Victims of Crime – vocal about VOCAL

Hi, my name is Sonali, I have a photography project, called photojournalism this semester and I had the idea of documenting the crime in the suburb narrabundah. I’d like to photograph a person who has been robbed or suffered from some sort of crime in narrabundah as then I can document it for my assignment. It would be a great help!
Please reply to this message or email me on krystalsj07@gmail.com.
Your response would be much appreciated.

VOCAL asked me to include the following:

Actual History

VOCAL was forced to apply for a tender in 2011 because the ACT Government did not want to recognise Vocal House as the only community service able to provide the community segment of services to victims of crime according to the requirement of the Victims of Crime Regulation 2000 part 3 Division 3.1 Section 23 (j). In 2007 the government had quietly changed the Procurement Act 2001 and its Regulation 2007, in which at Part 2, section 9, it allowed the government to put to tender any community organisation seeking more than $200,000 p.a. funding from government. VOCAL had managed to ask for just under that sum from 2000 to 2010, by reducing its hours of operation to three days per week in order to cope with rising costs of operation over a ten years period. But a few months earlier, Simon Corbell MLA had offered VOCAL extra funding, requesting that VOCAL resumes full time work. We had not figured out that this was not in our best interest in the long term, as accepting this sum of money pushed us right up past the amount stipulated by the new Procurement Regulation 2007. Although the Act at section 10 Pt 2, deals with potential exemptions from tender requirements for a long standing unique service, the government did not wish to give us this privilege and demanded that we either apply through a tender process or else quietly disappear.

VOCAL felt at the time that the point of this tender exercise was to make a move to a larger entity with less actual connection to the grass root service to victims of crime, and to appoint another service instead of VOCAL and its 25 years of experience in the field. Communities @ Work had been having private discussions with VOCAL at the time with a view to a merger. However, when it came time for the application to a tender, they confidently went ahead and applied without any concerns for VOCAL, having already been assured in various subtle ways that the deal was already in the bag. There were only two or three applicants that year. In November 2011 we were advised that we had not been successful. Although Communities @ Work had no means to carry out its new commitment, it had won the Tender and did not begin operation until July 2012. Six months to set up, and with much less to offer the ACT community than VOCAL. It is in our opinion, a shadow of the government service Victims Support ACT, just as is intended, responding to requests and referrals from the government service. As a contrast, VOCAL began 12 years before the creation of the government service, and maintained its independence throughout the 10 years period that it had a partnership with the government segment of the victims service. VOCAL seldom received any referrals nor shared in clients or data base as stipulated in the contractual agreement with ACT Health which in those days managed the contract. Things did not change though, even when the Management of VSS went over to DJACS. Records of our excellent performance can be seen in the annual reports for the 11 years. VOCAL performed well above the call of duty as acknowledged by various organisations. We even won awards for excellent early intervention.

Today it can be observed that the government service which started with only 4 staff in 1999 to carry out the Victims of Crimes Act (1983), has grown into a huge department with a Commissioner at its head. In July 2016 this department is poised to take over the role of the Government Solicitor in processing applications for Financial Assistance for victims of crime (the newer term for criminal injuries compensation). The FA Act has also been recently amended. So one would have to ask and ponder about the real reason that such a huge department, as solid as can be, with its echelons for career and promotions for public servants, seems still hell bent in keeping VOCAL, a small community service, out of the loop and bereft of any government financial support.

We at VOCAL have always worked hard to cooperate with our partner and would continue to work in the best interest of victims. It is our experience that many victims fall in the crack between the two only known services, and that the government service cannot possibly think that on its own, as a one stop shop, it can handle all victims in the ACT past the requirement of the Act ( limiting services duration per individual), and its Regulations, on a long term basis, according to individual needs.

So Yes I wholeheartedly agree with the writer of the article you sent, that VOCAL should be funded to do what it has been doing for 28 years now. All our staff have had to revert to being volunteers using the long standing model we have. As can be seen, it works well.

Should we spend the money helping the victims or trying to stop the crimes happening in the first place?

As sad as it is that there people are innocently affected by the actions of others isn’t part of the punishment of a crime in knowing that your family have suffered because of it?

With the revolving door of the prisons it’ll be up to those families to keep the law breaker in line.