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

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.