are female (by statutory definition) and the majority of sexual assaults (APD Victim Services 2002).

Nationally in 2001, among the population 12 and older, males have a slightly higher rate of violent victimization than women – 27.3 per 1000 versus 23.9 per 1000 respectively. However, in the case of sexual assault, women experience a rate of sexual assault more than 95 times that of men – 1.9 versus .02. Men experience a higher rate of assault than women – 23.2 versus 19.4 (BJS 2001).

Top Of Page

Where Does Victimization Occur?

In general, crime rates increase in proportion to population density -- urban areas experience higher crime rates than rural areas [BJS 2002(a)]. In addition, certain characteristics within urban areas can help predict the level of crime present. For example, studies of rural versus urban crime show a disproportionate level of violence in many urban areas that are characterized by poverty, joblessness, and family disruption (Hawkins et al. 1998).

Nationally, about 25% of violent crimes occur at or near the victim’s home, with 73% occurring within five miles of the victim’s home. Nearly equal numbers of victims were participating in some form of leisure activity away from home (23%), were at home (21%), or were at work or traveling to/from work (21%) at the time of the victimization [BJS 2002(a)].

Again, local Index Crime statistics provide a starting point for looking at victimization statistics. Table 3 below describes where the violent index crimes of homicide, sexual assault/rape, and aggravated assault occurred geographically in Austin. The geographic designations are police command areas used by APD. A map of these command areas is located in Appendix H.

Table 3. Index Crimes By APD Police Command Area 2001
 
Aggravated Assault
Sexual Assault
Rape
Homicide
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
SOUTHEAST
389
23%
161
23%
47
18%
8
29%
CENTRAL EAST
369
22%
136
19%
56
21%
3
11%
NORTHEAST
259
15%
112
16%
42
16%
5
18%
SOUTHWEST
204
12%
128
18%
48
18%
1
4%
NORTHWEST
179
11%
81
12%
29
11%
4
14%
DOWNTOWN
141
8%
19
3%
19
7%
2
7%
CENTRAL WEST
128
8%
57
8%
25
9%
5
18%
OTHER
5
0%
7
1%
2
1%
0
0%
TOTAL
1674
701
268
28

Top Of Page

Relationships Between Victims and Offenders

In general, males are more likely to be victimized by strangers; females are more likely to be violently victimized by someone they know. However, likelihood varies by the type of crime. For example, nationally, 66% of reported sexual assault victims knew their perpetrator (Rennison 2002). About 45% of murder victims knew their perpetrator. Strangers committed approximately 15% of homicides nationally while the relationship between victim and offender was unknown in another 40% [BJS 2002(a)]. By comparison, in 2001, 78% of Austin’s 28 homicide victims knew the offender; in 2002, 60% of the 25 homicide victims knew the offender; and 67% of rape victims knew the offender (APD 2002, 2003). Chart 3 below shows the relationship involving those individuals assisted by APD Victim Services – this does not include all crimes committed in Austin.

Top Of Page

Special Topics in Victimization

Certain types of victimization lend themselves to more detailed discussions because of the extent of the problem or the extreme nature of the crime. This section provides more detailed information on victims of homicide, sexual assault, rape, domestic violence, hate crime, and driving while intoxicated or under the influence. Special attention is also devoted to children, older adults, persons with disabilities, and hidden victims.

Homicide Victims

Homicide is defined in Texas statute as “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, or with criminal negligence causing the death of an individual”. The offense includes murder, capital murder, and criminally negligent homicide (Texas Penal Code, Chapter 19.01). For homicides committed by juvenile defendants, the law specifically identifies homicide victims to include the “guardians” and “close relatives” of deceased victims. Deaths that occur during the commission of a felony offense by a juvenile can be considered homicides (Texas Family Code, Chapter 57).

Although the number of violent crimes has increased overall in Austin since 2000, homicides have decreased slightly. The number of reported homicide victims decreased from 34 in 2000 to 28 in 2001 and 25 in 2002. An additional 6 homicides occurred outside the City of Austin in 2001 and an additional 3 in 2002. The homicide rate per 100,000 residents decreased from 5.4 to 4.3, then to 3.7 per 100,000 during that period (APD 2002, 2003; Jessica Sammons, Email communication, June 5, 2003).

Locally, Hispanics appear to be over-represented as victims of homicide. As demonstrated in the chart below, Hispanics comprised 31% of the Austin population in 2000 and accounted for 55% of the homicide offenders and 54% of homicide victims (Bureau of the Census 2000; APD 2002). During the years 1997-2001, 44% of homicide victims were Hispanic, 37% were White, 17% were Black and less than 1% were Asian (APD Victim Services 2002). In 2002, three (12%) of the homicide victims were Mexican Nationals.

 

Most homicide victims in Austin were relatively young. In 2001, 10 of the 28 (35%) homicide victims were under 18 years old; four (14%) were under 13 years old (City of Austin 2002). Local data from 1997 to 2001 shows that 60% of murder victims were under the age of 35, and 20% were under the age of 20. During that same period, persons ages 15 to 19 were victims of homicide at rates higher than individuals of all other ages (APD NIBRS 2002).

Homicide of children is subject to identifiable patterns. Nationally, older juvenile victims aged 12 or more were more likely to be male and Black [OJJDP 2000 (a)]. The National Center for Health Statistics lists homicide as the fourth leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 4, third for youth ages 5 to 14, and second for persons ages 15 to 24 [Osofsky 2001; OJJDP 2000 (a)].

Top Of Page

Sexual Assault and Rape Victims

Sexual assault is any act that involves sexual contact with another person without that person’s consent or sexual contact with a child regardless of consent. Sexual assault includes rape (requires penetration), but may consist of using force or attempting to take advantage of someone who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, decline participation, or to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act due to age, illness, disability influence of alcohol or other drugs, intimidation, or pressure (Texas Penal Code, Chapter 22.011).

Between 2001 and 2002, the number of reported rapes in Austin fell only slightly – from 268 to 256 (APD 2003). Young women ages 15 to 19 are most often the victims of rape. In 2001, just over half (54%) of all rape victims were under the age of 20; 76% were between the ages of 10 and 29 (APD 2002). From 1997 to 2001, females ages 10 to 14 were victims of 23.2% of reported rapes (APD NIBRS 2002). In Austin in 2002, 51.1 of every 100,000 females were victims of rape. For comparison, it is estimated that 62.7 of every 100,000 females in the nation were victims of rape (APD NIBRS 2002). While White victims comprised 43% of all rape victims from 1997 to 2001, Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than Whites to be victimized by rape (APD NIBRS 2002).

Best Practice:
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART)

Comprised of law enforcement, nurses, advocates and prosecutors, a SART is a multidisciplinary approach to sexual assault and abuse. Outcomes include:

Between 2000 and 2001, the number of reported sexual assault cases decreased by 14%, from 819 to 701 cases. In 2002, the number fell again by 7% to 654 (APD 2002, 2003). Females are more than six times as likely as males to be the victims of reported sexual assaults; 86% of all victims of sexual assault are female. Of all sexual assault victims under age 6 – 69% are female and 31% are male. Nearly all of forcible rapes involve a female victim and females were the large majority of victims in incidents of sexual assault with an object and forcible fondling. In contrast, the majority of victims of forcible sodomy are males. A male is most likely to be the victim of sexual assault at age 4 and a female’s year of greatest risk is age 14 (Snyder 2000).

Sexual assault victims also tend to be young - In 2001, 80% (611) were under the age of 20 and most of these (377) were between the ages of five and fourteen (APD 2002). The age profile of sexual assault victims nationally varies with the nature of the crime. Table 4 below shows that juveniles are the large majority of the victims of forcible fondling (84%), forcible sodomy (79%), and sexual assault with an object (75%). In contrast, juveniles are the victims in less than half (46%) of forcible rapes (Snyder 2000).

Table 4: Percentage of Sexual Assault Victims by Age and Type of Assault in the U.S.
Victim
Age
All Sexual
Assault
Forcible
Rape
Forcible
Sodomy
Sexual Assault
with Object
Forcible
Fondling
0 to 5
14.0%
4.3%
24.0%
26.5%
20.2%
6 to 11
20.1%
8.0%
30.8%
23.2%
29.3%
12 to 17
32.8%
33.5%
24.0%
25.5%
34.3%
18 to 24
14.2%
22.6%
8.7%
9.7%
7.7%
25 to 34
11.5%
19.6%
7.5%
8.3%
5.0%
35 or older
7.4%
12.0%
5.1%
6.8%
3.5%

(Source: Snyder 2000)

In most cases, sexual assaults involved an acquaintance, family member, babysitter, or a boyfriend or girlfriend. The relationship between the offender and the sexual assault victim was unknown in 9% of the cases (APD 2002). Table 5 shows the victim-offender relationship in cases of sexual assault nationally.

Table 5: Victim-Offender Relationship in Sexual Assaults in U.S.

Victim Age
Offender
Family Member
Acquaintance
Stranger
JUVENILES
34.2%
58.7%
7.0%
0 to 5
48.6%
48.3%
3.1%
6 to 11
42.4%
52.9%
4.7%
12 to 17
24.3%
66.0%
9.8%
ADULTS
11.5%
61.1%
27.3%
18 to 24
9.8%
66.5%
23.7%
Above 24
12.8%
57.1%
30.1%

(Source: Snyder 2000)

About one-quarter of all offenders are family members of their victims. The offenders of young victims are more likely to be family members than the offenders of older victims. Except for victims under age 6, most sexual assault offenders are not family members but are otherwise known to the victim. In general, 60% of all sexual assault offenders are acquaintances of the victim; just 14% of offenders are strangers to their victims (Snyder 2000).

Focus Group Results:

Sexual Assault & Rape Victims

The participants in the sexual assault focus group had mixed experiences with local law enforcement. Descriptions ranged from “sterile” and “not good” to “wonderful” and “very professional”. Those who had a bad experience indicated that officers conveyed a lack of trust in the victim and did not make an effort to be sensitive about what had happened.

Victims also had mixed experiences with the local court system. There was a perception among the victims that those who: a) had experienced more violent assault that included, for example, the use of a weapon, b) were assaulted by a stranger or c) had more physical evidence of the assault (cuts, bruises) were treated with more deference and respect. In general victims perceive the system to be less caring and compassionate than they would have liked – personnel within the system need to be cognizant of the type of victimization and how victims were impacted by it.

Top Of Page

Intimate Partner Violence Victims

Family violence is defined in the Texas Family Code as, “an act by a member of a family or household against another member that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm” (DPS 2002). In Texas, family violence is prosecuted as assault or aggravated assault. In the literature, the discussions of family or domestic violence have expanded to include violence between intimate partners, not just individuals who are married.

Risk Factors for Violence Between Intimate Partners

  • Alcohol usage by either partner
  • Unemployment of male partner
  • Witnessing or experiencing family violence as a child or adolescent
  • Perpetrator’s lack of skills for addressing relationship issues
  • Male anger/hostility toward women in general
  • Perpetrator with depression or low self-esteem
    (CDC April 2003).

This type of violence can result in physical injury and illness, psychological problems, economic costs, homelessness and death. Children who witness family violence are also seriously impacted. Problems associated with witnessing family violence include becoming a perpetrator of family violence or a victim of abuse or family violence, developing physical or mental health problems, including addiction to alcohol and drugs (CDC April 2003).

Local data show that domestic violence, or intimate partner violence, is a serious and growing problem with significant social costs.

Focus Group Results:

Victims of Domestic Violence

Victims of domestic violence had mixed experiences with law enforcement. Participants reported the best experiences with female officers. One participant indicated that the police spoke with her husband but never with her and never took the husband into custody. Other victims reported that law enforcement was helpful in providing referrals for resources.

Some members of the group reported negative experiences when getting protective orders. The forms were difficult for one victim whose first language was not English. Another victim felt the personnel working in protective orders treated her with a lack of respect.

None of the participants reported a good experience with the Court system. One participant felt that the sentences were totally inadequate – her husband had assaulted her 32 times, including throwing her out of a window, and he was only sentenced to three years of incarceration. Others felt overexposed during Court because their personal lives were shared with everyone in the courtroom, including others waiting for their cases to be heard.
  • In 2002, eight (32%) of the 25 homicides in Austin were the result of family or domestic violence. Thirty percent (524) of aggravated assaults were domestic violence cases (APD 2003).
  • In 2001, the Austin Police Department reported 14,303 family violence incidents, resulting in 3,183 arrests - increases of 52% and 34%, respectively, since 1996. In a year when crime was generally down in Austin, family violence incidents rose by almost 10%.
  • In 2001, Travis County Sheriff’s Office responded to 1,275 family violence incidents. This increased to 1,346 in 2002 (Jessica Sammons, email communication, June 5, 2003).
  • In 2001, SafePlace provided 35,717 days of shelter to 1,237 adult and child victims of domestic violence - a 30% increase compared to the previous year.
  • The Travis County Attorney’s Office applied for 740 protective orders on behalf of victims and prosecutors had pending caseloads totaling over 1,800 family violence cases in 2001 (Travis County Attorney’s Office 2002).1
  • The Travis County District Attorney’s Office reports an average of 266 felony domestic violence cases at any given time (Travis County District Attorney’s Office 2002).

Data from the National Crime Victimization Surveys indicate that being young, black, poor, divorced or separated, and living in rental housing in an urban area are all associated with higher rates of intimate partner abuse. Specifically, women ages 20-24 are the most likely to be victimized while black women are 35% more likely to be abused than white women and 2.5 times more likely than women of other races. Women in households with the lowest income have seven times the abuse rates of those in the highest income households (Rennison and Welchans 2000).

Dating violence is widespread among teens: approximately one in five female high school students report being physically or sexually abused by a date partner. Girls who report experiencing abuse have a significantly elevated risk for a broad range of serious health concerns including: being more likely to use alcohol, tobacco and cocaine; engaging in unhealthy weight control; engaging in risky sexual behavior; and seriously considering or attempting suicide. Girls who report experiencing both physical and sexual violence are more likely to report having early first intercourse, multiple recent sexual partners, and engaging in intercourse without using a condom. Girls who report experiencing teen dating violence are four to six times more likely than their non-abused peers to have ever been pregnant (Silverman et al. 2001).

Best Practice:
The San Diego Children's Hospital Family Violence Program

The San Diego Children's Hospital Family Violence Program assists battered mothers in establishing a safe environment for their children and themselves. Serving 120 women and 350 children each year, the program pairs battered women and their children with a two-person team of an advocate and a therapist. Mother and child receive free intensive advocacy, legal consultation, and mental health services. Children are often treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and receive a range of preventive and therapeutic interventions, including age appropriate play therapy and teen groups. At intake, 88% of the program participants report physical assault. At the six-month follow-up, the level of physical violence the women experience has decreased to 10%. The proportion of children exposed to family violence decreased from 85% to 20% [OVC 1999 (b)].

Top Of Page

Hate Crime Victims

The U.S. Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 defines hate crime as “those offenses motivated in part or singularly by personal prejudice against others because of a diversity – race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity/national origin, or disability.” This Act mandated local and state law enforcement agencies to report certain information regarding hate crimes to the federal government. For the purpose of hate crime reporting, “victim” can refer to a person, business, institution or society as a whole (FBI 2001). In 2001, the Texas Legislature passed a hate crimes law.

Most hate crimes are violent crimes, such as assault or threats. Most hate crimes are committed against individuals (84%). The rest (16%) are committed against businesses, financial institutions, governments, religious organizations, or the general public. Aggravated assault hate crime incidents had the highest percentage of multiple victims (23% of incidents). Victims’ ages tend to be fairly distributed overall, with victims of violent hate crimes being generally younger than hate crime victims as a whole (BJS 2001).

Nationally, the most common motivator for hate crime is race, followed by religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, and disability. Travis County reported a total of 32 hate crimes in 2000 to the FBI. Most were motivated by the race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin of the victim(s) (FBI 2001). Table 6 below compares the local, state and national incidents of hate crimes.

Table 6: Single-Bias Hate Crime Incidents 2000:
National, State, and Local Comparison2
Motivation
Travis County
Texas
National
Race
13
(40%)
159
(56%)
4,337
(55%)
Sexual Orientation
10
(31%)
50
(17%)
1,299
(16%)
Ethnicity/Nat’l Origin
6
(18%)
30
(10%)
911
(12%)
Religion
2
(6%)
45
(16%)
1,472
(17%)
Disability
1
(3%)
2
(<1%)
36
(<.05%)
Total
32
(100%)
286
(100%)
8,055
(100%)

                      (Source: FBI 2001)

Top Of Page

Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Victims

Automobile accidents involving alcohol injure and kill a large number of people every year. In Travis County in 2000, 2,380 accidents involving alcohol occurred. As shown below, 26 of these were fatal, killing a total of 28 individuals. Nearly half (1,142) caused at least one injury (DPS 2003). In 2001, 58 people died in Travis County as a result of alcohol-related traffic accidents (NHTSA 2003). Historically, more people in Texas die in alcohol-related traffic accidents than in any other state.

Alcohol related accidents exact not only a high human cost but a high financial cost as well. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in Texas in 1997, alcohol related crashes cost $4 billion in monetary costs and another $6.5 billion in quality of life costs. Victims personally pay costs associated with DWI accidents and homicides. Miller et al. (1996) estimated each DWI fatality to personally cost each victim $4.0 million and each DWI injury to cost $88,000 in tangible and intangible costs.

Nationally, younger drivers, ages 21-24, have the highest intoxication rate in fatal crashes. Twenty-seven percent of intoxicated drivers in this age group had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .10 or greater. This group is followed by 25-34 year olds (24% with BAC .10+) and the 35-44 year olds (22% with BAC .10+). Motorcyclists have the highest intoxication rates (27% with BAC .10+) of all drivers and light truck drivers have a slightly higher rate (20% with BAC .10+) than passenger car operators (19% with BAC .10+). Men are more likely than women to be drivers in alcohol related fatalities (NHTSA 2000).

Focus Group Results:

DWI Primary and Secondary Victims

Much of the information collected in this focus group centered on the trial process as many of the cases were prosecuted. In general participants felt that the counselors at the District Attorney’s office and the MADD counselor/advocates were very helpful. The DA counselors were helpful in keeping family members informed. MADD counselors helped ensure that cases received the attention they needed and were prosecuted. There is often a delay from the time of the accident to the time of reporting and notification. Often victims are dead or in the hospital, making reporting and notification difficult. For example, one family member, whose loved one was in the hospital unconscious, contacted law enforcement after reading about the drunk driver in the newspaper.

This group recommended that there be more information provided to families/victims and that more counselors be available so that response is more timely.

Best Practice:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

Founded in 1980, the mission of MADD is to stop drunk driving, support victims and prevent underage drinking. A nationwide non-profit organization, MADD has 16 chapters in Texas including one in Travis County. MADD provides a number of free services to victims and their families including information about rights and services, court accompaniment, and support groups. Additionally, MADD works to pass legislation related to drunk driving and conducts public awareness campaigns. MADD has been cited by numerous state and national organizations for its work in the area of victim services.

Top Of Page

Child Victimization

Child victimization assumes different forms (e.g., accidental, abuse, neglect, sexual, and more). This section begins by looking at child deaths, then discusses abuse and neglect, and concludes with child sexual abuse and exploitation

In 2002, 130 children between the ages of 0 and 17 died in Travis County; 98 of natural causes, 25 of accidental causes, three from homicide; two from suicide, and two from undetermined causes. Of the 25 accidental child deaths, eleven were by motor vehicle accidents in which nine of the children were unrestrained or unprotected. Eight of the accidental deaths were from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (CAC/CFRT 2003).

The Texas Family Code and the Texas Penal Code provide statutory definitions for child abuse and neglect. Due to the length of these definitions, they are provided in Appendix E. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) investigates civil allegations of child abuse and neglect while law enforcement and prosecutors investigate criminal allegations of those crimes. Depending on the type and extent of crime, “Law enforcement” may include the city police department, county sheriff’s office, the Department of Public Safety or federal agencies.

The Texas Family Code and the Texas Penal Code provide statutory definitions for child abuse and neglect. Due to the length of these definitions, they are provided in Appendix E. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) investigates civil allegations of child abuse and neglect while law enforcement and prosecutors investigate criminal allegations of those crimes. Depending on the type and extent of crime, “Law enforcement” may include the city police department, county sheriff’s office, the Department of Public Safety or federal agencies.
Best Practice:
Child Fatality Review Teams

Established in 1992, the Travis County Child Fatality Review Team is a multidisciplinary group working together to prevent senseless and needless deaths of children in Travis County. Team members review every child death occurring in Travis County and attempt to identify patterns in the child death statistics and educate the community about how to prevent these deaths.

Members represent the following agencies:
Austin Fire Department
Austin Police Department
Children’s Hospital of Austin
City of Austin Emergency Medical Services
Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics
Child Protective Services
Texas Department of Public Safety
Travis County Children’s Advocacy Center
Travis County District Attorney’s Office
Travis County Juvenile Court
Travis County Medical Examiner
Travis County Sheriff’s Office

Visit at www.traviscountycac.org

According to TDPRS there were 1,476 confirmed victims of child abuse/neglect in Travis County, or 7.4 per 1,000 children in 2002. At that time, there were an estimated 200,793 children in Travis County. Chart 6 below presents data on the confirmed types of abuse and neglect committed against children in Region 7, consisting of Travis County and the 30 surrounding counties (TDPRS 2003).

Nationally and locally, the primary perpetrators in child abuse and neglect cases are parents, followed by other members of the household. In Texas, parents were identified as perpetrators in 77% of confirmed cases. In the Austin region (30 central Texas counties), just over half (56%) of perpetrators were female. In addition, they were generally between the ages of 26-35 (37%), Anglo (43%), and married (37%) (TDPRS 2002).

Nationally and locally, the primary perpetrators in child abuse and neglect cases are parents, followed by other members of the household. In Texas, parents were identified as perpetrators in 77% of confirmed cases. In the Austin region (30 central Texas counties), just over half (56%) of perpetrators were female. In addition, they were generally between the ages of 26-35 (37%), Anglo (43%), and married (37%) (TDPRS 2002).

Certain factors are known to increase the occurrence of child abuse and/or neglect. The ability to identify those risk factors is a major step toward identifying and intervening with children who may be victims. For example, a higher incidence of child abuse and neglect has been found in families characterized by domestic violence than in the general population (Groves 2002). Other factors include households in which poverty, unemployment, chronic physical and mental disorders, or substance abuse are present (Chalk et al. 2002).
Children and teenagers made up 10 (35%) of Austin’s 28 homicide victims; four were 18 or 19 years old; two were 13-17 years old; and four were 0-12 years old. (CAC/CFRT 2002, APD 2002)

In 2001, local police recorded that 755 Austin-area children under the age of 19 were victims of sexual assault or rape. Adults were victims of these same crimes in 273 cases (APD 2002).

Children of all ages are victimized, but rates of abuse vary by age. Nationally, children ages birth through three years tend to be maltreated and victimized at the highest rates [Children’s Bureau 2001(a); Children’s Bureau 2001(b)]. Rates of abuse decline with increasing age. Table 7 below shows that in Travis County in recent years, victims are getting younger – victims under age three make up a greater percentage of abuse victims in 2002 than in 1999.

Table 7: Age of Confirmed Child Abuse/Neglect Victims in Travis County FY99-FY02
Age
1999
2000
2001
2002
Under 1
 157 12% 229 14% 256 17% 266 18%
1-3 Years 226 18% 336 20% 324 22% 343 23%
4-6 Years
 265 21% 311 19% 249 17% 288 20%
7-9 Years
 239 19% 285 17% 251 17% 241 16%
10-12 Yrs
185 15% 242 15% 177 12% 153 10%
13-17 Yrs 198 16% 250 15% 215 15% 185 13%
Total 1270   1653   1472   1476  

                                                  (Source: TDPRS November 2002)

Boys have a greater risk of emotional neglect while girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys (Sedlak and Broadhurst 1996).

Most incidents of child victimization occur in the child’s home or another home (OJJDPP May 2000). Adolescent girls are more likely than adolescent boys to be attacked in their own home or another residence rather than at school or other public place. Adolescent girls with preexisting psychosocial or medical problems are at greatest risk for serious injury (Moscowitz et al. 2001).

Although physical and sexual abuse receive the most attention, neglect is more prevalent and has significant consequences. While evidence of neglect may be more difficult to detect, research shows that neglect negatively impacts development on a number of levels. Children who are malnourished may have stunted brain growth and slowed electrical signals in the brain. Children who have unresponsive caregivers have difficulty forming attachments and healthy relationships. Children who experience global neglect – deprived in multiple areas – are shown to have smaller brains and therefore may be at a disadvantage intellectually. Neglected children grow up learning that their needs will never be met (National Clearinghouse 2001).

Signs of Child Neglect

Infants and Toddlers

  • Listlessness

  • Poor responsiveness

  • Infrequent smiling, crying, laughing, playing

  • Lacks curiosity, interest

  • Rocks, bangs head

Children

  • Cries easily when hurt even slightly
  • Comes to school without breakfast or lunch
  • Comes to school early, doesn’t want to go home
  • Frequently absent or late
  • Troublesome at school – cruel to classmates, destructive, lies, steals
  • Views self as failure, refuses to try
  • Unkempt appearance

www.safechild.org

The increasing use and availability of the Internet poses a new threat to children and adolescents. At least 50% of all homes have Internet access; an even higher percentage of kids have access to the Internet each day. Predators victimize children online by enticing them to engage in sexual acts; producing, manufacturing, and distributing child pornography online; exposing youth to pornography; encouraging them to exchange pornography; enticing and exploiting children for “sexual tourism” (i.e., traveling in order to engage in sexual activity either for commercial gain or personal gratification) (OVC 2001).

A survey (OVC 2001) of a nationally representative sample of youth indicated that:

  • 20% were approached sexually solicited over the Internet in the past year; 25% of these told a parent.
  • 25% experienced unwanted exposure to naked people or people engaging in sexual acts; 40% told a parent.
  • One in 33 received an “aggressive” sexual solicitation.

Only 17% of children and 11% of adults could name a specific authority to which to report Internet solicitations. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and U.S. Postal Inspection Service each have programs in place to provide assistance, investigation, education, and referral (OVC 2001).

Focus Group Results:

Court Appointed Special Advocate Professionals & TCSO/APD Investigators

The biggest challenge facing those that are trying to help children who are abused and neglected is the fact that regardless of how bad the situation is, children often do not want to report victimization by family members (the majority of perpetrators). When they do report, they may recant their stories. In general, reporting declines in the summer when children are not in school.

Professionals also experience difficulties getting other agencies serving children to cooperate on cases. CASA professionals identified Advocacy Inc. as a very effective tool in increasing cooperation. In terms of resources, CASA professionals believe that there need to be more safe places for children to go when they are removed from their homes, more attorneys and more judges to process cases, and more resources to help the kids get what they need – free or low cost – throughout the year, not just during the holidays.

Best Practice:
Court Appointed Special Advocates – CASA of Travis County

CASAs are trained community volunteers who are appointed by judges to help the courts deal with the costly increase in complex child abuse cases. CASA of Travis County recruits and trains volunteers to serve as advocates for children that are removed from their homes due to severe abuse, neglect or abandonment. CASAs serve as a “voice in court” by providing detailed information to judges to safeguard the children’s best interests and ensure that they are placed in safe, permanent homes as quickly as possible.

For more information: http://www.casatravis.org

Best Practice:
Children's Advocacy Centers

Children’s Advocacy Centers allow law enforcement officers, child protection workers, prosecutors, victim advocates, medical professionals, and therapists to coordinate the investigation, prosecution, and treatment of child abuse cases. Identified best/promising practices within Children’s Advocacy Centers are: 1) affiliation with medical centers and/or having facilities for medical examinations, 2) being equipped with one-way mirrors and having videotaping capacity, 3) creating a child friendly physical environment, and 4) operating with a coordinated approach and team decision-making process that improves the quality of information and increases the number of successful prosecutions (OVC 1999).

Children in Austin and Travis County are served by the Travis County Children’s Advocacy Center whose mission is to lessen the emotional trauma to children during the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases, and to improve the system’s response to child abuse by uniting the efforts of public agencies as well as enlisting community support. The best interest of the child is always the first concern. The Center is a non-profit organization that provides evaluation, crisis intervention, evidence-gathering, and counseling in a home-like environment.

For more information: www.traviscountycac.org/Home.htm

Best Practice:
Dallas Police Department Crimes Against Children Unit

The Dallas Police Department Investigations Unit has developed four specialty areas for crimes against children.

  1. The Child Abuse Unit works with four other partner agencies at the Dallas Children's Advocacy Center to conduct investigations in a child friendly environment in cases of physical, sexual, and fatal child abuse and neglect.
  2. The Child Exploitation Unit investigates child sexual offenses and exploitation involving non-family members.
  3. The Internet Crimes Against Children Unit handles Internet child pornography cases.
  4. The Sex Offender Apprehension Program (SOAP) was developed in response to the Sex Offender Registration Law. By strictly enforcing compliance with the law, the SOAP arrested 600 registered sex offenders within its first 2 years of operation and won the Weber-Seavey Award for innovative law enforcement.
    (OVC June 1999)

Top Of Page

Elderly Victimization

Texas law requires that the abuse or neglect of an elderly person be reported to the appropriate authorities. In Texas, suspected abuse is reported to and investigated by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Adult Protective Services Division (TDPRS-APS). Abuse may be “negligent or willful infliction of injury”, sexual abuse, monetary abuse, or “failure to provide goods or services…which are necessary to avoid physical or emotional harm or pain” (Texas Human Resources Code, Chapter 48).

TDPRS-APS completed 8,831 in-home investigations of abuse in Travis County during the five-year period 1998-2002; they validated abuse or neglect in 61% (5,377) of these cases. This does not include investigations of complaints that occurred within institutions. Chart 7 shows the number of investigations and validations for the five-year period. For comparison, the population of individuals 65 and older in 2002 was 56,932.

Chart 8 below shows the types of allegations made in validated in-home investigations in Texas in 2001. Physical neglect was the most common allegation, followed by medical neglect and physical abuse.

Profile of
Typical Elder Abuse Victim

  • Female
  • White
  • Over 70, most likely over 80
  • Annual Income $5,000 - $10,000
  • Not able to care for self
  • Experiences confusion sometimes
    (NCEA 1998)

While mistreatment of the elderly can result in increased risk of death, financial exploitation can result in economic instability and impaired quality of life. Financial exploitation is a particularly difficult problem that is often unreported and most jurisdictions do not track information about the number of incidents. It is estimated that financial exploitation is involved in one-third to one-half of all elder abuse cases (Lachs, et al. 1998; NCVC 2003; Wasik 2000).


Although the law requires reporting, elder abuse is vastly under-reported. The National Elder Abuse Incident Study (NEAIS) estimates that in 1996, 449,924 elderly persons living in domestic settings experienced abuse and/or neglect in the U.S. Of the total number of cases, 16% were reported to and substantiated by APS. This means that 84% of all cases were not reported to authorities – five times more than those that were reported (NCEA 1998).3

Profile of Typical Elder Abuse Perpetrator

  • Male
  • 40-59
  • White
  • Family Member
    (NCEA 1998)

In order to address the issue of elder abuse it is also important to understand who the perpetrators of abuse are. In Texas, Adult Children are perpetrators in almost 40% of confirmed in-home adult protective services cases (includes abuse of elderly and individuals with disabilities). The second most frequent perpetrator is the spouse (15%) followed by the parent (12%). Other relatives combined make up another 20.3% (TDPRS 2003).

Older populations are not only victims of abuse and neglect, but also other crimes. The Austin Police Department’s Victim Services Division served 572 elderly victims in 2001. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, published a report focused specifically on crimes against older adults during the years 1992 through 1997. Of all groups, elderly white women, elderly white males and elderly black females experienced the lowest rates of non-lethal violent victimization during the five year period. Among elderly individuals, black males experienced the highest rates. Hispanics had higher rates of victimization than non-Hispanics. Individuals who were divorced or separated experienced higher rates of non-lethal violence than individuals who were married or widowed.

Between 1992 and 1997, persons age 65 and older constituted 15% of the population 12 and older and experienced 7% of crimes measured through the National Crime Victims’ Survey. The rate of victimization for individuals over 65 is much lower than among the general population. Property crime is the most common type of victimization experienced by the elderly – 9 in 10 of all crimes against this group involve property (BJS 2000).

Focus Group Results:

Elderly Individuals, Service Providers and Volunteers

Participants identified several reasons why this population does not report incidents to law enforcement: pride, reluctance to report on a family member, or belief that their issue won’t be taken seriously. Participants in the focus group said that law enforcement personnel need to have specific training on how to work with elderly individuals. The approach to interviewing this population needs to include developing a rapport with the victim. This will ensure that the victim will provide useful and necessary information. Additionally, elderly persons need to be educated about what types of activities should be reported to law enforcement. For example, a client of one agency is being intimidated and harassed by a collection agency that is using illegal tactics to secure payment. Lastly, participants believe that the system for prosecuting crimes, such as financial exploitation, is too slow, especially when victims’ savings have been stolen.

Best Practice:
Addressing Financial Exploitation

Fiduciary Abuse Specialist Team (FAST)
The purpose of FAST is to provide assistance in cases of financial abuse cases and provide training to bankers and law enforcement officers. The Los Angeles multidisciplinary team has representation from the police department, district attorney, city attorney, social service providers, a retired probate judge, a trust attorney, an insurance agent, a realtor, an escrow officer, a stock broker and estate planners.

The Massachusetts Bank Reporting Project
This project focuses on providing training to bank personnel on how to identify and report financial exploitation. The program is operated by the Massachusetts’s Executive Office of Elder Affairs.

For more Information: www.preventelderabuse.org/communities/best.html

Victimization of Persons with Disabilities

The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include reporting on victims of hate crimes who had disabilities. Officially, in 2000, one hate crime victim in Travis County was reported to have a disability (FBI 2001). However, this in no way indicates the number of victims of other crimes in Travis County who have disabilities. The Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 1998 mandates that crimes against persons with disabilities be counted in the National Crime Victims Survey by 2000. This should increase the amount of information available on this population who experience victimization.

Statistics on victims with disabilities most likely underreport the number of disabled clients. Many programs that serve persons with disabilities either do not collect information about victimization or about disabilities, making information on this population difficult to obtain. As is the case with APD, providers may only know about disabilities that require an accommodation. Chart 9 below shows that APD Victim Services Division served a total of 377 victims with disabilities in 2001, or 1.3% of the total number (28,571) served that year (377 represents the number of victims with a disability who required a special accommodation in order to receive services – Victim Services counselors do not ask victims if they have a disability – so the actual number could be much higher). Overall, from 1998 to 2001 victims with disabilities constituted 0.6% of APD victim services clients (APD Victim Services 2002).

Focus Group Results:

Victims Who Have Disabilities & Service Providers

Meeting the needs of this population presents a particular challenge because there are different types of disabilities, some of which are more readily apparent than others. For example, an individual may have a physical disability that is readily apparent but does not impair that individual’s ability to report a crime and access services. Another individual may have a cognitive impairment that is not readily apparent but which affects his/her ability to report and access services. These two individuals need to be able to participate in the system equally. Participants in the focus group indicated that individuals are often treated as if they cannot speak for themselves because they have a disability – regardless of what the disability is. Additionally, the criminal justice system is difficult to navigate for the most savvy individuals. For those with little knowledge of the system and a disability, it can be frustrating and overwhelming.

One suggestion from this group included having hearings and other proceedings occur in venues outside of downtown in order to increase accessibility.

People with disabilities are at greater risk for certain crimes. In general, this group is at a higher risk for sexual violence than are people without disabilities. Most perpetrators are male and are known to the victim. Crimes usually occur in the victim’s home. Seventy-one percent of sexual violence cases involving disabled victims consisted of more than one episode (CDC 1999).

Although all types of victimization affect the disabled, certain experiences are unique to their situations. For example, one study reported that abusers had withheld needed orthotic equipment, medication, transportation, or essential assistance with personal tasks, such as dressing or getting out of bed. For emotional and physical victimization, the abuser was most often a husband/live-in partner or a parent (Nosek and Howland 1999).

Certain populations of persons with disabilities are more vulnerable than others. For example, “children with any kind of disability are more than twice as likely as non-disabled children to be physically abused and almost twice as likely to be sexually abused” (Tyiska 1998). Children with disabilities are less likely to be identified as victims than children who are not disabled. Disabled child victims are therefore likely to suffer more damage because of long-term abuse. Abuse may also exacerbate existing disabilities and can cause additional, permanent disabilities (Prevent Child Abuse America 2002).

Although women with disabilities “appear to be at risk for emotional, physical, and sexual abuse to the same extent as women without disabilities, . . . (they) were significantly more likely to experience emotional abuse by attendants, strangers, or health care providers than women without disabilities” (Nosek and Howland 1999).

Victims with disabilities may be more underserved or underreported than other categories of victims. Reasons for under-reporting include mobility or communication barriers related to the disability, social or physical isolation, reduced self-esteem that exacerbates normal “shame and self-blame”, or the fact that a caregiver is the abuser (Tyiska 1998).

Top Of Page

Hidden Victims

Hidden victims are victims of unreported crime. This group is excluded from the most widely used public reports on crime and victimization. This exclusion results in underestimating not only the number of victims, but also the amount of funding required to provide the appropriate level of services in our community.

Nationally, it is estimated that about half of violent victimizations are not reported to the police [BJS 2002(a)]. Using this estimate, we can deduce that about 1,518 violent index crimes go unreported in Austin (DPS 2003).

Certain victims are more likely than others to report victimization. For example, women are slightly more likely to report violent crime than men (54.5% versus 42.9%). Depending on the type of crime, reporting varies by age group. For example, 75.8% of victims over 65 report robberies while only 34.9% of victims under 19 report (BJS 2000).

Locally, victims of crime note a variety of reasons for not reporting victimizations. In 2002, focus groups with local victims of crime and victim service providers identified the following reasons for not reporting.

  • Immigration status; fear of being reported to INS
  • Language or cultural barriers
  • Fear of the police or the criminal justice process
  • Unwillingness to report crimes committed by family members, acquaintances (e.g., elderly person victimized by family, child abused by parent)
  • Pride or shame
  • Don’t think the crime is important enough and won’t get the attention needed from police
  • Fear of repercussions at work or lost wages (e.g., victimized by a co-worker or supervisor)

Through the Office of Community Liaison, the Austin Police Department has made efforts to reach out to and educate groups within the community about crime and how to contact law enforcement. For example, this office has outreach efforts focused on the immigrant population and the Asian community, among others. More information is available at www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/community.htm.

Victims who do not report crime most likely do not receive the services they need. Victims can connect to services through channels other than law enforcement agencies. However, without a report to law enforcement, a victim in Texas cannot receive certain services such as Crime Victims Compensation. Obviously, unreported crime is not prosecuted so there is no opportunity to collect restitution. The challenge for our community is to create a system where any victim of crime feels safe coming forward to report the crime.

Top Of Page

1. The actual number of protective orders filed is higher than 740, because the County Attorney does not report counts of protective orders filed by private attorneys, legal assistance programs, etc.

2. Travis County agencies reporting were Austin Police Department, Travis County Sheriff’s Office, and The University of Texas at Austin Police Department.

3. The most comprehensive source of information about elder abuse is the National Elder Abuse Incidence Study (NEAIS) published in 1998. This study measures the number of new cases of abuse reported during 1996 and relies on two sources for information: Adult Protective Services (APS) substantiated reports and unsubstantiated reports from trained sentinels (individuals who work in areas that have contact with older adults, such as nursing home workers and hospital personnel) (National Center, 1998; Wolf, 2000).


© 2005 - 2006 Victims Services Task Force