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.

National Evaluation of the National Institute of Justice Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 3814) RSS

Principal Investigator(s):

Summary:

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).

Access Notes

  • These data are freely available.

Dataset(s)

DS0:  Study-Level Files
DS1:  Site Comparison Data - Download All Files (1.2 MB)
DS2:  Partnership Survey Data - Download All Files (1.4 MB)

Study Description

Citation

DuPree, Cheron. NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE GRANTS TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN ON CAMPUS PROGRAM, 2001-2002. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: Institute for Law and Justice [producer], 2003. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2003. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03814.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 (2000-WA-VX-0001)

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:   campus crime, crime reduction, crime reporting, police training, process evaluation, victim safety, victim services, violence, violence against women, women

Smallest Geographic Unit:   none

Geographic Coverage:   United States

Time Period:  

  • 2000--2002

Date of Collection:  

  • 2000--2002

Unit of Observation:   Part 1: Colleges and universities. Part 2: Individuals

Universe:   Grantees representing the 38 project sites comprising the Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program in 1999 and 2000.

Data Types:   administrative records data, and survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The user guide, codebook, and data collection instrument are provided by ICPSR 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 on the ICPSR Web site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:   This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of 1999 and 2000 grantees participating in 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 research team sought (1) to provide a national program- level process evaluation of the Campus Program, and (2) to inform policies and practices that address violence against women on campuses and ensure victim safety and offender accountability. The research team proposed a process evaluation aimed at describing the process of program planning, implementation, and problem resolution. The premise of the VAWO Campus Program was that colleges and universities had the ability to educate and shape the values, attitudes, and behaviors of young men and women toward the issue of violence against women. In 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act to improve the criminal justice system's response to the crimes of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. The need to address the victimization of college women was supported by research indicating that college women were at a greater risk of rape and other forms of sexual assault than women of comparable age in the general population. In 1998 VAWO received funds for the Campus Program, which recognized that within the college and university environment, educational programming on violence against women, victim assistance resources, reporting and investigative processes, disciplinary policies, and other factors can have a significant influence on women's safety and on whether victims step forward to seek assistance and report these crimes. Federal Fiscal Year 1999 was the first year in which colleges and universities received funding under the Campus Program. The Campus Program grantees varied geographically, by size, and by other demographic characteristics, and included both public and private institutions. The size of the student bodies ranged from approximately 800 to more than 50,000. VAWO's grant application package for the Campus Program outlined three minimum requirements that all 38 projects were required to address. First, all projects were expected to create a coordinated community response to violence against women on campus and were encouraged to form partnerships with at least one non-profit, non-governmental victim service provider. Second, grantees were to establish a mandatory prevention and education program for all incoming students, working in collaboration with campus and community-based victim advocacy organizations. The program was to include information about dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Third, grantees were required to train campus police to respond effectively in sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking cases. An additional requirement was added for fiscal 2000 grantees, which called for training of judicial board members.

Study Design:   Specifically, the process evaluation was to consist of a review of all grantees in the program through visits to each site. Prior to the evaluation's start, the research team established an advisory board to aid in designing the methodology. This board was composed of six individuals, including a researcher who had done work in the area of violence against women on campuses, a student, a university police chief, a sexual assault services coordinator from a university, and a director of student judicial services. Because of the large number of sites in the program, the research team was limited in the extent to which a thorough process evaluation could be conducted. At the request of NIJ, the research staff made only one trip to each site to collect administrative records data and conduct interviews relating to project activities. There were not enough funds to make subsequent trips to sites to judge their progress over time. Moreover, it was not possible to do follow-up telephone calls thereby maintaining contact with grantees on their implementation efforts. In short, the process evaluation depended on a snapshot view of the campuses at the time of the site visit. Each visit typically lasted two to three days, during which as many as a dozen interviews might take place. Interviewees usually included the project director, on-campus advocate, campus law enforcement, judicial affairs personnel, education coordinator, women's center, community partners, dean of students, representatives from student organizations, and project evaluator. Project directors frequently prepared large packets of information on their institutions and their project activities for the research staff. It was common for interviewees to provide documentation of their role in the project, or summary information on their office/organization. From the interviews, the research team typically collected copies of progress reports sent to VAWO, summary sheets of campus demographics, student handbooks, training manuals for advocates and disciplinary board members, and copies of all orientation materials as well as other educational curriculum materials, newspaper articles relating to the project, relevant police orders, crime statistics, and summary advocacy statistics. Other items collected across the campuses ranged from copies of all advertising materials (mailers, posters, mugs, t-shirts, magnets, buttons) to videos of major project presentations. To facilitate the visits, the research team developed several protocols to allow for structured interviews. The protocols provided for consistent data collection across the campuses. After conducting a visit, the research staff prepared a site report, usually 20 to 25 pages in length, which represented a process evaluation report for a particular grantee/site. These reports were sent to the project directors at the sites for their review. The research staff made appropriate changes to the reports as a result of these reviews and then submitted them to NIJ as a deliverable product from the evaluation. Part 1 data consist of basic information about each grantee's campus and the violence against women programs and services available at each site. Data for Part 2 were collected using a Partnership Survey, which was a supplement to the site visit observations. The purpose of the survey, which was administered to grant project staff, was to document perceptions of project participants about program collaboration. From the 35-item questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with items grouped into three categories: those regarding the partnership, the project, and individual participation. Respondents were also invited to provide comments on any survey item. The survey questionnaire was made available for downloading to all project directors through the Institute of Law and Justice's Web site. Copies were also distributed at site visit interviews. Respondents were given the option of mailing or faxing their completed surveys. A total of 247 surveys were received, representing 33 of the 38 campuses.

Sample:   All 38 grantee project sites were targeted for inclusion in the sample for Part 1. Three project sites (Jamestown College, Tulane University, and University of Connecticut) represented consortiums. The Jamestown College and Tulane University projects involved more than one university participating in grant activities, although coordination of the grants took place on their respective campuses. The Jamestown College consortium included five other campuses: the University of North Dakota, North Dakota State College of Science, Lake Region State College, Mayville State University, and Fort Berthold Community College, a tribal institution. Tulane's consortium included Southern University at New Orleans and the University of New Orleans. The third consortium project was administered by the University of Connecticut, which implemented the project on its main campus first, and at the time of the evaluation only represented one institution. The Jamestown College and Tulane University sites were not included in the final sample, resulting in 36 grantee project sites. For Part 2, all project staff (either employees of the college/university or employees of one of the community partners) who were present during the site visit were targeted for inclusion in the sample. A total of 247 surveys were received, representing 33 of the 38 campuses.

Data Source:

For Part 1 administrative records data were collected from the United States of Education, the College Board, and official records provided by representatives from each college's or university's Campus Program. Data for Part 2 were collected from surveys administered to grant project staff and participants.

Description of Variables:   Variables for Part 1 include whether an institution was public or private, located in an urban, suburban, or rural area, the number of students comprising the student population, whether students were residential or commuters, the year of the grant award, award amount, level of programming at the time of the award, whether there were campus police special units, conduct code for stalking, coordinated community response, relationship violence counseling, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), sexual assault counseling, court accompaniment, hospital accompaniment, shelter services, legal advocacy services, hot-lines, language interpreters, and if campus police had any of the following training: sexual assault sensitivity training, domestic violence sensitivity training, stalking sensitivity training, sexual assault procedural training, and domestic violence training. Other variables include type of coordinated community response and educational programming, and the year violence against women services began on campus. Variables for Part 2 include whether a respondent was a university employee, whether respondents agreed or disagreed that the partnership would remain in place once federal funding was gone, if the partners in the project worked well together, were vested in the project, had common goals, were open to outside ideas or suggestions, had the victims' needs in mind, and if the partners perceived a shared responsibility for the success of the joint projects and activities. Respondents also offered their opinions on if relevant information was shared in a timely fashion, if there were barriers to effective communication, if information was shared with the public, if the partnership had realistic, obtainable, and measurable goals, if the partnership was on track for meeting goals, if the project had the potential to improve the safety or well-being of victims, if victims were encouraged to report victimization, if violence against women had increased since the inception of the project, if the project improved victim advocacy services on campus, if the project considered cultural, racial, and ethnic differences when planning projects and activities, and whether the project was considered a success.

Response Rates:   Part 1: inap. For Part 2, an average of 11 surveys were returned from each campus, the median return rate was smaller (7 surveys per campus). The range of returned surveys included as few as 1 and as many as 16 surveys.

Presence of Common Scales:   Several Likert-type scales were used in Part 2.

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.
  • Created online analysis version with question text.
  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:  

Version History:

  • 2006-03-30 File UG3814.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.
  • 2006-03-30 File CQ3814.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 ?

Variables

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.