Search results

Showing 1 – 4 of 4 results.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence Court Processing in Connecticut, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3603)

Released/updated on: 2003-10-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Connecticut

Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01

This study documented women's experience of enhanced services and advocacy in the context of the three special session domestic violence courts in Connecticut. The study conducted 60 in-depth interviews with women whose current or former partners were arrested for domestic violence and who appeared in one of the three special session courts. The questions were designed to elicit information from women about the meaning and context of intimate violence in their lives generally, their assessments of the risks and options available to them and their children from family, friends, and other institutions, their strategies for maximizing safety for themselves and their children, the meaning of the arrest incident in their overall experience of their relationship with their abusive partner, and the impact of the court experience on their plans, sense of options, and understanding of the abuse they had experienced.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of Victim Advocacy Services for Battered Women in Detroit, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3017)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22

Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Michigan

Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01

This study evaluated advocacy services offered to battered women in Detroit, Michigan, and examined other aspects of coordinated community responses to domestic violence by focusing on women named as victims in police reports. Advocacy was defined as those services provided to support victims during the legal process or to enhance their safety. For the Preliminary Complaint Reports Data (Part 1), a random sample of preliminary complaint reports (PCRs), completed by police officers after they responded to domestic violence calls, were gathered, resulting in a sample of 1,057 incidents and victims. For Victim Advocacy Contact Data (Part 2), researchers obtained data from advocates' files about the services they provided to the 1,057 victims. For Case Disposition Data (Part 3), researchers conducted a computer search to determine the outcomes of the cases. They looked up each perpetrator from the list of 1,057 incidents, and determined whether there was a warrant for the focal incident, whether it turned into a prosecution, and the outcome. The Initial Victim Interview (Part 4) and Follow-Up Victim Interview Data (Part 5) were conducted from April 1998 to July 1999. During the same period that researchers were completing the second interviews, they also interviewed 23 women (Victim Comparison Group Interview Data, Part 6) from the list of 1,057 whom they had been unable to reach during the first interviews. They compared these 23 women to the 63 who had second interviews to determine if there were any differences in use of services, or views toward or participation in prosecution. Variables in Part 1 focus on whether alcohol and abuse were involved, previous incidents, the suspect's psychological aggressions and physical assaults, if a weapon was used, if the victim was hurt, if property was damaged, if the victim sought medical attention, and the severity of physical abuse or injury. Variables in Part 2 provide information on the role of the advocate, methods of contact, types of referrals made, and services provided. Variables in Part 3 include the type of charge, outcome of resolved case, why the case was dismissed, if applicable, and if the suspect was sentenced to probation, costs, confinement, no contact with the victim, a batterer program, or community service. The initial, follow-up, and comparison group interviews (Parts 4-6) all collected similar information. Variables about the incident include how well the respondent remembered the incident, if police arrived promptly, if the respondent was advised to file charges, if police told the respondent that a counselor was available, and if the respondent's partner had been in jail since the incident. Variables concerning advocacy include whether the victim contacted advocates, and if advocates provided legal help and referrals. Legal system variables include whether the respondent felt pressured by anyone to drop charges or pursue charges, if the respondent received help for preliminary examination or trial, and if contact with the legal system helped the respondent. Variables about services include whether the respondent received assistance in temporary shelter, food/money resources, child care, employment, education, a lawyer for divorce/custody, support or self-help group, or a substance abuse treatment program. Variables concerning what happened in the previous six months cover the number of times the respondent had called police because of danger, left home because of a violent incident, partner had been arrested because of violence, and partner physically abused respondent. Variables about events that occurred while the respondent and abuser were separated include how often the partner harassed the respondent on the phone, wrote threatening letters, violated legal restrictions, refused to leave the respondent's home, failed to pay child support, and threatened to take the children. Demographic variables include respondent's race or ethnic background, education, marital status, number of children, number of children who lived with respondent, and employment status and income at the time of the interviews.

Curated

Partially restricted

Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP), Multi-Site Evaluation in 11 States [Restricted-Use], 2012-2017 (ICPSR 37379)

Released/updated on: 2020-04-06

Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, California, Florida, Utah, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2012-01-01--2017-01-01

In 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration field experiment, the Mentoring Enhancement Demonstration Program (MEDP) and Evaluation to examine: (1) the use of an "advocacy" role for mentors; and (2) the use of a teaching/information provision role for mentors. The overall goal of MEDP was to develop program models that specified what advocacy and teaching look like in practice and to understand whether encouraging the general practice of advocacy and teaching could improve youth outcomes. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a rigorous process and outcome evaluation of programs funded by OJJDP in 2012. The evaluation was designed to rigorously assess the effectiveness of programs that agreed to develop and implement enhanced practices incorporating advocacy or teaching roles for mentors, including providing focused prematch and ongoing training to mentors, and providing ongoing support to help mentors carry out the targeted roles.

MEDP grantees comprised collaboratives that would offer coordinated implementation of the same set of program enhancements in three or four separate established and qualified mentoring programs located within the same regional area. The MEDP collaboratives varied widely in their geographical locations, their size and experience in mentoring, and the structure of their mentoring programs. The types and structures of mentoring programs also varied across, and sometimes within, collaboratives. All the collaboratives proposed enhancements in the way they would train mentors for their roles, and in the way they would provide ongoing support to the mentors and in some cases the youth that they were matched with.

This data collection consists of multiple types of respondents (youth, parents, mentors, and staff) across multiple data collection periods.

Curated

Partially restricted

Providing a Citywide System of Single Point Access to Domestic Violence Information, Resources, and Referrals to a Diverse Population: An Evaluation of the City of Chicago Domestic Violence Help Line, 2004-2005 (ICPSR 33970)

Released/updated on: 2012-10-23

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois

Time period: 2004-07-01--2005-08-01, 2005-04-01--2005-08-01, 2004-05-01--2004-09-01

This study was a 2-year evaluation of the City of Chicago Domestic Violence Help Line. The Help Line was a unique telephone service functioning as a clearinghouse for all domestic violence victim services in the Chicago metropolitan area. The service was toll-free, multi-lingual, confidential, and operated 24-hours, 7 days a week. The purpose of the Help Line was to connect domestic violence victims to specialized services through direct referrals and three-way phone linkages.

In order to conduct a comprehensive evaluation, the perspective of a broad range of users of the Help Line was sought. Telephone interviews were conducted with domestic violence victim callers to the Help Line over the course of one year (Part 1 - Victims Data). Telephone interviews were also conducted with domestic violence service providers (Part 2 - Providers Data). As the largest referral source into the Help Line, Chicago Police Officers completed a written survey about their experiences with the Help Line (Part 3 - Police Data). Finally, to explore the general awareness of the Help Line, members of the District Advisory Committees across the city were surveyed (Part 4 - District Advisory Committee (DAC) Data).

The Part 1 (Victims Data) data file contains 399 cases and 277 variables. The Part 2 (Providers Data) data file contains 74 cases and 137 variables. The Part 3 (Police Data) data file contains 1,205 cases and 128 variables. The Part 4 (District Advisory Committee (DAC) Data) data file contains 357 cases and 105 variables.