This report was prepared by Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RAND Corporation, NORC at the University 

of Chicago, and the National Center for Victims of Crime using federal funding provided by BJS. 

Document Title: Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

Author(s): Barbara A. Oudekerk and Lynn Langton, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Heather Warnken, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office for Victims of Crime

Sarah M. Greathouse and Nelson Lim, RAND Corporation

Bruce Taylor and Vince Welch, NORC at the University of Chicago

Susan Howley, National Center for Victims of Crime 

Document No.: 251524

Publication Date: February 2018

Award No.: This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 2012-VF-GX-K025.

Abstract:

This report describes the development of the National Census of Victim Service Providers (NCVSP), 

including the development of the national roster of entities potentially serving victims, the NCVSP data 

collection instrument, and the implementation and results of a pilot study conducted with 725 entities 

from the national roster. Results examine the feasibility of obtaining high response rates from different 

types of victim service providers (VSPs), experimental tests of different procedures for collecting data 

from VSPs, and the quality and nature of substantive information generated from the NCVSP 

instrument.

Disclaimer

Findings, opinions, or points of view expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect official findings, positions or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers:

A Pilot Test

Barbara A. Oudekerk and Lynn Langton

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Heather Warnken

Bureau of Justice Statistics and

Office for Victims of Crime

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Sarah M. Greathouse and Nelson Lim

RAND Corporation

1776 Main Street

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Bruce Taylor and Vince Welch

NORC at the University of Chicago

 55 East Monroe Street, 30th Floor

 Chicago, IL 60603

Susan Howley

National Center for Victims of Crime

2000 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Research papers have been reviewed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to ensure only the 

general accuracy of information presented and adherence to confidentiality and disclosure 

standards. This paper is released to inform interested parties about research and methodologies 

sponsored by BJS. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily represent the views of BJS and the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

ii

Abstract

This report the National Census of Victim Service Providers (NCVSP), including the 

development of the national roster of entities potentially serving victims, the NCVSP data 

collection instrument, and the implementation and results of a pilot study conducted with 725 

entities from the national roster. Results examine the feasibility of obtaining high response rates 

from different types of victim service providers (VSPs), experimental tests of different 

procedures for collecting data from VSPs, and the quality and nature of substantive information

generated from the NCVSP instrument.

This document was prepared using federal funds provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS), U.S. Department of Justice, under award number 2012-VF-GX-K025. The BJS Project 

Managers were Barbara Oudekerk, Statistician, and Lynn Langton, Victimization Unit Chief. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

iii

Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Purpose of this report ............................................................................................................ 9

2. Building the foundation for VSP statistical collections............................................................ 10

2.1 Project team and expert input.............................................................................................. 10

2.2 Defining victim services provider....................................................................................... 10

2.3 Roster development............................................................................................................. 11

2.4 Development of a two-phased census-survey approach ..................................................... 12

3. The NCVSP pilot study ............................................................................................................ 13

3.1 Purpose of the pilot study.................................................................................................... 13

3.2. Pilot study methods............................................................................................................ 13

3.2.1 Sample selection........................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2 NCVSP pilot instrument............................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Experimental design ..................................................................................................... 15

3.2.4 Survey administration................................................................................................... 17

3.2.5 Contact information searches ....................................................................................... 19

3.2.6 Survey mode ................................................................................................................. 19

3.3 Participation results............................................................................................................. 20

3.3.1 Non-VSP entities screened out of the survey ............................................................... 20

3.3.2 Participation rates......................................................................................................... 21

3.3.3 Survey modality and time to complete ......................................................................... 24

3.3.4 Number of contacts required to recruit sampled entities.............................................. 25

3.4 Roster quality assessment results........................................................................................ 26

3.5 Experimental results............................................................................................................ 27

3.5.1 Pre-contact experiment................................................................................................. 27

3.5.2 Sponsorship experiment ............................................................................................... 33

3.5.3 Email timing experiment .............................................................................................. 35

3.6 Substantive results............................................................................................................... 36

3.6.1 Service structure ........................................................................................................... 37

3.6.2 VSP organizational structures ...................................................................................... 38
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

iv

3.6.3 Number of victims served............................................................................................. 39

3.6.4 Crime types for which victims sought services............................................................ 40

3.6.5 Services provided by VSPs........................................................................................... 42

3.6.6 VSP staffing.................................................................................................................. 45

3.6.7 VSP funding ................................................................................................................. 49

3.6.8 VSP concerns................................................................................................................ 54

3.6.9 VSP record keeping...................................................................................................... 55

3.7 Substantive data quality and verification ............................................................................ 56

3.8 Total effort and costs........................................................................................................... 58

3.9 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 58

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 61

5. References................................................................................................................................. 62

6. Appendix................................................................................................................................... 63

NCVSP Pilot Study Instrument................................................................................................ 63
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

v

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1. Pilot testing: follow-up methods and modalities........................................................... 18

Figure 2. Completed NCVSP pilot surveys, by month................................................................. 23

Figure 3. Data collection phase when entity was resolved, by pre-contact status........................ 29

Figure 4. Mean hours to resolution, by entity type and pre-contact status................................... 30

Figure 5. Mean number of contacts for VSPs, by contact type and pre-contact status ................ 30

Figure 6. Percent of survey completion, by pre-contact status..................................................... 31

Figure 7. Number of contacts, by number of entities resolved in the control condition ............. 33

Figure 8. Percent of survey completion, by sponsorship.............................................................. 34

Figure 9. Mean days to survey completion for VSPs, by sponsorship ......................................... 34

Figure 10. Mean days to resolution for non-VSP entities, by sponsorship................................... 35

Figure 11. Survey completion rate, by email condition................................................................ 36

Figure 12. VSP concerns about staffing, funding, grant reporting, and technology access ......... 55

Figure 13. VSP concerns, by organizational structure.................................................................. 55
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

vi

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1. Distribution of roster and sample, by entity type............................................................ 14

Table 2. VSP and non-VSP entities, by entity type ...................................................................... 20

Table 3. Response rates................................................................................................................. 22

Table 4. Survey completion and refusal rate, by VSP type .......................................................... 24

Table 5. Mode of survey for completed and partially completed surveys.................................... 24

Table 6. Number of minutes to complete the pilot NCVSP survey.............................................. 25

Table 7. Missing contact information from the roster at the start of the pilot study .................... 26

Table 8. Quality of contact data from the original project roster.................................................. 27

Table 9. Disposition of entities in pre-contact condition during the pre-contact period .............. 28

Table 10. Indicators of cost and effort to resolve entities in the control condition, by final 

survey status................................................................................................................... 32

Table 11. Number of VSPs, by sponsorship condition................................................................. 33

Table 12. Number of entities, by email condition ........................................................................ 35

Table 13. Percent of VSPs, by service structure and VSP organizational structure..................... 38

Table 14. VSP organizational structures....................................................................................... 39

Table 15. Number of victims served, by VSP organizational structure........................................ 40

Table 16. VSPs, by crime type for which victims sought services............................................... 41

Table 17. Number of crime types for which VSP services were sought, by VSP 

organizational structure ................................................................................................ 42

Table 18. Type of services provided, by VSP organizational structure........................................ 44

Table 19. Number of services provided, by VSP organizational structure................................... 45

Table 20. VSP staffing characteristics.......................................................................................... 46

Table 21. VSP staffing characteristics, by VSP organizational structure..................................... 47

Table 22. Hiring rates, number of staff lost, and turnover rates, by VSP organizational 

structure............................................................................................................................. 48

Table 23. Victims served per full-time staff member, by VSP organizational structure.............. 49

Table 24. Missing data on funding items...................................................................................... 50

Table 25. Discrepancies in VSP funding totals ............................................................................ 51

Table 26. Total funding received for victim-related programming or services in the past year... 52

Table 27. Total funding received for victim-related programming or services, by VSP 

organizational structure ................................................................................................ 53

Table 28. Sources of funding received for victim-related programming or services ................... 54
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

vii

Table 29. VSPs use of electronic records ..................................................................................... 56

Table 30. Level of agreement for survey responses compared to web check............................... 58
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

8

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In September 2012, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), with funding from the Office 

for Victims of Crime (OVC), entered into a cooperative agreement (under award number 2012-

VF-GX-K025) with the RAND Corporation and its subgrantees—NORC at the University of 

Chicago (NORC) and the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC)—to develop a 

statistical data collection on victim service providers (VSPs) in the United States. The impetus 

for this project grew, in part, from the victim service field’s need for more information about the 

activities and resources of VSPs. In 2013, OVC released Vision 21: Transforming Victim 

Services, a report summarizing stakeholders’ perspectives on the status of the victim services 

field and providing recommendations to advance the field and better support victims of crime. 

For more than two decades, the VSP field has worked to build an infrastructure of services to 

support victims of crime. To date, little research has documented or assessed the coverage and 

effectiveness of this service infrastructure. There are gaps in the basic knowledge about victim 

services, including number of existing providers, their locations, services offered, crime types 

served, staffing, and funding.

Conceptualized as the “road...to victim-centered practice and policy,” Vision 21 urged 

for more research and statistical data to guide the field: 

“Victims of crime will be served through a national commitment to support robust, 

ongoing research and program evaluation that informs the quality and practice of victim 

services throughout the Nation. Evidence-based, research-informed victim service 

programs will become the standard of excellence in providing assistance and support to 

victims of all types of crime....Vision 21’s highest priority is promoting evidence-based 

strategies and programs that will expand the profession’s fundamental understanding of 

who is affected by crime, how they are affected, what works to help victims recover from 

their trauma, and what other issues affect the delivery of services to victims and the 

protection of their legal rights.” (p. 1)

The increase in funding for crime victim services in 2015 further underscored the need 

for reliable, national-level data on the delivery of victim services to guide policy, practice, and 

funding decisions. In the 2015 appropriations bill, Congress raised the cap on the amount of 

funding that could be released from the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Crime Victims Fund. In 

2015 and 2016, more than $2 billion were allocated for crime victim services through the Crime 

Victims Fund, an increase from $745 million in 2014. More information about the scope and 

focus of the victim services field is needed to make empirically driven decisions on how to 

effectively allocate funding to support victims.

Through collaboration with stakeholders in the victim services field, BJS can build an 

empirical knowledge base about the characteristics and functions of VSPs. BJS is the principal

statistical agency within the Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, and is authorized 

under the Justice System Improvement Act (34 U.S.C. § 10132) to collect and analyze statistical 

information on the operation of the criminal justice system at the federal, state, tribal, and local 

levels. This includes information on the capacity of the criminal justice system and partner 

victim service agencies to meet the needs of crime victims. In response to the growing need for 

research and statistics on victim services, and with support from OVC, BJS initiated the Victim 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

9

Services Statistical Research Program (VSSRP). The VSSRP is an effort to collect data on 

victim services from the perspectives of victims and providers.1 It will enable BJS to analyze

data from residents, law enforcement, and VSPs to generate more comprehensive statistics about 

the nation’s criminal justice resource needs and capacity to respond to crime victims’ needs.

Much of what is known about victims of crime and their help-seeking behavior comes 

from BJS’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects information on 

the number of victims who seek help from service providers each year and provides a vehicle for 

collecting additional information on help-seeking and the receipt of services from victims’

perspectives. However, other key research topics —such as demand for VSP services, how VSPs 

are structured and organized to provide services to victims, the types of services available to 

victims of crime, VSP staffing and training, and funding for victim services—cannot be 

addressed adequately without data collected directly from VSPs. To date, there has been no 

national data collection on the full range of entities that serve victims of crime. 

From 2012 to 2015, BJS, under a cooperative agreement with RAND, NORC, and 

NCVC, worked to develop a two-phase data collection effort with VSPs nationwide. The first 

phase, the National Census of Victim Service Providers (NCVSP), is a short survey administered 

to all VSPs to develop a sampling frame and yield basic characteristics about providers that can 

be used to select representative VSP samples. Phase two, the National Survey of Victim Service 

Providers (NSVSP), is a longer follow-up survey designed for a smaller, representative sample 

of VSPs.

1.2 Purpose of this report

This report provides an overview of the developmental research and reasoning that 

informed BJS’s decision to implement the two-phase national VSP data collections: the NCVSP 

and NSVSP. This report is organized into two main sections. First, it presents the work 

conducted to build a foundation for statistical collections, including creating advisory groups and 

making key decisions about definitions, research questions, and the sampling frame. Second, it

summarizes methodological and substantive results from the pilot study, providing evidence of

the feasibility and need for the first NCVSP. 

 1

For more information, visit the BJS webpage: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=98.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

10

2. Building the foundation for VSP statistical collections

2.1 Project team and expert input

Given the scope and complexity of this effort, BJS worked closely with a core project 

team from three organizations with various areas of expertise and responsibilities: RAND 

Corporation, NCVC, and NORC. RAND Corporation managed the project and led initial efforts 

to develop a working definition of VSPs, develop the project roster of all entities focused on 

serving victims or with dedicated staff or personnel to serve victims, create drafts of the survey 

items, and test the instrument drafts prior to fielding. With its extensive knowledge of VSPs and 

contacts in the victim service field, NCVC was primarily responsible for communications with 

the VSP community, including soliciting input from leaders in the field on survey issues and 

developing outreach efforts. NCVC also provided important VSP insight and assistance across 

all other major project tasks, from instrument development to survey protocols. With its 

expertise in survey design and implementation, NORC developed and implemented a pilot

survey. BJS staff oversaw the work of all project team members and provided a broader

perspective on BJS’s long-term data collection vision and how the NCVSP and NSVSP fit with 

its overall efforts to collect information on victimization and service provision.

From the outset, victim service expert input was considered crucial to the success of the

project. During initial efforts to define the field and develop survey content, the project team 

enlisted the assistance of individuals working in the VSP field to attend project meetings and 

provide detailed feedback on draft materials. Two advisory groups were created—an expert 

panel and a project input committee (PIC)—to provide guidance and feedback throughout the 

course of the project. The expert panel was the first to convene and was most intensively 

involved in the project. It consisted of experts on victim services and technical survey issues. 

During the early stages of the project, the expert panel convened twice in Washington, DC, to 

review and provide feedback on project plans and materials. The expert panel participated in key 

decisions, including determining the need for the census of all entities on the initial project 

roster. The panel later reviewed the proposed NCVSP survey instrument and methodology

through online and phone communication. 

The second advisory body, the PIC, consisted of more than 50 victim services umbrella 

organizations, professional associations, and individuals. The PIC helped define the initial roster 

for the first NCVSP and resolve key issues related to the content of the questionnaire. For 

example, the PIC provided input on what kind of data certain types of VSPs could report on and 

how terms such as “services” should be defined. Communication with the PIC was typically 

conducted via email.

2.2 Defining victim services provider

Because VSPs in the United States span multiple disciplines and fields, one key project 

task was to develop a definition of VSPs that accurately included all types of entities. The 

NCVSP was intended to provide descriptive information on the active VSP universe. Therefore,

initial efforts to define entities as VSPs were as inclusive as possible. The project team defined

entities as VSPs if they provided services to victims of crime or abuse in the prior six months. 

Services included any efforts to assist victims with safety and security, criminal or other legal 

processes, recovery and stability after victimization, and other needs. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

11

To design appropriate survey content and target the NCVSP efficiently and effectively, 

VSPs were grouped into three categories:

1. Primary function—The primary function of the entity is to provide victim services.

2. Dedicated programs or staff—The entity serves both victims and nonvictims and has 

specific programs or staff dedicated to working with crime victims. 

3. No dedicated programs or staff—The entity serves crime victims in addition to 

nonvictims through the normal course of business, but does not have dedicated 

programs or staff specific for victims.

All three groups of providers play a critical role in ensuring availability and diversity of 

victim services. However, distinguishing between groups was important to collect only VSPs’

information on victims. For example, primary function VSPs were asked to provide information 

on the total staff in the organization because the primary mission of the full organization was to 

serve victims. For VSPs serving victims through dedicated programs, the NCVSP collected only 

information about staffing for those victim service programs. While the roster included VSPs 

from all three groups (see Section 2.3), enumerating the complete universe of VSPs without 

dedicated programs or staff would be difficult. Thus, once identified, these VSPs were

considered out of scope.

2.3 Roster development

As a critical first step to surveying VSPs, the research team compiled a roster of all 

entities in the United States potentially eligible to receive the survey. The development of an 

accurate and sufficiently detailed roster presented major challenges. The roster had to be 

compiled from multiple sources because there was no national list of all active VSPs. The 

research team collected lists of VSPs from national organizations such as NCVC, OVC, and 

Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). The project team also conducted a web canvassing 

effort to identify lists of VSPs within each of the 50 states.

Once these lists were assembled, the project team conducted a de-duplication of the 

roster, erring on the side of not removing any potentially unique entities. De-duplication was a 

complex task because entities were sometimes listed more than once on the roster under different 

names, as a specific program rather than the larger entity, or with different contact information. 

This initial de-duplication work led to a roster of about 26,500 entities and included a broad 

range of providers that serve the needs of different types of victims, such as—

• prosecutors’ offices

• other criminal justice “system-based” VSPs (e.g., police agency-based and special 

advocates)

• community-based shelters

• domestic violence or sexual assault programs

• mental and physical health-related programs (e.g., hospital-based violence intervention 

programs)

• tribal organizations or tribal-focused services

• informal or grassroots providers.

The project team identified a number of problems with the initial roster that raised 

questions about whether it could be used to survey VSPs or describe the universe of VSPs. Most 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

12

records in this initial roster did not contain sufficient detail about each entity to identify the type 

of organization, services offered, or victims served. In some cases, only an entity’s name was 

available, while other records included addresses, telephone numbers, and other contact 

information. In most cases, it was unclear whether any of the information was up to date, 

including whether the organization still existed and provided services to victims within the scope 

of the project. As such, the roster was likely to include a number of entities not serving victims. 

Although the development of the roster was an important first step, more information about the 

accuracy of the roster was needed before it could be used to survey VSPs.

2.4 Development of a two-phased census-survey approach

Because of the limitations of the roster, the project team decided to conduct a short 

census of all entities on the roster, before attempting a detailed survey with a sample of VSPs. 

The NCVSP was designed to verify that entities on the roster were active VSPs. For entities that 

screened in as VSPs, the NCVSP would gather information about the basic organizational 

attributes of the providers, including the number and types of victims served, types of services 

provided, staffing, turnover, and funding sources. This information would be used in the second 

phase of data collection: the administration of the longer, more detailed NSVSP to a stratified, 

representative sample of VSPs. The information gained from the NCVSP would also generate 

data that could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the victim services field and 

could be combined with other data to examine the relationship between VSPs, local area 

characteristics, and crime rates.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

13

3. The NCVSP pilot study

3.1 Purpose of the pilot study

A pilot test was an essential step to develop the final protocol and instrument for the 

NCVSP. Given the limited availability of prior research on VSPs, little was known about the 

willingness and capacity of VSPs to complete an establishment survey; the relevance of the 

instrument for a diverse set of providers spanning different structures, services, and victimization 

focus areas; or the best procedures to facilitate their completion of surveys. A pilot test provided 

the opportunity to examine the most effective recruitment strategies, test the quality of the 

project roster, and estimate the cost of collecting data from the entire field of VSPs. 

The three main objectives of the pilot study were to test—

1. the feasibility of using the project roster to collect data from VSPs and obtain high 

participation rates

2. research-based strategies to identify the most effective and efficient methods for 

conducting a full census

3. whether the NCVSP instrument needed any adjustments to improve data quality and 

the response consistency.

3.2. Pilot study methods

3.2.1 Sample selection

At the time of the pilot study, the project roster consisted of 26,487 entities potentially 

serving victims.

2 Based largely on the entities’ names, the project team classified each entity into 

one of seven categories. First, the project team designated if an entity was a prosecutor’s office. 

If the entity was not a prosecutor’s office, it moved to the next stage. Second, the project team 

identified whether the entity was another type of criminal justice or system-based entity. If not, it 

moved to the next stage and followed the same process in the following order: shelters, domestic 

violence, or sexual assault programs; medical or mental health; tribal programs; other 

community-based programs; and unknown entity types.

A total of 725 entities were selected for the pilot test, or 2.7% of the project roster. The 

sample was selected to be approximately proportional to the distribution of known entity types 

on the roster (Table 1). In addition, the sample was designed to be large enough to test different 

methodological questions about response and completion rates and data collection costs. 

 2

This was the number of available cases immediately prior to the pilot test. This number varied over the course of 

the pilot study as the team continued to update the roster. The final number of VSPs will not be available until the 

NCVSP data are collected.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

14

Table 1. Distribution of roster and sample, by entity type

3.2.2 NCVSP pilot instrument

The NCVSP instrument was drafted with guidance from the expert panel and the PIC, 

and went through two rounds of cognitive testing with VSPs. Cognitive testing is a method used 

to improve survey items prior to fielding that entails interviewing respondents about their 

thought process when answering each of the survey items. Because the VSP field is diverse in 

terms of type, structure, and terminology used, conducting cognitive testing was crucial to 

determine how questions performed when administered to a range of VSPs, assess respondent

burden, and evaluate the ability of VSPs to provide accurate answers.

For cognitive testing, 16 VSPs were recruited: 7 providers serving victims as their 

primary function; 8 providers serving victims through dedicated staff or programs; and 1

provider with no dedicated staff or programs. Most feedback from the cognitive interviews 

resulted in minor edits to wording of questions or particular response items, with a few 

exceptions. During the first round of cognitive testing, many participants reported taking 1 hour 

or more to complete the survey. To reduce burden and increase response rates, the team 

shortened the instrument by modifying sections that took a lot of time or were confusing to 

respondents. For example, the team reduced the response options for the question about services 

and dropped items in the staffing section that asked about the number of volunteers and staffing 

by position types. In the section that asked about types of crimes served, respondents reported 

uncertainty about whether to report all crime types experienced by victims or only the crime 

types for which victims initially sought services. To reduce confusion, this question was 

modified to instruct participants to report the “crime types for which victims sought services.”

During the subsequent round of cognitive testing, participants were able to complete the edited 

instrument in 30 minutes or less. 

The NCVSP instrument used in pilot testing is located in the appendix and briefly 

described here. After providing definitions of crime, victim, and services, the first item on the 

survey asked, “Did you provide services to victims of crime or abuse in the past 6 months?” 

Entity type Number Percent Number Percent

 Total 26,487 100 725 100.00 %

Prosecutor office 3,850 14.5 108 14.9

Other criminal justice system 2,955 11.2 85 11.7

Shelters, domestic violence, or sexual assault 4,583 17.3 133 18.3

Medical or mental health 1,673 6.3 46 6.3

Tribal 453 1.7 14 1.9

Other community-based 12,489 47.2 339 46.8

Unknown 484 1.8 ~ ~

~Not applicable.

Frame Sample

Note: Detail might not sum to total due to rounding. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

15

Those answering “yes” were moved forward to complete the survey, whereas those who said 

“no” were screened out of the survey. 

The instrument included 11 sections asking VSPs about their service structure (Section 

A); organizational structure and the jurisdiction where they operate, when relevant (Sections B 

through F); services they provided to victims and the crime types for which victims sought 

services in the prior calendar or fiscal year (Section G); current staffing and staffing at the 

beginning of the year (Section H); funding totals and sources of funding (Section I); forms of 

record keeping (Section J); and their level of concern about retaining staff, the predictability and 

amount of funding they received, the burden of grant reporting, and access to technology 

(Section K). For all survey questions, participants were asked about the prior calendar or fiscal 

year, depending on the timeframe in which their entity operated or reported data. 

VSPs received one of three versions of the instrument, depending on whether the primary 

function of their organization was to provide victim services, they provided services through 

dedicated programs or staffing, or they provided services on an as-needed basis but without 

dedicated staff or formal programs. The instructions and item text differed slightly in the three 

versions of the survey. Entities serving victims as their primary mission were instructed to 

provide responses for the entire organization, while programs with dedicated staff or programs 

were asked to think only about those programs or staff. Additional reminders cued the 

respondent to think only about functions related to victim services (e.g., consider only staff 

dedicated to working with victims, or think only of funding for victim services) for entities that 

did not serve victims as their primary function. Electronic versions of the instrument (including 

self- and phone-administered) routed entities into the correct survey. The few entities requesting 

a hard copy were sent the appropriate version.

3.2.3 Experimental design

The pilot test was designed to have two experimental conditions investigating—

1. federal funding status: whether entities with federal funding would be more likely to 

participate than entities without federal funding.

2. pre-survey contact: whether making a “pre-contact” to verify contact information and 

identify the appropriate point of contact within each entity would yield higher 

participation rates and be more cost efficient than if groups were not pre-contacted. 

This created a 2x2 experimental design: federal or nonfederal funding by pre-contact or 

no pre-contact. The 725 sampled entities were each assigned to one of the four cells. However, 

findings from the pilot test revealed that the initial assignment of federal and nonfederal entities 

based on the information contained in the roster was inaccurate. Many (74.3%) of the VSPs 

selected into the sample as non-federally funded entities indicated on the NCVSP instrument that 

the organization had received federal funding in the past year. This disparity between the roster 

and respondent answers to the survey may have resulted from the roster containing outdated 

information, or BJS not obtaining the funding records for all federal agencies that may fund 

victim-related services. For example, some VSPs received Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) federal funding, but it would not make sense to add all HUD grantees to the VSP roster 

because many of these grantees do not provide victim services. Regardless, the test of whether 

federally funded entities participated in the NCVS at similar rates as non-federally funded 

entities could not be carried out because funding status was unknown for nonparticipants. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

16

The pilot test provided the opportunity to examine if verifying the correct point of contact 

for entities on the roster via telephone was effective and cost efficient for increasing participation 

rates. The benefits of addressing survey invitations to the particular member of an organization 

best suited to complete the survey are well documented (e.g., Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 

2014; Snijkers, Haraldsen, Jones, & Willimack, 2013). In addition to ensuring that survey 

materials reach the appropriate member of the organization, pre-contacting entities can also 

increase familiarity with—and the perceived legitimacy of—the survey enterprise. It can also 

build rapport with the potential respondent. Although not consistently documented, the upfront 

costs in sending the survey invitation to the proper individual might also reduce costs overall by 

requiring less nonresponse follow up.

The pilot entities were randomly assigned to the pre-contact or control condition. Entities

assigned to the pre-contact condition received a phone call prior to being mailed information 

about the NCVSP pilot study. During this call, interviewers verified contact information for each 

entity and point of contact within each entity for the pilot test. When phone information was not 

available from the original roster, entities in the pre-contact condition were researched online to 

locate contact information and an appropriate point of contact. The pre-contact period lasted 

about 10 weeks, after which all entities moved forward in the recruitment stages described 

below. Entities in the control condition were not contacted prior to being mailed the first letter 

informing them about the NCVSP pilot study.

Two additional experiments were conducted after the start of the pilot study. First, the 

team investigated the impact of altering information about study sponsorship on mail materials.

All entities that did not complete a survey after the initial invitation letter (n = 345) were sent a 

reminder letter. Entities were randomly assigned to either a condition where follow-up mail 

materials were labeled with a BJS logo (the experimental condition, n = 173) or a NORC logo 

(the control condition, n = 172). The content of the follow-up materials was held constant. 

Sponsorship of surveys is related to differential response rates, with government sponsors getting 

higher response rates than private companies in household surveys (Fox, Crask, & Kim, 1988; 

Dillman, Smythe, & Christian, 2014). However, it was not known whether this effect is limited 

to initial survey invitations or extended to nonresponse follow-up materials, or if the effect of 

sponsorship translates to establishment surveys.

The second procedural experiment assessed whether the time of day that email reminders 

were sent to NCVSP nonrespondents with email addresses (n = 91) affected response rates. For

marketing purposes and person- and household-level surveys, sending email solicitations in the 

morning can be more effective than during the workday (Faught, Whitten, & Green, 2004). 

Email follow up is a low-cost, low-effort means of nonresponse follow up, so identifying how to 

use emails most effectively could have a positive effect on the cost-to-completion ratio of the 

NCVSP. For the pilot test, emails were sent to respondents after reminder letters were mailed,

but before prompting entities to complete the survey over the phone.3 The research team 

experimentally manipulated whether emails were sent in the morning before the workday 

commenced (6:00 a.m. CST; n = 42) or during the workday (1:00 p.m. CST; n = 49). 

 3

To control costs and avoid being perceived as bothersome to respondents, there was a short lag time between 

sending a reminder letter (stage 5 in the follow-up protocol) and phone prompting (stage 6 in the follow-up 

protocol). During this time, the email experiment was conducted. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

17

3.2.4 Survey administration

The research team dedicated significant resources to securing a high participation rate to 

estimate the maximum costs of conducting a successful full NCVSP, while still using best 

practices to reduce costs when possible. The survey was in the field for 23 weeks, beginning the 

second week of August 2015 and ending the second week of January 2016. An experienced team 

of data collectors used a multimodal approach modeled after the Dillman approach for 

nonresponse follow up (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). The multimode approach 

capitalized on the strengths of individual modes and made it easier for respondents to report by 

offering alternatives ways to do so (which has been associated with higher response rates). The 

team began with the least expensive contacting strategy and mode necessary to complete the 

maximum number of interviews at minimal cost. They then transitioned to more expensive 

contacting strategies and modes to improve completion rates.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

18

Figure 1. Pilot testing: follow-up methods and modalities

Letter, US 

mail Post card Fed Ex

Email 

contact

Fax 

contact

Phone 

contact Web Phone

PAPI/ 

Mail

About 10 

calls

1 1

1 1   

1 1   

1 1   

5-10 calls   

1 1   

1   

1 1 5 calls   

4 1 1 6 1 Varies

Hard copy mail contact attempt Modality of survey complete

Randomassignment 

Pre-contact(1) No pre-contact 

Pre-notification/

heads up letter (1) 

21 days

Formal invitation letter (2) 

14 days

14 days

Reminder card/email (3)

Reminder letter/email (4)

Phone prompt (5)

Mass email/fax prompt 

(6)

7 days

7 days

FedEx prompt (7)

'Last Chance' contact (8)

14 days

14 -21 

days

~63 

days
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

19

Figure 1 depicts the eight-step process used for multimode follow up to secure 

completed surveys. In step 1, entities assigned to the pre-contact condition received a phone call 

to confirm the appropriate POC, while entities assigned to the control condition received the 

pre-notification letter via mail in accordance to the standard Dillman approach. In step 2, all 

entities then received the invitation letter containing a personalized link to their survey. 

Reminders were conducted in the following order (steps 3 through 8): a postcard (and email if 

available), letter via U.S. postal mail (and email if available), phone prompts, email or fax 

prompts, a letter via FedEx, and last-chance phone and email prompts. The last-chance phase 

continued for a period of about nine weeks to maximize participation.

The team also made additional follow-up contacts via email and phone with participants 

who only partially completed surveys. For the purposes of this pilot test, a survey was counted as 

completed if 100% of the items from the beginning of the survey through Section G (Services for 

Victims) were filled in (see Appendix). 

3.2.5 Contact information searches

The project team conducted an initial check for missing contact information on all 

sampled entities. By design, all sampled entities had a name. However, 20.7% of entities on the 

roster were missing a telephone number and 2.1% of entities were missing a postal address. This

contact information was necessary to obtain before either the pre-contact phone call or the 

pre-notification letter. The research team used specialized software (SmartMailer 7.0 by Pitney 

Bowes) to check if available mailing addresses were legitimate. Entities assigned to the 

pre-contact condition with valid phone numbers were called to verify the accuracy of their 

number and mailing address. 

Once a nonfunctional phone number or mailing address was identified, the research team 

first conducted an Internet search to locate the entity’s contact information, looking for the 

entity’s website or other mention of contact information on the web (e.g., included in a directory 

of providers or mentioned in a newspaper article). The research team then conducted an Accurint 

search for the organization.4 Contact information searches were repeated as needed, with a one

month delay between searches to allow time for new contact information to become publicly 

available. 

3.2.6 Survey mode

Entities were initially provided access to a web survey with individual login information, 

and the web-based survey was encouraged in all contacts. The web survey was strongly preferred 

over a hard copy due to its lower cost and ease of navigating skip patterns for the respondents. 

During the phone prompting stage of the follow-up protocol (stage 5), data collectors gave 

entities the option to complete the NCVSP over the phone. For phone surveys, experienced 

interviewers used a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) script to complete the 

survey online. The hard copy of the NCVSP instrument was offered last and provided to entities

that requested it.

 4

Accurint is an advanced people- and business-finding technology that includes more than 45 billion public and 

proprietary records from more than 10,000 diverse sources. The Accurint identity repository includes 9.3 billion 

unique name/address combinations, 625 million phone numbers, 239 million unique cell phones, 607 million unique 

email addresses, and 1 billion vehicle titles. See more at http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/accurint-forlegal-professionals.page#sthash.dhpXHCDb.dpuf.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

20

3.3 Participation results

3.3.1 Non-VSP entities screened out of the survey

Of the 725 selected entities, 252 (34.5%) were determined to be non-VSPs and were 

therefore ineligible to complete the NCVSP. The majority of these entities (n = 183, 72.6% of 

non-VSPs) directly indicated they did not provide services to victims of crime in the previous 6 

months. For the remaining 27.4% (n = 69) of entities coded as non-VSPs, the team was not able 

to locate the entity, talk to someone from the entity to confirm its status, or find other 

information that corroborated the entity was a VSP. The project team made numerous attempts to 

locate and contact these 69 entities, including conducting online and Accurint searches (on 

average 40 contacts, ranging from 21 to 62 contacts). Because active VSPs have to be accessible 

to reach victims, and given that the project roster was known to be outdated, the team coded

these entities as non-VSPs and screened them out of the survey.

Based on how entities were categorized on the project roster, two groups were screened 

out of the survey at lower rates than others: shelters, domestic violence, and sexual assault 

entities (18.0%); and prosecutors’ offices (18.5%) (Table 2). In part these findings may be due to 

lists of prosecutors’ offices, domestic violence, and sexual assault VSPs being updated more 

routinely than lists of other providers. Also, domestic violence and sexual assault agencies are 

familiar with VSP surveys because they are routinely surveyed as part of the National Census of 

Domestic Violence Services (National Network to End Domestic Violence, 2016). Entities 

designated in the roster as medical or mental health (60.9%) or other community-based (42.5%) 

were the most likely to be screened out of the study as non-VSPs.

Table 2. VSP and non-VSP entities, by entity type

The project team reviewed the list of 183 entities that actively screened out of the survey 

by indicating they did not serve victims in the prior 6 months, and based on entity name, 

identified 61 entities that seemed likely to be VSPs (i.e., may have been incorrectly screened 

out). For example, the list included 16 prosecutors’ offices, 9 child protective agencies or adult 

VSP type Number Number Number

Total 473 65.2 % 252 34.8 % 725 100 %

88 81.5 20 18.5 108 100

54 63.5 31 36.5 85 100

109 82.0 24 18.0 133 100

sexual assault

18 39.1 28 60.9 46 100

Tribal 9 64.3 5 35.7 14 100

195 57.5 144 42.5 339 100

Medical or mental health

Other community-based

Note: Entities were coded as non-VSPs if they did not serve victims in the prior six months or if, after multiple 

attempts to contact or locate, the research team never found evidence the entity existed or served victims. 

Entity type was coded based on information from the initial project roster.

Total

Percent

VSPs Non-VSPs

Percent

Prosecutor's office

Other criminal justice system

Shelters, domestic violence, or

Percent
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

21

protective services, and 5 law enforcement agencies. Further follow up was conducted with five

of these agencies to identify whether they were providing services and, if so, what led them to 

answer “no” to the question about whether they had served victims in the prior six months. 

Two of the agencies did not provide services and instead contracted or referred out their 

services, meaning they were appropriately screened out of the survey. Two agencies suggested 

revising the screener item by (1) adding the definition of victim services below the item, and (2) 

changing the wording from “did you” to “did your organization” provide services. Respondents

also discussed the difficulty of reaching the correct person to complete the survey in large 

agencies. In one case, the survey was directed to a person who no longer worked at the 

organization, so when the instrument was forwarded to him, he likely answered “no” to the 

screen item because he did not provide victim services at his new job. 

3.3.2 Participation rates

Of the 473 entities determined to be VSPs and thus eligible for the study, 409 VSPs 

completed the survey—a participation rate of 86.5%. An additional 20 VSPs partially completed 

the survey, which, if included, increased the participation rate to 90.7%. The remaining 44 VSPs

(9.3%) either actively refused to participate (n = 4) or did not participate before the end of data 

collection and were considered passive refusals (n = 40). 

More conservative measures of participation rates were also examined (Table 3). If it was 

assumed that some of the entities screened out were actually VSPs, response rates remained high. 

For example, if the 69 entities that the project team screened out because the entity could not be 

located or verified as a VSP were counted in the denominator of eligible VSPs, the response rate 

was 75.5%. Alternatively, if the denominator of eligible VSPs included the 61 entities that 

actively screened themselves out, but based on the name were suspected to be providers, the 

response was 76.6%. Both of those estimates also count partially completed surveys as 

nonrespondents.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

22

Table 3. Response rates

Note: There were 429 fully completed surveys, 409 partially completed surveys, 44 entities that refused to complete 

a survey, and 252 entities that screened out of the survey as non-VSPs or could not be located. 

Completed 

surveys

Partially 

completed 

surveys

Handling of 252

screened out entities

Sample 

size Response rate

429 Included All excluded 473 90.7%

409 Excluded All excluded 473 86.5

429 Included 61 active screen outs set 

to passive refusals

534 80.3

409 Excluded 61 active screen outs set 

to passive refusals

534 76.6

429 Included 69 project team screen 

outs set to passive 

refusals

542 79.2

409 Excluded 69 project team screen 

outs set to passive 

refusals

542 75.5
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

23

The project had a fairly steady rate of completed surveys during the 23-week collection period

(Figure 2).5 The team averaged about 17 to 18 (17.78) completed surveys per week, or 

80 completes per month (4.33 weeks). The number of completed surveys peaked at 116 in 

October, the third month of data collection.

Figure 2. Completed NCVSP pilot surveys, by month

Note: Data were collected only for two weeks in the first month (August 2015) and last month (January 2016) of the 

pilot study.

The research team examined variations in the distribution of completion rates by VSP 

type, based on the categorizations provided in the original project roster (i.e., prosecutor’s office, 

other criminal justice system; shelters, domestic violence, or sexual assault; medical or mental 

health; tribal; and other community-based VSPs). As seen in Table 4, the highest completion rate 

was for shelters, domestic violence, or sexual assault VSPs (96%), which exceeded the average 

completion rate of 87%. The lowest rate (56%) was for the tribal VSPs. Results suggest that

medical or mental health and tribal VSPs may require special attention from the research team in 

the full NCVSP, although the relatively small number of entities recruited for the pilot may have

contributed to the low response rates (i.e., with two or three more completed surveys, the 

completion rate for tribal VSPs would have increased to the 87% average completion rate). 

Participation rates among other VSP types were similar to the average rate of 87%.

 5

The pre-contact period lasted about ten weeks, from July 17, 2015 to September 18, 2015. The team did not try to 

complete surveys during the pre-contact period.

48

62

116

87

81

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AUGUST 2015 SEPTEMBER 2015 OCTOBER 2015 NOVEMBER 2015 DECEMBER 2015 JANUARY 2016

Number of completed surveys
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

24

Table 4. Survey completion and refusal rate, by VSP type 

3.3.3 Survey modality and time to complete

Of the 409 completed surveys, the majority were completed online (67.2%) (Table 5). 

However, a sizeable proportion of VSPs completed the survey by phone with an interviewer 

administering at least part of the survey (29.8%). A small proportion of surveys were completed 

by U.S. mail (2.9%). All 20 of the partially completed surveys were completed over the phone.

Table 5. Mode of survey for completed and partially completed surveys

Total 409 86.5 % 64 13.5 %

79 89.8 9 10.2

46 85.2 8 14.8

105 96.3 4 3.7

14 77.8 4 22.2

5 55.6 4 44.4

160 82.1 35 17.9

Number Rate

Not Completed

Number

Completed

Other community-based

*Includes VSPs that partially completed or did not complete a survey.

Note: VSP type is categorized based on information from the initial project roster.

Rate

Prosecutor's office

Other criminal justice system

Shelters, domestic violence, or sexual assault

Medical or mental health

Tribal

VSP Type

Survey mode Percent

409

Online 275 67.2 0 0

By phone 122 29.8 100

By U.S. mail 12 0 0

Total 100%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

2.9

Number Number

Completed surveys

20

20

100%

Percent

Partially completed 

surveys
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

25

More than half (57.9%) of VSPs completed the survey in 25 minutes or less, with a 

median of 21 minutes and a mean of 31 minutes (Table 6). Few participants (16%) took more

than 50 minutes to complete the survey. There were no statistical differences in 

time-to-completion across different types of VSPs selected from the project roster (not shown). 

Times presented in Table 6 are maximum estimates and do not account for any respondent 

breaks during the course of completion (i.e., respondents may have started online and then left 

the survey open while attending to other things). VSPs were allowed to complete the survey in 

multiple sittings. Over the course of the pilot, 104 VSPs had partially completed a survey at 

some point. Of these, 84 were converted to completed surveys and 20 remained partially 

completed.

Table 6. Number of minutes to complete the pilot NCVSP survey

Number of minutes Percent

Total 100%

10 or less 12.0

11–15 16.6

16–20 15.4

21–25 13.9

26–30 6.6

31–35 6.6

36–40 3.9

41–45 4.4

46–50 4.2

51 or more 16.4

Note: Includes 397 VSPs that completed the survey online or over the telephone. Another 

12 VSPs completed a hard copy of the survey, and their time spent on the survey is unknown.

3.3.4 Number of contacts required to recruit sampled entities 

Obtaining high response rates required significant outreach to the sampled entities. 

Overall, the data collection team made 16,061 contacts with the sample of 725 entities. On 

average, 22.2 contact attempts were needed to get a resolution (i.e., the entity completed the 

survey, refused, or screened out as a non-VSP). Contacts included mailings, emails, and phone 

calls. More information on the number of contacts is provided in the pre-contact experimental 

results section.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

26

3.4 Roster quality assessment results

As noted previously, at the start of the pilot study, the research team was missing some 

part of the contact information (e.g., name of the point of contact, phone number, email address,

or postal address) for 83.3% of entities. The name of the point of contact was missing for 79.6% 

of entities, and email address was missing for 52.6% of entities. Smaller percentages of entities 

were missing phone numbers (20.7%) or postal addresses (2.1%) (Table 7).

Table 7. Missing contact information from the roster at the start of the pilot study

Missing information Number Percent

Name of agency/provider 0 0.0%

Point of contact, phone number, email, or postal address 604 83.3%

 Point of contact 577 79.6

 Phone number 150 20.7

 Email address 381 52.6

 Postal address 15 2.1

Note: Includes the total 725 entities enrolled in the pilot study.

It was critical to examine the accuracy of the contact information from the project roster 

in the pilot study, specifically to determine how much effort would be needed to update contact 

information for all entities on the full roster. The project team compared the original roster 

information to information gathered directly from entities. Entities were asked to verify or 

correct their contact information when they logged into the online survey or completed a survey 

over the phone, and the project team also worked to verify contact information during 

pre-contact calls and reminder phone prompting. By the end of the pilot study, contact 

information was verified for 645 of the 725 sampled entities.

6

For 67 of the 645 entities (10.4%), the original contact data from the roster was entirely 

incorrect. In these cases, the research team had to identify new contact information through

Internet searches and other methods (Table 8). The entities name, mailing address, or phone 

number was not correct for 199 of the 645 entities (30.9%). By the end of data collection, 17.4% 

of the 645 entities corrected an error in the name of their organization as listed in the roster

(beyond a trivial misspelling), 19.7% corrected some aspect of their mailing address, and 20.2% 

corrected their phone number.

7

 6

All analyses examining the quality of contact information on the roster were based on 645 respondents. There was 

no way to determine the quality of the information for the 80 entities that did not verify their contact information.

7

The overarching rule for determining whether the roster information matched the updated information provided by 

the entity was to examine whether the postal service could get the mail to the same place with both addresses. First, 

the research team removed all spaces between the words in the contact information fields and converted all 

characters to lowercase letters. Next, they conducted a check between the original contact fields from the roster and 

the final contact fields to assess for matches. For any case without a match, the research team did a manual search to 

sort out issues such as abbreviations or misspelled words (these would count as matches because they can be easily 

cleaned with automated software during the administration of the census). If the street address and the city matched 

exactly in both cases, but a zip code was missing from one, this counted as a match (e.g., 55 E. Monroe St, Chicago, 

IL 60603, compared to 55 E. Monroe St., Chicago, IL). A missing suite or unit number from one address would not 

preclude a match. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

27 

For nearly 90% of the sampled entities, the research team had at least one correct contact 

data element (e.g., point of contact name, address, or phone number). This suggested that the 

roster had sufficient information to reach entities, although it may require resources to search for 

specific types of contact information. The research team successfully made contact by mail, a 

low-cost recruitment method, for about 80% of the sample. 

Email is the lowest cost recruitment method, but it is difficult to know how often entities

check email or whom the email is reaching. On the original roster, 344 entities had email 

addresses, but none of these exactly matched the final verified email addresses. Regardless, 

about 20% of the original email addresses led to contact with the entity. For example, the email 

may have been for the organization as a whole, but then updated for the specific point of contact 

for the NCVSP. By the end of the NCVSP pilot study, the research team received updated email 

addresses for 423 of the 645 entities (65.6%). 

Table 8. Quality of contact data from the original project roster 

Entity reported a problem existed with Number Percent

 Total verified entities 645 100%

All sources of contact data 67 10.4

One or more source(s) of contact data 199 30.9

Entity name 112 17.4

Entity mailing address 127 19.7

Entity phone number 130 20.2

Entity email address 423 65.6

Note: Includes 645 pilot entities where contact information was verified. A 

problem includes any nontrivial change required to correct the record. For 

example, a problem with a mailing address means the mail is not going to get 

to its intended location.

3.5 Experimental results

3.5.1 Pre-contact experiment

Researchers were able to make contact with and verify contact information for the 

majority of entities in the pre-contact condition. The project team made contact via phone with 

88% of entities during the pre-contact stage. Table 9 shows that of the 366 entities in the precontact condition, the project team was unable to make contact with 44 entities (12%): 30 entities 

moved forward in the recruitment process and 14 entities were coded as non-VSPs and therefore 

screened out during the pre-contact stage. For about 64% (184 out of 286) of the entities that did 

not screen out during the pre-contact phase, the team reached the organization and was able to 

verify the correct person within the organization to receive the survey. For about 25% (72 out of 

286) of these entities, the team was able to verify contact information for the entity but unable to 

identify a specific point of contact to receive the survey. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

28

Table 9. Disposition of entities in pre-contact condition during the pre-contact period

Significant costs and effort were required to make telephone contact with the entities in 

the pre-contact condition. On average, 11.1 calls were made during the pre-contacting period

(range of 1 to 28 calls before establishing contact). These up-front contacts were not 

cost-effective in the long-term, as they did not reduce the overall effort needed to identify 

whether the entity was a VSP and did not increase survey completion rates.

To estimate total NCVSP costs from pilot data, it was necessary to examine the costs 

associated with bringing all entities to resolution. Among the 725 pilot test entities, those in the 

pre-contact condition were resolved (i.e., the entity completed the survey, refused, or screened 

out as a non-VSP) earlier in the multistage recruitment process than entities in the control 

condition (Figure 3).8 A smaller percentage (36%) of entities that were pre-contacted were 

resolved at the last chance (and most expensive) stage, than entities in the control condition

(61%). One likely reason for this is because the pre-contact offered an opportunity to identify 

non-VSPs and screen them out of the study early in the recruitment process. Non-VSPs in the 

pre-contact condition were screened out faster (89.6 days) than entities in the control condition 

(128.7 days). A smaller percentage of non-VSP entities in the pre-contact condition (39%, 51 out 

of 132) than in the control condition (71%, 85 out of 120) made it to the last chance recruitment 

stage before being screened out of the survey.

 8

Bivariate statistical tests were conducted to assess experiments’ results. Dichotomous measures (e.g., completed or 

noncompleted survey) were analyzed using Chi-square tests of independence. For continuous or interval measures 

(e.g., average number of days to completed survey), an Analysis of Variance was used to test differences between 

means for the two comparison groups.

Number

64.3

25.2

10.5

Pre-contact disposition

Total

Entity moved forward in data collection

Point of contact verified

Contact made, point of contact not verified

Percent of 

entities 

Percent of 

total

366

286

184

78.1%

100%

100%

Note: Includes 645 pilot entities where contact information was verified. A problem includes any nontrivial 

change required to correct the record. For example, a problem with a mailing address means the mail is not 

going to get to its intended location.

50.3

19.7

8.2

18.0

Entity screened out at pre-contact

Contact made, entity screened out

No successful contact, no indication of VSP

72

No successful contact 30

21.9%

3.8

80

66

14
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

29

Figure 3. Data collection phase when entity was resolved, by pre-contact status

Nevertheless, screening out some of the non-VSP entities during the pre-contact phone 

calls did not save costs in the long term. Among the 725 pilot test entities, the average staff time 

required to obtain a completed survey, refusal, or screen out varied significantly by pre-contact 

status, but not in the expected direction. On average, pre-contact entities (1.9 hours) took longer

to resolve than entities that were not pre-contacted by phone (1.6 hours) (Figure 4). Further 

analyses revealed this difference was largely due to the effort required to resolve VSP entities

rather than to identify and screen out non-VSPs. 

Pre-contacted VSPs required additional follow-up contacts to obtain responses, which 

translated to higher costs than administering only the nonresponse follow-up protocol. VSPs in 

the pre-contact condition required a higher average number of hours (2.1) per entity for survey 

completion or refusal than VSPs in the control condition (1.7 hours). Similarly, VSPs in the 

pre-contact condition required more contacts overall (25.4) than VSPs in the control condition 

(18.2) (Figure 5). In addition, the mean time-to-completion for VSPs in the pre-contact 

Pre-contact Control

Last-chance contact 134 218

FedEx 39 57

CATI prompting 57 36

Reminder letter 32 48

Reminder email 13 0

Follow-up postcard 8 0

Invitation letter 3 0

Pre-contact 80 0

22%

1%

2%

4%

9%

13%

15%

10%

11%

16%

36%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

30

condition was longer (M = 116.5 days) than the mean time-to-completion for entities in the 

control condition (M = 105.1 days to resolve) (not shown). 

Figure 4. Mean hours to resolution, by entity type and pre-contact status

*Significant difference at p<.05.

Figure 5. Mean number of contacts for VSPs, by contact type and pre-contact status

*Significant difference at p<.05.

1.9

2.1

1.4

1.6 1.7

1.5

0

1

1

2

2

3

All entities* VSPs Non-VSPs

Hours per entity

Entity type

Pre-contact

Control

25.4

19.0

2.8 4.4

18.2

14.7

2.7

5.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

All contacts* Telephone* Email Mail*

Number of contacts

Type of contact

Pre-contact

Control
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

31

Moreover, the extra costs associated with pre-contacting entities did not translate into 

higher participation rates among eligible VSPs. VSPs in the control condition participated at 

higher rates (90%) compared to VSPs that received a pre-contact phone call (83%) (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Percent of survey completion, by pre-contact status

Other than identifying non-VSP entities earlier in the process, pre-contact had no effect 

on the effort associated with identifying non-VSP entities. There were no significant differences 

in the hours needed to identify pre-contacted non-VSPs (1.4 hours) and non-VSPs in the control 

condition (1.5 hours) (Figure 4), or in the average number of contacts needed to identify a 

non-VSP in the pre-contact (M = 22.5 contacts) and control (M = 23.2 contacts) condition (not 

shown). Thus, the benefit of screening out non-VSP entities earlier in the recruitment process did 

not translate into long-term cost savings. Overall, non-VSP entities that were screened out made 

up only about a third of the total sample, while active VSP entities requiring more costly efforts 

to resolve made up the largest proportion of the sample, providing further evidence against the 

effectiveness of pre-contacting entities. 

3.5.1.1 Generalizing to the NCVSP

Given the ineffectiveness of pre-contact, data on the cost and effort to obtain a response 

from entities in the control condition best informs the implementation of the full census. Table 

10 provides a summary of the mean number of contacts, hours, and days required to dispose

entities in the control condition. Assuming the same level of effort and a similar distribution of 

entities for the full NCVSP, pilot data suggested it would take an average of 20 contacts and 1.6 

hours per VSP to obtain a response. However, this estimate reflects the maximum effort because 

the pilot test was focused securing the highest possible participation rate.

83.3% 89.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All VSPs

Completion rate

Pre-contact Control
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

32

Table 10. Indicators of cost and effort to resolve entities in the control condition, by final 

survey status 

Final survey status

Mean 

number of 

contacts

Mean 

hours

Mean 

days

Number 

of 

entities

Total 19.9 1.6 112.9 359

Completed survey 16.1 1.5 97.5 214

Non-VSP 23.2 1.5 128.7 120

Refusal 37.9 3.4 169.9 15

Partially completed survey 34.7 3.7 171.4 10

The research team conducted analyses using only data collected from the entities under 

the control condition to explore how participation rates varied by level of recruitment effort. 

Specifically, the team explored whether there was a point during data collection where continued 

efforts to secure a completed survey were no longer successful or cost effective. Figure 7

examines the number of contacts made to entities (x-axis) in relation to the number of entities

that were resolved (y-axis) and shows a fairly linear relationship. The resolution rate started to 

level off only after about 38 contacts (about 90% of the 359 entities were resolved by 38 

contacts). If the pilot test ended at the average number of 20 contacts, about 60% of the 359 

entities would have been resolved and 42% would have completed or partially completed the 

survey. These results highlighted the importance of finding methods to encourage faster 

participation in the NCVSP. Thus, outreach and communication strategies were put in place for 

the full NCVSP.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

33

Figure 7. Number of contacts, by number of entities resolved in the control condition

3.5.2 Sponsorship experiment

The sponsorship experiment included all 475 entities that were mailed at least one

follow-up reminder letter. Of these, 345 entities were determined to be active VSPs by the end of 

data collection (Table 11). Entities that were screened out as non-VSPs were excluded from the 

completion rate analyses because they were never given the opportunity to complete the survey. 

Table 11. Number of VSPs, by sponsorship

Sponsorship Number Percent

Total 345 100%

BJS 173 50.1

NORC 172 49.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 49 53 56

Resolved entities

Number of Contacts

Passive screenout Active screenout Complete/partial Non-respondent
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

34

Overall, 91% of the 345 eligible VSPs in this experiment completed the pilot survey. The 

completion rate for VSPs in the BJS sponsorship condition was 92% and the completion rate for 

VSPs in the NORC sponsorship condition was 89% (Figure 8). The effect of sponsorship on the 

completion rate was in the expected direction but not significant at p<0.05.

Figure 8. Percent of survey completion, by sponsorship

An overall mean time-to-completion of 88.2 days was observed for all eligible VSPs. The 

mean time-to-completion for VSPs in the BJS condition was 84.3 days and the mean 

time-to-completion for VSPs in the NORC condition was 92.1 days (Figure 9). Although this 

effect did not reach statistical significance (p=0.11), significant costs could be saved on outreach 

attempts if, on average, VSPs completed the survey at least 1 week earlier (M = 8 days 

difference). 

Figure 9. Mean days to survey completion for VSPs, by sponsorship

84.3

92.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

BJS NORC

Days to completion

Sponsorship

92.5% 89.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BJS NORC

Completion rate

Sponsorship
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test 

35 

Non-VSP entities were screened out of the pilot survey, but still needed to respond to the 

screener item or to a phone interviewer to confirm their status as a non-VSP. By the end of the 

pilot, 130 non-VSPs that were screened out of the survey were involved in the sponsorship 

experiment. Non-VSP entities that received the BJS-sponsored envelope took longer (125.4 

days) to screen out than non-VSP entities in the NORC sponsorship condition (102.7) (Figure 

10). Although this difference equates to approximately three weeks, it is worth noting that the 

non-VSP entities made up a significantly smaller portion of the total sampled entities than 

eligible VSPs. 

Figure 10. Mean days to resolution for non-VSP entities, by sponsorship 

3.5.3 Email timing experiment

The email experiment included a total of 91 entities, after accounting for VSPs that 

completed a survey prior to the email experiment, entities that screened out as non-VSPs early 

on, and entities for which the team did not have email addresses. Forty-two entities were 

randomly assigned to receive emails in the morning (i.e., “morning condition”) and 49 were 

assigned to receive emails during the day (i.e., “day condition”) (Table 12).

Table 12. Number of entities, by email condition 

Condition Number Percent

Total 91 100%

Morning 42 46.2

Day 49 53.8

125.41

102.67

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

BJS NORC

Days to resolution

Sponsorship†

†Significant difference at the 95% confidence level.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

36

The completion rate for entities was 88% in the morning condition and 80% in the 

daytime condition (Figure 11). Completion rates did not vary significantly depending on 

whether entities received a reminder email in the morning or during the day. Further analyses 

showed there was also no statistically significant effect of email timing on time-to-completion. 

The mean time-to-completion for entities in the morning condition was 4.2 weeks, and the mean 

time-to-completion for entities in the control condition was 4.3 weeks (not shown).

Figure 11. Survey completion rate, by email condition

3.6 Substantive results

Substantive results were analyzed for the 409 VSPs that fully completed the survey, with 

most analyses focusing on the 379 VSPs serving victims as their primary function or through 

dedicated staff or programs. The analysis was focused on—

1. determining the utility of distinguishing between VSPs that provided services 

through dedicated staff or programs and VSPs that provided services as their agency’s 

primary mission

2. exploring the quality and completeness of data obtained through the pilot instrument 

3. investigating whether the NCVSP questions yielded sufficient variation for their 

intended use in creating stratifying variables for future sampling studies

4. examining different approaches to categorize VSPs based on important constructs 

like staffing, number of victims served, services provided, and organizational 

structure. 

Findings are representative of the sampled VSPs but cannot be generalized to all VSPs. 

Although the initial pilot sample was drawn to generally reflect the roster of potential VSPs, 

much of the information from the roster used to sample VSPs for the pilot study was not current. 

In addition, the VSP roster was still being developed when the sample was selected. Thus, the 

results presented in this report were useful for informing the fielding of the census and exploring 

ways to analyze the future census data, but the findings cannot be attributed to the VSP field as a 

whole. 

88.1%

79.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Morning Day

Completion rate

Email condition
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

37

To explore the pilot findings, variables that could have been analyzed as continuous 

variables (e.g., amount of funding and number of victims served) were instead grouped into 

categories. This was preferred for two reasons. First, many of the values VSPs provided 

throughout the survey were estimates rather than exact values. Second, the census aims to create 

stratifying variables that will be based on categories rather than continuous values. Chi-square 

tests of independence were conducted to examine whether differences in estimated distributions 

across categorical variables were statistically significant. When Pearson Chi-square values were 

significant at the 95% confidence level, follow-up z-tests were conducted to compare specific 

percentage estimates.

3.6.1 Service structure

Overall, 50% of VSPs reported that their primary function was to serve victims, 

43% were part of a larger organization but had dedicated programs or staff for serving victims,

and 7% reported serving victims but without dedicated staff or programs (Table 13). The 

majority (68%) of nonprofit or faith-based VSPs reported their primary function was to provide 

services to victims of crime or abuse, and nearly a quarter (24%) reported serving victims 

through dedicated staff or programs. Most government-based VSPs categorized served victims 

through dedicated programs or staff (70%), although close to a quarter (24%) reported serving 

victims as their primary function.

Most government-based organizations tend to have broad missions and were expected to 

serve victims through dedicated programs or staff. Among the 33 law enforcement agencies that 

participated, 7 indicated they served victims as their primary function rather than through 

dedicated staff or programs. Of 76 prosecutors’ offices, 9 responded that their primary function 

was to serve victims of crime. Of the 19 government-based entities that identified as some type 

of agency other than law enforcement, prosecutor’s office, courts, juvenile justice, offender 

custody and supervision agency, or multiagency, nearly two-thirds (n = 14) reported serving 

victims as their primary function. Examples of these agencies included victim witness services, 

children and adult protective services, and advocacy programs.

Preliminary numbers showed that the NCVSP instrument categorized 11 of the 12 

hospital, medical, or emergency-based VSPs into the dedicated program or staff service structure

as expected because health-based VSPs offer more than victim services. In addition, as intended,

all seven campus-based VSPs categorized themselves as having dedicated program or staff rather 

than serving victims as their primary function.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

38

Table 13. Percent of VSPs, by service structure and VSP organizational structure

3.6.2 VSP organizational structures 

The majority of VSPs identified as nonprofit or faith-based agencies (58%), and most of

these were single entities rather than coalitions or other types of entities (Table 14). This was the 

largest group of responders, and the pilot NCVSP instrument did not include items specifically 

asking these nonprofit or faith-based entities about their focus in terms of target populations, 

crime types, or services.

Another 35% of VSPs were government-based providers. Government agencies included 

entities that identified as law enforcement, prosecutor’s office, courts, juvenile justice, offender 

custody and supervision, multiagency task forces and response teams, and other types of 

providers. Prosecutors’ offices (19%) and law enforcement entities (8%) made up the biggest 

portion of the 35% of VSPs that identified as government-based. The remaining VSPs (7%) 

identified as either hospital, medical, or emergency facilities (3.2%); or campus-based,

tribal-based, for-profit, or informal entities (4.2%).

Service structure

Total 

providers

Nonprofit or 

faith-baseda*

Governmentbasedb

Total 100%

VSPs serving victims with specified resources 94.3%

The primary function is to provide services or 24.1†

programming for victims of crime

Specific program(s) or staff that are dedicated 70.2†

to working with crime victims

No dedicated program or staff 5.7%

Number of VSPs 141

*Comparison group.

†Significantly different from the comparison group at the 95% confidence level. 

a

Includes coalitions and single entities.

93.3%

6.7%

30

26.7†

100%

66.7†

Otherc

b

Includes law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, courts, juvenile justice agencies, offender custody and supervision 

agencies, multiagency task forces and response teams, and other government agencies.

c

Includes hospital, medical, or emergency facility; campus-based; tribal-based; for-profit; and informal VSPs. 

100%

92.7%

49.6

43.0

7.3%

409

100%

91.6%

67.6

23.9

8.4%

238
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

39

Table 14. VSP organizational structures

3.6.3 Number of victims served

There was significant diversity in the number of victims VSPs reported serving in the 

past calendar or fiscal year (Table 15). The number of victims served ranged from 0 to 

119,280 victims, and the median number of victims served was about 450. About 27% of VSPs

served 0 to 199 victims, 41% served 200 to 999, and 30% served 1,000 or more. About 15% of 

all VSPs reported serving 2,500 victims or more. 

Government-based VSPs made up the biggest portion of VSPs that served 2,500 victims 

or more. A quarter (25%) of government-based VSPs reported serving 2,500 victims or more, 

compared to 10% of nonprofit or faith-based VSPs. Although the survey instructions asked 

participants to exclude services provided only through mail, some mail and email services (e.g., 

notifications) were included given the high number of victims served by some government-based 

VSPs (which, as shown below, tend to report few staff members dedicated to serving victims). 

For example, 33 of the 72 prosecutors’ offices (47%) in the study reported serving 

1,000 victims or more in the past year, and 24 (34%) reported serving 2,500 or more (not 

shown). These instructions were modified to be clearer on the final NCVSP instrument.

A small percentage (4%) of VSPs reported that they did not provide direct services to 

victims in the past year. All 15 of these VSPs reported providing at least three types of services 

to victims elsewhere in the survey. It is possible VSPs did not provide “direct services” but still 

ensured victims’ needs were met. For example, some VSPs contract with other agencies to 

provide services, thus they did provide a particular service indirectly through another agency.

About half (54%) of VSPs indicated they provided an estimate of the number of victims served 

Organizational structure

Total VSPs 379 100 %

Nonprofit or faith-based provider 218 57.5 %

Single entity 188 49.6

Coalition 15 4.0

Other entities 15 4.0

Government-based provider 133 35.1 %

Law enforcement 31 8.2

Prosecutor 72 19.0

Other entitiesa 30 7.9

Hospital, medical, or emergency facility 12 3.2 %

Other type of providerb 16 4.2 %

Percent

a

Includes courts, juvenile justice agencies, offender custody and 

supervision agencies, multiagency task forces and response teams, and 

other government agencies.

b

Includes campus-based, tribal-based, for-profit, and informal VSPs. 

Number
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

40

rather than an exact value, suggesting that allowing for estimates is important for NCVSP

completion rates.

Table 15. Number of victims served, by VSP organizational structure

3.6.4 Crime types for which victims sought services

The NCVSP included a list of 19 different types of crime and an additional three “other” 

categories for property, violence, and a general “other” crimes. VSPs were asked to indicate 

whether victims sought services for each type of crime in the past year. Data on the types of 

crimes for which VSP’s services were sought was complete, with less than 2% (n = 7) missing 

responses on one or more of the 22 possible items. Two VSPs did not check “yes” to any of the 

crime types, and six VSPs checked “yes” to all 22 potential crime types.

Table 16 lists the crime types for which victims sought services in the past year in order 

from most to least reported. More than half of VSPs served victims who were seeking services 

for domestic or dating violence, child sexual abuse or sexual assault, rape or sexual assault not 

against children, child physical abuse or neglect, stalking, child witness of violence, adults 

molested as children, elder physical abuse, and assault other than domestic violence or 

child/elder abuse. Fewer than half of VSPs reported serving victims who sought services for 

human sex trafficking, human labor trafficking, robbery, financial fraud and exploitation, 

burglary, DUI or DWI crashes, identity theft, motor vehicle theft, and other crimes. About half of 

VSPs reported serving victims of witness intimidation or survivors of homicide victims. About 

22% of VSPs reported serving victims of “other” crime types not covered on the NCVSP 

instrument.

0 - 199 27.4 % 22.9 % 28.6 %

0 4.0 1.8 ! 7.5 !†

6.1 4.6 ! 6.0 !

50 - 199 17.4 16.5 15.0

200 - 999 41.2 % 47.7 % 32.3 %†

200 - 499 23.2 25.7 19.5

500 - 999 17.9 22.0 12.8 †

1,000 or more 30.3 % 28.9 % 37.6 %

1,000 - 2,499 15.8 18.8 12.8

2,500 or more 14.5 10.1 24.8 †

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data.

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

Number of victims that 

received direct services

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith-based and governmentbased providers at the 95% confidence level. 

1 - 49

GovernmentbasedNonprofit or 

faith-based

Total 

VSPs
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

41

Table 16. VSPs, by crime type for which victims sought services

The majority of VSPs reported that their services were sought for multiple crime types, 

which could have included a single victim or more than one victim seeking services for multiple 

crime types. Six VSPs reported seeing victims of a single crime type in the past year, and five

were VSPs serving DUI or DWI crash victims. More than a quarter (27%) of VSPs reported that 

their services were sought for seven or fewer types of crime during the year (Table 17). The 

other 73% of VSPs reported their services were sought for eight or more different types of crime. 

The number of victims served varied significantly by VSP organizational structure, such that 

72% of government-based VSPs served victims of 14 crime types or more, compared to 16% of 

nonprofit or faith-based entities. A greater percentage of government-based agencies reported 

their services were sought for most crime types in the past year than nonprofit or faith-based 

entities (not shown). There were two exceptions: a greater percentage of nonprofit or faith-based 

entities than government-based entities reported their services were sought for child witnessing 

of violence (78.9% compared to 63.2%) and sex trafficking (49.1% compared to 33.1%).

Crime type for which victims sought services No

Domestic or dating violence % 13.7 %†

Child sexual abuse or sexual assault 17.2 †

Rape or sexual assault (not against children) 21.4 †

Child physical abuse or neglect 21.1 †

Stalking 26.1 †

Child witness of violence 27.4 †

Adults molested as children 36.4 †

Elder physical abuse 37.5 †

Assault (other than domestic or dating violence and child or elder abuse) 40.4 †

Survivors of homicide victims 49.3

Victim witness intimidation 53.3

Human sex trafficking 56.7 †

Robbery 58.0 †

Financial fraud and exploitation (other than identity theft) 58.3 †

Burglary 61.2 †

DUI or DWI crashes 62.5 †

Identity theft 63.1 †

Other property crimes 63.3 †

Other violence crimes 63.9 †

Motor vehicle theft 68.9 †

Other crimes 77.3 †

Human labor trafficking 83.9 †

*Comparison group.

†Significant difference from comparison group at the 95% confidence level. 

Note: Includes 379 VSPs. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data.

Total VSPs

86.3

82.6

78.6

78.6

73.9

72.3

Yes*

63.6

62.3

59.4

50.7

46.4

42.5

41.7

41.2

38.5

22.4

15.6

37.5

36.7

36.4

35.9

30.9
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

42

Table 17. Number of crime types for which VSP services were sought, by VSP 

organizational structure

3.6.5 Services provided by VSPs

VSPs grouped their services into general categories on the NCVSP instrument as 

instructed, and the instrument yielded variation that will allow VSPs to be categorized based on 

the types of services provided. All VSPs reported providing at least one type of service to 

victims in the past year, and only one VSP reported offering all of the 19 services asked about in 

the NCVSP instrument.

Nearly all VSPs provided information and referral services (98%) and at least one type of 

legal and victims’ rights assistance (92%) in the past calendar or fiscal year (Table 18). The 

majority of VSPs provided assistance related to criminal, juvenile, military, or tribal justice 

(83%), or civil justice (69%). Fewer (35%) VSPs provided immigration legal assistance. The 

majority of VSPs also provided emotional support and safety services (86%). In this category of 

services, VSPs most commonly provided crisis counseling (72%) or safety services (71%).

Fewer (59%) VSPs provided mental health services, which included counseling, support groups, 

therapy, and social programming for children.

More than three-quarters (78%) of VSPs provided some form of financial or material 

assistance (e.g., shelter, food, clothing, or employment). More VSPs provided monetary 

assistance (71%) than material assistance (59%). VSPs were less likely to provide medical- and 

health-related assistance than information and referral, financial and material assistance, 

emotional support and safety, and legal assistance services. About 55% of VSPs provided at least 

one form of medical- or health-related assistance, and most often this was emergency medical 

care or accompaniment (47%) or medical forensic exams or accompaniment (44%). Other 

services provided by the majority of VSPs included case management (72%) and cultural or 

ethnically specific services (54%). 

The percentage of government-based and nonprofit or faith-based VSPs that provided 

each of these services varied significantly in expected ways. Greater percentages of 

government-based VSPs provided justice-related information and referrals and criminal, 

Number of crime types

1 - 7 27.2 % 35.3 % 6.0 % !†

8 - 13 37.5 48.6 21.1 †

14 or more 34.8 15.6 72.2 †

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data. Number of 

crime types for which victims sought services could have ranged from 1 to 22. 

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith-based and government-based 

providers at the 95% confidence level. 

a

In addition to nonprofit or faith-based and government-based VSPs, total VSPs 

include hospital, medical, or emergency facilities; and campus-based, tribalbased, for-profit, and informal providers.

GovernmentbasedNonprofit or 

faith-based

Total 

VSPsa
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

43

juvenile, military, and tribal justice-related assistance than nonprofit or faith-based entities, 

which were more likely to provide all other types of assistance. 

Overall, most VSPs reported that they provided a broad range of services in the past 

calendar or fiscal year. The majority of VSPs (72%) provided eight or more different types of 

services, whereas 28% provided one to seven types of service in the past year (Table 19). About 

31% of VSPs provided 14 or more services, with a greater percentage (45%) of nonprofit or 

faith-based VSPs providing 14 or more services than government-based VSPs (10%). Although 

the directions asked VSPs which services were provided, given the high percentage of VSPs 

offering a broad range of services, it is possible that some VSPs checked “yes” to any services 

they offered. The stem question read “does your organization provide,” instead of “did your 

organization provide,” which may have led some VSPs to think about any services offered. This 

item was modified for the NCVSP.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

44

Table 18. Type of services provided, by VSP organizational structure

Information and referral 97.9 % 96.8 % 99.2 %

92.3 89.9 97.0 †

97.1 95.9 98.5

Financial and material assistance 77.8 % 79.8 % 77.4 %

Monetaryb 70.7 71.6 73.7

Material assistancec 59.1 71.6 40.6 †

Emotional support and safety 85.8 % 90.8 % 77.4 %†

Mental health services 58.8 72.5 33.8 †

Crisis counseling 71.5 83.5 54.1 †

Safety services 71.0 76.1 65.4 †

Medical and health assistance 55.4 % 62.8 % 38.3 %†

47.2 55.5 28.6 †

43.5 48.6 32.3 †

STD or HIV testing 14.0 14.7 8.3

Legal and victims' rights assistance 91.8 % 91.7 % 94.7 %

82.8 80.3 91.0 †

 justice-related assistance

Civil justice-related assistance 68.9 73.4 63.2 †

Immigration assistance 34.6 39.4 30.8

Other services 84.4 % 95.0 % 66.2 %†

Case management 72.3 83.9 52.6 †

Supervised child visitation 11.6 16.1 6.0 !†

On-scene coordinated response 33.5 35.8 28.6

Education classes for survivors 42.0 61.5 12.0 †

53.6 66.1 31.6 †

36.7 50.0 14.3 †

Operates a hotline, helpline, or crisis line 44.3 % 67.9 % 10.5 %†

Total number of agencies 379 218 133

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs. 

Governmentbased

Nonprofit or 

All VSPs faith-based a

a

In addition to nonprofit or faith-based and government-based VSPs, total VSPs include hospital, medical, or 

emergency facility; campus-based; tribal-based; for-profit; and informal VSPs.

b

Examples include providing funds or offering assistance in seeking victim compensations, public benefits 

assistance, and other emergency funds assistance.

c

Examples include emergency or transitional shelter, food, clothing, utility assistance, and employment 

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith- and government-based providers at the 95% confidence 

level. 

Justice-related information and referrals

Service or victimization information and referrals

Types of services provided in the past year

Emergency medical care or accompaniment

Medical forensic exam or accompaniment

Criminal, juvenile, military, or tribal

Specialized services for specified settings

Culturally and ethnically specific services
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

45

Table 19. Number of services provided, by VSP organizational structure

3.6.6 VSP staffing

The NCVSP instrument staffing items performed well in the pilot test. Across all staffing 

items, few VSPs left the items blank (n = 5 to 10), and 11% or fewer of the 379 VSPs reported 

that their values were estimates. In general, VSP staff sizes tended to be relatively small. The 

majority (94%) of VSPs reported at least one current paid full-time staff member, with nearly 

half (46%) of those entities reporting one to four paid full-time staff members and the other half 

(48%) reporting five or more paid full-time staff members (Table 20). 

Counting both full- and part-time staff members, most (72%) VSPs reported paid staff 

sizes of 14 or smaller, and 40% paid 4 or fewer staff. Results examining full-time equivalent 

(FTE) staff, counting part-time staff members as working half the time as full-time members, 

produced similar results. About 44% of VSPs reported employing 4.5 or fewer FTEs. Only three

VSPs reported no part- or full-time current staff members. Part-time staff were less common than 

full-time staff. About 59% of VSPs reported at least one current paid part-time staff member. 

About 38% of VSPs reported employing only paid full-time staff. About 25% of VSPs reported 

that 50% or more of their staff worked part-time. About 60% of VSPs reported using volunteers 

to provide direct services to victims. 

One concern was that VSPs with dedicated programs or staff serving victims within 

larger organizations (e.g., government-based) would report on the total staff rather than the staff 

dedicated to serving victims. However, in the majority of cases, reported staff sizes do not appear

to represent the larger organizations, suggesting VSPs within larger organizations only reported

staff serving victims. The majority (62%) of government-based VSPs reported fewer than five

FTEs dedicated to working with victims (Table 21). Government-based VSPs reported fewer 

paid full- and part-time staff than nonprofit or faith-based VSPs, and a smaller percentage of 

government-based than nonprofit or faith-based VSPs used volunteers to provide direct services.

Number of services provided

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

27.7 20.2 41.4 †

41.4 35.3 48.9 †

30.9 44.5 9.8 †

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data. 

Total 

VSPsa

Nonprofit or 

faith-based

Governmentbased

a

In addition to nonprofit or faith-based and government-based VSPs, total VSPs include 

hospital, medical, or emergency facility; campus-based; tribal-based; for-profit; and informal 

VSPs.

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith-based and government-based providers at 

the 95% confidence level. 

1 - 7 services

8 - 13 services

14 or more services
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

46

Table 20. VSP staffing characteristics

Staffing characteristics Number

Total 379 100 %

Number of paid full-time staff

0 17 4.5 %

1 - 4 175 46.2

5 or more 181 47.8

Missing 6 1.6 !

Number of paid part-time staff

0 146 38.5 %

1 - 4 136 35.9

5 or more 87 23.0

Missing 10 2.6 !

Number of paid full-time and part-time staffa

0 3 0.8 %

1 - 4 150 39.6

5 - 14 126 33.2

15 or more 90 23.7

Missing 10 2.6 !

Number of paid FTEsb

0 3 0.8 %!

0.5 - 4.5 165 43.5

5 or more 201 53.0

Missing 10 2.6 !

Percent of paid staff that worked part-timec

None 143 38.0 %

1% - 49% 128 34.0

1% - 24% 57 15.2

25% - 49% 71 18.9

50% or more 95 25.3

50% - 74% 69 18.4

75% - 100% 26 6.9

Missing 10 2.7 !

Volunteer use

Yes 226 59.6 %

No 148 39.1

Missing 5 1.3 !

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data.

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

a

Calculated as paid staff members plus part-time staff members.

All VSPs

b

Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff is calculated such that each part-time staff represents 

half of a full-time staff (total number of full-time staff plus 0.5 times the number of 

Percent

c

Includes 376 VSPs with at least one current paid staff member. 

part-time staff). 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

47

Table 21. VSP staffing characteristics, by VSP organizational structure

Staffing characteristics

Number of paid full-time staff

0 - 4 39.0 % 66.2 % †

5 or more 59.2 32.3 †

Number of paid part-time staff

0 23.4 % 64.7 % †

1 - 4 39.4 27.8 †

5 or more 34.9 4.5 ! †

Number of paid full- and part-time staffa

0 - 4 25.2 % 62.4 % †

5 - 14 42.2 20.3 †

15 or more 30.3 14.3 †

Number of paid full- and part-time FTEsb

0 - 4.5 29.4 % 64.7 % †

5 or more 68.3 32.3 †

Percent of paid staff that worked part timec

None 23.0 % 64.4 % †

49% or fewer 47.0 12.9 †

50% or more 27.6 19.7

Volunteer use

Yes 70.6 % 47.4 % †

No 27.5 51.9 †

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data.

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

a

Calculated as paid staff members plus part-time staff members.

b

FTE staff is calculated such that each part-time staff represents half of a full-time staff 

(total number of full-time staff plus 0.5 times the number of part-time staff). 

c

Includes VSPs with at least one current paid staff member.

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith-based and government-based providers 

at the 95% confidence level. 

Governmentbased Nonprofit or 

faith-based 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

48

Table 22. Hiring rates, number of staff lost, and turnover rates, by VSP organizational 

structure

The pilot test results suggest that the NCVSP instrument can feasibly produce estimates 

of hiring, turnover, and growth. Most VSPs answered all the questions needed to estimate the 

number of staff that left the agency. Only 13 VSPs were missing data on one item: preventing 

calculation of turnover rate. However, values for another 20 VSPs did not align across items 

such that the VSP reported more current full-time staff than at the beginning of the past calendar 

year, but did not report hiring at least that number of full-time staff (e.g., an agency might have 

had 3 staff at the beginning of the year, 5 staff currently, but reported hiring no staff). It was 

unclear if these VSPs had merged with other providers during the year or whether the numbers 

did not add up for another reason. For the purposes of the pilot study, these data were treated as 

missing for calculating hiring and turnover rates.

More than half (54%) of all VSPs hired at least one new staff member since the 

beginning of the prior fiscal or calendar year, and about 44% experienced turnover (Table 22). 

Full-time paid staffing characteristics

Total VSPs with paid full-time staff 363 100 % 211 100 % 125 100 %

Annual hiring rate for full-time staffa

Did not hire 156 43.0 % 71 33.6 73 58.4 % †

Hired 195 53.7 % 132 62.6 49 39.2 % †

1% - 24% 79 21.8 56 26.5 20 16.0 †

25% - 49% 67 18.5 51 24.2 10 8.0 !†

50% or higher 48 13.2 25 11.8 18 14.4

Missing 12 3.3 % 8 3.8 ! 3 2.4 %!

Number of lost staff

0 161 44.4 % 75 35.5 70 56.0 % †

1 63 17.4 42 19.9 20 16.0

2 - 3 63 17.4 41 19.4 14 11.2 †

4 or more 43 11.8 32 15.2 10 8.0 !

Missing 33 9.1 21 10.0 11 8.8

Annual turnover rate among full-time staffb

No turnover 161 44.4 % 75 35.5 70 56.0 % †

Turnover 169 46.6 % 115 54.5 44 35.2 % †

1% - 24% 65 17.9 46 21.8 18 14.4

25% - 49% 57 15.7 44 20.9 10 8.0 !†

50% or more 47 12.9 25 11.8 16 12.8

Missing 33 9.1 % 21 10.0 11 8.8 %

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

a

Calculated as the number of full-time staff hired in the past year divided by the number of full-time paid staff at the beginning of the year 

multiplied by 100.

b

Calculated as the number of paid full-time staff that left the agency in the year divided by the number of paid full-time staff at the 

beginning of the year multiplied by 100. 

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith-based and government-based providers at the 95% confidence level. 

Nonprofit or faithbased Government-based

Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data. Results exclude 16 VSPs that did not have paid full-time staff at the 

beginning and end of the year and did not hire.

Percent

Total

Number Number Percent Number Percent
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

49

However, hiring and turnover rates varied significantly by VSP organizational structure. A 

greater percentage of nonprofit or faith-based VSPs than government-based VSPs hired full-time 

paid staff during the year and experienced turnover since the beginning of the prior calendar 

year.

The completeness of staffing information provided on the NCVSP instrument makes 

these data particularly interesting to combine with other variables to create proxy variables 

exploring the depth or breadth of services provided by VSPs. For example, the number of 

victims served per full-time staff member might offer some insight into the amount of time spent 

with each victim, though the types of services provided may also impact the distribution of staff 

caseloads and amount of time spent with each victim (Table 23). Of the 348 organizations that 

reported at least one paid full-time staff member and reported providing direct services to 

victims, about a quarter (26%) served 250 or more victims per staff member in the prior year. 

However, this varied by organizational structure. The percentage of government-based VSPs 

(57%) that served 250 or more victims per paid full-time staff member was 5.2 times higher than 

the percentage of nonprofit or faith-based VSPs (11%). 

Table 23. Victims served per full-time staff member, by VSP organizational structure

3.6.7 VSP funding

Data on VSP funding totals and sources were often missing or inconsistent across items, 

suggesting modifications were needed before launching the full NCVSP. Of all 379 VSPs, 

11% did not provide valid responses to any funding questions, 17% did not provide a valid total 

funding, and 18% were missing data on all of the sources of funding items (Table 24). Across 

Number of victims served per full-time paid staff

Fewer than 100 victims per staff 44.0 % 55.8 % 16.5 %†

0 - 24 victims per staff 12.4 12.0 8.7

25 - 99 victims per staff 31.6 43.8 7.8 †

More than 100 victims per staff 53.2 % 41.8 % 80.0 %

100 - 249 victims per staff 27.3 30.8 22.6

250 or more victims per staff 25.9 11.1 57.4 †

Missing 2.9 ! 2.4 ! 3.5 !

348 208 115

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

Number of VSPs with paid full-time staff that

provided direct servicesb

Nonprofit or 

faith-based

Governmentbased

Total 

VSPsa

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data. Victims per paid full-time staff member is 

calculated as the number of victims served in the year divided by the total number of full-time staff. 

a

In addition to nonprofit or faith- and government-based VSPs, includes 24 VSPs that identified as hospital, 

medical, or emergency facility; campus-based; tribal-based; for-profit; or informal VSPs 

b

Excludes 31 VSPs that reported no current paid full-time staff or did not provide direct services to victims.

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith-based and government-based providers at the 95% confidence 

level. 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

50

items asking whether VSPs received funding from each source, nearly a quarter (23%) to more 

than half (53%) of VSPs did not provide valid responses. In part, this might be due to VSPs 

opting not to report on funding information, perhaps due to sensitivity of making their funding 

records public. High percentages of missing data, particularly on funding sources that likely did 

not apply for many VSPs, suggest that some VSPs left items blank when they did not receive 

funding from a particular source, rather than entering a zero.

Table 24. Missing data on funding items

When VSPs did provide data on funding, often the total amount of the funding estimate 

did not align with the total amount calculated by summing total funding across all sources of 

funding. The overall funding and sources of funding totals did not match for 60% of all 

379 VSPs and did not match for 65% of the 289 VSPs that provided a valid response for overall 

funding and at least one source of funding item (Table 25). Some smaller discrepancies are 

expected (e.g., due to providing estimates and rounding errors) and can be accepted, because the 

goal of the NCVSP is to collect data that will allow for grouping VSPs into categories for 

stratification purposes. However, large discrepancies are problematic for determining each 

VSP’s appropriate stratum. 

Among all 379 VSPs, approximately a quarter (26%) of VSPs’ overall funding total and 

funding source total were different by $100,000 or more. The overall total funding value was 

$100,000 or more higher than the funding source total for 10% of VSPs and $100,000 or more 

lower than the funding source total for 16% of VSPs. Overall totals and funding source totals 

Missing data

All funding items 42 11.1 %

Total funding items 65 17.2 %

All sources of funding items 67 17.7 %

All federal funding sources 75 19.8 %

Victims of Crime Act Assistance Grant (VOCA) 87 23.0

Other Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) 160 42.2

Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP) 142 37.5

Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP) 155 40.9

Other Office on Violence against Women (OVW) 149 39.3

Family Violence Prevention Services Act (FVPSA) 143 37.7

Other federal funding 194 51.2

All nonfederal funding sources 91 24.0 %

State government 128 33.8

Local government 134 35.4

Tribal government 182 48.0

Sources of funds unknown 201 53.0

Other funding sources 134 35.4

Note: Includes 379 VSPs.

Number Percent
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

51

were less than $5,000 different for about 11% of VSPs, and between $5,000 and $99,999 

different for 24% of VSPs. Results suggested grouping VSPs based on wide total funding ranges 

(e.g., producing fewer categories overall) may result in more reliable groupings. To reduce major 

discrepancies in funding responses to the full NCVSP, the project team implemented a prompt to 

let respondents know when their two funding totals were different by 25% or more. 

Table 25. Discrepancies in VSP funding totals

Analyses not related to sources of funding (e.g., total VSP funding, amount of funding 

per number of victims served) were based on the overall total funding variable. When overall 

total funding was missing, but VSPs completed all 12 sources of funding items, total funding 

was calculated as the sum across the sources of funding items. If VSPs were missing data on one 

or more sources of funding or the overall total funding items, their total funding was coded as 

missing. Data on total funding ranged from $0 to $65 million, with 99.4% of VSPs with valid 

funding totals reporting $15 million or less total funding during the last fiscal or calendar year 

(Table 26). Few (3%) VSPs reported they did not receive any funding for victim-related 

programming or services in the past year. The majority (80%) of VSPs that were not missing 

data on total funding reported receiving less than $800,000 for victim services during the past 

year, and 34% of VSPs received less than $100,000. Similar percentages of VSPs fell into these 

same funding categories based on the funding source total, or the total amount of funding 

provided across all sources of funding questions.

Funding and funding source discrepencies Number

Total 379 100 % 289 100 %

Total funding and funding source total matcha 109 28.8 % 101 34.9 %

Discrepancies between total funding and funding source total 228 60.2 % 188 65.1 %

Total funding is higher than funding source total 101 26.6 % 76 26.3 %

< $5,000 higher 22 5.8 17 5.9

$5,000 - $99,999 higher 37 9.8 31 10.7

$100,000 - $299,999 higher 21 5.5 15 5.2

$300,000 or higher 21 5.5 13 4.5

Total funding is less than funding source total 127 33.5 % 112 38.8 %

< $5,000 less 18 4.7 18 6.2

$5,000 - $99,999 less 53 14.0 48 16.6

$100,000 - $299,999 less 31 8.2 28 9.7

$300,000 or less 25 6.6 18 6.2

All funding data are missing 42 11.1 % ~ ~

~Not applicable.

Percent

All VSPs

Number Percent

VSPs that provided valid 

responses

b

a

VSPs were asked to provide their total funding, then to breakdown this total by the sources of funding. VSPs were asked how much 

funding they received from the Victims of Crime Act Assistance Grant (VOCA); Other Office on Victims of Crime (OVC); Services, 

Training, Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP); Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP); other Office on Violence Against Women; Family 

Violence Prevention Services Act (FVPSA); other federal funding; state government funding; local government funding; tribal 

government funding; source of funds unknown; and other funding sources. 

b

Includes only respondents that provided a valid response of 0 or higher on the total funding item and at least one source of funding 

item.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

52

Table 26. Total funding received for victim-related programming or services in the past 

year

The variability in the amount of funding for victim services varied significantly by type 

of provider (Table 27). About half (51%) of government-based agencies received less than 

$100,000 for victim services, whereas 32% received more than $100,000. In comparison, about 

83% of nonprofit or faith-based VSPs received $100,000 or more for victim services. Results 

suggested that the majority of government-based agencies—most of which provide victim 

services as only one component of a broader organizational mission—were capable of reporting 

on their victim services funding separate from their organization’s total budget.

Funding estimates

Total 379 100 % 100 %

$0 reported for total and source fundinga 12 3.2 3.6

Greater than $0 total funding or funding source total 325 85.8 96.4

Missing both total funding and source funding 42 11.1 ~

Total fundingb 379 100 % 100 %

$0 - $99,999 113 29.8 34.5

$100,000 - $799,999 148 39.1 45.1

$800,000 or more 67 17.7 20.4

Missing 51 13.5 ~

Total source fundingc 379 100 % 100 %

$0 - $99,999 103 27.2 33.0

$100,000 - $799,999 148 39.1 47.4

$800,000 or more 61 16.1 19.6

Missing 67 17.7 ~

~Not applicable.

c

Calculated as the sum of all sources of funding.

a

Includes VSPs with $0 on one of the funding variables and missing data on the other funding variable.

b

Calculated as the amount provided when asked about the total funding received for the year. If the total 

funding was not provided but respondents completed all sources of funding questions, the total was 

calculated as the sum of all sources of funding. 

Percent of 

Number Percent valid total
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

53

Table 27. Total funding received for victim-related programming or services, by VSP 

organizational structure

The majority of VSPs reported at least one source of federal (84%) and nonfederal (82%) 

funding (Table 28). VOCA was the most commonly reported source of funding, with more than 

two-thirds (72%) of VSPs reporting they received VOCA funding. State government funding

was the next most common source, with 62% of VSPs reporting having received funding from 

the state in the past year. It was unclear whether respondents were including the federal VOCA 

funding passed through their state as VOCA or state funding. It was also unclear whether some 

VSPs interpreted “other office for victims of crime” to include funding from their state office for 

victims of crime. This category was changed to “other U.S. Office for Victims of Crime” in the 

full NCVSP. About 53% of VSPs reported receiving local government funding in the past year. 

About 62% of VSPs reported a nonfederal funding source not specified on the survey, 

including foundations, corporate funding, individual donations, and insurance reimbursements. 

Forty-four percent of VSPs also reported that they received “other” types of federal funding not 

listed on the survey. Ten agencies listed “VAWA” or the Violence Against Women Act as the 

other type of federal funding received in the past year, even though the survey included the 

option of “other Office for Violence Against Women” funding. Additional popular “other” types 

of federal funding specified included Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community 

Development Block Grants (CDBG), Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grants (JAG), National Children’s Alliance funding provided by Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) funding.

Funding estimates

Total funding 100 % 100 %

$0 - $99,999 17.4 51.1 †

$100,000 - $799,999 50.5 20.3 †

$800,000 or more 21.6 12.0 †

Missing 10.6 16.5

Note: Total funding was calculated as the amount provided when asked about the 

total funding received for the year. If the total funding was not provided but 

respondents completed all sources of funding questions, the total was calculated as 

the sum of all sources of funding. 

†Significant difference between nonprofit or faith-based and government-based 

providers at the 95% confidence level. 

Nonprofit or 

faith-based

Governmentbased
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

54

Table 28. Sources of funding received for victim-related programming or services

3.6.8 VSP concerns

Items assessing VSP concerns about retaining staff, the amount of victim service funding 

received in the previous year, predictability of future funding, burden of grant reporting, and 

access to technology, appeared to perform well. There were little missing data and diversity in 

responses to each item and across items. Among all 379 VSPs, the greatest percentage (73%) of 

VSPs were very or somewhat concerned about the predictability of future funding (Figure 12). 

More than half of VSPs were also very or somewhat concerned about the amount of funding 

received in the past year (62%) and the burden of grant reporting (59%). Fewer than half of 

VSPs were very or somewhat concerned about their ability to retain staff (40%) and access 

technology (41%). Across all of these items except concerns about access to technology, a 

greater percentage of nonprofit or faith-based VSPs than government-based VSPs were very or 

somewhat concerned (Figure 13). Differences by organizational type were largest for concerns 

about victim service funding VSPs received in the prior year (70% of nonprofit or faith-based, 

compared to 52% of government-based VSPs were very or somewhat concerned) and the 

predictability of future funding (80% of nonprofit or faith-based compared to 61% of 

government-based VSPs were very or somewhat concerned).

Sources of funding Yes

Federal fundingb 70 51 258 18.5 % 13.5 % 68.1 % 83.5 %

Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) 17 69 223 5.5 22.3 72.2 76.4

Other Office for Victims of Crime 90 190 29 29.1 61.5 9.4 13.2

STOP Violence Against Women 72 190 47 23.3 61.5 15.2 19.8

Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP) 85 188 36 27.5 60.8 11.7 16.1

Other Office for Violence Against Women 79 181 49 25.6 58.6 15.9 21.3

Family Violence Prevention and 73 155 81 23.6 50.2 26.2 34.3

Services Act (FVPSA)

Other federal 124 104 81 40.1 33.7 26.2 43.8

Nonfederal fundingb 82 61 236 21.6 % 16.1 62.3 79.5 %

State government 128 96 155 33.8 25.3 40.9 61.8

Local government 134 115 130 35.4 30.3 34.3 53.1

Tribal government 182 193 4 48.0 50.9 1.1 ! 2.0

Source of funds unknown 201 167 11 53.0 44.1 2.9 6.2

Other sources 134 93 152 35.4 24.5 40.1 62.0

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

Note: Includes 379 VSPs that served victims through dedicated staff or programs or as their primary function. VSPs could have provided a 

response of 40 total funding across the sources in addition to 40 for each source.

b

Responses are coded as missing if data were missing on all specified sources of funding and total funding did not match the valid total 

source funding. If federal funding total equaled overall total funding, nonfederal funding was coded as 0. If nonfederal funding total 

equaled the total funding, federal funding was coded as 0. 

a

Includes only VSPs who provided data on at least one source of funding question.

Missing No Yes

Number of VSPs

Missing No

Percent of VSPs

Percent of 

valid 

responsesa

Yes
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

55

Figure 12. VSP concerns about staffing, funding, grant reporting, and technology access

Figure 13. VSP concerns, by organizational structure

3.6.9 VSP record keeping

Pilot results suggested that about a third of VSPs did not maintain electronic case files. 

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of VSPs reported using an electronic records system to maintain case 

files, and 58% reported using electronic records to track individual cases (Table 29). Similar 

39.6

62.3

72.6

59.1

40.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Your

organizations

ability to retain

staff?

The amount of

victim service

funding that your

organization

received in the

past year?

The

predictability of

future funding

for your

program?

The burden of

grant reporting?

Your

organizations

ability to access

technology?

Percent of VSPs

very or somewhat concerned

45.4

70.2

79.8

64.2

46.3

33.1

51.9

60.9

53.4

36.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Your

organizations

ability to retain

staff?

The amount of

victim service

funding that your

organization

received in the

past year?

The

predictability of

future funding

for your

program?

The burden of

grant reporting?

Your

organizations

ability to access

technology?

Percent of VSPs 

very or somewhat concerned

Nonprofit or faith-based Government-based
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

56

percentages of nonprofit or faith-based and government-based VSPs reported using electronic 

records for case maintenance and individual case tracking. Among the 241 VSPs who reported 

using electronic records to maintain case files, nearly all (92%) also tracked individual cases 

electronically. One potential consideration was whether it might be feasible to gather VSPs’ case 

records and, based on those records, produce a consistent set of information (e.q., number of 

victims served and types of services provided) about each VSP. Results indicate that a sizable 

portion of VSPs would be left out if information was collected only through case records, 

suggesting the need to administer a survey to collect reliable information on services and victims 

across the VSP field.

Table 29. VSPs use of electronic records

3.7 Substantive data quality and verification

To examine whether the survey questions were clear and elicited valid, comparable 

information from all different types of VSPs, responses to the survey were compared to

information available online for 10% of active VSPs. Often, VSPs have their own websites or 

social media pages (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) or are listed in online resource forums. This 

online presence typically informs victims about the VSPs, providing a basic description of what 

they do and the services they provide, similar to some of the information collected in the 

NCVSP. While websites may have inaccuracies and are sometimes not updated on a regular 

basis, this web check component provided an independent assessment of the survey results and 

provided some basis for checking the validity of the survey data.

The team randomly selected 43 VSPs with completed surveys (balanced across the six 

VSP provider types from the original project roster: prosecutors’ office; other criminal justice

system; shelters, domestic violence, or sexual assault programs; medical or mental health; tribal; 

and other community-based entities), evenly split between VSPs serving victims as their primary 

mission or through dedicated staff or programs. Not all survey questions were included in the 

web check. Some pertained to information that was not publically available, others to 

information either not typically found on a website or too qualitative in nature to be found on a 

website. These questions were eliminated from the web check, leaving the team with 51% of the 

survey variables (Table 30).

Electronic records

Used electronic records to maintain case files 100 % 100 % 100 %

Yes 64.4 62.8 69.9

No 30.1 31.2 25.6

Missing 5.5 6.0 4.5 !

Used electronic records to track individual cases 100 % 100 % 100 %

Yes 58.3 57.8 63.9

No 35.4 35.3 30.8

Missing 6.3 6.9 5.3 !

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on ten or fewer VSPs.

Total VSPs

Nonprofit or 

faith-based

Governmentbased
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

57

To begin, researchers were given only the information about a VSP that was available 

from the project roster. Often this included the VSP’s name and the type of VSP as coded on the 

initial project roster. Researchers began with a search for the VSP’s website. About 49% of the 

43 VSPs (n = 21) had a website. Next, additional web searches were undertaken to find 

references to the VSP on other sites (e.g., social media pages, press releases, online yellow or 

white pages, resource forums, and directories). All information available online about a VSP was 

gathered and used to complete the survey items listed in Table 30. This coding occurred 

independent of the responses a VSP gave to the survey, such that researchers coding the 

information from online websites did not have access to the VSP’s survey responses. Note that 

this summary table aggregates information in each of the categories listed (e.g., “type of VSP 

organization” has many sub-items under it that were asked to determine VSP type), which was 

necessary because VSPs were asked different types and numbers of items as they were skipped 

through the instrument (e.g., prosecutors’ offices were not asked questions about being a 

nonprofit). 

Overall, the web check revealed a high level of agreement (overall mean = 93.2%) 

between what the VSP indicated in the survey and what the research team found online (Table 

30). Nonetheless, there were variables that were not easily identifiable or available online 

(overall mean = 2.3% for unsure or unlisted). It could be that some of the NCVSP items ask for 

different information that would not be provided online. For example, on the “services provided”

item, it may be the case that the VSP’s website provided information on services they were set 

up to provide in general, not the services they actually provided in entirety.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

58

Table 30. Level of agreement for survey responses compared to web check

3.8 Total effort and costs

Although the project roster included enough detail to successfully make contact with and 

recruit entities for the pilot study, recruitment was time intensive and costly. As previously 

noted, the data collection team made 16,061 contacts with the sample of 725 entities (M = 22.2 

contacts per case). During the 5.5 month study period (from August 2015 to January 2016), the

research team calculated that they spent about 150 hours with a dedicated staff person (a survey 

specialist) updating contact information through Internet checks of organizations’ websites and 

Accurint searches.9 In addition, the phone interviewers spent about 10% to 20% of their time 

(130 to 260 hours) trying to identify the correct contact information for the selected pilot entities

(e.g., calling the targeted organization or other providers from the same community and looking 

for more up-to-date contact information). Based on this level of effort, the cost for administering 

the survey with the full NCVSP project roster was estimated at $73.37 per entity for 30,000 

cases. These cost estimates include updating the project roster and administering the full 

nonresponse follow-up protocol needed to secure a high participation rate.

3.9 Discussion

The NCVSP aims to provide policymakers and the research community with a 

comprehensive view of what services are being provided to victims of crime and abuse, who is 

being served, and what gaps in service delivery may exist. To reach this goal, BJS and the 

research team developed and implemented a pilot test to examine the quality of the current 

project roster, identify the best methodology for implementing a census, and test the utility and 

performance of the NCVSP instrument. Findings related to each of the three main objectives of 

the pilot test are summarized below with discussion about their implications for the full census. 

Objective: Test the feasibility of using the project roster for conducting surveys with VSPs 

and for obtaining a near-complete enumeration of the sample

The NCVSP will be the first national establishment survey of VSPs, and little is known 

about the willingness and capacity of VSPs to participate in the survey. Therefore, one of the 

most basic goals of the pilot test was to examine whether the proposed methodology would 

obtain a sufficient response rate to suggest that a census of the full project roster of entities 

 9

While the research team started outreach with the pre-contact cases in July 2015 and ran the pre-contact period for 

about 10 weeks, the research team did not start to complete surveys until August 2015. 

Variable 

Address information 1 131 0 99.2 %

Primary VSP Structure 3 40 0 93.0

Secondary or Tertiary VSP 1 24 0 96.0

Is this a VSP Organization? 0 43 0 100

Type of VSP Organization 1 37 0 97.4

Jurisdiction of agency 8 26 0 76.5

Services provided to victims of crime or abuse in past year 23 391 16 90.9

Hotline/helpline Operation 2 41 0 95.3

Crime type for which victims sought services 34 809 27 93.0

Percent of

Disagree Agree Unsure Agreement

Number
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

59

potentially serving victims would be possible. Results indicated that the protocol employed 

during pilot testing was able to obtain a high response rate from VSPs. Depending on how the 

team coded entities that screened out or partially completed the survey, the response rate ranged 

from a high of 91% to a low of 77%. In addition, results seemed to indicate that the survey was 

not overly burdensome. The majority of VSPs completed the survey online in 25 minutes or 

fewer.

With the incredible diversity of the VSP field, it was also important to establish if the 

census would be able to capture the entire landscape of providers included in the frame and

whether the developed protocol and survey materials would elicit responses across different 

types of VSPs. For most of the major types of VSPs, survey completion rates were generally near

80%. A few types of VSPs completed the survey at lower rates than others. The lowest 

completion rate was for the tribal VSPs at 56%, followed by health-based VSPs with a 78% 

completion rate. During the full administration of the NCVSP, the team will need to pay extra 

attention to the needs of the tribal- and health-based groups to ensure their participation. The 

team has customized the outreach material and approach to better connect with these entities. 

Results also confirmed the need for the census to obtain an accurate count of all VSPs in 

the United States. While the team was able to use the roster to access and verify information 

about VSPs, the information in the roster was too sparse and often too inaccurate to serve as a 

reliable and valid frame for future sample survey work with VSPs. About 35% of entities

sampled reported not serving victims in the past 6 months, and therefore will not be included in a 

VSP sampling frame. Among active VSPs, there was not enough information about each entity 

on the roster to reliably distinguish between respondents receiving federal funding for victim 

services and those not receiving such funding.

Based on the pilot test experience, achieving a high response rate in the final census will 

likely be fairly resource intensive. Over the course of the pilot study, the more attempts to 

contact a VSP, the more likely VSPs were to participate, even after a high number (M = 20) of 

contacts. Results appear to reflect what is anecdotally thought about the VSP field. That is,

entities are eager to participate in research and make their voices heard, but the day-to-day 

demands on their time make it difficult to complete a survey. Results indicated additional efforts 

were needed to potentially reduce the number of contacts needed for a high participation rate. 

For the administration of the full NCVSP, the team modified the recruitment materials to request 

entities complete the survey in 1 month. Knowing that many entities waited until the last chance 

phase to complete the pilot study, the team also tightened the time between reminder prompts to 

get to the last chance phase faster, in accordance with the new 1 month deadline. In addition, the 

team designed a large outreach campaign to encourage VSP participation throughout the 

administration of the NCVSP, led by NCVC and supported by OVC.

The research team expects that the first NCVSP will refine the current project roster and 

result in a comprehensive list of active VSPs. In other words, the item that screens entities into or 

out of the NCVSP will ultimately define who is included within the VSP universe. The pilot 

results and follow-up interviews with a few screen-out cases led the team to broaden the survey 

screener item and add additional items to better understand why certain entities screen out. 

Specifically, the new screener asks whether the organization or any programs or staff within the 

organization provided services to victims in the last 6 months. In addition, follow-up questions 

were designed to be both a check that entities had accurately screened out of the survey and to 

gather additional information from entities that were not eligible to complete the survey (e.g., the 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

60

entity used to provide services to victims of crime and the entity is primarily a granting or 

funding agency). The frame clean-up work as part of the first census will pave the way for 

improved research with VSPs in future iterations of a VSP census and sample surveys.

Objective: Test various research-based strategies to identify the most effective and efficient 

method for conducting a full census of the roster

Because this project represents the first national establishment survey of VSPs, there are 

many unknowns about the most effective strategies to solicit participation. The pilot test included 

a pre-contact experiment, and the results were clear: pre-contacting entities to verify contact 

information did not improve participation rates. The survey invitations and solicitations appeared 

to reach the proper staff member regardless of whether the entity was pre-contacted, possibly 

because many VSPs reported relatively few staff members. Thus, pre-contacting might be 

perceived as burdensome or intrusive to the respondent in the VSP, and could thus result in less 

cooperation and less timely cooperation. The poor performance among entities pre-contacted

relative to the control group was not offset by a reduction in the costs expended on 

pre-contacting entities. In fact, entities in the pre-contact condition required more costs in terms 

of number of contacts and average hours spent per case when compared to entities in the control 

condition. Therefore, entities will not be pre-contacted before receiving an invitation to complete 

the NCVSP.

The results of the sponsorship experiment provided some evidence that BJS sponsorship 

was associated with higher completion rates and lower times to completion than NORC 

sponsorship among active VSPs, although these findings did not reach statistical significance. 

Similarly, although not statistically significant, the pilot test revealed an 8.5 percentage point 

increase in completion rates for VSPs receiving email reminders in the morning over VSPs 

receiving email reminders during the work day. Given the magnitude of the full census, even 

small effects may produce significant cost savings. As such, in the full NCVSP, the team decided 

to include BJS sponsorship on materials and send reminder emails in the morning, prior to the 

workday.

Objective: Test the quality of data collected by the NCVSP instrument to assess where any 

adjustments to the instrument may need to be made

Overall, the NCVSP instrument performed well. It yielded little missing information and 

captured significant diversity across variables that may serve as key stratifying variables for 

representative sampling in future surveys. A few key findings emerged for fielding and analyzing 

data in the full NCVSP. 

First, the structure variable was useful in separating out the sample that did not have 

dedicated staff and funding, but there appeared to be inconsistencies in how VSPs that were 

seemingly similar (law-enforcement-based) completed the question. As such, more detailed 

analyses examining why and how entities group themselves into these structures is needed to 

know if this variable can be used reliably in analysis. However, the item serves as a useful tool 

for identifying VSPs that do not have dedicated staff or programs for serving victims. These 

VSPs will be excluded from the final analyses due to the lack of comparable estimates (e.g., in 

staffing and funding for victim services).

The pilot test also helped identify where items on the NCVSP need to be modified for the 

full census (see Appendix). To reduce missing data and unreliable responses to the funding items, 
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

61

the NCVSP instrument was modified to first ask VSPs whether they have each type of funding 

(“yes” or “no”). VSPs will be asked to fill in the amount of funding only for the sources they 

indicated receiving in the past year. A soft check will prompt VSPs to confirm their numbers if 

their total funding is more than 25% different than the sum of funding across the sources. Other 

items were modified slightly to clarify interpretation of findings. For example, the majority of 

VSPs offered a broad range of services, and it was unclear whether the stem question was 

worded in a way that led VSPs to indicate all services offered rather than provided. The NCVSP 

instrument was modified for the full census to be clearer in asking about whether the VSP “did”

provide each type of service. Similarly, VSPs responded that victims sought their services for a 

broad range of crime types, but it was unclear if the VSP actually provided services for each 

crime type. The instrument was revised to ask VSPs what types of crimes they provided services 

for in the past year.

Lastly, results suggested that a sizable portion of the victim services field will be 

nonprofit or faith-based entities or government-based agencies. The instrument included multiple 

breakdowns that help to categorize government-based agencies based on their organizational 

structure (e.g., law enforcement or prosecutors’ office) or type of services provided (e.g., 

supervision or protective services). However, the piloted instrument did not include any 

questions to create smaller subgroups of nonprofit or faith-based entities. The final instrument 

was revised to include two questions assessing whether the organization’s mission was to serve 

particular types of crime or groups of victims.

4. Conclusion

The NCVSP, fielded from October 2016 through June 2017, was informed by more than

4 years of developmental research guided by experts and stakeholders in the VSP field. The team 

overcame major challenges to develop a project roster, create an instrument that adapts to the 

diverse field of providers, generate definitions of victims and services to capture all types of 

VSPs in the study frame, and identify methodological approaches that will be effective in 

administering an establishment survey to entities that have not been routinely involved in 

national-level research in the past. Although time intensive, this initial groundwork was critical 

to ensure the first NCVSP captured the universe of VSPs adequately enough that the resulting, 

clean list of active VSPs can serve as a foundation for future research. These one-time costs of 

creating an initial national roster of VSPs allows for ongoing, routine research to be conducted 

with VSPs for many years to come, filling longstanding gaps in information critical to 

policymakers and practitioners alike. Pending resources, BJS anticipates conducting the 

two-phased NCVSP and NSVSP routinely in future years, following this first 2016 and 2017 

NCVSP and 2018 and 2019 NSVSP cycle. The development of a two-phase data collection helps 

to ensure that the information collected from VSPs about their capacity for serving victims is

timely, adaptable over time, and, therefore, sustainable.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

62

References

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode 

Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode

Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (4th ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.

Faught, K. S., Whitten, D., & Green, Jr., K. W. (2004). Doing Survey Research on the Internet: 

Yes, Timing Does Matter. Journal of Computer Information System, 44, 26–34.

Fox, R. J., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of 

selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467–91.

Langton, L. (2011). Use of Victim Service Agencies by Victims of Serious Violent Crime, 1993-

2009. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/uvsavsvc9309.pdf.

National Network to End Domestic Violence (2016). Domestic Violence Counts 2015: A 24-hour 

Census of Domestic Violence Shelters and Services. Retrieved April, 2017, from 

http://nnedv.org/resources/census.html.

Office for Victims of Crime (2013). Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services Final Report. 

Retrieved December, 2016, from https://ovc.ncjrs.gov/vision21/.

Snijkers, G., Haraldsen, G., Jones, J., & Willimack, D. (2013). Designing and Conducting 

Business Surveys. New Jersey: Wiley.
Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test

63

Appendix

NCVSP Pilot Study Instrument