National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2789) RSS

Principal Investigator(s):

Summary:

This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60 homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1, Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any, contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state, local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment status, and type of job of each violent crime victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These services included counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing, psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of the original questions was administered one year later to members of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours of training required, and the topics covered in the training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the specific types of services they provided to victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals, paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service provider organization, as well as which California counties they serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services and asked if they provided any of those services to victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g., employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.

Access Notes

  • These data are freely available.

Dataset(s)

DS0:  Study-Level Files
Documentation:
DS1:  Initial Victims' Survey Data - Download All Files (3.6 MB)
Documentation:
DS2:  Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data - Download All Files (3.5 MB)
DS3:  Tracking Data - Download All Files (4.9 MB)
DS4:  Intervention Programs Survey Data - Download All Files (1.1 MB)
Documentation:
Data:
DS5:  Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data - Download All Files (0.7 MB)
Documentation:
Data:
DS6:  EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data - Download All Files (0.8 MB)
DS7:  Service Provider Survey Data - Download All Files (1.5 MB)
DS8:  Law Enforcement Survey Data - Download All Files (1.7 MB)
Documentation:

Study Description

Citation

Rienick, Cynthia, Darlanne Hoctor Mulmat, and Susan Pennell. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE VICTIM ASSISTANCE SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION, 1993-1994. ICPSR version. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, Criminal Justice Research Division [producer], 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02789.v1

Persistent URL:

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)

Funding

This study was funded by:

  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (92-IJ-CX-K025)

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:   arrest records, case processing, coping, criminal justice system, crisis intervention, demographic characteristics, needs assessment, psychological wellbeing, victim services, victimization, victims, violent crime

Geographic Coverage:   California, San Diego, United States

Time Period:  

  • 1993--1994

Unit of Observation:   Parts 1, 2, and 4-8: Individuals. Part 3: Cases.

Universe:   Parts 1 and 2: Victims, witnesses, and survivors of violent crimes in the San Diego region, who were over the age of 16 at the time of incident. Part 3: Violent crime incidents. Parts 4-6: Staff and volunteers of crisis intervention programs servicing the San Diego region. Part 7: Community agencies providing services to violent crime victims, witnesses, and survivors in the San Diego area. Part 8: Law enforcement officers servicing Escondido and Vista counties, and the city of San Diego, California.

Data Types:   survey data, and administrative records data

Data Collection Notes:

The user guide, codebooks, and data collection instruments are provided as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Methodology

Study Purpose:   Victimization often steals one's sense of personal control, thereby producing psychological repercussions that exacerbate feelings of fear and vulnerability. Victims of violent crime, moreover, become dissatisfied and resentful of the criminal justice system, plagued by feelings of shame and guilt, and many times transfer a sense of disorder, powerlessness, and fear to other areas in their life. Previous research has pointed out that not all victims cope with victimization equally. While studies have examined how victimization changes an individual's life, very little was known about how well the needs of these victims were actually being met. This study sought to: (1) assess the needs of violent crime victims, (2) document the services that were available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the population, (4) determine how individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) document the set of factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) identify issues for future research.

Study Design:   Data were collected using five different surveys and official records. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent crime victims over the age of 16 in the San Diego region (Part 1, Initial Victims' Survey Data). Over 60 homicide witnesses and survivors in the city of San Diego were also contacted. English and Spanish versions of the surveys were mailed four weeks after the incident and were accompanied by a cover letter from the District Attorney that explained the purpose of the survey and assured the victim, witness, or survivor that his or her input was voluntary, confidential, and anonymous. Follow-up mailings were sent two weeks after the initial mailing to increase response rates. A section at the end of the initial victims' survey asked respondents for their permission to be contacted again in the future for the purpose of gaining additional input regarding the effects of victimization. Of the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). This second survey was administered via telephone interviews or distributed by mail. The interview included both test and original questions. Also, some items from the initial survey were repeated to measure changes in needs, attitudes, coping behavior, and services received. Specific questions were asked regarding case outcome, and victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system was explored more fully compared to the initial survey. Next, police and court case files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail booking screens, and court dockets. The information gathered from these official records were recorded onto a case tracking form (Part 3, Tracking Data). Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program. Due to large staff and volunteer turnover with intervention programs, a modified version of this survey with a subset of the original questions was administered one year later to members of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data) and the EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). When identical questions were asked, data from the most recent administration of the instrument were used. Since no direct comparisons to the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team and the Crisis and Advocacy Team were intended, the members of the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program were only surveyed once. To determine the variety of services available to victims in the San Diego region, the fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists to measure the level of satisfaction with referral procedures, coordination among agencies, extent of duplication of services, type of services provided to victims, and suggestions for improving service delivery models (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). The last survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies, who were surveyed at line-up (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Each of these law enforcement agencies was served by either the Crisis Intervention Team and/or the EYE Crisis programs.

Sample:   Parts 1-3: Not applicable. Parts 4-8: Convenience sampling.

Data Source:

self-enumerated questionnaires, telephone interviews, and official records

Description of Variables:   Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any, contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state, local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment status, and type of job of each violent crime victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and highest level of education of each respondent. The variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These services included counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing, psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the incidents, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims and witnesses at hearings, and case outcomes, including dispositions and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are also recorded in Part 3, along with the same demographics for each suspect. The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteer, the types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours of training required, and the topics covered in the training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the specific types of services they provided to victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the agency or volunteer. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals, paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service provider organization, as well as which California counties they serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services and asked if they provided any of those services to victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g., employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.

Response Rates:   The response rate for Part 1 was 22 percent. The response rate for Part 2 is unknown. Part 3: Not applicable. The response rate is unknown for Parts 4-6. The response rate for Part 7 was 58 percent. The response rate for Part 8 was 49 percent.

Presence of Common Scales:   Several Likert-type scales were used in Parts 1, 2, and 4-8.

Extent of Processing:  ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Standardized missing values.
  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:  

Version History:

  • 2006-03-30 File UG2789.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.

Related Publications

Utilities

Metadata Exports

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

Download Statistics

Found a problem? Use our Report Problem form to let us know.