Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.
Curated
The Effectiveness of Coordinated Outreach in Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Denver, Colorado 2007 to 2009 (ICPSR 30961)
Released/updated on: 2014-11-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-01-01
In collaboration with community- and system-based partners, the current study used an experimental design to test the impact of phone outreach from community-based agencies to women exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) compared to phone referrals provided by system-based unit (i.e., the Victim Assistance Unit of the DPD or the City Attorney's Office) in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of women whose cases have come to the attention of the criminal justice system. The phone outreach was informed by an interdisciplinary team involving both system- and community-based team members. Participants, who were randomly selected to receive outreach or treatment-as-usual, were interviewed at three time points: after an incident of IPV was reported to the police (T1), 6 months after T1, and 12 months after T1. The study addressed three primary roles. First, investigators evaluated the effectiveness of a coordinated, community-based outreach program in improving criminal justice and victim safety and empowerment outcomes for IPV victims using a longitudinal, randomized control design. Second, victim and case characteristics that moderated outcomes were identified. Third, the influence of spatial characteristics on criminal justice outcomes was evaluated.
Curated
Evaluation of the Lexington County, South Carolina, Domestic Violence Court, 1997-2002 (ICPSR 4045)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 1997-01-01--2002-01-01
A separate Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC) was established in Lexington County, South Carolina, in November 1999, to hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable through increasing fines and jail time and to place a strong emphasis on mandatory batterer treatment programs. The CDVC was a specialized court that combined the efforts of law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, mental health professionals, and victim advocates to improve the safety of domestic violence victims and hold offenders accountable. The researchers undertook to evaluate and measure the extent to which the CDVC was successful in implementing its goals. For the process evaluation, interviews were conducted in 2002 with 50 victims and 50 defendants to examine their overall level of satisfaction with the court process, their perceptions of procedural justice, and their recommendations for improving the CDVC process. Interviews were conducted in person using structured questions immediately after a case was heard. The outcome evaluation consisted of two methods of data collection. A time series intervention analysis examined the monthly frequency of criminal domestic violence for the years 1997 through 2001. Criminal domestic violence cases were compared for the 34 months before the establishment of the CDVC (January 1997 to October 1999) and the first 26 months following its implementation (November 1999 to December 2001). Additionally, in an effort to examine the impact of the Lexington County Criminal Domestic Violence Court on individual case outcomes, a recidivism analysis was conducted on a random sample of 400 criminal domestic violence cases. Of these cases, 200 were control cases drawn from the Lexington County Sheriff's Department's arrest database for the period January 1997 to June 1999, and 200 were treatment cases comprised of domestic violence arrest cases that occurred between December 1999 and December 2000 and processed through CDVC. Variables in Part 1 (Victim Interview Data) and Part 2 (Defendant Interview Data) included responses to structured interview questions about the victims' and offenders' perceptions of various aspects of the court process, whether they felt treated with dignity and respect, and their overall impression of the CDVC response to domestic violence. Variables in Part 3 (Monthly Arrest Data) include court period, month, and frequency of monthly domestic violence arrests, monthly simple assault arrests, and monthly aggravated assault arrests. Variables in Part 4 (Recidivism Data) include race, age, and gender of offender, employment status, booking date, days in jail prior to trial, number of charges pending, number of prior domestic violence offenses, date of first re-arrest, recidivism within first year and a half, days free of arrest, if defendant was diverted to pretrial intervention, and the amount of the fine.
Curated
Impact of Proactive Enforcement of No-Contact Orders on Victim Safety and Repeat Victimization in Lexington County, South Carolina, 2005-2008 (ICPSR 25261)
Released/updated on: 2013-07-31
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 2005-11-01--2008-06-01
The study focused on domestic violence victims whose alleged batterers were free on bond with a no-contact order (NCO) as a condition of their release in Lexington County, South Carolina between 2005 and 2008. The project involved a prospective, randomized experimental study in which 466 NCO cases were randomly assigned to either the current level of NCO enforcement (the control condition, N=229) or to proactive enforcement (the treatment condition, N=237). An additional 51 interim control cases were enrolled in the study during a coverage gap between the two officers that implemented the treatment condition over the course of the study. The treatment condition involved the following intervention: (1) a special domestic violence investigator assigned by the jurisdiction's sheriff proactively "checked in" with the "treatment" group of victims to verify that they understood the NCO and to monitor compliance; (2) the investigator provided advice on mobilizing law enforcement and collecting evidence to help sanction the offender if the order was violated. Data were collected from official Lexington County Sheriff's Department (LCSD), Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC), and Office of Diversion Programs (ODP) records (Dataset 1, Offender Data). Efforts were made to interview victims at six weeks (Dataset 2, Time 1 Victim Interview Data, N=141) and six months (Dataset 3, Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=100) after the gateway arrest. Dataset 4 (Combined Time 1/Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=97) include overall measures for respondents who completed both the Time 1 and Time 2 interviews. The victim interviews include measures on background characteristics, life experiences, circumstances surrounding the "gateway incident" which resulted in the case being enrolled in the study, and subsequent victimization experiences and no-contact order compliance levels.