MyData:What Is MyData? | Login/Account Info | Download Saved Files | Logout
Description & Citation--Study No. 2735 | |
Bibliographic Description | |
| ICPSR Study No.: | 2735 |
|---|---|
| Persistent URL: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02735 |
| Title: | Evaluation of Victim Services Programs Funded by "Stop Violence Against Women" Grants in the United States, 1998-1999 |
| Principal Investigator(s): | Barbara E. Smith, American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section |
| Robert C. Davis, American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section | |
| Funding Agency: | United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. |
| Grant Number: | 96-WT-NX-0003 |
| Bibliographic Citation: | Smith, Barbara E., and Robert C. Davis. EVALUATION OF VICTIM SERVICES PROGRAMS FUNDED BY "STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN" GRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998-1999 [Computer file]. ICPSR02735-v1. Washington DC: American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section [producer], 1999. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02735 |
Scope of Study | |
| Summary: | This project investigated the effects of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) funds with respect to the provision of victim services by criminal justice-based agencies to domestic assault, stalking, and sexual assault victims. Violence Against Women grants were intended "to assist states, Indian tribal governments, and units of local government to develop and strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women, and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women." Domestic violence and sexual assault were identified as primary targets for the STOP grants, along with support for under-served victim populations. Two types of programs were sampled in this evaluation. The first was a sample of representatives of STOP grant programs, from which 62 interviews were completed (Part 1, Criminal Justice Victim Service Program Survey Data). The second was a sample of 96 representatives of programs that worked in close cooperation with the 62 STOP program grantees to serve victims (Part 2, Ancillary Programs Survey Data). General questions from the STOP program survey (Part 1) covered types of victims served, years program had been in existence, types of services provided, stages when services were provided, number of victims served by the program the previous year, the program's operating budget, and primary and secondary funding sources. Questions about the community in which the program operated focused on types of services for domestic violence and/or sexual assault victims that existed in the community, if services provided by the program complemented or overlapped those provided by the community, and a rating of the community's coordinated response in providing services. Questions specific to the activities supported by the STOP grant included the amount of the grant award, if the STOP grant was used to start the program or to expand services and if the latter, which services, and whether the STOP funds changed the way the program delivered services, changed linkages with other agencies in the community, increased the program's visibility in the community, and/or impacted the program's stability. Also included were questions about under-served populations being served by the program, the impact of the STOP grant on victims as individuals and on their cases in the criminal justice system, and the program's impact on domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault victims throughout the community. Data from the ancillary programs survey (Part 2) pertain to types of services provided by the program, if the organization was part of the private sector or the criminal justice system, and the impact of the STOP program in the community on various aspects of services provided and on improvements for victims. |
| Subject Term(s): | battered women, crime prevention, domestic violence, law enforcement agencies, program evaluation, sexual assault, stalking, victim services, victims |
| Geographic Coverage: | United States |
| Time Period: | 1998 - 1999 |
| Date(s) of Collection: | December 1998 - March 1999 |
| Unit of Observation: | Program. |
| Universe: | STOP programs awarded to criminal justice agencies for the delivery of services to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking victims. |
| Data Type: | survey data |
Methodology | |
| Purpose of the Study: | Victims of sexual assault and domestic violence frequently suffer intense emotional distress following the crime and experience the need for a multiplicity of victim services. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), is the result of years of advocating for the federal government to help stop violence against women and assist victims who experience such violence. As part of the VAWA legislation, the Justice Department created the Violence Against Women Grants Office (VAWGO) within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The office assisted states in applying for STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) Violence Against Women grants that were intended "to assist states, Indian tribal governments, and units of local government to develop and strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women, and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women." Domestic violence and sexual assault were identified as primary targets for the STOP grants, along with support for under-served victim populations. VAWA mandated that STOP grantees spend at least 25 percent of the STOP funds in each of the following three areas: (1) law enforcement, (2) prosecution, and (3) victim services, while the remaining 25 percent was left largely to the discretion of the grantees. This project investigated the effects of VAWA STOP funds with respect to the provision of victim services by criminal justice-based agencies to domestic assault, stalking, and sexual assault victims. |
| Study Design: | Two samples of program representatives were surveyed in this evaluation of STOP grant programs. The first was a sample of representatives of STOP grant programs. The second was a sample of representatives of programs that worked in close cooperation with STOP grantees to serve victims. The latter sample was gathered to gain an additional perspective on the STOP grant and its impact on the local service community. Once the project staff reached the contact person for a sampled STOP grant, project staff asked to speak with the person most knowledgeable about the STOP grant. When that person was contacted, project staff identified the purpose of the call and asked to schedule a time when the interviewee would be available to participate in a 20-30 minute survey. In about half of the cases, an interview was conducted on the spot and, in the other half of the cases, an appointment was made. Interviews consisted of primarily closed-ended questions. During the interviews with the STOP program representatives, project staff asked for information on programs that worked closely with the STOP grantee. Project staff then contacted the named staff person of these ancillary programs and administered a brief interview. In all, 62 interviews were completed with STOP program representatives (Part 1). An additional 96 interviews were completed with representatives of programs that worked in coordination with the 62 STOP programs (Part 2). |
| Sample: | STOP grants awarded to law enforcement, prosecution, and court organizations to provide services for victims were selected from the Urban Institute's database of 1996 and 1997 Subgrant Award Reports (SARs). Based on the distribution of these 182 SARs across states, an interview quota for each state was determined that was proportional to the number of eligible STOP grants that each state had. Within each state, the eligible STOP grant programs were ordered using a random algorithm. Programs were called in the order of their ranking, starting with programs with the lowest ranks, until the quota was filled for that state. Ancillary programs and contact staff persons at the ancillary programs were identified by STOP program interviewees. |
| Data Source: | telephone interviews |
| Description of Variables: | Data collected from the STOP program survey (Part 1) began with general questions, including types of victims served, years program had been in existence, types of services provided, stages when services were provided, number of victims served by the program the previous year, the program's operating budget, and primary and secondary funding sources. Questions about the community in which the program operated focused on types of services for domestic violence and/or sexual assault victims that existed in the community, if services provided by the program complemented or overlapped those provided by the community, and a rating of the community's coordinated response in providing services. Questions specific to the activities supported by the STOP grant included the amount of the grant award, if the STOP grant was used to start the program or to expand services and if the latter, which services, and whether the STOP funds changed the way the program delivered services, changed linkages with other agencies in the community, increased the program's visibility in the community, and/or impacted the program's stability. Also included were questions about under-served populations being served by the program, the impact of the STOP grant on victims as individuals and on their cases in the criminal justice system, and the program's impact on domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault victims throughout the community. Data from the ancillary programs survey (Part 2) pertain to types of services provided by the program, if the organization was part of the private sector or the criminal justice system, and the impact of the STOP program in the community on various aspects of services provided and on improvements for victims. |
| Response Rates: | Not applicable |
| Presence of Common Scales: | Several Likert-type scales were used. |
Access and Availability | |
| Note: | A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest. |
| Original ICPSR Release: | 2000-04-18 |
| Version History: | The last update of this study occurred on 2006-03-30. |
| 2006-03-30 - File CB2735.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. | |
| 2005-11-04 - On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. | |
| Dataset(s): |
|
