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.

The focus of this research and evaluation endeavor was on direct service programs in Ohio, particularly advocacy services for female victims of violence, receiving funding through the Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors (STOP) formula grants under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. The objectives of this project were (1) to describe and compare existing advocacy services in Ohio, (2) to compare victim advocacy typologies and identify key variables in the delivery of services, (3) to develop a better understanding of how victim advocacy services are defined and delivered, and (4) to assess the effectiveness of those services. For Part 1, Service Agencies Data, comprehensive information about 13 VAWA-funded programs providing direct services in urban Ohio was gathered through a mailback questionnaire and phone interviews. Detailed information was collected on organizational structure, clients served, and agency services. Focus groups were also used to collect data from clients (Parts 3-11) and staff (Parts 12-23) about their definitions of advocacy, types of services needed by victims, services provided to victims, and important outcomes for service providers. Part 2, Police Officer Data, focused on police officers' attitudes toward domestic violence and on evaluating service outcomes in one particular agency. The agency selected was a prosecutor's office that planned to improve services to victims by changing how the police and prosecutors responded to domestic violence cases. The prosecutor's office selected one police district as the site for implementing the new program, which included training police officers and placing a prosecutor in the district office to work directly with the police on domestic violence cases. The evaluation of this program was designed to assess the effectiveness of the police officers' training and officers' increased access to information from the prosecutor on the outcome of the case. Police officers from the selected district were administered surveys. Also surveyed were officers from another district that handled a similar number of domestic violence cases and had a comparable number of officers employed in the district. Variables in Part 1 include number of staff, budget, funding sources, number and type of victims served, target population, number of victims served speaking languages other than English, number of juveniles and adults served, number of victims with special needs served, collaboration with other organizations, benefits of VAWA funding, and direct and referral services provided by the agency. Variables in Part 2 cover police officers' views on whether it was a waste of time to prosecute domestic violence cases, if these cases were likely to result in a conviction, whether they felt sympathetic toward the victim or blamed the victim, how the prosecution should proceed with domestic violence cases, how the prosecution and police worked together on such cases, whether domestic violence was a private matter, and how they felt about the new program implemented under VAWA.

The purpose of this evaluation was to assess whether the STOP (Services/Training/Officers/Prosecution) Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program's financial support for direct victim services offered through private nonprofit victim service agencies helped victims of domestic violence and sexual assault improve their safety and well-being, and work successfully with the legal system and other relevant agencies. Researchers selected eight states whose state STOP agency had different levels of emphasis on creating collaborative structures in local service networks to help victims. Researchers collected information, as of November 15, 1999, about 201 nonprofit victim service agencies receiving STOP funding to deliver direct services, their services, and their community linkages. A Program Survey, Part 1 (Victim Impact Program Survey -- Fax to Subgrantees Data) and Part 2 (Victim Impact Program Survey -- Telephone Interview with Subgrantees Data) completed in spring 2000 used telephone interviews with the person most knowledgeable about STOP-funded activities to obtain this information. The sample included 201 nonprofit victim service agencies that were nationally representative of all private nonprofit victim service agencies receiving STOP funds for direct services. Among the purposes of the Program Survey data was selecting the communities in the eight focal states to include in the final stage of the study design -- the Help Seeker and the Community sample (Parts 3 and 4, respectively). The Help Seeker (Part 3) sample consisted of 958 women recruited from nonprofit victim service and legal system agencies who had contacted those agencies for assistance related to experiences of domestic violence and/or sexual assault. They were interviewed between June and October 2001. The Community sample (Part 4) was a random sample of 673 women in their communities who were 18 to 35 years of age. The sample was selected using random digit dialing (RDD), screening for women aged 18 to 35 in the victim service program catchment area from which researchers drew the Help Seeker sample. The women in the Community sample were interviewed between November 2001 and February 2002. The women's data were then linked to Program Survey data from their own community. Across the 4 data files there are 2,947 variables. Part 1 (Victim Impact Program Survey -- Fax to Subgrantees Data) contains information related to the role of the agency which received STOP funding, the characteristics of employees and volunteers of the agency, and the characteristics of victims the agency served. The data also include how many victims of domestic violence the agency assisted with obtaining protective/restraining orders and the number of victims helped through criminal justice advocacy activities. The agency approximated how many referrals they received from other sources and how many referrals they made to other agencies/organizations. There were also questions related to the STOP grant(s) received by the agencies and the agencies were asked about their data collection and evaluation efforts and in what form this information was maintained. Part 2 (Victim Impact Program Survey -- Telephone Interview with Subgrantees Data) contains background information regarding the agency and the respondent answering questions on behalf of the agency. Respondents were also asked whether their agency conducted needs assessments to identify community needs with respect to violence against women, to identify service solutions to meet those needs, and to summarize their STOP project goals and activities. The data file also includes questions about referrals and how their agency's STOP project related to other activities of the agency. Additionally, the respondent answered questions related to the coordination and communication between their agency, law enforcement, prosecution, and victim service agencies. There were also general community questions, and the respondent provided outreach

This study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the Arrest Policies Program, funded by the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), on criminal justice system changes and offender accountability, and victim safety and well-being. Through convenience sampling, six project sites were chosen to participate in the study. Part 1, Case Tracking Data, contains quantitative data collected from criminal justice agencies on arrests, prosecution filings, criminal case disposition, convictions, and sentences imposed for intimate partner violence cases involving a male offender and female offender. Data for Part 2, Victim Interview Data, were collected from in-depth personal interviews with domestic violence victims/survivors (1) to learn more about victim experiences with and perceptions of the criminal justice response, and (2) to obtain victim perceptions about how the arrest and/or prosecution of their batterers affected their safety and well-being. The survey instrument covered a wide range of topics including severity and history of domestic violence, social support networks, perceptions of police response, satisfaction with the criminal justice process and the sentence, experiences in court, and satisfaction with prosecutors, victim services provider advocates, and probation officers.

This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus Program), which was conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). The Campus Program was comprised of 38 colleges or universities, which received funding in 1999 and 2000. Part 1 data consist of basic demographic information about each campus and the violence against women programs and services available at each site. Data for Part 2, collected from questionnaires administered to grant project staff, documented perceptions about the Campus Program project and participation and collaboration from those involved in the partnership with each college or university (i.e., non-profit, non-governmental victim service providers).

The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors' records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed.

This study was designed to explore whether civil protection orders were effective in providing safer environments for victims of domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for escaping violent relationships. The researchers looked at the factors that might influence civil protection orders, such as accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser, and then examined how courts in three jurisdictions processed civil protection orders. Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia were chosen as sites because of structural differences among them that were believed to be linked to the effectiveness of civil protection orders. Since these jurisdictions each had different court processes and service models, the researchers expected that these models would produce various results and that these variations might hold implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions. Data were collected through initial and follow-up interviews with women who had filed civil protection orders. The effectiveness of the civil protection orders was measured by the amount of improvement in the quality of the women's lives after the order was in place, versus the extent of problems created by the protection orders. Variables from the survey of women include police involvement at the incident leading to the protection order, the relationship of the petitioner and respondent to the petition prior to the order, history of abuse, the provisions asked for and granted in the order, if a permanent order was not filed for by the petitioner, the reasons why, the court experience, protective measures the petitioner undertook after the order, and how the petitioner's life changed after the order. Case file data were gathered on when the order was filed and issued, contempt motions and hearings, stipulations of the order, and social service referrals. Data on the arrest and conviction history of the petition respondent were also collected.

The project's primary research objective was to assess the degree to which violence, sabotage, and control present obstacles to waged work and job training for women in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. It sought to develop and assess instruments and generate data to serve as guideposts for policy and service delivery. The study consisted of two parts: (1) a series of interviews with 40 female welfare recipients, and (2) a community literacy project that resulted in a collection of narratives by female welfare recipients. Interviews were conducted with 40 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients who were enrolled at the Reemployment Transition Center (RTC) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, between May 29, 2001, and June 27, 2001. After explaining the research project to the intake group, the interviewers met in private with interested potential subjects. The interviews consisted of an initial face-to-face retrospective interview (Parts 1 through 5), conducted when subjects enrolled at RTC, and three follow-up interviews designed to be administered quarterly. The first follow-up interview (Part 6) was conducted between October 15, 2001, and May 7, 2002. The second follow-up interview (Part 7) was conducted between March 12, 2002, and May 21, 2002. The final follow-up (Part 8) interview was conducted between July 3, 2002, and November 15, 2002. Follow-up interviews were in person or by telephone (depending on the respondent's preference). A key innovation of this research project was to gather data on school, work, welfare, and relationships with enough precision to trace the complex connections among battering, work, and welfare over the course of poor women's lives (Part 9). To do so, researchers collected data on the start and end dates of each period of education, each job, each period on welfare, and each relationship. These data enabled researchers to compare the number and length of spells at work and on welfare for women who did and women who did not report various obstacles, including battering. Finally, researchers summarized some elements of the longitudinal data such as relationship and employment information into a data file (Part 10). In all, there are 10 quantitative data files encompassing 1,895 variables. In addition to the 10 quantitative data files, there are respondent answers to open text questions (Part 11). Interviewers were able to record field notes, which included observations about the interview context, overall impressions of the process, elaborated answers to open-ended questions, etc. (Part 12). There are also 8 autobiographical narratives to serve as sources of qualitative data on the ways current and former welfare recipients experience and perceive work, welfare, and relationships (including abuse) (Part 13). The Part 1 (Retrospective Demographic and Hardship Data) data file contains demographic information including living arrangements and income. The Part 2 (Retrospective Education Data) data file contains information related to the respondent's prior education. The Part 3 (Retrospective Employment Data) data file contains information related to the respondent's employment history. The Part 4 (Retrospective Welfare Data) contains information related to the respondent's welfare history. The Part 5 (Retrospective Relationship Data) data file contains information related to the Work-Related Control, Abuse, and Sabotage Checklist (WORCASC) and the Work/School Abuse Scale (W/SAS), which asked questions about interference, sabotage, and violence in relationships. The Part 6 (First Follow-Up Interview Data), Part 7 (Second Follow-Up Interview Data), and Part 8 (Final Follow-Up Interview Data) data files include follow-up information to that collected in Parts 1-5. The Part 9 (Date and Spell Data) data file provides data on the start and end dates of each period of education, each job, each period on welfare, and each relationship, and the Part 10 (Summary Longitudinal Data) data file

This study investigated the relationship between domestic violence and welfare reform. Two specific goals were (1) to determine the impact of domestic violence on welfare tenure and employment over a three-year period, and (2) to examine the well-being of children of female welfare recipients who experienced domestic violence. In addition, the study examined issues related to mental health problems and alcohol and drug problems, both of which are associated with domestic violence. This study was based on three rounds of interviews with a random sample of welfare recipients in Kern and Stanislaus Counties, California, between April 1999 and December 2002. Although the interview instrument was slightly altered for each round, the questions in all three rounds focused on employment history, health, mental health, domestic violence victimization, children's well-being, and alcohol and drug use.

This study evaluated advocacy services offered to battered women in Detroit, Michigan, and examined other aspects of coordinated community responses to domestic violence by focusing on women named as victims in police reports. Advocacy was defined as those services provided to support victims during the legal process or to enhance their safety. For the Preliminary Complaint Reports Data (Part 1), a random sample of preliminary complaint reports (PCRs), completed by police officers after they responded to domestic violence calls, were gathered, resulting in a sample of 1,057 incidents and victims. For Victim Advocacy Contact Data (Part 2), researchers obtained data from advocates' files about the services they provided to the 1,057 victims. For Case Disposition Data (Part 3), researchers conducted a computer search to determine the outcomes of the cases. They looked up each perpetrator from the list of 1,057 incidents, and determined whether there was a warrant for the focal incident, whether it turned into a prosecution, and the outcome. The Initial Victim Interview (Part 4) and Follow-Up Victim Interview Data (Part 5) were conducted from April 1998 to July 1999. During the same period that researchers were completing the second interviews, they also interviewed 23 women (Victim Comparison Group Interview Data, Part 6) from the list of 1,057 whom they had been unable to reach during the first interviews. They compared these 23 women to the 63 who had second interviews to determine if there were any differences in use of services, or views toward or participation in prosecution. Variables in Part 1 focus on whether alcohol and abuse were involved, previous incidents, the suspect's psychological aggressions and physical assaults, if a weapon was used, if the victim was hurt, if property was damaged, if the victim sought medical attention, and the severity of physical abuse or injury. Variables in Part 2 provide information on the role of the advocate, methods of contact, types of referrals made, and services provided. Variables in Part 3 include the type of charge, outcome of resolved case, why the case was dismissed, if applicable, and if the suspect was sentenced to probation, costs, confinement, no contact with the victim, a batterer program, or community service. The initial, follow-up, and comparison group interviews (Parts 4-6) all collected similar information. Variables about the incident include how well the respondent remembered the incident, if police arrived promptly, if the respondent was advised to file charges, if police told the respondent that a counselor was available, and if the respondent's partner had been in jail since the incident. Variables concerning advocacy include whether the victim contacted advocates, and if advocates provided legal help and referrals. Legal system variables include whether the respondent felt pressured by anyone to drop charges or pursue charges, if the respondent received help for preliminary examination or trial, and if contact with the legal system helped the respondent. Variables about services include whether the respondent received assistance in temporary shelter, food/money resources, child care, employment, education, a lawyer for divorce/custody, support or self-help group, or a substance abuse treatment program. Variables concerning what happened in the previous six months cover the number of times the respondent had called police because of danger, left home because of a violent incident, partner had been arrested because of violence, and partner physically abused respondent. Variables about events that occurred while the respondent and abuser were separated include how often the partner harassed the respondent on the phone, wrote threatening letters, violated legal restrictions, refused to leave the respondent's home, failed to pay child support, and threatened to take the children. Demographic variables include respondent's race or ethnic background, education, marital