Metadata record for Evaluation of the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative in Four Tribal Sites in the United States, 1995-1999 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License . 2013-05-23 Evaluation of the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative in Four Tribal Sites in the United States, 1995-1999 4080 10.3886/ICPSR04080.v1 Nichols, V. Richard Holappa, Ted Litchfield, Anne United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 97-DD-BX-0031 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 2005-01-19 2005-03-15 2005-03-15 Anne Litchfield was added as a principal investigator. Nichols, V. Richard, Ted Holappa, and Anne Litchfield. EVALUATION OF THE TRIBAL STRATEGIES AGAINST VIOLENCE (TSAV) INITIATIVE IN FOUR TRIBAL SITES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995-1999. ICPSR04080-v1. Washington, DC: ORBIS Associates [producer], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005-03-15. doi:10.3886/ICPSR04080.v1 communities crime reduction evaluation Native Americans quality of life substance abuse violence RCMD.IX.F RCMD.IX ICPSR.XVII.E RCMD.I NACJD.VII This study evaluated the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative. The TSAV was a federal-tribal partnership, lasting from 1995 to 1999, designed to develop comprehensive strategies in tribal communities to reduce crime, violence, and substance abuse. This study involved four of the seven TSAV sites: the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes in Montana, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in Michigan, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota. A survey of TSAV stakeholders at the four sites was conducted in the summer and fall of 1999. The objectives of the survey were to gauge TSAV stakeholders' perceptions about the following: (1) the serious crime, violence, and quality of life issues in each community and the extent to which the local TSAV initiative had addressed those issues, (2) the intent and ultimate outcomes of the TSAV program, (3) obstacles to successful implementation of TSAV activities, and (4) decision-making processes used in planning and implementing TSAV locally. Offense data were also gathered at the Fort Peck site for 1995 to 1998 and at the Grand Traverse Band site for 1997 to 1999. This study evaluated the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative. Designed by the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, the TSAV was a federal-tribal partnership designed to develop comprehensive strategies in tribal communities to reduce crime, violence, and substance abuse. The TSAV initiative had three official objectives: (1) improve communities' ability to comprehensively address issues of crime, violence, and drugs, (2) promote community-based program development involving the active participation of youth, community residents, educators, spiritual leaders, businesses, social services, criminal justice representatives, and elected officials, and (3) develop an effective culturally sensitive program model that can be replicated by other Native American Communities. Each of the seven sites that received TSAV funding developed a specific set of goals to further these overall objectives. Each site had a core team that consisted of approximately five people who held formal planning and oversight responsibility for the local TSAV initiative. This study involved four of the seven TSAV sites: the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes in Montana, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in Michigan, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota. TSAV funding was awarded to the Fort Peck tribes in 1995 and to the other three sites in 1996. For all four sites TSAV funding lasted through August 1999. This evaluation had the following goals: (1) document how TSAV approaches had evolved at each of the four TSAV sites, (2) document how each site had implemented its comprehensive strategies, (3) analyze and report how differences in local cultures, physical environments, or government structures at the sites may have affected implementation at the sites and may or may not have implications for the potential success of TSAV in other American Indian communities, and (4) provide useful evaluation findings for tribal and United States Department of Justice (DOJ) decision-makers and other criminal justice stakeholders. Part 1 contains data from a survey of TSAV stakeholders at all four study sites that was conducted in the summer and fall of 1999. The survey used a questionnaire consisting of 207 items addressing 16 topic areas. The objectives of the survey were to gauge TSAV stakeholders' perceptions about the success of TSAV initiatives and the remaining crime, violence, and quality of life issues in each community. The questionnaire was adapted from one used by the Comprehensive Communities Program, another Bureau of Justice Assistance initiative. Part 2 contains data on crimes committed at the Fort Peck site. These data were collected for the fiscal year 1995 through the fiscal year 1998 from the tribal court, which had facilities in the towns of Wolf Point and Poplar, and from the Wolf Point Police, a city police force that operated within the Fort Peck Reservation's boundaries. Offense data for 1999 were not obtained because they were not available at the time the site was visited in October 1999. Wolf Point Police Department data overlap with the tribal court data because from 51 percent (in 1995) to 67 percent (in 1996) of the Wolf Point cases were referred to the tribal court. Part 3 contains data on crimes committed at the Grand Traverse Band site for the fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. These data were collected from the Grand Traverse Band's police department. Crime data were not available for the Turtle Mountain or Chickasaw Nation sites. The data were provided to ICPSR as Microsoft Excel files. ICPSR has converted the data to PDF format and distributes the data and documentation as one PDF file. Variables in Part 1 include the major crime and violence problems in regard to both juveniles and adults, quality of life issues, the extent to which the local TSAV initiative had addressed crime, violence, and quality of life issues, the effectiveness of the TSAV program in certain key areas, obstacles to successful implementation of the TSAV program, the extent to which there was conflict between different TSAV partners, how conflict was typically resolved, and what respondents thought should be done differently in the TSAV program. Part 2 contains detailed information on offenses committed by both adults and juveniles at the Fort Peck site for the fiscal years 1995 to 1998. These data are divided into offenses reported by the tribal court and those reported by the Wolf Point Police. Part 3 contains detailed offense information for the Grand Traverse Band site for the fiscal years 1997 to 1999. Data are provided in the following categories: alcohol or drug-related offenses, automobile-related offenses, weapons offenses, crimes against persons, domestic offenses, juvenile offenses, major offenses, other offenses, and property offenses. 1995 1999 1999 Michigan Montana North Dakota Oklahoma United States None Part 1: Individuals. Parts 2 and 3: Offenses. Part 1: Individuals involved with implementing the TSAV programs at the four sites involved in this study. Part 2: Adult and juvenile offenses committed by tribe members at the Fort Peck site. Part 3: Adult and juvenile offenses committed by tribe members at the Grand Traverse Band site. survey data, and administrative records data A list of 35 potential respondents was developed for each site and the Core Team members were asked to identify those respondents who would be most familiar with the local TSAV initiative. Between 22 and 24 stakeholders, including TSAV staff, were identified as survey respondents for each site. Data were gathered through surveys of TSAV stakeholders at each of the four sites involved in the study and from administrative records at the Fort Peck and Grand Traverse Band sites. Part 1: Of the 93 potential respondents identified at all four sites, 67 (72 percent) returned surveys. At the Chickasaw Nation site 18 of the 23 (78 percent) surveys were returned. At the Turtle Mountain site 11 of 24 (46 percent) surveys were returned. At the Grand Traverse site 20 of 24 (83 percent) surveys were returned. At the Fort Peck site 18 of 22 (82 percent) surveys were returned. In addition, the degree to which individual survey items were completed varied from site to site. Questions nine through twelve, in particular, were problematic. The number of responses to those questions was far less than for most other questions, probably due to the time required to answer them. The majority of respondents did not answer those four questions, and responses to those questions are not included in this dataset. Parts 2 and 3: Not applicable. Part 1: Several Likert-type scales were used. Parts 2 and 3: None. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Additional special permissions, where applicable, are described in the restrictions field. These data are restricted from general dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Data Transfer Agreement Form and specify the reasons for the request. The Data Transfer Agreement Form is available as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from the NACJD Web site. A copy of the Data Transfer Agreement Form can also be requested by calling 800-999-0960. Completed forms should be returned to Director, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200.

Please read the terms of use below. If you agree to them, click on the "I Agree" button to proceed. If you do not agree, you can click on the "I Do Not Agree" button to return to the home page.

ICPSR adheres to the principles of the Data Seal of Approval , which, in part, require the data consumer to comply with access regulations imposed both by law and by the data repository, and to conform to codes of conduct that are generally accepted in higher education and scientific research for the exchange of knowledge and information.

These data are distributed under the following terms of use, which are governed by ICPSR. By continuing past this point to the data retrieval process, you signify your agreement to comply with the requirements stated below:

Privacy of RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Any intentional identification of a RESEARCH SUBJECT (whether an individual or an organization) or unauthorized disclosure of his or her confidential information violates the PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data agree:

To use these datasets solely for research or statistical purposes and not for investigation of specific RESEARCH SUBJECTS, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

To make no use of the identity of any RESEARCH SUBJECT discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

 Redistribution of Data

You agree not to redistribute data or other materials without the written agreement of ICPSR, unless:

You serve as the OFFICIAL or DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE at an ICPSR MEMBER INSTITUTION and are assisting AUTHORIZED USERS with obtaining data, or

You are collaborating with other AUTHORIZED USERS to analyze the data for research or instructional purposes.

When sharing data or other materials in these approved ways, you must include all accompanying files with the data, including terms of use. More information on permission to redistribute data can be found on the ICPSR Web site.

Citing Data

You agree to reference the recommended bibliographic citation in any publication that employs resources provided by ICPSR. Authors of publications based on ICPSR data are required to send citations of their published works to ICPSR for inclusion in a database of related publications (bibliography@icpsr.umich.edu ) .

Disclaimer

You acknowledge that the original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Violations

If ICPSR determines that the terms of this agreement have been violated, ICPSR will act according to our policy on terms of use violations . Sanctions can include:

ICPSR may revoke the existing agreement, demand the return of the data in question, and deny all future access to ICPSR data.

The violation may be reported to the Research Integrity Officer, Institutional Review Board, or Human Subjects Review Committee of the user's institution. A range of sanctions are available to institutions including revocation of tenure and termination.

If the confidentiality of human subjects has been violated, the case may be reported to the Federal Office for Human Research Protections. This may result in an investigation of the user's institution, which can result in institution-wide sanctions including the suspension of all research grants.

A court may award the payment of damages to any individual(s)/organization(s) harmed by the breach of the agreement.

 Definitions authorized user - A faculty member, staff member, or student at a member institutionICPSR - Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchmember institution - An institutional member of ICPSROfficial/Designated Representative - An individual appointed to represent a university's interests in ICPSR. This individual is also charged with providing user support to campus users. promise of confidentiality - A promise to a respondent or research participant that the information the respondent provides will not be disseminated without the permission of the respondent; that the fact that the respondent participated in the study will not be disclosed; and that disseminated information will include no linkages to the identity of the respondent. Such a promise encompasses traditional notions of both confidentiality and anonymity. Names and other identifying information regarding respondents, proxies, or other persons on whom the respondent or proxy provides information, are presumed to be confidential.research subject - A person or organization observed for purposes of research. Also called a respondent. A respondent is generally a survey respondent or informant, experimental or observational subject, focus group participant, or any other person providing information to a study or on whose behalf a proxy provides information.

In addition, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data stipulates the following conditions:

Federal law and regulations require that research data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice or by its grantees and contractors may only be used for research or statistical purposes. The applicable laws and regulations may be found in the United States Code, 42 USC Section 3789g(a), the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR 22, and 62 F.R. 35044 (June 27, 1997) (The Federal Confidentiality Order). Accordingly, any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment may violate federal law as well as the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data collected by or with the support from the U.S. Department of Justice and distributed by NACJD or other ICPSR archives must agree to abide by these regulations and understand that ICPSR may report any potential violation to the U.S. Department of Justice.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

 The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Survey Data Crime Data for the Fort Peck Tribes Crime Data for Grand Traverse Band