Showing 1 – 4 of 4 results.
Curated
Evaluation of a Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washtenaw County, Michigan; and Dorchester, Massachusetts; 1997-2004 (ICPSR 25924)
Released/updated on: 2011-04-29
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Lowell, Massachusetts, Dorchester, Wisconsin, Michigan
Time period: 1997-01-01--2004-01-01
The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors' records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Exams: Payment Practices and Policies in the United States, 2011 (ICPSR 34906)
Released/updated on: 2016-08-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-07-01--2011-12-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
The qualitative Case Study data is not available as part of this data collection at this time.
The purpose of the study was to examine: (1) which entities pay for sexual assault medical forensic exams (MFEs) in state and local jurisdictions throughout the United States, and the policies and practices around determining payment; (2) what services are provided in the exam process and how exams are linked to counseling, advocacy, and other services; (3) whether exams are provided to victims regardless of their reporting or intention to report the assault to the criminal justice system; (4) how MFE kits are being stored for victims who choose not to participate in the criminal justice system process; and (5) whether Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 2005 requirements are generally being met throughout the country.
Researchers conducted national surveys to obtain state-level information from state Services Training Officers Prosecutors (STOP) administrators (SSAs), victim compensation fund administrators, and state-level sexual assault coalitions. Surveys were distributed to potential respondents in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and United States territories that held these state-level positions. Researchers also distributed local-level surveys though an extensive listserv maintained by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC). Researchers also conducted case studies in 19 local jurisdictions across six states were selected for case studies.
Interviewees included
- the victim compensation fund administrator, state STOP administrator, state coalition director (or an appointed staff member) and sometimes crime lab or other state justice agency personnel, at the state level, and;
- law enforcement, prosecution, victim advocacy staff, and healthcare-based exam providers at the local level.
Finally, researchers concluded each local jurisdiction visit with a focus group with victims of sexual assault.
Data collection efforts included: a national survey of crime victim compensation fund administrators (Compensation Data, n = 26); a national survey of Services Training Officers Prosecutors (STOP) grant program administrators (SSA Data, n = 52); a national survey of state sexual assault coalitions (Coalitions Data, n = 47); and a survey of local community-based victim service providers (Local Provider Data, n = 489).
Curated
Partially restricted
Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000 (ICPSR 3382)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Brooklyn, New York (state)
Time period: 1994-01-01--2000-01-01
This study examined the ways in which the model of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition, indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months, history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims, weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence, disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex and race of the defendant.
Curated
Victims' Ratings of Police Services in New York and Texas, 1994-1995 Survey (ICPSR 6787)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: New York, United States, Texas
Time period: 1994-12-01--1995-03-01
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 (FVPSA) provided funding, through the Office of Victims of Crime in the United States Department of Justice, for 23 law enforcement training projects across the nation from 1986 to 1992. FVPSA was enacted to assist states in (1) developing and maintaining programs for the prevention of family violence and for the provision of shelter to victims and their dependents and (2) providing training and technical assistance for personnel who provide services for victims of family violence. The National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Urban Institute in late 1992 to evaluate the police training projects. One of the program evaluation methods the Urban Institute used was to conduct surveys of victims in New York and Texas. The primary objectives of the survey were to find out, from victims who had contact with law enforcement officers in the pre-training period and/or in the post-training period, what their experiences and evaluations of law enforcement services were, how police interventions had changed over time, and how the quality of services and changes related to the police training funded under the FVPSA. Following the conclusion of training, victims of domestic assault in New York and Texas were surveyed through victim service programs across each state. Similar, but not identical, instruments were used at the two sites. Service providers were asked to distribute the questionnaires to victims of physical or sexual abuse who had contact with law enforcement officers. The survey instruments were developed to obtain information and victim perceptions of the following key subject areas: history of abuse, characteristics of the victim-abuser relationship, demographic characteristics of the abuser and the victim, history of law enforcement contacts, services received from law enforcement officers, and victims' evaluations of these services. Variables on history of abuse include types of abuse experienced, first and last time physically or sexually abused, and frequency of abuse. Characteristics of the victim-abuser relationship include length of involvement with the abuser, living arrangement and relationship status at time of last abuse, number of children the victim had, and number of children at home at the time of last abuse. Demographic variables provide age, race/ethnicity, employment status, and education level of the abuser and the victim. Variables on the history of law enforcement contacts and services received include number of times law enforcement officers were called because of assaults on the victim, number of times law enforcement officers actually came to the scene, first and last time officers came to the scene, number of times officers were involved because of assaults on the victim, number of times officers were involved in the last 12 months, and type of law enforcement agencies the officers were from. Data are also included on city size by population, city median household income, county population density, county crime rate, and region of state of the responding law enforcement agencies. Over 30 variables record the victims' evaluations of the officers' responsiveness, helpfulness, and attitudes.