Compensation for victims of interpersonal violence
Project management: Prof. Dr. Beate Blättner
Staff: Anna Grundel (M.Sc. Public Health)
Siona Decke (B.Sc.)
Funded by: Hessian Universities
Cooperation: Office for Supply and Social Affairs (Fulda)
HessianMinistry of Social AffairsDistrict of Fulda
Duration: 01.10.2009 - 31.10.2010
Violence leads to significant health, social and economic consequences. The Victims Compensation Act (OEG) offers victims of violence compensation from state funds for the economic damage resulting from the health consequences suffered.
The chances of social compensation through the OEG and thus of social recognition of the injustice suffered are low for victims of violence. Only a small proportion (approx. 4 %) of the persons who file a complaint because of physical or sexualised experiences of violence file an application for victim compensation. About every third to fourth application is approved. This means that about 1-2 out of every 100 victims of physical or sexualised violence registered with the police receive social compensation. The OEG and its individual regulations seem to be insufficiently known both among people directly affected by violence and among people who deal with victims of violence in a broader sense.
The OEG does not cover all forms of violence equally. Structurally, there seems to be a disadvantage in the chances of compensation for victims of family violence or intimate partner violence and thus indirectly a disadvantage for women, presumably also for children and older people. In addition, the concept of assault in the OEG does not reflect the entirety of forms of violence relevant under criminal law, which can demonstrably lead to health and social effects (example: stalking).
The 209 applications for victim compensation that were finally processed at the Fulda Pension Office in 2008 were analysed under the questions of which forms of interpersonal violence can be found in the applications for victim compensation, to what extent medical documentation that can be used in court could facilitate the processing and which insights into the consequences of interpersonal violence are possible with it. In addition, interviews with experts were conducted.
Recognition procedures in the Fulda service region take an average of 13 months, with approved applications taking an average of 6 months longer than rejected applications. A timely recognition and compensation of the affected persons can thus not be guaranteed. There is currently a gap in victim assistance between the acute assistance provided by the police or psychosocial support facilities and the compensation provided by the OEG. The possibility of immediate assistance through the OEG according to §10 paragraph VIII BVG does not seem to be used in practice, or only very rarely.
The practice of granting aid seems to be very closely tied to criminal proceedings. The right to decide according to a free assessment of evidence was rarely used in the processing. Medical documentation has not yet been used for the free assessment of evidence, even though it could theoretically make it easier for the applicant and the case handler to prove what happened. One of the reasons for this is the incompleteness of medical documentation.
For the same reason, the health consequences of violence could only be determined incompletely. Violence often seems to be associated with head injuries (affecting almost three quarters of all included cases). Psychological consequences were mentioned second most often, in less than every fourth case. Economic consequences could not be determined.
The OEG essentially aims to compensate for the health-related social consequences of violence through pension benefits. Pension claims exist in less than one third of the approved applications. Compensation for therapy costs is usually paid as a lump sum to the statutory health insurers, without any noticeable effects for applicants who have health insurance.
Potential for change can be seen on two levels:
A realignment of victims' rights could: Recognise victims without automatically linking them to compensation claims; ensure immediate assistance based on a credible account and preservation of evidence; ensure pension payments in the rare cases of unavoidable, long-term consequences.
A change in procedural practice, based on existing legal regulations, could make greater use of the possibility of free assessment of evidence and provide for the systematic inclusion of medical documentation for the assessment of evidence. It would be conceivable to commission protective outpatient clinics in Hesse to prepare expert reports to clarify the facts of the case and to finance them according to the OEG.