Co-victims of Homicide: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Article

Co-victims of Homicide: A Systematic Review of the Literature

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 2015, Vol. 16(4) 494-505 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1524838014557285 tva.sagepub.com

Jennifer Connolly1 and Ronit Gordon1

Abstract This systematic literature review examines the effects of homicide on surviving family members, the ‘‘co-victims’’ or ‘‘survivors’’ of homicide. A content analysis was conducted on 40 articles identified through a search of the literature. The research samples were predominately located in the United States, but included two U.K. samples, one Jamaican sample, and one sample from Israel. All articles were written in English. Three themes were identified. Nineteen articles explored the psychological, academic, social, occupational, and familial effects of homicide. Thirteen articles considered survivors’ grieving process and how it was altered by experiences with the criminal justice system as well as coping strategies used by survivors to deal with their grief. Eight articles explored treatment interventions available to help surviving family members deal with their grief. Key findings from the articles, limitations of the current research, and implications for future research, policy, and practice are included. Keywords homicide, murder, survivors, co-victims, family, grief, criminal justice system, coping, treatment

In the United States, 24,748 homicides occurred in 2010, which is a rate of 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010, table 1). A homicide is defined as one individual intentionally taking the life of someone else; the act is unanticipated and aggressive (Clements & Vigil, 2003). It has been projected that for each murder victim, there are 6–10 family members who become co-victims of the homicide (Gross, 2007; Kilpatrick & Acierno, 2003). Co-victims, also known as survivors of homicide, are individuals who have familial connections with the victim and are thus indirectly victimized, first by losing a loved one and afterward, by the conditions attendant to the murder (MacVane, Miranda, & Molina, 2003). There is increased concern in North America as well as internationally, about how to adequately address the needs of homicide co-victims (Gross, 2007). While perpetrators are provided with support in the criminal justice system (CJS), there is increasing acknowledgment of the importance of offering support to co-victims and their families in both the short- and long term. Homicide is a violent and traumatic event that significantly affects surviving family members. Norris, Ruback, and Thompson (1996) emphasized that signs of trauma were consistently demonstrated by homicide survivors. A growing literature examines the effects of homicide on family member survivors. The findings from this research can significantly inform clinical practice with family member survivors who are increasingly recognized as individuals worthy of concern and in need of clinical care and social services. Despite this clinical relevance, to our knowledge, no systematic

literature review has been conducted on the effects of homicide on surviving family members. The goal of the current article is to conduct a systematic review of the literature and to summarize the findings.

Method Search Methodology We searched the following seven electronic databases for relevant research articles: PsycINFO database, Sociological Abstracts, Social Sciences Abstracts, Violence and Abuse Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center database, and Family and Society Studies Worldwide database. The following search terms were used: survivor/survivors, co-victim/co-victims, parent/parents, parental, family, family members, familial, relative/relatives, sibling/siblings, child/children, offspring, grief, grieving, reaction, response, homicide, murder, killing, psych, ill/illness, disorder, counseling, treatment, and therapy. This search strategy yielded a total of 6,575 articles.

1

York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author: Jennifer Connolly, York University, 5022 TEL Building, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from tva.sagepub.com by guest on November 15, 2015

Connolly and Gordon

495

Table 1. Themes and Subthemes of Articles Included in Review. Theme 1: Effects of homicide on family members (19 Articles) Subtheme: Psychological effects (10 Articles) Authors

Year

Sample

Methodology

Content

Asaro, Clements, Henry, and McDonald Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, Smith, and Veronen Beaton, Braun, Cain, Johnson, Murphy, and Tiliery Charmaine and Mahoney

2005

Interview Questionnaire

Behavioral changes in children and adolescents Anxiety, depression, and PTSD

Questionnaire

Anxiety, depression, and PTSD

2004

Interview


McCreery and Rynearson

1993

Interview


Norris, Ruback, and Thompson

1998

Interview


MacVane, Miranda, and Molina

2003

Case review


Friedman, Getzel, and Masters

1988

Interview

Gross

2007

Miller

2009a

Unspecified sample United States 13 Parents and 5 siblings United States 271 Parents United States 3 Girls and 2 boys Jamaica 18 Families United States 150 Family members United States Unspecified sample United States Unspecified sample United States Unspecified sample United States Unspecified sample United States

Emotional reactions: rage, guilt, and blame Emotional reactions: rage, guilt, and blame Loss of confidence, fearfulness, and changed worldviews

1989 1999

Unstructured observation Case review

Subtheme: Academic effects (3 Articles) Burgess and Clements

2002

Clements and Vigil

2003

Chery, Feldman Hertz, and 2005 Prothow-Stith Subtheme: Social effects (2 Articles) Klass and Peach

1987

Rinear

1988

13 Children United States Unspecified sample United States Unspecified sample United States

Interview

Humiliation when facing classmates

Unstructured observation Case review

Avoiding school or difficulty completing school work Difficulty completing school work

Unspecified sample United States 331 Parents United States

Participant observation Questionnaire

Social alienation/social taboo role Social alienation

Subtheme: Occupational effects (3 Articles) Buzzi and DeYoung

2003

4 Children United States

Interview

Interviews

Difficulty returning to work, may quit job, or be dismissed for absenteeism Survivors may quit job or be dismissed, while others may obtain new employment Employment challenges

Evans, Hobdell, and Mezey

2002

Questionnaire

Malone

2007

35 Family member (6 spouses; 20 parents; 9 children) United States 41 Family members United Kingdom

Case study

Changing family roles

Interviews

Postponement of grieving process

Interviews

Postponement of grieving process

Subtheme: Familial effects (1 Article) Persons

1990

Unspecified sample United States

Theme #2: Grief experienced by family members (13 Articles) Subtheme: Processes of grieving (2 Articles) Dawson and Riches

1998

Englebrecht

2011

5 Family relatives United Kingdom 4 Criminal justice officials/advocates and 28 family members United States

(continued)


496

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 16(4)

Table 1. (continued) Subtheme: Impact of the CJS (5 Articles) Adkins

2003

Beard and Kashka

1999

Dannemiller

2002

Norris, Ruback, and Thompson

1996

King

2004

7 Parent units United States 2 Parent units United States 3 Fathers and 8 mothers United States 150 Family members United States

Unstructured observation Case review Interview Interview

17 Family members United States

Interview

Survivors received insufficient information from CJS Insensitive treatment of survivors through CJS Survivors received insufficient information from CJS Insensitive treatment of survivors through CJS; insensitive media coverage Survivors received insufficient information from CJS; insensitive media coverage

Subtheme: Coping strategies (6 Articles) Boyas and Sharpe

2011


Interviews

Burke, McDevitt-Murphy, and Neimeyer

2010

Interviews

Sharpe

2008

Moss and Raz

2001

Nzewi Parappully, Rosenbaum, and Van Den Daele Thompson and Vardaman

2002

48 Parents; 7 siblings; 7 children; and 5 spouses United States 2 Siblings and 2 children, United States 12 Surviving siblings Israel 16 Parents (13 women and 3 men) United States 150 Family members (parents, siblings, and spouses) United States

1997

Interviews

Personal supports; formal supports of health agencies and community organizations Formal supports

Formal and informal supports (family, extended kin, and friends) Religious supports

Unstructured observation Interview

Religious supports

Interview

Religious supports

Unstructured observation

Treatment goal: survivors advocate for themselves in CJS

Case review

Treatment goal: reduce marginalization survivors experience Treatment goal: educate survivors on CJS; coping with loss

Theme #3: Treatment interventions (8 Articles) Subtheme: Psychoeducation support group (3 Articles) Blakley and Mehr

2008

Levy and Wall

1996

Lexius, Lyon, and Moore

1992

6 Community support adult group members United States 5 Families with children United States Unspecified sample United States

Interview/ unstructured observation

Subtheme: Family therapy (5 Articles) Armour

2003


Interview

Hatton

2003

Survey

Horne

2003

116 Care providers (social workers, counselors, psychologists, clergy, help group members, and victim advocates) United States 112 Families United States

Miller

2009b Unspecified sample United States

Unstructured observation

Temple

1997

Case review

5 Families United States

Case review

Note. CJS ¼ criminal justice system; CT ¼ contextual therapy. Downloaded from tva.sagepub.com by guest on November 15, 2015

Existential empowerment family therapy focus: encourage survivors to engage in activities to find meaning in lives Family therapy focus: treatment of choice for family homicide survivors; engage in meaningful activities Family therapy focus: considered to be helpful after initial crisis period; treatment timing is important CT focus: encourages survivors seeking legal/medical services; reorganize family roles CT focus: creates future plans; preserves victim’s memory

Connolly and Gordon

497

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria We applied the following inclusion criteria to the articles obtained from the literature search: The article was published from the beginning of the year 1985 to the year 2012, inclusive; the death of the family member was the result of a murder; and the article referred to the homicide survivor as a family member. Publication in English was initially an inclusion criterion; however, no articles in a language other than English were identified. Articles were also excluded if death occurred as a result of a suicide, motor vehicle accident, or fatal incident other than murder.

Review Methodology Forty articles met the study inclusion criteria. The majority of the articles reported research conducted in the United States; one article reported research conducted in Jamaica, two articles reported research conducted in the United Kingdom, and one article reported research conducted in Israel. The sample countries are listed in Table 1. To conduct the review, the two coauthors undertook a content analysis of each article in which we identified, coded, and categorized the themes and subthemes expressed in the results reported by the authors (Mayan, 2001). Since we did not have categories determined a priori, we used an inductive process in which we reviewed findings from the articles and arrived at a consensus opinion about the themes and subthemes. First, a detailed review of each article was undertaken with the goal of identifying words and phrases that best characterized the findings. Second, similar words and phrases that appeared across articles were noted in order to identify common findings, defined as occurring in a minimum of five articles. We repeated this procedure 3 times to ensure completeness of the analysis. The following 10 subthemes were identified: psychological effects, academic effects, social effects, occupational effects, familial effects, survivors’ grieving processes, the impact of the CJS on grieving, coping strategies, survivor support groups, and survivor family therapies. Finally, the authors searched for consistencies in the subthemes to determine higher order themes. The subthemes of psychological, academic, social, occupational, and familial effects were grouped under the theme ‘‘effects of homicide on family members’’ with 19 articles assigned to it. The subthemes of grieving processes, impact of CJS on survivors’ grieving, and coping strategies were grouped under the theme of ‘‘grief experienced by family member survivors’’ with 13 articles assigned to it. The subthemes of survivor support groups and survivor family therapy were grouped in the theme of ‘‘treatment interventions’’ comprising eight articles. The articles are shown in Table 1, grouped according to the themes and subthemes to which they belong. On occasion, articles could have been assigned to more than one subtheme or theme. In those cases, the article was assigned to the category that represented the predominant and best supported findings. To determine coder interreliability, a research assistant, who was not familiar with the goals of the project, independently coded the set of 40 articles. Following training, the research assistant read

the articles thoroughly and assigned them to 1 of the 10 subthemes and 1 of the 3 themes. The coder interreliability agreement between the original codes and those subsequently obtained were 70% and 80%, respectively. Disagreements were noted for seven articles, and these were resolved by consensus discussion, with final assignment reflecting the determination of the senior author.

Findings Theme #1: Effects of Homicide on Family Member Survivors Within the theme of effects of homicide on family member survivors, the most common subtheme, with 10 articles, was psychological effects, which especially focused on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Other psychological effects noted in the studies were behavioral changes in children and adolescents, emotional reactions such as rage, guilt, and blame, and cognitive effects such as loss of confidence in society, increased fearfulness, and changes in worldview. Additional subthemes within the theme of effects of homicide were academic effects (three articles), social effects (two articles), occupational effects (three articles), and familial effects (one article). The articles within themes and subthemes are shown in Table 1.

Subtheme: Psychological Effects Anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Distress is ubiquitous among family homicide survivors. A study conducted by Norris, Ruback, and Thompson (1998) focused on general symptoms of distress and found that 26% of the family member homicide survivors in their sample could be deemed clinically distressed on measures of depression, aggression, anxiety, and somatization. Six studies indicate that family member survivors are very likely to suffer from symptoms of PTSD (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, Smith, & Veronen, 1989; Asaro, Clements, Henry & McDonald, 2005; Burke, McDevitt-Murphy, & Neimeyer, 2010; Chery, Feldman Hertz, & Prothrow-Stith, 2005; Clements & Vigil, 2003). For example, the study conducted by Chery, Feldman Hertz, and Prothrow-Stith (2005) revealed that 50% of the family member homicide survivors in their sample showed symptoms of PTSD and 23% developed the full disorder. The following outlines the most commonly reported symptoms of PTSD. Family survivors frequently reexperience the homicide. For example, they may have recurring dreams about the homicide (McCreery, & Rynearson, 1993), in which the victim was saved or dreams that concentrated on a painful part of the homicide (Miller, 2009a). When a child is the homicide victim, family members, and especially parents, may have repetitive thoughts about the homicide, including worries about how much pain the child had endured when he or she was murdered. Survivors also report that they suffer from ‘‘emotional anesthesia,’’ where they felt incapable of feeling any kind of emotion, including love for the lost child or family member


498


(Rinear, 1988). Family co-victims can also suffer memory loss, attentional problems, or sleep problems (Charmaine & Mahoney, 2004; Rinear, 1988). Finally, they can show decreased interest in important activities in their lives and avoid situations that remind them of the homicide and of the deceased family member (Chery et al., 2005). PTSD can influence how children and adolescents develop, as it can alter their understanding of the consequences of their behavior, their moral reasoning, and their desire to have a stable family life (Clements & Vigil, 2003). Among children, frequent discussion of the homicide and attempts to reenact it were commonly reported behaviors that are symptomatic of PTSD (Charmaine & Mahoney, 2004). Behavioral changes in children and adolescents. Children and adolescents who have lost a family member to homicide can manifest their distress through both externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Externalizing behaviors are expressions of maladaptation directed outward toward others. Three studies (Asaro et al., 2005; Burgess & Clements, 2002; Chery et al., 2005) reported that when children and adolescents are grieving, they might have angry outbursts and become agitated or aggressive with others. At the same time, children can also exhibit internalizing symptoms, such as feelings of sadness or social withdrawal, which could result in the children’s emotional distancing from others and a reduction in their involvement in previously enjoyed activities (Chery et al., 2005). These behavioral changes can manifest differently across age. Infants and toddlers between the ages of 1 and 3 years do not understand what death is, but still strongly sense the absence of the deceased parent (Miller, 2009a). Preschoolers between the ages of 3 and 4 years may become reserved, combative, or anxious; have nightmares or difficulty focusing; and may easily become upset if their day-to-day schedule is altered (Levy & Wall, 1996). Children between the ages of 4 and 7 years understand that death means the person is gone, but they may still believe that the deceased individual will return. Because of this, they may distract themselves from the homicide, refusing to accept that the murder has occurred and, appearing to be untroubled by the death. They may also engage in ‘repetitive play’ sequences during which they reenact the homicide (Miller, 2009a). Older children, between the ages of 8 and 12 years, might use involvement with friends, school, and extracurricular activities to create a barrier, so they can control the pain that they feel about the murder. Children of this age can experience a range of emotions. For example, they may feel humiliated when they cannot avoid remarks that their classmates or neighbors make about their family member’s murder, and they may fear that another family member or themselves will be murdered (Burgess & Clements, 2002). Children in this age-group know that death is permanent and that the deceased family member will not return (Clements & Vigil, 2003). They may erroneously believe that a behavior or action they engaged in led to the murder (Levy & Wall, 1996) or they may objectify death as the ‘‘boogey man’’ or as the living form of a person they remember from a frightening movie (Miller,

2009a). Between the ages of 12 and 13 years, adolescents are similar to adults in their understanding of death and they can grasp that it is universal. During these years, however, it is not uncommon for adolescents who have experienced the homicide of a family member to become obsessed with their own mortality, and they may behave in a dangerous manner or engage in risky acts more frequently than their peers who have not experienced the murder of a family member (Miller, 2009a). Emotional reactions: Rage, guilt, and blame. Family homicide survivors were reported by two articles to be likely to experience intense feelings of rage, guilt, and blame after a family member was murdered (Evans, Hobdell, & Mezey, 2002; Friedman, Getzel, & Masters, 1988; Miller, 2009a). In a study conducted by Evans, Hobdell, and Mezey (2002), 66% of family members of a murder victim said that after the murder occurred, they were angrier people than they had been before the murder occurred. Fifty percent said they were more verbally hostile, and 7% said they were more physically assertive. The rage survivors felt could at times be translated into ‘‘fantasies of revenge’’ in which they imagined avenging themselves on the murderer (Gross, 2007; Klass & Peach, 1987). Survivors were frequently angry with the murderer and might also have experienced anger at society or at family members who had not kept the victim safe from harm. These hostile feelings do not always surface, as survivors may displace their anger and blame other individuals for the death (Friedman et al., 1988). For example, parents may have blamed employers who were unsuccessful in supplying sufficient protection in the workplace, law enforcement employees such as prison guards who were unsuccessful in ensuring that prisoners did not escape, legislators who advocated for liberal gun laws, or individuals who involved their child in a risky activity such as selling illegal drugs (Rinear, 1988). Alternatively, family homicide survivors sometimes transform their anger into guilt about the murder and blame themselves for the death. Self-blame can result in self-criticism and lead parents to become overprotective of surviving children (Rinear, 1988). Survivors frequently suffered from ‘‘survivor guilt’’ if they had witnessed the murder but had not been physically harmed themselves (Gross, 2007). For example, family members may feel guilty for not cautioning or safeguarding the victim, for not helping the victim earlier, or for not predicting that the murder was going to occur. They could also believe that they unintentionally encouraged the victim to engage in a risky activity, which led to his or her death (Friedman et al., 1988). Cognitive effects: Loss of confidence, fearfulness and changed worldviews. Family homicide survivors frequently suffer from negative cognitions. After a homicide has occurred, family member survivors’ confidence in society frequently declines because they come to believe that society had not protected the victim from harm. This lack of confidence could result in parent survivors fearing that further traumatic events would occur to their surviving children (Beard & Kashka, 1999). Two


Connolly and Gordon

499

articles outline that numerous parents also feared for their own safety (Klass & Peach, 1987). Like adults, children and adolescents might be afraid that they or another family member would be murdered (Clements & Vigil, 2003). Second, after a family member was murdered, family survivors’ worldview was reported to change drastically, along with their assumptions of a stable world order. These assumptions were altered because the loss of a family member to homicide contradicted peoples’ assumptions about a world in which they felt secure. Before a homicide occurred, family members believed they were not vulnerable to such a tragedy (Miller, 2009a). After a murder has occurred, family members lose their sense of invulnerability, and this leads them to alter their dayto-day routines. The survivors in Miller’s sample said they avoided leaving the house when it was dark, avoided specific places, took possession of weapons, or bought vehicle or house alarms. Explaining these actions, Rinear (1988) stated that parents of a murdered child had realized that they could not always keep their family safe, so they may have engaged in protective actions to reduce the risk of another homicide occurring. In addition, Miller (2009a) stated that people normally assume that the world is orderly and meaningful. After a homicide, family members lose this assumption and instead view the world as cruel and lacking in compassion (King, 2004). In the study reported by Clements and Vigil (2003), the violent nature of murder contradicted children’s understanding of their family as a safe haven and of their environment as permanent. Overall, while individuals usually viewed themselves in a positive light, this opinion was quickly dismantled after a family member was murdered (Miller, 2009a).

Subthemes: Academic, Social, Occupational, and Familial Effects Three studies have reported adverse effects on children’s academic and school performance. For example, after a family member’s homicide, children often had a form of cognitive disturbance, including diminished ability to focus on their school work or retain the information taught in class. These cognitive problems had an impact on children’s school achievement (Miller 2009a). They also had difficulty completing school assignments or avoided school altogether (Clements & Vigil, 2003). In turn, children’s school grades frequently dropped in the aftermath of a family homicide (Charmaine & Mahoney, 2004). Adolescents experienced significant problems, as the murder led them to fear being murdered themselves. It also led them to feel that there was little reason to remain in school or to plan for the future (Miller, 2009a). Significant changes in how family survivors socialized after a homicide were described in two studies. Some family homicide co-victims reported that the murder had alienated them from colleagues and friends (Rinear, 1988) and their social support decreased in response to the stigma of murder. Similar to this, parent survivors reported they felt the need to adjust to their new role as the parent of a murdered child, a status that society views negatively (Klass & Peach, 1987).

The socialization of child survivors is also negatively affected (Chery et al., 2005). For example, the study conducted by Charmaine and Mahoney (2004) reported that children withdrew from their classmates or experienced rejection from their classmates following the murder. In addition to social disruptions, family survivors’ occupational adjustment declines when they were mourning the murder of a family member, which was described in three studies. For example, Buzzi and DeYoung (2003) reported that the majority of the parents in their study found it hard to return to work after their child was murdered. More troubling, family survivors sometimes quit their jobs or were dismissed from them for absenteeism from work. Evans et al. (2002) reported that after a homicide, 27% of family members terminated their employment, either voluntarily or through dismissal, while 6% of them subsequently obtained new employment. Last, everyday functioning of families changes after their loved one was murdered, which is outlined in two studies. Families might reorganize themselves by modifying the day-to-day roles and responsibilities of each family member or by changing the ways in which they communicate with each other (Levy & Wall, 1996). There were also new demands placed on the family. In the short term, these included organizing the victim’s funeral, communicating with criminal justice personnel, and making decisions about legal issues. In the longer term, these demands included making new child care arrangements and meeting employment challenges (Malone, 2007). In addition, numerous families incurred financial burdens such as funeral fees, lawyers’ and investigation expenses, and travel and hotel expenses while attending criminal justice proceedings. Families consistently worried about their ability to cope financially with a decreased budget, especially if the deceased was the primary breadwinner. Furthermore, survivors sometimes encountered further financial frustrations when they tried to obtain loans to cover the costs of filing criminal injuries compensation claims or benefits claims (Malone, 2007). Persons (1990) summarized these findings by stating that the tragic loss caused by the homicide of a family member and its familial consequences were all-encompassing and touched every aspect of the family’s life.

Theme #2: Grief Experienced by Family Member Survivors Within the theme of grief experienced by family member survivors, the following three subthemes were identified: processes of grieving, the impact of the CJS on the way family member survivors grieve, and the coping strategies covictims used to deal with grief.

Subtheme: Processes of Grieving Two articles have reported adverse effects of homicide on survivors’ grieving processes. In his study of co-victims, Malone (2007) stated that the grief processes survivors experienced after homicide did not always conform to the stages of


500


mourning, the duration, or the intensity typically seen following a nonviolent death. This was due to the tragic nature of the death, further complicated by survivors’ concerns that they must conceal their grief so they could take care of monetary and legal issues after the homicide (Malone, 2007). For example, unlike those mourning a nonviolent death, the majority of homicide survivors had difficulty resolving their grief because their mourning processes were restricted or obstructed by homicide-related events such as criminal justice proceedings. As a consequence, postponement of grief occurred such that the survivors’ ability to mourn was delayed until the criminal investigation of the homicide was completed (Dawson & Riches, 1998).

Subtheme: Effects of the CJS on Family Survivor Grief Five studies outlined common experiences with the CJS that negatively impacted the way families grieved after the murder of a loved one. These included: difficulty accessing information about their case, insensitive treatment, unfairness of the CJS, and negative media reporting of the case. First, numerous family member co-victims reported that they were not provided with adequate information about criminal court processes and so they were frequently unable to retrieve the details of their loved one’s case and its progress. For example, in a study of child homicide victims, the majority of parents stated that they were kept waiting for a long period of time before they were informed of the details of their child’s case. This exacerbated their grief since their ability to mourn was delayed until the circumstances surrounding their child’s death were made clear to them (Dawson & Riches, 1998). Homicide survivors also complained that police frequently gave untruthful answers and insufficient information about the deceased’s case and that their phone calls were not always returned by the police (King, 2004). In addition, families were sometimes not told about parole hearings (Rinear, 1998) or were not notified when the accused’s charges were reduced. According to Dannemiller (2002), financial resources affected the amount of information provided to families, such that financially unstable families were least able to obtain information about their loved one’s case. Two studies indicated that family homicide survivors often felt that criminal justice personnel treated them insensitively (Norris, Ruback, & Thompson, 1996). For example, a large number of parent survivors stated that criminal justice authorities were not supportive when they were identifying their child’s body (Beard & Kashka, 1999). In other cases, police would not allow parents to come into physical contact with their child’s body since they needed to preserve the crime scene, which led to parents suffering grief postponement (Dawson & Riches, 1998). Finally, the majority of criminal proceedings took a long period of time, so the return of the deceased’s belongings to family survivors was frequently excessively delayed, a factor that increased the complications of grieving (Rinear, 1988).

Family members were generally dissatisfied with the CJS and, in particular, with the manner in which the perpetrator was punished. The perception among family survivors was frequently that the perpetrator was not given a fair sentence but rather a lighter sentence than deserved (Clements & Vigil, 2003). As reported in one study, numerous surviving family members felt that the CJS is designed to assist the criminal and not the survivors (Adkins, 2003). They also felt that the CJS is structured to preserve the accused’s rights, while families felt as though they had none (Klass & Peach, 1987). Families voiced that they felt powerless when the accused did not receive what they viewed as a just sentence and this increased feelings of depression and anxiety (Englebrecht, 2011). Norris et al. (1996) found that 79% of family survivors thought the sentence given to the perpetrator was not as harsh as it should have been. Family members felt ‘‘revictimized’’ when plea bargaining allowed the accused to receive a charge less severe than that of first-degree murder (Beard & Kashka, 1999) or when successful appeals resulted in a second trial (Klass & Peach, 1987). Finally, two studies indicated that highly graphic media coverage of the victim’s death and trial negatively affected the family’s ability to grieve. Insensitive media coverage could hinder survivors’ ability to grieve normally (Dawson & Riches, 1998), because sensational reporting may make the details of the homicide seem worse than they really were or, alternatively, give a negative portrait of the deceased family member (Adkins, 2003). For example, the media might have depicted a murder victim as having played a role in his or her own death or might have questioned the victim’s moral fiber (Dawson & Riches, 1998). The media might have publicized the case without first notifying family members of their intention to do so. Adding to the family’s distress, sometimes the media continued to provide footage of the crime site or of the deceased’s cadaver and focused more heavily on the ‘‘sensational’’ aspects of the homicide (Rinear, 1988). All these media tactics served to further sensationalize the victim’s case, so survivors were less able to shift their focus from the events surrounding the murder to more pleasant recollections of the loved one’s life (Dawson & Riches, 1998).

Subtheme: Family Survivors’ Coping Strategies for Dealing with Grief Six studies indicated that family homicide survivors coped with their grief in myriad ways. The articles broadly delineated three strategies, namely, personal problem solving, accessing social support, and accessing religion. Numerous family survivors reported that they developed personally focused strategies to cope with their loss. These strategies were attempts to modify their emotions such as trying to forgive the accused, recognizing that suffering and emotional pain are an acceptable response to the homicide, and striving to find personal significance in their loss. They also used more action-based strategies such as participating in advocacy initiatives, refraining from alcohol or other substances, and preserving familial and marital


Connolly and Gordon

501

relationships (Buzzi & DeYoung, 2003). The actions that homicide survivors reported to be most helpful included being tolerant of others, listening to family members, and providing emotional support to those around them. Utilizing available support systems also helped survivors cope with their grief. A survey study conducted by Sharpe (2008) found that family survivors’ primary support systems were informal ones such as close family or extended kin and friends. To a lesser extent, family member survivors made use of the more formal supports supplied by mental health agencies or community service organizations (Boyas & Sharpe, 2011; Sharpe, 2008). Burke, McDevitt-Murphy, and Neimeyer (2010) found that homicide family survivors who had larger and more varied social support networks received higher quality support than survivors with limited support networks. Three of the six coping strategy studies outline that the majority of family member homicide survivors reported the positive impact of religious and spiritual beliefs. Thompson and Vardaman (1997) found that tapping into spiritual beliefs and rituals was widespread among family homicide survivors. The family members in their sample of homicide survivors typically increased their participation in spiritual activities and accessed multiple forms of religious support. Spiritual engagement allowed survivors to focus on a higher being and this helped them deal with their loss. Faith-based organizations also provided social support from both church members and clergy (Thompson & Vardaman, 1997). Family survivors reported that they used religion to help them better understand their loss (Moss & Raz, 2001). Nzewi, Parappully, Rosenbaum, and Van den Daele (2002) found that parent survivors stated that religion helped them understand their child’s murder and helped them overcome their loss through a belief in a ‘‘life after death,’’ in which they might be reunited with the victim.

Theme #3: Treatment Interventions The eight articles containing findings about interventions found that the two following modes of treatment are commonly offered to family homicide survivors: survivor support groups and survivor family therapy. There was variability within each of these intervention approaches, as described in the following sections.

Survivor Support Groups Three studies indicate that family homicide survivors used psychoeducation support groups, which are led by a counselor with prior experience working with bereaved families and the group members have all experienced the loss of a family member to murder. The groups are focused on educating family homicide survivors about the CJS, the impact of violent crime on mourning, and ways of coping with the tragedy (Lexius, Lyon, & Moore, 1992). Psychoeducation groups also teach survivors about the importance of self-care while they are mourning their loss (Blakley & Mehr, 2008). In addition to education, homicide survivors are encouraged to share with group members

how their loss has affected them, what support systems they have, and what their needs and future goals are (Lexius et al., 1992). Support workers believe that this sharing of personal narratives helps survivors move forward with their lives (Blakley & Mehr, 2008). Discussing the homicide with others who have endured a similar tragedy allows survivors to communicate their experiences to persons who can appreciate the significance of their loss (Levy & Wall, 1996). In general, the aim of a structured time-limited group is to reduce the marginalization family homicide survivors feel and to assist them in gaining a sense of control over their day-to-day lives (Lexius et al., 1992). Psychoeducation groups are time limited and are structured to convey information and support within a relatively short time frame between 6 and 12 weeks. As a follow-up, selfhelp support groups are frequently offered to family homicide survivors after they have participated in a time-limited group. Self-help support groups provide continued informal support and education as well as opportunities for engaging in advocacy work that may focus on creating changes in legislation (Lexius et al., 1992). Survivors are also encouraged to advocate for themselves and their families in the CJS (Blakley & Mehr, 2008). Self-help groups, being informal and member managed, may continue for indefinite periods of time. They are beneficial for homicide survivors as they give them opportunities to continually connect with other homicide survivors, and they aid in building supportive networks of concerned individuals.

Survivor Family Therapy Five studies indicated that family therapy is frequently used by family homicide survivors. Hatton (2003) suggests that family therapy is the treatment of choice for family homicide survivors. As discussed above, the murder of a family member has deep and wide-reaching effects on all surviving members. Therapy directed at the family unit is essential for rebuilding its relationships and strengthening its capacity to carry on after the tragedy (MacVane et al., 2003). Two types of family therapies are discussed in the articles reviewed. Contextual therapy (CT). This approach to family therapy concentrates on recognizing the injustices that family homicide survivors have endured and the loyalties that exist among family members as they attempt to honor the memory of the deceased. After a murder, families must deal with the sense of betrayal inherent in the act of moving on to live their lives without the deceased victim. Families are encouraged to develop new ways of expressing their loyalty to the victim and to embrace new loyalties for the living members of their family. They are also encouraged to create plans for the future while also preserving the victim’s memory (Temple, 1997). CT promotes reparation in families by encouraging family members to seek out legal or medical services (Temple, 1997) and by reorganizing their roles in the family (Miller, 2009b). CT is beneficial for family homicide survivors since it helps them gain a balance between the past, by remembering


502


the victim; the present, by reorganizing how their families should function; and the future, by creating long-term plans (Temple, 1997). Existential empowerment family therapy. This mode of family intervention encourages family homicide survivors to engage in activities, which help them find new meaning in their lives (Armour, 2003). For example, survivors are encouraged to create narratives about the homicide that they view as true regardless of the CJS proceedings taking place. They are permitted to hold people accountable for treating them poorly and they are encouraged to think of ways to rectify societal wrongs they have experienced. Survivors are also led to a new understanding of how to live with purpose and to assist other homicide covictims (Miller, 2009b). This therapy is beneficial for family co-victims because it validates the fact that every survivor mourns differently and helps them convert their anger into feelings that encourage growth (MacVane et al., 2003). Timing of treatment is important and this form of family therapy is considered to be especially helpful after the initial crisis period has passed (Horne, 2003).

Discussion The goal of this systematic review was to summarize the published evidence on the impact of the homicide of a family member on those family members who survive. Overall, three domains have received research attention: psychological, academic, social, occupational, and familial effects; grieving processes; and, including impact of CJS on survivors’ grieving and coping strategies; and treatment options. Despite certain limitations, the current research findings can provide direction for public policy and clinical practice.

Major Findings Most consistent across all studies was the wide-reaching and negative effects of homicide on surviving family members. These effects touched most dimensions of individuals’ lives including psychological, academic, social, vocational, and familial adjustment. Indeed, there was the potential for every aspect of a survivor’s life to be negatively affected, both in the short term and in the long term, by the homicide of a family member. Second, homicide altered the normal pattern of grief for family survivors. Both postponed grief and a lack of grief resolution commonly occurred, very frequently as the result of involvement with the CJS which restricts or delays survivors’ mourning. A lack of sensitivity to the grieving family at the time of the murder, a lack of sufficient information about the case being provided as well as the prolonged nature of criminal investigations were implicated. Third, family survivors drew on a variety of coping strategies to deal with their grief and frequently became resilient in the face of such tragedy. Of particular importance were strategies that increased personal coping by building support

networks and connecting to spiritual beliefs or religious institutions. The use of spirituality as a coping response was widespread among family homicide survivors and a large number of survivors used religion to help them come to terms with their loss. Finally, treatment interventions have been developed to meet the needs of family homicide survivors. Psychoeducation survivor support groups, both formal and informal, were offered to family survivors. Providing information and support to group members, psychoeducation survivor support groups helped family members cope with the stress and turmoil of the tragedy. Survivor family therapy was also available and considered the treatment of choice for families who had lost a loved one to homicide. CT and existential empowerment family therapy were described in the literature as modes of treatment that encourage homicide survivors to find in their loss a sense of meaning and to build a new future for themselves without the victim.

Limitations This literature review is the first we know of to systematically summarize research findings on co-victims of homicide. Nonetheless, several limitations should be noted. Although research is emerging on this important topic, the total number of articles available for review is not large. This means that numerous issues are touched on only briefly and coverage of a variety of issues pertaining to co-victims is not extensive. Adding to this limitation, the majority of the studies in the review had small samples of convenience and so the findings may not be representative of the larger population of family homicide survivors. The majority of studies included samples of family members who lived in the United States, so the findings may not be representative of the population of family survivors who live outside the United States. In addition, the studies did not explore whether culture, religion, gender, or socioeconomic status altered the impact of a homicide, although these factors are known to influence adjustment in other domains. Furthermore, the articles included in this review are limited to the traditional definition of family, which do not encompass other types of nontraditional family members, such as close family friends, schoolmates, or neighbors. Finally, the design of the studies reviewed in this article is an important limitation. As the studies were not longitudinal, family recovery over an extended period of time cannot be addressed at this time by this review. In addition to concerns about the extant research, limitations of the systematic review itself can be noted. First, the studies varied considerably in their methodologies for assessing the impact of the homicide. However, there were too few studies of each methodology to determine whether this influenced the findings. Second, the studies examined family members including parents, children, siblings, and grandparents, but there was no distinction made between the effects of the homicide on these different individuals. Third, a small number of studies were not included in this review because they did not


Connolly and Gordon

503

differentiate the cause of death as being suicide, motor vehicle accident, or homicide. Finally, the findings of the review are limited by the questions addressed by the researchers. Thus, a variety of important issues in understanding the impact of a homicide on family survivors cannot be determined at this time.

Implications for Research A national survey should be conducted to determine the number of family members nationally who are affected annually by the homicide of a family member. Such information would assist in establishing baseline information and calling attention to the concerns of co-victims. Second, future research on the effects of homicide on family survivors should begin to differentiate individuals on the basis of culture, race, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, and country of origin. Third, the majority of the samples used in the studies are from the United States, so there is a need to understand how family members from outside the United States experience homicide survivorship. In addition, longitudinal studies need to be conducted to determine the long-term effects of homicide on family member survivors. These studies can help determine what factors affect survivors’ healing processes and the impact that homicide has on survivors, years after the murder has occurred. Fourth, future research should focus on examining the effects of homicide on individuals in same-sex families as well as those individuals who do not fall under the traditional definition of ‘‘family,’’ such as, children’s schoolmates, close friends, and neighbors. These studies can help determine whether there is a distinction between the effects of the homicide on these different groups of individuals. Finally, understanding the effects of homicide on family survivors would be enhanced by indepth studies on how relationships between family members and within marriages change after a relative is murdered. Survivors’ work performance and their relationships with colleagues and managers also need to be explored.

Implications for Policy Based on this systematic review of the literature, the development of a number of policies would prove beneficial. School policies should be implemented that place an emphasis on training teachers, guidance counselors, and principals on how to sensitively support students who are mourning the homicide of a family member. Workplace policies should be implemented that focus on training employers how to effectively support employees who are in mourning. In addition, survivors should be provided with information on survivor support resources, court-based victim services, and homicide-survivor organizations.

Implications for Practice Examining the literature leads to the following practical recommendations. First, after-school programs should be

implemented to ensure that child and adolescent survivors’ academic progress is monitored and that they are provided with extra academic assistance if needed. Second, police colleges and the CJS should consider implementing programs that train police, law enforcement officers, and criminal justice personnel on how to appropriately deal with homicide cases and interact with families connected to the case. For example, police should be trained to contact the victim’s family if there is any progress with the case and provide accurate case information. In turn, this may decrease the likelihood of homicide survivors experiencing grief-resolution problems. This proposal highlights the need for change in criminal justice procedures related to homicide cases and the ways in which criminal justice employees interact with family homicide survivors. Lastly, interventions need to be created that are culturally, socially, and religiously sensitive, so that the needs of homicide survivors from diverse backgrounds are adequately addressed.

Conclusion Although specific numbers are not available, we know that there are numerous surviving family members of homicide whose plight is not always acknowledged. Research provides the evidence for developing sound policy and effective treatment interventions. It can also bring to public attention the needs of family homicide survivors and the support that can assist them in recovering from the horrific loss they have experienced. It is our hope that this literature review will form the basis for future research and encourage researchers to continue investigating the traumatic effects of homicide on surviving family members.

Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice Research Implications 1. A national survey should be conducted to determine the number of family members nationally who are affected by the homicide of a family member. 2. Culture, race, religion, gender, and socioeconomic status of surviving family members need to be considered in relation to the impact of homicide. 3. Research should examine the effects of homicide on nontraditional families and extended family contacts. 4. Further research is needed on altered relationships between family members, within marriages and with work colleagues. 5. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine the longterm effects of homicide on family members and to elucidate factors that influence the healing processes. 6. Numerous researchers do not differentiate between losing a family member to homicide, suicide, or a car accident. These co-victims should be separated to assess unique effects.


504


Policy Implications 1. Schools should implement policies to respond to a student who are mourning a family loss. 2. Workplace policies that provide employers with guidance on supporting a family co-victim should be developed.

Practice Implications 1. After-school programs should monitor child and adolescent survivors to ensure academic progress is not impaired and provide extra academic help if needed. 2. Police colleges should train police, law enforcement officers, and criminal justice personnel on procedures that reduce the negative impact on family members. 3. Treatment interventions that are culturally, socially, and religiously sensitive should be developed to meet the needs of homicide survivors from diverse backgrounds. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Canadian Crime Victims Foundation.

References Adkins, E. (2003). The first day of the rest of their lives. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services, 41, 28–32. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku. ca/docview/225544212/fulltext/1335BFDA67E68976E04/13? accountid¼15182 Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D. G., Smith, S., & Veronen, L. J. (1989). Family survivors of homicide victims: Theoretical perspectives and an exploratory study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2, 21–35. doi: 10.1002/jts.2490020104 Armour, M. (2003). Meaning making in the aftermath of homicide. Death Studies, 27, 519–540. doi: 10.1080/07481180302884 Asaro, M. R., Clements, P. T., Henry, T., & McDonald, G. (2005). Assessment and intervention with youth exposed to sexual homicide of a family member. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5, 300–309. doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhi022 Beard, M. T., & Kashka, M. S. (1999). The grief of parents of murdered children: A suggested model for intervention. Holistic Nursing Practice, 14, 22–36. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?v id¼3&hid¼11&sid¼43c35d53-ec72-40f3-885f-088b540fbcd9% 40sessionmgr11 Beaton, R. D., Braun, T., Cain, K. C., Johnson, L. C., Murphy, S. A., & Tiliery, L. (1999). PTSD among bereaved parents following the violent deaths of their 12- to 28-year-old children: A longitudinal prospective analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 273–291. doi:10.1023/A:1024724425597

Blakley, T. L., & Mehr, N. (2008). Common ground: The development of a support group for survivors of homicide loss in a rural community. Social Work with Groups, 31, 239–254. doi:10.1080/ 01609510801980971 Boyas, J., & Sharpe, T. L. (2011). We fall down: The African American experience of coping with the homicide of a loved one. Journal of Black Studies, 42, 855–873. doi:10.1177/00219347103 77613 Burgess, A. W., & Clements, P. T. (2002). Children’s responses to family member homicide. Family & Community Health, 25, 32–42. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library. yorku.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid¼3&hid¼11&sid¼19169 445-b4ba-4d3c-b8f7-07460c50e795%40sessionmgr10 Burke, L. A., McDevitt-Murphy, M. E., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2010). African American homicide bereavement: Aspects of social support that predict complicated grief, PTSD, and depression. Journal of Death and Dying, 61, 1–24. doi:10. 2190/OM.61.1.a Buzzi, B., & DeYoung, R. (2003). Ultimate coping strategies: The differences among parents of murdered or abducted, long-term missing children. Journal of Death and Dying, 47, 343–360. doi:10. 2190/qytt-gc1x-mnlx-6wlu Charmaine, P. C., & Mahoney, A. M. (2004). Understanding the psychosocial sequelae of the murder of a grandparent/caregiver: Cases of Jamaican school-age children. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 9, 299–313. doi:10.1080/15325020490471890 Chery, C., Feldman Hertz, M., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (2005). Homicide survivors: Research and practice implications. [Supplemental material 2] American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29, 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.027 Clements, P. T., & Vigil, G. J. (2003). Child and adolescent homicide survivors: Complicated grief and altered worldviews. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services, 41, 30–39. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ pqdweb?index¼3&did¼278641951&SrchMode¼3&sid¼4&Fmt ¼6&VInst¼PROD&VType¼PQD&RQT¼309&VName¼PQD& TS¼1311619990&clientId¼5220&aid¼5 Dannemiller, C. H. (2002). The parents’ response to a child’s murder. Journal of Death and Dying, 45, 1–21. doi:10.2190/rea6-7181Y939-3hjx Dawson, P., & Riches, G. (1998). Spoiled memories: Problems of grief resolution in families bereaved through murder. Mortality, 3, 143–159. doi: 10.1080/713685897 Englebrecht, C. M. (2011). The struggle for ownership of conflict: An exploration of victim participation and voice in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 129–151. doi: 10.1177/ 0734016811399419 Evans, C., Hobdell, K., & Mezey, G. (2002). Families of homicide victims: Psychiatric responses and help-seeking. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Therapy, Research and Practice, 75, 65–75. doi: 10.1348/147608302169553 Friedman, L. N., Getzel, G., & Masters, R. (1988). Helping families of homicide victims: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 1, 109–125. doi: 10.1007/BF00974908 Gross, B. (2007). Life sentence: Co-victims of homicide. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 10, 39–43. Retrieved from


Connolly and Gordon

505

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ps/i.do?&id¼G ALE%7CA169227156&v¼2.1&u¼yorku_main&it¼r&p¼EAIM &sw¼w Hatton, R. (2003). Homicide bereavement counseling: A survey of providers. Death Studies, 27, 427–448. doi: 10.1080/ 07481180302878 Horne, C. (2003). Families of homicide victims: Service utilization patterns of extra-and intrafamilial homicide survivors. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 75–82. doi: 10.1023/A:1022831530134 Kilpatrick, D. G., & Acierno, R. (2003). Mental health needs of crime victims: Epidemiology and outcomes. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 119–132. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022891005388 King, K. (2004). It hurts so bad: Comparing grieving patterns of the families of murder victims with those of families of death row inmates. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 193–211. doi: 10. 1177/0887403404263625 Klass, D., & Peach, M. R. (1987). Special issues in the grief of parents of murdered children. Death Studies, 11, 81–88. doi: 10.1080/ 07481188708252179 Levy, A. J., & Wall, J. C. (1996). Communities under fire: Empowering families and children in the aftermath of homicide. Clinical Social Work Journal, 24, 403–414. doi: 10. 1007/BF02190746 Lexius, C., Lyon, E., & Moore, N. (1992). Group work with families of homicide victims. Social Work with Groups, 15, 19–33. doi: 10. 1300/J009v15n01_03 MacVane, S. L., Miranda, A. O., & Molina, B. (2003). Coping with the murder of a loved one: Counseling survivors of murder victims in groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 28, 48–63. doi: 10.1177/0193392202250078 Malone, L. (2007). In the aftermath: Listening to people bereaved by homicide. Probation Journal, 54, 383–393. doi: 10.1177/02645 50507083537 Mayan, M. J. (2001). An introduction to qualitative methods: A training module for students and professionals. Alberta, Canada: Qual Institute Press. McCreery, J. M., & Rynearson, E. K. (1993). Bereavement after homicide: A synergism of trauma and loss. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 258–261. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi. com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/pqdweb?index¼6&did¼5029899 &SrchMode¼3&sid¼1&Fmt¼6&VInst¼PROD&VType¼PQD &RQT¼309&VName¼PQD&TS¼1311627435&clientId¼5220 &aid¼1 Miller, L. (2009a). Family survivors of homicide: I. Symptoms, syndromes, and reaction patterns. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 67–79. doi: 10.1080/01926180801960625 Miller, L. (2009b). Family survivors of homicide: II. Practical therapeutic strategies. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 85–98. doi: 10.1080/01926180801960633

Moss, E., & Raz, A. (2001). The ones left behind: A siblings’ bereavement group. Group Analysis, 34, 395–407. doi: 10.1177/ 05333160122077956 Norris, F. H., Ruback, R. B., & Thompson, M. P. (1996). System influences on posthomicide beliefs and distress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 785–809. doi: 10.1007/BF02511035 Norris, F. H., Ruback, R. B., & Thompson, M. P. (1998). Comparative distress levels of inner-city family members of homicide victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 223–242. doi:10.1023/A: 1024494918952 Nzewi, E., Parappully, J., Rosenbaum, R., & Van Den Daele, L. (2002). Thriving after trauma: The experience of parents of murdered children. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42, 33–70. doi: 10.1177/0022167802421003 Persons, R. (1990). Psychotherapist and widower. The Psychotherapy Patient, 6, 71–80. doi: 10.1300/J358v06n03_05 Rinear, E. E. (1988). Psychosocial aspects of parental response patterns to the death of a child by homicide. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 1, 305–322. doi: 10.1007/BF00974767 Sharpe, T. L. (2008). Sources of support for African-American family members of homicide victims. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 17, 197–216. doi: 10.1080/15313200 801947231 Temple, S. (1997). Treating inner-city families of homicide victims: A contextually oriented approach. Family Process, 36, 133–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1997.00133.x Thompson, M. P., & Vardaman, P. J. (1997). The role of religion in coping with the loss of a family member to homicide. The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 44–51. doi: 10.2307/ 1387881 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Uniform crime reports, crime in the United States by volume and rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1991-2010. (Table 1). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/ crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Author Biographies Jennifer Connolly is a professor of clinical-developmental psychology at York University, Toronto, Canada. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in developmental psychopathology. In her research, she studies child and adolescent mental health from a developmental perspective. Current research projects focus on violence and aggression in the interpersonal relationships of vulnerable youth. Ronit Gordon is a policy advisor in Ontario. She worked at the LaMarsh Centre for Child and Youth Research at York University as a research associate and project manager for 2011 Victims Conference.


The mild® procedure: a systematic review of the current literature.

Prediction of placebo responses: a systematic review of the literature.

AIDS: a systematic review of the literature.

Safety checklist briefings: a systematic review of the literature.

Prescription medication sharing: a systematic review of the literature.

Defining Chronic Cough: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiological Literature.

Zoonoses in Veterinary Students: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Bipolar disorder and stigma: a systematic review of the literature.

"Analyzability": a systematic review of the clinical and quantitative literature.

Self-inflicted burns: a systematic review of the literature.

Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Ocular Infections: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Feeding Neonates by Cup: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Bisexuality and suicide: a systematic review of the current literature.

Conducting a successful systematic review of the literature, part 2.

Mental Pain and Suicide: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

The health impacts of windstorms: a systematic literature review.

Children Reading to Dogs: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Measuring the outcome of biomedical research: a systematic literature review.

Breastfeeding and depression: a systematic review of the literature.

Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Cardiac calcified amorphous tumor: A systematic review of the literature.

Transfemoral prosthesis suspension systems: a systematic review of the literature.

A systematic literature review on the effectiveness of eurythmy therapy.

Conducting a successful systematic review of the literature, part 1.