An Overview of Victim Services in South Carolina
March 2007

Proviso 72.107 of the FY 06-07 appropriations act requires the Legislative Audit Council to “…research all victims assistance programs in the state and determine the best method for delivery of services and allocation of resources for these programs.” We identified agencies that were involved in providing victim services and determined how those services are funded. We also examined the administrative structure for the provision of victim services and how it compared to the structure in other states.

Victims in South Carolina are provided rights and services through the Victims’ Bill of Rights in the South Carolina Constitution as well as through statutes of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Victim services include notification of actions such as court proceedings or offender transfers. Other services include compensation for injuries and advocacy for victims’ rights. These services are funded in a variety of ways, including state appropriations, assessments and surcharges on criminal convictions, federal grants, and garnishment of prisoner wages. We identified approximately $45 million spent on victim services in FY 05-06.

There is no central agency responsible for the provision of victim services in South Carolina. Victim services are provided by a number of different entities throughout the state. These include state agencies, local entities, and private, non-profit groups. South Carolina’s decentralized system is similar to those in other states. However, we identified improvements needed to ensure that the statutorily-mandated victim services are provided in a more efficient manner.

• The Victim Advocate Policy Committee (VAPC) was created by the General Assembly in the FY 88-89 appropriations act as an advisory committee and was charged with developing guidelines for solicitor-based victim advocate programs. According to a State Office of Victim Assistance (SOVA) official, the VAPC did not meet between 1998 and 2006. The General Assembly should dissolve this committee and assign its activities to either the Victim Service Coordinating Council or the Commission on Prosecution Coordination.
• Victim services grants could be consolidated to improve efficiency and ensure appropriate oversight. There are three state agencies involved in making federal grants to victim services organizations. The agencies are the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Health and Environmental Control, and the Department of Social Services.
• The South Carolina Constitution and various state laws require that crime victims be notified when certain actions take place. We found evidence indicating that not all victims are always properly notified. The Crime Victims’ Ombudsman, in its FY 04-05 annual report, found that
   9% (7 out of 80) of all victim complaints it investigated regarded lack of notification. Also, an SCDC report shows that, for the 16 judicial circuits, the percentage of prisoners with a registered victim ranges from a low of 23% to a high of 63%. 
• State law requires victim impact statements and that a victim’s notification information be forwarded to certain state agencies. Victim impact statements are designed to help protect the rights of victims in South Carolina’s criminal justice system. A number of agencies that we contacted reported that they were not always receiving victim impact statements from the appropriate forwarding agencies.

We reviewed several areas of internal controls over the collection and expenditure of victim services funds. We found examples of problems which may indicate a need for greater oversight.

• Court audits performed under contract by the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) since FY 04-05 revealed 48 deficiencies relating to the accounting, reporting, or expenditure of funds allocated for victim services at the local government level. Due to the variety and complexity of the deficiencies noted in the audits, follow-up on these issues is imperative for the state to receive the full benefits of revenues generated from fines. We found that neither SOVA nor the chief justice has been receiving notices from OSA that these audit reports are available.
• Rather than relying solely on a random selection process for determining which courts to audit, OSA could develop a risk-based approach using the expertise of interested agencies such as the State Treasurer’s Office, SOVA, and Court Administration. Consulting with other agencies in the selection process would allow for a more targeted and risk-based approach to the audit process and could better allocate limited resources to the entities needing assistance.
• State law requires that the annual financial audit of each county and municipality include a supplementary schedule showing the total amount of victim services funds collected and how the funds were expended. In our review of court audits performed under contract by OSA, 17 of the audits identified deficiencies in the supplementary schedules. A significant number of the schedules did not provide accurate or reliable information concerning victim services revenues and expenditures. A standardized, consistent format would make it easier to compare different entities and time periods.