Evaluation of the Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program [United States], 2010-2012 (ICPSR 34593)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) program; evaluate victims' awareness and use of automated victim notification (AVN) systems and the role service providers play in ensuring that victims are aware of, and able to successfully register for, AVN services.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Researchers conducted telephone interviews with automated victim notification (AVN) system administrators (AVN System Administrator Interview Data, n=52), including those in states not participating in the BJA SAVIN program. Researchers also interviewed individuals overseeing victim notification services in states with AVN. The first iteration of the administrator interviews was conducted in 2010. Researchers also created two online surveys to supplement the information collected in the telephone interviews. The first was sent in July 2010 to administrators who had participated in the SAVIN program. In November 2010, a second follow-up survey was sent to AVN administrators. Further telephone interviews were conducted in 2011 and again in 2012.

The research team conducted a survey of service providers (Survey of Service Providers Data, n=1,246) to assess perceptions of AVN. The survey was primarily administered in electronic format using skip patterns, although paper versions were available upon request. The research team fielded the survey for three months, sending weekly reminder emails to individuals and organizations.

Researchers contacted selected service providers via email and telephone to inform them that they had been identified to participate in the survey of victims (Survey of Victims Data, n=1,355) and asked to confirm their participation. The survey of victims was primarily administered through hard copies distributed by participating service providers. Hard copy surveys were only available in English; however, the survey was also available electronically in both English and Spanish. Survey administration packages were distributed to each office, and included

200 surveys, in individual envelopes that could be sealed upon completion;

1 display box, to display the surveys;

1 drop box, for respondents to deposit their completed, sealed surveys;

4 FedEx boxes, (pre-paid and pre-addressed) for providers to return completed surveys; and

200 information cards (on side English and one side Spanish), with information on the online survey that providers could hand out to clients who did not come into the office (e.g., clients they encountered through court or home visits).

Participating service providers displayed the surveys in a public area where they could be completed by anyone visiting the office for an issue related to victim services. To encourage participation from victims who did not receive in-office services, the research team gave providers a sample email (in both English and Spanish) that they could provide to remote clients with information about how to access the online survey. The research team fielded the survey for three months in 2012, with reminder emails sent to participating providers on a bi-weekly basis.

Sample View help for Sample

To obtain the sample for the interviews with automated victim notification (AVN) system administrators (AVN System Administrator Interview Data, n=52), researchers obtained information through the review of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Grants Management System (GMS). BJA's Training and Technical Assistance grantee and system venders supplemented this list with contact information for administrators in the state that had not participated in the BJA SAVIN program. Prior to each iteration of interviews, researchers updated the contact list. Researchers excluded administrators from data collection efforts after three attempts to reach the administrator were made with no response.

The target population for the survey of service providers (Survey of Service Providers Data, n=1,246) included services providers providing direct services to victims of violent crime (i.e. murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) occurring in the United States.

Researchers used national and state databases to compile a list of representative service providers across the following criteria:

Geographic area

Type of organization; and

Population served

To include as many service providers as possible, the researchers supplemented national and state databases through snowball sampling, in which service providers were encouraged to forward the survey to other service providers in their organizations and the larger victim services field.

The Office of Victims of Crime's Directory of Crime Victims Services was the primary means through which services providers were identified for the survey. Through online research and telephone calls, researchers verified and updated program contact information maintained in the database. Researchers also ensured that the service providers affiliated with the organizations were in the survey's target population; organizations that were out of the scope of the survey were excluded. Exclusionary criteria from this and other data sources included:

Duplicate entries

Departments of social services

Facilities with the primary purpose of providing medical services

Service providers located on tribal reservations

Service providers in U.S. territories (including Puerto Rico)

Victim compensation offices

Organizations focused exclusively on the provision of mental health services, virtual services, services for children and youth, services for victims of non-violent crimes, self- and peer-support services, and services for military personnel; and

Organizations where contact was attempted at least three times with no response

Using the above criteria, 2,726 organizations in the Directory of Crime Victim Services were excluded, resulting in the inclusion of 1,661 organizations in the sample. The research team supplemented the Directory of Crime Victim Services with online searchers of service provider directories (n=1,017 organizations). In addition, researchers sent the survey to previously interviewed system administrators (n=64), and to members subscribed on the National Sheriffs' Association listserv (n=3,083).

To obtain the sample for the survey of victims (Survey of Victims Data, n=1,355), researchers divided respondents from the survey of service providers into strata based on geographic location, type of organization, number of victims served per month, and type of AVN system available. Researchers oversampled states with automated systems that had not participated in the SAVIN programs (n=9), states with no automated system (n=3), and states with low response rates on the survey of the service providers (n=6). Researchers then sorted the remaining service providers (n=1,106) based on the following strata: state name (alphanumeric), number of victims served (high to low), and type of organization (non-profit organization, criminal justice government agency, non-criminal justice government agency, and other). Starting with the provided listed as number one, researchers selected every third service provider (n=369). To bring the number of sampled service providers to 500, researcher identified the remaining 40 service providers by randomly oversampling providers from the six most populated states. Participating service providers displayed the surveys in a public area where they could be completed by anyone visiting the office for an issue related to victim services.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

The universe for the Automated Victim Notification (AVN) System Administrator interviews is all AVN system administrators in the United States between 2010 and 2012. The universe for the Service Provider interviews is all service providers working with victims of violent crime in the United States in 2011. The universe for the Victim interviews is all victims of violent crime seeking services from service providers in the United States between 2010 and 2012.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

The AVN System Administrator Interview Data (n=52, 62 variables) includes variables in the following 6 areas:

History of automated or manual notification programs

Funding

Planning and governance

Availability of AVN services and features

Victim and public outreach

Program success and obstacles

Training for service providers and relevant stakeholders

The Survey of Service Providers Data (n=1,246, 205 variables) includes respondent demographics and variables in the areas of:

Awareness and use of AVN

Satisfaction with and benefits of AVN

Identification of limitations and/or challenges with AVN; and

Proposed improvements and suggestions

The Survey of Victims Data (n=1,355, 272 variables) includes respondent demographics and variables in the areas of:

Awareness and use of AVN

Satisfaction with and benefits of AVN

Identification of limitations and/or challenges with AVN; and

Proposed improvements and suggestions

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

A total of 52 respondents completed the interviews with automated victim notification (AVN) system administrators.

A total of 1,246 respondents completed the survey of service providers.

Of the 500 service providers sampled to participate in the victim survey (Survey of Victims Data, n=1,355), 241 agreed to participated (98 formally opted out and 161 were excluded after contact was attempted at least five times with no response), for a participation rate of 48 percent.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

None

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2016-09-30

Version History View help for Version History

Hide

Weight View help for Weight

None

Hide