The final two decades of the last century have witnessed an unprecedented, worldwide development in the field of victim-supportive facilities (Fattah, 2000). Victim services have been called the growth industry of the decade. The expansion of service programs for crime victims in the US, Canada, and a host of European countries has been ‘nothing short of phenomenal’ (Fattah, 1992, p. 260). Davis and Henley (1990) estimated the number of victim service programs in the US to be in excess of 5.000, whereas 20 years earlier there had been none. A major downside, in terms of support effectiveness, is that substantial numbers of crime victims who are actually in need of support are currently not using these services (Kelly & Humphries, 2000; Skogan, Davis, & Lurigio, 1991). A study by Wohlfarth, Winkel, and Van den Brink (2002) revealed that more than 60% of crime victims, who later developed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), did not engage in contacts with victim support. Recent victim-orientated legal reforms tend to perpetuate this unwanted situation (Brienen, Groenhuijsen, & Hoegen, 2000). This latter study moreover revealed that in many countries, police referral to victim support is utterly subjective, and functions rather haphazardly. Underutilization highlights the necessity to implement an Early Detection and Prevention Paradigm to facilitate access to these services and to curtail unnecessary human suffering. In view of the fact that crime victims usually have their first official contact with the police (Brienen et al., 2000; Landau, 1991; Skogan et al., 1991), who thus are ‘gatekeepers’ in the