The focus of this research and evaluation
endeavor was on direct service programs in Ohio, particularly advocacy
services for female victims of violence, receiving funding through the
STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) formula grants under
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. It was undertaken as a
collaborative partnership between the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice
Services (OCJS) and the Ohio State University (OSU). The objectives of
this project were (1) to describe and compare existing advocacy
services in Ohio, (2) to compare victim advocacy typologies and
identify key variables in the delivery of services, (3) to develop a
better understanding of how victim advocacy services are defined and
delivered, and (4) to assess the effectiveness of those services.
There were two components to this evaluation: a study of victim
service agencies (Parts 1 and 3-23) and a survey of police officers
(Part 2), some of whom participated in a new victim services program
and others who did not. The descriptions of victim advocacy services
focused on (a) the types of agencies providing services, (b) how those
programs defined advocacy, (c) how those definitions were reflected in
the services being delivered, and (d) what outcomes the funded
agencies hoped to achieve. The program evaluation sought to determine
the effectiveness of the police officers' training and the effects of
their improved access to information on the outcome of domestic
violence cases in which they were involved.
In fiscal year 1996, 55 programs in Ohio were
competitively selected through a grants process to receive VAWA
funding. For this study, VAWA programs in urban centers were selected,
since they offered the largest number of clients and the richest
diversity of services. The number of agencies participating in the
evaluation was further restricted to agencies identified as providing
direct services to victims. When these two criteria were applied, 13
victim advocacy programs were identified to participate in the
evaluation. For Part 1, Service Agencies Data, a survey was mailed to
each of the 13 agencies to collect comprehensive information about
services provided for victims. Respondents could either mail or fax
their completed surveys to the investigators. Additionally, a few
telephone interviews were conducted due to time constraints. The
survey was designed to collect detailed information from each of the
projects based on OCJS and VAWA quarterly performance reports, and to
solicit more detailed information on organizational structure, clients
served, and agency services. Focus groups were also used to collect
data from clients (Parts 3-11) and staff (Parts 12-23) about
definitions of advocacy, type of services needed by victims, services
that are provided, and the outcomes that are important to service
providers. This qualitative approach allowed the researchers to
describe services from the perspectives of the recipients and the
providers and to compare their views on critical questions while still
being sensitive to the needs of the women who participated. Each of
the focus groups lasted one to one and a half hours and the
discussions were audio-taped for later transcription and analysis.
The number of participants in each group ranged from two to sixteen.
No demographic data were collected on the participants in an effort to
protect respondent confidentiality of the clients and staff. Site
codes were also omitted for the same reason. Part 2, Police Officer
Data, focused on police officers' attitudes toward domestic violence
and on evaluating service outcomes in one particular agency. The
agency selected was a prosecutor's office that aimed to improve
services to victims by changing how the police and prosecutors
responded to domestic violence cases. The prosecutor's office chose
one police district as the site for implementing the new program,
which included training police officers and placing a prosecutor in
the district office to work directly with the police on domestic
violence cases. A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the police
training program, and police officers from the selected district were
administered the surveys. Also surveyed were officers from another
district who handled a similar number of domestic violence cases and
employed a comparable number of officers. The first 20 questions of
the survey were completed by all respondents in both districts and
addressed attitudes toward domestic violence cases. Five additional
questions were included on the version distributed to the selected
district to assess the officers' reactions to the procedural changes
that were implemented as part of the new approach to dealing with
domestic violence.
Part 1: All victim advocacy service agencies that provided
direct services and were located in Ohio urban centers. Part 2: All
police officers in an urban Ohio district where the prosecutor's
office implemented a new training program, and all officers from a
comparison district. Parts 3-11: Clients of victim advocacy service
agencies in Ohio urban centers. Parts 12-23: Staff of victim advocacy
service agencies in Ohio urban centers.
Part 1: Programs, Parts 2-23: Individuals.
Most of the data from Part 1 were collected with
mailback questionnaires. Some telephone interviews were conducted for
Part 1 due to time constraints. Part 2 data were collected through
self-enumerated questionnaires. Data for Parts 3 to 23 were gathered
through focus groups.
Variables in Part 1 include number of staff,
budget, funding sources, number and types of victims served, target
population, number of victims served speaking languages other than
English, number of juveniles and adults served, number of victims with
special needs served, collaboration with other organizations, benefits
of VAWA funding, and direct and referral services provided by the
agency. Variables in Part 2 cover police officers' views on whether it
was a waste of time to prosecute domestic violence cases, if these
cases were likely to result in a conviction, whether they felt
sympathetic toward the victims or blamed the victims, how the
prosecution should proceed with domestic violence cases, how the
prosecution and police worked together on such cases, whether domestic
violence was a private matter, and, for officers participating in the
new program implemented under VAWA, how they felt about the
program. In Parts 3-11 clients were asked about what brought them to
the service agency, why they chose that particular agency, what it was
like at the agency, if they felt safe, whether the staff were
supportive, what types of services they received and whether the
services met their needs, and their biggest success in coming to the
agency. In Parts 12-23 staff were asked what brought women to their
agency, how they described their target population, why women chose
their agency, what women needed from their agency, whether the women
felt safe at their agency, whether staff were supportive of clients,
what services women received, whether these services met the needs of
women, and what were the biggest successes of their clients.
The response rate for Part 1 was 85 percent. The
response rate for Part 2 is unknown.
Several Likert-type scales were used in Parts 1 and 2.