Showing 1 – 2 of 2 results.
Curated
Restricted
Impact Evaluation of Stop Violence Against Women Grants in Dane County, Wisconsin, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Jackson County, Missouri, and Stark County, Ohio, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3252)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin
In 1996 the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) began an evaluation of the law enforcement and prosecution components of the "STOP Violence Against Women" grant program authorized by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This data collection constitutes one component of the evaluation. The researchers chose to evaluate two specialized units and two multi-agency team projects in order to study the local impact of STOP on victim safety and offender accountability. The two specialized units reflected typical STOP funding, with money being used for the addition of one or two dedicated professionals in each community. The Dane County, Wisconsin, Sheriff's Office used STOP funds to support the salaries of two domestic violence detectives. This project was evaluated through surveys of domestic violence victims served by the Dane County Sheriff's Office (Part 1). In Stark County, Ohio, the Office of the Prosecutor used STOP funds to support the salary of a designated felony domestic violence prosecutor. The Stark County project was evaluated by tracking domestic violence cases filed with the prosecutor's office. The case tracking system included only cases involving intimate partner violence, with a male offender and female victim. All domestic violence felons from 1996 were tracked from arrest to disposition and sentence (Part 2). This pre-grant group of felons was compared with a sample of cases from 1999 (Part 3). In Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, a comprehensive evaluation strategy was used to assess the impact of the use of STOP funds on domestic violence cases. First, a sample of 1996 pre-grant and 1999 post-grant domestic violence cases was tracked from arrest to disposition for both regular domestic violence cases (Part 4) and also for dual arrest cases (Part 5). Second, a content analysis of police incident reports from pre- and post-grant periods was carried out to gauge any changes in report writing (Part 6). Finally, interviews were conducted with victims to document their experiences with the criminal justice system, and to better understand the factors that contribute to victim safety and well-being (Part 7). In Jackson County, Missouri, evaluation methods included reviews of prosecutor case files and tracking all sex crimes referred to the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office over both pre-grant and post-grant periods (Part 8). The evaluation also included personal interviews with female victims (Part 9). Variables in Part 1 (Dane County Victim Survey Data) describe the relationship of the victim and offender, injuries sustained, who called the police and when, how the police responded to the victim and the situation, how the detective contacted the victim, and services provided by the detective. Part 2 (1996 Stark County Case Tracking Data), Part 3 (1999 Stark County Case Tracking Data), Part 4 (Hillsborough County Regular Case Tracking Data), Part 5 (Hillsborough County Dual Arrest Case Tracking Data), and Part 8 (Jackson County Case Tracking Data) include variables on substance abuse by victim and offender, use of weapons, law enforcement response, primary arrest offense, whether children were present, injuries sustained, indictment charge, pre-sentence investigation, victim impact statement, arrest and trial dates, disposition, sentence, and court costs. Demographic variables include the age, sex, and ethnicity of the victim and the offender. Variables in Part 6 (Hillsborough County Police Report Data) provide information on whether there was an existing protective order, whether the victim was interviewed separately, severity of injuries, seizure of weapons, witnesses present, involvement of children, and demeanor of suspect and victim. In Part 7 (Hillsborough County Victim Interview Data) variables focus on whether victims had prior experience with the court, type of physical abuse experienced, injuries from abuse, support from relatives, friends, neighbors, doctor, religious community, or police, assistance from police, satisfaction with police response, expectations about case outcome, why the victim dropped the charges, contact with the prosecutor, criminal justice advocate, and judge, and the outcome of the case. Demographic variables include age, race, number of children, and occupation. Variables in Part 9 (Jackson County Victim Interview Data) relate to when victims were sexually assaulted, if they knew the perpetrator, who was contacted to help, victims' opinions about police and detectives who responded to the case, contact with the prosecutor and victim's advocate, and aspects of the medical examination. Demographic variables include age, race, and marital status.
Curated
National Review of Stalking Laws and Implementation Practices in the United States, 1998-2001 (ICPSR 3411)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2001-01-01
This study was designed to clarify the status of stalking laws and their implementation needs. To accomplish this, the principal investigator conducted a survey of police and prosecutor agencies across the country to determine how stalking laws were being implemented. While there had been significant federal support for state and local agencies to adopt anti-stalking laws and implement anti-stalking initiatives, no comprehensive review of the status of such efforts had been done. Thus, there had been no way of knowing what additional measures might be needed to enhance local anti-stalking efforts. Two national surveys on stalking were conducted. The first survey of 204 law enforcement agencies (Part 1, Initial Law Enforcement Survey Data) and 222 prosecution offices (Part 3, Initial Prosecutor Survey Data) in jurisdictions with populations over 250,000 was conducted by mail in November of 1998. The survey briefly asked what special efforts the agencies had undertaken against stalking, including special units, training, or written policies and procedures. A replication of the first national survey was conducted in November of 2000. Part 2, Follow-Up Law Enforcement Survey Data, contains the follow-up data for law enforcement agencies and Part 4, Follow-Up Prosecutor Survey Data, contains the second survey data for prosecutors. Parts 1 to 4 include variables about the unit that handled stalking cases, types of stalking training provided, written policies on stalking cases, and whether statistics were collected on stalking and harassment. Parts 2 and 4 also include variables about the type of funding received by agencies. Part 4 also contains variables about other charges that might be filed in stalking cases, such as harassment, threats, criminal trespass, and protection order violation.